It's all over but the whining...

*sits back, grabs some peanuts, waits for the show*

"...it's very, very hard to figure out what could save Clinton's chances?"

democracy?

why do you hate women?

Short of him suddenly dropping dead or it coming out that he really is an Al Qaeda sleeper agent, he will be the nominee. We're all just waiting for Hillary to stop bawling and pounding her fists on the floor like a 2 year old and accept the inevitable.

I don't know that that is the only way to read this data.

At the moment, I don't see any reason for a super delegate who prefers Obama NOT to publically state that position, but I do certainly see reasons for a super delegate that is genuinely undecided or favors Clinton to wait and see what happens. There is also the super-delegates who might be waiting to see what the 'value' of their vote is.

It seems to me that since a reletively small portion of the super delegates have joined the Obama bandwagon, Clinton still has a real shot of convincing those who haven't. I don't know that super delegate 'momentum' matters all that much.

"We're all just waiting for Hillary to stop bawling and pounding her fists on the floor like a 2 year old..."

citation please
words matter

I just knew the super delegates would rob Hillary and give it to a man...and a man who doesn't look upon older white women with much favor- labelling them racist and afraid of blacks.

Why are the superdelegates running to Obama ever since he told the story of his Grandma and then labelled all 'typical' white women racists?

Or was it the, 'I can't divorce myself of Rev Wright, he's the oly thing that makes me look black'...spiel.

Can you imagine what would happen if Hillary made a statement labelling Obama a 'typical black' 'insert anything deregoratory' here.

I don't see why white women should be expected to vote for this guy.

Dreams From My Father:

On p. 94-95 Obama describes an effective tactic to deal with White people:

"It was usually an effective tactic, another one of those tricks I had learned: People were satisfied so long as you were courteous and smiled and made no sudden moves. They were more than satisfied; they were relieved - such a pleasant surprise to find a well-mannered young black man who didn't seem angry all the time."""

Same old con Barack, you still playing these white folk a fool?

Context. 70 out of 795.

Best anonymous comment in a while up there: The pledged delegate leader and overall delegate leader is stealing the nomination! The horror, the horror.

Women (and all other members) of the democratic party should support the party's nominee for president against McCain and the republican agenda. Is this notion really all that subversive?

Ben, when Hillary gets superdelegate votes it is practically treated as treason. It is painted as a terrible unfair thing; when it is no different when Obama gets a super delegate.

You can 'claim' he is the leader of whatever, but by the rules there is no leader. The delegates aren't even counted until the convention and the first vote taken.
Call the DNC and ask them how many delegates Obama has, and they'll tell you they have no idea, all they know is what the press says and what the candidates claim, but no delegate has voted for anything.

Barack is not ahead, there is no ahead, their is only having over 2025 delegate votes at the convention, period.
The Obama projections are no different then the Hillary projection, they both need superdelegates to win the nomination.

Although the press and the Obama campaign consider Hillary would be 'stealing' it, and not winning it...which is a lie.

Just because you choose which way you want to count in favor of your candidate; but if you count by how states will have to count this fall - -Hillary is ahead by a mile.

but if you count by how states will have to count this fall - -Hillary is ahead by a mile.

Guess it's too bad for you they don't count like that. Maybe Hillary should have campaigned according to how the rules are, and not how they could be. She might be winning if that were the case.

Dee, "Is this notion really all that subversive?"

It is when that nominess has called you a racist. Why should my vote go to someone who calls me a racist?

Hillary Clinton has won states with about 260 electoral votes this Fall. Barack Obama has won states with about 190. And we decide the presidency not by a popular vote, we decide it by the electoral vote.

This is the most valid way to count who would do best in a general election.

*watches Anonymous don the bedsheets yet again, sees others claiming 70 superdelegates really isn't that significant in a tight race, chuckles, downs some more peanuts*

Hillary Clinton has won states with about 260 electoral votes this Fall. Barack Obama has won states with about 190.

And Anonymous's argument hinges on Obama not carrying California, New York, or Massachusetts. Which should tell you everything you need to know about it.

Anonymous,

Feel free to support and vote for the republican agenda. You are entitled to do as you see fit. Talk up what you are voting FOR and not what you are voting AGAINST.

http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2008/04/07/hillary/#

Why Hillary Clinton should be winning

""If the Democrats ran their nominating process the way we run our general elections, Sen. Hillary Clinton would have a commanding lead in the delegate count, one that will only grow more commanding after the next round of primaries, and all questions about which of the two Democratic contenders is more electable would be moot. """

Your gun, your foot. Nominate Obama and you garauntee President McCain.

But Dee,

the Obama campaign doesn't actually stand FOR anything; it's raison d'etre is that it isn't the Clinton campaign. Without Clinton's campaign, Obama's doesn't exist.

"""And Anonymous's argument hinges on Obama not carrying California""

Yeah, remember when MSNBC and Chris Mathews assured us California would never put another Republican Governor in office in his lifetime.
I think it was about six months later and we not only had the Democratic Governor re-called we had REPUBLICAN Governor Schwarzesomething.

So don't hold breadth that California won't vote for a maverick Republican.....

And at the very least Obama would have to use far more resources in these States..that could be used for the normal battleground states.

And of course Obama's going to have to spend alot of time in Florida and Michigan apologizing for insisting their votes shouldn't count.

Anonymous, just about everyone on this blog knows you're a republican troll by now. You would have been a lot more effective if you didn't periodically decide to defend John McCain for no obvious reason.

And seriously, everyone knows you're a racist too. You're the absolute last person who should be defending the racial views of some Hillary supporters.

Soullite..BREAKING NEWS, not every Anonymous poster is the same. For instance, the 2:44 posted is not the same as the 2:45 poster. Anonymous is simply used in solidarity with people who can't use their real names for fear of causingh mass hysteria and panic in the populace....like Hussein for instance.

Ezra, I draw the exact opposite conclusion from your numbers. When Obama went on his romp in early February, winning 11 in a row, the super-delegates didn't stampede towards him. If anything, it is a sign of Obama's weakness.

Also, the chart is misleading; there hasn't been much movement since March 4th, which suggests that Maggie Williams has put the Clinton Campaign back on surer footing.

It would be nice if the Anonymous folks here would just go ahead and use some kind of pseudonym (look, my name's not really Jake - see it's not that hard), so that at least the rest of us can differentiate between the idiots and the trolls.

The piece from Salon is such a joke. If, if, if. Lots of counterfactuals to make a silly argument that Clinton's the one who should be winning. Jesus you folks are intellectually lazy. If my Aunt had a penis, she'd by my Uncle. Excellent takedown here:

http://obsidianwings.blogs.com/obsidian_wings/2008/04/stick-with-earl.html

"Well, look, it's true that by most objective metrics Kansas beat North Carolina. But, the Jayhawks' lead was only made possible by certain eccentricities in college basketball scoring. For instance, shots from a sufficient distance back are awarded three points rather than two. This seems unfair. The teams should never have agreed beforehand that these shots would count for three points. Thus, if you take all the threes that Kansas hit and make them all two, then it's a much different story."

Well, Anonymous posters, it would be useful to use a pseudonym so that we could keep track of you. For example, it'd be nice to know if two Anonymous posters are the same so we can track the coherency of the views they espouse.

Wouldn't that be nice?

Firstly, it has been established that states won in primaries do not predict outcomes in the general election. Secondly, it is an odd argument indeed that although Obama has consistently gained superdelegates and Clinton has suffered a net loss, this somehow bodes well for Clinton. Superdelegates are inherently cautious, and the contest is still closer than some Obama supporters would like to concede, but what indicators we have suggest that Obama is the likely, if not certain, candidate.

"...it's very, very hard to figure out what could save Clinton's chances?"

democracy?

Posted by: Anonymous | April 7, 2008 11:56 AM

Barack is not ahead, there is no ahead, their is only having over 2025 delegate votes at the convention, period.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 7, 2008 2:14 PM

"...it's very, very hard to figure out what could save Clinton's chances?"

democracy?

Posted by: Anonymous | April 7, 2008 11:56 AM

Barack is not ahead, there is no ahead, their is only having over 2025 delegate votes at the convention, period.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 7, 2008 2:14 PM

The race isn't close any longer folks. This really shouldn't be that tough to grasp. Jonathan Chait:

"Almost nobody contends that Clinton has a chance to overcome Obama's lead in pledged delegates. The spin now is that Obama's delegate lead is "small but almost insurmountable" (USA Today) and that, since neither can clinch the nomination with pledged delegates alone, "the nomination is expected to be in the superdelegates' hands" (Los Angeles Times). These beliefs reflect the mathematical illiteracy that has allowed the press corps to be routinely duped by economic flim-flammery. A lead that's insurmountable is, by definition, not small. The very primary rules that make it impossible for Clinton to catch up--proportionate distribution of delegates that award tiny net sums to the winner--are exactly what made Obama's lead so impressive.

The notion that the superdelegates will decide the race implies that pledged delegates won't matter--like a sports event that goes to overtime. Obviously, though, the pledged-delegate count determines how many superdelegates each candidate needs. Depending on how the remaining primaries go, Clinton will need about two-thirds of the uncommitted ones to break her way. Problem is, over the last month, superdelegates have broken to Obama by 78 percent to 22 percent.

And the supers who haven't endorsed are even less likely to side with Clinton. Numerous reports on uncommitted superdelegates have made clear that they have remained on the sideline out of an exquisite fear of stepping on the results of the voters. As my colleague Noam Scheiber reported, "Just about every superdelegate and party operative I spoke with endorsed Nancy Pelosi's recent suggestion that pledged delegates should matter most" ("Slouching Toward Denver," April 9)."

http://www.tnr.com/environmentenergy/story.html?id=6b3d9c26-7c9e-4814-badd-a124edc68718&p=1

I agree with soullite. There is no reason to be sticking up for McCain.

I don't like McCain and I swear on my Mothers life that I voted for Obama in the primary. But you all have your heads in the sand if you think Obama has some kind of lock in the Fall based on his primary performance. The idea that Hillary commands some small faction that's just going to fall in line with his campaign is nuttier then squirrel poop.

And let's get real, the reason for names is because you want to attack the person, not the strenght of their argument. You want to call names and labell people. Barack has tried to put an end to all that...ahh, except for us older white women...were all racists.

And let's get real, the reason for names is because you want to attack the person, not the strenght of their argument. You want to call names and labell people.

You're making the assumption that your argument has strength to begin with. It certainly doesn't have spelling.

I don't know why you're also assuming that we all believe Obama has a lock in the fall based on the primaries. That seems like more of a strawman than anything else.

Jake, Can you explain why in the world would we have superdelegates?

If the superdelegate is simply to vote for the candidate with the most pledged delegates, why not just have a rule that says, the candidate with the most pledged delegates is the winner???

If their whole point of existence is to vote for the person with the purported lead, they might as well not exist.

"And let's get real, the reason for names is because you want to attack the person, not the strength of their argument."

yep
e.g. Petey, akaison

Jake, Can you explain why in the world would we have superdelegates?

Oh, I think they should be free to vote for whomever they want. But I also happen to believe that they're not going to ignore the votes cast so far when making that decision, and at the end of the day they're going to want Obama.

This doesn't even take into account the superdelegates like Corzine who are hedging their bets, saying they would switch their support if Hillary doesn't pull off her magical, mystical "popular vote" lead. She could wind up losing a lot more supers in the next month or so.

Anonymous, Super delegates were suggested in 1982 and created in 1984 to gaurantee that party officials and elected members would show up to the convention, which they hadn't actually been doing since the switch to the primary/caucus system

The idea that they were created to stop a future McGoverns is bullshit. Thats not why they were created at all. They can vote for whoever they want to make them feel more important, it was never intended that there would ever be enough of them to actually matter. It's just that more and more people wanted this special 'privilage' and it seemed an easy thing to do to humor them.

Billery, we told you pandering to Bush will not get you their. Now eat it.

Thank god for "elites" !

RE: "why do you hate women? Posted by: bill bixby | April 7, 2008 11:57 AM"

Because "Colonel" doesn't contain the letter "r". And even more importantly, 11 is a prime number. Answers as meaningful as the question.