Our furious primary has registered a lot of new voters, specifically a lot of new members of the Democratic party. That's got to be a good thing.

Come on. Do you really think that the Republicans wouldn't have figured out on their own that a black guy whose name rhymes with Osama might have trouble in white working class precincts? How naive can you be?

You've just summed up my fears very nicely.

"Do you really think that the Republicans wouldn't have figured out on their own that a black guy whose name rhymes with Osama might have trouble in white working class precincts?"

It's the Lieberman effect. Now the Republicans and the media can say "Even Democrats like Hillary Clinton think..."

It's just a fundamentally immoral strategy on her part. She wasn't ready for the challenge Obama posed, and her limbering behemoth of a campaign wasn't able to pivot early enough to avoid disaster. This doesn't in my mind justify the bullshit "character" attacks she has engaged in ever since she fell behind.

I've yet to hear a plausible scenario in which Clinton wins the superdelegates. Just about every serious path to the presidency requires Obama to utterly implode, to be rendered non-competitive for the nomination.

Or, to put it the way I've been thinking about it, there's no scenario in which Obama can make a graceful concession speech.

McCain's folks... have a precinct-by-precinct map of where he underperforms, ready narratives to activate in their negative campaigning

Uh, Ezra? Don't be naive. They already knew where to find the 'no way in hell I'm voting for a n****r' demographic, and the GOP isn't short on narratives for that kind of contest.

(Though I do think that it's useful to have presidential primaries that matter in states which haven't seen that kind of voter mobilisation for decades.)

The November election is a little over 6 months away. Considering that the primaries and caucuses have been happening for a little less than 4 gives me plenty of reason to believe the bruises and cuts Obama has taken will be healed. The machines that have been helping Hillary in Ohio and Pennsylvania and elsewhere will begin to work for Obama rather than against him.

I'm no walrus expert, but I think a two-week Friedman Unit is called for here. Indiana and North Carolina will provide the supers the cover they need to openly declare their support.

Hillary's strategy of launching character attacks against Obama at a point where it's near clear she won't be winning the nomination calls to mind the Judgment of Soloman...if she really cared about "her" metaphorical baby (i.e. the Democratic party, the future of the country) wouldn't she gracefully bow out and allow SOMEONE to have a solid chance against McCain?

I am a committed Obama supporter (as you know) and have less admiration for Hillary Clinton as an individual than ever. That said, I think you're overlooking something huge, and that's the significance of this protracted campaign for the women (apparently numerous) who see Clinton's candidacy as a historic opportunity to field a credible female presidential candidate. For them, the protracted primary is a wonderful thing, because it suggests to the nation that women are major voting block that is seeking real representation. In that sense (and I agree with your points about attacks etc.), I think that the protracted primary is actually kind of necessary, since it establishes that not only a black man, but also a woman, can really, truly run for president. This wouldn't have been as clear if Obama had won New Hampshire for example.

We have no idea is this is good or not. We'll know November 8th, and not a day before then. If we lose, then this was an disaster no matter how many mitigating factors we can find to argue against that. IF we win, the argument that it was a bad thing will be dismissed no matter how many data points say otherwise and no matter how much we all hate eachother.

Pretending that this is the sort of thing you can determine by looking at charts and figures in April is foolish at best.

McCain's folks might have suspected that they target states like Pennsylvania and Ohio and Florida, but now they have a precinct-by-precinct map of where he underperforms, ready narratives to activate in their negative campaigning (they don't have to grope around to create a line of attack), and a media thats now convinced of his vulnerabilities.

This is incredibly silly. There is no reason to think that Obama's weakness in this or that district against HRC has any relationship whatsoever to his weakness (or lack thereof) against McCain in those same districts. Obama's weakest showing was in Rhode Island. Does this mean McCain should begin plotting to win that state? He doesn't stand a change in hell there.

The reality is as it has been these past few elections. The Republicans have most of the South and west locked up. The Democrats have the northeast, most of the midwest, and California. The battle grounds will be in Pennsylvania, Ohio, Florida, and possibly a few western states and maybe Virginia as well. Nothing about the states or precincts that Obama wins vs. those Hillary wins has any bearing on whether those states go Dem or Repub in November.

And blaming the extended primary for the media's awareness of Obama's vulnerabilities is just as silly. Were he the party's nominee, MoDo and her ilk would only have one Democrat to turn into an un-American, elitist, gender-confused, liar who doesn't know who he or she is and will stop at nothing to win. With HRC in the race still, she actually takes some of the heat off. And this whole battle makes McCain seem almost completely irrelevant.

The eternal primary is annoying as hell, and some days- after Hillary's pulled some especially obnoxious stunt- it gets me really steamed. But when I calm down I go back to thinking it's just that, annoying, not seriously harmful.

Say, speaking of character, it was great to see that Obama had the good grace to stay in PA and take his medicine, and not repeat, for the umpteenth time, his stump speech, with a few perfunctory concession paragraphs to start ... Oh, wait... And wait again...

Just because the frothing and stamping about a concession speech Hillary gave that didn't meet her opponent's expectations was intense, and went on for days....

*yawns*

The "Hillary should quit now" argument is made entirely out of bad faith, and it’s easy to prove. If indeed she can’t win, whether or not she quits is irrelevant, just as it was irrelevant whether Mike Gravel quit or not. If she can win, then telling her to quit is stupid and insulting…not to her, but to those who support her. There’s no third possibility.

Ezra,
Piteous whining aside, please answer the following question:
do you personally view Obama as stronger or weaker for November than you did 6 months ago.
You do not sound confident to me.

Jeremy's first comment at the top is an important one that people shouldn't ignore. Not only have Democrats registered a lot of new voters, they've canvassed them, they've contacted them, they know what's important to them, and they have a good idea how to get them to the polls. This protracted primary has been a tremendous gift in that regard. A gift that won't just pay dividents at the Presidential level, but will benefit Democratic candidates at every level --- for years to come.

Gosh, I suppose this may be the true cost of not having contested primaries in Michigan and Florida --- that canvassing and registering hasn't happened there.

"Piteous whining aside, please answer the following question:
do you personally view Obama as stronger or weaker for November than you did 6 months ago."

If you're asking Ezra non-rhetorical questions on such questions, you're missing the point of his cowardly little exercise.

limbering behemoth

Ha ha, brewnm's an idiot. So's Ezra.

It is really starting to amuse me that the OBF thinks that the Republicans would never have figured out the game of politics themselves. I'm sure they're pretty happy that you think they are that stupid.

Who really could have known that there are differences of opinion in a political contest by region? Shocking.

shorter Ezra et al: Clinton should quit before more democrats can vote for her

So Ezra - how long you been following politics, son? About 20 minutes? Go back to your stir fry.

I said a couple months ago this was probably what was going to happen. I called then for Obama to drop out, take one for the team, and join a Clinton/Obama unity ticket. But obviously that didn't and wasn't going to happen.

Basically democrats are just fucked. The macro factors are still hugely in our favor... even we can't be so incompetent as to screw it up this time, can we?

Here's the thing. About half of the Democrats in this country prefer Hillary to Obama. That's why they are voting for her. The more you whine about that fact, the more they get pissed off. You make Obama look weak, as if he should not win on merit or toughness, but because he should have his way smoothed for him. It comes across as one of two unattractive possibilities: 1. That you expect a woman to quit so she won't challenge a man, or 2. that Obama is a candidate who couldn't get the job on his own merits but should get it because of his race. I think he COULD be a great candidate. But the way he should do that is by showing that he IS a good fighter--not that his handlers and fans are trying to cut off the race prematurely before we have a chance to find out.

Obama, that is - pulled way ahead in the middle of the campaign, only to have the eventual loser mount a furious comeback

I know that is the conventional wisdom, but the fact is Hillary simply won a state that Hillary was always going to win. Before that Obama won Mississippi and Wyoming - states he was always expected to win. Next he'll win North Carolina, Montana, Oregon, and South Dakota. She'll win Kentucky, West Virginia, and Puerto Rico.

What looks like a comeback is simply an accident of the calendar. This election was over months ago. It's just that some people are still waiting to vote.

I called then for Obama to drop out, take one for the team, and join a Clinton/Obama unity ticket.

Interesting. Why didn't you ask Clinton to take one for the team?

Thats one thing this primary season has done for the blogosphere.. its managed to elicit such a great amount of mock outrage that it boggles the mind.

This drawn out voting season is stupid.. Maybe all the primaries shouldnt take place on 1 day.. but they should certainly be compressed down to a few weeks at most. Let the campaigning happen in the lead up to the lections, and then have the elections take place. No more of this election, parse, election, dither, election, moan..

Next debates topic.. which is more effective while in office male ties, or female pant suits. Second round of questions.. does Hillary's lack of a flag lapel pin count as unpatriotic when she doesnt wear a lapel?
*GAG*
Thank you Ezra for at least attempting to keep digging up substantive policy points to consider. So few out there are even attempting that kind of work, especially in the MSM.

oh yes..
:p

Y'know Hillary partisans - if you're coming in here trying to persuade, you're not doing a very good job. Quit acting like your candidate, and quit acting like Republicans. There is no scenario under which Clinton wins the Democratic short of destroying Obama. And if she does hit the lotto that way, there is no absoltely no way she wins the White House.

Negative campaigns induce hatred on the part of your opponent's partisans. You can deal with that in the general. But in a primary you usually keep in mind that your opponents' supporters will probably be yours in the fall.
Clinton simply doesn't care; the ends justify the means.

Marc much like Obama is a delicate flower that must be protected. No yelling or he will wilt.

"You've just summed up my fears very nicely."

Don't give in to fear.

"Next debates topic.. which is more effective while in office male ties, or female pant suits."

Dearheart,
Assinging gender to articles of clothing = way f'ed up

Simple question-- Do the Clinton supporters here think she can overcome Obama's popular and delegate vote lead without the superdelegates?

I am willing to agree she should stay in the race if she can overcome one or the other without claiming through code she's more electable. However, if she can neither obtain the dedicated delegate count or popular vote- to me at least- her race going into the convention will be illegitimate.

I find both sides of this discussion as usual frustrating in your fundamental dishonesty. Please don't write shit like half the country supported your candidate. We live in a 50 plus 1 winner take all country. It's a Democracy. We don't as a rule prefer (and by we I mean the voters) nomination or elections by committee unless there is some compelling reason for it. Saying you think Clinton is more electable isn't that kind of argument. Compelling would be some sort of split in the popular versus delegate count. Right- now- where is there evidence that there is such a split? Are you pinning your hopes on MI and FL? Even conceeding that from the most optimistic estimates, it seems you still lose the popular and delegate vote count.

Democratic candidates have been asked to conceed and move on over less. I am not even sure she should do so here. But the idea that you keep floating that there is a shot- where is it? Point it out to me? I am not an Obama supporter. Just someone who likes a bit of analysis that's not the party line of which candidate one happens to support. My skepticms requires more analysis than the normal hide the ball commentary. So far- hiding the ball to me on this subject isn't the normal barbs back and forth, but asking you, in your own words- define the path to her victory thats either delegates (without super) or popular vote.

Point of clarification-- The key element of my post above is "going into the convention" What this means is - are you now arguing, the CLinton online brigade- that she should stay in the race once all the primaries are over, and she has lost both the popular vote and delegate vote count? If people check out a lot of the A list blogs- mydd, talk left, etc, that seems to be the new spin. The almost unsaid statement that she should stick in not because of popular vote or delegate count, but electability. These comments typically gloss over what seems to be this issue of ignoring both popular vote and delegate count. I just want clarification about how far are you willing to go with this, and how much damage after the primaries are done- you are willing to do in order to obtain your goal versus those of the party? This is a line int he sand question. It's meant to test honesty- so again- after all the primaries are done- what then? DO you still say we go convention without a clear nominee? I feel the need to be as specific as possible, sadly, because I realize if people do anwer I may get a lot of spin.

The popular vote tally is pure partisan spin on the Clinton side. Voters in caucus states are effectively disenfranchised when they aren't ignored. Beauty contests are promoted as real elections. In short, this as typically presented is not even remotely designed to test the actual popular support of the candidates.

You could go through, normalize caucuses for population, or use final polls of caucus states to estimate what the outcome "would have been" in a primary with average turnout. This would result in a very comfortable Obama win - he would have gained healthy margins in states like Minnesota and Colorado, and probably as well in Washington. (Note that the beauty contest primary held there after his decisive caucus win tells you precisely nothing about what would have occured if it was a real vote.)

Yesterday Carl Bernstein was on CNN (I think), maintaining that some Clinton people have said that she probably wants to try to put herself on as VP. Push come to shove, she'll take "first woman VP" rather than hanging out in the Senate for the rest of her life. If she keeps going and sticks close to Obama, and maintains that she has a demographic that Dems need (which seems to be her point), she can effectively force his hand. Billary know that politics is not about being best friends, so they don't have a problem getting a VP spot through political coercion.

It seems plausible to me, and I suppose you can trick yourself into thinking anything is possible, so maybe Obama implodes and she ends up with the top spot. It's not like she hasn't seen some movement in that regard.

And it's not like the Democratic Party isn't already this unwieldy coalition. Perhaps it's not so weird to have a ticket that actually appears to mirror that.

Of course, I find HRC's recent contention that she's the patron saint of the working man not terribly credible, but if her "conversion" means they attempt to keep those interests in focus maybe it's not the worst possible outcome. Although, to anyone *not* closely following the primary, Obama/Clinton just looks like the usual Democratic Party line up. I don't know if that attracts new voters.

I'd like to see her out (I concede), but that's because in my gut I don't trust her and I think Obama might provide a fresher alternative without Billary hanging their history around his neck all the time. (Not to mention maybe gaining his loyalty by tutoring him in how to turn the Presidency into your own personal profit machine. I mean, he can figure that out on his own later, can't he?)

In colonial MA, once prospering representatives in the popular assembly were deemed to no longer represent the interests of the people, they kicked them into the upper house, to represent the interests of the landed gentry and the growing merchant class. Personally, I think there should be such a mechanism to encompass the political ambitions of people like Miz Hillary. But, I guess we're too addicted to the illusions that popular demagoguery provides.

I'm open to being proved wrong, of course.

Anonymous(10:00)

Billary, Miz Hillary?

for real?

If you're not a feminist, you're not a progressive.

Akaison, neither dem cand. has a legit run to the white house at this point. Ahead in pledged and popular vote is only that...ahead. And will remain so unless Obama agrees to revotes in FL and MI.

"If you're not a feminist, you're not a progressive."

Miz Hillary is not feminist where I sit, Miz Mara.

To sum up what youare saying: "The popular vote and delegate counts are illegitimate, but vague unsubstantiable claims about electability are not." If you think this is going to pass the smell tests, you are fools.

With respect to the 'comeback' narrative, you have to separate the effects of time and place.

It's not a comeback when Clinton takes Ohio and Texas and everything west of Delaware County, PA. It's a matter of demographics.

We'd see a real comeback if she were, say, climbing in the national polls or in polls of people who already voted - like in Iowa or Virgina or California. But we're not seeing that. Instead we're seeing her leads cut in every contested state.

As far as I can tell the gaining ground narrative is Obama's, not Clintons.

And if the trend lines continue after the primary like they did before the primary, Obama clearly trounces McShrubary.

Does anyone know if the trend lines continue after primary dates? Where can I find that info?

"Miz Hillary is not feminist where I sit, Miz Mara."

Perhaps not, but calling her Miz or Billary is still sexist.

Akaison, I think "the math" fails the smell test as well as arguments of electability do.

Hence the problem this year.

Whether this is positive or negative depends on whether one takes a long or short-term view on it. Short term, this is negative, though not so negative as to seriously alter our chances in November. Long-term this is probably the most unbelievably positive thing to happen to the party in my lifetime. Thank god we had Howard Dean in place at the DNC to capture the voter data generated by this windfall.