"Her path to the nomination is very, very unclear. Her chances to win the nomination exceedingly slim."

I feel like I've been hearing, more-or-less, these same exact words over and over again since about February. It doesn't seem to have stopped her yet.

It won't stop her. Given her recent transformation into a anti-intellectual populist, who knows what she'll be in a couple of weeks. The reincarnation of George Wallace in a last, desperate attempt to tap into white rage?

While her path is unclear, you're underestimating her success in making a possible NC upset have some signficance. It won't change the numbers, but could very well shift the dynamic that the remaining superdelegates aren't willing to endorse either candidate until the convention-- which probably is her best path to the nomination.

On the 2012 question, not sure why it has to be an either/or proposition. Hail mary in 2008 + strong position for 2012 = best strategy?

Clinton's only real hope is that some scandal emerges that makes Obama literally unelectable -- to the point that his superdelegates abandon his campaign and everyone turns to Clinton in desperation.

It's worth pointing out that in the very unlikely event her hopes of a mega-scandal were vindicated, they would be vindicated no matter what she does. She could never do another campaign event, never buy another commercial, fire most of her staff, and spend her days this summer in southern France writing treatises about how all economists are full of it . . . and she'd still be in a position to take the nomination from a putatively crippled Obama.

Of course, if she wanted to damage Obama's chances in the fall to preserve her family's dominance within the party, then doing what she's doing now makes a lot of sense.

If you plan to make this about "the math", Ezra, then you might want to stick with a mathematical approach - it's not "impossible" for her to win this. It's simply highly unlikely that she will, as you suggest, have more pledged delegates when they are done. It is not at all clear that Obama will lead the popular vote when all of this is done... but the problem with the popular vote, as you kind of dance around, is that we don't have an actual numerical total from every contest in every state that provides a meaningful comparison (i.e. counting Michigan is challenging, at best, and 4 caucus states have never released actual vote totals, we only have estimates). I don't think I've ever seen an election where we all talk about six different working vote totals and try to cherry pick the one that makes the case we like (in 2 of them, as of now, Clinton leads, and that's likely to increase, based on current polls). The two of them, though, by even the measure least generous to Clinton, are about 2% apart from one another, and the closeness of the vote, in percentage terms, is also unlikely to shift, dramatically, in favor of Obama.

The point is, as a purely mathematical analysis, this race is essentially tied, by any measure, with neither one having won the necessary pledged delegates, or at this point, the super ones either; there will not be greater clarity between now and June, absent the unlikely event that demographics shift massively and one of them tanks... or the superdelegates do what seems increasingly unlikely and fail to allow all 50 states to hold actual primaries before the choice is made.

But you're not arguing the math, are you Ezra? You're arguing against Clinton because you want to believe Obama has won this. And that's fine. It's just that "the math" doesn't make your case strong enough, or finish this off. And it won't. The argument in favor of Obama needs to be about not math, or more to the point - more than math. That's always been the case. Obama needs to be the better candidate in spite of the math. And that, really, is what has not happened. It could. But it hasn't yet.

I'm thinking Hillary will be pretty stale bread in 2012. Four more years of Senate duty won't make her more attractive, whether its under McCain or Obama as Prez. And she'll be mid sixties by then.....

It's looking like a smaller Obama win in NC and a bigger Clinton win in IN, but the delegate totals won't be impacted much in one way or another - except to make it clearer that numerically Clinton can't win the delegate count and probably can't win the so-called popular vote either.

My guess as to why she's staying in the race: So she won't be seen or see herself as 'losing' or being a 'quitter'.

Outside bet: from the direction of her campaign, as unlikely as it seems, maybe she sees herself as McCain's VP (and high probability of succession in the first four years and even higher in the second term race). She has certainly left herself the opening to join McCain's side and I think she sees herself as above party (universal female goodness?)

These shots at Clinton for staying in the race really are getting incredibly tiresome. (Do all you pundits have this paragraph saved on the computer, so you don't have to retype it?) This will all be over one way or another by early June, and that will leave plenty of time to go after McCain. Much more problematic is the very real possibility that Obama will be totally defeated in November, once the Republican attack machine - relatively silent thus far - kicks into high gear. That, plus the Bradley effect, is why those of us who support Clinton don't want her to give up just yet.

The point is, as a purely mathematical analysis, this race is essentially tied...

This is not true. There's no margin of error in the delegate counts. So the candidate with more delegates is winning, period..."as a purely mathematical analysis."

This would be over if, you know, Obama could actually win Texas. Or Ohio. Or Pennsylvania. Yes he did very well in states Clinton had no campaign presence due to bad planning/lack of funds. And now on to Indiana where Obama looks again to lose. He could have sown this up 8 weeks ago with a win but he lost. Blaming Clinton for Obama's inability to seal the deal with momentum on his side is foolish.

weboy, Ezra only used the word impossible in this sentence:

"It is absolutely impossible for Clinton to overtake him in delegates in the remaining primaries."

Now this isn't strictly mathematically true -- according to DemConWatch Obama has a 151-delegate lead and there are 404 delegates outstanding. OTOH, that means that for Clinton to overtake Obama in pledged delegates she needs 69% of the remaining delegates. That's not happening.

That's the math.

No, Led, the candidate who receives the required number of delegate votes - a majority of all those seated at the convention - is the person who will be the nominee. The person who is leading right now... is not the winner yet, because he does not have the necessary majority. As a "purely mathematical analysis." Is he "winning"? We'll see what things look like after tomorrow... though at this point I think we'll have no greater clarity then. And with neither candidate topping 50%, and both over 45% in terms of votes received... I'd say "pretty damn close" if not "essentially tied." Really, I'd be happier if Obama's numbers were overwhelming proof of success this primary season. They're not.

To Rob,

This would also be over if, you know, Clinton could actually win Virginia, or Maryland, or Wisconsin, or Missouri... or Iowa. She could have sown this up months a go with a win but she lost. Blaming Obama for Clinton's inability to capitalize on big donors, name recognition, and a solid backing by the Democratic machine is foolish.

I say that as someone who does not buy into the idea that she's readying herself for 2012.

Me neither: I'm generous enough to believe that the daily slog of the campaign creates its own bubble, in which you keep going until you can't go any further.

Though I don't doubt that some in the campaign are thinking about it, and hoping for the dead girl / live boy that will end Obama's career.

You're arguing against Clinton because you want to believe Obama has won this.

No, he's not. The way I've consistently put it makes things clearer: Hillary Clinton could concede the race in a (somewhat) graceful fashion any time between now and the convention.

Barack Obama is not in a position where he can concede the race in the same fashion. Until the convention, the only plausible scenarios involve his conceding in disgrace or in anger.

It's looking like a smaller Obama win in NC and a bigger Clinton win in IN

Obama seems to have been prepared to let the race tighten in NC in order to keep it tight in Indiana. Bill Clinton has, to quote someone else from comments, been touring 'every cracker town in the state' over the past few weeks.

And really, the shots at Obama from Clinton supporters who swallowed every bullshit rationale for why caucuses and small states and red states and western states don't count are equally tiresome.

I presume that you'll all be travelling to Dayton to volunteer support if your preferred candidate wins, because you appear to want a general election fought between half a million quixotic 'undecideds' in Ohio.

"And if her pledged superdelegates begin switching to Obama after June 3rd, then the number she needs grows."

Wait. Wasn't there some major hysteria here a few weeks ago at the notion that some of Obama's pledged delegates could switch to Clinton? Clinton rules again, I guess.

As for this:

"And really, the shots at Obama from Clinton supporters who swallowed every bullshit rationale for why caucuses and small states and red states and western states don't count are equally tiresome."

When more votes = less delegates there is a problem. Obama, in refusing to seat MI and FL, has put himself in the GW role of 2000. Smart.

Pinc, "pledged superdelegates" there is obviously an error for "superdelegates" (which are by definition not pledged), not "pledged delegates". No one is suggesting that Clinton's pledged delegates are going to be switching to Obama (though if they do she wouldn't have a basis for complaint since she's released them and said they can vote for whoever they like).

If "more votes = less delegates" is a problem, then why are we hearing this support for winner-take-all among Clinton supporters, complete with the argument that if only we were using the Republican rules Clinton would be far ahead? If we follow this fantasy for a minute (in which Obama somehow didn't notice what rules were being used and therefore still followed a strategy based on proportional delegate allocation), then Obama would still have a popular vote lead, but Clinton would be ahead in pledged delegates. How would that square with Clinton supporters' loud outcries about the unfairness of delegate allocation?

Like many hypotheticals, KC, we can't really know what a "winner take all" world would look like (Hey, if Obama were white, and Wright were white, and we had winner take all... how about then?); in winner take all world, Obama would have been struggling sooner, and who knows what that would have done to coverage, and then what that coverage would do to later races... and on and on.

Just to be clear, as a Clinton supporter, I don't necessarily love the idea of "winner take all; I think proportional election has been fairer, and flatter, and more reflective of where we are as a party (that is, rather divided, in some ways, less so in others). That's not to say I think this primary process has been wholly successful, and what concerns me is that the various deep flaws in this year's process (the mess with FL and MI, the dilemma of caucuses vs. popular votes, the debatable usefulness of "super" delegates) have been thrown aside where they don't help the argument for Obama (and ues, st times, for Clinton.

It's wonderful that we've had a real, actual 50 state process, where it looks, dtill, as though, all 50 will participate; but this process is still flawed, still broken in places, and I'd be happier if we could set aside our presidential preferences and come together around pressuring the DNC leadership for changes, not just reflexively back the flaws that help us make our respective cases. Without that pressure, we're never likely to challenge even the most basic objections (like the Iowa and NH "first dibs" primarie/caucuses) and make them stick. I wouldn't argue for "winner take all" process... just a different process from the one we've used this year. In the context of this thread, though, I doubt it'll make a difference.

I don't think that this qualifies as much of a surpise, given the fact that the supers have made it clear that they want this resolved by mid June. It's good news in the sense that it reduces the chance of the scenario where on June 15 Obama has enough delegates to win if Florida and Michigan aren't counted, but not enough if they are counted. Enough Clinton defections, and he'll have enough delegates to win een with FL and MI counted.

The Monster's last, desperate hope is to win IN by 10 or more and gain an upset win in NC. That might upset the current dynamic among the supers. Otherwise, a trickle of supers announcing for Obama becomes a flood starting Wednesday.

JimPortlandOR, I agree entirely: I honestly think that Hillary and McCain already have a working agreement in place for her to accept the #2 slot under McCain on a "bipartisan" ticket.

I think it would virtually guarantee McCain a narrow electoral victory.

And, yes, a McCain-Clinton administration would be a clusterfuck of proportions so epic, it would make Bush and Rove look like moderate technocratic geniuses.

"Otherwise, a trickle of supers announcing for Obama becomes a flood starting Wednesday"

as will the calls for Clinton's independent run.

Barack Obama is not in a position where he can concede the race in the same fashion. Until the convention, the only plausible scenarios involve his conceding in disgrace or in anger.

If he can't win the general, then he can concede. It's an unlikely scenario, but someone in the Democratic leadership must have noticed that he has next to no shot to win the general if he can't convince more than 30-40% of white voters to vote for him (never mind Hispanics and Asians).

The voters' flat out refusal to vote "strategically" should be a huge signal. I agree that the Democratic leadership is doing its best to ignore it, mostly because they despise Clinton.

But at some point, if Obama can't shake white voters of their preference, the leadership is going to have to realize that Obama could win huge. And at that point, I suspect they'll have a talk with him that goes something like this: We don't dare give Clinton the nomination over your objections. So you have two choices: you can concede graciously, saying that it doesn't appear that you can win the general. Or you can take your legalistic win. And if you lose in November, your career is over. Go back to Ayres and Wright and University of Chicago lectures, baby, because you're through.
We will make certain of it, to punish you threatening us with black revolt. So withdraw, or take the nomination and win.

I don't know what he'll do at that point. But if he doesn't start winning voters other than blacks and liberals, that conversation is going to happen. And I don't think a concession would be out of the question.

that Obama could win huge

Ha. Whoops! I meant to say *lose* huge, of course.

Cal -- you're assuming that the same calculus is in effect in the primaries as in the general election, and that's just not the case.

The calculus changes when the choice is no longer two Democrats, but one Democrat and one Republican.

Some racist Dems may never vote for Obama, but faced with the alternative of more Republican misrule, many others will fall in with the party line.

he has next to no shot to win the general if he can't convince more than 30-40% of white voters to vote for him (never mind Hispanics and Asians).

Vote percentages in the primary are not vote percentages in the general

Vote percentages in the primary are not vote percentages in the general

Vote percentages in the primary are not vote percentages in the general

that is all.

"he has next to no shot to win the general if he can't convince more than 30-40% of white voters to vote for him"

And Clinton has no chance in the general if she can't convince more than 10-15% of black voters to vote for her. Fortunately we have no reason to believe that either of those statistics has any resemblance to reality, since primary votes don't translate into general votes, and the vast majority of people voting in the Democratic primary will vote for the Democrat in the general. People can easily prefer one Democrat to another while still preferring either Democrat to McCain.

Well, that was a consensus.

Vote percentages in the primary are not vote percentages in the general

Oh, please. Spare me the nonsense. Of course, some of them will come back. I would have thought that unnecessary to acknowledge at a political site like this.

But there appears to be no question that, despite the media's desperate attempts to have it otherwise, Clinton's voters are less likely to vote for Obama than Obama's to vote for Clinton.

Liberals, who will be furious if Clinton gets the nomination, assume that Clinton supporters will be furious for the same reason. What they seem incapable of understanding is that many of Clinton's supporters (from 20-30%) will simply not vote for Obama. They aren't mad. They just think he's unsuited for the presidency, find him too liberal, or just can't stand him. You seem incapable of grasping that reality, so bent are most liberals on assuming that whites are just more racist, or that Clinton's supporters are just like you, eager to support their candidate. But many of them simply can't stand Obama, as appears obvious first in the polls, second in their willful refusal to accept what the Democratic leadership is telling them.

Obama has the two most loyal Democratic constituencies there are: blacks and liberals. Clinton has all the people who wouldn't think twice about voting for McCain.

Liberals might be moronic about recognizing this, but I don't think the Democratic leadership is.

So I go back to my point: if the Democratic leadership understands that he *can't* win, they'll have that conversation.

Obama has the two most loyal Democratic constituencies there are: blacks and liberals. Clinton has all the people who wouldn't think twice about voting for McCain.

So the strategy is to ditch the core constituencies in pursuit of that swing vote.

Or translated: Forget 2000 and 2004! We can make it work this time! Really! Truman was an idiot, they'll vote for our Republicans and not theirs this time! Trust us!

Oddly enough, it doesn't seem like the super delegates are agreeing with this.

"So I go back to my point: if the Democratic leadership understands that he *can't* win, they'll have that conversation."

Nice use of "understands," as if everyone in America operates under the same fundamentally racist mindset as yourself.

There is only one set of circumstances under which i would not vote for Clinton, ad those are the circumstances you laid out, where Obama wins the pledged delegate total yet is denied the nomination because some Clinton flack convinced enough supers that a poll in August means Obama can't win.

And I'm assuming there will be millions like me.

If you want to take the feelings of a bunch of petulant, quasi-racist (" They just think he's unsuited for the presidency (he's black), find him too liberal (huh?), or just can't stand him (he's black)")voters over the feelings of loyal Democrats who supported the nominee who, remember, ACTUALLY EARNED THE NOMINATION UNDER THE RULES IN PLACE AT THE TIME, then be my guest.

But I not only think the Democrats will lose in November under those circumstances, I think they will have destroyed their opportunity for a lasting majority for a generation.

Cal, the very same polls that show these scary percentages of people threatening to vote for McCain or stay home if Obama wins the nomination also show Obama doing at least as well as Clinton in matchups against McCain, so whatever Clinton supporters he may be losing are more than made up for by other people that he's gaining.

Fortunately the undeclared superdelegates (whose current status indicates they're not the sort to go out on a limb) show no tendency to overturn the decision of the voters on the basis of vague handwaving purporting to indicate that a candidate is unelectable despite the polls.

blessings tomorrow
for barack obama....
may he walk
with the higher angels
in
love and victory.

For Clinton supporters entertaining the fantasy that the "automatic" delegates are going to deliver the nomination, it's time to stop and look around 'cause it ain’t happening.
Each day brings new super delegate for Obama (2 more announced today). Clinton needs 2 "automatics" for each Obama super - it ain’t happening.
Think of this as the meta primary, the pledge delegate count has already been won by Obama. Now the super delegate race is on and Clinton's out pandering for votes with proposals that offend super delegates. It's the wrong message delivered to the wrong people.

Here's what I don't get: what is the scenario that Clinton supporters imagine is going to happen?

Besides the dead girl/live boy concept (at which point nobody has to worry, Clinton carries the race no matter what), how does this end well for Clinton?

I mean, let's give her everything but dead girl/live boy. She wins Indiana 60/40, and loses North Carolina 48/52. She proceeds to sweep the rest of the races 60/40.

Doing that, the pledged counts are Clinton 1830 and Obama 1921, according to CNN's flash doohickey (http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/02/29/delegate.counter/index.html). So she's 89 pledged delegates behind him.

There are 404 currently unpledged super delegates, so in that scenario, she'd need 247 of them to pledge her (157 for Obama, or a 61%/39% split), and she'd win the convention by a single delegate. Or an even more extreme split of the supers and a more solid victory.

Now, seriously, you see Clinton first of all pulling all that off, and secondly, doing it without completely destroying the Democratic chances in November?

I mean, we're talking here about overturning a pledged delegate lead (not just one or two, either -- 89 delegates), and a popular vote lead, and doing it in such a way that you don't piss off even 10-20% of Obama's supporters to the extent that they stay home in November.

Now, sure, you can construct a similar situation for Obama. The difference is, this is the most optimistic scenario for Clinton that doesn't depend on Obama stealing, and then eating raw, a live kitten from an adorable little girl on national television.

Michael, it's a function of the bifurcated nature of this race, I think, that you don't see a lot of Clinton supporters giving their sense of how this might work out - those of us who deal mostly in Clinton supporting blogs tend to have it in our heads, or in our blogs, and it's not, really, what you think (that part about "live kittens".. sheesh).

I'm not going to go into some long discussion of it here; I laid out my sense, above, of why "the math" is not entirely what Obama supporters make it out to be (and I've said much more, at length, on my own blog); I assume, based on your discussion, for instance, that you are assuming no seating of Florida or Michigan delegates. Clinton supporters tend to think that some delegation can/will be seated in our favor. Second, one question, that will be answered tomorrow, is whether and by how much Obama carries NC, given his double digit expectations, a win in single digits - or the outside possibility of a Clinton win - does call into question the fact that he's won little since March 4th, and nothing in the strength predicted.

Finally, until "super" delegates commit, we don't, really, know what they will do; we all assume that there's some hidden cache of Obama support waiting to show up... but I also suspect if they were, we'd see it. Finishing this, by winning Indiana and NC by compelling margins would be Obama's best bet now (just as substantially prevailing in PA would have, and OH and TX prior to that). As long as Obama can't finish this by significantly eating into Clinton's support, we have, as I said, a close tie, with Obama in a slight lead. It is, yes, entirely possible that undecided supers would then, give it to Obama. I won't pretend otherwise; but it's hard to make that case strongly, if he's not winning primaries here on out. She doesn't need to win them 60-40 (thought she may well do that in KY and WV) to make her point. At some point - if he loses things he's supposed to win, like Montana, SD, and Oregon - being ahead in pledged delegates won't, probably be enough argument to end this right then with supers overriding three months of failure to close the deal on the spot. I just don't see it. At which point we have some sort of discussion/negotiation.

I do believe, at the very least, it's possible for Clinton to prevail in that scenario; however, more than that, I'd point out something more basic: I, and many others, support Clinton because we think she'd be a good President. Not because we hate Obama, not because we're "racists", not because we're playing games with math. If she can't, mathematically, or inspirationally, convince people to support her, then yes, it's probably over. That doesn't change my sense - or others - about why we support her. If it did, honestly, I'd be glumly waiting for Obama's coronation. I'm not, because she continues to show ability to appeal to voters, and win elections. That, it seems to me, is what a candidate is supposed to do.

Outside bet: from the direction of her campaign, as unlikely as it seems, maybe she sees herself as McCain's VP (and high probability of succession in the first four years and even higher in the second term race). She has certainly left herself the opening to join McCain's side and I think she sees herself as above party (universal female goodness?)

7/20/93, Never Forget!

Weboy, I guess we do live in different worlds. I can't understand the logic by which the superdelegates are supposed to agree that Obama isn't "closing the deal" and then decide en masse to give the nomination instead to someone who's even further from closing the deal.

"If you cheat and add Michigan, where Obama wasn't on the ballot, and you give him the "uncommitted" voters"

Your math is way off.

He chose to remove his name so he has zero votes in Michigan.

The delegates SHALL be seated are the rules that he kept insisting on despite the disenfranchisement of millions of voters and to the ruin of the party in Nov.

He dragged his feet on the many chances for revote, he chose not to. He lost support due to his fear of losing.

Too bad. What if they decide to follow the rules and due to his advertising in Florida and his speaking to the press there give him zero as well?

Oh Well. The rules are the rules... as he WAS so fond of saying.

There are so many things to consider, electability being foremost and we shall just wait and see for the obvious conclusion of that.

I gather you didn't live through the McGovern humiliation or you would have learned your lesson.

Sympathy to young idealists, I was once much the same.

Took Nixon again to wake me up. Some of us need to learn the hard way. Do you?

Obama will lose to McCain, Hillary has a good shot.

I've been around. She's pure democrat gold, polished.

weboy lives in the world were Clinton's might power of persuasion can convince George W.Bush to sign a windfall profit tax before Memorial day.

"blessings tomorrow
for barack obama....
may he walk
with the higher angels
in
love and victory."

indeed.
and to hillary clinton,
the votes.

Obama will lose to McCain, Hillary has a good shot.

I've been around. She's pure democrat gold, polished.

Either one of them will crush McCain - unless, of course, the superdelegates openly overturn the will of Democratic voters. Then McCain has a shot.

I'm assuming that Ezra was not an A+ student of math ... Funny that his errors all favor Obama - I wonder why that would be?

Well, fahey, if you read my blog, you'd see that I don't think anything of the sort.

KC, I don't think we live in different worlds, I think it's just that we see similar things differently. I don't think Obama can overwhlem questions about his electability absent a significant win since March 4th. That's not about "failing to close a deal"; it's about something larger. And yes, I think supers - who deal in this kind of electoral calculus, will have a hard time giving the nomination to him with those results. I'm not saying out of the question for him... just hard to see. At least from where I'm sitting.

Dude, WTF, if you're gonna make an arithmetic argument, be right, because unlike you, we can actually add and subtract.

Go read BTD's rejoinder on this point. But something he doesn't point out:

If you count FL in she is 200k behind, not 300k as you claim.

This is why we lose, b/c our commentarists make dumb mistakes, inspire their readers on false grounds, and then we're all left without a pot to piss in when the other side proves us wrong.

Enervating.

weboy: You're right that I was discounting the Florida/Michigan delegations. I'll get to why in a minute. A few nitpicks, first:

You write, "we all assume that there's some hidden cache of Obama support waiting to show up... but I also suspect if they were, we'd see it." That's backwards. You need to assume that there's a hidden cache of Clinton support waiting to show up, because she needs to win the supers overwhelmingly even under her best circumstances.

You write, "As long as Obama can't finish this by significantly eating into Clinton's support, we have, as I said, a close tie, with Obama in a slight lead." Under the best of circumstances for Clinton, it's not a particularly close tie -- it's like a mid-sized state's worth of delegates. There are currently 2,829 pledged delegates allocated, with Obama having a 157 delegate advantage there. That's a more than 5% lead.

Okay, back to seating the delegations and the general gist of your message. Yes, I can imagine something happening where Clinton stays in it up to the convention, and brokering some kind of deal/having some kind of negotiation. Sure, I'm happy to say that you support Clinton in the good faith belief that she'd be the better President.

But what is certain is that if she arrives at the convention at all, she'll arrive with a deficit -- a quite noticeable deficit -- in pledged delegates. And that means that inescapably, if she comes out of the whole thing the candidate, there's going to be the perception that she stole away the nomination from the choice of the people.

Even if that's a somewhat unfair characterization of the process, I just can't see any state of affairs in which it's not a narrative with power. And it doesn't have to convince that many people: just 10-20% of Obama's die-hard supporters need to feel powerfully that Clinton cheated, and she's dead in November.

That's why I'm discounting the Michigan and Florida delegations: at this late date, it seems clear that there's no way to seat them in ways favorable to Clinton without it powerfully adding to the "she cheated" narrative.

Now, again, before we go into the standard ebb and flow of this particular argument, I'm not necessarily saying that "Clinton cheated" is going to be the truth, and certainly not the beginning and end of the story. But the point is, that doesn't matter. And yes, there are situations we could imagine where Obama could also end up the candidate but lack legitimacy and lose a bunch of Clinton's die-hards, and then lose in November -- but what I'm saying is that for Obama, that's a bad scenario, while for Clinton, it's the best she can reasonably expect.

What a load of crap! Yes, let's pretend that the people in FL and MI didn't vote. And even if they did, screw them. The Scalia approach to democracy. Gee, in the GE is Obama going to take his name off the ballot in the states he can't win and then tell the RNC that they can't count those states. Ezra may not like it but the people of FL and MI voted for Hillary to win. I know that that is inconvenient to Klein and his Obamabot buddies but there it is. Obama also stood in the way of revotes in both states. The DNC and Obama can gerrymander the rules. They can pretend that these states don't exist. They can ignore the fact that Dean and his pals did not penalize other states that moved their primaries up. But they can't make FL and MI disappear. They will reappear in November and Obama will lose. What sort of bullshit will Ezra be peddling then?

Michael, you asked what we think; I gave you my answer. You can "nitpick" it to death... but yes, it's what I think. I don't think "a 5% or so" lead in pledged delegates will, as I've been discussing with KC, answer the problem of not actually winning primaries, which is clearly part of the calculus. But in any case, my point was, and is, asked... and answered. You don't like the answer... I get that. That doesn't prove your point, or make your argument better the second time.

buzz,
So you think a primary where the voters were told the votes would not count is valid? And you are a Democrat?

Obama has the two most loyal Democratic constituencies there are: blacks and liberals. Clinton has all the people who wouldn't think twice about voting for McCain.

Cal seems to be under the presumption that black voters will, upon seeing a black candidate enter the convention with a lead in pledged delegates and leave with nothing, will shrug and act like it never happened in November. Or that voters who registered in record numbers in states where the GOP hasn't played defense in decades will nod and vote for Hillary.

That's a fucking dangerous presumption, particularly if it creates the narrative that the black guy who plays by the rules gets told by the white guys that the rules have changed.

If that happens, the GOP won't have to set aside the usual budget devoted to keeping black voters away from the polls in November.

After all the primaries conclude, it will be interesting to see if Obama argues that he won the popular vote (by discounting MI and FL). Interesting because after Obama secures the nonmination he has proposed seating these delegations so that they can 'participate.' At that point, Obama will have actually lost the popular vote, negating his earlier argument.

weboy: what I actually asked was, "Now, seriously, you see Clinton first of all pulling all that off, and secondly, doing it without completely destroying the Democratic chances in November?"

You answered the first part, and didn't mention the second part. I more or less agree with your analysis of how Clinton might plausibly take the nomination. I think it's a long shot, but it's not, like, filled with crazy pies.

But how do you imagine that you can counter the narrative of, "Clinton cheated by (some combination of) backroom deals with superdelegates, changing the rules of the nomination, and seating delegates from states in which Obama wasn't allowed to campaign"? I get, of course, that you don't find such a framing compelling, but it's really hard for me to imagine that it won't be compelling to a noticeable subset of Democrats.

Proposal: Any commentor claiming that Hillary broke a 'rule' should specify what rule she broke.

Sbj: I'm not particularly claiming anything about Clinton, I'm claiming that if she looks like she'll have a chance of claiming the nomination, a "Clinton cheated" story will circulate.

But, the rule in question would be, "The Michigan and Florida primaries will not result in seated delegates."

Whether a simplistic framing of "Clinton cheated" is a nuanced description of this hypothetical reality is beside the point.

Hi Michael:

I agree that this faulty argument will be all over the place - unfortunately it won't be true. Perhaps people like you and I have a responsibility to be truthful in this regard?

Your rule-breaking statement, "The Michigan and Florida primaries will not result in seated delegates," does not take into account a couple of very important caveats that Dean built into his penalty. I am sure you are aware of them so I am not clear as to why you would purposefully pretend that they do not exist.

Dean gave the aggrieved parties the right to appeal to the RBC for a revote and to appeal to the credentials committee to have those delegates seated.

It is really unfair of you to claim that seating these delegates would be against the rules. Are you trying to mislead readers here or ... exactly what are you trying to do? You know about these two means of remedy, I am sure - why the ommission? Are you claiming that to remedy this issue via Dean's rules is somehow against the rules? (Let's please not fall back on 'perceptions' - what rule has she broken?)

Dean's penalty clearly provided for two ways to seat MI and FL delegates within the rules.

Shame on you for claiming rule breaking when none exists!

"But, the rule in question would be, "The Michigan and Florida primaries will not result in seated delegates."

Well then tell your fckng candidate to stop blocking the FL and MI revotes... Just like he fought tooth and nail to keep his opponents off the Illinois's ballots when running for state senate, this guy is such the politician.

What a coward.

Well then tell your fckng candidate to stop blocking the FL and MI revotes..
Since he is not doing that your comment is irrelevant.

"...makes Clinton's endless assaults over gas tax holidays and elitism more aggravating."

You should stop being aggravated by this. It is annoying and makes your blog less enjoyable.

You Obama guys are silly. For goodness sakes, he's almost surely going to win the nomination... you should be celebrating. If he can't beat McCain, regardless of anything Clinton does or says, then it'll be because the Democrats abandoned him. Your harping on Hilary only increases the chances of that happening.

Shill shill shill.

Your new slogan should be "Momma said shill you out."

"Given her recent transformation into a anti-intellectual populist."

Yes, and meanwhile Obama attacking and undermining universal care by using scare tactics against mandates is totally acceptable.

You're a hypocrite.

I mean if you guys are so convinced that Obama has this wrapped up and there is no mathematically no way that Hillary can surpass him, then why is he still trying? His latest ads aren't aimed at the general election, unless he seems to think that Hillary will be running in the general election (cue the "Hillary is just like McCain" jokes haw haw).

Or are you trying to insist on reality being as you insist it to be? The reality-based community has morphed into a hope-based community. Congratulations.

But how do you imagine that you can counter the narrative of, "Clinton cheated by (some combination of) backroom deals with superdelegates, changing the rules of the nomination, and seating delegates from states in which Obama wasn't allowed to campaign"?

Look, there's going to be a noticeably bitter subset f Democrats either way this plays out; I think Obama supporters like to feel right is on their side, but I can tell you plenty of people (not me) will be having to make hard choices, and there's a reaistic shift of some Clinton voters to McCain. I don't think it ruins Obama's chances, but still.

I believe the best answer to your question, Michael, is that this will be as bitter and unhappy an ending, should Clinton succeed, as Obama wants it to be: by which I mean, if he's not planning to bow out gracefully and with an emphasis on unity... then yes "it's illegitimate, and it's unfair" will be a big story. If he plays nice, I think, t won't be. I'll also share my secret of how to guarantee this... make him Vice President. That's my best theory, anyway. I think there's a too-apocryphal-by-half tinge to Obama supporter griping: if you believe in electing Democrats, I'd suggest that everyone needs to wrap their minds around all the possibilities. If you want Clinton supporters to fall in line, I think one way to assure it is at least placating words of willingness to accept the alternative (it's one of the ways I think all this "we're so positive and Clnton's so negative" logic in Obama's campaign is a little curious... the "we'll burn down Denver" rhetoric sure doesn't sound positive and upbeat to me). We can, of course, let this devolve into a lot of shouting. But one of those options, I think, feels better for the party than the other.

"We can, of course, let this devolve into a lot of shouting. But one of those options, I think, feels better for the party than the other."

What would feel best for the party is for all of it's member to follow the rules that were agreed to at the outset. In spite of Obama having an almost insurmountable lead due to winning more votes fair and square, Clinton still seems to argue that she should get the nomination because of criteria that she alone determines has been met or not.

And I really wonder where you get your news, because, in spite of Hillary being beaten soundly by every objective metric, it's still her supporters who claim they will defect to McCain in almost twice the numbers that Obama's supporters claim they will. That sure doesn't sound like the good of the party is a consideration for them, and it's blatantly obvious Hillary couldn't give a fig for the party if it stands in the way of her nomination.

brew - really, is there something, anything I said about "not following rules"? Is there anything I said about thinking it acceptable to vote for McCain over the nominated Democrat, whoever it is? If you want to swoop off on a series of sweeping conclusions, starting witha quote from me, coud you at least do me the favor of making sure it;s something I actually said? I don't want a divisive convention or a split party come the fall; and I don't think anyone who truly thinks like a Democrat could vote for John McCain - these are things I am happy to say over and over, until someone listens. If nominating Barack Obama gives us that solution, then I can accept that solution. If it's Clinton, I can accept that too. Who's being difficult here, really? And who's rattling with threats about tearing the party apart? Its certainly not me. Please don't keep insisting that I do.

"What would feel best for the party is for all of it's member to follow the rules that were agreed to at the outset."

Which rules would those be, brewmn?

It would be good to know the actual rules that keep being bandied about if we're going to use them as a weapon.

I believe the best answer to your question, Michael, is that this will be as bitter and unhappy an ending, should Clinton succeed, as Obama wants it to be: by which I mean, if he's not planning to bow out gracefully and with an emphasis on unity... then yes "it's illegitimate, and it's unfair" will be a big story. If he plays nice, I think, t won't be.

Weboy, I think (even though you're not one of the people using the "Obama cultist" talking points, which I appreciate) you're not fully appreciating the diversity of thought among Obama's supporters. Some people will no doubt follow his call, but others-- and not just the black community-- are going to be pissed.

"Which rules would those be, brewmn?"

That the delegate count is the sole criteria for deciding who gets the nomination, and that MI and FL don't count, for starters.

'really, is there something, anything I said about "not following rules"? Is there anything I said about thinking it acceptable to vote for McCain over the nominated Democrat, whoever it is?"

Well, I just assumed we were both referring to significant, vocal minorities within both camps. And it's the Clintons' side who is arguing for (shall we say) idiosyncratic interpretation of the rules giverning this primary, and who have a much larger contingent saying that they will defect in November.

"That the delegate count is the sole criteria for deciding who gets the nomination, and that MI and FL don't count, for starters."

citations please
words matter

When you say delegate count, could you be more specific? Obviously, super d's will decide this one either way, yes?

MI and FL "not counting" is not a rule as far as I can tell. The only rules I remember were that the candidates agreed not to campaign in either state and that the DNC had the right to punish MI and FL or rescind those punishments as they saw fit. I did see something about reducing seated delegates by 50%, not by all.

"The only rules I remember were that the candidates agreed not to campaign in either state and that the DNC had the right to punish MI and FL or rescind those punishments as they saw fit."

So, you agree with me.

Apparently I do, as you now realize there is nothing from stopping the FL and MI delegations from being fully sat.

Nothing in the rules demands MI and FL disenfranchisement.