I think you're on to something. I was baffled by Cong. Debbie Wasserman Schultz adamant opposition to a revote in light of her Clinton leadership role but this explains it.

Actually I don't think it will be enough. I think Penn et al think they can pound on the table and demand that Clinton be nominated President of the Ohio river valley.

And I think there are scenarios where she can get the pledged delegate lead to less than twenty ... a 25 point win in PA, 30 points in WV and KY, a tie in NC and OR and a modest win in IN, a blowout in PR, an eight point win in MI, etc. ... that it might work. Again, it's unlikely, but it might work.

Superdelegates should think carefuly about supporting Hillary as she is not electable;Hillary only wins where any democratic nominee would obviously win against McCain.With a base shrinking and not expanding,why chance with Hitlery?

Nick: I plugged your scenario into the Slate delegate calculator precisely, with ties everywhere Obama should win, omitting Florida, and it's a 56 delegate Obama lead. Add the existing Florida delegates, not counting Edwards delegates, and you could get the gap down to the teens.

Add a Florida revote to your scenario, give her a 57/43 victory, and she's down by 31 delegates.

Your scenario, however, requires her to win THREE states by margins significantly larger than she has won any state, including Arkansas.

Just out of time-wasting curiosity, I ran Nick's scenario again with a 58% ceiling on Clinton's margin in PA, KY, WV, PR, and Florida (58% being her non-Arkansas peak), and ties in OR, NC, MT, and SD, and that gives Obama a 66-delegate lead.

The Democratic party cannot even hold a primary. They have fucked everything up and everyone knows it. Any answer at this point will screw one group or another.

This coming from the party who whined about "dienfranchisement" and how important the popular vote was. Why, now, should anyone wish to put these dufuses in charge of anything?

OKay El, I'll bite.

If the choice is between a party that inadvertantly makes a mistake (the florida and michigan primary debacle) and one that deliberately and as part of its basic political strategy stole an election (the republican riot to stop the counting of the votes, the use of the supreme court to overturn state law and the firing of the US attorneys who wouldn't sign on for phony voter fraud cases) I'll take the "doofuses" over the "out and out criminals" *any* *day* of the *week.*

aimai

El Viajero-

Get your facts right. It was the Republican Florida Legislature and Republican Gov. Crist who changed the primary date. The RNC, like the DNC, also imposed a penalty on Florida by stripping 50% of their delegates and the only reason there's no screaming about that is the fact that it didn't effect the outcome in the GOP.

Once again, it's the GOP screwing Florida Democratic voters.

The missing piece of information here -- and it truly does baffle me -- is why exactly the Clinton campaign continues at all? If they know they can't win, and their entire project right now is to maintain an illusion that they can, what on earth is the point of that? What are they hoping for? Yes, it enables the campaign to continue, she can continue to raise money, appear at rallies, participate in a debate or two -- but to what end?

Something is out of whack here.

I tried before - with links - to little avail (your system blocks, fairly, multiple web links, I thnk. But it's frustrating). So Ican only mention by name Hillary 1000, Riverdaughter (another former Kos-sian), and myself as three other strongly pro-Clinton bloggers; all of us have additional links to other pro-Clinton sites. I am a little annoyed that you say nothing's out there; it would be nice if you'd at least more of an attempt to look (Lance Mannion and Tom Watson have, and have a number of links as well).

These posts are starting to sound like those people that yell at me in the subway telling me the CIA invented rap music and cocaine. Is Hillary really having the same effect on pro-Obama'ers that the Clintons had on Republicans in the 90's?

I've been failing in trying to update the post to include some of weboy's suggestions, so instead I'll just put in the web address of Tom Watson's post, "The Few, The Proud, The Pro-Clinton Bloggers": http://tomwatson.typepad.com/tom_watson/2008/03/the-few-the-pro.html That post has dozens of examples.

I didn't, incidentally, say "nothing's out there," I said there are "few windows" in the blogosphere to a strongly pro-Clinton view, and mentioned two. Indeed, there are others.

It was the Republican Florida Legislature and Republican Gov. Crist who changed the primary date.

I believe you will find (if you ever quit listening to Salon) that a Democrat intoduced the bill to move the primary up to January and all but one Democrat voted for it. The vote passed with bipartisan support 118 to 0 in the House, 37 to 2 in the Senate.

Dumbass

cervantes, one theory is that she's spoiling 2008 for Obama so she can run again against McCain in 2012.

ps: this is the worst captcha ever.

If we are going to call people dumbass, I think it may apply to the person who thinks the Minority party in a legislature controls what bills get passed and then forces the Governor of the other party to agree to sign that bill.

Maybe you should stop getting all your news from Fox.

Moron

Empower the People. You the People.

Run the Florida & Michigan Elections in full...
BUT-
This is only Fair if we get rid of the SUPERDELEGATE count... all of it... No SuperDelegates ! It's insulting... and you... the people... should be VERY ANGRY about who these people are and what they are doing ... to you !

"I am a little annoyed that you say nothing's out there; it would be nice if you'd at least more of an attempt to look (Lance Mannion and Tom Watson have, and have a number of links as well)."

But weboy, that would mean that they would have to leave the safety of the echo chamber ... you know, where the leading lights of the progressive world **know** that the Clintons are racists hell bent on destroying the party ...

I dunno. I'm a Clinton supporter and I'm happy for the revote. I'm uncomfortable with any disenfranchisement of any voters at all.

I still think she'll win Florida by a big margin, and Michigan too.

As to why she's still campaigning, there's no big mystery there. Obama can't "win" enough delegates either. Why is HE still in the race?

Could it be that both candidates want to be President and each thinks he/she would be the best choice for the country?

Nah. Not possible.

I'd go farther and suggest that Michigan revoting and seating Florida (even without a 50% discount) is the *best* scenario for Obama. It's a state he could win (indeed, would be slightly favored in, I'd think), and it's a nice big "swing" state.

And assuming he wins, even narrowly, in North Carolina and Oregon, and isn't absolutely humiliated in Pennsylvania, he ends up with the popular vote lead and delegate lead.

Michigan would also be about the last primary, so he could end on a real up note, claiming that he can win in the "big" states and thus deserves the superdelegate vote. Clinton would probably be forced to concede before the convention. But if there s voting in Florida too, and she wins big there, then Florida gets more press (as the larger state) and she can try to downplay Michigan, and stay in fighting for superdelegates through Denver.

And at that point, the magnitude of Clinton's deficit would be too obvious to spin away.

You overestimate their shame. Clinton will just pocket the votes she got in Florida and Michigan the first and add the votes she gets in the revote. That will be her set of Numbers, Obama will have his. The media will present both sides of the controversy.

I have a hard time believing that the desire to "give Michiganders and Floridians a voice" outweighs the value of sticking to the agreed-upon rules that all campaigns pledged to abide by before the election season began.

There is no inalienable right to have a direct vote in a primary election. Sorry, this isn't a general election. It's a process where private political parties determine their own nominees (right of association, and all that). Would it have been nice to hold free and fair primaries in those states? Of course, but the DNC made a decision not to hold them this year.

Perhaps, Botswana, but not seating the FL and MI delegates won't be occurring in a vacuum. Will bring awful press to the D's in the GE.

I think there are very few Clinton supporters who don't want a revote. I think the wrangling has been over the form of voting. A caucus or a limited voting scheme is a disaster for Hillary. She needs a straightforward, easy to vote in primary. Under those circumstances, she undoubtedly will increase her margin in Florida, but will have to fight for MI.

The plain fact is that many more people will vote in a revote in June if that as seen as the election that will pick the president. They could get double the turnout in Florida and four times the turnout out in Michigan. That puts a lot of votes in play for the popular vote argument.

pj makes a good point about how turnout increases could allow Sen. Clinton to leave FL and MI with a better popular vote count than she has currently,including the January FL and MI results. Plus, these new totals will be harder for people to throw out when counting votes.

But beyond that the hope of the Clinton campaign seems to be that late wins in big swing states will sway superdelegates. Maybe not, superdels could be guided by polls instead, but that is the hope as I understand it.

If the events of this past week have taught us anything, it is that Hillary Clinton is not dropping out regardless of the math because the Democratic nomination has not been decided yet. It is possible that a scandal we don't know about could sink the Obama campaign, and if Hillary already conceded, it would be difficult for her to again pick up the mantle.

After all, that story about McCain and a female lobbyist seemed to damage his campaign for a news cycle, and Huckabee was there, ready to pounce.

Living in a state that followed the rules, I'm outraged that Florida and Michigan get to keep fucking up this primary.

And the only reason we're taking it seriously is because a Clinton broke their solemn vow.. again.

I do not understand the Clinton campaign strategy at all on Florida and Michigan.

That's friggin' hilarious.

As if the Clinton campaign actually give a fat rat's ass about "disenfranchising" voters in Michigan or Florida.

Every statement they put out on the subject refers to their "winning" Florida and Michigan already, even though that's patent nonsense. Their strategy regarding Michigan and Florida is to set up expectations that the delegates get seated, at the same time making sure no re-vote happens, and then work on seating the delegates they already "won."

This is the most deeply cynical campaign I've seen in a lifetime of deeply cynical campaigns.

Clinton cannot lose. She has made too many promises to her Corporate donors, to back down. They wont let her forget if they don't get their way.

pj's point is good in theory -- but in Florida, turnout in the primary was already more than three times higher than in '04, at 1.6 million. (A good argument for seating them, actually.) There's not much more to be gained in turnout.
In Michigan, turnout was much lower, but there is no way she can increase her share of the two-candidate popular vote given that Obama is starting from zero.

"So far, Obama is playing this situation well -- agreeing to abide by any rules the party establishes, but not pushing to embrace any particular solution other than the existing rules."

Yes, I agree, he's playing this very well in pulling the wool over credulous eyes like yours.

The DNC says it will abide by whatever the two candidates agree on. Obama won't take a position but will abide by what the DNC decides.

The DNC ain't deciding this. There has to be an agreement worked out by Obama and Clinton. But Barack won't play.

Clinton would probably win a revote in Florida (by a smaller margin) and lose a revote in Michigan. She won 55 percent of the vote in Michigan and 44 percent were uncommitted. It's of note that MANY, MANY Obama supporters were not part of the 44 percent uncommitted vote. Many of them stayed home, thinking their vote wouldn't count and MANY, MANY of them voted in the Republican primary for Romney, believing he would be an easier target in the general election. I also know of MANY, MANY black voters like my mother-in-law who cast absentee ballots for Clinton and changed their mind after Obama's win in Iowa and became even more anti-Clinton after the Bill Clinton's South Carolina histrionics. These folks would vote for Obama in a revote. The bottom line is that Hillary's 55 percent Michigan total will shrink in a revote. Obama's vote take will rise and he'll win a Michigan revote.

Thoughts:
1. Can Obama win Pa after losing Ohio with it's similar demographic? Elected Delegate votes don't matter if Sen. Clinton can convince the party hacks/officials (pick your connotation) who represent only themselves that Obama cannot win big states.

2. A June Fla/Mich primary would sure bring out voters

3. Democrats are far more careful about minority balancing of delegates & proportional results in states. But the GOP doesn't have superdelegates. Which method is more democratic?

4. I know of one Pa voter supproting Obama who will vote McCain if Clinton is nominated; another supporting Clinton who will vote McCain if Obama is nominated.

5. A ticket with Obama and Clinton is no solution, just a problem

Sorry. On point 1 make that its, not it's, similar demographic

In fact, the GOP really has superdelegates by another name. The Republican National Committee Members are unpledged delegates. It's a much smaller number of people than the Dem supers, but then the GOP convention itself is smaller.

This hasn't gotten any attention b/c the GOP race wasn't close enough for it to matter.

Comparing state to state demographics is like comparing apples and oranges. Wisconsin, Missouri, and Ohio all supposedly had similar demographics. Obama won by 17 percent in Wisconsin, squeaked out a win in Missouri, and lost in Ohio. I firmly believe that Ohio was the first state that Obama lost Ohio because of his being black and exit polling along with several news articles support this view. Ohio is a northern state with a confederate mind set. I don't think that's necessarily true of Pennsylvania. Still, it is likely that he'll lose Pennsylvania but I think the reason will be different than they were in Ohio and I predict that the margin will not be double digits as polls are showing now.

Vito Marzullo's point taken. If the D's had far fewer supers it would be qualitatively different because they could affect only a very, very close race.

Q to Keith Hood: If racism defeated Obama in Ohio can he win a general? (a real question, not rhetoric)

Response to countermanned. Yes, I believe he can win in the general because he's done very well in other states with a majority of white voters. Even though he won Mississippi it seems that race was in play there as well but I argue that Mississippi is not a state in play for the Democrats anyway. Ditto for Ohio and Texas. The question to ask is which candidate will win the states Kerry won in 2004 and the answer to that question is that either candidate will. The next question is which candidate will pick up one or two states that will tip the balance to the Democrats and the answer to that question is not Clinton. Red staters will NEVER vote for Clinton but some of those states will shift to Obama. He'll pick up Virginia and Colorado in the general. If he chooses Sebelius as VP he'll probably pick up Kansas, too. Clinton vs McCain will end up with the same results as Kerry vs Bush. I think Obama is in the best position to change that scenario because of his influence on the Millenials ( see http://rutgerspress.rutgers.edu/acatalog/Millennial_Makeover.html ). The Millenials are an important element in this year's election being ignored by the Democratic establishment because they don't understand this sea change in the electorate. It's why they make statements diminishing Obama's small state victories because Democrats will never carry those states in the fall. The fact is that the nation has changed for the most part and that change has taken place in surprising places like Kansas, Nebraska, Iowa, etc while old school mentalities still rule in Ohio and many southern states.

I should clarify a point in an earlier post. I wrote "It's why they make statements diminishing Obama's small state victories because Democrats will never carry those states in the fall." and I should have written, "It's why they make statements diminishing Obama's small state victories claiming that Democrats will never carry those states in the fall, a claim which is probably not true.

When the first vote went down the black vote was going to her and things have change dramatically, coupled with all this outrage over his pastor Floridian African Americans (most deeply religious and from the south) will more than likely come out in droves. the Latino vote (mostly Cubans Pubs) won't be as large as she would hope it to be...she doesn't want a re-vote

"But beyond that the hope of the Clinton campaign seems to be that late wins in big swing states will sway superdelegates."

...that's it in a nutshell. Plus, you never know what can happen in the meantime...just look at this flap with Obama's church.

The Clinton team has been wildly successful with moving the goalposts. Any other candidate would have been run out after losing 11 straight.

After WI, the press was saying that if she didn't win TX and OH by 15 point margins she was through. By the time those votes were taken, the press forgot all about that.

So, the goal has been to drag this out, spin like crazy, smear the heck out of Obama, play the race card and hope for a superdelegate coup based on 'large' state wins. If Obama is so damaged he can't win, I doubt the Clintons give a hoot.

We should just start calling her Hillary Huckabee because she has the same role - a complete time waster with practically zero chance of winning.

Florida and Michigan votes are already dead letters. Clinton said so herself. She only tried to resurrect them when her February 5th knock strategy landed her in 2nd place.

Only dictators like Fidel Castro and Saddam Hussein assume that you can win an election with your opponents off the ballot. The biggest news out of Michigan wasn't that Clinton won against Kucinich, but that "none of the above" garnered 82% of the black vote.

Ohio's loss is more rationally creditable to the now discredited NAFTA flap 48 hours before the election. Hillary took the late decision voters in ratios that Obama typically earned. 2 news cycles of "Obama's lying to you about NAFTA" really hurt in a state that was bludgeoned by that trade policy. Now that the outright lies and manipulations (aided by the Canadian PM) have been revealed, Obama would fare much better in the general election.

I think the author is right. Re-votes in MI/FL are catastrophic for Clinton. Since MI seems poised for a revote (which will almost certainly break for Obama this time), the 50% Florida seating is about the best Clinton can hope for. The caveat is that an Obama shift from Edwards 13% and Kucinich's 1% shaves Clinton's lead to 2 points in Florida. Unless she has locked those supporters down, even Florida could result in bad news...

A major question to be answered is whether Republican voters in Florida and Michigan will be locked out of crossing over to do mischief. Since they've already voted, they would seem to be ineligible. That would clearly stop Limbaugh from gaming the Democratic primaries as he did in Ohio and Texas.

Just wanted to note something that's been bugging me:

how stupid is it to say that "if you don't count my vote in a primary" (especially since in a primary you're never guaranteed your state will get to vote if it's decided early),

"then I won't vote in the general, or worse, vote against all of my principles in the general, just out of spite"

i guess if your protest to a "failed democratic process" is to throw away your vote, you deserve what's coming to you...

i still hope can be convinced how stupid that sounds, maybe by playing it over and over on TV until people realize.

The missing piece of information here -- and it truly does baffle me -- is why exactly the Clinton campaign continues at all? If they know they can't win, and their entire project right now is to maintain an illusion that they can, what on earth is the point of that? What are they hoping for? Yes, it enables the campaign to continue, she can continue to raise money, appear at rallies, participate in a debate or two -- but to what end?

Something is out of whack here.

The following is not entirely original, but I think it's a plausible rationale.

Hillary continues to stay in the race. She's hoping for one of two scenarios:

1) Something catastrophic happens to Obama that makes him seem "unelectable" to the superdelegates. Something like the Spitzer's prostitute fiasco or if the "Obama's pastor" controversy spins out of control. Hillary steps in as the nominee and runs against McCain.

2) Obama wins the nomination but is so damaged by Hillary that he loses to McCain. McCain serves until 2012, at which point he is 75 years old. He has health problems or otherwise decides not to run again. At that point, Obama is considered "damaged goods" by the Party because he lost in 2008. Hillary becomes the nominee in 2012.

The scenario she DOES NOT want to happen is that Obama beats McCain in 2008. In 2012, Obama is the incumbent and is pretty much guaranteed to be the Democratic nominee. The next chance Hillary has to run is 2016. At that point, she will be nearly 70 years old, which will be seen as a disadvantage by the voters.

In other words, if she drops out now, she never becomes President...ever. If she stays in, there are a couple of scenarios that could still work to her advantage.

Too cynical? Maybe.

Gary -

Third possibility:

She is able to effect some combination of the following

(1) causing damage to Obama, and

(2) convincing at least some of the superD's that one of her infinite theories of victory/superiority has enough merit for them to fall for it.

With that combination, she hopes to pull in enough superD votes to get the nom.

Hillary can be a heroine! If she recognizes the math, she could help unite the party, and be treated well by everyone, as opposed to continuing to battle. Spewing out info calculated to damage Obama will aid Republicans' in their own attacks come the real election in November.

To people in other countries, it looks ridiculous that she would hurt the party so in her blinded ambition, while not seeing the writing on the wall.

Carole
www.Americans-Away-From-Home.com

A little humor for you.Check this out.Obama-hillary-mccain-metal-art-faces.com

There is a big grassroots movement happening in Florida and Michigan to have the people fund a revote at FloridaMichiganRevote.com it is a new sit getting a lot of buzz. It is time for one voice one fight one win.

دردشة

بنت جده

Stop Dreaming Start Action

China Wholesale

Laptop Batteries
Laptop Batteries discount laptop battery

Fitch store in general abercrombie and fitch , everything a good matrimony before marriage have nothing to retain the preceding "female mad batch - abercrombie" part of the two is the first home in new york city a horde promotion sportswear for men and it is a successful lawyer, that is, ezra fitch.Ezra fitch in a charge over a very intricate to read from the abercrombie is obstinate to read and long abercrombie & fitch. He's also very good brand hollister, including abercrombie mens and abercrombie womens, abercrombie hollister, Ruehl No.925. Has become a fashionable personage's first choice, abercrombie outlet is all over the world, of course, is also expected to 2009 New Arrivals.

If you don't know about jewelry knowledge, but want to action you can see jewelry fashion review,then maybe you can save your money!

I liked your post, I will bookmark your site and follow you!

ed hardy bags

I haven’t read the full article yet, but couldn’t wait to comment on the audio slide show. Well done. You shared so many moving thoughts and observations in just a brief slide show.

you will like links of london

links london enjoy your heart!