OBAMA SUPPORTERS! Don't forget MARGINS of victory crucial for delegates!

[cloudythescribbler]

Let's assume arguendo that the polls in VA and MD are right, and that Obama has all three of today's primaries in the bag. I suppose it would be difficult to predict with precision, as the LOCATION of Obama's votes within each primary arena would determine how many delegates he gets. But clearly, whether Obama wins a primary with 55% or with 70% must be likely to make a SIGNIFICANT difference in delegate allotment except wherever the vote is winner-take-all. (The same applies to margins of defeat -- assuming more pessimistically than I that Obama were to lose EACH of the contests in WI, IN, OH, PA, OR, and TX <"the contested big six" remaining>, but with average margins of LESS THAN 10%, could Hillary still take the lead in delegates if Obama were to also win in NC, MS, SD, HI, WY, MO, and VT after today?

I don't know the math but my sense is that it is UNLIKELY either candidate will win enough pledged delegates to reach the magic number that secures the nomination. But UNLESS Hillary manages to average huge advantages in the above-listed states (unlikely without a MASSIVE media feeding frenzy a la Dean) then it seems the Democrats would be in a gray area of stalemate. On the other hand, if Obama runs strongly, winning at least SOME of the "contested big six", he could at least gain a commanding lead in BOTH the popular vote AND in delegates, making it all but impossible for the SuperDelegates to seriously try to deny him the nomination.

Thoughts? Flames? Hearts? Cash donations?

[Benhurst]

1. Sorry, system acting up. Double posted.

:shrug:

[cloudythescribbler]

3. There's wrinkle(s) in your model ...

(1) The number needed to gain a MAJORITY of the PLEDGED delegates is still insufficient to get the nomination AUTOMATICALLY precisely because of the requirement to get a majority of ALL delegates including the 700+ Superdelegates. I am not trashing the Superdelegates. One of the SD's herself (Brazile) has been furiously insisting that if a candidate gets a CLEAR lead in both popular votes AND delegates, the SD's should rally behind them and not deny them the nomination.

Question -- I wonder what the number is of PLEDGED delegates that would constitute a majority of all THOSE delegates up for selection in the primary season. That may be something of a marker.

(2) The anger at denying a candidate who wins a clear lead in the overall number of raw votes (which of course puts a greater emphasis on primaries, with their greater participation, unlike just the delegates) AND PLEDGED DELEGATES will not be limited to Democratic activists. There is no way that great dissatisfaction would not ensue for the Democrats, so our organizing wouldn't be creating a problem where none exists, but be putting forward a vocalization of a widely held (and no doubt otherwise STILL expressed sentiment).


The gap between SENTIMENT and fully effectively MOBILIZED sentiment is clearly visible on the issue of Iraq, given the limited scope of the antiwar movement thus far, in the context of clear majority support for 'getting real and getting out'. MOBILIZING expression of mass sentiment helps to translate that sentiment into real change. Convincing arguments are not sufficient in politics, they MUST be given leverage by popular and effective mobilization.

(3) This approach does not necessarily violate the rules set up for determining the nominee, as I am proposing it. Nothing in the rules to my knowledge (plz inform me if this assertion is in error) binds the SuperDelegates FROM rallying behind whomever does indeed gain a 'plurality' of the raw votes and pledged delegates. Thus a crisis can be averted if the SD's can be successfully persuaded/pressured to rally behind that candidate.

(4) What is the BETTER solution than the above, especially in light of how the public and press would react to the denial of the nomination to the candidate who wins the largest number of raw votes and pledged delegates?

[Benhurst]

6. I fear there is no really good solution at this point.

And I think we may be going into November with a divided party, no matter who is nominated.

[cloudythescribbler]

10. I disagree; as long as the outcome is done FAIRLY, I'd readily vote HRC BUT I'd ...

be pretty pissed off if Obama had won most of the legitimately pledged delegates AND the greatest raw vote total and somehow the nomination was finessed to HRC.

Otherwise, I don't think disunity is even probably in the Dem party this year

[Benhurst]

2. The contest is, and always has been, to win the majority of votes and

thereby the majority of delegates.

Assuming recent projections are correct, we are likely to be left with two minority-vote candidates in the primary, neither of which obtained majority backing and therefore had more votes cast against him or her than for.

For the nomination to go automatically to whomever gets the larger minority vote, would convert the whole process at the last moment into a parody of NBC's The Biggest Loser program, with the prize going to the loser with what looks will be a tiny margin of victory, but still minority status.

I'm not sure how this is going to play out; but unless a deal can be cut behind the scenes by our two biggest losers, it looks as though the super delegates will be forced to make the decision.

At this point, any talk by either side of not supporting the ticket if its minority-vote candidate is not chosen, is extremely counterproductive. Say what you will about the super delegates, they are mostly hardened Democrats who have stuck with the party through thick and thin. Threatening not to show up in November is hardly the way to appeal to them and win them over.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

4. Sounds like you've got it.

That's why we're saying Clinton would need landslides in TX, OH, and PA in order to beat the deficit.

If their close victories than Obama would still likely lead.

If she loses them, then it'd pretty much be over. And I think Obama's got a fair chance of taking them all.

[goodhue]

5. yes, which it is why it is important to turn out the vote

and why Hillary's premature conceding plays to her advantage

[cloudythescribbler]

7. I understand the logic of lowballing expectations -- but I am NOT sure it is working or ...

going to work.

After all, it's pretty hard to fire up your mass base in states that you concede you'll probably lose -- and of course the MARGINS are in turn VERY significant

[goodhue]

8. I agree it may not likely work, but I'm concerned some folks in MD and DC may stay home

If they think Obama has already won it.
Its not just about lowering expectations but also suppressing the vote.

[cloudythescribbler]

9. Actually, if Obama and others emphasized the MARGINS issue, the press might also focus & people ...

in huge numbers across the states as each votes would have the point driven home. After all, this isn't rocket science, and voters in primaries and caucuses are generally those who follow politics more closely.

[Thepricebreaker]

11. correct...

Correct ... wins sound nice, but its the delegate's assigned from that state that really matter.