Let's make this simple

[Tom Rinaldo]

If Hillary Clinton ran the board, winning all ten final primary season contests with an average of 55% of the vote starting with her win in Pennsylvania, leaving Barack Obama still ahead in pledged delegates, should Obama be nominated?

[SeaLyons]

1. I'll be interested

in seeing the answers you get....

Good post.

K&R

[grantcart]

2. Of course that is not going to happen but the answer is of course

If she happened to have the final 10 primaries that happened to match her demographics it doesn't eliminate the reality that her national numbers are tanking fast

[TahitiNut]

21. "reality"??

Strange concept. It seems many are obsessed with finding a "reality" that they like. Sadly, the nation of WouldaShouldaCoulda in ClintonCloudCuckooLand has immigration laws that require the brain be left behind.

[Exilednight]

61. If we're not going to use pledged delegates as a measure, then what's the point............

of holding elections to determine our nominee?

[DearAbby]

3. Sound like Abraham dealing with the Angel

"If you find 25 righteous men in Sodom, will you not destroy it?
"If you find 15 righteous men in Sodom, will you not destroy it?
"If you find 10 righteous men in Sodom, will you not destroy it?
"If you find 5 righteous men in Sodom, will you not destroy it?
"If you find 1 righteous men in Sodom, will you not destroy it?




If a frog had wings...

[Tom Rinaldo]

8. It's a relevant question regardless of how implausible that specific scenario is

I only made it that clear cut to "keep it simple".

[Tom Rinaldo]

78. By the way, I forgot to say...

I was really impressed that you managed to come up with this talking point so quickly with very little notice. Nice work :)

[book_worm]

4. No, I think there would be some question about his electability if that happened.

Of course it won't happen and it probably will be that they divide the final contests with Obama taking NC, Oregon, SD, MT and Hillary WVA, KY, Pureto Rico. I'm not sure how Indiana will go.

[peoli]

5. Thats like asking if Obama wins 13 straight contests in February by 65% should Hillary drop out?

and the answer to that questions is also YES.

[democrattotheend]

12. Good point

And he came pretty close to doing that. I think he won every contest after February 5 before March 4 by at least 15. If the party elders had it to do over again they would probably have all come out for him after Wisconsin.

[Tom Rinaldo]

37. If she couldn't get the support to continue she would have dropped out

It came close to that, but Obama couldn't stop her from winning the popular vote Texas, Ohio, and Rhode Island. What a losing streak like that in the middle of a contest does is raise questions about a candidate's electability, and that leads to a snow ball effect as more and more people jump off of a seemingly sinking ship. But Obama failed to sink Clinton, she came back and won 4 out of the last 6 contests.

I think that losing streak by Hillary is evidence for why a contest shouldn't be considered over until one candidate secures the majority of delegates needed to win the nomination. If Hillary Clinton managed to turn that losing streak around, it indicates that preliminary assumptions that she was in an irreversible downward spiral were flawed. Since there were over a dozen contests yet to be held after Clinton lost those 13 straight, time had not yet run out on the clock, the buzzer hadn't sounded, all the votes weren't yet in. New information could still alter the picture.

In the scenario I gave in my OP, the last contest is over, time is up, it is time for everyone to declare their alliegence, and Clinton just won ten in a row and 13 out of the last 15 contests, with more voters now knowing more about both of our candidates and how they hold up over a long campaign.

[SoFlaJet]

6. did we happen to add another state to the union

that I missed somewhere? There are 9 contests left TR and she'd have to beat him by 68-32 in every single one just to tie him...good luck with those odds

[zerostar]

11. You don't read so good huh? n/t

[Tom Rinaldo]

15. I said the final ten beginning with her win in PA

Here is a list of the now remaining final 9 contests:

http://www.dailycamera.com/news/2008/apr/22/list-remaining-primaries/?printer=1/

I assume your answer to my question is "yes", Obama should be nominated if Hillary won the final ten contests with an average of 55% of the vote.

[dailykoff]

7. Yes. If the winner wins, he wins.

Only in Hillaryland are losers "winners." :crazy:

[democrattotheend]

9. I will concede that Hillary would have a credible case in that scenario

If she wins all of the remaining primaries by 10 points and leads significantly in national tracking polls, then yes, I would concede that she could make a credible argument about buyers' remorse. In your scenario, one could argue that despite Obama's lead in delegates from earlier victories, something has happened to make Democratic voters think twice, and that many people in earlier states might vote differently if they had it to do over. In that scenario I would probably prefer for her to be the nominee, because Obama would limp across the finish line in such a weakened state by that point that it would be really hard for him to win the general. In that scenario, I think a Clinton/Obama ticket is the best bet.

[TwilightGardener]

10. Yes. Whoever is ahead in pledged delegates should be the winner.

[Milo_Bloom]

13. Of course.

[Kokonoe]

14. But Tom,.. Hillary can't win.

:web: :radio: :tv: :weekly: :daily: :hide: :daily: :weekly: :tv: :radio: :web:

[DevonRex]

16. Of course. nt

[TahitiNut]

17. If cows could fly ...

... would Hillary be in the steel umbrella business? :eyes:

[TragedyandHope]

18. Yes

This isn't the horse race the media make it out to be. Most of the votes have already been cast. There's no reason the votes still to be cast would be treated any differently.

[sandnsea]

19. Well it's not going to happen, so why torture yourself

:crazy:

[Armstead]

20. 55 percent? Yes.......75 percent or above? No

How's that for simple?

[cali]

22. no. it would indicate a total collapse of Obama's candidacy

and I would support SDs endorsing Clinton.

[democrattotheend]

25. Me too

I don't think Obama gains anything by being the nominee if he can't win the general. If his support collapses for some reason it doesn't make sense for him to be the nominee. But national tracking polls (Obama v. Clinton and both Dems against McCain) should also be factored in.

[Benhurst]

23. Neither Clinton nor Obma was able to garner enough support to

win without being dragged over the finish line by unelected super delegates.



We're left with the two biggest losers and a divided party.

[ProSense]

24. Should Hillary have dropped out after Obama's 11 straight wins?

That was a sign she couldn't win. At that point, she turned up her smear campaign.

Hillary would need to win the next nine contests by 75% to have a shot. The tally would then be Obama 30 states to Hillary's 24.

If he wins three, it's Obama 33, Hillary 18.

[AtomicKitten]

27. Excellent point that concisely counters the OP's hypothetical.

I've never heard such framing and reframing of what winning is on behalf of the Clinton campaign.

Obama's lead is insurmountable as in it is impossible for him to lose his lead. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jwd88C25J-0

Game over.

[Tom Rinaldo]

35. As they say in politics, a week can be an eternity

There were many races left to be run still after Obama won those 11, and months remaining before the Convention. Obama didn't have the majority of delegates he needed to win the nomination then, and he still doesn't now. However it's not like those wins didn't give Obama a tremendous boost, and not just in delegates. It gave him great press, it helped his fundraising, it hurt Clinton's fundraising, it helped convince many Super Delegates to endorse Obama. But even with those advantages, and Clinton's campaign reeling from those losses, Obama then lost 4 out of the last 6 contests.

You do remember that George W. Bush won 30 states in 2004 compared to Gore's 20, but Gore still won the popular vote. Had Gore won 21 States in 2000 he would be President today. Had Kerry won 20 States in 2004, he would be President. We don't pick Presidents based on the number of States won and we don't pick nominees that way either. There is this quaint (even sexist one could say) old notion about "one man, one vote" that still comes up. Winning California and New York counts for more than winning Vermont, Alaska, and Utah.

[scheming daemons]

48. Fine...one man, one vote it is..... SDs don't count.....

Obama will win pop vote AND PD vote (representation of the pop vote).

[Tom Rinaldo]

51. If you really care about one man one vote

then you should be outraged by how delegates get proportioned between the various States.

You should rest assured. If Obama has a good claim to winning the popular vote no matter how you slice it OR if he does even passably well in the final contests, SD's will give him the nomination.

[Starbucks Anarchist]

99. Beat me to it.

[Tom Rinaldo]

100. No, nor should Obama drop out now if he loses the rest.

Neither candidate has locked up the nomination. If I was a Super Delegate leaning to Clinton, and had the primary season ended after Obam's string of victories in February, I would have swung over to Obama when it was time to make a final decision. But the primaries didn't end in February.

[Arkansas Granny]

26. If that happened it would raise some real issues about Obama's electability at that time.

It would have to be taken into consideration by the SDs since they are supposed to base their vote on what is best for the party in the long run.

[John Q. Citizen]

28. No he shouldn't. And I'm an Obama supporter.

Why that would be almost as bad as losing 12 straight contests by an average of 67.1% of the vote.

Anybody in their right mind would think it was time to get out of the race.

Any candidate's supporters who would attempt to make an argument that a candidate should get the nomination after that kind of showing would be drinking the kool-aide for sure.

[kid a]

29. Yes - Why should the last 8 be more important than the middle 11 in a row.

[Tom Rinaldo]

46. See my posts #35 and #37 above please

I won't repeat it all here. The nominating contest is a prolonged contest and that is essentially by design. Maybe it is longer than it needs to be or should be, but the Democratic Party rejects the notion of a single national primary day. The belief is that we learn more about our candidates as the contest procedes, we find out more about their beliefs, background, and ability to stand up against pressure and to deal with set backs and adversity.

There are things we all know about both Clinton and Obama now that wasn't as clearly known earlier. Some are prone to say "what doesn't kill you makes you stronger". Well a candidate who loses 11 contests in a row in the middle of the race and somehow manages to fight back and win the final ten, more or less randomly scattered across the nation, has arguably become much stronger, or the other candidate much weaker. The prolonged process draws out information about the candidates, for better and for worse. A long string of poor performances at the end of the nominating process would be significant data.

The Democratic Party has rules that allow for any candidate to win the nomination outright by winning enough pledged delegates to have a majority of all delegates needed for the nomination. Failing that, the Super Delegates are asked to consider the larger picture, and that includes new information about strengths and weaknesses of the candidates that have been exposed throughout the nomination process, in some cases after the majority of early voters had a chance to consider those aspects.

[kid a]

89. thats your theory. I still say yes, even though it won't happen

[grantcart]

30. So Tom if Hillary fails to get even a single of these last 10 contests with 55% what do you think

she should do?

[Tom Rinaldo]

39. If we stick with the premise as posed in the OP

She would need to win all the final ten contests by an AVERAGE of 55%. I think you will agree that she is favored to do much better than that in some states, like Kentucky and West Virginia, so she could do worse in others.

[grantcart]

45. well I didn't really take the premise that seiously as written

do you honestly think that Puerto Rico should be a factor?

Take that out and she has no chance at 55% for the duration.

[Tom Rinaldo]

49. I find a disconnect with many Obama supporters

There is a strong current of "we need to follow the rules" except when the rules don't favor Obama. We need to follow the rules in Florida and Michigan which means the preferences of voters in those states don't get formally factored into the nomination selection. We need to follow the rules in Nevada and Texas which means that Obama gets more delegates from those states even though Clinton had more support in those states. We need to follow the rules which means any concern about how undemocratic caucuses are as a way to chose delegates compared to secret ballot primaries are totally irrelevent because those are the rules both sides played by. We need to follow the rules which means that the principle of "one person one vote" is totally irrelevent even though voters in some rural states get vastly disproportionate delegate reprentation in their favor, because that too is acceptetd in the rules.

But including Puerto Rico and Super Delegates? Whoa, no one should take THOSE rules seriously.

[grantcart]

63. Now your just being childish

The rules don't have anything to do with popular vote and that was what your OP is premised about.


Of course PRs Pledged Delegates should be seated and super delegates should make up their own minds. I know that most of them are going to back the pledged delegate leader. In the last 24 hours Obama has picked up three super delegates and Clinton one. A number of super delegates including Clinton super delegates have said that they will follow the pledged delegate leader.


Now back to your OP - it has nothing to do with the rules. I thought you wanted to have an intelligent conversation. There is nothing in any of my posts anywhere that have ever suggested that the rules be changed.


If you think that including Puerto Rico's popular vote into any equation which shows support for Hillary Clinton is a meaningful discussion then your not the person I thought you were based on your previous posts. Including Puerto Rico's popular vote, as they have no electoral votes, as any part of a meaningful argument with super delegates is an infantile degression, but hey go ahead if your that invested in this losing campaign Tom knock yourself out.

Here is the reality. The hard core fact. Nationwide Hillary is standing exactly at the same point where she started the campaign pre-Iowa. She hasn't picked up a single god damned point. All of the supporters of the other candidates and all of the undecideds have said no thanks. Obama has run a good campaign but the real story is that the Democratic party has, with the exception of die hard Clinton supporters, rejected the candidacy of HRC en masse

[Tom Rinaldo]

70. Your point on Puerto Rico was unclear

I never raised the issue of overall popular vote totals in my OP, so I was not thinking along those specific lines. I have seen one or two posters question why Puerto Rico even gets delegates before.

I think it is unlikely Clinton will win the nomination. I think the Super Delegates would need compelling reasons to not give Obama the nomination. Currently there certainly are no reasons compelling enough to warrent them denying Obama the nomination. But the race isn't over. What I reject is a hard position that the only thing that matters is who is ahead in pledged delegates. Without crunching numbers myself, based on what others have reported, it appears that Clinton would not have a majority of pledged delegates (assuming FL and MI are not counted) even if she averaged 60% majorities in all 9 coming contests. But if she somehow managed to do that it would be insane for the SD's to allow Obama to win the Democratic nomination, because a scenario like that would mean that Obama had become unelectable, for whatever reeasons.

[grantcart]

75. Your OP was all about percentage of popular vote so I think that it is a little odd

to think that I had jumped to pledged delegates. Obama will have the majority of pledged delegates on May 20th in either Kentucky or Oregon based on either the most favorable Clinton scenario or the most favorable Obama scenario. With proportional distribution of delegates there simply is not a lot of room to give one way or another unless you can get up into the 70% area and that isn't happening anywhere.

At that time a number of super delegates are going to move and they are all moving one way.


Thank you for your clarification and appreciate that we were having a problem with clarity of terms.



I look forward to reading your future posts.

[Tom Rinaldo]

77. I understand how that confusion arose

I was using percentage of votes won in individual primaries as a short hand way of indicating a scenario under which Clinton decisively won all the remaining primaries, thinking more of the margins than acutal vote tallies.

While I reject using a lead in pledged delegates as an absolute standard for determining who should win the nomination, I do accept that it makes for a very compelling case which puts the "burden of proof" heavily on the Clinton camp to demonstate why changing circumstances justify her getting the nod in a very tight race rather than Obama.

[grantcart]

80. I agree 100%

I don't think that SDs have to follow the pledged majority and there may be years that it might be necessary for them to act.

In this year it won't be a factor because there are a significant number of SDs who have indicated that they are voting for Obama but have not made a formal call - like Carter or add on delegates in Maine etc. The Obama camapign is saying they have about 20 that they will bring out on a daily basis to May 20th.

There is nothing I disagree with in your reasonable reply.

[Buzz Clik]

31. What if Godzilla fought Supeman, and the winner got to choose the Dem nominee?

[Tom Rinaldo]

53. I support Godzilla. n/t

[Buzz Clik]

54. Hm. Yes, your avatar would definitely suggest that.

[ieoeja]

81. What are you nuts?

Godzilla may be one bad-ass monster, but Superman would clean her clock.

[Tom Rinaldo]

82. There are some unconfirmed reports coming out of North Korea

of Kryptonite being available. Godzilla has excellent connections in Asia you know. But the reported fee is steep, and you can't always trust those North Koreans.

[dchill]

94. * sigh * Godzilla has no SUPERpowers...

and you should not discount the SUPERpowers of SUPERman. SUPERpowers count much more than regular Godzilla powers.

Superman would fly rings around Godzilla, and Godzilla would pass out from SUPERdizzyness. Superman would then pick the nominee - but I don't have a clue which one he'd pick.

[Tom Rinaldo]

95. You make a Super point. Without being able to fly...

...how could Godzilla get to Denver? I'm going to have to ponder that for awhile.

[RichardRay]

110. Swim? Or is that just the movie Godzilla?

But, the movie Godzilla could make it from Tokyo to LA in about two days...

[pdx_prog]

84. Godzilla is very strong....

Good solid footing with those thick ankles and all....

[Buzz Clik]

86. Do you think Godzilla could be a good skater?

[Tom Rinaldo]

87. At least as good as Tonya

Even as a Clinton supporter, I couldn't resist :)

[Bucky]

32. I think that's why we elect delegates. They get to make that call. If you want to, run for delegate.

Given your hypothetical (Clinton genuinely "turning the tide" in popular support and running the board in the final contests) she would have a strong case for flipping delegates from Obama to herself--which is the process required in the second place finisher to gain the nomination. It's not unusual in Democratic Party presidential politics for there to be a difference between who's in the lead and who's got the momentum. That's one reason why we have superdelegates (the other reason being that if you grant automatic delegate status to certain party leaders, you free up more delegate slots for ordinary rank and file party workers who can better represent the party's demographics).

In theory, sequence shouldn't matter. Each state party should consider the candidates and pass along their choices through delegations to the convention. Consider the root words such as "to part", "to delegate", and "to convene" to get at the democratic theory behind these processes. So (given a tweak on your hypothical) if all the Obama states voted first and all the Clinton states voted later, the resulting delegations would be just as representative of that amorphous "will of the people" concept that the nomination race is supposed to approximate.

But in pragmatic terms, of course, sequence does shape more than perceptions of the competition. It shapes the actual opinions of the voters. The question, then, is that if Clinton hits a sudden winning streak, can the delegates as a whole safely conclude that enough of those who voted for Obama in the earlier contests can have changed their minds about who the Party should nominate? If so, then awarding the nomination to the candidate with the second highest number of delegates is justified. If one can't demonstrate a realignment of the support of earlier voters (ie, the delegaters from the early state parties), then overturning their votes and ignoring the will of the majority of Democrats is not justified--or at least is not democratic.

I know you said, "Let's make this simple." Unfortunately, that's one thing that a continent-sized democracy cannot be.

The trick to democracy is that who wins is not based on who is right; only on who is popular. It's nice when the majority is right, but not required. We use education, reason, and debate to try and make the majority correct in their choices. But in the end, it's only mandatory that we respect popularity of the people's choices, not their correctness.

[Tom Rinaldo]

55. Good post Bucky, as usual n/t

[Indenturedebtor]

33. Can I ask you this

Why after taking out all of the states that don't count isn't Hillary our nominee already?

I mean seriously, only the states that she's won count anyways so lets just end this. :sarcasm:

It is over. She lost.

[scheming daemons]

34. Are we going to be a party that follows rules or aren't we?

[Tom Rinaldo]

38. I favor the rules

The candidate who wins a majority of delegates becomes the nominee. The rules do not specify "pledged delegates". The rules are clear that SD's votes have just as much validity as pledged delegate votes, and that SD's, as Party leaders, are expected to vote their conscience taking into account what they think is best for the Party.

[scheming daemons]

40. Why won't you answer the question about why Hillary shouldn't have dropped out after

Obama won 12 straight contests, most by blowout margins?

[Tom Rinaldo]

47. I did. Mostly in #37, but also in #35 and #46. n/t

[hfojvt]

36. it is simple for me

First, I never wanted her to be the nominee. I thought she was bad for our party and would be bad for our country.

Second, the way she has stayed competetive in this race - by throwing slime at the front-running Democrat, with the assistance of the rightwing media and M$M, and using all manner of rightwing talking points (them Democrats are a bunch of elitists, we have to be scared of terrorists and crime and old hippies, we can't raise the tax rate on capital gains, etc.) None of that has even come close to endearing me to her.

Nobody wants their team to lose, or the team they hate to win. But what is even more aggravating and heartbreaking and infuriating is when your team is winning and seems to have the game won. Then the other team starts playing dirty, throwing elbows, starting fights, etc., and also seems to be getting help from the refs. You think that fans and partisans are gonna accept that kind of a loss?

Not me. Not to mention how black people are gonna feel when the person who was robbed of a victory is another brother. There's no way they will get behind the woman who teamed up with THE man to take out our main man. That looks like a recipe for permanent Republican majority to me.

[wowimthere]

41. Yes!

[mmonk]

42. That would be what, 30 contests for Obama to 25 for Clinton?

If it were reversed, what do you think? Should Obama then get the nomination based on momentum? Would you be for it if he wins those states by making her "unelectable" in his supporters eyes? I'll tell you what, let her accomplish that first and I'll think about it. Superdelegates are free to choose anyway.

[Tom Rinaldo]

52. Kerry "won" 19 States in 2004. If he "won" 20 States he would be President

I find the literal counting of States won business to be nonsense. Gore won 20 States and the popular vote in 2000. If he won 21 States to Bush's 29 should Gore still have "lost"?

My main point is that not all momentum is created equal. There are ebbs and flows but there are also collapses. In the OP scenario not only would Obama lose Indianna, but also North Carolina, and Oregon, and South Dakota. In order for that to happen his base would be dissolving.

[mmonk]

59. Delegate count is determined in democratic primaries and caucuses

across 50 states and some territories. Getting 55% in the rest won't give her the higher delegate count. Therefore general election terms do not apply in this case because she can't catch him at that clip. It might very well be reasonable to look at it at that point and make a case but that's not my argument or question because she's lost plenty in a row already.

[Tom Rinaldo]

62. Why do you propose an absolute standard

that the Democratic Party has itself rejected? Had it been the intent of the Democratic Party to mechanically designate whichever candidate emerged from the primaries with a lead in pledged delegates, no matter how small, as our candidate - the DNC rules would so state. They clearly refute that position.

[mmonk]

68. I'm not. I'm being reasonable given the candidates, their supporters and voters

work hard for what they get and don't need a slap in the face. I don't have an absolute standard nor am I saying if she runs the table the rest of the way, it shouldn't be discussed. But we all shouldn't suffer at any knee cap strategy.

[Tom Rinaldo]

71. OK, gotcha. n/t

[mmonk]

85. No problem.

I think if she runs the table, superdelegates will take a look. I don't believe in any case either position should be taken lightly under extraordinary circumstances, but only under extraordinary circumstances. But it's not up to me.

[IndependentDem]

43. if he is still ahead in pledged delegates and the popular vote, then yes he should. n/t

[Tom Rinaldo]

56. You introduced a second variable. I agree it'a a good one n/t

[wowimthere]

44. Obama should be the nominee if he has more pledged delegates... it's the only criteria.

She knows this. She wants to make this about everything that it isn't. She knows that Florida and Michigan will never be counted the way she hopes. He shouldn't even debate her because she has lost. She lives to campaign on... not to win because she can't win.

Stop letting the media play you.

[Tom Rinaldo]

83. Be sure to correct the DNC while you are at it

For some foolish reason they think the rules say something different.

[Occam Bandage]

50. Only if you believe that voters who cast late ballots are worth more than voters who cast early ones

[Tom Rinaldo]

60. Do yuo really think it is that straight forward?

The nature of time dictates that in some cases later voters are privy to information that early voters did not have access to.

And it should not be lost sight of that the goal of the Democratic Convention is to select a Democratic candidate who will win the November election.

[jackson_dem]

57. It depends on the popular vote and does your scenario assume O disenfranchises FL and MI?

His current delegate lead would fall to 64 if FL gets in and MI gets in with uncommitted (which included Edwards voters) being given to Obama...

[Tom Rinaldo]

76. We've been on similar pages regarding this for awhile

Clinton needs some very good arguments to deny Obama the nomination if he ends up narrowly leading in pledged delegates. It would probably require a combination of very strong talking points, not just one, to give her a chance. However Florida and Michigan are or are not resolved, the fact remains that there are millions of Democratic voters in those states who care, just like voters care in every other state, who becomes our nominee. No one has provided me with any good case to indicate that Clinton would not win primaries in both of those States were they held now, especially in Florida. So it is valid for Clinton to raise her support in both those states as an argument in her favor with Super Delegates. She also needs to be able to argue that by some identifiable criteria (even if it is not universally accepted) that she "won" the popular vote. AND she needs impressive showings here on out in the remaining primaries while Obama has disappointing ones.

[HCE SuiGeneris]

58. Simple? Positing a scenario that won't happen and then asking for an opinion is dumb. Not simple.

[Tom Rinaldo]

64. Some DU members are absolutists, some are not

on the matter of whether having a lead in pledged delegates after the primaries end that is insufficient to win a majority of all the delegates needed to win the nomination, should automatically entail that candidate to the nomination, regardless of the amount of support that candidate appears to retain at the point of the convention.

The question was a way of raising that issue.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

65. Yes.

However, she'll likely lose the majority of the remaining delegates.

[zulchzulu]

66. Should Hillary drop out if it is considered mathematically impossible for her to win?

Apparently not...

[Tom Rinaldo]

72. Since winning is defined as having the support of a majority of certified delegates

and since neither she nor Obama has the support of a majority of certified delegates, your question is equally valid for both candidates. I would say yes, for either, whenever that happens.

[gsaguyCLW54]

67. I would say that if Obama's lead among pledged delegates and popular vote is less than 10%

of the total, then arguments can and should be made

[dchill]

69. If that were to happen, I would be surprised.

The only way that scenario would occur would be a situation of manufactured ugliness caused by the Clinton campaign, and her negatives would be even higher than they are now. So, to answer your question, yes, Obama should be nominated. Don't forget that Clinton needs 69-70% of all remaining delegates to overtake Obama - a goal that is in the very near vicinity of impossible. As somebody once said, "he'd have to be caught with a live boy or a dead girl" for that to happen. Can the Clintons arrange that?

Edit to add: NOTHING is simple in this silly season.

[Tom Rinaldo]

73. I will be very surprised it that happened also

But it is presumptuous of us to presume what might cause a candidate to hemorrhage support. It can happen with far less drama than being caught with a live boy or dead girl. It happened to both Clinton and McCain earlier in this race, and McCain came back and won it.

[dchill]

74. But it would be destructive to the Democratic Party...

if said hemorrhage was falsely manufactured by the Clinton campaign. It is because of the tactics she has used that I say she needs to get out of the race. If it is her intention to regain "inevitability" through the politics of personal destruction - and I believe it is - she is not qualified to be the Democratic nominee.

[Tom Rinaldo]

79. I understand you point

And this is also usually the point at which Clinton and Obama supporters start moving toward each other's throats. Can we at least agree that should serious intrinsic weaknesses about Obama as a candidate - legitimate concerns about him, be exposed during the latter stages of this campaign that were certain to come out and be exploited by the Republicans in the fall anyway, and those increasingly seemed to make him a likely loser in the Fall, and Obama lost significant support among Democratic voters and Independents in the final primaries as a result, that it would be reasonable for SD's to take that into consideration?

[dchill]

92. "Legitimate concerns" would be another "choke point"...

between supporters, too, of course, but I also get your point. I believe, at this point, that in a quantitative way, Obama has been easily as "vetted" as Clinton, but should some definitively legitimate concerns arise regarding either candidate, then they should, of course, be taken into consideration. But, considering the flak that has already been put up so furiously, I can't see where this fatally negative kernel of doubt is going to spring from. Not legitimately. Artificially, perhaps, but not legitimately.

[EFerrari]

88. What was his longest run, 12 states? n/t

[Tom Rinaldo]

91. If I was a Super Delegate, and the primaries ended at that point

no doubt I would have swung to Obama.

[Auntie Bush]

90. You go Tom

That's a good thinking cap you're wearing.

[mudesi]

93. He will still be ahead in pledged delegates. So YES.

You're right. That was simple.

[Egnever]

96. of course

she would still be behind in everything

[tekisui]

97. In that unlikely scenario, I say still Obama.

The primary calender does not determine the Nominee, the Delegates do.

Of course, regardless of what happens in the last 9 contests, the Superdelegates will be the determining factor, using their own determining factors.

[Tom Rinaldo]

101. Is there any scenario where you think SD's would be justified to support Clinton over Obama in June

assuming that

1) Obama has not dropped out of the race AND

2) that Obama still holds a lead in pledged delegates with Michigan and Florida not counted

[tekisui]

104. They are free to choose their candidate.

The only scenario that I would accept as justified is if Obama was indicted.

If Hillary was chosen by the Supers, while Obama had the PD lead, and acceptable National number, I would have a hard time trusting the Democratic Party in the future.

If nothing major happens between now and June 3rd, Obama will still hold good numbers nationally versus McCain and have enough potential Electoral College numbers to work for a win.

[Tom Rinaldo]

106. It goes hand in hand though

If Clinton were suddenly to do exceptionally well in States like NC, Indianna, Oregon and South Dakota, I strongly suspect the converse would be true also. Obama would most likely not still hold good numbers nationally against McCain under those circumstances.

The thing is I actually trust in the collective wisdom of the remaining unpledged Super Delegates. They by no means are in Clinton's pocket. Any loyalists to Clinton long ago declared for her. The unpledged SD's are all people who held out from endorsing her when a Clinton win seemed inevitable, and who didn't rally to her when she really needed them to speak up before Super Tuesday, when Hillary was pulling in all her chips. A Super majority of them won't back Clinton in June unless she obviously clearly seems like the far stronger candidate at that point.

[tekisui]

108. I agree. The remaining SD's are weighing it.

I trust they will make the fair and most beneficial decision.

[2rth2pwr]

98. No.

[olkaz]

102. You mean, should they go by the rules that were set out before this thing was started?

Yeah, I think following the rules makes sense.

[Tom Rinaldo]

103. All of them?

The rules that let Obama get more delegates from Nevada and Texas than Clinton even though she got more votes in those states than Obama AND the rules that say Super Delegates are supposed to use their own independent best judgment in casting their votes for the nomination?

Is so than we agree.

[Name removed]

105. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Tom Rinaldo]

107. I doubt that Bayh has the influence over Obama needed

to get him to offer Clinton the VP slot.

Personally, if Clinton and Obama can still work together effectively enough to serve on the same small team (an uncertainty to put it mildly) I would support a unity ticket regardless of who filled which slot.

[grantcart]

109. It would be up to Hillary to convince Obama that she was really willing to let him be

President and that she would follow his lead at all times. We can't have two co-Presidents.

It seems to me that the reason she is so determined to continue the race is that she has some displaced anger at having to play second fiddle to Bill all these years and then not get the payoff that was promised. I would have thought that she would prefer being an influetial 'Kennedy type Senator'.