If MI & FL Split 55%-45% For Hillary,

[Pryderi]

her delegate total today would be 1764, and Obama's would be 1862.
Even at a 60-40 split , HRC would have 1777 and Obama would be 1849.

She can't win.

[LakeSamish706]

1. Nope she can't win and with any luck she will go away soon. n/t

[Pryderi]

2. She's reinforcing that stereotype of

blonde women and math. :P

[Seabiscuit]

8. You're reinforcing a new stereotype: The "Obamanoid dildo and math".

"She can't win". Over and over and over.

Completely ignoring the fact that NEITHER CAN HE!

Completely ignoring the fact that the final number of so-called "pledged" delegate counts is utterly irrelevant at this point in this close race, which will of necessity be decided by the Super Delegates at the Convention.

Jean Paul Sartre once defined a person who tells a lie so often that he starts to believe it himself as living in "bad faith".

[Exultant Democracy]

14. Well we take the fact that supers won't overturn the pledge delegates as a given, because it is.

Otherwise McCain drops a J.C. Watts type as a VP and Dem's lose the most reliable voting block that any party has had since our country has been a democracy.

[Seabiscuit]

21. That's another of your huge fallacies. It's the kind of stuff your delusions are made of.

The Super Delegates have one job and one job only: to select the candidate most likely to win the GE. Pledged delegate counts are only one small factor in their assessment of the candidates at that point. This isn't about numbers, son. It's about the overall impression each candidate makes on all the delegates (and the "pledged" part becomes irrelevant at that point), including the Super Delegates at the Convention. There's a lot of horse-trading that goes on there. Each and every delegate at the Convention is free to make up his or her mind right through the final vote.

Apparently, you've been drinking the kool-aide so long you never bothered to learn how our democracy works.

[Exultant Democracy]

22. Not a fallacy, I assume as a given that Democrats won't jettison the most reliable voting block ever

it has nothing to do with kool-aid, but as long as you are going to go their I won't feel bad suggesting that you work on your basic reading comprehension.

I'm not sure what you think a delusion is, but it isn't pointing out that since African Americans have actually had the vote (post Jim Crow) they have proved to be the most reliable voting block that any party has ever had in the US, that is a fact not a delusion.

There is not reason to ague with you about what the super delegates were designed to do back in the early 80's everyone know, they were established as a check to the popular vote. I will argue that in 2008 we have very different ideal about democracy then we did in 2008. I will also argue that if the democratic pledge delegates are overturned then McCain can take full advantage of his image as not being "one of those republicans" to put a younger black man on the ticket and splinter the black vote.

Best case scenario for Clinton she could beat McCain by one or two points, and if McCain even pulls 20% of the black vote then she would lose.

I would even hazard to suggest that if the supers overturned that pledged delegates then it would be you who would be delusional to even suggest that African Americans would not be fucking pissed, and it would even be more delusional to think that McCain wouldn't take full advantage of the situation.

[Seabiscuit]

27. Why is it that Obama supporter always imagine they can read minds?

You just *know* that SDs will behave just the way you'd like them to, right?

The SDs were never "established as a check to the popular vote". Apparently you neither understand conventions nor the history of the SDs. SDs were established by the DNC in an attempt to prevent the kind of battle that occurred in the 1980 convention, which was the last time a candidate (Ted Kennedy) tried to get pledged delegates released from their commitment (to Jimmy Carter). Prior to that, such efforts were standard procedure at conventions which were similar to caucuses, with a lot of negotiation and dealing going on. It had nothing to do with the popular vote. Because back then (as well as now) there was never really any such thing as a "pledged" or "committed" delegate. All were and continue to be free to change their minds right up to the final vote at the convention. By creating the SDs, the DNC had a means of avoiding that kind of battle in the future. Curiously, this is the first year since then that a Dem nominee failed to obtain the number of delegates needed to clinch the nomination before the convention, so this is the first time the SD system will be tested.

Your notion about SDs "overturning pledged delegates" is nonsense. It falsely assumes that whoever has the most pledged delegates by convention time automatically wins, and that somehow the SDs are going to steal a victory if they don't nominate your candidate. That has never been the rule. They can't take away what was never his to begin with. Again, this is the first time SDs have been called upon to decide a close race where neither candidate has enough pledged delegates to win the nomination. And again, the only rule they have to follow is who their conscience dictates would be better able to defeat the Republican nominee, based on *all* the factors involved, not just delegate numbers.

And make no mistake about it: Obama is courting the SDs every bit as hard as Clinton is because he needs them just as much as she does.

I see Obama supporters regurgitating these same fallacious talking points all the time. Such assumptions are indeed symptoms of a delusional state of mind because they are all provably false yet the Obama supporters "cling" to them despite all the cognitive dissonance they are suffering as a result. That kind of behavior leads to another syndrome: if they don't get their way, they'll take their bat and ball and go home, and let McCain beat Hillary, and they play the race card along the way, pretending that if Obama isn't awarded the nomination, black Americans will be totally alienated and stay home in November.

I just find it all very, very sad that such childishness is in such abundance this year.

[Exultant Democracy]

34. Wrong, the SD were established so that someone like Jimmy Carter could not

come out of nowhere and win the democratic nomination. And you are also wrong about the SD's never being called on before to decide a race, but considering how misinformed you are about everything else it isn't a surprise you aren't aware that in 84 neither Hart nor Mondale had enough pledged delegates. So where did you get the bunk information someone trick you or are you just making things up as you go along?

[Seabiscuit]

36. You're right about one thing only:

I didn't check out Hart/Mondale, and still haven't. I'll check it.

I don't know where you got the idea that "the SD were established so that someone like Jimmy Carter could not come out of nowhere and win the democratic nomination". Carter was elected in 1976. He was a sitting President running for re-election when Kennedy challenged him in 1980, and the battle for pledged delegates broke out on the floor. Carter won the nomination on the final vote, Kennedy gave his famous floor speech, and Carter went on to lose to Reagan that November.

I challenge you to refute anything else I've said in my posts. You can't.

[Exultant Democracy]

38. Yes and after Carter lost badly the establishment decided it was because he was an

untested political outsider when he won the nomination in 76. They set up the SD system in order to make sure there would not be another Carter.

[Seabiscuit]

39. What is your source for that notion? This is the first time I've heard anyone

claim it had anything to do with Carter being an "outsider" in 1976. Link please (and not just to some DU poster). Frankly, it doesn't make any sense to me. Carter's status as Governor of Georgia prior to being elected President in 1976 and his status as an incumbent President in 1980 when he ran for re-election have absolutely nothing to do with the delegate system in our convention process. The SD system is designed for one purpose only: to provide a resolution at a Convention where no candidate has acquired enough pledged delegates to clinch the nomination so as to avoid the kind of divisive floor fight over pledged delegates that occurred at the 1980 convention. The SD system was created between 1980 and 1984, where you noted that it was already in place by the time Mondale and Hart failed to achieve enough votes to clinch the nomination.

Everything I've ever read about the SD system points to the fight on the floor of the 1980 Convention. Period.

Furthermore, Carter lost to Reagan primarily because of the revolution of the Ayatollahs in Iran which occurred during his Presidency, including the perception that Carter's response to the takeover of the U.S. Embassy in Iran was weak. Not because he was a "political outsider" in 1976.

Further, to call Carter an "untested political outsider" in 1976 sounds just plain silly. He was the Governor of Georgia. A lot of Presidents have been former Governors. If by "political outsider" one means "not a Senator", the last Senator to be elected President was JFK. 48 years ago. I don't even recall the last time a Senator was elected President before then. Reagan, Clinton, and Bush had all been Governors before they were elected. Does that make them all "untested political outsiders" too?

[Exultant Democracy]

42. My source is Susan Estrich she was on rule committee in 82

http://www.creators.com/opinion/susan-estrich/beware-what-you-wish-for.html

and I guess you don't remember Carter's presidency but this article explains that and the SD connection in depth http://media.wildcat.arizona.edu/media/storage/paper997/news/2008/02/18/Opinions/Superdelegates.The.Party.Bosses.Triumph-3216439.shtml

[Seabiscuit]

43. But that's not what Estrich says in her opinion piece.

To the contrary, her words support my point, not yours:

"And now we finally face the point of the exercise. Most years, being a superdelegate has just meant having a shortcut to a credential and some party invites. Mondale needed the superdelegates to win in '84, but that was because it was a three-man race and a plurality wouldn't do it. This is the first time the race on the ground has taken on the appearance of a tie, and the superdelegates look to actually be, potentially, decisive. That was, of course, the whole purpose."

See? The "whole purpose" of the SD system is to provide resolution when none of the candidates reach the required number of "pledged" delegates in the primaries to clinch the nomination. It resolved a 3-man race in 1984, and it will be called on to resolve a virtual tie this year. That's according to your source. And that's what I've been saying all along.

And Justyn Dillingham's opinion piece contradicts you as well "The Democratic leaders did not create the superdelegate system to protect us from "disastrous" presidents like Carter."

I think you read something into both articles, tossed it around in your head for awhile, and walked away with the wrong impression.

[Exultant Democracy]

45. Either you didn't read it all or you are very dense my point was just paraphrasing her

either way it isn't a secret that carter was disliked by the party insiders, perhaps if we had had less scumbags in our party during the Carter years then wouldn't have kneecapped him from the get go and we wouldn't have had to live through Regan-Bush.

[cliffordu]

23. Aw, come on. She's becoming an afterthought faster than

the kool-aid can be made.

[VolcanoJen]

24. This argument is where it all kind of falls apart.

It's all "We must seat Michigan and Florida so that voters are not disenfranchised!! One person, one vote!!"

And then, when it's pointed out that even seating them as-is doesn't hand the nomination to Hillary or help her reach the Magic Number, the argument morphs into "But the superdelegates have a job! They get to choose the candidate most likely to win the General Election and that candidate is HILLARY!"

Which is it, then? Who has the power here, the people, or the superdelegates? Because once you've decided upon that, you've got to toss the other argument out the window. For good.

[chimpymustgo]

31. Black people are not as STUPID as you seem to think.

[Exultant Democracy]

35. You are then one who thinks that Black people are stupid if you don't think they would upset enough

to make a point and not allow the democratic party to take their votes for granted.

I am a black person and I know how our community feels about the situation. All the the democrats need to lose is 20% of the black vote and it is all over. That means that if 2 out of 10 black voters are pissed off enough either not to vote or vote for McCain (who will court them with everything he has got) then the democratic party is fatally weakened.

[JBoy]

15. Once Obama gets 50% of total Pledge Delegates, the tidal wave of SDs is unleashed.

aka, reaching the "Pelosi number". Will happen in May.

[PseudoIntellect]

25. You're ignoring the fact that most of the superdelegates have already endorsed.

And they haven't endorsed Hillary in a big enough margin to give her the nomination. And that margin of victory used to be over 80% of the superdelegates. Now she has about 53% of them and dropping weekly. Soon her lead will completely evaporate.

As for those that will switch, assume that they'll split down the middle and keep the counts relatively even. (Though it is MUCH more likely that they will switch to Obama if at all based on past evidence and inside information)

When looking at the evidence of who the superdelegates will endorse as a whole, it's pretty obvious right now.

[StevieM]

28. See you in Denver (eom)

[goldcanyonaz]

3. Neither can get to 2025 w/o SDs.

Neither win without them. Looks like we are going to Denver.

[LakeSamish706]

5. I doubt it will go to Denver cause I think the SD's will come out for Obama and sooner...

rather than later.

[cali]

7. how many messages do the leading dems need to send

that this is not going to Denver, before hillworld deadenders get the idea? Do you really think that hill could stay in if SDs put Obama over the top in May or June? Do you understand that she'd become a national joke if she did? Do you know that the pressure on her to get out would be very public and humiliating? Why would you want to see that ugly circus?

[goldcanyonaz]

9. cali, her support is just as strong today as it was at the beginning of this race.

If not stronger.

[cali]

11. that may be true, but it has nothing to do with the questions I posed

Obama's support is many multiples more than it was at the beginning of this race. So what?

[Seabiscuit]

12. I can't believe cali's still slithering around this forum kicking up shit.

He was one of the first dirtbags I put on ignore.

[still_one]

10. They are waiting for the primaries to end, and then will make their position known

if the super delegates allow this to be taken to the convention undecided, we will lose the general election

[juajen]

18. No candidate with her support could ever become a national joke!

Just because Obama supporters say it's so, doesn't make it so. Yes, we know that Obama supporters would make it very ugly; but why should we give in to blackmail. Just call it what it is, please? Thuggery by any other name is thuggery.

[Hepburn]

44. Too late...she already is a national joke...

...a very sick one, but nonetheless a fucking joke.

JMHO

[PassingFair]

20. She knows she can win except by some miracle.

That's why she's kicking up a stink about seating
the invalid MI and FLA results...

buying time, grasping at any straw available.

Sickening.

[still_one]

4. I suspect that they will become even more devious in the following weeks

and continue to pressure super delegates

I hope they have been watching how her campaign acts under pressure, but how her campaign has tried to destroy Obama from everything from implying he might be a Muslim, to how she and mccain are qualified to be president, but Obama isn't

If it wasn't for the long Democratic primary process, the true colors of the Clintons would have remained a mystry

[LakeSamish706]

6. I am so happy that this has finally come to light....

"If it wasn't for the long Democratic primary process, the true colors of the Clintons would have remained a mystery"

It's been long overdue.

[EFerrari]

13. I think we should return MI and FL to the Potawatomi and the Seminole.

Immediately!

[mikekohr]

30. Maybe We Should All Go Back To Where We/Our Families Imigrated from

-Respecting America's First People-

International Brotherhood Days http://www.brotherhooddays.com
mike kohr

[cliffordu]

16. How many people in MI voted for "other" ??

[Pryderi]

33. 45% voted for anyone but Hillary.

http://politics.nytimes.com/election-guide/2008/results/states/MI.html
Hillary Rodham Clinton 328,309 55.2%
Uncommitted 238,168 40.1
Dennis J. Kucinich 21,715 3.7
Christopher J. Dodd 3,845 0.6
Mike Gravel 2,361 0.4

[Hamlette]

17. you forgot Poland....I mean the popular vote, or the big state vote or the bowlers?????

or Ohio...WHAT ABOUT OHIO?????? She won there didn't she?

Anyway, he's black so he shouldn't be president.

And he can't bowl.

Laura Bush for President. She has as much experience as Hillary.

[undeterred]

19. What about Greece and Antarctica?

Let's stop talking about MI and FL. Their leaders broke the rules. Not our problem.

[Awsi Dooger]

26. You can't look at it within a vacuum

Those results had potential to frame the big state argument and potentially impact other states. A lopsided Florida defeat, in particular, would have been a huge stain for Obama.

Avoiding an inevitable Florida shellacking was the biggest break Obama has received. Michigan wasn't as clear cut, but advantage Hillary.

And it's even more masochistic from a Hillary standpoint, running a big state strategy when you know damn well that Florida and Michigan are in limbo, at absolute best.

[jackson_dem]

29. She won FL 50-33-14 and won 38 more delegates by virtue of that

Obama actually won fewer counties in Florida than Edwards did and that is reflected in Clinton getting some extra delegates beyond her popular vote % since the scheme is based on congressional districts.

[Pryderi]

32. Edwards isn't in the race. If you're arguing she should get 50% and Obama get the remainder

I'll go along with that idea.

[jackson_dem]

37. That disenfranchises 14 delegates

[hokies4ever]

40. No such thing as a pledged delegate

according to Hillary Clinton. So technically since the convention has not been held, they're both tied 0 to 0 with delegates. What's a hundred pledged delegates between friends anyway?

[SoCalDem]

41. No No No . She CAN win

She's counting on giving Obama ZERO from Michigan.. said "hey it was HIS idea to remove his name,, I left mine on"..

and when the delegates from Neptune are chosen next month at their Galactic Convention, she plans to have at least 2 brazillion delegates...shutting Barack out..