"neither Barack Obama nor Hillary Clinton has any chance of reaching the magic number that gives them a majority of the pledged delegates"

This framing is false and misleading. Obama will almost certainly get a majority of the pledged delegates. What he means to say is that neither of them will get enough pledged delegates to comprise a majority of all delegates including supers. I've seen this false statement a lot and it is really nnoying.

Super delegates might also not want to decide the nomination. Staying out of it now lets the race play out on its own terms, and then the remaining super delegates can get behind the pledged delegate winner.

THIS IS EXCELLENT NEWS!! FOR HILLARY!!!

Yeah, it seems pretty certain that the party would be better off if the next X weeks were spent exposing McCain than Hillary and Obama going at each other.

Not deciding is easy, Kevin; deciding is hard. If they don't decide, maybe something will happen to Obama or to Clinton. Maybe Obama will stay so far ahead in the pledged delegates that it would be unseemly to back Clinton. Maybe Clinton will realize she's never going to get there and quit. Then maybe the superdelegate will never have to decide, and that would make most of them happy.

By the way, I haven't seen much talk about the likely effect of Clinton getting the nomination without a clear majority of the pledged delegates. That would be a real thumb in the eye of the African-American electorate. I don't think they'd be voting for her in the general, at least not in the necessary proportions in places like Ohio and Florida. I think it would kill her, and would put the Democratic party's national prospects on the ropes for a long time.

Kevin, is this harder for you because you're white?

/Geraldine Ferraro

What a coincidence that I was reading this article before I visited your website. Titled State's undecided superdelegates bide time, this article included the "headache" from my own representative Jerry McNerney:

"McNerney's district, which is based mostly in San Joaquin County, tipped more heavily toward Clinton, but it also contains ardent Obama supporters.
Clinton has called him, urging his support. Voters back home have tried to sway him. McNerney said it's still too soon to make the decision. "I'm going to let the voters decide for themselves," he said."

He's good guy, and I don't care who he decides for, because I still support him. For the super-delegates as a whole, however, it would be politically easier to go with the candidate with the overall lead (and I would say that with Hillary in the lead, though begrudgingly). They can not be seen as undermining the "will of the people", and risk putting themselves at political risk.

Neither "has any chance of reaching the magic number that gives them a majority of the pledged delegates."

Yeah, Kevin. That is wrong, as rr18 points out. Ought to be fixed.

I wonder if, given his lead, Obama should just start acting like the nominee, showing leadership and his skills in the general.

What is happening is that the old boss and entourage have a death grip on their own power, and are delaying the moment of the fix (or, if we're lucky, the attempted fix) in order to present the appearance of caring what the voters think. The large number of superdelegates who compose the DLC and Clinton power structure are supremely uninterested in handing over their own jobs, influence, cookies and other goodies to a perceived upstart with his own loyalists who didn't get--or rather, tore up--the memo about this being a Clinton ratification, not an election.

Davis X. Machina said it very succinctly last week:

Here's where it's all heading:
* Mr. and Mrs. Clinton will be ecstatic. He gets a third term, she gets her Precious.
* The Party regulars will have had their positions cemented for another election cycle.
* Tom Vilsack becomes head of the DNC. Jobs for the boys!
* Former DNC head Howard Dean becomes a poli-sci prof at UVM, or return to medical practice.
* DLC'ers' job security is ensured.
* And the Democratic world will continue to revolve around the same 1000-2000 people who actually count.

The silence is deafening.

>"[superdelagates] want to bargain for goodies in return for their support"

Bingo!

"And the Democratic world will continue to revolve around the same 1000-2000 people who actually count."

Double bingo!

Everyone seems to want to short-circuit/circumvent the process. The primary process leads up to the convention in August, where the real vote happens (the only one that counts). And the real vote includes super-delegates, pledged delegates, caucus delegates, etc. Until then, it's a race, and races need to be run. Knowing now who wins might be nice, but it's still too close to call. So, patience, grasshopper...

Hillary would no longer have even a colorable chance at the nomination

Colorable? COLORABLE?

Retract! Denounce! Reject!

For the DNC members who have so far avoided taking a public position, it makes sense to wait out the full primary season and then, when one candidate has a majority of the pledged delegates, go ahead and ratify the decision of the voters. To do otherwise is to insult the voters in those last two or three states. Since every other state (except two) will have had a chance to make some difference, it is good politics to let N Carolina, Pennsylvania etc have their say. Also remember that the DNC is devoutly cowardly, in that it failed to deal with the New Hampshire/Iowa problem when it had the chance, in spite of the protests coming from Michigan and pretty well every other part of the country.

If Obama increased his lead to, say, 200 delegates, Hillary would no longer have even a colorable chance at the nomination and would come under tremendous pressure to drop out.

Um. His delegate lead is already at 187. Are 13 more really all it takes?

For the life of me, Kevin, what is this obsession of yours to short-circuit the process by rushing to declare a nominee in early or mid-March, when the race has been this close? Is the suspense somehow killing you?

Certainly, we can afford wait until early June, and allow those Democrats residing in upcoming primary states and territories also have their say. The Democratic National Convention is not until August.

"Super delegates might also not want to decide the nomination. Staying out of it now lets the race play out on its own terms, and then the remaining super delegates can get behind the pledged delegate winner."

This is so obviously the case that I have a hard time understanding why so many people continue to feign confusion on this issue.

Chuck Todd was just on MSNBC and said that Obama actually needs less than 50% of the pledged delagates from here on out to actually get to the magic number, for what its worth...

For the life of me, Kevin, what is this obsession of yours to short-circuit the process by rushing to declare a nominee in early or mid-March, when the race has been this close? Is the suspense somehow killing you?

It's not short circuiting the process to not want the race to go to the convention. No party ever wants to go into the convention with a fight still ongoing, because it's pretty much never beneficial. And while the race is fairly close, there's still a strong enough lead for Obama at this point that Clinton would have to win the remaining contests by such high margins that, close or not, it's practically impossible she'll overtake his lead.

That's the reality, whether one likes it or not. Even in close races, there's still an electoral loser. And Sen. Clinton isn't going to win all of the remaining states with 63% of the vote.

delegates I meant to write delegates...

DOH!!

Chuck Todd was just on MSNBC and said that Obama actually needs less than 50% of the ... delagates from here on out to actually get to the magic number, for what its worth...

I heard that too, and I think he also said that is assuming that he doesn't lose any pledged delegates. I was hoping he would have a calculation about whether there was even a chance to hit the number with pledged delegates (if he were, to say, win x% more) but he never mentioned such a scenario.

The superdelegates should go last so that each state and every voter can have their say.

What's the rush?

Imagine all the superdelegates deciding tomorrow to back either candidate. Imagine then that outcomes in the primaries ARE affected by that news. That could decide the election and not in a good way.

What's the rush?

We wouldn't want to see a precipitous withdrawal from the race. That would send the wrong message.

Let's look at the basics. Barak Obama has run a super-tight campaign and is leading, but doubts remain about whether he can weather vicious and unfair Republican attacks. After Florida 2000 and Kerry's swift-boating Democrats are painfully aware that being able to win a street fight is a requirement for a presidential nominee.

Hillary has run a much poorer campaign. In desperation she has gone low and unfairly attacked Obama, and her attacks got traction. She managed to reverse her slide in Ohio and Texas.

The story of the Democratis race now is whether Obama can effectively fight back, or will he, Kerry-like, fail to effectively respond?

Obama has almost made his case, but doubts about his ability to fight a dirty campaign remain. For a year people have worried whether Obama is too noble and idealistic to win. We still don't know, but we should get our answer over the next seven weeks. If Obama effectively beats Hillary back over the final stretch we have our man. If Hillary damages him so badly that she mostly wins from here on in we have to really worry about Obama's ultimate electability, and Hillary may well be the better bet.

Pledged delegates aside, campaigns are huge information-gathering exercises. The data is not yet in.

There are competing memes about choosing early late. If they did as KD would like, and made a choice for Obama, it might end the infighting a bit earlier. But the voters in the states yet to come would feel cheated. And there is still a chance for one candidate to commit a bad enough gaffe to actually lose it at this point. There are still several hundred pledged delegates left, if for some reason all these states went very lopsidedly one way or the other, that would likely decide who wins.

A minor point is that the number of unpledged superdelegates is about 70 less than Kevin Drum says. 70 of the superdelegates are ``add on delegates'' who will be selected at party conventions. They can't choose between the two candidates, since they haven't been selected yet.

(The bodies that will select the add on delegates are known, and given this, people who follow it more closely than I do say that the add on delegates will be about evenly split, probably with a small edge for Obama.)

I find so much of this discussion to be disengenuous.
Kevin is opining on who has a "right" to remain in the race. Why are he and the Obama camp the arbiters of who has a "right" to run for the nomination.
Additionally, the rules themselves require 2025 delegates - all delegates by the way. And, the rules hold that the superdelegates are allowed independent judgment. Obamamania seems to hold that those particular rules are "undemocratic" and should be either ignored or condemned. But when others point out that the caucus is inherently flawed and undemocratic, these same people argue that thats what the rules provide for. So, I am to conclude that only some rules count.
Superdelegates should exercise judgment how and when they want. It may be that despite the wins in Kansas, the Dakotas, Idaho, Utah, Georgia, Alabama and Mississippi (to name a few) the superdelegates might choose to vote for someone who could win Ohio. (Ask presidents Gore, Kerry and Clinton I what that might mean. And if you think that the dems are going to carry any of the states in the plains, the intermountain west or the deep south then you have other problems.)
In either case both candidates can make their arguments, and once either actually achieves 2025 then - and only then - either will be the legitimate candidate of the party.
And maybe, at that time, despite some deep reservations I would then choose to cast a vote for Obama.

Let us make sure the complete hand is played out all the way. No short circuiting the process because someone wants to hurry things along.

Sit back with your bowl of popcorn and reeeellllaaaaxxxx. The show isn`t over yet.

"Proof depends on who you are. We're looking for a preponderance of evidence, and some people need more of a preponderance than other people." - John Kantner

I go with the "they want goodies" excuse. If you back the loser, what do you get?

Superdelegates should exercise judgment how and when they want. It may be that despite the wins in Kansas, the Dakotas, Idaho, Utah, Georgia, Alabama and Mississippi (to name a few) the superdelegates might choose to vote for someone who could win Ohio.

Me, I'm hoping the superdelegates will take a look at actual state-by-state matchups, Clinton vs. McCain and Obama vs. McCain, rather than listening to this lame Clinton talking point. I give you credit, though, for not attempting to argue that if Clinton won a big blue state in the primary, Obama couldn't possibly win it in the general (though you lose for the silly implication that only one Dem might take Ohio).

How about those superdelegates that are saying that they'll go with who's ever leading in pledged delegates at the end of the primary season? That seems ideal to me, wish they would all do that.....it's certainly not cowardly.

[Deleted Content]

The statement in Kevin's latest post is "neither Barack Obama nor Hillary Clinton has any chance of reaching the magic number that gives them a majority of the total delegates". That seems to be a correct statement. Maybe some else made a similar statement using "pledged delegates". There may still be a chance to draft Al Gore!

More polite to let everyone have their primaries first.

Superdelegates aside, does anyone know anything about the add-on delegates? I've been trying to find good information, to no avail. They may actually be a factor this year.

If anyone is interested in watching Obama on Hardball, the time is drawing nigh: 10 PM EDT, MSNBC.

What are they waiting for? Er, how about PA, and, while we're at it, FL and MI?

Larry writes:

We need to start thinking of a primary challenge to the Monster. Get that evil piece of shit monster out of the senate.

Ah yes. The "casual poetry" of the Obama campaign. Respectful, inclusive.

Because they nor we really know what the actual delegate count is. Because caucus states have only had their first round or two of caucusing. Until they cast their caucus votes at their respective state convention, or the like, they aren't truly committed to one candidate or another, unlike the other states.

With the six weeks until the next primary, all the undeclared supers should declare. I agree with Joe that a valid answer would be to go with the pledged delegate or popular vote leader. Get them all on the record then we can play the thing out. It is the idea the primary will be stolen that is fueling a lot of the animosity.

However, it should not go any further unless HRC stops with these McCain is better than Obama lines.

This is not an election or sporting contest. It is a party primary. Ending things earlier is generally thought to be better. The Dems are spending millions on each other, they could be swamping McCain and funneling money to Congressional battles.

Try this, fostert.

Larry, don't be an idiot.

Losing=!!!HILLMENTUMâ„¢!!!!

You know, Kevin, I just don't understand why you expect everyone to be as impatient as you are.

Look, FL and MI may very well get a revote. It would be a nice thing if those voters were enfranchised, and had some kind of say in the outcome, don't you think?

Given that those revotes may greatly increase the turnout in FL and MI from the previous primaries (perhaps by a factor of 2), that may have a very significant impact on the overall popular vote -- a feature that most people (as shown in polling) think is the best index of the popular will. Certainly if Hillary does well, it can also significantly erode Obama's current lead in pledged delegates.

And then there's Pennsylvania, where current polling shows Hillary with a double digit lead, and other states that also favor Hillary. At the end of the day, it is entirely possible that Hillary will have greatly reduced Obama's lead in pledged delegates, and will have won the popular vote, perhaps quite convincingly.

In that case, Hillary will have this on her side:

1. An outright win in the popular vote
2. The clear momentum at the end of the primary process
3. A clear win in the major swing states that have always been the key states deciding the general election: OH, PA, MI, and FL (remember how Kerry would have won, save for OH? How Gore would have won save for FL?)

At this point, Hillary would make the case to the superdelegates that she would be the better candidate. It would be hard to dispute her case effectively, given the evidence.

Now, of course, it may not at all play out this way. Maybe Obama wins in some of the 4 major swing states, or maybe he gets so close that there's no reason to believe that Hillary would be a better candidate for the general. Maybe even on the score of popular vote Obama racks up a very large lead over Hillary. In all of those cases, Hillary's case is far weaker -- perhaps fatally weak.

But I should think that letting the process get to a point where the true outcome is either fully reached or at least fully obvious is what a rational person would desire.

So if superdelegates want to wait this out so that it all becomes clearer, that's a sign of wisdom and prudence, not one of cowardice.

If the superdelegates don't back the popular vote winner, there will be hell to pay.

After Pelosi's comments today on a joint Obama-Clinton ticket, along with Ferraro's absurd comments, I suspect that a fair number of superdelegates will decide to act. They don't like the Clinton campaign's divisive strategy and so I think a fair number of superdelegates will move to Obama.

Obama is getting closer and closer to parity on superdelegates. If he has the same number or more of those delegates, the math is tougher and tougher.

Meanwhile, his campaign is itself tougher and more focuses this week.

There is an upside to Hillary staying in. People have been accusing Hillary of being McCain light in her questioning of Obama's qualifications for CIC, true? I think there's room to argue that HRC's McCain light attacks have had a slowing(?) effect on the Obama campaign. I'm thinking McCain full bodied, or the republican committee anyway, might have had a more chilling effect. By taking these jabs now, Obama now has more time to recover from any damage. When the repubs start swinging they will going for a knock out. So know, both candidates have the opportunity to counter what would likely have been more damaging attacks, to either one, had they been leveled by the repubs.

If the superdelegates don't back the popular vote winner, there will be hell to pay.

While I agree, I also think that if superdelegates don't back the pledged delegate winner, there will be hell to pay. The problem is that there's a very realistic possibility that they will be different candidates -- it's almost certain that Obama will win the pledged delegates, and it's quite plausible that Hillary might win the popular vote nonetheless.

So, two hells to choose from. Don't know which burns hotter sulfur.

How about the delegates committed to Edwards? It seems now he should have stayed in longer. As it is he may have something to bargain with but if he had amassed another 100 delegates it would have put him in a much better bargaining position.

What are they waiting for? Er, how about PA, and, while we're at it, FL and MI?

But not Oregon, Indiana, and North Carolina?

And then there's Pennsylvania, where current polling shows Hillary with a double digit lead, and other states that also favor Hillary.

Yes, Frankly, there remain states that favor Senator Clinton. There also remain states that favor Senator Obama -- Mississippi, which voted for him today, and then Oregon, South Dakota, Montana, North Carolina, and probably Indiana. The point remains that in order to seriously cut Sen. Obama's lead, Sen. Clinton would need to win all of the remaining contests by overwhelming margins that she is insanely unlikely to get. Pennsylvania, Puerto Rico, Kentucky, and West Virginia alone are not enough.

2. The clear momentum at the end of the primary process

Pennsylvania isn't the end of the process. Oregon, North Carolina, and Indiana all come after. And now that Puerto Rico has moved its primary, the two final states are South Dakota and Montana.

3. A clear win in the major swing states that have always been the key states deciding the general election: OH, PA, MI, and FL (remember how Kerry would have won, save for OH? How Gore would have won save for FL?)

You assume too much in automatically assigning Michigan to Sen. Clinton when current polling suggests it's a dead heat. Aside from that, there is arbitrary "major swing states" list. There are quite a few swing states -- states that narrowly went to Gore/Kerry or narrowly went to Bush. Sen. Clinton has won some of them (Ohio, New Mexico, New Hampshire, Nevada, and let's generously toss in Florida, Pennsylvania, and even Arkansas); Sen. Obama has won some of them (Missouri, Virginia, Colorado, Iowa, Washington, Wisconsin, Minnesota -- and let's toss in Oregon).

Guess what? His come out to more electoral votes than hers.

But that doesn't matter, because it's a dumb way to pick a nominee -- there's no reason to assume that a primary victory is equivalent with a general election victory. That's why we win nominations through delegates which, again, Obama leads in and Clinton is almost assuredly not capable at this point of seriously cutting.

Maybe they're waiting to endorse whoever ends up with the most votes, or most delegates, whichever candidate that is?

You know, let the voters decide?

shortstop: The silence is deafening.

Actually, worse that deafening.
It is past disgusting.
Even past sinful.
The Ferraro remarks are beyond the pale.

The superdelegates, and GORE and EDWARDS, are letting the party fall into the politics of base racism.

If they don't speak up and show some leadership in the next few days... there will be no exit. The party will crash and burn.

The way I see it, back before Iowa there were two kinds of super-delegates, those who wanted to be on the Hillary bandwagon, and those who chose not to be.

Before Ohio and Texas, there were three kinds of delegates -- the old Hillary bandwagoners, the folks who jumped on the Obama bandwagon, and those who wanted to wait and see.

Had Hillary not done well last Tuesday, if she lost Texas and won Ohio by a small margin, there would have been a rush of the remaining SDs to Obama. (Remember those 50 SDs that Brokaw reported were in Obama's pocket? Haven't heard much about them since last Tuesday.)

Now, for the remaining SDs, its not so much a question of signing on with the losing candidate, but with the wrong one. Obama had it all going into last Tuesday -- organization, money, momentum, and the media. And he still lost by double digits in Ohio.

Obama's vulnerabilities are now coming to the fore -- and its scaring the remaining SDs to death. If Obama loses big in PA, he's not going to be the nominee.

But that doesn't mean that Clinton will be either, of course. The SDs could decide that both candidates are too flawed to head the ticket, and look to Gore or Edwards as a "compromise" candidate.

Minnesota is not going to swing, it's already swung. Dems won big in the legislature in 2006. Repub Gov won a plurality in a 3 way race. Six repub legislatures just voted to override his veto.

Minnesota's going blue.

Why do Democrats have such an incredible knack for snatching defeat from the jaws of victory?

The SDs could decide that both candidates are too flawed to head the ticket, and look to Gore or Edwards as a "compromise" candidate.

Nonsense, All the SDs combined are only 20% of the delegates. Yes, they'll tip it one way or the other, but they don't have the numbers to pull a 3rd candidate in.

Maybe they want to let the rest of the people vote.

You only give negative reasons for not stating a preference. Maybe those who have stepped forward are the ones trying to bias things and trying to get goodies.

You assume too much in automatically assigning Michigan to Sen. Clinton when current polling suggests it's a dead heat...

I would add to this by reminding everyone that a primary win does not exclude the other Democratic candidate from winning the same state in the general. SUSA's state-by-state polls show Obama winning Michigan, Nevada, Washington, Oregon, North Dakota, Virginia, New Hampshire, Colorado, etc. in the general while Clinton would not win any of these--as we know, she won or probably will win some of these.

Both of them win Ohio and New Mexico. Clinton wins Pennsylvania, Arkansas, West Virginia and Florida while Obama doesn't. Both of them win all deep blue states except for New Jersey (Clinton wins this, Obama doesn't). He still outstrips her in electoral votes--280 to her 276, both enough to beat McCain.

Any of these could change, of course...it's early!

Also want to point out that Puerto Rico is likely to be split pretty evenly. Contrary to false reporting, PR isn't a winner-take-all state and both candidates have substantial support there. These are Caribbean Hispanics and don't follow the same voting patterns as Texas and the Southwest.

I said in the thread below that I was being a conversation pig and I'll stop doing it here, too.

Let's cut to the chase: there is no way Hillary can "win" without redefining the terms of the game, alienating a HUGE bloc of democratic voters (especially Black voters and young voters), and ruining the nation's chances of exorcising Bush and his radicals or ruin. Her strategy, such as it is, now focuses on cross-over voters (spoilers), the elderly, and women--her entire energy will be spent cultivating them and hoping for enough of a majority in a few states that she could credibly buy the support of super-delegates. Obama has to gain no more than 38% of the vote henceforth. And that will not happen without serious pitchforks and code-speak.

Let's call it as it is: a Clinton victory on such terms would be a disaster. The super-delegates need to weigh in and staunch the disaster sooner rather than later. Otherwise, the democratic party will look like it has campaigned itself back to the Punic wars.

jbryan,

Look, to begin with, the remaining states that favor Obama don't exactly add up to the states of PA, FL, and MI do they, in terms of population or electoral votes, do they?

Now we know we'll have a vote in PA. It's looking increasingly likely we'll have revotes in FL and MI. Now take a look at this list of states. Note the humongousness of PA, FL, and MI, compared to the other states remaining. If -- and it's certainly an if -- Hillary wins all those states convincingly, it will certainly greatly add to her popular total, significantly cut into Obama's lead in pledged delegates, and greatly add to a perception of momentum on the part of Hillary.

Again, you can't seriously dispute the claim that the big four swing states, OH, PA, MI, and FL, which together comprise 52 million people in population, and which have time and again been crucial in swinging Presidential elections are dominant features in the political landscape. Once upon a time, it was simply accepted as a truism. Only because Obama has come on the scene, and this fact has become inconvenient, have people acted as if it weren't true and important.

Please, if you can, try to come up with a list of small states that Obama has won that have historically been swing states, and which add up in total electoral vote to that of the PA, OH, FL and MI. You will find that a very difficult exercise, I'm sure.

Now of course, Obama might win one of those states, or even three of them, in principle -- he's likely to have the opportunity. But if he fails to win any of them it could not be anything but a very bad sign for his viability in the general election.

"Guess what? His come out to more electoral votes than hers."

Only if Obama succeeds in taking all those states. I think the Hillary math is that she wins the electoral, not by as much as Obama, but with fewer states. The fact that Obama does it with smaller states creates more uncertainty. In other words, with Hillary we need to pull fewer states away from repubs, than with Obama. Just my thoughts anyways, shrug.

Only about 70 additional ex-officio delegates need to declare for Obama, to secure for him the nomination.

What are the chances, there are 70 out of 300, who will just want to shut up Senator McClinton, after another two or three weeks?

SUSA's state-by-state polls show Obama winning Michigan, Nevada, Washington, Oregon, North Dakota, Virginia, New Hampshire, Colorado, etc. in the general while Clinton would not win any of these--as we know, she won or probably will win some of these.

Polls are polls, votes are votes. What the Obama side needs is a convincing argument that he could win, say, OH, a genuine swing state, despite the fact that he lost it to Hillary by 10%. Given that he lost the "Reagan/Bush Democrats" by great margins, and that those voters have always been the key to winning in Ohio (as well as PA and MI), it's hard to see how he might win OH, whatever "polling" might indicate on a given day.

And it's worthwhile too to remember that Dukakis was once upon a time up by 17 points in the polls nationwide. That certainly would have translated on a state by state basis into an impressive SUSA like map. Yet he lost in a landslide, after being "defined" by the right wing. So polls this far out are mostly pretty meaningless.

The problem Obama has with Reagan Democrats is pretty well described in this article from the WaPo.

I'm OK with the supers waiting to decide till after the primaries are done in June. But then they need to lay their cards on the table then. No fair them waiting till the convention in August. Howard Dean should try laying down a decision deadline of June 10.
If they can't decide by then, they don't need to be super delegates.

Polls are polls, votes are votes. What the Obama side needs is a convincing argument that he could win, say, OH, a genuine swing state, despite the fact that he lost it to Hillary by 10%.

Um, Frank, you do understand the difference between a general election and a primary, right? Because, you see, two Democrats running against each other in a primary aren't both going to be running in the general. One of them will be running against the Republican.

With me so far?

So primary votes really don't have anything to do with how the nominee will perform in the same state in the general. For that we have to rely on polls comparing each Dem candidate's performance against McCain, because, you see, it's March right now and the election won't happen until November.

As I mentioned, it's early yet, so some of these state matchup numbers will change. But right now this is the best info we have, lacking the ability to go forward in the time machine and count the votes.

Let us know if you have questions. Night now!

Why doesn?t Senator Obama show leadership and agree to concede the results of the Michigan and Florida primaries held in January are legitimate and reflect the will of the voters? If he would pledge to use his influence to insist the credentials committee seat their delegates, the whole problem of Michigan and Florida would be resolved pronto.

He is the one who made the decision to voluntarily remove his name from the Michigan Democratic ballot. If he asked Edwards, Richardson and Biden, who also removed their names from the ballet, to agree the 'uncommitted' vote should go to him, there is a very high probability the DNC and credentials committee would welcome a solution, and he could do this without jeopardizing his delegate lead.

Why would he want to do this? If the Democrats can't solve this problem they've created themselves, how are they ever going to resolve our problems in Iraq, or with the economy or rising health care costs? Every day this ridiculous situation goes unresolved, they lose credibility.

Like Michiganders don't have enough problems to contend with, now we have to rescue the Democratic Party from themselves?

Only if Obama succeeds in taking all those states. I think the Hillary math is that she wins the electoral, not by as much as Obama, but with fewer states. The fact that Obama does it with smaller states creates more uncertainty.

Sorry, didn't see this, Radix. Actually, no. She needs quite a few medium-sized states to do it, and it's not clear that she can. He holds most of his swing states by much more solid margins than she does hers--divided into "solid" or "lean," the majority of his are solid and the majority of hers are only lean. Both, of course, hold the big deep blue states by solid margins.

Cynthia: Florida and Michigan did this to themselves. I am all for caucuses in each state, but there is no reason Obama should allow the rules to shift to favor Hillary. Her entire campaign now centers on the two states whose votes were dismissed in advance. If she cares about those states, she'll let true democratic voters caucus there. But I doubt she would want that. I don't think the Florida or Michigan primaries can be held now without the system being gamed by either side. It is a ruse to get Hillary one more shot at relevance. Preferably without actual primaries occurring there!

The superdelegates should not be forced to make any decisions at this time. Especially at this time.

My hope is that it is definitely true that neither Clinton or Obama get enough first ballot votes at the convention. Then, someone can just ask Al Gore, "Come on, Al. It's not a run for the presidency. It's a 3 month sprint. Go for it!"

If Gore says yes, the Dems will raise $200 million in 10 days. And Gore will likely smoke McCain. And Gore will say, "Time for our troops to come home, and about that climate change thing? Let's roll up our sleeves and get moving."

Ah, the true adults will be in charge....

Wait a minute, Cynthia B., the Michigan governor, a DEMOCRAT, went against the expressed rules of the DNC and held their primary ahead of their approved turn. The state was warned that it would lose the ability to seat delegates. Candidates were warned that whatever delegates they won would not count. Hilary Clinton chose to leave her name on the ballot (and BTW, she supported the initial DNC rules re:

and you want Obama to concede Michigan to show leadership?

Does.not.compute.

I might throw you a bone about Florida, since it was a Republican governor and legislator setting the primary dates that benefitted the GOP, but no way does Michigan get to break the DNC rules and still get to play, as is, at the DNC Convention. No how.

P.S. Guess what? Hillary Clinton could show leadership too and concede that the MI & FL primaries were out of bounds and don't count. At least stop touting those states as "wins."

Unfortunately, all of this speculation about the future nominee has become irrelevant. The fact is that recent polls have showed both Clinton's and Obama's camps hardening against each other. Moderate/Conservative voters who support Clinton (older, poorer, less educated) have said they will vote for McCain over Obama if Clinton loses the nomination. Likewise, Independent voters who support Obama have said they will vote for McCain over Clinton if Obama loses the nomination.

Whichever nominee wins at this point, the Democratic coalition is fatally fractured come November. So why are we still wringing our hands over which nominee wins? Either way, we're screwed.

Polls are polls, votes are votes. What the Obama side needs is a convincing argument that he could win, say, OH, a genuine swing state, despite the fact that he lost it to Hillary by 10%. Given that he lost the "Reagan/Bush Democrats" by great margins, and that those voters have always been the key to winning in Ohio (as well as PA and MI), it's hard to see how he might win OH, whatever "polling" might indicate on a given day.

frankly0, Obama may have problems with Reagan/Bush democrats, costing him "swing" states.

But, at this point, Hillary Clinton doesn't have African-Americans (men or women) in her pocket . From listen to family and friends and all of the Af-Am blogs I frequent (yes, I'm black), Sen. Clinton's chicanery has turned the most loyal group for the Party off. Enough will stay home if she and her surrogates continue the foolishness and end up the Democratic nominee. Don't think that won't peel off enough votes in OH, MI or PA, for her to lose.

ABQkevin,

Your analysis leads to my point which is to let Clinton and Obama continue their merry way to Denver without enough delegates to win. And then draft Al Gore.

That's the most practical solution.

Still, I don't think many Clinton or Obama supporters will vote for McCain since most want the war in Iraq to be over sooner than later. My sense is that corporate media will continue their man-love for John McCain (the male corporate media types seem to love him more than the female corporate media types). That is the reason why Obama and Clinton will have an uphill battle.

Choosing Gore will leave the corporate media shocked for a week or so, and let Gore define himself for the sprint to November before the Reeps define him through their talking points. That would be key and will leave McCain on the defensive. And he gets ugly when he's on the defensive, which will finally manifest itself in a one on one race.

Perhaps the unpledged delegates are waiting until folks in the remaining primary states vote.

What's the problem? Relax.

Just one other point.

When was the last time that we were all hearing the argument that the election was over, that it was obvious who the winner was, and that the loser should simply concede, quickly, for the larger good?

Oh yeah, that was the Bush campaign saying that to Gore in 2000.

Now it's progressives making the same argument.

My, how times have changed.

Super delegates in a democratic institution called the Democratic Party don't seem so super representative to the members of the party.

I need help with my new web experiment. If you know Robert Ethan, you should hit the link below. If you spend anytime over at the Atlantic websites, you know who he is.

http://robertethanisatool.blogspot.com/

I am hoping to create a database of his amazing comments. He is the most commenter I know. (that is the grammar I intended).

Thanks to all. Please feel free to copy and link elsewhere. Let's build this up!! Don't worry, I am not trying to make any money on this. I just want to spread the gospel of Robert Ethan and his commenting empire to EVERYONE.

mww, your argument is pretty disingenuous too. The supers might choose to vote for someone who could win Ohio? Well, that wouldn't be Hillary. If the supers override the pledged delegates, Ohio's gone. How 'bout those African-Americans who lined up for blocks in Columbus and Cleveland and Dayton to vote for Al Gore and John Kerry? You think they're going to line up for Hillary? If Gore and Kerry couldn't win Ohio, a candidate who has pissed off every black voter in America certainly isn't gonna win Ohio. Obama might lose Ohio, too, but he's at least got a shot. Now, let's talk about his wins in Iowa, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Virginia, Missouri, Colorado ....

But, really, Mori is right: what are they waiting for?

They are waiting for the voters to decide. There are both idealistic and practical reasons to do this: one the one hand, it respects the will of the voters (the only reason neither can get the magic number is because it takes a majority includng the superdels); on the other hand, it also allows the political landscape to be as clear as possible and for superdels to make the decision that is best for their own political self-interest.

There is no good choice here. The nomination is effectively over. But Clinton captured the spin and managed to portray this as a race which hangs in the balance.

If the campaign were being run in a good way, it would be cheap and easy to let the process play out so that the voters in PA, NC, etc. could have the say -- even though at the end of the day they aren't going to change the outcome here. Then the SDs could step in and push Obama over the top.

The problem is that Clinton has chosen to run a gutterball campaign that risks (a) damaging him in the GE and (b) just turning off voters in general. It's not terrible that he learn to toughen up. But my guess is that the downside is much greater. There's the delay in turning to take on McCain. With the Dem's financial advantage this year it would be great to be training that arsenal of cash on McCain now, defining him before he has a chance to define the dem. nominee. Additionally, feelings within the party are getting more and more rancorous. The longer this plays out the harder it will be to get energized behind Obama in the fall. etc.etc.

I'm guessing the SD's are in agony right about now. The right thing would be to stop this. But the party that is all about counting the votes can't be seen as stepping in to cut people off from voting.

So it's a perfect storm for the democrats. The year when the white house should be all theirs, they are setting the stage very carefully so as to maximize McCain's chances against Obama. And that's not getting to the maximally awful scenario that would play out of Clinton somehow slimed her way to the nomination.

McCain is the luckiest man on the planet.

If the superdelegates decide it now, then there are states who will have been left out of the process. The primaries are as much about engaging the public as selecting a candidate. The more people who vote in the upcoming primaries, the more people who will vote in the general election.

Just sit tight.

Lay off of "colorable" already, OK? You're the only person I've ever 'heard' use it, and it feels lik the only purpose is to make me check my dictionary. There are plenty of ways to say the same thing without being obscure....

WE THE PEOPLE voted for Obama and I think you should support us when it comes to your Superdelagate vote if it is needed. If you vote against the will of the people of Minnesota who handly support Obama over Clinton then you are circumventing the democratic process. Besides Hillary Clinton is a liar when it come to all "that experience" she claims as she has never worked for the State Department or been on any mission representing it.. The State Department is the only part of the government that is allowed to conduct foreign policy at the pleasure of the President. You need to represent the people and not some special interest that will allow someone who is number 2 in popular votes, number 2 in states won, and number 2 in pledged delegates to walk into the Denver Democratic National Convention and walk out with the nomination. If you aid in this back room smoke filled political twisting of arms I will become totally disenfranchised with the democratic process and my vote will be for Jon McCain instead of Barrack Obama.