So stop wishing that this primary campaign were over. Let ALL the people decide. Not just those that get to vote first.

You might be missing the point. Maybe one reason their relative popularity has remained so close is a result of the system. Look at how McCain's poll numbers soared once he started to wrack up big wins. His party essentially followed the delegates. But because of the proportional nature of the Dem. system, no one was able to build up the kind of momentum that draws undecided voters to their side. Had the Dems set up a winner-take-all system, my guess is this thing would've been wrapped up last month, with the poll numbers quickly following.

A good post, Kevin.

And what optical weenie said.

Will be amusing if prior to 2012, the states schedule their primaries LATER to "get all the attention"...

I really can't stand all the wonking off these tracking polls. We have no idea what they are saying or really what the methodologies are: there are no voter screens or demographic breakdowns or regional controls or attempts to contact cell phone users. It's just some ad hoc measure of which old biddies willing to talk to a pollster on their land line on any given day about the presidential race.

Both candidates are 50% awesome and 50% ass! If we could just combine them into HillObamatron2000HD, we would be unstoppable!

Finally, a post that says just what needed to be said. It's a statistical tie and will be until everyone has voted. Let's let everyone vote and see what happens. All of this talk about ending the campaigns before everyone has voted makes me sick.

Angel,

There is not not a statistical tie is pledged delegates which is all that matters. It's only a statistical tie in these meaningless gallup polls.

The concept of "statistical tie," applies to the difference between two samples from larger populations.

As for the polls, yes, sometimes you see a statistical tie, since these are samples.

But votes are not samples; they are election returns.

When you look at either the number of votes or the number of delegates selected by voters, furthermore, the difference between those won by Obama versus Clinton is not terribly small. There have been a whole lot of elections decided by smaller margins.

So stop with this tie business, particularly the "statistical tie," terminology, which makes no conceptual sense whatsoever.

In 2012, will we have a convention in August? That seems like a obvious strain of stupid. And will we permit open primaries, especially in states that rush to the front of the line? And will we still bow down to Iowa and NH instead of figuring out a decent way to fairly rotate the primaries?

This is the first election in like forever that at least most Democrats got a chance to participate in choosing the candidate. I would hate to see us go back to a process in which everything is determined after Iowa and NH.

Might be less of a tie if they found a way to get the Florida and Michigan primary votes. I'm from Michigan, and I can take a joke as well as anyone, but this is ridiculous.
The party told us that if you were an Edwards/Obama supporter, vote "uncommitted". This we did. Give Clinton her percentage and leave the remaining delegates "uncommitted(Obama/Edwards)" and let them caucus--but declaring results from two major states invalid is criminally stupid--particularly because of McCain's historic support in Michigan.

Winner take all primaries would probably have ended this race by now, but that is not a certainty. All I can say is that I am happy for it- nominating campaigns are interesting for the first time in my life.

br:

No, it is whoever can get enough DELEGATES to cross the magic number of (currently) 2024 that is all that matters; while significant the pledged delegates alone are not enough for either candidate to win at this point. This argument that pledged delegates are all that should count is a lovely Obama argument but is not something his campaign can win with alone anymore than can Clinton can. Angel is correct, given how close the support for both candidates has been the only truly democratic thing to do is let the rest of the primaries play out and then have the SDs use their judgment as to which candidate they think is the more likely winner for the GE, which is after all their purpose. It is not their function to simply follow the pledged delegate leader; otherwise their roles would be so defined by the Party rules, which they most clearly are not.

KD is correct, this is a fairly close race between two candidates that have managed to garner near equal support, which means a fight to the end of the cycle and possibly a convention finish, which is after all how they system is set up to function. If nothing else having States that normally get no say in the choice getting a say this time around could well help the Democratic Party over the long term because it gives people in those States a feeling that at least one Party actually does care about their views when it gets close as this race has, instead of feeling always left out. The way the GOP system is set up that is almost impossible to see happen, so this is something only the Dems can gain from having happen. Not to mention the clear increase in registration of Dems in these States as their primaries come closer and what that could mean for the long term growth of the Party.

I know there are some that think it is automatically a negative to have this go to the convention, me I am not so sold on that perspective, and given the way two large important GE States have been nullified (why the DNC didn't do the more logical thing and cut their delegates in half and remove their SDs instead of the total exclusion I will never understand, that was a very *stupid* thing to do and I thought so from the outset) in playing a role in selecting the candidate I'd suggest having the remaining States feel like they play a role is that much more important to the eventual winner. This is one of those rare times when you have two candidates with nearly equal support, and the only way to deal with that is to let it play out to the end and see which is the stronger GE candidate by the end of the process, and have the SDs go accordingly. That is how the rules of the DNC have set up the nomination process after all.

Shapiro's "That is the real buyer's remorse — a front-loaded political calendar that has turned most partisan Democrats into now-irrelevant bystanders just when a real decision is needed" is a fairly stupid thing to say. Those partisan Democrats MADE a decision. They voted. They had their say. They aren't bystanders -- they're the ones who brought us to the very point we're at. Kevin's right, it's just a close race. You can rearrange the primary schedule all you want -- it would still be a close race.

"It is akin to being given a subscription to Consumer Reports the day after you bought a new car." No. It's akin to buying a new car with 50 million other people, and waiting until all of them have had a chance to provide input into what car you are all going to buy.

I can't speak for Kevin, but for me "I wish it was over" doesn't mean I don't want everyone to vote; it just means "I wish the circular firing squad would cease fire."

Thersites,
The democratic party's propensity for circular firing squads can explain why the republicans have been dominant in the last decade. Call it natural selection!

enozinho: "If we could just combine them into HillObamatron2000HD, we would be unstoppable!"

I can just see the campaign slogan now: "HillObamatron 2000 HD - Resistance Is Futile."

And my office mate suggests, "HillObamatron 2000 HD - Surrender, Dorothy!"

After a week punctuated by Obama's right-stuff response to wrong-way Rev. Jeremiah Wright

Whoa, why is this guy reinforcing this myth that there was something wrong with Jeremiah Wright? He must be uninformed.

Kevin wrote:

The Democratic Party has two candidates with almost eerily similar levels of support,

Okay, but to get to this point, one of them had an eerie amount of support from the mainstream media: Barack Obama. Let's admit that, Kev. We may end up with a Democratic nominee becoming president, and it may be a happy Barack Obama, and that may even be better for the nation than a Hillary presidency- but if all those things happen, it's going to be a happy accident, because the right-wingers, through the media, have been working very hard to manipulate us to pick Barack Obama from the get-go.

Wait, I was under the impression that Obama had virtually insurmountable leads in delegates and in the popular vote. The only way she can win is by damaging Obama enough to get the superdelegates to overrule the will of the people. I thought I'd read this on this blog, among other places. Why the sudden about-face?

And I certainly can do without the sanctimony of HRC supporters about how every vote needs to be counted. The vast majority of Democrats have voted, and most expressed a desire for Obama as the nominee. Whether Indiana gets a pivotal role in the election is not something that concerns me. This process is not a one-man, one-vote affair--certain Democrats' voices count more than others because of where they live, who their congressional district voted for, etc. The Democratic Party set up the system we're using, and it's pretty screwed up, frankly, but it is set up to allow the person who appeals the most to Democrats, who has the most grassroots enthusiasm and organizational abilities to get the nomination. To this point, that's Obama. If Hillary can rack up 20-plus point victory margins in every state from now on she can lay claim to victory, but this desperate changing of the goalposts (now Bayh says it should be a state's EV total that counts!) is the sign of a campaign vainly trying to justify its existence.

I think a few factors have been at work here:

First, this is the first time since Carter that the insurgent candidate has been able to gain an advantage on the establishment candidate. In the past, the superdelegates have always been a check on the ability of the likes of Gary Hart to get to where Obama has gotten. Historically, it's been rare for someone like Obama to miss the knockout punch and still stay afloat (think Bush in 1980, McCain in 2000, Hart on the original Super Tuesday).

But the flipside of that is that Hillary's early lead in superdelegates is the only reason she was able to survive February, and the only reason the campaign is still going on. Add to this her name recognition and celebrity: if Hillary wasn't Hillary, her poll numbers would have cratered with all the losing, as happened with Howard Dean and with Guiliani.

And of course, Obama missed his two chances to put the race away unmistakably in New Hampshire and on 3/4, even if he ended up no worse off in terms of delegates on either day. A few thousand people in New Hampshire and a few convenient tears have kept this race going an additional 3 months (and counting).

Call it natural selection!
Posted by: optical weenie

You don't think it's intelligent design?

I would suggest: HillObamaTron 2020 XL. Because 2000 is, like, so last century. And HD is so last week.

The heck with Clinton and Obama – Re-create68 wants to make Denver like Chicago 1968.

anon poster at 3:40 was thersites. whoops.

It is time to stop kissing the feet of voters in NH and Iowa and design an intelligent primary system.

During the general election Obama may regret telling the voters in Michigan to drop dead.

That's a recipe for a long campaign season no matter what the primary schedule looks like.

Not sure I get the logic here. Don't you mean this is a recipe for campaign season that's just as long as the primary season?

Obama has a 10% lead in pledged delegates. That's not a tie. Also, the number of pledged and superdelegates is the only metric that matters. By that measure he has a 8% lead. Which is also not a tie.

Unless voting and rules don't matter, Obama is ahead, and clearly ahead, and he has an almost insurmountable lead.

"Nearly equal"? No.

Sort of makes that whole momentum argument seem kind of silly when they reintroduce it every few days now doesn't it? The idea that this is "destroying" the party is a stupid meme too. We could just have the two of them both run against McCain -- at least part of the time please, and make it clear that support for the nominee is not in question once the decision is made at the convention.

The media is loving the fight, and there are too many campaign people willing to play the worst of the attention grabbing gambit, mostly on the Clinton side I'm sad to say (and I voted for her so no accusations are applicable here.) The short term memory thing is really more of a factor here than some of us news junkies are willing to admit. A whole lot of folks just plain aren't going to remember most of this crap. So chill, smile, and soldier on.

Kevin - A less understood reason for the extended race is the changing dynamics of fund-raising. Traditionally, campaigns stopped when they ran out of money, when they couldn't get elites (or unions) to fund them. (Or there's Mitt Romney who stopped funding himself.) The candidates that could keep going on and on were able to "live off the land" like Jesse Jackson or Pat Robertson or, this year, Mike Huckabee. But, almost by definition, those were outsider candidates. Now that both Clinton and Obama have tapped into the online cash-raising machine beyond the usual big check suspects they have the resources to keep going and going and going.

What bothers me the most about the complaints on the system implying HRC would be the nominee IGNORES the fact that the Obama camp and the Clinton camp planned their campaign around the EXISTING rules here. He went into all the states with a 20 point deficit on Super Tuesday.

If the whole thing WERE winner take all he wouldn't have wasted time flying across the country pouring resources across the map to get blowouts to compensate for the huge map SuperTuesday brought them and how far he was behind.

And given how strong his numbers started pulling up with advertising we don't KNOW if clinton or Obama would be standing; because they each (as Kevin points out) has a lock on a part of the base.

The main thing this election did show was that Iowa is good for the country and NH JUST as important: the retail politics gave people a chance to reconsider the nominee. And give Clinton credit, if her supporters hadn't flooded the place in NH she wouldn't be here now.

This campaign going on long worries me because Mccain is getting a free pass and his favorables are rising as our candidates negatives go up; but fundamentally the turnout shows the country is looking to the democrats for the solutions come November. And when the general begins and the debates start; there will be a clear choice.

I'm more confidant than ever it'll be a democratic victory come November.

We actually have the money this time to by pass the media to a degree and take the issues to the voters.

and it may be a happy Barack Obama,

I meant to write "a popular Barack Obama," but I guess it doesn't matter that much.

The point is, if you believe all the outrageous examples of media bias you've read about on the blogosphere are real and not just incredibly amazing coincidences, you've got to admit the conservatives have wanted us to avoid Hillary very badly- like it's their ultimate mission in life- and have been trying to keep that concealed.

Lev: "Wait, I was under the impression that Obama had virtually insurmountable leads in delegates and in the popular vote."

No lead is "insurmountable" when 20% or more of the game has yet to be played. Just ask the Georgetown Hoyas.

The magic number to win the nomination is 2,024. That's the defining factor here, not Sen. Obama's current "insurmountable lead," especially when he's only garnered the pledges of 1,610 delegates.

"Close" only counts when the contest is horseshoes. If Obama can't count to 2,024 on the convention floor in Denver, even when all the superdelegates are finally factored in, then he failed to close the deal and he won't win.

ITA, save_the_rustbelt. If nothing else comes out of this, I hope the DNC will make the changes to the Democratic electoral system that are plainly necessary. NH and Iowa can no longer monopolize the primaries, and the issue of caucuses (which Howard Dean actually spoke out against in 2000) need to be addressed.

It won't be easy to fix, since I understand that caucuses are cheaper and I also understand that holding the first races in small states like NH and Iowa is cheaper and makes the cost of running less prohibitive. But it's obviously not working, and I trust that we are smart enough to address these issues and come up with an electoral system for our voters that actually makes sense.

And, obviously, we've got to ditch the superdelegates.

the right-wingers, through the media, have been working very hard to manipulate us to pick Barack Obama from the get-go.

Is that why right-wingers are urging GOP voters to cross lines and vote for HRC? Just saying it doesn't make it so, Swan, there is ample evidence (exit polls) that show how much impact GOP voters have had in dem primaries in Texas, Ohio and Mississippi. Over a quarter million GOP voters crossed lines to vote for HRC in just those 3 states (Boston Globe - Many Voting for Clinton to Boost GOP 3/17/08).

The last thing the GOP wants is to face Obama. he has all of the smarts, charisma and oratorical skills that McCain does not. The GOP would much rather face HRC.

MeLoseBrain, I am only aware that Rush Limbaugh urged right-wing voters to vote for Hillary. Additionally, I believe that Obama has received more support from Republican voters than Clinton has over the whole of the primary.

Of course, that's because he's a transformational candidate with a winning message, obviously. ;)

Swan's comments are so divorced from reality they really don't deserve to be responded to.

Sen. Obama has a lead that prevents Sen. Clinton from getting the nomination on the first ballot unless she wins all the remaining primaries/caucuses by tremendously huge numbers. Not likely.
Sen. Clinton trails Sen. Obama closely enough that he can't get enough delegates for a first ballot nomination without blowing the Clinton campaign out of the water in the remaining primaries/caucuses. Also not likely.
August will be interesting.
I would suggest that future conventions be moved to the 2nd week of July. Even if campaigning for the general election doesn't "begin" until after Labor Day, there is no reason not to give us as much preparation time as possible.

Swan, as I said earlier, saying it doesn't make it so. I have a source, the Boston Globe perusing exit polls, that confirm HRC has benefited greatly from GOP votes. Find a reputable source showing Obama has received the same treatment, and I'll be happy to look at it. Until then, you're just blowing hot air.

Walter Shapiro argues that the Democratic Party has no one but itself to blame for its current primary from hell: —Kevin Drum

Actually, we have the federal government to blame. The primaries, and only primaries, should either be the same day nationwide or in regional groups, with a press blackout on the day(s) of the primary until after the polls close. Caucuses and party controlled (though state funded) primaries are bull shit.

The primaries should be wide open and declaring candidacy and the campaigning period should be limited to no more than six-months prior.

Swan:
I meant to write...but I guess it doesn't matter that much.

Yep.

Steve Paradis,

Not all Edwards and Obama supporters voted "Uncommitted." Many of them voted for Mitt Romney in the Republican primary. Just as with "Uncommitted," there was a concerted effort by Kos and others to get Democratic voters to cross over, to continue Romney's viability as a candidate and give McCain trouble.

Also, common sense suggests that many voters didn't vote, because they were told their votes wouldn't count, and because there was no GOTV on the part of the campaigns.

Finally, I would suspect that many low-information voters believed their choices were limited to the candidates on the ballot.

I can understand your political argument, that it sucks to write off voters in a swing state. That's true. But it also sucks to write off all the new voters Obama has brought to the party, by tipping the nomination to Hillary by means of delegates she "won" only because she was effectively unopposed.

Donald: "Close" only counts when the contest is horseshoes.

The sports analogy doesn't fit here. There is no magic number in sports. Whoever has the most points at the end of the game is the winner. For obvious reasons, Clinton and Obama have a different interpretation of when the end of the game is. Obama says June, Clinton says the convention.

This thing is going to come down to a decision by the refs, one way or another. And unfortunately, there doesn't seem to be a decision that will keep one side or the other from feeling cheated.

To clarify: my comments relate to Michigan, not Florida.

If we conducted the general election this way, people would instantly realize the insanity of it. Why don't they realize that it's just as crazy to elect a nominee this way?

We need ONE national primary day. Period. If we'd had that this year, Obama wouldn't have been able to call for a coronation based on a handful of Iowans gathering smugly in one another's living rooms, because they were lucky enough not to have to work the night or the swing shift, or work two jobs, or be feeble, or be car-less, or be housebound, etc. Democracy my ass.

REAL democracy means letting every vote count -- including those of millions of Floridians and Michiganders. But of course Obama is doing his best imitation of Bush 2000: if they're not my votes, they shouldn't count.

Democracy my ass.

A national primary means you hand the nomination to the most well-known candidate on the ballot. You might as well just choose the nominee based on name recognition polls and save billions.

Yes, enozinho, the Night of A Thousand Coffee Klatsches is MUCH more representative and fair than having everybody, you know, VOTE on the same day, with the guarantee that their votes will be as valid as everyone else's!! Screw the waitresses, nurses, security guards, janitors, feeble elderly, homebound, and disenfranchised!!

Money and name recognition will always play an unfortunate role in campaigns, although public financing would go a long way toward solving that problem. In the meantime, the current system ladles several extra layers of unfairness onto the process.

"Close" only counts when the contest is horseshoes.

...and hand grenades.

Trust elmo to come up with that one!

A national primary means you hand the nomination to the most well-known candidate on the ballot. You might as well just choose the nominee based on name recognition polls and save billions.

But that's no excuse for our current system. A state lottery or taking turns voting in regional blocks would be preferable to the fustercluck we have now.

Also, didn't the Texas Supreme Court just find that the parties have the right to control their own nomination system? It's not a federal matter. We have to fix it ourselves.

I can understand your political argument, that it sucks to write off voters in a swing state. That's true. But it also sucks to write off all the new voters Obama has brought to the party, by tipping the nomination to Hillary by means of delegates she "won" only because she was effectively unopposed.

Which is why a revote in Michigan would have been vastly preferable to the current situation. But Obama effectively blocked those efforts. In his own words: "I understand the politics of it, but let's be clear that it's politics." Additionally, he removed himself from the Michigan to deny Hillary a symbolic win. An astute political decision, but not one that does him much credit in my book.

Yes, enozinho, the Night of A Thousand Coffee Klatsches is MUCH more representative and fair than having everybody, you know, VOTE on the same day, with the guarantee that their votes will be as valid as everyone else's!! Screw the waitresses, nurses, security guards, janitors, feeble elderly, homebound, and disenfranchised!!

Money and name recognition will always play an unfortunate role in campaigns, although public financing would go a long way toward solving that problem. In the meantime, the current system ladles several extra layers of unfairness onto the process.

Posted by: sullijan on March 24, 2008 at 4:59 PM | PERMALINK

did someone just realize that not all american votes count.

Sullijan,

Read the news much? A lot's happened since Iowa. To the extent that Obama's laying claim to the nomination -- and actually I haven't heard him do that, as opposed to some of his supporters -- I'm guessing the claim is based on being over 700,000 votes ahead in the primaries, and having won more states, and having won more delegates. And please do not trot out Evan Bayh's desperate and moronic argument that Clinton is "really" ahead because the states she won command more electoral-college votes.

As for your proposal of a national primary day, I see why people regard primaries as more democratic than caucuses, but I am not sure why a single nationally mandated day is more democratic than allowing states to decide when to hold their primaries. Could you explain?

"Yes, enozinho, the Night of A Thousand Coffee Klatsches is MUCH more representative and fair than having everybody, you know, VOTE on the same day"

I'm afraid that your snark is unsupported by anything resembling real data. You're the one making the assertion that a "national primary" is superior to the current system. Might I suggest you gather the data that supports this assertion? As enozinho notes, there are significant issues with your proposal, not the least of which is the lack of vetting that a candidate would receive and the inordinate weight it gives to those with substantial name recognition.

Off the top of my head, my bet would be that, e.g., Clinton and Carter would not have won their respective nominations under your system.

I think it's much simpler than this, even...

Yes, their levels of support are ALMOST even, but Obama has been able to edge out a slight advantage.

So why isn't it over? Quite simply: Super Delegates.

If there were no Super Delegates, there would literally be no way for Clinton to come back now. The fact that there are Super Delegates means that Clinton has a way, within the rules of the primary, to win the nomination, even if she does not actually win the most delegates chosen by voters (or even, the most votes).

If the Democratic Party wants to avoid a mess like this in the future, they can get rid of the Super Delegates.

I suppose this all begs the question: is Obama enough of a uniter that he can draw crossover appeal from Independents and Republicans while having Hillary Clinton as his running mate?

Now that's a true test of a uniter. I wonder if he would be able to pull it off. Even as full-throated Obama supporter as myself is skeptical about that..

Good post Kevin. Winner takes all by state seems to be the better way of doing things, through primary elections and not caucuses either. Its a fine mess the Dems are in, if people let it get that way. Otherwise we just let the process rock and roll and whomever wins, wins and we ALL get together and support him or her because of course you would have to be a fool, and not care much about your country, if you were a Dem and voted for McCain out of spite and saw him appoint Clarence Thomas II to the Supreme Court.

The only real problem I see is Florida. Its hard to win races without Florida and we have managed to box ourselves into quite a fine corner there. Oh, dont bother people, I know the rules are the rules etc. etc. blah blah. However, all of that changes nothing about the main point which is that the Dems now have a big Florida problem of their own making and they better figure out a way to solve it to the satisfaction of Floridians or McCain will cruise in that state and thats bad news to Dems no matter how devoted you are to the personality of your particular chosen one.

why does it cost so much to get ur name on a ballot? seems unamerican. why does congress vote themselves a pay raise to cover gas expenses when the rest of the country is homless and starved? why did scooter libby get away with covering up treason comitted by a political office? why would americans give up their constitutional rights for security? am i the only one asking these questions? am i the only one left who cares that our govt has changed from a republic to a higharchy? voting: its just an illusion anymore.

Would those people who insist on using sports analogies to describe the primary point me to a sport in which there are a finite number of points that can EVER be accumulated, such that if you are behind by X at a certain point, you can't really win no matter how well you play?

Another data point using the same polling:

Gallup's tracking poll shows the past 17-day trend. If you chart an aggregate of those 17 days, Obama stands .1% in front of Hillary, 46.3% to 46.2%.

Forget "statistical dead heat," that's a certain dead heat.

Of course, I should add: Go Obama!

Caitlin,

Could you provide some evidence that the re-vote in Michigan didn't happen because of Obama? I know he didn't come out in support of the re-vote, but I thought the reason it didn't happen was that the state couldn't afford it and neither the party nor George Soros was willing to pay for it.

Toad

Would those people who insist on using sports analogies to describe the primary point me to a sport in which there are a finite number of points that can EVER be accumulated, such that if you are behind by X at a certain point, you can't really win no matter how well you play?

I suppose bowling could fit that scenario.

Would those people who insist on using sports analogies to describe the primary point me to a sport in which there are a finite number of points that can EVER be accumulated, such that if you are behind by X at a certain point, you can't really win no matter how well you play?

Maybe the analogy isn't to a single game, but to a team's record over the season for playoff purposes.

"No lead is "insurmountable" when 20% or more of the game has yet to be played. Just ask the Georgetown Hoyas."

Now, that is just silly. When you play a basketball game, there is no limit on the number of points you can win in the last 20% of the game. There is a firm limit on the number of delegates you can win in the last 10 states to vote.

Rhoda: I agree with your point about recognizing our current outcome is the result of playing by existing rules, thus the HRC camp has no complaint. But they do complain about undemocratic caucuses, Florida, Michigan, media bias, the race card, on and on.

But it would be impossible for me to not also notice the constant complaints and paranoia of the Obama camp with regard to the rules. Hell, Doug Wilder, among many others, issued ridiculous threats regarding superdelegates. And they also complain about media bias and the race card.

It’s crazy all over and in both camps. Kevin is right in that it’s largely due to the closeness of the race. Both camps feel ripped off and wronged. It will be interesting to see if any reforms to the nominating process are implemented.

Caitlin: Could you provide some evidence that the re-vote in Michigan didn't happen because of Obama? I know he didn't come out in support of the re-vote, but I thought the reason it didn't happen was that the state couldn't afford it and neither the party nor George Soros was willing to pay for it.

Sure, no problem.

The June 3 do-over -- proposed last week by a group of state party leaders -- died Thursday in the state Senate, where opposition from backers of Illinois Sen. Barack Obama kept the issue from even coming up for a vote.

But Obama's campaign and his supporters in Lansing have opposed it. In a conference call with reporters Thursday, a top Obama aide said legal and procedural concerns about the primary bill justified Obama's opposition."

Clinton turns up heat for do-over, but new primary looks unlikely with Obama camp balking and time short.

Some of the Obama campaign's concerns seemed legitimate to me. Some Democratic voters did cross over to vote for Romney in the Republican primary, and if the revote had ended up being funded largely by Hillary Clinton's supporters, it wouldn't have been much more useful than the original. But nothing was stopping him from tapping into his own resources. Fact of the matter is that the Obama camp deliberately dragged their feet wrt the revote, and they're the biggest reason it didn't happen despite broad support within the party and the state legislature.

I'm not inclined to be sanctimonious about it, since Obama was just looking out for number 1, like every other politician in the history of ever. But if he really is going to be the leader of a political movement that vanquishes the cynicism of "old politics," I'd appreciate more an effort.

But frankly, it's not the job of the candidates to get this kind of stuff done. Howard Dean and the DNC should have been on the ground trying to make this work.

*

"The factions of the Democrat party. . ." Indeed, I'm shocked at the number of nut cases in the Dem party. I made the bad mistake of entering a slightly more liberal blog's discussion and left literally shaking.

I made the bad mistake of entering a slightly more liberal

More liberal than this one?

"That's remarkable." I think not, more and more our political system produces 50:50 races... polling, technology, and communications strategy just push everything to a draw.

That said, Obama's won the race (that's why there are delegates). It's misleading and harmful to Clinton's supporters, Obama, and the party, to perpetuate this false "even race" meme.

leo,
No one has won yet. The person who wins is the person who gets the most delegates at the convention.
Let's do a thought experiment. Let's imagine that 2 candidates roughly split the preliminary vote by, oh say 51 to 49%. Then in the week before the convention they find one of the candidates in a hotel room with tin foil covering their head and them sucking on a huge dill pickle.

Do you think the delegates are going to vote for the pickle sucking person?

Like I say, the most important thing is to get Iowa the hell away from any position of influence in the primaries of any party: Damn ethanol scam/ fattening-HFCS-pushing wretches need to be slapped down.
PS: biofuel is OK per se, but it should be low-maintenance wild veg oil like hemp or waste grease, etc.

a sport in which there are a finite number of points that can EVER be accumulated, such that if you are behind by X at a certain point, you can't really win no matter how well you play?

I don't hold with the analogy myself, but racquet sports generally work this way: e.g. tennis games, sets, and matches are based on winning a majority of a prescribed number of points, games, and sets. When that majority is reached you stop playing, of course. Of course the current campaign appears to be stuck at deuce ...

Do you think the delegates are going to vote for the pickle sucking person?

Depends on if it's the Republicans or the Democrats.

The person who wins is the person who gets the most delegates at the convention.

Correct--if you cut off the "at the convention" part, which may or may not be true. It's likely that the supers will move after the last primary to end this, rather than letting the clock tick on for two more months that should be spent campaigning vigorously against McCain and only McCain.

Both candidates are 50% awesome and 50% ass! If we could just combine them into HillObamatron2000HD, we would be unstoppable! Posted by: enozinho on March 24, 2008 at 2:33 PM

At last, a voice of reason! Quick, where is my surgical equipment and my flying monkeys?

Would those people who insist on using sports analogies to describe the primary point me to a sport in which there are a finite number of points that can EVER be accumulated, such that if you are behind by X at a certain point, you can't really win no matter how well you play? Posted by: mainer on March 24, 2008 at 5:33 PM

Chess

Dr. Morpheus

No wonder democrats always lose. Chess is not a sport! It's a game. The Terrorists may hate us for our freedom, but the voters hate us for our nerdishneptitude.

JK, I LOVE chess. Chutes and Ladders too.

In other countries, that have a parliamentary system, caucuses is ALL there is.

Just saying.

Of course, in other countries, you have parties that actually have policy differences.

Just saying.

And, you have three or more political parties... of viability and national representation.

Just saying.

Doug: I would suggest that future conventions be moved to the 2nd week of July. Even if campaigning for the general election doesn't "begin" until after Labor Day, there is no reason not to give us as much preparation time as possible.

The conventions being so late this year is a bit of an anomaly. IIRC the norm is mid July or early August (depending on party and which is the incumbent). The dates were pushed back this year to avoid conflict with the Olympics. It will one of the shortest (if not the shortest?), post-convention campaigns in history.

"Do you think the delegates are going to vote for the pickle sucking person?"

Well in my "thought experiment" HRC is that person!

But in reality Obama's already won, excepting a Black Swan event.

If Hillary conceded tomorrow and some anti-Obama catastrophe occurred subsequently, do you think Hillary wouldn't become the nominee?

The whole point of her night-of-the-living-dead unreality campaign is to damage Obama.

Hillary and her supporters need to be weaned off the Kool Aid, they're hurting the party and very deliberately hurting Obama.

One benefit of a long campaign for the democrats that has been overlooked is that at least it splits their character assassination money in half. If Obama wins and they've spent money trashing Hilary, that money was wasted. And the 'cons don't have much money this election either!

Hillary and her supporters need to be weaned off the Kool Aid, they're hurting the party and very deliberately hurting Obama.

Fuck you. You(Obamazooids) picked the fight, now fight fothermucker and stop whining...

There's no need to make this more complicated than it is.

Agree. It's a race, no doubt about it. Moreover, no primary system is going to handle this type of situation in a way that satisfies everyone.

Obama supporters would not be happy with a system that gave the nod to a candidate with the early lead--which would very likely have been Clinton.

Clinton supporters would not be happy with a system that didn't allow a candidate a chance to fight back--even though the tide shifted to Obama.

The current system may not be ideal, but it is not horribly broken. Caucus's and primary voting serve equally valid and different purposes, and we have seen candidate's strengths and weaknesses in each. That's not a bad outcome.

Huh, Elmo?

As I recall there was a dirty Clintonian last ditch "kitchen sink defense" that asked for a (gentle) ripost from the attacked party.

Wolfson doesn't like to admit/remember this part of the story, of course, so mislead Clinton-bots tend to react as you demonstrate here.

I do recognise that Kool Aid withdrawal is a painful process.

"Obama supporters would not be happy with a system that gave the nod to a candidate with the early lead--which would very likely have been Clinton."

Hold on, Clinton hasn't lead this race in any sense for even a day from the start until now. By contrast Obama has, and I haven't see a single article saying that Hillary can win -- other than a last minute desperate plea to the super-delegates.

"kitchen sink defense"

Get out of the Kitchen then, wuss. You want to throw fastballs like racism and "politics of old", when you're using both to your advantage...then cry foul when a competitor fights back? Shit. Think again loss-sack...

mislead Clinton-bots?

Bitch, please. Stop trying to switch/compare Obama's "Celestial speech" reputation to us drinking cool aid. That's fucking pathetic...

Leo: Hold on, Clinton hasn't lead this race in any sense for even a day from the start until now.

See, e.g., here. While Obama hit his stride in late 2007, Clinton held a lead until late Jan.

My point was that if we wanted to select a candidate early--if in fact that is beneficial and should be a priority--then Clinton would have been the logical choice.

Obama supporters would obviously disagree, and for good reasons. The same reasons Clinton supporters resist throwing in the towel.

Maybe the season is so strung out is that, along with a strong group of core supporters, there are a lot of voters who couldn't make up their minds between Hillary and Obama because both have very significant problems going into the November general. Edwards should have been the candidate. Laminate it for your wallet.

anothertake: Maybe the season is so strung out is that, along with a strong group of core supporters, there are a lot of voters who couldn't make up their minds between Hillary and Obama because both have very significant problems going into the November general.

Maybe. That both have baggage (or "electability issues" as the pundits might put it) is obviously a factor. And I confess I have doubts that this country is willing to elect either. But I will undoubtedly be voting for one of them come November--as I hope any sane individual will.

has407, I'll be voting for the democratic candidate, and working for him or her. I'll try to put on my game face, and I will hope the negatives can be overcome by the strong positive elements favoring a democrat this year. Unfortunately, I just think we come closer to having another Kerry moment in this case, and I can't help feeling it wouldn't look this way if Edwards had had a lucky break in Iowa. But WTF, I'm an older (in my 50s) democrat and I've seen this happen before.

If I were a superdelegate, I'd be inclined to look at Obama's performance in the context of where things stood at the beginning of the race. Hillary Clinton had an astonishing array of structural and tactical advantages:

$100 million in the bank, 96 committed superdelegates in her pocket, a husband who is the most visible and influential figure in the Democratic Party, hundreds of friends and allies in the party hierarchy, major name recognition after two terms as First Lady, and a compliant media that had basically crowned her as the next President. Plus, she is a Senator from New York, the media hub of the nation and one of the two largest and most critical states.

Given all that as a starting point, it was an incredible act of courage bordering on audacity for Obama to get into the race at all, much less surpass HRC the way he has.

What has happened over the course of the past few months is that Obama has done so well that he has managed to turn the dynamic around 180 degrees, which works against him to some extent. Hillary is now perceived as the scrappy challenger gamely trying to make a fight of it against the Inevitable One. I think there is great value in looking back in time for some perspective, and when we do it becomes apparent just how remarkable Obama's feat really is.

I am wondering what exactly is wrong with Chris Bowers' math over at Openleft. If he is right, this is decided and has been decided since Clinton failed to make up any real ground in Texas and Ohio. But people keep fighting like this is still a live issue. People keep pushing for Clinton as though she is doing anything but lowering the odds of a democrat winning in '08. People keep defending Obama against Clinton like she is a serious contender.

It is Obama vs. McCain. The fact that the media doesn't want to lose a story and so won't report that the democratic contest has been done for a while doesn't change that. The fact that people are finding it hard to let go of the very understandable wish to see a woman as president doesn't change it. Clinton has been losing super delegates and would have to get a higher percentage of the remaining popular vote and delegates than she got in any state but Arkansas. To be clear she would have to beat Obama worse in every state to come than she beat him by in New York.

Start pushing for Obama to get his campaign into shape (which includes reigning in his quite conservative set of advisers). Start putting energy and money into congressional races. Start letting the Clinton camp know they stand to lose all standing in the party if they keep this kamikaze shit up. But reporting this and fighting about it like it is still a real competition is kind of like debating how the Heat can make the playoffs.

To be clear I won't be voting for Obama or Clinton in the generals. I have no horse left in this race and I think both are rather cowardly candidates. But of the two cowardly candidates, one of them has clearly won.

Stop pretending. You never had a horse in this race. Coward.

It's not really all that close if you look just at Democratic voters. Clinton is ahead by about 4 points.

Obama's winning because he's got overwhelming support of blacks in the south--due to his race--and overwhelming support of liberals in caucuses and a few wealthy all white states.

Take away those two legs and he's got Missouri and Wisconsin, with 23 and 35 percent independents/Republicans, respectively.

He's kind of like Oakland. Ain't much there there.

Is everyone really that sure that a liberal can win the presidency?

BTW, Obama has received more votes from Republicans than Clinton has, I believe. In fact, independents and Republicans are the only reason he's ahead in the popular vote. It's sure not Democrats.

I think what turns a person such as myself against the HRC is her insistent need to change the rules in the middle of the game. With Evah, now it seems that not only would Hill be okay with moving the goalposts, she would be fine with changing the entire sport (down by 20 points, fine, but since I say now we are playing golf, I'm beating you). We've had almost eight years of an administration who thinks the rules don't apply to them, why do people want four more?

Look, the electoral college is fucked up. You know when I realized that? 2000. The people in charge of the Democratic Party, the people who run around in Hillary's circle, seemed to be fine with the system even though it help lose them an election. Eight years later it stands essentially unchanged - mostly because career politicians know its rigged against upstarts. But when that upstart comes, all of the sudden "boo-hoo-hoo! The rules are sooo unfair!" We'll Hillary had eight years to get on it.

Rule 1. Play by the rules. Don't like a rule, you live with it until the game is over, THEN you see if you can change it. Not in the middle of a game. Are any of you old enough to remember the pain in the ass it was hearing about all the ancillary crap that made up a Clinton White House? You want four more of that? She is behind in pledge delegates and is not going to beat him in a fair fight. So if you want a Democrat to win in November, sit down. But if you want to tear apart the Democratic Party keep on scratching for Hillary.

Here's a poll of a different kind - Who's the biggest pig in politics: http://www.wowowow.com/poll/who-biggest-pig

A little off-topic, but still fun...

Chris Bowers crunches the numbers in every possible way. Doesn't look good for Hillary.

Rule 1. Play by the rules.

2025

Don't like a rule, you live with it until the game is over...

Yes sir, see you at the conventions.

I argue that the support is not equal and deep and strong when we look at donations. Obama's campagin donations are staggering compared to Clinton's--especially when you consider the grass-roots nature of these donations.

Caitlin,

Thanks for giving me the source. I guess when you say he "blocked" the revote, it makes me think you mean he did something more active to stop it from happening, rather than just not ponying up money for it and opposing one bill that wouldn't provide everyone with the chance to vote again (i.e., it wouldn't permit a revote by any of the thousands of people who, rather than vote for Hillary or "Uncommitted," strategically crossed over to vote for Romney in the Republican primary).

Has407,

Leading in the polls (especially before anyone has actually voted) is not the same as leading in the race.

I wonder what that chart would look like if the DNC, Florida and Michigan would have had the foresight to realize the prediciment it would find itself in now. To me, a Democrat, it's embarrasing to have his Party in such disarray when , potentially, 2-1/2 million voters won't have any voice in this Primary. No one seems to want to take responsibility, admit it and solve it. It shouldn't be the candidates or the voters for sure.

From Donald:

No lead is "insurmountable" when 20% or more of the game has yet to be played. Just ask the Georgetown Hoyas.

Since we're using sports metaphors I'll try a boxing one. Obama and Hillary were in a close fight and we've gone to the three judges scorecards. Judge #1 has it 115-113 for Obama, and Judge #2 has it 115-113 for Obama.....

Hillary and her supporters though are clinging to the hope that Judge #3 will score the fight for Hillary AND that the Nevada State Athletic Commission will step in and disqualify the first two judges.

Meanwhile Hillary's floating the idea that they can be co-champions...with her having the greater portion of the title of course...

The Fabulous Mr. Toad -- True, there's a big difference. However, if the party machinery had lined up behind the front-runner in the early stages, we'd probably have Clinton as the presumptive nominee.

Obama made that point. Apologies I don't have a link and I'm paraphrasing here... "we could have saved a lot of time and money going with the front runner [Clinton] at the start". I'll post a link if I can find it.

To answer the claims that still persist about Republicans voting for Clinton in Texas to give her the victory--check the actual exit polls, the ONLY evidence we have:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21660890/

Summary:

in Texas, Reps--Clinton, 46%; Obama, 53%!
Dems--Clinton, 53%; Obama, 46%

in Ohio; Reps--Clinton,49%, Obama, 49%.
Dems--Clinton, 56, Obama, 42

Even in s, Carolina; Reps-CL, 20%, OB, 37%

It's all there, folks. Stop this false claim, then we can work on several others...