Just because you're ahead in pledged delegates doesn't mean you won

by LDFan, Sat May 10, 2008 at 06:11:12 PM EST

This is bothering me more and more every day!

I hear constantly that the Clinton campaign is "moving the goal posts" and trying to "change the rules."

But the Democratic party makes no distinction between "pledged delegates" and automatic delegates.

The "automatic delegates" or "super delegates" are no more important or less important than any other delegates.

In addition, for a campaign so big on following the rules that we will finish the primary system without the input of two of the largest states in the country I am fascinated by the attempt to steamrole over the rules in regards to automatic delegates.

So; the idea that Obama will win once he collects a majority of pledged delegates is nonscense.

We will have a nominee when one of the candidates collects 2,024 delegates (without Florida & Michigan) or 2,209 (with Florida and Michigan)

And if the party is so opposed to the campaign stretching until June; I have an idea...don't schedule any primaries for June!

West Virginia is voting on Tuesday; and as long as Hillary is fighting I'm right there with her!




Tags: Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, Election, super delegates (all tags)

Display:
Permalink :: 71 Comments :: Post a Comment


Thoughts and Comments (2.00 / 2)

are welcome :)


by LDFan on Sat May 10, 2008 at 06:12:19 PM EST

Re: Thoughts and Comments (2.00 / 3)

Of course this is not an official rule. But when a lot of top-tier Democrats come out and say that pledged delegates must determine the nominee, it becomes a de facto rule. Not to say that rule cannot be broken - anything can happen in this crazy race.

As an Obama supporter I do not think he should declare victory any sooner than June 3rd - and only then if his combined pledged and super delegate lead is 50%+1 including FL and MI (dependent on any agreed upon resolution to the FL and MI debacle).


www.thingsyoungerthanmccain.com
by LandStander on Sat May 10, 2008 at 06:16:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Thoughts and Comments (2.00 / 1)

In essence, winning more then half of the pledged delegates, which Obama is guaranteed to do, does mean that you are GOING to win.  The super-delegates would face a tremendous backlash from half of the party if they were to over-turn the will of the voters.

This backlash would be fueled by the media.  It would alienate both the massive youth movement to the Dem party and the AA contingent, which would be a death knell to not only our presidential hopes but to MANY downticket races at the same time.  In other words, it would be colossally stupid, and it isn't going to happen.  This is why you've seen leaders such as Pelosi and others come out and say that it just isn't going to happen.

It's like seeing your team up by 35 in a football game with a minute to go.  The other team might support a few touchdowns, but it isn't going to change the end of the game.  That's how far ahead Obama is.


by Lawyerish on Sat May 10, 2008 at 06:20:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Thoughts and Comments (none / 0)

Please explain how does it work "over turn will of the voters".

MA voted for Hillary are all the MA supper delegates vote for her? Kennedy, Devall, Kerry and so on

CA voted for Hillary so all super delegates from California should they vote for Hillary.

MO voted for Sen Obama, so did CT so did many other

What is your definition??


You may not agree with What I say but don't forget I am a Democrat
by indydem99 on Sat May 10, 2008 at 07:04:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Thoughts and Comments (2.00 / 1)

The total of the pledged delegate lead at the end of all the state's voting, is the person who wins the pledged delegate race.  How hard is this to understand?

And it's not me who made this determination, btw; it seems to be a lot of the supers.


by Lawyerish on Sat May 10, 2008 at 07:27:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Thoughts and Comments (none / 0)

unfortunately there is no such thing in the rules of the Democratic party. The person who has 2209 delegates on the convention date wins the nomination. I am sure he would have them. Just do not be in a hurry. Sen. Obama's campaign insists on playing by the rules why are you not? For your information in the GE electoral votes are allocated by winnig each state.


You may not agree with What I say but don't forget I am a Democrat
by indydem99 on Sun May 11, 2008 at 06:27:28 AM EST
[ Parent ]

It will be interesting to see if (2.00 / 1)

superdelegates give Hillary the nomination even if Obama has the most pledged delegates at the end of the primary season.

I wonder if this will indeed happen...


by puma on Sat May 10, 2008 at 06:14:32 PM EST

Re: It will be interesting to see if (2.00 / 1)

it won't happen


I would say at this point we're starting to see a little desperation on the part of the woman who I support... NY Governor Paterson
by obamaovermccain on Sat May 10, 2008 at 06:17:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

With her debts (2.00 / 1)

why would they want a candidate who is drowning in a Red Sea of debt.


"McSame: He's Constipated and Ready to GO!
by Al Rodgers on Sat May 10, 2008 at 06:19:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: With her debts (none / 0)

maybe because they won't want a candidate drowning in his 'curious' personal and political associations?


by swissffun on Sat May 10, 2008 at 06:32:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: With her debts (2.00 / 3)

stop talking about the clintons this way!


I would say at this point we're starting to see a little desperation on the part of the woman who I support... NY Governor Paterson
by obamaovermccain on Sat May 10, 2008 at 06:35:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]

The only scenario (2.00 / 2)

where that happens if it there is clear evidence she can won and he cannot.

Judging by the primary metrics, the way that would work is if;

1.) He underperforms somewhere he wasn't supposed to

2.) Turnout is low in states he wins and high in states where she wins

3.) GE polls.

Yet what has happened is he has met expectations in the primaries, as has she. He slightly overperformed in Indiana, but met expectations in North Carolina. His turnout is just as high as hers. Most polls show they are fairly close in their margins with McCain.

Hence, they are equally electable. Thus, there is no reason to overturn the will of the Democratic voters, so he gets the nomination


The American people; they were for the war before they were against it.
by nrafter530 on Sat May 10, 2008 at 06:29:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The only scenario (none / 0)

Hillary has won the majority of registered Democrats who voted so far. Obama has a independents and Republicans in his total. Has the party ever nominated a candidate who did not win the majority of Democrats?


by DaleA on Sat May 10, 2008 at 08:23:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The only scenario (none / 0)

1.  There is no such thing as "registered Democrats" in many states, including mine, Texas.  So, this is kind of a nonsense metric.  There is also no attempt to even track which voters are registered Democrats in states that do have registered Democrats but open primaries.  There are exit polls for self-identified Democrats (presumably what you're referring to), but these are imprecise.  I've also yet to see anyone attempt to estimate self-identified Democrat vote totals from the all contests (there are no exit polls for caucuses so I don't see how you could even come up with an estimate if you tried).  But, if you're not just talking out of your a@@, I'd love to see a link.

2.  We'll need to win independents and Republican crossovers to win the general election.  So, allowing those of them that will vote with us in the general to help select the nominee is a good idea.

3.  The only downside in allowing independents and Republicans to vote in the Democratic primaries is the potential for insincere voters.  Of course, we all know Clinton has benefited from these Rush Limbaugh voters, likely giving her the winning margin in Indiana.


John McCain vows to overturn Roe
by soccerandpolitics on Sat May 10, 2008 at 09:44:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]

When Democrats alone (none / 0)

can elect a President, that'll matter. the only reason why our primaries are open to all are because in order to win a nationwide election, you have to win votes from more than just registered Democrats.


The American people; they were for the war before they were against it.
by nrafter530 on Sun May 11, 2008 at 11:40:05 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Just because you're ahead in pledged (2.00 / 2)

So far as I know, no one has removed Clinton's name from any primary ballots.  When that happens, this diary might have a point.  The nomination process "goes on" even after a victor has emerged.  I don't think that that is rocket science.


by rfahey22 on Sat May 10, 2008 at 06:17:00 PM EST

Re: Just because you're ahead in pledged delegates (2.00 / 2)

If you're ahead in pledged delegates, it does mean you've won if there's no more pledged delegates left to win. At some point, math does play a factor. And the percentages that Clinton would need to win all the remaining races in are extremely, extremely unlikely (to the point that she hasn't reached those margins in a single state that she's won already).

The race is not technically over, but the end is well in sight. Pretending the chance for her to take the nomination is still equal to Obama's isn't really realistic.


by upstate girl on Sat May 10, 2008 at 06:17:09 PM EST

Don't worry. She's bankrupted (2.00 / 1)

she's not going anywhere.

She's out of gas.

Today, instead of campaigning in WV or KY or OR, she's in NYC doing fundraisers to pay off her $11,4000,000 debt.

right now, she's just tap dancing, before the Foreclosure  hits.


"McSame: He's Constipated and Ready to GO!
by Al Rodgers on Sat May 10, 2008 at 06:17:20 PM EST

Well (2.00 / 1)

I don't see it as the super's "giving" it to her since all delegates are entitled to a vote and they are delegates like every other one in Denver.


by LDFan on Sat May 10, 2008 at 06:20:29 PM EST

Re: Well (2.00 / 2)

I see you're toeing the Clinton party line- which is fine, actually, I suppose, since it's true. Superdelegates can vote however they please. However, the fact is that they will vote very predictably- and nobody has made a convincing argument to my why they'll break with the pledged delegate leader, or why they'd support Clinton over Obama.


Hooray for John McCain!
by ragekage on Sat May 10, 2008 at 07:10:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Well (none / 0)

Because her path to 271 electoral votes is more secure than his. Two words:
Florida and Ohio - she's polling 10-15 points stonger than he is. She takes the Kerry map and adds both of those states in addition to Arkansas.

He will lose Ohio and Florida and will need to sweep NM, Nevada, Colorado, and Iowa to make ujp for it.

Her path is safe, his is risky.


by LDFan on Sat May 10, 2008 at 07:17:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Well (2.00 / 1)

Wow, so now you can read into he future. Gee what else can you do besides cling to the myth that hillary is still a viable candidate.


"In the primary you should vote with your heart, but in the general, you should vote with your head" Bill Clinton
by venician on Sat May 10, 2008 at 07:25:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Well (2.00 / 1)

Ahh, not true. And it's 270, by the way.

Obama's polling within two points of McCain in Ohio. Clinton is five points ahead of McCain. Only in Florida does McCain run away against Obama, but Clinton's within the MOE against McCain there. Saying Clinton will get Florida over McCain easily is wishful thinking.

However, Obama can win easily without OH or FL. He can take NM, CO, IA, WI, MI, PA, MN, CT, possibly NV, get two electoral votes out of NB, and has an excellent shot at getting VA. This will expand the Democratic map significantly, and has an excellent shot of giving us an Obamajority and mandate in the congress to get things done.

But as I've said many times, though, both candidates have paths to get to 270 and above that suit them personally. The bad part about Clinton's is that she has to win Ohio and Florida. If she loses one, she's done. Obama has more territory to gain, but they are easier places to fight McCain in, and can seriously help downticket races in the fall.

Again, I don't like this "Kerry map + some" attitude. We're going to, again, ignore state Democratic parties and voters whom we don't find convenient. Doesn't fly with me.


Hooray for John McCain!
by ragekage on Sat May 10, 2008 at 07:29:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Well (none / 0)

270...you're right. But she is still polling 10 to 15 points stronger.

Plus, PA went blue in '04 as did MI.

What I want to know is which states does Obama win that Kerry didn't?

What is his path to 270?

http://www.270towin.com/


by LDFan on Sat May 10, 2008 at 07:36:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Well (2.00 / 1)

You're using the same resource I am, minus getting some polling data from RCP.

Here, pull up the 2004 map from the page, and then build this one-

BLUE- CA, WA, OR, CO, NM, IA, WI, MN, MI, IL, VA, DC, MD, all of New England, and PA. I read a total of 286.

There are some question marks here. NV, for instance, was barely red in 2004, and Obama performs well there. NE will likely give Obama a couple EVs out of their new dispersal law. VA is a tough but certainly possible; I live there, I can tell you it's so. Even without VA, he can win, just more narrowly.


Hooray for John McCain!
by ragekage on Sat May 10, 2008 at 07:55:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Well (none / 0)

It's close...you have to admit it's close

It would really come down to NV, CO, NM, and IA.

This is why the Florida/Michigan thing drives me nuts. We're completely pissing off 44 electoral votes!


by LDFan on Sat May 10, 2008 at 08:13:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Well (none / 0)

Obama's polling over McCain easily in MI. McCain went to MI and gave a speech and never once mentioned the economy- even his supporters were flabbergasted. And most of the Michigan... uhh, what do we call them, Michiganders? Anyway, they don't blame Obama or Clinton, more than their own elected officials. We'll be fine in November.

Actually, with PA, it makes a very strong show for Obama. He can lose NV, VA, and even NM and win. But this puts him at 270, which is too close for comfort for me. But as I said, if Clinton loses FL on her map, she's done. So we're close no matter what, and better off not making any statements about either candidate taking votes for granted.

That's the way to failure, again, taking things for granted. We need to fight for every vote and every state, no matter the nominee. We'll be successful in the fall, no matter once. We just need to get over this destructive primary process, and people like you and me can work together (as it seems we're already starting to do) and kick the Republican's asses.


Hooray for John McCain!
by ragekage on Sat May 10, 2008 at 08:32:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Well (none / 0)

We'll beat him...and we will be united...but this primary has been brutal. Most Hillary supporters I know feel absolutely disgusted at the way the media, the blogs (especially Huffington and Kos), and many of his surrogates have treated both her and her supporters.

You would be hard pressed to find her supporters calling for him to be euthanized, taken to the shed, etc...

I don't hold it against Obama but it has not been pretty out there...

P.S. I see her path to 270 as being quite strong with or without Florida and Ohio.

Remember, she gets Arkansas and West Virginia kin addition to New MExico and Nevada!


by LDFan on Sat May 10, 2008 at 08:46:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Well (none / 0)

If you want to really cut it close, 269 plus the support of the plurality of state's House delegations (something the Democrats are almost sure to have) will get you there.


John McCain vows to overturn Roe
by soccerandpolitics on Sat May 10, 2008 at 09:50:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Ok so (none / 0)

maybe that's why most of the Ohio superdelegates are going for her

and why she's losing the superdelegate race in Colorado, Iowa, Virginia, etc.


The American people; they were for the war before they were against it.
by nrafter530 on Sat May 10, 2008 at 08:07:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Pledged delegates (none / 0)

are no more important than automatic delegates


by LDFan on Sat May 10, 2008 at 06:22:49 PM EST

Re: Pledged delegates (2.00 / 2)

...except that they reflect the votes of the people.


by upstate girl on Sat May 10, 2008 at 06:24:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Pledged delegates (2.00 / 1)

No they don't...because a whole bunch come from caucus states. I've been to caucuses and they do not represent the will of the people!

Case in point:Texas. Hillary won the primary 51% to 47% and lost the caucus 56% to 44%. Which is interesting since you HAD to vote in the primary to vote in the caucus!

What happened? Well, not everyone had four hours to kill that night...

Washington: She lost the caucus by 30% and lost the primary by 4%.

Caucuses are completely undemocratic and do not in any sense represent the "will of the people."

Obama's supporters wrote many articles against the caucus system...until Iowa.


by LDFan on Sat May 10, 2008 at 06:28:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Pledged delegates (2.00 / 2)

Then why weren't you working against the caucuses before they happened?

Sure Obama supporters hated the caucses before Iowa, because after Iowa, you couldn't change the rules anymore.

I still hate the caucuses, but we allowed them, so if they choose the nominee, oh well, you had ample time to bitch before Iowa.


The American people; they were for the war before they were against it.
by nrafter530 on Sat May 10, 2008 at 06:30:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Pledged delegates (none / 0)

My point is...that it's ridiculous to imply that pledged delegate numbers are based on the "will of the people."

In addition, deleagtes should not be seperated based on a "pledged vs. automatic" metric. All delegates are entitled to a vote regardless of where they opriginated from


by LDFan on Sat May 10, 2008 at 06:35:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Pledged delegates (2.00 / 2)

No, it is not ridiculous.  The fact that Hillary supporters can't be bothered to come caucus is nobody's fault but hers.  

Both teams had MILLIONS of votes in Texas.  There were FAR less people then that who showed up to caucus.  The implication that ALL Hillary supporters were 'busy that night' is ridiculous, they were no busier then Obama supporters.  Just less motivated and less organized to come caucus.


by Lawyerish on Sat May 10, 2008 at 06:56:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Pledged delegates (2.00 / 2)

Please, "caucuses" have a variety of rules and so it is dishonest to lump them all together - some are essentially primaries (which themselves have differing rules).  Moreover, caucuses measure the depth of a candidate's support, if nothing else.  Is the deeper support of a caucus-goer better or worse than the possibly shallow support of a few primary voters?  I don't know, but there was no widespread effort, nor any effort by Clinton herself, to change the system until it became a problem for her.  


by rfahey22 on Sat May 10, 2008 at 06:32:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Pledged delegates (2.00 / 4)

Why weren't you people whining about the caucuses when Bill won in 92?  Why weren't you doing something about it before the election started?
 
I would say at this point we're starting to see a little desperation on the part of the woman who I support... NY Governor Paterson
by obamaovermccain on Sat May 10, 2008 at 06:34:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Pledged delegates (none / 0)

Okay...why weren't you whining about Super's before the voting started? Cacuses' are inherhently undemocratic or do you not agree with the concept of a secret ballot?


by LDFan on Sat May 10, 2008 at 06:36:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Pledged delegates (2.00 / 2)

Whining about what?  You got me confused with someone else because I understand the supers are going to vote and I am confident they will go with the person with most states won, popular vote, and the most delegates.  I don't care if it is a secret ballot or a caucus, you deal with the hand given to you and you make the best of it. We have been using caucuses for years, but now sine Hillary is losing she and her supporters are making a big deal about it.  It is none another than Hillary's fault for dismissing them, arrogantly predicting this will be over on Feb. 5.

She is now whining that if we had the republican way of voting she would have won by now.  


I would say at this point we're starting to see a little desperation on the part of the woman who I support... NY Governor Paterson
by obamaovermccain on Sat May 10, 2008 at 06:43:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Let's remember (none / 0)

There will be no caucuses November nor will there be proportional allocation of electors


by LDFan on Sat May 10, 2008 at 06:45:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Let's remember (2.00 / 2)

fine by me, if anything the Obama team shows that it can adapt to voting procedures and looking forward to see how they can benefit it to their advantage.


I would say at this point we're starting to see a little desperation on the part of the woman who I support... NY Governor Paterson
by obamaovermccain on Sat May 10, 2008 at 06:48:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Pledged delegates (2.00 / 4)

The "caucuses are undemocratic" chestnut comes out again.

1. Both candidates agreed to compete according to the DNC rules and the rules of each state for the primary. Some of those states use caucuses.

  1. Caucuses are a different metric for measuring support, neither better nor worse than traditional voting.
  2. If you're going to start dissembling the process to exclude factors that you don't find "democratic", then states that don't allow open voting are no longer "democratic" and should be tossed aside as well.

Both sides knew the states that had caucuses and that campaigning and organization would need to factor in this method of representational voting before they started on the campaign trail. Clinton chose to ignore them, Obama did not. Saying they're "undemocratic" by proxy damns the entire process and leaves it wide open for creative interpretation to make ridiculous arguments like the one you've made. These were the rules set by each state, period. You can't toss them out because they don't fit your personal interpretation of "democratic" after the fact.


by upstate girl on Sat May 10, 2008 at 06:35:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Pledged delegates (none / 0)

Seriously...there should be no debate about whether or not caucuses are democratic.

1.) The only way you're allowed to vote is if you can get there during the small window allowed. Usually it's a two/three hour window whereas primaries allow about 12 hours

2.) You have to stick around for a couple of hours after you vote (which discriminates against workers and the elderly.

3.) People in the military are not able to participate

4.) There's no secret ballot!!!! You have to publicy identify who you support. This has more in common with the Soviet Union than Democracy.

Food for thought...


by LDFan on Sat May 10, 2008 at 06:44:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Pledged delegates (2.00 / 3)

You'd be more convincing if you had your facts straight.

"Democrats who cannot attend the caucus because of physical disability, religious observance, or military service can file a surrogate form which allows them both to stand for election as delegates and to vote for other delegates (by nominee preference). Republicans who are unable to attend for similar reasons can stand for election as a delegate but can't vote for other delegates. They also must contact the party to arrange for this in advance. (4) The Democrats have a delegate selection and affirmative action plan, which requires considerable outreach to the community and a robust effort to even out the playing field for gender and race. "

http://www.washblog.com/story/2007/12/27 /163757/71

And that's just for Washington. I'd really like a link as to how military personnel cannot participate in caucuses because I can't find anything to back up that statement.

For the record, I have no problems with the aspect of a caucus where people identify who they support, given that they're also provided a platform and are expected to persuade others to their side. Comparing that to the Soviet Union is hyperbolic nonsense.


by upstate girl on Sat May 10, 2008 at 06:49:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Just because you're ahead in pledged delegates (2.00 / 2)

I'm considered a snark, but this person is for real? What gives how can I be a snark if this person is for real?


by Hillarywillwin on Sat May 10, 2008 at 06:29:49 PM EST

A serious and sincere thought (2.00 / 2)

Nobody ever wins a nomination until the convention, and that is fact. However, considering matters of possibility and probability, there's much to be said about how one can win without securing the required number of delegates.


_____________
PUMA: Perverse Undemocratic McCain Adherents
by lizardbox on Sat May 10, 2008 at 06:35:44 PM EST

Re: A serious and sincere thought (none / 0)

Point is he will not end the campaign with enough delegates to secure it...nor will she


by LDFan on Sat May 10, 2008 at 06:39:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A serious and sincere thought (none / 0)

Understandable. But if the Superdelegates get him to the majority threshold, then he is the presumptive nominee. That's when Senator Clinton suspends her campaign.


_____________
PUMA: Perverse Undemocratic McCain Adherents
by lizardbox on Sat May 10, 2008 at 08:07:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A serious and sincere thought (none / 0)

Yes...if he gets the number...then she should probably suspend the campaign.

In spite of my heart, my head reminds me we must beat McCain!

However...there should be no declaration of victory based on a majority or "pledged" delegates. The number is either 2,024 or 2,209 not 1687!


by LDFan on Sat May 10, 2008 at 08:16:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Just because you're ahead in pledged delegates (2.00 / 2)

So; the idea that Obama will win once he collects a majority of pledged delegates is nonscense.

Okay, I'll give you that.   But you leave yourself in the position of having to justify party insiders nullifying the pledged delegate win that obama earned.   How you do that is up to you... I'm sure there is a convincing argument you can think up.


by soros on Sat May 10, 2008 at 06:44:20 PM EST

hmm (none / 0)

"And if the party is so opposed to the campaign stretching until June; I have an idea...don't schedule any primaries for June!"

touche my friend, touche.


BHO/HRC 08
by omar little on Sat May 10, 2008 at 06:56:34 PM EST

Re: hmm (2.00 / 2)

Well it is going to be hard for the party to tell states when to schedule their primaries when their one and only attempt at enforcing the rules in FL and MI is being undermined for not-too-clear reasons


by Benjaminomeara on Sat May 10, 2008 at 06:59:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

the MI & FL decision was dumb (none / 0)

no need to strip all delegates, but more importantly the entire process needs to be reformed immediately.


BHO/HRC 08
by omar little on Sat May 10, 2008 at 07:16:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Just because you're ahead in pledged delegates (none / 0)

You are right stricto sensu but it is politically inimaginable that SDs would overturn the pledged delegate lead unless they have good reason to.
All the potentially good reasons to have now gone away. He performed just as well after Wright than before. GE polls show them globally as strong as the other.  And the popular vote canard has been debunked enough in the media to make it worthless as a talking point.

And there are quite a bit of delegates including Clinton supporters as of now who have said they would vote for the pledged delegate winner. Thats the Pelosi Club.


by Benjaminomeara on Sat May 10, 2008 at 06:57:49 PM EST

Bill Clinton did the samething in 1992 (2.00 / 4)

On April 8th of 1992 a full two months before he would secure enough delegates to claim the nomination Bill's staff was calling him the presumptive nominee:

[Apr 8, 1992] Clinton's showing yesterday convinced many Democrats that, even with the depth of concern about his character and his ability to win in November within his own party, his nomination is now all but assured. "Bill Clinton is the presumptive nominee," declared Mark Mellman

http://nl.newsbank.com/nl-search/we/Arch ives?p_product=BG&p_theme=bg&p_a ction=search&p_maxdocs=200&p_top doc=1&p_text_direct-0=0EADDFCC03728E BC&p_field_direct-0=document_id& p_perpage=10&p_sort=YMD_date:D&s _trackval=GooglePM

He claimed that without having the support of a majority of super or pledged delegates... without being even close actually.

He was able to claim it because he had a mathematical advantage that none of his competitors could catch. Just as Obama has over Hillary. In fact he's shown more restraint than Bill did by waiting until he has an actual majority of pledged delegates on May 20th, before claiming the presumptive nominee title.

As to the states that are being "ignored"... these are the states that didn't even matter in 1992:

April 28: Pennsylvania
May 5: DC, Indiana, North Carolina
May 12: Nebraska, West Virginia
May 19: Oregon, Washington [primary]
May 26: Arkansas, Idaho [primary], Kentucky
June 2: Alabama, California, Montana, New Jersey, New Mexico, Ohio
June 9: North Dakota

http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Agora/80 88/Dem1992.html

A more complete timeline with a bunch of quotes calling Bill Clinton the presumptive nominee is here:

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/ 2008/03/q-did-the-1992.html


by Tatan on Sat May 10, 2008 at 06:59:47 PM EST

Re: Just because you're ahead in (2.00 / 1)

Obama picked up 4 more super delegates today.  It willl be all over on 20 May.


by Spanky on Sat May 10, 2008 at 07:15:41 PM EST

Re: Just because you're ahead in pledged delegates (none / 0)

you go girl.  fight tooth and nail for you "progressive" candidate.  good lord.  how can you get so riled up for a status quo, big money democrat?  one that will say and do anything to get the nomination...

you people worry me.  


by stinkfingers on Sat May 10, 2008 at 07:16:18 PM EST

Re: Just because you're ahead in pledged delegates (none / 0)

1.) I happen to be a guy...

2.) Because on Health Care, Paid Leave, and PRe-K education she is the better candidate. Those issue actually mean something to me and I will stand with her all the way to Denver for Universal Healthcare alone!


by LDFan on Sat May 10, 2008 at 07:19:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Just because you're ahead in pledged delegates (none / 0)

does integrity mean anything to you?  apparently not.  supporting a candidate that will, for example, call out obama in indiana for being too tough on gun control is straight from the republican playbook.  do you even know who it is you are supporting?  is hubris an endearing trait to you?  how about honesty? the NAFTA nonsense she spewed is directly contradicted by white house transcripts that demonstrate her active part in supporting it's passage.  sorry charlie, the issues you list are important. but at what cost?


by stinkfingers on Sat May 10, 2008 at 10:53:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Just because you're ahead in pledged delegates (none / 0)

Today in an Oregon Town Hall Obama told a questioner that Michigan and Florida delegates would be seated.

Also, Politico has an interesting article up that shows he will win even if they are seated the way Hillary wants. No Michigan delegates for Obama. (Wouldn't that piss you off if you were a Michigan Obama supporter?)


by platy on Sat May 10, 2008 at 07:24:45 PM EST

Re: Just because you're ahead in pledged delegates (none / 0)

They're wrong!

With Michigan and Florida Candidate Delegates
delegates Total  
Obama 1657.5 280 1937.5
Clinton 1604.5 285.5 1890
Edwards 32 -- 32
Uncomm. 55 -- 55
Remaining 217 284.5 501.5
Updated 5/10/2008 Delegates Needed: 2208.5  

http://demconwatch.blogspot.com/

It would be a dead heat!


by LDFan on Sat May 10, 2008 at 07:30:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Just because you're ahead in pledged delegates (none / 0)

Last time I checked 1937.5 > 1890

But maybe I'm wrong.


by shalca on Sat May 10, 2008 at 07:55:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Just because you're ahead in pledged delegates (none / 0)

It does rather boggle the mind, doesn't it?


John McCain
by Mandoliniment on Sun May 11, 2008 at 12:17:16 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Just because you're ahead in pledged delegates (2.00 / 1)

They projected it out to the Oregon primary, giving Obama less delegates than he's expected to win (for instance, only winning by 50 % in Oregon, and with larger leads for Clinton in WV and KY than she expects). Here's the article if you want to read it:

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/050 8/10247.html


by platy on Sat May 10, 2008 at 07:59:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Just because you're ahead in pledged delegates (2.00 / 2)

I think Hillary has the right to stay in until the last primary.

But what needs to stop is her campaign's trying to change the metric for victory. It is not popular vote. This is a delegate race, and it was always a delegate race.

She can see the process through to the end if she wants to, but she should not be allowed to subvert the integrity of the process.


by Angry White Democrat on Sat May 10, 2008 at 07:38:35 PM EST

Re: Just because you're ahead in pledged delegates (none / 0)

Yes; it is a delegate race! And 20% of the delegates can vote for whomever they want as well. That is also a "part of the process." Do not try and subvert that either!


by LDFan on Sat May 10, 2008 at 07:42:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Just because you're ahead in pledged delegates (2.00 / 1)

I agree. The metric is total delegates, both supers and pledged. I'm glad we agree on that.


by Angry White Democrat on Sat May 10, 2008 at 07:47:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]

With all due respect, (2.00 / 2)

he's ahead by every metric, not just pledged delegates, but unpledged delegates as well as states and popular vote.  He hasn't checkmated her yet, but it will come soon.  And keep in mind, the checkmate is not when he has enough delegates to officially be the nominee, it's when he has enough delegates where she can't reach the official amount she needs to be the nominee.

I think it's great you have such enthusiasm for your candidate.  I hope you bring it with you to the general election.


by The Distillery on Sat May 10, 2008 at 07:47:57 PM EST

Re: Just because you're ahead in pledged delegates (none / 0)

http://thepage.time.com/2008/05/10/satur days-super-battle-2/
Obama is +5 in superdelegates today
and he was +7 yesterday
We care about politics because we know politics matters for people's lives and opportunities.
by politicsmatters on Sat May 10, 2008 at 08:54:54 PM EST

Re: Just because you're ahead in pledged delegates (none / 0)

Hey,
If he takes it he takes it...I'm just not hearing this 1657 or whatever nonscense.

It's 2024 w/o Michigan and Florida
It's 2209 w/michigan and Florida

End of story


by LDFan on Sat May 10, 2008 at 09:00:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]


You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.

Login
Username:

Password: