Tough math on the democratic side - neither candidate has the # to secure nomination

[robbedvoter]

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/03/tough_math_on_the_democratic_s.html

Neither Obama nor Clinton can secure through the primaries and caucuses the 2,025 delegates necessary to win at the Denver convention without the votes of the superdelegates. And Clinton's stunning performance on Tuesday, particularly in Ohio, makes Obama's argument that superdelegates should automatically back the will of the voters -- and not use independent political judgment about who can best compete against Republican John McCain in November -- look like an awfully simplistic calculus.
Add up all the states he has won in his historic drive to become the nominee, including all of those small and deeply "red" Republican states where the Obama supporters boast of their candidate's transcendental appeal, and so far Obama has won in places representing 193 of the 270 electoral votes needed to win the presidency. Add up Clinton's victories thus far and she has triumphed in states representing 263 electoral votes.
snip
The Democratic Party is indeed developing a general election problem, and it's only partly because Obama and Clinton will be sniping at one another for the next seven weeks. Obama, the leading candidate, still hasn't shown he has appeal in a large battleground state that will be pivotal in the fall. In this sense, Pennsylvania is where Obama's back, and not Clinton's, is up against the wall.

[MannyGoldstein]

1. But One Candidate Will Have More Delegates

And if that candidate is not the nominee then Democrats will have been betrayed - the Democratic Party will have ceased to be democratic.

[joshcryer]

11. It's not that simple, those aren't the rules, if there's a less than 200 vote gap.

10% or thereabouts, then guess what, either one of them can be the nominee, no one cinches it. It could be as large as 20% in some cases if the PV and national polls are close. This is a fact.

Neither candidate can win without superdelegates.

[Gore1FL]

14. What is the historical precedent?

Why would the contests be overturned?

[joshcryer]

22. Electablity, a downswing in the polls because of a controversey, many things.

I don't think that they would go against the will of the people if they felt there was a mandate, but clearly neither candidate has such. I said before that if Obama couldn't seat FL and MI at the DNC (as he said he would fight for only a few months ago!) then he would not have a mandate. He doesn't.

[Gore1FL]

30. Electabilty?

Polls show Obama with the biggest electoral win over McCain. Combine that with having enough delegates to need (at maximum) 3/8th of the super delegates to win the nomination pretty much proves his ability to get elected.

[MannyGoldstein]

16. If The Superdelegates Fuel The Loser To A Win

Then they will have subverted the will of the electorate.

[joshcryer]

18. There are so many things to consider it's not even funny.

You don't go "oh he has more pledged delegates." You look at each and every argument.

Here's the fact, neither one of them are going to have the majority to win without superdelegates. Thus the fact remains that superdelegates can decide however they wish.

I don't *expect* them to vote against the will of the populas, but you have to understand that a 10% delegate lead is *not* a mandate when it's split down the middle. Especially when there are a lot of convincing arguments against that "lead."

[Gore1FL]

21. What are those convincing arguments?

specifically ones that have not been debunked already.

[joshcryer]

24. I've never had someone debunk the examples I used.

They just get in a hissy fit.

[Gore1FL]

27. See my posts on this thread

That has all changed.

[MannyGoldstein]

25. The Vote Is The Best Tool That We Have For This Job

Imperfect - but better than the alternatives.

[DemVet]

37. Counting Super-Delegates? They have just as much say as "regular" delegates

[Sulawesi]

2. This argument has never rung true to me...

Are we to suggest then, that Barack cannot win NY in November because he lost the primary there? Of course not.

What matters is state by state polls versus McCain. Survey USA suggests both beat McCain, BO more handily.

This is part of a concerted push to claim that if the pledged delegates do not amount to 2025 for either candidate, that they mean nothing and the supers can pick who they want. I guess they legally can, but it is clear that the HRC camp is tilling the ground for this so-called "nuclear option".

And to think it was just a few short weeks ago that Hillary called out "Shame on you, Barack Obama" for some text on a mailer...

[joshcryer]

12. Obama was the one attempting to influance the will of the supers.

Of course, that's what they're there for! They'll both attempt to make "convincing arguments."

[Gore1FL]

15. But winning is the most convincing argument to be made.

[joshcryer]

20. Winning what? Delegates? PV? National polls? If you don't think this race isn't split down the line.

...you serious are delusional. Hillary has to win 1.4 million *more* votes than Obama to *tie* him in delegates (because of the disproportionate way he recieved delegates based on undemocratic caucuses).

You really don't understand the democratic process that the DNC has set up if you think it's "just delegates."

[Gore1FL]

26. Well lets talk about all three

Delegates is how the nominee is decided. See post 8

Using the Popular vote line would not work with the super delegates of Caucus states--unless you could come up with a realistic way to account for the caucus goers. How many apples = 1 orange? How is that different from the proportionality of delegate distribution?

National polls, when combined with the electoral college give Obama and 18 point electoral college advantage, and throw many red states into contention. See post 8.

---- Now for the body of your post:

...you serious are delusional.

Yet no one has come up with a valid argument to show me I am wrong.

Hillary has to win 1.4 million *more* votes than Obama to *tie* him in delegates

She could have actually tried to win the caucuses. What makes you think that a primary in thse states would have come out differently? It really isn't anyone but her own fault that she didn't try.

(because of the disproportionate way he recieved delegates based on undemocratic caucuses).

The tme to have that debate was in 2006. Changing the rules after the fact to favor one candidate over another is what most people would call undemocratic.

You really don't understand the democratic process that the DNC has set up if you think it's "just delegates."

The how come no one can debunk any of my arguments? I've been watching the nomination process since 1976. I have a pretty clear idea of how this works. You?

[jaybeat]

36. You're right. It is WAY more complicated.

In addition, there are delegates elected in caucus states. (Much LESS democratic, since the % of registered voters that participate is far lower, in large part because most people can't take 2+ hours out of their evening.) They are counted the same as primary-elected delegates, but if I were a super, I'm not sure I'd view them the same way.

Then there are the "open-primary" states. I think the argument here could cut both ways, for or against either candidate. Right off the bat, you've got Republicans and independents helping choose the nominee for the Democratic Party. Isn't that sorta like GM having a say in who runs the UAW??

:wtf:

Of course, you can say that the winner in an open primary will do better in the fall because they have attracted more non-Democratic voters. But how many Republicans who voted for Obama (or Hillary, for that matter) can *really* be expected to vote Democratic in the fall? If there's another "terrorist" threat or attack--POW McVain vs. Mr. Inexperienced? Not many. (Not saying that's a fair argument; just saying that's what the spin will be and that we can count on many/most Republican voters, and maybe many Dems as well, to fall for it.)

Then there's the question of dollars-per-vote, or dollars-per-delegate. Which candidate did more with less? That argument sent the Mittster packing on the Republican side, and if the nominee agrees to public financing in the fall, it could become an important issue.

Then there's "where did the money come from?" Obama has made history by raising huge amounts of cash from small donors. Does that mean he will be less beholden to special interests? Does that mean that super delegates who ARE beholden to special interests will be pressured by those interests to vote against him?

Using primary- and caucus-elected delegates to choose a party's nominee is extremely new in the history of the US. I looked it up and it's only been since 1972. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/US_presidential_primaries#History) I'm not saying it is a bad way to do it, but it has not be THE way for most of our history. And until we sort out the state-by-state inconsistencies in how delegates are chosen, there will be a lot of slop in the process, making the Electoral College look like a paragon of representative Democracy by comparison!

:rofl: :rofl:

The process is messy, largely un-democratic, and ultimately up to each Party to figure out how to select (not elect, mind you) the candidate who they think is most likely to win in the fall and (presumably, but not necessarily) also make the best President if elected (for the country, yes, but especially for the Party, in terms of coattails, a 2nd term, commitment to and success at advancing the Party platform, etc.).

[jefferson_dem]

3. I hope you stay true to your DU name when Obama goes to the convention with more delegates.

:)

[joshcryer]

17. Actually, robbedvoter is one of the rarely consistant DU posters.

They clearly are against the "representative" "elitist democracy" that inundates our politics. They have come out, for quite some time, against the electoral college, caucuses, and delegates.

And rightly fucking so. None of these are necessary for any legitimate reason. Indeed, a nationalized direct voting system would probably be cheaper if it was all the same voting method, all the same very simple balloting method, on a national holiday.

But, yaknow, Obama supporters aren't about democracy, they are about playing the system.

Fortunately the superdelegates can stop them in their track if they want. And it's *all* within the framework of the very system and "rules" that they espouse so gleefully when they talk about disenfranchising voters.

[Gore1FL]

19. Ok......

The rules use delegates. The time to have the debate was in the spring of 2006.

To try to say OBama voter are not about democracy while espousing an unrealistic plan to overturn the results of the primaries and caucuses to favor Clinton is at best disingenuous.

[joshcryer]

23. They wouldn't be overturning the results.

They would be recognizing a lack of mandate, which neither candidate has because they need superdelegates to win and it's very close.

[Gore1FL]

28. To take the second place candidate

who has a substantial delegate gap between themselves and the 1st place candidate would be a travesty. If a 100-175 is so close, then how come it couldn't be closed before the convention?

[Honeycombe8]

4. Sorta like War of the Roses? "But MY half is bigger!" Tis true, tis true.

The Obama half is bigger.

So the superdelegates should pour onto that side, blessing the voter's choice, unless there's some big problem with him at that point (hordes of girlfriends in closets are discovered, reams of paperwork detailing fraudulent land deals, or the like).

[zabet]

5. This is one reason

Obama did not get his 50 super delegate bomb.
He cannot close the deal. With outspending
Hillary 2 to 1 he still was not able to put
her completely out of contention. I think that many of the super delegates are now just
keeping their powder dry, with a wait and see
how it will shake out attitude.

[IDemo]

6. The fifty delegates weren't going to do a simultaneous endorsement,

But endorse gradually over a several week period. Or so Brokaw stated when he first broke the story.

[zabet]

7. Incorrect.

Read this, and the whole linked article.

"Superdelegates play hardball

By: Josephine Hearn and Amie Parnes and Josh Kraushaar
Mar 5, 2008 07:40 PM EST

The Ohio superdelegates’ decision to remain uncommitted even after their state had spoken mirrored patterns seen across the country Wednesday. Only two superdelegates — Dayton Mayor Rhine McLin and Georgia Democratic Party Chairwoman Jane Kidd — changed their positions after Clinton won in Texas, Ohio and Rhode Island, and both of them endorsed Obama.

Harold Ickes, a senior adviser to the Clinton campaign, said on a conference call Wednesday that many superdelegates were “keeping their powder dry. … They’re watching and waiting.”
Rep. Raul M. Grijalva (D-Ariz.), an Obama backer, echoed that sentiment verbatim. “I think, after this, there is a pause. Everybody waits. They keep their powder dry.”

Democratic officials said Tuesday that the Obama campaign planned to unveil the support of 50 new superdelegates Wednesday. No such announcement came Wednesday, but several Obama backers said that such a plan had, in fact, been in the works. Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-Ill.) said Wednesday morning that she thought the plan was “going forward” but added that she had yet to check in with the campaign.Both campaigns had expected that Wednesday would bring a wave of new endorsements for Obama if he’d won in both Texas and Ohio.

“Many people were saying, ‘I’m going to go on and pull out after Tuesday.’ And now they’re saying, ‘Under no circumstances am I pulling out. I’ve been there all along,’” said Clinton supporter Rep. Emanuel Cleaver II (D-Mo.). “It’s amazing how three wins can turn people around.”

Link: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0308/8867.html
----------------------------------

Looks like Obama had his fingertips on the brass ring
and had it snatched back....by Hillary and by the super
delegates. He cannot close the deal, even outspending
her over 2 to 1. The supers see this, the party elders
see this. For all the hype of a new style politics, with
mega-bucks backing it, he still cannot put Hillary out of
contention.

[IDemo]

9. That's fine. I'm simply repeating what Brokaw said when he broke the story

He may have only been speculating. A simultaneous announcement would be earth shattering, alright.

[zabet]

13. No prob.

:hi:

[Gore1FL]

10. She is comletely out of contention

The question is whether it becomes final sooner or later.

the math doesn't lie or have a bias.

[KittyWampus]

33. He got just under 10 this past week. Wake the fuck up.

[cbayer]

44. I think you are absolutely right.

They are using good judgment in holding back until they have to make a decision.

[Gore1FL]

8. Once again though we need to step through the flaws of this argument

1> The process is set up in a way to represent Democrats from across the nation. Delegates are proportioned to Democratic votes in the last three elections and electoral votes
as shown here:

http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P08/D-Alloc.phtml

The big state Blue state argument has already been accounted for in that proportion.

2> Now more than ever, all 50 states matter. The 50-states is part of the DNC program since 2005, and has shown to be a sound model with the pickup of the house and Senate in the very first election since its implementation.

Here is the DNC policy:

The Democratic Party is committed to winning elections at every level in every region of the country, and we're getting started right now with a massive effort to fund organizers on the ground in every state.

The ultimate goal? An active, effective group of Democrats organized in every single precinct in the country.

http://www.democrats.org/a/party/a_50_state_strategy/

3> Knowing that all states are impiortant, and know that delegates are distributed to their electoral votes and record in Democratic elections we see what is truly amazing about the 100-175 pledged delegate lead Obama takes to the convention: Even with winning Red states as part of of the states he has won, Obma has still has managed to win what can only be viewed as an insurmountable lead due to the limited number of remaining contests, especially considering a majority of those likely to fall in his column.

4> One cannot base the outcome of the general election on primary wins. This can be seen by loking at the Survey USA polls and electoral maps. Currently those maps show Obama beating McCain 280 to 258 in the general election, and Clinton beating McCain 276 to 262.

http://www.surveyusa.com/

5> Further analysis makes this even more interesting. By taking states that McCain only leads Obama by ONLY 3 points, the following "Red" states become battleground states:
FL, NE, NC, SC, TX, and VA which put a total of 102 Red state electors in play. If you increase the margin to 5%, you can add six total electors from ND and SD.
That looks like Obama can win more than enough of the big battleground states.

6> There is no historical precedent, and no current compelling reason, especially in light of the above, for Super Delegates to overturn the expensive contests of the primary/caucus season, neglecting the efforts of the campaign volunteers, the candidates and staff to install the second place candidate who trails at the convention by a minimum of 12% of the total super delegate count.

Sorry, in light of the above, there is absolutely no reason to assume Obama's back is against the wall in PA. He could lose the state by 25% in the nomination and lose it altogether in the General election, and still handily win both.

No realistic scenario exists for Clinton to win the nomination. No realistic scenario exists for Obama to lose the General.

[barack the house]

29. Dean has assured in statement that undecided superdlegates will follow the will of the people.

[libbygurl]

31. Yup. It's the 'battleground states' that Clinton has won that really matter more...

...in the GE.

[wileedog]

38. Winning a battleground state in a primary

and in a GE are two completely different things.

Or do you think all of the Clinton voters in OH are going to vote for McCain? The guy who actually admitted he knows nothing about the Economy?

[libbygurl]

39. Yep-precisely-GE not same as Primary. Clinton is very strong among registered Dems-who are NOT...

...likely to vote for McCain in the GE, but will vote for HRC, too. Unlike the crossovers and Repubs in those states that BO has won - you think they'll vote for BO again in the GE?

[Voice for Peace]

42. yes. I think they will. nt

[Voice for Peace]

43. A LOT of Republicans seriously dislike McCain

as well as the Bush policies he speaks highly of.

[libbygurl]

32. !

:kick:

Thanks for this, rv!

[saltpoint]

34. Denver delegates will have to opt for Gravel.

The media is frightened of Gravel.

Which is a pretty good gauge of his attributes.

[Gore1FL]

35. no doubt

Thanks for the chance to debunk this once and for all. Now all we have to do is provide a link to this thread when it comes up again!

[Time for change]

40. I disagree

Here are the latest head to head polls for Obama vs. McCain:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/us/general_election_mccain_vs_obama-225.html

Newsweek: 3-6 Obama 46, McCain 45
Cook/RT Strategies: 3-2 Obama 47, McCain 38
ABC/WaPo: 3-2 Obama 53, McCain 42

Mathematically, those numbers have to translate into big state victories and an electoral victory. It is nearly impossible to win the national popular vote with numbers like that without an electoral win, if not a landslide.

On the other hand, Clinton and McCain are virtually tied.

Obama has consistently done better than Clinton in polling against Republican candidates.

[Voice for Peace]

41. realistically, are Democrats in those states not going to vote Democratic?

in the GE? "she has triumphed in states representing 263 electoral votes."

[fujiyama]

45. I don't think the outcome of these states has anything to do with who will win in November

Kerry won in '04 by a huge margin in many states he didn't carry in the general election. Likewise in '00, Bush carried a bunch of states against McCain he lost to Al Gore.

Hillary knew the rules early on. I personally agree with Hillary supporters about caucuses not being very democratic and it inhibits many from voting.

But the rules were already in place (the same goes with the whole MI/FL fiasco). Both Obama and her knew it going into the primaries.

She should have fought earlier about getting rid of caucuses altogether if she thinks they aren't important or don't reflect the will of democrats. As I said, I think they're an antiquated system that inhibits many elderly, disabled, soldiers, and others that have to work, etc from voting. Instead she had a poor strategy of competing only in large states and lacked the foresight to see this thing going past Super Tuesday.

I'll admit, that MAYBE Hillary would be the tougher candidate in November especially in PA and OH, but she should have proved that earlier by competing EVERYWHERE. She should have had a better strategy to get supporters out to caucus states as well as primaries in big states.

But she didn't. And now her only options are to get the superdelegates to not side with the candidate that has more delegates.

[MindMatter]

46. This is complete nonsense

By that argument, there would NEVER be enough pledged delegates to secure the nomination unless there was basically one candidate running unopposed. That's simply the nature of having such a large number of superdelegates.

The superdelgates are there, not to decide the outcome, but to become a firewall in case something goes radically wrong in the primary process. Most of the superdelegates understand they have no business overturning the clear choice of the people and they will not do that. They never have and 2008 will not be any different.

Indeed that is EXACTLY why so many of them have remained uncommitted -- because they intend to come down on the side of the people's choice once that becomes clear.

It is becoming increasingly clear what the people's choice is, and that is why all of the movement in superdelegates the past month has been towards Obama. There has been absolutely no movement towards Clinton.

Tom Daschle is very typical of the superdelegates. He has committed to Obama because he believes Obama is the choice. If by some chance Clinton were to come out ahead in pledged delegates, he said he would definitely switch to her.

All the discussion of superdelegates is just more Clinton bullshit. It ain't happening. She is now at the point she has zero possibility of winning and she is conducting a scorched earth campaign. Get out now!

[scheming daemons]

47. Spin it any way you want... the Supers all realize that going against the pledged count is....

..political suicide.


They won't.


They will vote with the person who won the most votes and most delegates.