![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
cosReturns are coming in on election night; the race has been close and polls show either candidate could win. Now, with 83% of precincts reporting, candidate A is leading 53% to 47% over B. It's an insurmountable lead, and the race is called for candidate A.
That's where the Democratic primaries are: Of the 3253 pledged delegates available, about 83% have already been voted on, and Obama is leading Clinton by about 53% to 47%. We can call the race now.
Or, look at it another way: There are 566 pledged delegates left from states that haven't voted yet. To catch up with Obama, Clinton needs to win about 65% of those, which means she needs to average about 65% of the vote in the remaining states. She doesn't win by that margin pretty much anywhere. So far, Clinton has received more than 60% of the vote in exactly one state: Arkansas. Her second-best result was 58% in Rhode Island. Her other home state, New York, gave her 57%.
If every state from now on goes as well for Clinton as her home state of New York did, then she will get about 322 of the remaining pledged delegates, and Obama will get about 244, for a net gain of about 78... leaving Obama still ahead by about 80-90 pledged delegates! Remember, that's what will happen if Clinton gets a New York level win in every state. Not gonna happen. She might do that well in Pennsylvania, but the next-biggest state to come is North Carolina. We also have states like Oregon and Indiana coming.
One way to look at it is this: For every state where Clinton gets less than 65% of the vote from now on, she's losing ground! Imagine you're a runner 100 feet from the finish line, and there's someone ahead of you who's only 50 feet from the line. If, in the next second, you run 30 feet while the leader only runs 25, now you're 70 feet from the finish and the leader is 25 feet from it. Sure, you just ran a little faster, but your chances of overtaking the leader before the finish have gotten even smaller.
In other words, even if Clinton wins Pennsylvania 57-43, that actually puts her further away from catching up to Obama, not closer. She'll do considerably worse than that in most remaining states.
It's over: Obama will go to the convention with more pledged delegates, and will be the Democratic nominee for President.
What about the Superdelegates?
Democratic members of the US House and Senate, Democratic governors, members of the DNC, and a few other party leaders, are automatically delegates to the convention and can vote for whomever they choose. They're called "unpledged delegates" or "superdelegates" (informally). Even though Obama will have more pledged delegates (from winning actual votes in actual states) than Clinton, if enough superdelegates vote for her, she could have a higher overall total and get the nomination, theoretically.
It's extremely unlikely, for two reasons. First, for superdelegates to overturn the decision of the voters would be a major scandal. Obama's supporters would not see it as legitimate: they'd mostly feel that he won, and the nomination was stolen from him. Black voters, in particular, would rightly feel that the system is rigged against them: finally a black candidate manages to win, only to have party insiders take it away. Superdelegates know this, and of all delegates, they're the ones with the most to care about the party as a whole. They know that if this happens it will greviously wound the Democratic party, and almost ensure that McCain wins. They won't let that happen.
Second, there just aren't that many superdelegates left to go, either. Of the 794 superdelegates, various polls & surveys show about 220-230 say they'll vote for Obama, and about 250-260 say they've vote for Clinton. That leaves only about 240-250 who haven't chosen yet (plus 68 who haven't been chosen yet). Clinton would have to get an overwhelming majority of those delegates to make up for Obama's 100-200 delegate lead. If those remaining 250 feel so strongly about supporting Clinton that they'd be willing to cause such a major scandal, why have they remained undeclared so long? Obviously, because most of them don't. Clinton will not get an overwhelming majority of them.
What about Michigan and Florida?
Michigan and Florida held their primaries too early, and according to Democratic Party rules, their delegates are not supposed to count, so they're not included in any of the counts above. Clinton's campaign is pushing to have them counted, because she won both states. If they're counted as-is, Obama gets 67 more delegates and Clinton gets 178 more, for a net gain of 111 for Clinton.
That, also, will not happen. To begin with, Obama wasn't even on the ballot in Michigan, and you can't vote write-in in a primary. No credible argument can be made that Michigan's election was fair, and there is no way Michigan's delegation will be seated as-is. They'll probably come up with a compromise, like splitting it 50/50 between the two candidates. Florida did have both candidates on the ballot, but neither candidate campaigned there, and many voters stayed home because they were told it wouldn't count. A compromise is likely there too.
Who decides what is to be done with Michigan and Florida? A committee at the Democratic National Convention, whose membership will be proportional from the pledged delegates: in other words, a committee with a majority of Obama supporters. There's no way they'll give Clinton the full 111-delegate advantage that comes with counting the entirely unfair Michigan primary.
However, even if they did, 111 still probably won't be enough to overcome Obama's advantage. He's 160+ ahead of Clinton now; she's not likely to whittle that down to under 120 in the few states left.
Is there any way Clinton can win?
Yes, there are still two possible scenarios in which Clinton gets the nomination, both very unlikely:
Should Clinton drop out?
Obviously this question would make little sense if the outcome were still unclear. I wouldn't want any candidate dropping out until it became clear that they couldn't win. But since it is now clear that Clinton can't win by continuing to campaign, it's a reasonable question to think about. So here's where I switch from factual argument, to opinion.
Contested primaries have a lot of advantages. Voter registration drives, activating local networks, volunteer recruitment and training: Obama will benefit from having to campaign for votes in more states, particularly swing states like Pennsylvania and Oregon. And since Clinton is using a lot of McCain's arguments against Obama, he's also getting practice in dealing with those. On the other hand, McCain's arguments are getting extra credibility coming from a Democrat, and McCain is getting extra time to establish his message and identity for this election, so it's a mixed bag. And there's that racial division Clinton is exploiting, which also does long term damage.
For Clinton's own sake, she'd do much better to stop campaigning soon. The longer she stays in this when people can see she has lost and is only campaigning for a convention fight, the more enemies she makes in the party and the more bridges she burns. For example, if she wants to become Senate Majority Leader sometime, she's hurting her chances.
But from my point of view, as someone who doesn't particularly care about Clinton's future prospects, I think on balance having a primary in Pennsylvania at least would be good. And possibly a few more. Rather than Clinton abruptly dropping out, I think we'd be much better off if she lost some more primaries. Speaking as someone who wants to see Obama become president, the best thing would be for Clinton to lose more votes. Not good for Clinton, but good for the Democrats and for Obama.
Why you should still vote
If you want a Democratic president and were planning to vote in an upcoming primary, you may wonder: Why bother? If Obama has already won, does it matter? Yes, it still matters, because Clinton is still campaigning. By doing so, she is preventing Obama from getting a lock on the nomination by getting enough pledged delegates for a solid majority even without superdelegates. As I described above, there's only one thing she could still be campaigning for: a convention fight, where she can get enough superdelegates to overturn the pledged delegate plurality, and ensure that she will be the loser in November. The closer to Obama she gets, the more likely she is to think of that as a resonable option; the further ahead of her he is, the more likely she is to give it up.
So you're not voting on whether to nominate Clinton or Obama - as far as the primaries go, that choice is made. What you're voting on is the probability of Clinton trying to take it to a convention fight she would likely lose. If you want her to try that, vote for her; if you don't want her to try that, vote for Obama.
In other words, if you want a Democratic president, you should vote for Obama, regardless of which candidate you prefer.
States that still have primaries coming up:
April 22: Pennsylvania - 158 delegates
May 3: Guam - 4 delegates
May 6: Indiana - 72 delegates
May 6: North Carolina - 115 delegates
May 13: West Virginia - 28 delegates
May 20: Kentucky - 51 delegates
May 20: Oregon - 52 delegates
June 1: Puerto Rico - 55 delegates
June 3: Montana - 16 delegates
June 3: South Dakota - 15 delegates
[ table of delegate counts by state ]
Update: I also posted this on Daily Kos and on MyDD. If you have accounts in either place, please recommend?
That's where the Democratic primaries are: Of the 3253 pledged delegates available, about 83% have already been voted on, and Obama is leading Clinton by about 53% to 47%. We can call the race now.
Or, look at it another way: There are 566 pledged delegates left from states that haven't voted yet. To catch up with Obama, Clinton needs to win about 65% of those, which means she needs to average about 65% of the vote in the remaining states. She doesn't win by that margin pretty much anywhere. So far, Clinton has received more than 60% of the vote in exactly one state: Arkansas. Her second-best result was 58% in Rhode Island. Her other home state, New York, gave her 57%.
If every state from now on goes as well for Clinton as her home state of New York did, then she will get about 322 of the remaining pledged delegates, and Obama will get about 244, for a net gain of about 78... leaving Obama still ahead by about 80-90 pledged delegates! Remember, that's what will happen if Clinton gets a New York level win in every state. Not gonna happen. She might do that well in Pennsylvania, but the next-biggest state to come is North Carolina. We also have states like Oregon and Indiana coming.
One way to look at it is this: For every state where Clinton gets less than 65% of the vote from now on, she's losing ground! Imagine you're a runner 100 feet from the finish line, and there's someone ahead of you who's only 50 feet from the line. If, in the next second, you run 30 feet while the leader only runs 25, now you're 70 feet from the finish and the leader is 25 feet from it. Sure, you just ran a little faster, but your chances of overtaking the leader before the finish have gotten even smaller.
In other words, even if Clinton wins Pennsylvania 57-43, that actually puts her further away from catching up to Obama, not closer. She'll do considerably worse than that in most remaining states.
It's over: Obama will go to the convention with more pledged delegates, and will be the Democratic nominee for President.
What about the Superdelegates?
Democratic members of the US House and Senate, Democratic governors, members of the DNC, and a few other party leaders, are automatically delegates to the convention and can vote for whomever they choose. They're called "unpledged delegates" or "superdelegates" (informally). Even though Obama will have more pledged delegates (from winning actual votes in actual states) than Clinton, if enough superdelegates vote for her, she could have a higher overall total and get the nomination, theoretically.
It's extremely unlikely, for two reasons. First, for superdelegates to overturn the decision of the voters would be a major scandal. Obama's supporters would not see it as legitimate: they'd mostly feel that he won, and the nomination was stolen from him. Black voters, in particular, would rightly feel that the system is rigged against them: finally a black candidate manages to win, only to have party insiders take it away. Superdelegates know this, and of all delegates, they're the ones with the most to care about the party as a whole. They know that if this happens it will greviously wound the Democratic party, and almost ensure that McCain wins. They won't let that happen.
Second, there just aren't that many superdelegates left to go, either. Of the 794 superdelegates, various polls & surveys show about 220-230 say they'll vote for Obama, and about 250-260 say they've vote for Clinton. That leaves only about 240-250 who haven't chosen yet (plus 68 who haven't been chosen yet). Clinton would have to get an overwhelming majority of those delegates to make up for Obama's 100-200 delegate lead. If those remaining 250 feel so strongly about supporting Clinton that they'd be willing to cause such a major scandal, why have they remained undeclared so long? Obviously, because most of them don't. Clinton will not get an overwhelming majority of them.
What about Michigan and Florida?
Michigan and Florida held their primaries too early, and according to Democratic Party rules, their delegates are not supposed to count, so they're not included in any of the counts above. Clinton's campaign is pushing to have them counted, because she won both states. If they're counted as-is, Obama gets 67 more delegates and Clinton gets 178 more, for a net gain of 111 for Clinton.
That, also, will not happen. To begin with, Obama wasn't even on the ballot in Michigan, and you can't vote write-in in a primary. No credible argument can be made that Michigan's election was fair, and there is no way Michigan's delegation will be seated as-is. They'll probably come up with a compromise, like splitting it 50/50 between the two candidates. Florida did have both candidates on the ballot, but neither candidate campaigned there, and many voters stayed home because they were told it wouldn't count. A compromise is likely there too.
Who decides what is to be done with Michigan and Florida? A committee at the Democratic National Convention, whose membership will be proportional from the pledged delegates: in other words, a committee with a majority of Obama supporters. There's no way they'll give Clinton the full 111-delegate advantage that comes with counting the entirely unfair Michigan primary.
However, even if they did, 111 still probably won't be enough to overcome Obama's advantage. He's 160+ ahead of Clinton now; she's not likely to whittle that down to under 120 in the few states left.
Is there any way Clinton can win?
Yes, there are still two possible scenarios in which Clinton gets the nomination, both very unlikely:
- The "Spitzer" scenario: Something very big and very unexpected happens that destroys Obama's viability as a candidate, or forces him to drop out, before the convention. Even if that happens after the last state has voted, superdelegates would still switch to Clinton en masse, and she'd get the nomination. Note, however, that for this scenario it doesn't matter whether Clinton is still running. She could suspend her campaign right now, and she'd still be in position to step back in and accept the nomination if something of that magnitude occurred.
- The convention fight scenario: Clinton keeps camapigning all the way to the convention, whittles down Obama's lead to below 140, and tries to get superdelegates to put her over the top. She can do this with her strategy of racial division. As I explained, this is also very unlikely, but it's the only thing she has left to try for.
Should Clinton drop out?
Obviously this question would make little sense if the outcome were still unclear. I wouldn't want any candidate dropping out until it became clear that they couldn't win. But since it is now clear that Clinton can't win by continuing to campaign, it's a reasonable question to think about. So here's where I switch from factual argument, to opinion.
Contested primaries have a lot of advantages. Voter registration drives, activating local networks, volunteer recruitment and training: Obama will benefit from having to campaign for votes in more states, particularly swing states like Pennsylvania and Oregon. And since Clinton is using a lot of McCain's arguments against Obama, he's also getting practice in dealing with those. On the other hand, McCain's arguments are getting extra credibility coming from a Democrat, and McCain is getting extra time to establish his message and identity for this election, so it's a mixed bag. And there's that racial division Clinton is exploiting, which also does long term damage.
For Clinton's own sake, she'd do much better to stop campaigning soon. The longer she stays in this when people can see she has lost and is only campaigning for a convention fight, the more enemies she makes in the party and the more bridges she burns. For example, if she wants to become Senate Majority Leader sometime, she's hurting her chances.
But from my point of view, as someone who doesn't particularly care about Clinton's future prospects, I think on balance having a primary in Pennsylvania at least would be good. And possibly a few more. Rather than Clinton abruptly dropping out, I think we'd be much better off if she lost some more primaries. Speaking as someone who wants to see Obama become president, the best thing would be for Clinton to lose more votes. Not good for Clinton, but good for the Democrats and for Obama.
Why you should still vote
If you want a Democratic president and were planning to vote in an upcoming primary, you may wonder: Why bother? If Obama has already won, does it matter? Yes, it still matters, because Clinton is still campaigning. By doing so, she is preventing Obama from getting a lock on the nomination by getting enough pledged delegates for a solid majority even without superdelegates. As I described above, there's only one thing she could still be campaigning for: a convention fight, where she can get enough superdelegates to overturn the pledged delegate plurality, and ensure that she will be the loser in November. The closer to Obama she gets, the more likely she is to think of that as a resonable option; the further ahead of her he is, the more likely she is to give it up.
So you're not voting on whether to nominate Clinton or Obama - as far as the primaries go, that choice is made. What you're voting on is the probability of Clinton trying to take it to a convention fight she would likely lose. If you want her to try that, vote for her; if you don't want her to try that, vote for Obama.
In other words, if you want a Democratic president, you should vote for Obama, regardless of which candidate you prefer.
States that still have primaries coming up:
April 22: Pennsylvania - 158 delegates
May 3: Guam - 4 delegates
May 6: Indiana - 72 delegates
May 6: North Carolina - 115 delegates
May 13: West Virginia - 28 delegates
May 20: Kentucky - 51 delegates
May 20: Oregon - 52 delegates
June 1: Puerto Rico - 55 delegates
June 3: Montana - 16 delegates
June 3: South Dakota - 15 delegates
[ table of delegate counts by state ]
Update: I also posted this on Daily Kos and on MyDD. If you have accounts in either place, please recommend?
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
Quick (I hope!) Thoughts
This does not take something "very big and very unexpected" and doesn't need to be about racial division. It could simply be a steady drumbeat: he doesn't understand foreign policy; he hangs out with scary people (of whatever color); he and his wife aren't patriotic; he doesn't understand the economy; he has no experience; he can't win a general election; etc. This has been Hillary's real goal since February. Slowly tear him down, piece by piece. Yes, race is a part of it, but a small part. He has many flaws (as everyone does) and he has not shown himself to be very good at deflecting criticism.
I think she really has a shot at this. If I had to put money on it, I'd pick Hillary to win the nomination. Granted, that might only be because I wouldn't win much if I bet on Obama, but still, I think she has an excellent chance, just because Obama has so many flaws and the superdelegates are under enormous pressure. There is one thing that would be far worse for the Democratic Party than such an upset at convention: losing in November.
As to black voters feeling disenfranchised, yes, but what about women voters? They will feel just as disenfranchised ... especially if Hillary wins the "popular vote," which is possible.
And I know this is about perception as it pertains to the superdelegates, but I get really annoyed when anyone says anyone deserves to win because of states or voters or pledged delegates and that the other person not winning is illegitimate. It's not true. Obama did not win ANYTHING yet. The only legitimate winner is one who wins according to the rules, and no one has done so, and if Clinton wins by the superdelegates, by definition, she is the legitimate nominee. If you (not YOU you, general you) don't like it, fine, blame the DNC that decided to make 20 percent of the delegates appointed rather than elected, and blame the states that don't (or do!) do winnter-take-all contests ... the point is that it is about the rules, and you play by the rules, and people who think ANYTHING other than THE RULES should decide the winner really annoy me.
As to Florida and Michigan: even if Florida or Michigan had a "fair" election, it absolutely would not count. The DNC is already having a tough time with perception making sure it adheres to its own rules in regards to superdelegates. Can you imagine if they just accepted elections they said up front wouldn't count? Even Dean is too smart for that.
Re: Quick (I hope!) Thoughts
Re: Quick (I hope!) Thoughts
Re: Quick (I hope!) Thoughts
I'd like to see a female president. But I'd like to see one who wins fair and square.
Re: Quick (I hope!) Thoughts
You mat dislike it, but she didn't write the rules, your elected represented at the DNC did. And it is foolish to ask her to not try to win by those rules.
Re: Quick (I hope!) Thoughts
Maybe a woman needs that to become a Presidential candidate... I admit there is a lot of sexism. But it stil lsucks. And using her husband's power to win out over a Black man against the will of the people she seeks to represent is ugly. And it'll anger a lot of voters. Because going against the will of the people is a ~bad~ idea.
I also find it hard to imagine that the person who fewer people are wanting to have as President is the more electable President.
If she were winning the votes, then great. When I went into this, I wanted edwards and was fine with either Obama or Clinton. Now, Clinton has been awful. Her campaign has been outright racist (that was the first thing that turned me off, when they said that some states where Obama won didn't really count because they had so many Black voters... oh, I see... so do some states not really count if they have so many white voters? Why do Black voters suddenly not count?), it's been very negative, and she's not acting very respectably. It's a shame, because she ~had~ my support at the start.
Her continuing to run will keep alienating voters, unless she stops acting horribly. And the only way she can win is against the will of the populace.
I do think the system is unfair and shouldn't be that way, except perhaps to allow for a change if something new comes up after the elections have happened. But short of that, no, going against the popular vote is bad and likely to be political suicide. And having your campaign be all about: I want to force myself on a voting populace who said they wouldn't like me as much as my opponent strikes me as going right against the point of Republican Democracies. She wants to win, whether the people want her or not. We've had 8 years of that already.
Re: Quick (I hope!) Thoughts
Yes, it would anger a lot of voters. That is part of the decision-making process each superdelegate will make.
What will really alienate the country, however, is saying that Obama should get "extra credit" because he is black. The way you're talking, it's as though it would be just fine for Hillary to steamroll over Edwards or Biden or Dodd, but not Obama because he's black. That's not an argument you really want to make, because it won't help Obama in the end.
Re: Quick (I hope!) Thoughts
Re: Quick (I hope!) Thoughts
Granted, it's not the same, especially since Hillary is behind and Obama is ahead, but one of the reasons Obama is ahead is because so many male leaders of the Democratic Party have backed Obama. As much as it might seem like keeping down the black man if Hillary is the nominee, it already feels like keeping the woman down to many voters.
I don't buy it either way, myself. I think both candidates are being supported almost entirely on their merits as candidates, not because of gender- or racial-based animosity of any kind.
Re: Quick (I hope!) Thoughts
From:Re: Quick (I hope!) Thoughts
Utter BS. Wow. Cite a source for that? The vast vast majority of Democratic voters had absolutely no role whatsoever in creating the superdelegate system. If we held a poll of all the people who voted in Democratic primaries this year about whether we should continue to have the current superdelegate system in choosing the party nominee in the future, I predict the result would be a very solid no. I can't prove that, but you most certainly can't prove that having this system is the will of the Democratic voters. Complete Bullshit.
What will really alienate the country, however, is saying that Obama should get "extra credit" because he is black. The way you're talking, it's as though it would be just fine for Hillary to steamroll over Edwards or Biden or Dodd, but not Obama because he's black.
... that is just run-of-the-mill stupidity. Sorry for the harsh words, but wow is that stupid. Hillary beat Dodd, Biden, and Edwards in actual primaries and caucuses in the states, and they chose to stop campaigning because they saw they could not get enough votes to win. Whatever you want to say about the process by which that happens, it has nothing to do with my arguments. My argument is that Obama should and will get the nomination because he got more votes and more delegates than Hillary (or any other candidates). There's no extra credit for being black. If Hillary beat him by getting more votes and more delegates, then she should and would get the nomination, but that is not what happened. And guess what, if Edwards won more pledged delegates than Hillary or Obama, then he should've gotten the nomination, and both Hillary and Obama's supporters would've seen it as legitimate.
Are you really so mind-numbingly stupid as to think there's no difference leading in the voting and being behind in the voting, and that my argument is a special Obama-specific argument just because he's black? I am dumbfounded by this extraordinary idiocy. Truly. Wow.
Re: Quick (I hope!) Thoughts
And part of the point is that people would have to change sides at the last minute for Hillary to win. Which would look an awful lot like screwing Obama. Given how minorities are treated in this country in general I can see a *major* problem arising out of that course of action.
Re: Quick (I hope!) Thoughts
And yes, you make a good point about the tide being changed FROM Obama rather than FROM Clinton. But still, many women are going to be angry if she is not the nominee. Many of these women are going to feel like Ted Kennedy and other party leaders are anti-woman and doing whatever they can to keep women down. They finally got the best female candidate ever, and these party leaders found someone to beat her. And if Obama ends up losing ... damn.
The Dems have a major problem here no matter what.
Re: Quick (I hope!) Thoughts
Nope. If Obama does well enough in the remaining primaries to cause Hillary not to try to fight at the convention, there is no major problem. He wins simply that way, with no scandal. That's at the heart of my advice: Obama will almost certainly be the nominee, but the more votes he gets, the less likely the Democrats will have a big problem.
Re: Quick (I hope!) Thoughts
Yes, there is, if the superdelegates are convinced they HAVE to vote for Obama, even if they think he is a weaker general election candidate, just because he is leading in pledged delegates, and he ends up losing to McCain, then that is a disaster for the Democrats. They had a chance, but the listened to the "people," and now look where it got them, etc.
Re: Quick (I hope!) Thoughts
However, you are making your view clearer: You don't think Obama is strong, you wish Hillary had won. If that's true, then yes, from your point of view something bad has already happened: Hillary failed to win. There's no good option left.
I won't try to convince you that you're wrong on this. I concede that *if* one doesn't believe Obama is strong enough, and one does believe Hillary would've been the better nominee, then there's no good option left. However, your illusion that Hillary could still be nominated and accepted by Democratic voters is an illusion. It can no longer happen.
(disclaimer: barring the "Spitzer scenario", of course)
Re: Quick (I hope!) Thoughts
Re: Quick (I hope!) Thoughts
Re: Quick (I hope!) Thoughts
As to black voters feeling disenfranchised, yes, but what about women voters?
False equivalence. Black voters, and other Obama supporters, would be okay if Hillary actually *beat* Obama in the primaries, and then got the nomination. Disappointed with the result, unhappy, sure, but that happens to millions of people every cycle. It happened to me and my fellow Dean activists last time, but we didn't think Kerry was illegitimate - we just lost the election. Sucks. If Obama *beats* Hillary in the primaries, and then gets the nomination, hardly anyone's gonna hold out of supporting him out of a sense that women can't win, that the system is rigged against them, that party insiders will ensure a woman doesn't get the nomination. They will see that they *lost the election* and it's as simple as that. The disastrous scandal only happens if Obama wins the primaries but loses the convention, because then it clearly would be party insiders denying him the nomination after he won the primaries. The rules allow it, but that won't help people view it as legitimate.
There is one thing that would be far worse for the Democratic Party than such an upset at convention: losing in November.
So, to the extent that that statement is true, superdelegates will know better than to overturn the primary winner. If they nominate Hillary, after Obama wins the primaries, that absolutely ensures McCain will win.
Re: Quick (I hope!) Thoughts
I addressed the black/woman thing in another comment.
As to superdelegates: you're wrong on a few points. First, there IS NO SUCH THING as "the primary winner." It doesn't exist. There's is the person with the most pledged delegates from the many states. But that means nothing if you don't get 50 percent, which he won't do. You said in another post that Obama "won the election." But again, there was no single election for him to win. You win individual contests in the states to get delegates, and the election for the nomination is at convention. He has not won.
And yes, the superdelegates absolutely WILL vote against the person with the most pledged delegates IF Obama is in a significantly weakened position. This will necessarily also mean that the VOTERS will be changing their minds along with the superdelegates, else yes, they wouldn't consider it: hence, Hillary's strategy to hammer him down over a long period of time. The superdelegates will be poll-watching with everyone else. You're right that they won't go against the will of the Democratic voters; the question is precisely whether those voters will change their minds enough to convince superdelegates that Obama is NO LONGER their choice.
Re: Quick (I hope!) Thoughts
I pointed out only two ways Hillary can conceivable turn it around. One is some big huge unexpected thing that makes Obama completely unviable. In such a case, none of this matters; people's votes won't affect whether that happens or not, so it has no bearing on advice about how one should vote. The other is the scenario above, which would destroy the party temporarily and lead to McCain being elected. People *can* vote based on that eventuality, as unlikely as it is (you seem to think it's pretty likely, but that's based on your illusion that nobody will care that Obama won the elections because "there's no such thing as a primary winner", a technical point that won't matter). Voting for Hillary makes it a little more likely, voting for Obama makes it less so. Even if all Hillary supporters vote for her, though, it's still very unlikely to lead to her nomination (and it absolutely will not lead to her becoming President).
You're basing your whole illusion on this strange idea that even though Obama won the primaries (more votes, more states, more delegates) people will pretend that didn't happen because in your technical interpretation a candidate cannot "win the primaries". Your view will not be shared by the people with whom it counts: the people who support Obama and would see a Hillary nomination as illegitimate.
My support for Howard Dean in the last cycle was much much much stronger than my support for Obama in this cycle. Nevertheless, when Kerry was nominated, I viewed him as the legitimate nominee. Despite my much less committed support for Obama this time, if Hillary is nominated, I will definitely see it as illegitimate (barring the "Spitzer scenario"). So will the vast majority of Obama supporters. Because, your technical point notwithstanding, we will know that he won the primaries. You can't make us un-know it by pointing to the convention rules.
Re: Quick (I hope!) Thoughts
False. There is no such thing. This is not "reality." Show me where in any law, rulebook, or official documents of any kind that references any such thing as existing. It does not exist. It has no meaning, other than purely symbolic meaning people wish to give it. "More votes" and "more states" have no meaning that any rules of any kind recognize. "More delegates" is all that matters, but this has not yet been determined, because the superdelegates have not yet weighed in.
This simply requires people to, over time, in sufficient numbers, think "dang, this guy is not all I thought he was. He's inexperienced and a bit foolish and he has a glass jaw and ... darnit, I wish I'd voted for Hillary instead." And the superdelegates will detect this shift and consider voting for Clinton.
"People *can* vote based on that eventuality, as unlikely as it is (you seem to think it's pretty likely, but that's based on your illusion that nobody will care that Obama won the elections because "there's no such thing as a primary winner", a technical point that won't matter)"
It is not merely a technical point. It is a FACT that Obama has not won anything yet except for individual states' delegates, and truth matters. Most Americans believe we should follow the rules, and the rules say that Obama has not won the nomination, and that Hillary is the legitimate and proper winner if she gets enough superdelegates to get over the top.
I am not disagreeing with you that this would be a huge disruption of the party if it happened. I am saying that it is false to say that he has won "the primary," let alone "the nomination."
And one more thing you are wrong about: I do not wish Hillary had won. I am actually a Republican, and I have no dog in this fight. I have plenty of friends and relatives who are Democrats. We tend to get along. Even when discussing politics. :-) My interest here is that I am a student of both journalism and politics. I have a very strong personal -- and apolitical -- interest in proper understanding of how these things work, of following rules, of making sane rules, of the interplay between rules and actions, and so on.
As a Republican, I think Hillary is easier to beat on personality, and Obama easier to beat on policy. I do not wish for either one, or against either one, as each poses unique (and not necessarily greater) challenges. Many Republicans want Hillary, but I am from the "be careful what you wish for" camp. My only interest in Hillary over Obama is that I predicted she would win, so I would like to be proven right :-), but that is so minor it is barely worth mentioning except to show that I really don't care who wins.
If I had to choose either one to be my President, I'd pick Obama, so long as his policies weren't implemented very much, as I think he is a much better statesman and symbol, but on the other hand, I think Hillary would work better across the aisle and that she has a much better understanding of foreign policy. If Obama is elected, I hope he outshines my expectations for him in those regards.
As to whether Obama will beat McCain, we'll see. If you take policy out of the equation, I think you're right. I live in WA and Obama is right now likely to beat McCain here, but against Clinton, McCain has a chance. But the big question mark -- and this is where the current situation is probably HELPING Obama, as it is delaying this -- is how independent voters will react once the focus shifts to a comparison of policy between McCain and Obama. Setting aside the question of Iraq for the moment (which is a complicated issue for many voters, as we saw in the last couple elections), I am not so sure that Obama will stack up favorably to McCain. Most independent voters tend to be socially liberal and economically conservative, and McCain is very popular with them, and when they see the hefty price tags attached to what Obama wants to do ... who knows what they will think? (I've read Obama's Blueprint for Change, and there's a lot there that a lot of independents won't like.)
I wouldn't be so confident, is all I'm saying.
Cheers!
Re: Quick (I hope!) Thoughts
That doesn't matter; I'm confident that most superdelegates understand this. I'm also completely sure that on the off-chance the superdelegates don't understand this, and do nominate Clinton, the nomination will be broadly seen as illegitimate and Clinton will lose. The scenario you think is possible that is actually not is this one: Obama leads in pledged delegates, superdelegates give Clinton the nomination, the Democratic party holds together and beats McCain.
It is not against the rules for superdelegates to nominate Clinton despite Obama's winning the primaries (your claim that no such thing is possible is specious - you know exactly what I mean by it, and so does everyone else), but just because it is allowed by the rules doesn't mean it won't have the effect I say it will. Furthermore, nominating Obama is perfectly within the rules. This isn't some dispute between "following the rules" and "not following the rules". Everyone agrees the rules should and will be followed, but the rules allow for choice, and they allow for the right choice and the wrong choice. If superdelegates make the wrong choice, people won't be upset at them for breaking rules, people will be upset at them for making the wrong choice.
Re: Quick (I hope!) Thoughts
See, the problem is that you are not using words to mean what most people think they mean. "Legitimate" means to follow the laws or rules. The rules DO NOT CARE who has more pledged delegates, only more delegates, total. BY DEFINITION, it is not any less legitimate for Clinton to win, than for Obama to win. You're the one who is being completely absurd here, from my perspective.
It is not against the rules for superdelegates to nominate Clinton despite Obama's winning the primaries (your claim that no such thing is possible is specious
I never claimed superdelegates nominating Clinton is not possible. Not sure where you got that. I think you must have misunderstood.
just because it is allowed by the rules doesn't mean it won't have the effect I say it will
I already agreed it would have a negative effect. The problem is that you think because of this negative effect, that THEREFORE it won't happen.
This isn't some dispute between "following the rules" and "not following the rules"
Yes, it is. You explicitly are referring to rules when you use words like "legitimate." People think that Obama is the rightful winner of the nomination if he wins the most pledged delegates: this is ignoring the rules, which are the only reasonable standard of legitimacy.
Utter BS. Wow. Cite a source for that?
Simple: the DNC is elected by the Democratic voters, and the DNC that represented those voters changed the rules to have 20 percent superdelegates. Further, the superdelegates have existed for more than 20 years. If the Democratic voters didn't like the system, they could have changed it in the last 20 years. They did not. This is how representative democracy works.
The vast vast majority of Democratic voters had absolutely no role whatsoever in creating the superdelegate system.
Except for those who were not capable of voting (under 18, not naturalized, etc.), ALL of them either a. voted for their DNC representatives (or voted for the people who did), b. voted for other representatives who lost, or c. chose not to vote for any DNC representatives. So no, the vast majority DID have a hand -- even if that hand was choosing not to participate -- in creating, or maintaining, this system, through the process of election of representatives to the DNC.
... that is just run-of-the-mill stupidity. Sorry for the harsh words, but wow is that stupid. Hillary beat Dodd, Biden, and Edwards in actual primaries and caucuses in the states ...
Sorry, but it was a hypothetical: I was saying *if* one of them had more votes, then they should get just as much argument in favor of them as Obama is getting now. So your epithets against me represent a misunderstanding of what I wrote.
My argument is that Obama should and will get the nomination because he got more votes and more delegates than Hillary (or any other candidates). There's no extra credit for being black.
That was not a response to you, but to leora, who brought up the fact that Obama is black as a reason why it would be bad to overturn the choice of the pledged delegates. My response stands.
Are you really so mind-numbingly stupid as to think there's no difference leading in the voting and being behind in the voting
Nope. My hypothetical obviously implied that they would be ahead in the voting.
... and that my argument is a special Obama-specific argument just because he's black? I am dumbfounded by this extraordinary idiocy. Truly. Wow.
I am dumbfounded that you would think a reply to someone else was a reply to you!
Re: Quick (I hope!) Thoughtlessness
You responded: "I never claimed superdelegates nominating Clinton is not possible. Not sure where you got that. I think you must have misunderstood."
No, you claimed that no such thing as "Obama winning the primaries" is possible. Which is specious, because you know exactly what I mean when I say that, and so does everyone else. Claiming "it doesn't exist" doesn't affect anything. Drop your opposition to the term "Obama won the primaries" and we can get one step closer to a reasonable discussion without meaningless, substance-free distractions.
-----
You wrote: "See, the problem is that you are not using words to mean what most people think they mean. "Legitimate" means to follow the laws or rules."
Wrong. "Legal" means to follow the rules or laws. Legitimate has broader meaning, and is generally understood more broadly. This is similar to saying that Obama can't win the primaries because winning the primaries is not possible: you know what winning the primaries means but you think by sticking to technicalities you're somehow addressing the substance. You also can probably tell what I mean by "legitimate", and what I mean when I say that "people won't see the result as legitimate" even if you'd prefer another word (though the word I use is a perfect fit for the context). It remains true even if you somehow think "legitimate" only refers to following the rules.
Since you're so obsesses with semantic technicalities, I'll refer you to:
a. the dictionary, where you'll see that "legitimate" has a number of meanings, including but not limited to simply following the law. For example, one of them is:
not spurious or unjustified; genuine: It was a legitimate complaint.. I assure you that yes, that meaning and others like it are in common use, and commonly understood.b. The Wikipedia entry for the word "legitimacy" when used in the context of politics, which might help supply you with context you seem to be either lacking or denying. Note this sentence from the introduction: "In the case of laws, legitimacy should be distinguished from legality. Action can be legal without being legitimate (as in the case of an immoral law). Action can also be legitimate without being legal." Yes, I assure you, this is what "legitimacy" means in the context of politics, and it is what most people understand it to mean when discussing politics.
Again, once you drop the semantic technicalities and address substance, we can get another step closer to a reasonable discussion.
Note: I am not addressing any of the real substance of your arguments or mine in this comment, because I find it utterly useless to attempt to do so as long as you keep acting as though these sophistic semantic technicalities are themselves substantive.
Re: Quick (I hope!) Thoughtlessness
Yes, I DO know what you mean, and that is why I make the point: because you are falsely implying that there is any actual meaning to this "winning the primaries." It is precisely because you pretend this has meaning that it is worth pointing out the fact that it does not exist and therefore does not, and cannot, have meaning.
Claiming "it doesn't exist" doesn't affect anything.
It proves that you are incorrect to imply that it has any meaning.
Drop your opposition to the term "Obama won the primaries"
Drop your implication that "winning the primaries" has any meaning.
Legitimate has broader meaning
But not in any way YOU are using it, unfortunately.
As above (with falsely implying "winning the primaries" has any meaning), you are here making another false implication: that Hillary winning by following the rules could POSSIBLY be illegitimate. It is not possible for that to be illegitimate. Period. If she wins by following the rules, it is legitimate. End of story.
I won't address what Wikipedia says because it cannot matter what Wikipedia says. However, as to the dictionary, yes, even that definition refers to laws or rules, in that case, "a legitimate complaint" inherently refers to rules. On what other basis can there be a complaint? A complaint about a scientist not following procedure, a neighbor violating your rights, a spouse acting immorally ... all complaints are always about rules.
Again, once you drop the semantic technicalities and address substance, we can get another step closer to a reasonable discussion.
But this is precisely the problem: you are making false implications in favor of your chosen candidate, in order to frame the terms of the debate in ways favorable to him. There cannot be a reasonable discussing in such a scenario. As long as you are pretending that following the rules is illegitimate, as long as you are pretending that things that have no meaning as to who wins the nomination are important to that end ... how can a reasonable discussion possibly exist?
One can only proceed with substance when all sides are being honest and rational.