If super delegates vote their states

Super delegates can vote however they want. That's the rule. And as far as I'm concerned, they should vote for whoever leads the pledged delegate race or risk a civil war within the party.

Of course, that case is weakened if Clinton were to take away Obama's lead in the popular vote (currently at around 600,000 votes), and I'm sure that must be what Clinton's camp must be hoping for. If she overtakes Obama in the popular vote, it would denote a massive collapse in Obama's campaign that would make his staunchest defenders pause and consider whether he is, truly, the best general election candidate for us. I don't expect it to happen, but it's the Clinton campaign's hail mary.

All that aside, what if the super delegates decided, in the interest of democracy, to vote for the winner of their states? Let's see how that would stack up. I went with popular vote wins, which means Clinton picks up the supers in Nevada and Texas despite losing the delegate count. I'm using the Green Papers delegate counts, which I assume to be accurate but could always be off.

State     Obama   Clinton
IA          12
NH                   8
NV                   9  
SC                   9

AL           8
AK           5
AS                   6
AZ                  11
AR                  12
CA                  70
CO          15
CT          12
DE           8
DA           4
GA          15
ID           5
IL          30
KS           9
MA                  28
MN          16
MO          16
NJ                  20
NM                  12
NY                  50
ND           8
OK                  10
TN                  17
UT           6

LA          10
NE           7
WA          19
ME           8
VI           6

DC          24
MD          29
VA          18

HI           9
WI          18

OH                  21
RI                  12
TX                  35
VT           8

Total      325     330

Obama would love that just fine, up to this point. with his 135-150 pledged delegate lead, he could afford to lose five net delegates factoring the supers this way.

That would also put his current count at around (using NBC's total) 1,691 to Clinton's 1,557. (There are 21 delegates from prior contests still unallocated.)

Let's game this out, however, and apportion the super delegates according to the CW over who will take each of the remaining states:

State     Obama   Clinton

WY           6
MS           7

PA                  29

GU                   5
IN                  12
NC          19

WV                  11

KY                   9
OR          13

MT           8
SD           8

PR                   8

Total       61      74

Now I think Indiana is actually going to be fertile ground for Obama, but I'll keep it with Clinton so I can avoid the easy charges of bias. (I am, but not in this analysis.) Even then, there's not much ground to be made up by Clinton based on a "super delegates vote their states" approach. Obama would lead based on existing tallies and these projections 1,752 to 1,631, or a deficit of 121. She's not going to make that up with the remaining 611 or so remaining pledged delegates.

By the way, if those were split down the middle (rounding up in Clinton's favor), Obama would come out with about 2,057 delegates to Clinton's 1,937.

Obama needs 2,204 2,025 to win. He's the nominee.

Bottom line? She's not going to catch up in the pledged delegate race. She wouldn't gain enough supers by forcing them to vote their states (even though she won the states with the biggest super delegate totals). So what's left?

Absent an epic collapse by Team Obama, her only chance will be coup by super delegate -- cajoling the supers to abandon the will of the voters.

Yes, it is within the rules. But like I said above, that way lies civil war.

•  And that's assuming ...

  ... Ted Kennedy and Deval Patrick follow the will of Massachusetts voters, which most certainly they will not (or at least Kennedy).

  by jim bow on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 06:03:26 AM PDT

  •  And it's assuming

    that supers would follow state totals instead of their districts which some might point to as unfair, given, for instance, Obama's massive 70% win in our district where our congresswoman will stick with Hillary no matter what and even though there is already angry (if probably empty) talk of primarying her in 2010 for her support of Hillary.

    by anastasia p on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 06:05:53 AM PDT

    •  Hillary DIDNOT WIN texas

      by groundbar09 on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 06:11:08 AM PDT

      •  That is a very lame thing to say

        She won the primary

        by bten on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 06:14:33 AM PDT

        •  Agreed

          Winning means winning politically, and winning politically assumes a winner-take-all primary or caucus.  That's why we say that Hillary Clinton won Nevada despite Barack Obama getting more delegates than she did.  The same is true of New Hampshire.

          by jim bow on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 06:18:50 AM PDT

        •  Yeah, and the surge is working too

          I know that's an inflammatory thing to say, but the analogy works somewhat:  the initial goal of the Clinton campaign was to cut into Obama's delegate lead with the big states of Ohio and Texas.  Her "firewall" strategy was based on her ability to catch up, not to hold serve.

          She didn't need to win, she needed to win BIG in order to get back some delegates.  And so, with the initial goal of Clinton's Campaign in mind, she most certainly did NOT win Texas.  She lost ground in Texas.

          by cfaller96 on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 06:24:00 AM PDT

          •  Look

            If we're talking about reflecting "the will of the people," the primary is the broadest measure of that, not which subset of primary voters live in important Texas Senate districts or showed up for the second part.

            I agree with the Obama folks that it's a bogus measure and the delegates and who won what, where is what matters. However, IF we are playing according to these rules, and statewide totals count, "the will of the people" of Texas was a narrow Hillary victory.

            by brittain33 on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 07:08:30 AM PDT

            •  But we're NOT talking about that, and neither

              was Clinton initially.  3 weeks ago Wolfson and co. were nonstop talking about "delegates delegates delegates", and the plan in Texas and Ohio was to use the large amount of delegates available in those races to cut into Obama's lead...in delegates.

              Look, it's nice that Hillary was able to win the popular vote, just like it's nice that violence in Iraq has declined.  But that wasn't the original goal, in either case.  According to the original goal, set by Hillary herself, she failed.

              There's no way around that.

              by cfaller96 on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 07:31:12 AM PDT

              •  She Has Redefined Victory and MSM Have Bought it!

                Because the Obama camp out-organized and out-smarted her, she has tried to redefine victory and MSM bought it. If Obama won the delegate count in every state and Hillary won the popular vote, Obama would be the nominee. So why do we change this on the state level? Obama won Texas, Nevada, and they tied NH!!

                by Jdories on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 07:49:51 AM PDT

                •  Actually no

                  The nominee must have a majority, not a plurality.  At this point, neither of them can be the nominee without the backing of the superdelegates.  So the superdelegates will decide who the winner is.  They'll have to conclude whether the delegate winner or the popular vote winner is more legitimate.  

                  My hope is that one of them gets both or else the rival supporters will feel that the election was stolen and it will ruin our chances in November.

                  by sterno on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 09:55:41 AM PDT

                  •  I doubt it

                    Popular vote is so meaningless that Hillary wouldn't claim it. It would be outrageous to say that the entire primary & caucus system is meaningless.

                    by Wu Wei on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 10:44:16 AM PDT

                    •  Outrageous? Not so much...

                      I mean how many people find the electoral college frustrating.  I mean, lest we forget, President Al Gore won the popular vote...  I mean yeah he won the electoral college too, technically, but he definitely won the popular :)

                      I think it's plausible to say you have greater public support because you received more votes.  I think the delegate system in the primaries is more reasonable than what happens in the presidentials because it's proportional.  But I can see the point of argument.

                      But the reality is she can't get the popular vote without including Florida at the least, and that's illegitimate.  If Florida re-runs the primary, which Hillary is opposed to, then I can see including it.

                      by sterno on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 12:55:45 PM PDT

              •  Absolutely correct

                Another move out of the GOP playbook.  Lose and move the goalposts.  The most unsettling thing for me is not Hillary's personality or policies, but the way that she moves and shifts with facts and argument.  It is thoroughly Bushian and makes me think we'd be able to anticipate another 4 years of far less than transparent government from a Hillary administration.  More than anything, I'm sick of politicians who run, win, and govern by assuming that the electorate is stupid.  The assumption might end up being the truth, but that doesn't excuse exploiting ignorance.

                by proseandpromise on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 07:50:32 AM PDT

                •  Where am I?

                  I thought this was just a chat on Daily Kos about hypotheticals, not a real campaign strategy anyone was endorsing.

                  by brittain33 on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 08:23:25 AM PDT

                  •  I thought we were discussing what "victory" was.

                    And the analogy I used was the Surge to show how redefining victory doesn't really change the facts on the ground.  Hillary Clinton needed the large delegate prizes of Ohio and Texas to cut into Obama's lead.  By any measure on that original goal, she absolutely failed in Texas, and only marginally succeeded in Ohio.

                    Your point about "the will of the people" is akin to Bush/McCain's point about "violence being reduced" as a result of the Surge.  It's nice, but that's not what this was about originally.

                    by cfaller96 on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 08:36:43 AM PDT

                    •  No

                      For me, victory is winning by the rules, and Obama's doing that.

                      I was talking about the hypothetical about what we would do if someone asked the superdelegates to vote according to the will of the voters of their state, statewide, and that is the premise of the diary.

                      by brittain33 on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 08:38:10 AM PDT

                      •  Hmm...

                        Now I see what you're saying.  Well, then we're back to Kos' math, which didn't help Clinton.

                        I was discussing something different, which is- according to what the Clinton Campaign needs to do, did she "win" Texas?

                        I say no, but I see where you're coming from now.

                        by cfaller96 on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 08:42:06 AM PDT

                •  Electorates are stupid, indeed, look at you!

                  On Tuesday

                  1. She put an astonishing stop to this annoying Obama mania!

                  2. She tore his mask and exposed his emptiness

                  3. She turned the honeymooning media to Obama’s nightmare

                  4. She brought this 99.9% black exodus to Obama front & center and made the Whites and Latinos run away from him.

                  5. And of course this Canadian connection and Rezco relationship helped her just in time!

                  But you still deny her victory!

                  Go ahead, do all the math you want, but his destruction has already begun since Tuesday. If he hits her back, then Omaba is no longer the "chosen deliverer"; he becomes just another politician (that’s exactly what HRC wants). And if he doesn’t, then he is toast! lol

                  by Tamil Selvi on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 08:34:24 AM PDT

                  •  Yeah, and the insurgency is in its last throes nt

                    by cfaller96 on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 08:38:54 AM PDT

                  •  you're right...

                    I don't want to call the other side stupid, but i have to wonder...They ask for substantive debate, and when i give it, the start insulting me. The want to follow the "rules", unless you're a superdelegate. They want the will of the people, unless you live in Florida, or Michigan...

                    They don't like the fact that some of us disagree with Obama...It's not even about who's right or wrong anymore...They are mad at the fact that some one would dare question his wisdom...I don't mind if people dis Hillary...I expect it actually, and i expect people to disagree with me. That's why i made my choice after careful consideration. I would have gone for Obama if he'd been a better candidate. So when people attack Hillary with a bunch of derisive nonsense, i try to respond back with facts, not anger...but they are starting to bother me. They're style of "new" politics is un-American and unproductive.

                    by Dcrpfs9668 on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 12:11:18 PM PDT

                  •  Play the race card much?

                    She brought this 99.9% black exodus to Obama front & center and made the Whites and Latinos run away from him.

                    Because, of course, since Brack Obama's a nigger, the only people who should be voting for him are other niggers, right??!!??

                    Go. Fuck. Yourself.

                    Asshole.

                    --Shannon

                    by Leftie Gunner on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 12:22:26 PM PDT

              •  Hillary Who?

                I think Obama should act like Clinton is already out. And say things like, "I think Hillary is staying in to make a VP case since she can make up the delegates..." Then when Obama wins Wyoming and Mississippi it will seem like he is right. Follow that with a John Edwards endorsement in Pennsylvania and we'll be just fine. As for MSM they want this to go on as long as possible. It's great for their ratings and ad dollars. So they will always redefine the race to keep Clinton in. They could care less if it damages the Democratic Party. When have the Clintons ever put the Democratic Party first? Kos did a great breakdown showing the will of the people favors Obama by a very large margin. Making up 600,000+ votes will be hard for Clinton with so many strong Obama states coming up. She should be trailing by more than a million votes when this thing ends.

                by DigitalTruth on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 08:51:33 AM PDT

                •  more condescension

                  Obama's attitude is what is turning people off.
                  He was already planing how many republican's he'd have in his cabinet, before he won the nomination.
                  The surest way to get Hillary nominated, is for Obama to underestimate her, and overestimate his own charm.

                  by Dcrpfs9668 on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 12:14:07 PM PDT

                •  "should" be trailing?

                  she should be trailing, but she isn't...Why?...Maybe it's because millions of people voted for her.

                  by Dcrpfs9668 on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 12:15:04 PM PDT

          •  Not what she's doing

            Her intention at this point is to claim enough legitimacy to stay in the race and continue to be  competitive.  She's not going to win the delegate battle and she'd be crazy to not recognize that.  However, what she is trying to do is win the popular vote.  If she won the popular vote she'd have a claim to legitimacy.

            In Florida, as it sits, she gains 288K in the popular vote.  In Michigan she gets 328K and Obama, not being on the ballot, gets none.  It's worth noting though that in Michigan, uncommitteds got 238K.  Now, neither of these elections is legitimate, but look at how this plays out.

            Obama, right now, is up by 588K.  The total from those two elections for Hillary is 616K.  So technically this puts Hillary ahead.  But even Hillary recognizes the legitimacy problem with these elections.  If she can trim Obama's lead down to under 288K, then she can claim that Florida puts her over the top.  She'll claim that Obama did campaign there (he didn't) and that he's on the ballot.  

            So her goal at this point is not about getting delegates it's about running up the popular vote score in the remaining states.  If she can close that gap it better positions her to claim that Florida and Michigan should count and push her over the top.

            by sterno on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 09:47:45 AM PDT

        •  No, that is a very lame thing to say

          She won the primary but will likely lose the caucus. Texas, in its infinite chaos, was a primary/caucus state. The math ain't in yet, but it look like Clinton will come out of Texas with a 92/91 win. Yeh, I guess you can call that a win. Or (since this is Texas) a draw.

          Don't buy into the media headlines. They media needs instant viewers. They can't wait until all the votes are counted.

          by manumoka on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 08:13:02 AM PDT

        •  Reality

          She lost in delegates and won in the popular vote.  Ultimately what determines victory is the delegate count, not the popular vote.  

          HOWEVER, if Hillary can claim the popular vote, overall, by the time this is all done, I think she has legitimate claim to declare herself the winner.  However, she's currently down by 600K.  

          She'll try to add Florida and Michigan into her popular vote totals, but without a legitimate election in those states, with a chance for both campaigns to participate, this is illegitimate.  If those states want to seat their delegates, then they should pay for a second election to do so.  Otherwise, they do not count.

          If Hillary were to win the popular vote without playing some game with Michigan and Florida, I think she'd be a legitimate winner and I'd support her getting the nod.  I'd still struggle to bring myself to vote for her because of the endless series of shenanigans she's pulled, but her claim would have legitimacy.

          by sterno on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 09:29:40 AM PDT

      •  Hillary Did Not Win Texas, Nevada, and Tied NH!!!

        Her campaign was the first to say that all that matters is delegates, now they want popular vote to define victory??? If that is the case, then why do we have delegates???

        by Jdories on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 07:46:57 AM PDT

        •  That Was Then, This is Now

          What matters now is momentum...plus recognizing the will of the voters who took part in the Michigan and Florida straw polls.

          We've always been at war with Eastasia!

          by GreenSooner on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 08:04:11 AM PDT

    •  I was listening...

      to a discussion about exactly this subject on a local radio show the other day.  I live in OH-11 which went 70-30 Obama and is represented by a very strong Clinton supporter, Stephanie Tubbs-Jones.  A caller was making the point that local reps. should represent the will of their constituents.    The point was made that because she is unchallenged there was no incentive for her to change her support.  Other OH super dels. have been making statements that boil down to although they can basically do anything they want, the overall outcome of 03.04 will heavily influence their decision.  

      by usonian on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 08:59:49 AM PDT

    •  Popular Vote

      I think Kos misses another nuance. The Clinton supporters down here in Texas contend that she could retake the national popular vote lead by the end of this, particularly if Florida is counted, entitling her to the support of the superdelegates. I think someone needs to project these numbers through Puerto Rico.

      by Texas Fish on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 09:21:28 AM PDT

      •  she's just getting warmed up!

        Hell Yeah! Obama WAS ON THE BALLOT in Florida- and Florida DIDN'T pick him. And not because everybody stayed at home...there WAS a record turnout of voters...Obama doesn't represent the "will of the people." Hillary is strong, and she's fighting for America. She will never give up. And we here in MA love her for it.

        by Dcrpfs9668 on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 12:19:47 PM PDT

    •  the rules are the rules!!!!

      the rules state that superdelegates can decide whenever and however they want. The way the Obama people complain about "the rules," you'd think they'd take the time to learn them.  

      I'm from MA- and i never cared for one second, what Kennedy, or Kerry, or Patrick thought. I voted for Hillary because i believe she's the better candidate.

      I do think it's funny that now, if they follow their own advice, they will have to vote for Hillary...I am laughing my a** off...OMG...Kerry and Kennedy think he should be president, and i'm supposed to be impressed...

      by Dcrpfs9668 on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 12:01:03 PM PDT

      •  Of course they can vote however they want...

        as can pledged delegates after the 1st ballot.

        Nobody's questioning that. The question we're all asking is, "what criteria should SDs use when casting their votes at the Convention?"

        A lot of us think that if the nominee is not the person who is leading in pledged delegates, IE, those delegates chosen by the rank and file of the Party, there will be a huge split, and a lot of bitterness, that will cost us the election in November.

        X might be a better candidate than Y to go up against Z, but if Y's leading, and SDs throw the nomination to X, X will be so weakened by the reaction that X will lose the election, because enough of Y's supporters will stay home to throw the election to Z, the Republican.

        That's the argument.

        The superdelegates have other considerations beyond "who do I want to be the nominee?" There are outside considerations that they will need to take into account, and my bet is that they will. Most of these people are, after all, successful politicians. They didn't become superdelegates by misreading their constituents.

        --Shannon

        by Leftie Gunner on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 12:36:54 PM PDT

  •  D Patrick is national co-chair for Big Bo

    by NY Dem on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 07:10:02 AM PDT

  •  Just a great analysis Kos, Can't we get this on

    any of the MSM,,Olberman perhaps?
    He was so great last night on Naftagate.

    by jjackso1 on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 07:33:06 AM PDT

  •  Two words: Florida, Michigan. n/t

    by bobswern on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 07:38:46 AM PDT

•  Don't you think "massive collapse"

  if she ekes out a slight popular vote lead is a tad melodramatic?

  by anastasia p on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 06:03:37 AM PDT

  •  With a 600k lead currently?

    Yeah, that would be a massive collapse. It would mean she's winning most every state 60-40.

    by Otis29 on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 06:05:28 AM PDT

    •  Well, technically

      She could win PA by 200,000 votes, FL by 300,000, and MI by 200,000 -- to get the popular vote.  That's a hail mary, but never underestimate a Clinton.  They're all about themselves (Bill moreso than his wife), and they'll do anything to accumulate power.

      by jim bow on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 06:14:19 AM PDT

      •  Why are you counting FL and MI?

        Unless, are you assuming there will be a do-over?

        Without a re-vote in those states, there is NO WAY I'm going to "count" those votes for Clinton.  No.

        by cfaller96 on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 06:25:28 AM PDT

        •  You won't, and I won't...

          ...but I bet the Clinton campaign would, and will have people on every news show pushing the "Hillary won the popular vote" meme just as hard as they can.

          by Wit Whither Wilt on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 06:28:56 AM PDT

          •  But Dean and the DNC don't seem too eager

            to help Hillary in this area.  The only way I see this resolving is if Dean, the campaigns, and the states all split the cost of a re-vote.  Isn't a caucus cheaper to run, BTW?

            by cfaller96 on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 06:34:44 AM PDT

        •  because they will be seated....

          mark my words.  Everything Senator Clinton wants she is getting. She has claimed the victim role, the fighters role, the working together role, the I am better than you role, the gender role.  

          She with the MSM had the ability to be on every major Television outlet, SNL, Letterman, GMA, even FOX, so why would she not get the nomination.  The power brokers behind the scenes are working on her behalf.

          Give up now Senator Obama it is useless.

          by OH NOT AGAIN on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 06:29:56 AM PDT

          •  Seated by whom? The credentials committee, IIRC

            and the credentials committee is going to have a majority of Obama appointees.  They're not going to seat FL and MI unless there is assurance that Clinton will NOT get an advantage from it.

            by cfaller96 on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 06:36:07 AM PDT

            •  Not that I am a Clinton supporter

              Nor do I think all of the FL and MI delegates should be sat without a revote, but the fact that the credentials committee might make it's decision based upon whether the advantage goes to their preferred candidate makes me sick. I know that's how it is, even in our grand ol' party - oops, wait that label's taken. :) It's disgusting that they would put their personal preferences over their official duty, but I also have no doubts that is exactly what they would do.

              by kenmarable on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 07:59:56 AM PDT

              •  No, they would probably seat with conditions

                I don't think the credentials committee would tell FL to go eff themselves (although MI might get shafted).  But I do think the credentials committee is going to stand in the way of having ALL the delegates go to Hillary.  What they had was NOT a valid, sanctioned primary, and the "voices" of FL and MI have NOT been heard through that beauty contest.

                They might seat them by taking away half or more of their delegates, they might split the delegates between the two candidates, or whatever.  But without a re-vote, the credentials committee will NOT unconditionally seat those delegates, and make it a giveaway to the Clintons.

                My own idea is to have the DNC, the two campaigns, and the state parties split the cost equally in order to have caucuses.  That way it stays cheap, the cost is dispersed, and there is a plausible argument to now seat those delegates.  And to any of the interested parties who would complain about this, I would simply say "this is the cost of having these delegates seated.  Take it or leave it."

                Tellingly, Clinton wants no part of a re-vote in any way, shape, or form.  She really is just a user.

                by cfaller96 on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 08:32:27 AM PDT

          •  I doubt they will...

            A do-over maybe..but Hillary won't agree to a caucus in Florida which is probably all we can afford.

            Dean knows that if they seat Florida delegates as are, they will lose what remains of the tattered state democratic party in Florida. The most ardent activists in the state lean Obama. If we are cheated out of our chance to build this party in our state, I imagine many will leave the party and not vote democratic. Essentially, the only way Hillary can win the nomination and not lose Florida in the general election with a 99.5 certainly is to either go ahead with the re-vote (caucus most likely) or not seat the delegates in the proportion from the January primary.

            She would be much wiser to just go with the caucus and REALLY work hard to get her supporters out. Not only would this build the party, but it would help her in the GE if she wins. Otherwise, McCain will take Florida. I certainly hope her ego is not so tied up with this nomination that she can't see beyond June. If it is..that tells us a lot about her.

            by rian90 on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 06:49:36 AM PDT

            •  too late.....

              her ego is the reason we are still fighting this fight.  If it was John Edwards trailing  Senator Clinton would the establishment ask him to step back?  What a farce, I hear what you all are saying but if they were going to deny Senator Clinton they would do it already.

              They are praying for a miracle, and all the while trying to figure out how to brainwash us with the smear, smear and more smear on the integrity of Senator Obama.  

              What are they waiting for to tell her "NO".  You are behind, you are hurting the party and you will not get the nomination.  Instead she is holding all the superdelegates and Americans hostage based on her 35 years of experience.

              by OH NOT AGAIN on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 07:01:33 AM PDT

        •  MI rumblings via HuffPo

          DNC source says Michigan is going to caucus. If so, Obama wins going away 55-45 minimum.

          by Tismo70 on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 06:37:30 AM PDT

        •  I am assuming a do-over.

          She won Ohio by 100,000 votes and California by 400,000 votes.  It's possible that she can win Florida and Michigan by the margins I stated but highly unlikely.  Still, never underestimate a Clinton.

          by jim bow on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 06:40:52 AM PDT

        •  Because...

          ...they damn well BETTER be counted in some fashion. Unless you really WANT to lose in November.

          by chaboard on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 06:57:40 AM PDT

          •  Re-vote, IMO. n/t

            by cfaller96 on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 07:26:53 AM PDT

          •  Really?

            You think that voters will sit out because we followed the rules?  Maybe a re-vote is necessary, but if they just seat the delegates as-is all of our higher ground for the garbage in 2000 will be gone.  It will just be another example of a progressive having the presidency stolen (in Florida none-the-less).  If the voters are mad, let them be mad at the state committee that got us in this mess.

            by proseandpromise on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 07:56:44 AM PDT

            •  Being "Mad" At Republicans In Florida

              is no solution.

              I really don't think allowing the GOP in Florida to disenfranchise 1.5 million Dems is a "progressive" position.  Honestly, I don't.  I think THAT would negate our "high ground from 2000".

              by chaboard on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 08:17:20 AM PDT

      •  yeah, but there are other states

        IN, NC, etc - where Obama should have an edge.

        be interesting to see how it plays out.

        I hope Obama plays his cards well.

        by mightymouse on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 06:43:37 AM PDT

  •  THERE IS NO NATIONAL POPULAR VOTE!

    This a FALSE METRIC that compares APPLES TO ORANGES and is another example of moving the goal posts.

    You are discounting millions of voters and particularly western voters.  Plus you are including both open and closed primaries.  It's FALSE FALSE FALSE.

    For example: Obama beat Clinton in the Colorado caucus by 2-1.  However, in this "popular vote" notion, he only picks up 40,000 "votes".  Meanwhile, in a primary state like Oklahoma - which is a smaller state with fewer Democrats - Hillary wins by a smaller margin and picks up nearly 100,000 "votes"!

    Similarly, Obama beat Clinton in the Washington caucus by 2-1.  How much does he pick up?  About 12,000 "votes".  Meanwhile, Clinton beats Obama in the Arizona primary 50%-42% and picks up nearly 40,000 "votes"!

    Obama beat Clinton in the Kansas caucus 4-1, picks up 27,000 "votes".  Impressive, no?  Clinton beat Obama by less than 4-1 in the Arkansas primary, picks up ... nearly 140,000 "votes."

    PLEASE STOP THE MADNESS PEOPLE!  THIS MEANS YOU, KOS!!!!!!!

    by jakester on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 06:32:29 AM PDT

    •  You are preaching to the choir

      Problem is, the Clinton campaign will run with the number and the MSM will go along for the ride.

      by Otis29 on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 06:41:38 AM PDT

      •  yes, but Kos shouldn't

        He needs to stop mentioning this number - and explain why it's wrong.  The point is - we'll never know what the REAL popular vote differential is, but it's inconsequential, because the campaigns have never been running for this so-called National Primary Vote.

        Moving the goalposts.  I'm really tired of it.

        by jakester on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 06:46:29 AM PDT

        •  You're right about the falseness

          It's hard to get a handle on the chaos that is the Democratic primary. It is certainly not as overly simplistic as this analysis would appear (though I have to give the author great props for doing the research).

          Unfortunately more research may not help because the superdelegates are politicians, and we cannot predict how they feel the political winds are blowing and therefore how they will vote.

          by manumoka on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 07:09:24 AM PDT

        •  It's not so much moving the goalposts...

          ...at least not in my thoughts anyway... but you're right, it's bad statistics and it's not accurate by any stretch.

          The whole system is screwy that way. Even in individual states it's hard to really determine the will of the people.

          How do we count TX, for instance?  What about people that didn't vote in the primary but did in the caucus (which I presume is possible) and vice versa?

          Good luck sorting that mess out.

          by Eireknight on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 07:13:07 AM PDT

        •  Obama Wins Wherever HRC Puts Goalposts

          I think the take-home point of kos's post is that anywhere that Clinton places the goalposts, Obama wins.

          That's why, absent Clinton conceding, we're going to get three months of constant goalpost moving. The only way Clinton can win this is to somehow make Obama toxic to party leaders and--through constant goalpost motion--get the superdelegates automatic delegates (in this scenario, she'd have to have won this terminological battle) to engage in the doublethink necessary to understand which states do and do not count, a list that will no doubt change countless times between now and June.  

          You want a fighter, don't you?

          by GreenSooner on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 08:14:12 AM PDT

    •  Caucus votes are MORE important

      I would much rather have the opinion one committed Activist who is willing to put a few hours into a Caucus than a dozen Primary voters who may not show up if it rains and might be swayed by a negative ad to vote Republican.

      Raw numbers are important.   Raw numbers win in November.  But we also need to reward hard-core supporters who care deeply about the process and think hard about the candidate.

      These are the guys who drive old ladies to the polls when the snow comes early in Ohio.  These are the guys who fight and yell and threaten to sue if Rethugs try to shut down the voting while people are still in line.  They help felons in the South fill out the paperwork so they can get their rights back.

      If we were smart, every state would be like Texas...a combination of Caucus and Primaries.  Both systems have their strengths.

      by ManhattanMan on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 06:48:47 AM PDT

      •  I find it interesting..

        The Clinton campaign doesn't want caucuses in Michigan and Florida because they don't think they can win. Instead they want someone to come up with the money to run primaries in these states.

        No one has addressed why the Clinton campaign can't just put people on the ground and get her folks to the caucuses. I would think Florida would be an easy caucus area for her. All she needs to do is get buses out to the retirement centers.

        But she has said she won't have a caucus in Florida..makes no sense to me. Why is she afraid?

        by rian90 on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 06:52:08 AM PDT

        •  My theory...

          ...which is biased, because I support Obama, says that anyone who cares enough to put in 3 hours of personal time has thought about the issues.

          And people who think long&hard about the issues are more likely to support Obama over Clinton.

          Now in the GE, we will mostly have voters who don't spend all day posting to the Internet about politics. So I understand where Clinton is coming from...maybe a Primary is more predictive of mass appeal...but I disagree with her.

          by ManhattanMan on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 07:02:05 AM PDT

          •  I have to say

            The last time I heard that argument, it was predicting a Kucinich victory...

            by brittain33 on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 07:09:56 AM PDT

          •  you are the best uniter i've ever seen

            Did you really post something that says basically that Clinton supporters don't think...and that we don't think about the issues...and then you insult people who post stuff on the internet...on your own internet post?

            that kind of condescension is why people call your side a cult. I don't expect you to agree with my support for Clinton, but i do expect you to show a little humility. Your own opinion is poorly thought out, ironic, and, pretty damn funny.

            It's the same attitude that Obama displays daily..."I'm smarter than you..." Besides being offensive, it's untrue. If you don't even understand why Obama's rhetoric is absurd- I WON'T EXPLAIN IT TO YOU. You should be smart enough to figure it out, right?

            by Dcrpfs9668 on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 12:55:57 PM PDT

      •  Your right

        It makes me sad when I consider the people that vote in primaries.  You have ditto-heads trying to sabotage and often an uninformed public.  Now I'm an Obama supporter, but I overhead a conversation that made me furious.

        I heard two men talking about how they wouldn't vote for Clinton b/c she was power-hungry.  They said, and I quote, "I mean, she just became the governer of New Jersey a couple years ago, and now she's leaving that to be president."  Now, first of all, she's a senator, and from New York.  Second, she's been there well passed a couple years, and third, Obama definately came to the Senate with his eyes on the presidency.  

        All this to say, I can't believe the ignorance of some of the people who will be helping to pick our next president.  I love Obama's message of new politics and change, but I worry that unless our media does a better job of educating people, and unless people are willing to be actively involved in seeking information, Obama's message might fall flat.  

        So I'm all for Caucuses.  

        by proseandpromise on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 08:02:48 AM PDT

        •  obama's message is vapid and...

          ...intended to be consumed by middleclass ditto heads who use phases like "ditto head" and don't realize how funny they sound.

          You can have an education, and still miss the point.

          by Dcrpfs9668 on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 12:59:17 PM PDT

          •  p.s.- you're all for caucuses- just because...

            you're guy wins them? HOW UNAMERICAN IS THAT?

            If you all had spent so much time thinking...you would have realized that all this stuff about Rezko would have come up eventually! THE NY TIMES reported on it months ago! Didn't you can't that article? You're so smart, you think so much, and you DIDN"T REALIZE OBAMA'S FLAWS AS A CANDIDATE?????????

            WHAT WAS ALL THAT THINKING FOR?

            At this point, if you don't get the horrible state of information in AMERICA, then i wonder where you've been all these years. Did you some how miss the fact that our education system is, and has been falling apart? Look- I don't mean to sound angry, but how can we have a respectful debate when you keep calling me stoopid?

            by Dcrpfs9668 on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 01:06:07 PM PDT

          •  dittohead

            "Dittohead" is the way Rush Limbaugh enthusiasts describe themselves.  Criticising me for using it in that way doesn't make sense.  It's equivalent to the label "Kossacks" etc.  You didn't offer any substantive criticism in your comment, and then you accuse Obama of being vapid.  If you want to talk about substance, you have to provide some.

            Pot...meet kettle.

            by proseandpromise on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 06:28:34 AM PDT

      •  One committed activist's opinion

        I guess you don't know what it feels like to be old, or sick, or otherwise unable to get to a causus. You are probably one of those people who has health insurance, and a good job. Good for you. I'm glad you think only people like you should have a say in the running of our country.

        In Alaska, only a couple hundred people showed up, IN THE WHOLE STATE.
        Millions showed up to the Florida primary. So you're telling me that a couple hundred people are more important that the millions in Florida? That's the will of the people?
        Are you a committed activist? I doubt it. I shouldlike Obama because some "hardcore" people do? WELL, I'm a political activist and and i voted for Clinton, because she's got the best chance to win against McCain, and she's got better policies, and the ability to actually get some of them done.
        You mean to tell me that all the Alaskian Caucus-goers were "hardcore" activists? Have you ever been to Alaska? It's a beautiful place, with cool people, but it's hardly the political activism center of the world... Caucuses are historical relics that should be THROWN OUT.
        Any real activist will tell you the same thing. Heck, anybody from Alaska will tell you the same thing.
        You need seniors in order to win the general election. You need the working class. Hillary won last Tuesday because everyone who loved her campaign came out in force to support her. We did it through hard work, and Obama couldn't handle the pressure. I knew he was gonna fold- THATS WHY I DIDNT PICK HIM IN THE FIRST PLACE.

        by Dcrpfs9668 on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 12:47:52 PM PDT

    •  In his defense...

      I think he's playing the numbers game, not advocating its' implications.

      by Eireknight on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 07:10:34 AM PDT

•  don't assume Obama wins WY and MS

  The Clintons are campaigning hard now.

  by slinkerwink on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 06:04:00 AM PDT

  •  And I am sure

    they can slam the big deficit closed in a few days because they are so potent they can do anything!

    by anastasia p on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 06:06:34 AM PDT

    •  there aren't any polls from WY or MS

      so we don't know if Obama has a lead or not.

      by slinkerwink on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 06:08:03 AM PDT

      •  not so sure

        I read a diary this morning about Hillary's appearance yesterday in Mississippi. She spoke to a half empty room.

        She's not too well liked over there these days.

        by CocoaLove on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 06:09:21 AM PDT

        •  hillary drew less crowds than obama in OH

          but she still won the state. Crowd size isn't indicative of electoral success.

          by slinkerwink on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 06:12:38 AM PDT

          •  Hillary supporters too busy too rally

            by bten on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 06:15:04 AM PDT

            •  working five jobs and all

              by byteb on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 06:24:19 AM PDT

          •  different mindset

            I know Mississippi, having live there my first 25 years. She's ticked off black voters around the country. We comprise a huge chunk of the vote in that primary. My mother may be the only black vote she will get.

            Just placed a call to my brother, an attorney, to find out what is happening. I'll post again when I hear something.

            The constant worrying troubles me. It's unhealthy and at some point, counterproductive.

            by CocoaLove on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 06:36:17 AM PDT

            •  because we want this primary to be over

              and I'm upset Obama hasn't been dominating the newscycle like he should.

              by slinkerwink on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 06:38:58 AM PDT

              •  And all the MSM are jumping on

                the story of Obama staff member who called Hillary a
                "monster".....big whoop.....

                by moose67 on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 08:31:43 AM PDT

            •  So proud of AA voters

              I'm really impressed with the way African-Americans en bloc have been able to see through the lies and spin of the Clinton campaign like no other demographic has thus far in the primaries.

              I think it has less to do with AAs favoring Obama because of his race and more to do with them being savvy enough to know BS when they hear it.

              Here's hoping for 65+ plus in the Magnolia State--one of my personal favorites.

              by ekthesy on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 07:11:10 AM PDT

              •  thank you

                A lot of us lived through Jim Crow and fire bombings. My dad was NAACP branch president for years. So my family is very aware of culture and politics.

                You're right. It's hard to snow us when it comes to scorched earth tactics. We recognized race baiting even before Bill Clinton's dumb comparison between Obama and Jesse Jackson. The critics who accuse Obama of racism are very wrong. Most of us had already shifted our support. Obama and his surrogates did not have to say a thing.

                by CocoaLove on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 07:39:38 AM PDT

              •  African American voters

                Agreed.

                The media makes it look like black voters simply vote for a black candidate. Well, I don't remember Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson getting 90% of the black vote when they were running a national campaign. Black voters went beyond race and voted for the best and most likely candidate to win in the fall. That's what's happening now again.

                I can only hope that Hispanic voters will begin to do the same. I asked a Hispanic friend yesterday why Clinton had so much support with Mexican-Americans, and he said, "Well, she speaks Spanish..."

                by manumoka on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 08:19:24 AM PDT

                •  No, she DOESN'T.

                  I don't think she speaks anything beyond pidgin Spanish.

                  The Senator took the stage with bleachers filled behind her with UFW members wearing red t-shirts chanting "Si Se Puede!" Clinton who rarely utters Spanish to Hispanic crowds, shouted back at one point during her remarks. "Si se pueda is right! That's right, yes we can!" Clinton used the wrong tense of the the word "puede," presumably accidentally to the crowd. Clinton has admittidly told audiences that her language skills are not her strongest suit and often referneces her french teacher from college who said to her her "Madmoiselle, your talents lie elsewhere."

                  Link

                  by ekthesy on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 12:33:25 PM PDT

  •  Yeah and their recent behavior

    Will lead everyone to vote for them in numbers... /snark

    by wrights on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 06:11:25 AM PDT

  •  Uh...

    The majority of Democrats in Mississippi are black. In fact, about 55-60% are.

    He won't get below 55% in Mississippi. In fact, he might win it 2-1.

    by ptmflbcs on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 06:22:16 AM PDT

  •  Ugh

    OK, I liked the '90s... I really did.  I thought Bill did a good job and I'm willing to say that I think Hillary would do a good job, too.

    Having said that... the phrase "The Clintons are campaigning hard now." caused some bile to rise up...

    Do we really need another political dynasty?

    by Eireknight on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 07:14:59 AM PDT

•  "2,204 to win"?

  I thought it only took 2,025 to win.

  by JR on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 06:04:31 AM PDT

  •  If MI and FL are going to be revoting...

    ...then the total number of delegates will go back up to 2,204.

    by DH from MD on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 06:05:33 AM PDT

    •  Make that 2207.5.

      by DH from MD on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 06:06:59 AM PDT

    •  yep, I'm awake.

      thanks

      by JR on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 06:13:23 AM PDT

      •  Well, I think I was wrong

        Looks like it was a good ol' fashioned typo, since the delegates needed to win with MI and FL total out to 2207.5.

        by DH from MD on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 06:15:48 AM PDT

  •  probably a typo

    I think he meant 2,024. That's the total with Lieberman and Lantos no longer voting. He probably transposed the 2 and 0.

    by CaptUnderpants on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 06:10:40 AM PDT

    •  It's not Lieberman

      He was never part of the original 796

      It's Ken Curtis that brings it down to 794

      by Oreo on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 09:03:31 AM PDT

  •  Its 2024

    kos made another typo - hope his math isn't off though.

    Clinton conceed? She not being very gentlemanly by not doing so. Mitt could have done this to McCain but chose not to - I respect him for that. Not to be sexist - but, sorry, dames play by differnt rules - a far differnt code of honor - not saying inferior - just different

    by Urban Bender on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 06:11:25 AM PDT

    •  Utter foolishness

      Not to be sexist - but, sorry, dames play by differnt rules - a far differnt code of honor - not saying inferior - just different

      by aldpol on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 06:14:52 AM PDT

      •  I am a woman and I am not offended

        Let's put it another way the Clintons do not play by the rules. She screamed that Rick Lazio should release all his tax returns but now she does not want to. They won't release the donors to Bill's library, so we do not know all the foreign donations they received and who they are indebted to. If Obama had lost 11 in a row, he would have been asked to drop out. Do you want me to go on.

        by ronnied on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 06:31:37 AM PDT

        •  Thats my point

          look at Mitt - he was in a simalar position - grace under pressure - perhaps nothing to do with gender but in my 50 years on the planet I have noticed females tend to be more tenacious (on a bell curve) under certain circumstances. I'm not making any judgments   it just a theory that is observable, testable and predictable, statistacally - just like evolution and music. Three things I evolution, music and women. Here we go with the strike through - I'm not doing that!

          by Urban Bender on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 06:39:25 AM PDT

          •  three things

            I love

            by Urban Bender on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 06:43:02 AM PDT

          •  "Observable, testable and predictable?"

            Please link to research showing Men are less "tenacious".

            by ManhattanMan on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 07:04:35 AM PDT

  •  2,024...

    I think it's a typo.

    by ptmflbcs on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 06:22:45 AM PDT

•  SC

  Voted resoundingly for Obama.  Unless I'm misreading, it looks like it's in your Clinton column.

  Typo?

  by JeremiahFP on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 06:04:36 AM PDT

  •  Good catch. nt

    by MingPicket on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 06:21:22 AM PDT

  •  Other minor typo

    The majic number neede to win the nomination is 2,024, not 2,204.

    by Geotpf on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 06:50:18 AM PDT

    •  Congratulations

      On joining me in the club of being "that annoying person who points out typos.":-)

      Good catch.

      by JeremiahFP on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 07:03:19 AM PDT

•  Typo

  should be 2024, not 2204.  

  by smash artist on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 06:05:19 AM PDT

•  Clinton may be greedy, but she isn't stupid

  Although Mark Penn is.

  I don't think she's going to push for superdelegates to override the will of the voters. She knows that would let her win the battle, but ultimately lose the war. Overriding the will of the voters isn't gonna play well.

  by danthrax on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 06:05:41 AM PDT

  •  Dunno

    She's asking for the Michigan vote to stand as is. I don't think it's a stretch that she will ask the supers to do her bidding.

    by Otis29 on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 06:08:07 AM PDT

    •  So what?

      I agree with you on the first point that it's odious that Hillary is asking the Michigan vote to stand as is.

      But on the superdelegates, I have no problem having the superdelegates being part of the process.  The supes -- unlike the voters -- are supposed to represent the party's long-term interests, cool the passions of the moment, and serve as a bullwark against the voters' worst instincts.  If a sufficient number of superdelegates believe that Hillary Clinton best represents the long-term interests of the Democratic Party (and after what she's said the past few days and how Democrats fared under her husband's Presidency -- particularly the losses in all offices outside the Presidency -- I don't see how Hillary can credibly make that case), so be it.

      by jim bow on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 06:35:57 AM PDT

      •  and if that causes the voters to get pissed off

        and causes people to stay home, and leaves a fowl smell coming from the democratic party...

        so be it. i guess.

        by danthrax on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 06:38:22 AM PDT

  •  She's both.

    She's a power-lus