Obama '08?

sozobe wrote:

I responded back here, Finn...

http://www.able2know.org/forums/viewtopic.php?p=3126746#3126746

Thanks - I don't know how this got posted twice, but not intentional

Tom Brokaw Says Obama Has 50 More Superdelegates in His Back Pocket

NBC News superreporter cites a source "very close to the Obama campaign" who says the additional superdelegates are "ready to go public before too long."

Watch video from MSNBC's "Morning Joe" above.

04.03.2008

The Day After

Tonight's results will matter a lot, of course. But only up to a point. It seems quite likely that Hillary will win Ohio and at least come close in Texas, and perhaps win the primary there--but won't run up large margins. Under most of the likely scenarios, it does not sound like she has any intention of folding her tent voluntarily, even though the delegate math will almost certainly remain awful for her.

That's why I think tonight may matter less than the aftermath in the second half of this week. I assume we're going to see a ferocious push by the Obama campaign to create a climate of opinion that demands Hillary's exit. This hint that he's about to unveil 50 more superdelegate endorsements is a preview. So is the fact that Obama has waited to release his February fundraising haul, which is expected to top an astonishing $50 million. Party leaders and liberal pundits are going to start hammering on Hillary to get out.

What's not clear to me is whether her campaign has a persuasive counter argument. Arguing that she's likely to win Pennsylvania only goes so far, given that it probably can't get her out of the delegate hole--and, moreover, that it's six unbelievably long-seeming weeks away. Who will step forward and argue for Hillary's right to stay in the race? (Here's one bright ray of light: A surprising poll saying two-thirds of Democrats want her to stay in.)

The bottom line is that I'm almost less interested in the particulars of what happens tonight than in what cards the two campaigns play later this week. Whoever wins that argument is what will decide whether Hillary survives to fight another day.

Haven't looked in to these posts much lately and a quick perusal of the last few pages makes me glad I skipped it all. On all sides the rhetoric has degenerated to adolescent slams on others. Even posts that were obviously constructed to demonstrate superior irony end up rather limp and childish. Not much in these pages to recommend anyone here.

One with an open mind is usually able to conceive of the existence of a point of view or a body of basic beliefs different than his/her own that just might rationalize different opinions than his own. The most interesting part of discourse - if it can be achieved - is the discovery of the differences in viewpoint and basic beliefs that might be behind such differences in opinion, and, as well, of occasional inconsistencies in one's own opinions. Not much of this to be found here.

I do note the degree to which the subject has strayed from an examination of the wonders of Obama - the bounds established by the majority ten or twenty pages back. This may suggest (to some at least) the futility of an attempt to enforce such boundaries in an open forum.

There are many scenarios in which Obama reaches 1,805 pledged delegates pretty easily (i.e. without unlikely blowouts or anything). I chose that number because there are about 288 undecided superdelegates (last I knew) and I think it's reasonable that 200 of the undecideds [will support Obama]

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

sozobe wrote:

She's not mathematically out of it.

It seems extremely unlikely, and we've been pointing to some of the reasons why. But if everything aligns perfectly, she could still get the nomination, yes.

Under what scenario does Obama secure the number of delegates to outright lock in the nomination?

You and other Obama supporters are assuming that if he is in the lead when the convention comes around,it's all over. Why? Why have a magic number if it doesn't mean anything?

Your Party has created these rules, and you want to ignore them because your guy is in the lead. Understandable --- I'd be there with you if I was an Obama supporter, but I'd like to think I wouldn't get the self-righteous ass if Hillary didn't see it my way and refused to concede.

Not to say that you personally have a problem with her not conceding but there is a sense of same out there

There comes a certain point when Obama's lead is big enough, that Clinton would have to win by truly huge margins in the remaining contests in order to win the number of pledged delegates necessary to TIE Obama, let alone defeat him outright.

It's true that both campaigns need Superdelegate support to win. It's pretty much evident at this point that the outstanding super-delegates are waiting to see if someone can build a lead which is mathematically close to impossible to catch up in the remaining time period; and many of them will probably endorse when that point is reached.

As things stand right now, if EVERYTHING which is left, is split down the middle, Obama has enough delegates to win. Clinton does not. If Clinton wins by 5-10% in every contest left, she STILL cannot overcome Obama's pledged delegate lead, though he wouldn't be able to win on the first ballot. She has to win by large margins in order to truly overcome him, and it's hard to see the Superdelegates putting forward the candidate with less overall pledged delegates; it would be a party-splitting thing, big time, and while I know you crave that scenario, odds are it isn't going to happen.

If Clinton falls farther behind tomorrow, then it becomes ever so much harder for her to catch up. She needs to catch up some tomorrow or it is difficult to see her winning.

Cycloptichorn

Main point -- the longer Hillary stays in, the more she weakens BOTH Democratic candidates' chances in the general election.

Election officials make it count
`Double-bubble' figures won't alter results of primary
By Alison Hewitt, Staff Writer
Article Launched: 03/03/2008 09:50:47 PM PST

Excerpt:

County election officials announced Monday they tallied nearly 80 percent of the uncounted "double bubble" presidential ballots cast by nonpartisan voters in February's primary election.

Officials had estimated 50,000 uncounted ballots, but that total increased to 59,174 when a final count, including provisional ballots, was taken.

The count, completed Sunday, had no effect on the outcome of the primary.

Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton received 51 percent of the 47,153 votes that were counted. Barack Obama gained 42percent of those same ballots.

Just over 12,000 votes could not be interpreted, said Dean Logan, the acting registrar-recorder/county clerk.

Pressing Issues

by digby

The blogosphere is all abuzz about this outrageous Charlotte Allen piece in the WaPo yesterday saying women are dumb. It was over the top, but frankly I'm a little bit surprised that everyone is so shocked. It doesn't seem much more obscene than the fare we've heard from the right for years. Moreover, it's not even as derisive and demeaning as many things I've read on the liberal side of the blogosphere (or in my comment section) in the past few months. It's bad, but it's just par for the course as far as I can tell. The idea that sexism is politically incorrect is laughable.

What's more interesting to me is how the press is dealing with the criticism they've gotten about the Clinton campaign in general. There's substantial evidence of bias now being generated by respected pollsters and media observers. LINK Some of it is obviously due to the inculcation of years of Clinton character assassination and a desire to see Hillary brought low to pay for her husband's refusal to resign when the Village dictated that it be so. Al Gore suffered a similar fate. But that was expected, as was the "Clinton fatigue" that goes along with it. When the Village brands you with a delusional, flip-flopping, cackling Earthtone Letter on your forehead, it's probably foolhardy to think you can beat them. Democrats only get one chance at the presidency (and Al and Hill were both damaged goods from the Clinton administration.) Republicans often run more than once --- but then they aren't so badly damaged by Republicans that they are rendered unelectable. (See this fascinating study for how well that works. LINK)

But the media bias is far from simple Clinton fatigue. The sexism has been obvious to anyone who can see and those who insist to me that it doesn't exist remind me of nothing so much as Bush supporters who repeatedly exhorted critics to believe Junior or believe their lyin' eyes. I wasn't crazy then and I'm not crazy now. I know what I see and what I see are news networks that think it's fine and dandy to repeatedly invite LINKsomeone who runs an anti-Clinton organization called C.U.N.T. to appear on television and that the paper of record prints something like this LINKas if it's some sort of meaningful analysis:

Quote:

DOWD: In a webcast, prestidigitator Penn Jillette talks about a joke he has begun telling in his show. He thinks the thunderous reaction it gets from audiences shows that Hillary no longer has a shot.

The joke goes: ''Obama is just creaming Hillary. You know, all these primaries, you know. And Hillary says it's not fair, because they're being held in February, and February is Black History Month. And unfortunately for Hillary, there's no White Bitch Month.''

Yes, sexism exists, of course. I think it's stupid to pull rank (sexism is worse than racism) or to indicate that Hillary is where she is BECAUSE of sexism. If Obama were losing it would be just as easy to say it's BECAUSE of racism. I think the truth is more nuanced than that.

It seems to me that the only "nuance" thus far is how Hillary and Obama has presented themselves to the voters, and how they "perceive" them.

Rove .. was trying to alert his party's base that other possibilities, potentially damaging to republican prospects, were worth thinking about. What if, he said, the dem contest continued and as a result the media kept its attention much more directed towards the dems with the consequence that the dems continued to get "many more column inches and coverage minutes"...and then, reconciled with trumpets and balloons at the convention...therefore drowning out the soon to follow Republican convention which has near zero drama?

Rove understands presentation. He understands how to set things up to produce just this sort of scenario to the drama-voracious media and public .. .

We on the left, for reasons good and not so good, have a tougher time with message unity and certain types of long-term discipline. .. Many of us think we have to get better at it even though there is always an inevitable 'cost' which accrues in such a bargain. Which is precisely why I've been less than happy with the amount of slagging in the left community against the blonder candidate.

You already know that complaint. But I think Rove is right to imagine other possibilities here rather than the one you (and others) suggest above.

So, if HRC staggers BO today, the GOP will be popping corks all night long as the inevitability of a long, drawn out and increasingly bitter fight becomes obvious.

An interesting side note: if you use my pledged delegate count (Obama +161), and CBS's superdelegate count (Clinton +35), then Obama leads by five delegates even with superdelegates, Florida, and Michigan included. If he wins the most delegates tonight, then after March 11th he will lead in all counts even when all of those factors are included. The friendliest possible pro-Clinton count gives her a 15-delegate lead. So, if Obama is able to win 193 delegates tonight, which would be a net of 16, then the nomination campaign is functionally over.

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

sozobe wrote:

I responded back here, Finn...

http://www.able2know.org/forums/viewtopic.php?p=3126746#3126746

Thanks - I don't know how this got posted twice, but not intentional

No problem.

There's a delegate slider here:

http://edition.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/02/29/delegate.counter/index.html

There are many scenarios in which Obama reaches 1,805 pledged delegates pretty easily (i.e. without unlikely blowouts or anything). I chose that number because there are about 288 undecided superdelegates (last I knew) and I think it's reasonable that 200 of the undecideds -- with no movement from the Hillary column -- would cast their lot with Obama if he retains the pledged delegate lead. (In fact, there has been a fair amount of movement from the Hillary column since February 5th.)

Most of the superdelegates have gone this long without declaring anything for a reason. I think there are three main reasons; a) they want to support the front-runner, b) they want to support the candidate who their constituents support, or c) they want to select the most electable candidate. Obama keeps being shown to be the more electable candidate in a general election. Republicans get this ("Keep her in it so we can win it") and Democrats are increasingly getting it, I think.

Main point -- the longer Hillary stays in, the more she weakens BOTH Democratic candidates' chances in the general election. If she has a real chance, I can see why she'd do that and I don't begrudge it. If she doesn't have a real chance, I think it's a bad decision to stay in.

I understand that "real chance" is subjective. I wish that Obama would decisively win all four primaries today and remove any doubt, but I don't think that's going to happen.

Steve 41oo wrote:

As an observer, I dont think race comes into it. Obama appears to be just as popular with younger whites as he is with non whites, which is to the credit oft American voters. Its what he says which makes him such a refreshing and attractive change. Mind you even the Republican canditate seems to disassociate himself with the present incumbent, so perhaps being an attractive change is not difficult.

I think it's naive to think that race doesn't come into it. Obama appears to be just as popular with younger whites as he is with non-whites is a testament to the future but can't be generalized to say that race is a non-issue today. There are plenty of not-so-young voters in this country with whom race is still a large hurdle to leap.