Now that the penalties on FL and MI are the same as the GOP penalty....

[J. J.]

Gustaf made the point and I've ask for a followup.

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=76598.msg1577056#msg1577056

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Which can be waived (and were for other states).

I just realized it.  The half delegates could vote to let their "other half" be seated.  The can do it at the convention.  Now THAT is tricky.

Sure they could. The question is will they attempt (since the state parties consider the matter closed and have accepted the compromise, and if it'll pass. Not likely.

Not likely at the current time.  This thing is two months away and it's close.[/quot]

And for what reason would things instantly change in this scenario?

You need to realize that just because something has close to a 1% chance of happening doesn't mean it's a serious scenario that deserves immense consideration.

That could change and it might, depending on the circumstances.  Further, they can choose to seat the delegates using there own method.

Hillary has no chance at a majority of pledged delegates, even with FL and MI seated fully (which in this case moot since it'd become a catch-22 scenario) and since the credentials committee is based on the proportion of pledged delegates...well it's obvious. You're the one who needs to explain how it can change, or what type of "their own method" could be used. Without details these scenarios are nonsense, it's like me saying there's a way Obama could lose Pennsylvania, Colorado, Virginia, Ohio, Florida and New Mexico and still beat McCain, and refuse to explaiin how it happens.

And Obama will not get a majority of the popular vote.  Neither metric is the one used to choose the nominee.  [/quote]

Once again you completely ignore my point (which has absolutely nothing to do with the popular vote.)

Obama will have a majority of pledged delegates. That is the metric used to choose the credentials committee. He'll have a majority on that committee. It'll be more favorable to him than the RBC. So how does Hillary get a more favorable decision from a less favorable committee?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

She doesn't in the current circumstances.  Will those be the same circumstances in two months?  I don't know.  I can see a 1976 situation.

Yes they will be the same circumstances in two months since Obama can not lose a majority of pledged delegates at this point, and thus it is impossible for him to lose a majority on the credentials committee. The makeup of that has nothing to do with the dynamics of the race or polls or anything else you're blabbing about.

The Florida Democratic Party has accepted the current situation and considers the matter closed. So has the Hillary campaign tacitly by only saying they're keeping the possibility of a Michigan challenge on the table, not both states.

The Michigan Democratic Party also considers the matter closed. Hillary may not, but the dispute is only over 4 half-delegates. So that means Obama only needs 2 more in that scenario.

The issue is as far as the states involved are concerned, is closed. You're the only one who keeps thinking it'll still be a big deal and claim that Hillary can somehow magically win a majority on the credentials committee without explaining that it happens.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yes they could. Why would they? Once again, what's the point in discussing scenarios with sch a remote chance of happening? Maybe they might warrant discussion as a hypothetical, but not a serious possibility. You also completely ignore that it's impossible for Hillary to win a majority on the credentials committee.

I said it wouldn't matter in that it wouldn't affect who the nominee is. Please note that Obama supported the current seating. So Obama got his way, and it didn't affect who the nominee is, and the states were just given something out of appeasement. You kept raving about how FL and MI would be "key" and in the end, they did not matter.

He basically has to say the , "Even if MI/FL are seated in full, I still have enough."

And if he doesn't, but still has a majority at the convention with FL and MI seated as is...he's still the nominee. So no, he doesn't have to say that.

BRTD, Obama needs to get into that position to end the process fully.  That's why I'd like to see him hit really 2210+.

No it doesn't matter. Here's why: After tomorrow, there are no more primaries. So Obama is free to simply campaign against McCain as the presumptive nominee and ignore Hillary (at least publicly). He's already shifting gears into a general election campaign as is shown.

With no more primary states to campaign in, Obama can campaign in general election states, and ignore Hillary's whining to party insiders which won't accomplish anything. Hillary can't really run a campaign after tomorrow.

After all, it's not like John Kerry didn't declare himself the nominee until he had the number of delegates needed, nor did he pay serious attention to Kucinich after Super Tuesday.

Except as Obama has now clinched a majority of pledged delegates under any scenario, she can not get enough delegates to do it. So it's not possible. You need to explain how Hillary can win a majority on the credentials committee.

Again, it's not the pledged delegates any more than it is a majority of the popular vote.  It's the delegates.

And Hillary needs close to 70% of the remaining delegates to overtake Obama. Which gets even worse factoring in the add-ons (as I said, Obama has close to 7 in the bag this weekend) and "Pelosi Club". Is there a slight chance of this happening? I suppose. But it's not large enough to be a serious threat to Obama as you act.

[J. J.]

BTRD, you make an assumption that the super delegates, at least, will stay put.  They may not.

The reasons were stated on the thread.

The majority of the pledge delegates, much like the vote of the voters, is not the metric used to determine who the nominee is.

The delegates don't get to pick the credentials committee; it is, by the bylaws, Article II, Section 10.  It's a standing committee, meaning that it has been appointed already.

[Sam Spade]

Basically, as far as I can tell, the voters had aligned with their respective candidates early on, perhaps as early as New Hampshire, but definitely by South Carolina.  Although Hillary fared better with blacks and younger people in some areas and Obama fared better with the white working class and Hispanics in other areas, I simply don't believe that this had anything to do with "changing opinions" but rather with the cultural aspects of these voting populations.

In other words, I have long suspected that movement among voters in this race only occurred in two areas. 

1. There was roughly about 5% of the vote among *Democrats* nationally that was malleable.  In that way, Bush-Kerry compares very well to this race on the national scale.  The only place where I can definitely attest that this malleability switched to supporting Obama was in WI, IN and NC (and I still think there was some questionable voting going on in Gary).  The fact is that if primaries were held among Democrats only who identified as Democrats, Hillary would have won the race fairly easily.

2. The Independent/Republican crossover vote.  These guys were the real interlopers in all of this, and they naturally supported Obama over Clinton, though this became less as time went on (although some of that too may have something to do with cultural aspects - more thoughts on that later).

I may say more on this later too.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

J. J.'s "finest" hour. LOL.

Anyone notice he accused ME of spinning? HAHAHAHAHAHHAAHA