If Barack leads by 100 delegates at convention time would you Dems be ok if

[J. J.]

The supers will be looking at the polls and who is viable, and what has happened in the news, and about the candidates, since the voting stopped.

They won't overlook the fact that Obama leads in pledged delegates. That would be hanging over their heads for the entirety.

And once Michigan revotes with Obama actually on the ballot he will lead including Florida and Michigan, so shut up J. J. before you copy and paste that again for the 268th time.

If it does.  Even if there is a revote, that adds 250-310 elected delegates into the mix.  If you ignore it, it won't go away.

This nastiness, aka, the Democratic nomination process, continues.

[Padfoot]

Pennsylvania: preceded by Wyoming and Mississippi which will be Obama landslides; I know those two combined only have a third of the delegates PA has but they'll put a break in the Clinton momentum between now and April 22nd; if Clinton wins PA 60-40 and Obama wins MS 55-45 and WY 60-40 its a net gain of 27 for Clinton

Indiana and West Virginia: Indiana votes on the same day as North Carolina (May 6th) which Obama will probably win 55-45, if Clinton wins IN and WV 60-40 its a net gain of 6 for Clinton

Kentucky: votes on the same day as Oregon (May 20th) which has one more delegate; Clinton wins KY 60-40 and Obama wins OR 52-48; net gain of 9 for Clinton

Then after this you still have Montana, South Dakota, and Puerto Rico.  All three of these are unknowns as far as I'm concerned.  Obama has won all the other small western states but those were caucuses and MT and SD are primaries so its unclear how things will play out.  Puerto Rico, on the other hand, is a caucus but it will be dominated by Latino voters which have favored Clinton.  However, I imagine Puerto Ricans are not going to care very much about immigration and the other "mainland Hispanic" issues.

So in summary, even if Clinton wins 60-40 in the four states you mentioned its unlikely this would create a large enough amount of momentum for the superdelegates to feel comfortable overturning a 100+ Obama lead in pledged delegates.

[Nutmeg]

Delegate count and popular vote (assuming real numbers can be determined from the caucuses) is all that matters to me as an independent who voted in a Democratic primary.  Which states gave candidates victories when doesn't matter.

I'd drive to Colorado and protest along with thousands of others.

If Obama still has the popular vote, I'll join you.  And if our ruckus fails, then I'll never vote for a Democrat again.

[Beet]

Under the system set up by the Democratic party, superdelegates are supposed to vote according to their own judgment. The argument as to why only pledged delegates should count has always been rooted on the notion of "popular will", in the sense that pledged delegates are more reflective of the popular will, does it not? In that case, if the pledged delegate leader by a plurality clearly trails in the popular vote (and for caucuses, suppose that the margin is large enough that even the most generous caucus turnout estimates in favor of the popular vote loser keep them as popular vote loser), why is the pledged delegate count still significant?

Secondly, why will so many people not vote for Hillary Clinton? Don't you realize that there are just as many people out there who are part of a different, older demographic that will simply not vote for Barack Obama because of his "funny name"? Therefore the number of people who inexplicably refuse with utter stubbornness to vote for one or the other basically destroys the Democrats' chances of winning in November, no matter who they nominate. They are both basically standard Democrats by policy so I don't see why either one is so offensive.

[perdedor]

I couldn't care less if Clinton/Obama wins every state from this point forward. The super delegates should support whomever leads the pledged delegate count, plain and simple. "Momentum" should not be a consideration.

[they don't love you like i love you]

I doubt superdelegates care about momentum either. Superdelegates aren't average people who only know about the race with whatever's on the headlines now. They're aware of the big picture.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

Then I think superdelegates should be removed - given that they were created to do what they considered in the best interests of the party - even if that is against what the party voters have said. What's the point of them if they're being told to vote a certain way, since they have a deliberately un-democratic role to play.

Neither Clinton or Obama can win without the superdelegates, if MI and FL gets settled one way or another - I don't see what the problem is with a re-vote - it's the state D's fault, not the voters. Chances are Clinton will not get close to the votes she recorded earlier. At present a 150 pledged delegate difference is not a big enough margin to justify her dropping out yet. But if it gets to the point that there is no mathematical way possible for the nomination to be won, the she has to leave.

The nomination is NOBODY's yet, and calls of Clinton "cheating" or "stealing the nomination from Obama" will no go down well since he hasn't won it yet either.

[perdedor]

Then I think superdelegates should be removed - given that they were created to do what they considered in the best interests of the party - even if that is against what the party voters have said. What's the point of them if they're being told to vote a certain way, since they have a deliberately un-democratic role to play.

Neither Clinton or Obama can win without the superdelegates, if MI and FL gets settled one way or another - I don't see what the problem is with a re-vote - it's the state D's fault, not the voters. Chances are Clinton will not get close to the votes she recorded earlier. At present a 150 pledged delegate difference is not a big enough margin to justify her dropping out yet. But if it gets to the point that there is no mathematical way possible for the nomination to be won, the she has to leave.

The nomination is NOBODY's yet, and calls of Clinton "cheating" or "stealing the nomination from Obama" will no go down well since he hasn't won it yet either.

So, if Obama heads into the convention with a lead in pledged delegates and (quite possibly) the popular vote, would you still say that Obama had not truly won the nomination and that the super delegates could vote either way without penalty in public opinion?

[Beet]

Frankly, I think there is a lot of steamed up outrage on both sides; not necessarily anyone in particular but in general, the campaigns have an interest to raise a ruckus and cry foul as if the other side is stealing it from them. It really turns me off. Any time things are very close there will clearly be a lot of chaos. If one candidate is clearly ahead in the popular vote and the delegate vote, and if nothing has emerged that clearly makes them far less electable, then they should win. Other than that however, most voters and superdelegates will probably be guided by good intentions; there will always be room for the loser to complain, no matter what.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

Then I think superdelegates should be removed - given that they were created to do what they considered in the best interests of the party - even if that is against what the party voters have said. What's the point of them if they're being told to vote a certain way, since they have a deliberately un-democratic role to play.

Neither Clinton or Obama can win without the superdelegates, if MI and FL gets settled one way or another - I don't see what the problem is with a re-vote - it's the state D's fault, not the voters. Chances are Clinton will not get close to the votes she recorded earlier. At present a 150 pledged delegate difference is not a big enough margin to justify her dropping out yet. But if it gets to the point that there is no mathematical way possible for the nomination to be won, the she has to leave.

The nomination is NOBODY's yet, and calls of Clinton "cheating" or "stealing the nomination from Obama" will no go down well since he hasn't won it yet either.

So, if Obama heads into the convention with a lead in pledged delegates and (quite possibly) the popular vote, would you still say that Obama had not truly won the nomination and that the super delegates could vote either way without penalty in public opinion?

a) We're not at the convention yet - so demanding Clinton step aside before a clear resolution IS silly.

b) the superdelegates were created for exactly like a situation like this - their role is to be undemocratic. They are supposed to do what they consider the best thing for the party to be.

- If they are expected to just follow the crowd, then what's the point of having them?

BTW - I am not advocating one way or the other, but merely making the point.

[Nym90]

They are both basically standard Democrats by policy so I don't see why either one is so offensive.

Now that's just utter nonsense, Beet. Everyone knows that Obama is the Messiah and Savior of all mankind while Clinton is Lucifer in human form. Duh.

I'm perfectly fine with either of them as the nominee. I'd much prefer Obama, but I will have no qualms about voting for Clinton.

[Ben.]

I'd drive to Colorado and protest along with thousands of others.

Me too. Although I'd probably take a bus. It's always been my dream to get my ass kicked by a bunch of nightstick weilding cops at a Democratic convention, much like our forefathers.

You have some weird 'dreams'....

[they don't love you like i love you]

They are both basically standard Democrats by policy so I don't see why either one is so offensive.

Now that's just utter nonsense, Beet. Everyone knows that Obama is the Messiah and Savior of all mankind while Clinton is Lucifer in human form. Duh.

I'm perfectly fine with either of them as the nominee. I'd much prefer Obama, but I will have no qualms about voting for Clinton.

I'm going to say this, as brutal as I was to Hillary early on, that was mostly just me in election mode. I didn't hate her that much and would probably be able to easily suck it up and vote for her had she clinched the nomination early on.

However her behavior throughout the campaign has quite changed that. Policy isn't really what the difference is to me anymore.

[Beet]

They are both basically standard Democrats by policy so I don't see why either one is so offensive.

Now that's just utter nonsense, Beet. Everyone knows that Obama is the Messiah and Savior of all mankind while Clinton is Lucifer in human form. Duh.

I'm perfectly fine with either of them as the nominee. I'd much prefer Obama, but I will have no qualms about voting for Clinton.

I'm going to say this, as brutal as I was to Hillary early on, that was mostly just me in election mode. I didn't hate her that much and would probably be able to easily suck it up and vote for her had she clinched the nomination early on.

However her behavior throughout the campaign has quite changed that. Policy isn't really what the difference is to me anymore.

Which is precisely why I was hoping there would not be a long and divisive primary. For what it's worth, my mom, who has voted Democratic since 2000 and voted straight Democrat in 2006, said to me last week that she would campaign actively for McCain just because she "hates Obama". I'll work on her, but this thing will be quite a challenge, the higher the emotions run and the more negative things get the more craptacular the Democratic meltdown will be. What kills me the most is that it's basically a slow grind.

[Eraserhead]

I'd drive to Colorado and protest along with thousands of others.

Me too. Although I'd probably take a bus. It's always been my dream to get my ass kicked by a bunch of nightstick weilding cops at a Democratic convention, much like our forefathers.

You have some weird 'dreams'....

I'm just a simple man and a freedom fighter.

[Ogre Mage]

My argument is still that both of them need to be on the ticket in some order.  However this shakes down it is going to be close -- in other words, basically a 51%/49% split.  We cannot afford to have vast swaths of the losing candidate's supporters walking out, which is what will happen if one of them is off the ticket.  Obama's candidacy has come to symbolize more than just a Presidential campaign and while some here cannot admit it that is true for Hillary's candidacy as well.  Both factions of the party must be united for the general.

[perdedor]

Then I think superdelegates should be removed - given that they were created to do what they considered in the best interests of the party - even if that is against what the party voters have said. What's the point of them if they're being told to vote a certain way, since they have a deliberately un-democratic role to play.

Neither Clinton or Obama can win without the superdelegates, if MI and FL gets settled one way or another - I don't see what the problem is with a re-vote - it's the state D's fault, not the voters. Chances are Clinton will not get close to the votes she recorded earlier. At present a 150 pledged delegate difference is not a big enough margin to justify her dropping out yet. But if it gets to the point that there is no mathematical way possible for the nomination to be won, the she has to leave.

The nomination is NOBODY's yet, and calls of Clinton "cheating" or "stealing the nomination from Obama" will no go down well since he hasn't won it yet either.

So, if Obama heads into the convention with a lead in pledged delegates and (quite possibly) the popular vote, would you still say that Obama had not truly won the nomination and that the super delegates could vote either way without penalty in public opinion?

a) We're not at the convention yet - so demanding Clinton step aside before a clear resolution IS silly.

b) the superdelegates were created for exactly like a situation like this - their role is to be undemocratic. They are supposed to do what they consider the best thing for the party to be.

- If they are expected to just follow the crowd, then what's the point of having them?

BTW - I am not advocating one way or the other, but merely making the point.

a) I believe Clinton needs something like 65-68% of the vote in all remaining states to catch up to Obama in pledged delegates. Meaning that the race for delegates is, at least, easily predictable. Clinton is only staying in the race to do two things: 1) feed her ego, 2) win the popular vote so that she could reel in the super delegates, which leads us to:

b) Do you honestly believe that the Super Delegates, who know what's good for the party (evidentally) would pick the candidate that lost on all accounts? That would do nothing good for the party heading into an all ready hard general election campaign. The point of Super Delegates is to act as a tie breaker, not a collective group of party loyalists who ignore the will of their lower constituents.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

I agree, the race is almost over - but weirder things have happened.

I don't believe the race will actually come to the convention - once the FL/MI issue is resolved the superdelegates will make their move.

[they don't love you like i love you]

The superdelegates are already moving. Check out the graph a bit down on the left side:

http://demconwatch.blogspot.com/

[MODU]

absolutely not, the Democratic Party should realize how necessary Obama's nomination is.  

Why?

[J. J.]

Which is precisely why I was hoping there would not be a long and divisive primary. For what it's worth, my mom, who has voted Democratic since 2000 and voted straight Democrat in 2006, said to me last week that she would campaign actively for McCain just because she "hates Obama". I'll work on her, but this thing will be quite a challenge, the higher the emotions run and the more negative things get the more craptacular the Democratic meltdown will be. What kills me the most is that it's basically a slow grind.

I've heard the same thing, from a Clinton supporter.  So did Chris Mathews on Hardball last night.

I've been saying two things, both of which are true: 

1.  FL/MI will matter.

2.  Obama is over-hyped.

The Democrats are about to pay the price for not realizing both.

I think one solution is putting both on the ticket.  I doubt if either is willing.

[they don't love you like i love you]

1.  FL/MI will matter.

Yes, they'll matter once they revote and thus the current numbers become even more meaningless.

[Nutmeg]

I've been saying two things, both of which are true: 

2.  Obama is over-hyped.

If you say something enough times, maybe it will become true.