http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0OsYnegoV 28

Noted without comment.

She's our best hope, folks! :)

"Sen. Hillary Clinton has a better than even chance of winning the Democratic nomination, contrary to popular and uninformed opinion."

9 out of 10 ostriches agree!

well then I guess we all sit back and see which way the superdelegate go.

The goal has always been 2209, except for all the months where Clinton and her surrogates said it wasn't. No need for me to post literally dozens of videos or quotes proving this is the case; if you ignored them to write this diary, there's no reason to suspect you'd pay them any heed now.

Michigan and Florida will get seated- heck, Clinton just killed a proposal out of Michigan, proposed by Michigan Democrats including several of her own superdelegates. But they'll get seated in some fashion, or at some penalty. Don't worry. Besides, Obama's kicking McCain's butt in MI polling.

You go through a bunch of information about how horrible our nominating process is because it worked against you. I didn't hear you complaining last year, or ever remember you trying to change it prior to when it suited you politically.

Then you use a resource I'm quite familiar with, as it's been my primary resource. I see the Clinton supporters have finally picked up on it. You'll notice that Obama can easily win, based off their projections, without either Florida or Ohio... but Clinton has to win both, and if you think Florida's a gimme, then I got news for ya, bud- get real on that issue.

I don't see how you figure Hillary could get over... let me do the model... loses IA and WI, loses NH, struggles dearly in CT, loses CO and NH. If she loses Florida, she's done. So her strategy would essentially be to campaign in Florida. Forget all those Democrats in different states, eh? Who cares about them?

For the record, I never even got to hillaryis44 and I rarely post comments on Taylor Marsh but when I do, it isn't under this name. There are probably many different Nobamas out there.

If she has a better than even shot at winning the nominatin, then why write this diary?  You should bide your time to rub it in our faces.

You could be making a killing over at Intrade.  Bettors have decided that HRC's chance of winning the nom is only a few percentage points higher than Al Gore's at this point.  $100 invested now would be worth like $2000 once she got nominated.  Unless you're already maxed out on donations, it's something you might want to consider.

It's truly amazing to me that two candidates who are so similar can inspire such vituperativeness.

On my optimistic days, I see is at a sign of how engaged Dem voters are.

On my pessimistic days, I see it as s sign of how much people can fall into tunnel-vision.

I'd rather be an optimist. I support the Dem nominee, and I invite all others to do likewise.

and I think it may actually be deeper than this...a struggle within the democratic party itself between coalitions of democrats?

Interestingly, while Obama claims the Clintons are about "the past", they actually were not--they broke with the past and got the disaffected reagan dems and activated others back into the party...the blue collar workers of every color and were elected twice.

This is in comparison with the McGovern-Kennedy-Carter-Mondale-Dukakis- Kerry politics of past losing campaigns...which disaffected large parts of the party.  Some of the same labels are being used, e.g. "elite".  And this might explain the irrational and thinly veiled hatred of "all things Clinton" by these same people, and perhaps their endorsement of Obama.  But does that doom him in the GE? Simply because the repugs have more to attack Obama with(ie kennedy, kerry, carter, mondale, mcgovern versus Clinton)?

The supers are going to have to think.  What is alarming to me is what I believe is intimidation: "vote for me or you are a racist". Threatening everyone with the line that youth and african americans will leave the party if Obama is not the one. The swarming of people saying its already over when it is not. The planned "victory" speech May 20th. Robo calls in WV asking people for money and telling them its over. The continued media drone. Maybe the fix is already in. The media is owned by the republicans, isn't it?

I wonder if the supers feel intimidated by this?

In my view, if the supers don't understand what's going on here, the dems will nominate once again a candidate that could very well lose the general election. That will in fact split the democratic party for years to come.

Maybe that is what has to finally happen to the democratic party?  Shaken to the core in a year that should have been ours so we can regroup?

And on the brighter side, maybe this paves the way for a truly viable progressive party that does break from the past

The intention of using superdelegates might have looked good on paper, but then they were expected to moderate the peoples choice so that the people didn't get carried away with an unrealistic, and unelectable candidate like McGovern, ironically.  But things never turn out like they look on paper, and when you get down to it, most of them actually vote on their own needs depending if they are up for election or not, have been promised a part in the cabinet or are under pressure by the people they were supposed to second guess. Some of them do it out of a chance to get back at old foes who might be running.  What might be good for the party and for actually winning the election is thrown by the wayside for a bit of personal gain.

contrary to popular and uninformed opinion. The goal post has always been 2209 delegates needed to win,

you do realize that Clinton herself said that the 2025 was the magic number of delegates early on in the primary.  Are you implying that she was uninformed?

It's the official number required by the DNC to win the nomination.  If that number changes on May 31st, then so be it.  But right now, the number is 2025 (technically 2024.5 I believe).

So let's take a look at your numerical argument if MI and FL are counted at full value without Obama receiving any MI delegates.

From Demcomwatch, under that scenario, there are 501.5 delegates remaining.  HRC needs 319.5 of those delegates, approximately 60% of the remaining delegates, a tall order considering she's only gotten more than 60% of the delegates in the Arkansas primary.  Under those delegate rules, once Obama has 180 more delegates, he has checkmated her because she will never get to your arbitrary number.  So he only has to get less than 40% to keep her from getting the nomination, not a tall order considering the only states where he didn't poll above 40% were Arkansas and Oklahoma.  (I'm not including Iowa, New Hampshire, and Florida because it was still a 3 person race at that time.)

Under the current rules of the DNC, Obama will checkmate HRC when he gets 140 more of the remaining 467.5 delegates.  At that point it will be impossible for her to reach 2024.  In all likelihood, the actual number needed will be a compromise with FL and MI being seated either at 50% or both under the current Michigan proposal.  So the number for Obama to checkmate her at will be probably 160 delegates, the same number he now needs to claim the nomination.  So it will not be premature for him to declare victory then because he will be the only one who will be reaching that number, regardless of what it is.

Um, you do realize, this is over.

If you have to create a 10,000 word dissertation to explain how and why you can win, win the other person can do it in 1 to 3 sentences, you have lost.

But what pattern do you see in the relation of the selection process to victory in November?

In 92 Bill Clinton didn't secure the nomination till June; hasn't he been called an 'insurgent', and Jimmy Carter also? Both of them were 'Bubbas' -- practical country Southerners. Maybe the type that's popular with GE voters has to fight their way  past some elitists (and/or some special interests like Brazile) to get the nomination.

McGovern fought for the nomination (Obama's tactic, pack caucuses with activists) then was creamed by the GE voters.

If Clinton won a majority of pledged delegates but superdelegates gave the nomination to Obama, those who are supporting her would never get over it.  Even with the heated primary, it's difficult for me to believe there are those who think this is a serious option.  The party would break apart and the Democrats would lose in November. Wouldn't matter which candidate did it.  

Just put yourself in the situation of imagining Obama at the convention podium, he's just won the nomination despite being the also ran in the pledged delegate count, and he has to explain to those who supported Clinton why he's the legitimate nominee.  Do you think there is anything he could say which would win you over?  I'm telling you, the same thing would happen if this occurred in reverse (many Obama supporters would simply stop listening and walk out).

There's a part of me, actually, which sort of wants this to happen.  It's the same part which is fascinated by car crashes and very large fires.  Think most Dems who are supporting Obama, btw, would still vote for the ticket, but perhaps 20% would bolt, we'd lose most of the indies, and the Dems, in the end, would probably top out at around 40-45%.  Clinton would become the new McGovern (and, given the circumstances, I suspect her reputation would take a harder hit).

Now that I think of it, the other reason I sort of want this to happen is because Clinton said very early in the process that she'd work to get this sort of victory, and, well, this was hubris of the purest sort.  Be careful what you wish for.

For all of the talk about the importance of the popular vote, btw, is there unanimous agreement among Clinton supporters that if Obama does emerge the winner by this metric that he's won the nomination fair and square?

You can't have a political party without reciprocity and the golden rule.  If this would be enough to make a case for Clinton's candidacy (ie. supers should overturn the delegate count), then if Obama wins the delegate count and the PV game over, no?

But I know how some would answer this: "Well, no".  And rather than engage such people, I'll just call attention to the outrageousness of it all.

Understand what you're saying.  Something which just occurred to me: if Clinton does win the PV, but the superdelegates back Obama anyway, will Clinton supporters than acknowledge that this outcome as just fine and dandy?

Because, after all, they've been claiming that superdelegates aren't really constrained by any rules or guidelines when making their decisions.  The PV is one metric.  It's not any sort of ultimate indicator.

So to be consistent, a Clinton supporter who believed the above should be prepared to say the following: "Clinton won the popular vote, but the superdelegates went with Obama anyway, not a problem, they're the ultimate authorities".

Not, "But Clinton won the popular vote--we got screwed!"

Realize politics is the last place to look for consistency, but it's in stuff like this where the "she'll do anything to win" meme originated.

I think it would be a travesty if Clinton arrived at the convention with the most pledged delegates and Obama somehow got the nomination.

From what I can tell, the only common ground I have with many Clinton supporters is in the above scenario--and only with those names--they'd consider it a travesty as well.

Great diary, Nobama. Really, down to earth poilitical analysis which seems hard to cme by in this primary process. the goal posts keep changing for everybody in this primary fight bedcause the DNC is trying to stack the deck for Obama. The whole thing is an embarrassment.

Superb analysis. I presume the reason Obama and his cohorts want to end the election process right now, is because they are worried she may win, if we go all the way to the convention. The Obama followers are descendants of the roster of losers in the Democratic party. We can't leave them in charge of November.

excellent - i rec'd

Thanks for this!