The way I see it is that all Obama has to do is run out the clock. He can't be caught, and it's time we acknowledge that.

To: Chersplace.

I looked at the video on YouTube and it without a doubt looks like Obama. I'm just wondering if it wasn't sliced in...Where did you find that? Wouldn't you think that someone would have caught it by now...

2008 Presidential Election Weekly Poll

http://www.votenic.com

Results Now Posted Instantly!

New Vids, and New Polls Posted Weekly!

Quote: "Ohio, Rhode Island, and Texas have to matter. Obama outspent Hillary almost 2:1 and still lost after Hillary was being asked to step down."

Say what??
Obama won the most delegates in Texas.

Obama mania - coupled with Clinto hatred -- gives a discerning reader who still doesn't quite understand the comfort in Obama's "lead" or his leadership pause---------he is recruiting college students in masses who, when asked what the country's biggest problems are, say, they aren't sure. He is threatening black super delegates, anyone who calls him inexperienced and black, both of which he is, and he has a free ballot box stuff---- with a demographic who votes for him almost no matter what because he is a brother. Black commenators own this. They want a black man in the white house.

For those of us who are neither racist nor sure that this phenomenon is representative of real hope or real wisdom, all I keep seeing is mania.

Ohio, Rhode Island, and Texas have to matter. Obama outspent Hillary almost 2:1 and still lost after Hillary was being asked to step down.

If it were another black man running against obama, that might be the only way we could get reasonable and just talk about who is who.

Not as much baggage for Obama doesn't really help his lack of taking a stand on anything except getting in the white house.

Cris,

You are right, but you are also very wrong.

Process and math are not arguments that resonate with average voters. But as you said, Obama doesn't have a problem there. Clinton will not catch him in pledged delegates or the popular vote. Obama's challenge is in wooing the superdelegates, who will decide the election. And with superdelegates, a process driven argument about electability and a 50 state playing field is exactly what is needed to convince the party insiders that Obama is the strongest nominee.

In short, Obama should continue to do both. He should discuss issues and "change" and he should also continue to use his campaign staff to push his process message. In the ende, it may be the only thing that will resonate with the supers.

Chris,

Are you saying that being in first place is not enough?

Must Sen.Obama walk on water, multiply the fish and change water into $1 a gallon gasoline for you to open your eyes?

Is being in first place in all counts not enough? What is your definition of a winner, Hillary's second place? Second place is the new Mark Penn parallel universe real first place?

What, exactly do you need to acknowledge Obama's successful effort, a Hillary coronation? Is that what you are saying?

Great blog post, my opinion notwithstanding.

I think Obama's press conference with multiple military leaders endorsing him is the sort of thing he should have done a week or two ago to respond to Clinton's 3am ad. But, it's not too late in the scheme of the campaign.

I think it's significant symbolism, although much of the press which is now biased in favor of Clinton didn't cover it.

Also, Chris, Texas at best was a draw now. They each got a victory and they each were defeated. I think you should stop referring to it as a Clinton victory.

It's looking like the only conceivable way Hillary can win the nomination is if the superdelegates were to override the will of the people. How likely is this? Obama has actually managed to get young people excited about his campaign and politics in general. Do these superdelegates want to risk alienating an entire generation of up and coming voters? Of course not. It would be a disaster for the Democratic Party.

At this rate, it would almost take a major scandal for Hillary to take the lead in pledged delegates going into the convention. What little momentum she's built up won't be enough - too little, too late.

With these two points in mind, Hillary is starting to look more and more like Mike Huckabee hanging on and praying for a miracle. The only difference is Huckabee had the good grace to spend his last days running a positive campaign, whereas Hillary has been working hard at sabotaging her party's likely nominee. If Obama selects her as his running mate, her continuous nasty behavior we've all been seeing could possibly compromise Obama's positive message.

test

Vote for a President, NOT a fad movement.

Hillary '08

tHE MOVEMENT YOU MOCK IS NOT OBAMA'S.

I pray it does not fade. this is about america and her ideals and purity.

If that's a fad, and america no longer exists, who and what is america and americans now?

Are we fascists? Are we capitalists to the core?

If america and it's ideals are dead, what replaced it? The the heart of gold is black now, where are we living, if not america?

CHRIS,

Math may not be a message to a voter... but it IS a message to a superdelegate.

I think you are making the mistake of thinking his message is intended to hit the public. I don't think so.

Everyone understands HRC won't catch Obama on pledged delegates. But they also understand he won't hit the mark with pledged delegates alone.

So, why bother pitching your message to voters who can't get you over the line?

Plouffe is CLEARLY pitching this message at the supers. And I think they will hear it.

Math IS message to a super delegate.

"Ferraro, a former congresswoman who was Walter Mondale's running mate in 1984, notified Clinton by letter Wednesday that she would no longer serve on Clinton's finance committee as 'Honorary New York Leadership Council Chair.'"

Ironic that the battle-axe who thought of Barack Obama as an unqualified token was serving in a figurehead role herself, and her sole qualification for that figurehead role was as as a symbolic VP candidate.

Maybe Sister Souljah can replace her. Whoops! Forgot about her history with the Clintons.

"
updated 15 minutes ago
WASHINGTON - Geraldine Ferraro has stepped down from an honorary post she held in Hillary Rodham Clinton's presidential campaign amid a controversy regarding comments she made about Barack Obama.

Ferraro, a former congresswoman who was Walter Mondale's running mate in 1984, notified Clinton by letter Wednesday that she would no longer serve on Clinton's finance committee as "Honorary New York Leadership Council Chair." Ferraro, in a newspaper interview last week, said Obama wouldn't be succeeding in his presidential race if he weren't black.

Obama has called the comments "ridiculous" and his campaign aides have called on Clinton to denounce the statement.
"

Are you just mad about your girl from your old campaign (mondale), leachman. You just had to vent today didn't ya. :)

I feel you. I do too. Better on-line to vent your frustrations than the real world, right.

leichtman, we had a terrible time attending our caucus. The weather was lousy. There was a little league baseball game and a city commission meeting scheduled at the same time and the same location. We had to walk for blocks as there was no parking available. It seemed that all this was done deliberatly to prevent a caucus. But we stuck it out for almost 2 hours outside in the cold before being allowed inside. I guess that the Clinton supporters went home. Oh, well, that's Texas.

"Dear rufus t porter,

When we won Iowa, the Clinton campaign said it's not the number of states you win, it's "a contest for delegates."

When we won a significant lead in delegates, they said it's really about which states you win.

When we won South Carolina, they discounted the votes of African-Americans.

When we won predominantly white, rural states like Idaho, Utah, and Nebraska, they said those didn't count because they won't be competitive in the general election.

When we won in Washington State, Wisconsin, and Missouri -- general election battlegrounds where polls show Barack is a stronger candidate against John McCain -- the Clinton campaign attacked those voters as "latte-sipping" elitists.

And now that we've won more than twice as many states, the Clinton spin is that only certain states really count.

But the facts are clear.

For all their attempts to discount, distract, and distort, we have won more delegates, more states, and more votes.

Meanwhile, more than half of the votes that Senator Clinton has won so far have come from just five states. And in four of these five states, polls show that Barack would be a stronger general election candidate against McCain than Clinton.

We're ready to take on John McCain. But we also need to build operations in places like Pennsylvania, Indiana, North Carolina, and Oregon that will hold their primaries in April and May.

Barack Obama needs your support to fight this two-front battle. Please make a donation of $25 right now:

https://donate.barackobama.com/math

With our overwhelming victory in the Mississippi primary yesterday, our lead in earned delegates is now wider than it was on March 3rd, before the contests in Ohio and Texas.

And thanks to your help, we have dramatically increased our support among so-called "superdelegates" -- Governors, Members of Congress, and party officials who have a vote at the Democratic National Convention in August.

As the number of remaining delegates dwindles, Hillary Clinton's path to the nomination seems less and less plausible.

Now that Mississippi is behind us, we move on to the next ten contests. The Clinton campaign would like to focus your attention only on Pennsylvania -- a state in which they have already declared that they are "unbeatable."

But Pennsylvania is only one of those 10 remaining contests, each important in terms of allocating delegates and ultimately deciding who our nominee will be.

We have activated our volunteer networks in each of these upcoming battlegrounds. We're putting staff on the ground and building our organization everywhere.

The key to victory is not who wins the states that the Clinton campaign thinks are important. The key to victory is realizing that every vote and every voter matters.

Throughout this entire process, the Clinton campaign has cherry-picked states, diminished caucuses, and moved the goal posts to create a shifting, twisted rationale for why they should win the nomination despite winning fewer primaries, fewer states, fewer delegates, and fewer votes.

We must stand up to the same-old Washington politics. Barack has won twice as many states, large and small, in every region of the country -- many by landslide margins. And this movement is expanding the base of the Democratic Party by attracting new voters in record numbers and bringing those who had lost hope back into the political process.

Push back against the spin and help build the operation to win more delegates in these upcoming contests:

https://donate.barackobama.com/math

Thank you for your support and for everything you've done to build a movement that is engaging voters and winning contests in every part of this country.

David

David Plouffe
Campaign Manager
Obama for America
"

nO ONES'S buying it leachman. You gop sabotuers are on front street now. you still can't win. Stack the deck, both parties, still can't win.

Sad and pathetic. Enjoy your irrelevance gop. You sure earned it. Obama didn't destroy your party. You did. No accountability or credibility destroyed your party. Rather than pointing the finger and blaming everyone else. Why not take responsibility for your actions, and enjoy your irrelevance until you get that back. Credibility and accountability .When you get that you get your seat back. not until then.

Don't rip obama and america's future to shreds and bring us down with you. you had your chance. You wasted it. Now stand down and quit the sabotage. histroy will record your treason gop (clinton supporters inclued)

leichtman, I fully agree with you. The people present at my caucus were saying "Why are we here?" The answer, because that is the way the Texas law was set up years ago. It has just not mattered till now. The last caucus that I attended had five people present. This one had probably 500. I'm sorry if the Clinton people did not feel like coming out in the cold, breezy, weather to caucus. But as you say, we live with it.

wly: Houston State Rep Silvester Turner, told the Houston Chronicle that he believes our caucus systme is unDemocratic, his words not mine. As an Obama supporter he said he will do everyting in his power to end our sorry system going forward and my resolution to do just that at my pct caucus was approved unanimously by Obama and Clinton supporters but those are our Texas rules like them or not.

"defeats in Ohio and Texas"

CC: Once again, I join the majority chorus of those politely asking you to be a little clearer about the Texas contest.

No one, NO ONE, disputes that Obama won more delegates in the state, so in the name of fairness and accuracy, you could at least find a way to describe the March 4 vote in a manner that more accurately reflects the outcome of that race.

I mean, if that was a 'defeat', I guess Obama would happily take 10 more defeats. (Well, maybe not happily, but you know what I mean).

And Hillary was so "surprised" to find out about the Texas election laws. Yeah, right. Well, they were in effect for both of Bill's elections.
I thought that she was so politically experienced.

leichtman, it is so easy to vote Republican in Texas and so hard to vote Deomcratic. But the Demo party set it up that way so we have to live with it.

YEEEEE-HAAAWWWWWW! The only thing Hillary need concern herself about going forward with regards to the Lone Star State is the Texas-sized can of whoop-ass Obama has opened up! Obama's delegates will party Lone Star-style on the streets of Denver this summer!

leichtman, yes we will have a county and state convention. The state, in early June to report the official delegate count to Obama. That's the way it has been for 30 years. Read up. And, the only way to change the system is for the state party to change it in the future, not for this election. And they don't seem to want to do this according to the officials that I have talked to. The demo party set it up and it has come back to bite the Clinton supporters.

wly: we have a sorry system here in Texas where the winner by 110,000 votes loses delegates, only in Texas. And the local Obama supporters know that and an Obama State Rep Silvester Turner has already said he will change that going forward.
However we still have District and a State Conventions in June so its premature to say exactly what will be decided at our state convention, but it is a truly pathetic acknowldgement of our Texas system, but it is what it is.

Advanced Super-delegate math

Obama's 50 state strategy gives him a leg up with the super-delegates. Hillary has, by necessity, done everything possible to minimize the value of delegates from the many "republican" and "boutique" states that Obama won. She claims that it is the big, blue states that count.

In discussing the math problem both candidates face, the assumption is, that when all is said and done, Obama will have about a hundred delegate lead, but neither candidate will have the magic 2,025 needed to claim the nomination and that it will be up the the super-delegates to decide.

So it makes a bit of sense to examine the 344 uncommitted supers to see what we might discern. I found a list of the 344 supers with the state from which they hail. I then separated them into two lists, the one who come from the blue states Hillary won and is expected to win and another list of the supers who come from the hinterlands that Hillary has gone out of her way to disparage.

The breakdown is something of a surprise. Those we might presume to be safely in the Clinton column based on geography total 68. Those who come from states Obama won or are reliably red in the fall total 276.

I don't suggest that all 276 lean to Obama, but I do suggest that Obama may only need about 120 supers to put him over the top, and they will be much more likely to be receptive to a candidate who has promised a 50 state strategy that promises to increase democratic influence in their states. That's a bottom line argument for these party poobahs. Hillary will have to undergo contortions to offer a more compelling argument. I don't think it can be done.

Last comment: even the 68 supers in Hillary states are not certain to go her way. Just a couple examples: Nancy Pelosi of California. She remains neutral but has expressed great irritation with the recent antics of the Clinton campaign. And Bill Richardson of New Mexico. His pre-March 4 comments indicated an impatience at this thing dragging out. He referenced the math argument that remains in Obama's favor.

I'm sure this advanced math argument is ready to be deployed by Team Obama at the appropriate time.

In the end, I think Obama's 50 state strategy will bear fruit with the supers. They know he'll have coat tails, whereas Hillary will be content to elect only herself and may be toxic campaigning in certain parts of the country.

Hmmm. That wasn't the memo that I received in Texas. Obama won the most delegates and I don't know why the media doesn't report it. Clinton won slightly in the primary in Texas and Obama won the caucus by a large margin. And yes, it's all legal as it has been since it was developed by the Demo party to help Jimmy Carter.

The memo that I received said:

""You did it.

Not just on Tuesday, but every day for more than a year, you did what the cynics said we couldn't do.

You said the time has come to get beyond the same old tactics that divide and distract us, and you gave people a reason to believe again.

Because of your work, we won the most delegates in Texas on Tuesday.""

"In the end, math won't be enough for Obama."

Well, winning delegates will be enough. That's the math. Nobody is trying to foist numbers theory in lieu of votes or delegates--he has both.

Why? Because he's worked hard, played by the rules, is inspiring, and because more people in more states have voted for him than any other candidate. Why isn't that enough? Because he doesn't have the Clinton legacy? What??

Superdelegates will vote for Obama just like all the rest of us--that or lose there base.

"We are smarter than you were old folks."

more rants and insults. Apparently a generational war is being stoked by the Obama supporters. We hate you boomers that is sure refreshing. I certainly hope you don't act that way towards your parents, "we are smarter than you old people."

Once agin it is these hatefilled rants that is driving away any chance of Obama appealing to Clinton supporters. Aegism, sexism, hate from a campaign that claims to be inspirational.

no. what you do is find DIFERANCES, and post those. Not to say she is better or worse.

Simply stating differances on specfic issues is not what we're talking about here.

your right. we are getting no where here. Continue your propoganda and attacks. continue to lie spin and discredit just like the gop I've been fighting all these years. your just a rush limbuagh sabotuer. A texas rove bush backer.

I hope any independant thinkers here see you and your people for what you are. Republcain sabotuers.

Old style politics. Burn the candle at both ends. We are smarter than you were old folks. You have been mislead for years by this gop propoganda. Where are the flower children when they are needed? Did they become what they once fought agaisnt?

The flower children won and should now be leading this country. Why did you sacrafice your leadership right for money? We are climbing on their backs. Now rather than fighting with us, for the same cause, they spit in our faces. you support mcgovern but not obama? Now your going establishment and burying the movement?

Are you clinton moderates fighting the gop or enabling them? If the latter it will take more than two or three issue differances for you to seperate yoruselves. We are not dittoheads. We are not as dumb as you were.

"Don't vote. drop out. do drugs."

We will stay focused. There will be no way to distance yourselves from your true party. Your fooling no one gop. we see you and you rmoderate sell-outs now.

Your scared of small chance? Remember what you did when we were offering small change. Destroying both parties (as you are now) will only put an independant party in the forfront. Rather than what you did to just by happy and allow no representation for decades.

We will not back down as you did. We will keep fighting. think about the future if you gop's steal this election. Your scared of chance now? think about an independant party taking over. What will you say then?

Think about what your doing, gop. thi sis not a game. Destroying the country for money or fun is treason. Be careful what you wish for traitors.

"The Mississippi Republicans

The pro-Obama Jed Report has some interesting numbers linking Clinton's Republican support in Mississippi with the quarter of the people who voted for Clinton who say they like McCain and that they don't like her.

Without the cross-tabs -- and someone who has the cross-tabs can check this -- you can't say for sure that those are the same people.

But it's an interesting suggestion that Clinton benefited from the support of Republicans who don't plan to vote for her in the general election.

The question then, a pollster points out to me, is whether (as Jed argues) they were Limbaugh voters turning out to make trouble; or whether they were expressing a sincere desire to stop Obama, for reasons of race or others.

Jed's theory is the former. I'll be interested to see what others who look at the numbers decide.

By Ben Smith 11:54 AM
"

Pick a side.

"as far as your lists. I never asked for you to detail, her plus points. Is that it? That is why you support her over obama, and won't vote for him? NAH.

Actually you asked for details why Hillary is different than McCain your querry not mine.

"If I'm wrong on anything how? Tell me, how would clinton vs mccain be good for the party/country. I tried but there is no sense trying to have a discussion with you, none.

and when I responded with policy differences and votes of Obama that I don't and you shouldn't agree with like his supporting the Cheney energy bill that Hillary opposed, your response, its about the movement, I (you) don't care about any of the issues I posted, its all about the movement period, and that summarizes our differences. We will deal with policy differences and we will leave you to rant about the movement.

Pick a side.

Are you fighting the gop or fighting with them?

"All U.S. presidents since 1989 have been Yale graduates, namely George H. W. Bush, Bill Clinton (who attended the University's Law School along with his wife, New York Senator Hillary Clinton), and George W. Bush. Vice President Dick Cheney attended Yale, although he did not graduate. Many of the 2004 presidential candidates attended Yale: Bush, John Kerry, Howard Dean, and Joe Lieberman.

Other Yale-educated presidents were William Howard Taft (B.A.) and Gerald Ford (LL.B). Alumni also include several Supreme Court justices, including current Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito.
"

time for a change. The above have lead us astray. Should we continue to let them make all decisions and rule the country to the ground? i don't think so.

But do you tough guy. Destroy both parties. Don't cry to my when the new inpenpendant party takes over. Don't cry to much change them. You are making your bed.

clinton can't win and mccain will be forced to implament a draft. It's their only hope to wage their wars. That blood will be on you moderate sell-outs hands. Not just the fascist gop. No more can you point the finger and take no responsiblity for your actions. If you sabotage obama, whatever mccain does is on your hands.

if you are gop that's the plan, you don't care. If you are a good intentioned ignorant democrat, maybe these posts will wake yyou out of yoru stupor

"And again you oppose Boxer and Tester and would consider them as well GOP sell outs.
"

bOXER IS COOL. DI FI. not so much.

what's you point? do you have one?

I know you like to misrepresent my words. Previous you said I am for the super delegates voting for the same people as their state. When asked to reproduce the post you can't, as I don't beleive that.

Now you pull random people out of the air for my approval? HUH.

as far as your lists. I never asked for you to detail, her plus points. Is that it? That is why you support her over obama, and won't vote for him? NAH. It can't be.

good luck to you tough guy. Lets hope you don't destroy the country to get what you want. Whatever that may be.

Since it is obvious the unpledged delegates will decide the nomination, they have to look at their duty which is to nominate the candidate with the best chance of winning the White House. There are two basic lines of argument, 2008 will be like 1932 or 1976, we're destined to win, nominate a ficus or it'll be like 2004 & 2000 so be careful who we nominate.

Concentrating on the latter who should an unpledged delegate vote for? If you back HRC, who will have fewer pledged delegates, you inadvertently compliment her neo-dixiecrat strategy and all but guarantee a depressed black vote in November. If you back Obama do you lose the Regan Democrats? Is misogyny more powerful than racism - or are they lost regardless of your two choices? Lets say they are not and that Ted Strickland will be her VP. We'll also say that older white women will support Obama and that the young and educated will support HRC. And finally we'll say that Richardson will be Obama's VP thereby providing him with the same non-Cuban Latino vote HRC would receive.

Using these assumptions, any reasonable unpledged delegate will unroll the electoral map and grab a calculator. First you add up the states either candidate will win: CA, NY, MA, VT, CT, RI, DE, MD, DC, IL, HI, NM, MN, OR & WA. That's 186 of the required 270 electoral votes. Nominate Obama and you add NJ for a total of 201. Nominate Clinton and you add OH (courtesy of Strickland) for a total of 206.

So what is the strategy for Obama to pick up 69 or Clinton 64? If you select Clinton and depress the black vote you cannot count on NJ, PA, MI or WI (the margin in WI for Gore and Kerry was way less than the small black population in Milwaukee, Madison or even Racine), all states won by Gore and Kerry with a combined 63 electoral votes. Recent red states that could be turned blue only with a large black vote include MO, TN, FL, LA, VA, NC & GA (103 more electoral votes.) That still leaves likely Clinton pickups of IA, CO, WV, ME & NV putting Clinton at 236. Which means she would need to find 34 votes among red IN(11), AR(6), KT(8) & blue but McCain loving NH(4) and the previously mentioned damaged goods states.

If you select Obama (with Richardson as VP) you should be able to win WI, IA, CO & NV for a total of 232. Assuming poor support among blue-collar whites, you are competitive but lose OH, MI & PA (58 electoral votes). FL and VA, however, suddenly become likely and now you are at 272. That doesn't count NH, ME & WV, which should be possible for any Democrat or harder fought states like MO, IN, AR, LA, KT, TN, GA & NC where there are plausible paths to victory.

It would just seem to me that the racial division being practiced by the Clinton campaign combined with the demoralizing effect of a convention that chooses the white woman who is behind the black man in popular votes and delegates more seriously damages a Clinton campaign than lukewarm blue collar support for Obama. Even if you believe blue collar voters are mainly racist misogynists, it would seem easier to win them over to a black candidate considering the likely state of the economy this fall, than convincing black voters "despite everything we did this year, you really do matter." Clinton with black support and Ted Strickland seems unstoppable. Without black support in NJ, Philadelphia, Detroit and Milwaukee the electoral math is basically impossible for Clinton. Without blue collar support in MI, OH and PA, the math is difficult but not impossible for Obama though that scenario does require VA and FL.

Unfortunately for the unpledged delegates, they are unlikely to know whether or not Crist will be the Republican VP. While Crist could close Florida, a McCain-Crist ticket isn't exactly the key to blue collar votes.

Hmmm?? That's not the memo that I received. Obama won the delegates in Texas and I don't know why the media won't report it. The memo said:

"You did it.

Not just on Tuesday, but every day for more than a year, you did what the cynics said we couldn't do.

You said the time has come to get beyond the same old tactics that divide and distract us, and you gave people a reason to believe again.

Because of your work, we won the MOST DELEGATES in Texas on Tuesday...."

The capital letters are mine.

Chris,
I love your work, but last fall's math was all speculative -- it was the Clinton campaign's poll numbers before any races were run. We have real math now -- actual pledged delegates. You're right, Obama can't win without additional support from superdelegates (although he might need as few as 40% of those currently uncommitted). And you're right that Clinton cannot catch Obama in pledged delegates.

So what will happen if Clinton somehow wins the campaign by influencing party insiders, in spite of Obama's clear lead in delegates?

Many independents, moderates, Republicans disenchanted with Bush, blacks and new voters will stay home in November or vote for McCain. California will certainly be in play, and the Democrats could be in danger of losing a bunch of states they need: New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Iowa, New Mexico, Colorado, Missouri, Nevada . . .

Obama is by no means a shoe-in to win in the general election, but a Clinton win at this point would draw literally millions of anti-Clinton voters and alienate perhaps millions of core Democratic supporters. Clinton would also lead to the defeat of many Democrats down the ticket, and her high negatives would make it all but impossible for her to achieve any of her agenda even if she somehow wins.

leichtman: Who does rufus sound like? That other left-wing idiot, Ralph Nader.

I sense anger by your posts which scares a lot of us. What has Jim Web done for the country nothing other than lead the charge and blocked by the Repubs to get us out of Iraq. And again you oppose Boxer and Tester and would consider them as well GOP sell outs.

"If I'm wrong on anything how? Tell me, how would clinton vs mccain be good for the party/country? How? What's the differance"

seems like we heard that same anger from the Nader supporters in 2000. Gore is not pure enough, he is a sell out, and the exact words that I will never forget, there is not a dime's worth of difference b/w Gore and Bush and how did that language work out for you.

Why am I for Hillary, its for policy differences:

1. Her plan for universal healthcare which differs from Sen Obama's and is not on the radar for McCain;
2. Her plan to extricate forces from Iraq staring 60 days from her inauguration vs McCain's 100 years war;
3. Her plan issued last summer before the foreclosure crisis to cap adjustable mtg rates where we have heard silence from Obama;
4. She has opposed Cheney's energy policies that Obama voted for;
5. Her economic stimulus plan to save our jobs;
6. Mccain wants more Scalias on the bench, Hillary has led the opposition to Alito's nomination.

I am sure there are many other positive reasons I support Hillary but once again you are flat wrong to call her just like McCain and on certain votes I would tell you your guy has supported many of the McCain/W policies.

And by the way why did Obama vote aginst the Kerry plan to extricate us from Iraq, Durbin didn't. If your candidate is pure on Iraq that is really stunning but inacurate news.

Advanced Super-delegate math

Obama's 50 state strategy gives him a leg up with the super-delegates. Hillary has, by necessity, done everything possible to minimize the value of delegates from the many "republican" and "boutique" states that Obama won. She claims that it is the big, blue states that count.

In discussing the math problem both candidates face, the assumption is, that when all is said and done, Obama will have about a hundred delegate lead, but neither candidate will have the magic 2,025 needed to claim the nomination and that it will be up the the super-delegates to decide.

So it makes a bit of sense to examine the 344 uncommitted supers to see what we might discern. I found a list of the 344 supers with the state from which they hail. I then separated them into two lists, the one who come from the blue states Hillary won and is expected to win and another list of the supers who come from the hinterlands that Hillary has gone out of her way to disparage.

The breakdown is something of a surprise. Those we might presume to be safely in the Clinton column based on geography total 68. Those who come from states Obama won or are reliably red in the fall total 276.

I don't suggest that all 276 lean to Obama, but I do suggest that Obama may only need about 120 supers to put him over the top, and they will be much more likely to be receptive to a candidate who has promised a 50 state strategy that promises to increase democratic influence in their states. That's a bottom line argument for these party poobahs. Hillary will have to undergo contortions to offer a more compelling argument. I don't think it can be done.

Last comment: even the 68 supers in Hillary states are not certain to go her way. Just a couple examples: Nancy Pelosi of California. She remains neutral but has expressed great irritation with the recent antics of the Clinton campaign. And Bill Richardson of New Mexico. His pre-March 4 comments indicated an impatience at this thing dragging out. He referenced the math argument that remains in Obama's favor.

I'm sure this advanced math argument is ready to be deployed by Team Obama at the appropriate time.

In the end, I think Obama's 50 state strategy will bear fruit with the supers. They know he'll have coat tails, whereas Hillary will be content to elect only herself and may be toxic campaigning in certain parts of the country.

"And again exactly what have you done for the Dem party or to help Dems take back the Senate or U.S.Congress, my guess by your silence very little.

Posted by: leichtman | March 12, 2008 04:42 PM

"

That is how you blog. If I provided a list would my posts be any truer? do you have anything on the substance of any of my posts?

To me, either you are fighting the fascists who have been destroying our nation the last 30 years, or you are enabling them.

Rather than blame the messanger, why not tell me how what you and clinton are doing is good for the democratic party OR the country. How is siding with rush limbaugh and rejecting the democratic movement is good for the country/party?

I can detail for you wnat I have done if you wish. I don't see the point. We are what we have done and do. I am my intellegance and past expericances. So you should learn to know me through my posts, if your smart enough.

If I'm wrong on anything how? Tell me, how would clinton vs mccain be good for the party/country? How? What's the differance, other than John mccains extensive military experiance and forgein policy expertise?

Clinton can't win. The movement that obama has tapped is not with clinton. Not based on gender. But by her actions. It's not obama or the your not a democrat, as you say. It's about supportng this movement. It's about supporting the future. It's about supproting country over the good of any one candidate.

The blue dog democrats are republcains. I like webb. But what has he done for the movement and where has he been while the rest of us have been fighting? that is the issue to me. who is fighting for this mvoement and the country, and who is holding it up with the gop.

You must pick a side leachman, and from your posts you have.

ARE YOU ENABLING THE FASCIST BUSH GOP, OR ARE YOU FIGHTING THEM?

Answer those questions, and I will tell you what I've done. quid pro quo

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?,

If your fighting with the gop, how are you not part of their party. you see us as the enemy right? That makes you a republcain, to me.

Put that latin quote in your google and read. Seperation of powers. Seperation of parties. Justice. freedom. fair voting. American ideals. Democracy (the power have the power not elites and monarchs)

there are only two sides of this battle. the gop and those enabling them, and those fighting them. I don't care what side ANYONe takes.

But everyone must pick a side. The days of willful ignorance is over. Everyone must side with the gop and what they do (TREASON). Or not.

PICK A SIDE.

thank you for making point so eloquently. If you are a moderate democrat like Jim Webb, Jon Tester or Barbara Boxer, folks I admire and have contributed time and money to, we are all sell outs, and part of the GOP.

Please call Senators Boxer, Tester and Webb and tell them that if they don't agree with you or Sen. Obama they are sell outs and need to leave the democratic party, now. Dems now have a litmus test either you support Obama or you are a traitor and part of the GOP. Seems like we have heard that exact language from W, our way or the highway. And again exactly what have you done for the Dem party or to help Dems take back the Senate or U.S.Congress, my guess by your silence very little.

Chris,

c'mon, you are smarter than this. You're comment about "Math is not a message" assumes he is talking to the general public when those arguments are made. They are not. They are clearly trying to convince pledged delegates that for all intents and purposes this race is over and its time to coalesce behind him. Six weeks is a long time and the superdelegates are going to get more and more ansy the longer and nastier this thing gets. He is trying to get the "adults" to step in and effectively end this thing before they even get to April 22nd.

"You won't shame me or bully me into supporting Sen Obama no matter how many insults you throw at me, but to question my integrity and dedication to the democratic party(which has never expected blind following) is the definition of chutzpah. And exactly what have you previously done for dems?

Posted by: leichtman | March 12, 2008 04:16 PM
"

NO ONE ASKING YOU TO. In fact DON'T VOTE FOR OBAMA. Stay with the gop. We've had enough democratic sabotage by the clinton di fi rockafeller moderates caving and enabling the gop. Sabotuers. You misunderstand me. I'm not trying to change you at all. Just trying to hold up a mirror, for you. And trying to expose you for others.

this is america, you are free. Not trying to change or bully you. Just trying to expose you for what you are. you are now a republcain, imo, based on your posts. Be proud.

All are welcome in obama's campaign. You don't wnat that, for reasons mentioned. Fine. Do you. But at least be upfront. If your going to argue all sides of the same position, you must expect me to call you on it. If I don't I do you no favors.

i am for three parties. The right, the moderate sell-outs, and the left. This way the moderates could ell us out all day to the gop, but they would not be able to hide behind our vision and morals. they would be unable to sabotage on the right's behalf as you do now. I just want openess and honesty. you just want to win, you way.

Vote for whoever you want. Support whoever you want. It just seems the gop(clinton lincludeD) is more interested in rippin gobama and his supporters to shreds than they are talking about how great their own candidates are. that's all. Support your candidate clinton supporters. Trumpet her. Please stop trying to destroy obama and mock the movement. You have no backbone, we get it. But at least to not sabotage us and side with the fascists destroyin gour nation for power and profit.

I have fought the gop and their bush cronies for years now. To see you moderates and media, not help, THEN side with the gop. I just feel stabbed in the back by you people. that's all. Think about if the shoe was on the other foot. My movement has been fighting the gop. Obama is PART of the movement. Where was clinton? Where was di fi? Where was dean? While we were fighting for this coutnry against all odds and all comers? the same place you are now. Behind rush/fox/bush/gop.

So I'm the bad guy for calling you out? Ok. We;ll see who buys it. From my aspect america is siding with me. Majority rule remember. If only there was an opposition party to the gop. Then we really would be a free nation and a democracy. MAybe one day. AMybe later in the year.

Plouffe has it right and Ikes is terribly wrong. We must have a 50-state campaign. It is denying history to believe that traditional voting patterns will not change.

The Ickes formula of "lets just hold on to the Blue states and compete for Ohio and Florida" has been a losing strategy. To repeat it is madness.

Many of the inland western states have elected Democrats in state-wide elections, sometimes by overwhelming margins. These people will support the national ticket if an honest effort is made to win them over.

The other plus of the 50-state campaign is that the election can become a unified effort of Democrats that benefits everyone. The presidential elections in the last 40 years became too self-centered. The presidential campaign staffs took no interest at all in Congress.

Even in states that might not go all the way for the Democratic presidential candidate, enough new voters can be brought in to put more congressional seats into play than we can imagine.

Already mentioned has been the fact that we will force the Republicans to spend money defending in states they once thought were gimmes. We have more money this time around. The internet has really brought out the campaign giving among us common people.

That will be a huge advantage over the Republicans who so far have much less cash to spread around.

I have to say that my fence-sitting on this one is soon to be over. The Ickes-Plouffe outlook on the 50-state campaign is swaying me toward Obama. It appears Obama's staff "gets it" when it comes to the election in November. If Ickes is representative of the Clinton staff, it appears they don't "get it." We need a candidate who wants to win and win big in November.

JKrish: I have absolutely no problems with my political views, unfortunately they don't agree with your support of Obama and that seems to bother you.Someone accurately said if you aren't a liberal you are unwelcome in the Obama campaign. If that is true that is truly sorry comment on what this campaign has devolved into.

I took my sr yr of college off to work in the Austin McGovern office in '72 and would do the same today. In '04 I left my law practice to work with the Denver legal team for Kerry/Salazar at considerable expense. In '06 I traveled to Cleveland and was integrally involved in the Strickland/Brown state operation plus personally making 1700 calls into Va for Jim Webb and fund raising coffes to rid us of Tom DeLay here in Houston. I won't be lectured by anyone as to my dedication to the Dem party or democratic caucuses but neither should we have to apologize for having a different view as to who the nominee should be. You won't shame me or bully me into supporting Sen Obama no matter how many insults you throw at me, but to question my integrity and dedication to the democratic party(which has never expected blind following) is the definition of chutzpah. And exactly what have you previously done for dems?

Personal inslts?

"Unlike you, I commend anyone who has chosen to serve this country as a patriot regardless of whether I agree with them or not."

"Right that is why I was in the streets of Austin with impeach Nixon signs in 1972"

Rectify those two stances and arguements. Rectifying them in your head first. When you worked out your own stance. Then come talk to me and others about our stances. Get your own mind right first. Then come here and mck and sabotage. Baby steps. First things first.

I'm not inslting you. Just trying to make reason out of what your saying. You are arguing all possible positions at the same side. Doublethnk?

"The GOP is now gaming our primary for Clinton. It's time to end it.
by JedReport "

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/3/12/81339/4516/40/474909

"Yesterday, in the Mississippi primary, 24% of Hillary Clinton's support came from Republicans. Unlike the Republican support generated by Barack Obama, according to exit polling data, Clinton's Republican support appears to be part of the explicit plan promoted by radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh to wreak havoc upon the Democratic Party by voting for Hillary Clinton"

It's not me you need to worry about gop. It's perception and reality that is your problem. Not one little blogger ex military man

Why can't my posts get through

c
c
?

I am trying to modify them, for the thought police internet patriot act cronies like cc. Can't seem to get it through. how about now? Good enough? did i say the right words cc?

test

I agree with rrf. BHO is running two messages, one aimed at the voters which is focused on "unity" and the math one focused on the supers. The voters aren't going to pay attention to the math, you're right, but that's not the pitch to them. At the same time, I think the campaign is smart enough to realize that it needs to win the supers over with a parallel campaign - "hope" is not enough. As long as the two messages don't conflict (which I don't see right now) this is a strength not a drawback. It's HRC that needs to update her pitch to the supers, because right now it's not winning her many new converts.

leichtman: to rufus, anyone who is not a far-leftwinger is a Republican.

do you commend nixon Leachman?

No wonder people wanting to discuss politics stay away from these kinds of blogs b/c rather than have reasonable discussions it devolves into personal attacks and insults like this. Right that is why I was in the streets of Austin with impeach Nixon signs in 1972. Any other personal insults to throw out?

But Chris-the math argument is directed to an inside the beltway crowd-the superdelegates who are, as you said, the people he needs.

"I know you are but what am I"

Like the bill o'reilly rush limbuagh fascist propogandists. "I not a nazi they are." HAHHAHAHAHA

Only works with old people and dittoheads. True clear thinking american's see what time it is. the gop is done leachman. No amount of sabotage to the opposition party is going to save your party.

"What I have yelled out is not the opposition to Hillary but the hatefilled depiction I have read here"

Frikcin republcains. The street always runs one way. THEY are the ones who are teh little children. Elementary school rules and bullies.

Time to force the gop to grow up and live in post 1950's america. If they refuse let's leave them them. to Enjoy theit irrelevance for a generation. That is the only way to save them. CAUSE AND EFFECT. Action and reaction. If they are allowed to be elementary school kids and cry for their way forever, they will never change/grow

do you commend nixon Leachman?

cullendave writes
"he did as well as expected in his three states, but he cut her lead from 20 to 10 in OH, and from 20 to 4 in TX. so if there is an upset ahead, it's much more likely to be on the obama side--based on past and present results."

Remember Wisconsin? They - pundits and the Clinton campaign - said it would be close; that she might even 'upset' and win. Instead we saw an inverse NH, where not only did she not upset, she lost by a 17 point margin, and lost among her 'core' groups. So the spin machine quickly reset the focus onto TX & OH.

bsimon got it really right:

"I find it strange that the media - sorry Chris, you're included here - continues to focus on Obama's failure to deliver a 'knockout blow' to Clinton, rather than on Clinton's failure to skate to victory. Shouldn't the story be that Obama repeatedly exceeds expectations?"

the media is always talking about momentum. sooner or later, they need to face the fact that we have been witnessing its opposite: inertia. time, perhaps for them to learn a new word. (though that's scary. when they get a new one, it's all we hear for the next three weeks. not a creative lot, are they.)

in past cycles, momentum usually has mattered. here it has not mattered a whole lot. and it seems to matter less and less.

we've had six states in the last eight days, and what they seem to demonstrate is that all six of them came out as expected. three wins apiece, and not one upset, except for the TX caucuses, which barack won in a hillary state, though he's much better at caucuses.

there's no assurance that the future will follow the past, but we've had 44 contests now, so it's reasonable to assume that the strong patterns are likely to continue, and the strongest pattern is that barack usually wins the barack states and hillary usually wins the hillary states (if you accept that places like idaho and colorado should be barack states.)

the other pattern, though, is that barack tends to do better than expected in a lot of hillary states, but the reverse almost never happens.

again, in the last six, that has held.

he did as well as expected in his three states, but he cut her lead from 20 to 10 in OH, and from 20 to 4 in TX. so if there is an upset ahead, it's much more likely to be on the obama side--based on past and present results.

he couldn't quite turn a 20 point deficit into a victory in TX, but he might turn a smaller lead over in Kentucky or Indiana.

but we're unlikely to see big upsets.

funny how the press is not trumtetting that as a headline: "Remainder of the race expected to be dull. No exciting results foreseen." yeah, they're going to tout that.

there's a giant contradiction in this column:

a) "math is not a message,"

b) "it's equally unlikely that Obama will be able to get to the magic number of 2,025 on the strength of pledged delegates alone."

b is correct: obamam will need superdelegates to seal the deal; and also pundits who keep pretending the clinton chances are alive and well.

so to those audiences, his team is presenting the message that the math is against her: he has already lost.

i don't hear him delivering this msg in his stump speeches, or in his ads, or TV appearances.

i think you're getting too close to this stuff and getting tangled up in it.

he has a process argument for the insiders obsessed with process stuff, and a broader msg for the electorate.

i don't see the contradiction there.

I called him a spoiled child period. I then went on to say if he wants to take his ball and vote for McCain that is his choice, he is not obligated to support Hillary, not now and not then.Read my entire post. I also went on to say unlike the messages to me here, if I don't agree with us and Sen Obama just leave the party leave now. My comment to him was please reconsider, I see that as different you don't.

Right now I won't support Obama in Nov and I am sorry that gets under your skin and neither will I support McCain. i may reconsider but as of now that is the way that I feel, sorry if that doesn't agree with your theory of obligation to your candidate. I will likely spend my time and money with the Noreiga campaign and working to take back a Texas State Senate seat for the Dems. Sorry if you don't think that is my right, but absolutely no, I respect but don't agree with your support of Obama, and if you or your supporters are so vitriolic to say you will support McCain if Hillary is the nominee that will be your loss when he replaces Justice Stevens.

whether or not you think you have legitimate reasons is beside the point. Plenty of people have reasons to not support Clinton. But you don't respect their reasoning, so why should they respect yours?

This whole "honorable patriot" thing is just a distraction. You're willing to give Obama a meaningless bit of praise, but you're apparently not willing to vote for him.

What I have yelled out is not the opposition to Hillary but the hatefilled depiction I have read here. I suppose that calling her evil, a with, a monster, machivellian, a hag, a poll dancer, and her supporters as old women is somehow acceptable, I don't and will complain when I read such garbage.

"whether or not I believe I have legitimate reasons to not support Sen Obama is beside the point. It is, I am not allowed to oppose Sen. Obama and the heck with my reasons even if I feel those reasons are legitimate. Somehow your side feels that we are obligated to support your candidate regardless of our policy differences. I wouldn't demand that you do that and its about time your supporters show similar respect with those who differ with you.

And I will continue to call Semn Obama an honorable patriot who I don't happen to agree with.

So money equals patriotism to you? Dividing money to the "right" people makes you a patriot?

We are differant. I disagree. To me it takes personal sacrafice for ones country.

"I commend anyone who has chosen to serve this country as a patriot regardless of whether I agree with them or not."

What if they are only in to for bribes? You still commend them? Where do you draw the line. You opened the box. Enlighten me as to why yo think anyone who serves in office is worthy of commendation. That is a horribly naive statement to me, especially after bush. Do you commend don rumsfeild? How about scotter libby?

At all times the good outweighs the bad? no one in office will ever do anything that you would say "they are un-american."?

WOW.

leichman, a really confident person would not have to post ad naseaum about his preference. We get it, you are 55, don't think Obama is qualified (doesn't explain why your girl wants him on the ticket, though) love to debate endlessly on the term "patriot", feelings get hurt by the big bad Obams supporters (even though you seem to have no problem insulting them)

BTW, did respond to your post on the Mississippi win...

leichtman, once again you manage to spectacularly miss the point.

You are a Clinton supporter. When an Obama supporter says that he will not support Clinton, you yell at him. Earlier today you called someone a "spoiled child" for refusing to vote for your candidate. You seem to believe that all Democrats should support Hillary if she's the nominee.

However, you refuse to support Obama if he is the nominee. Even though you are a Democrat, you would not vote for the Democratic nominee. That means you are exhibiting the same behavior that you complain about in others. And whether or not you think you have legitimate reasons is beside the point. Plenty of people have reasons to not support Clinton. But you don't respect their reasoning, so why should they respect yours?

This whole "honorable patriot" thing is just a distraction. You're willing to give Obama a meaningless bit of praise, but you're apparently not willing to vote for him. So you're just as bad as the people you criticize. (Probably worse; at least they aren't hypocrites.)

leichtman: that's rufus's idea of humor. too bad his posts are gibberish.

Unlike you, I commend anyone who has chosen to serve this country as a patriot regardless of whether I agree with them or not. I could list the things Hillary has done for this country including bills to expand death benefits and tricare healthcare to reserves and children along with things she has done to protect the people of New York with port security. You see the difference b/w us is that I find good in political service rather than just finding reasons to insult. I don't agree that Obama is qualified to be President but I still call him and his service to this country as Honorable and worthy of respect and will continue to post that.

In order to classify yourself as a patriot one must put the well being of their country above their own interests. One must sacrafice for their country. It's not just being there. Or paying off the right people. That is the gop mindset.

A TRUE patriot must adhere to the classic meaning. Not the flag pin wearing gop propoganda version of patriotism.

Money equals love of country.
Only to the people fooled by the cult. Up is down. black is white. war is peace.

clinton a patriot?

How leachman?

Am i to mean? Is it to hard having real political conversation? Or must I injectject gop propoganda from time to time to be "serious".

you have to get off the porch to run with the big dogs. :)

jkrish: the spector comment is more than rude its slanderous. Is that what your campaign has devolved to? civility is apparently civility is no longer possible.

"But if we can't reach the point where calling BOTH candidates Honorable Patriots is acceptable dialogue, you are right, there is absolutely no hope for unity.

Posted by: leichtman | March 12, 2008 02:11 PM

"

Elighten then sir. How is what clinton is doing patriotic? Siding with rush limbaugh and sean hannity to destroy the democratic (opposition party)? How is that patritoic?

How is siding with bush and being a bush dog democrat patriotic? You brought it up. i can deatil how obama is a patriot. Please. Enlighten. Maybe you will turn blarg back into a clinton supporter, and whoever is reading.

enlighten how clinton is a patriot. Not in the 60's not in the 90's, now. Please. Or don't/ your burden since you brought it up. If you really want an answer I will humor you

Sorry blarg. To me you are. :)

Not many are as left as me. Trying to complement you. Add to your already sterling credibility. :)

you can't touch my posts clinton supporters/gop. You know i only mispell so you don;t run and hide in fear. You authortarians have to attack something. You can't touch my posts.

I would prefer a simple thank you.

States, not seats. States. For the slow people. I know some need to be spoon fed. there you go leachman. Don't say i never gave ya nothin.

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | March 12, 2008 02:08 PM

Should have seperated that more. the first part to blarg. I got respect for blarg. On point most times. A person who acknowledges reality most times. Unlike the people who are still supporting clinton. The democrats still supporting clinton I should say. I know why the sabotuer gop supports her.

The rest to leachman and phil spector over there

sorry blarg I confused you with being a reasonable Obama supporter. I detailed my reasons for not supporting Obama on the mississ. site and then called BOTH candidates Honorable Patriots. You see the my calling Sen Obama and Both candidates an Honorable Patriot as being an insult to him. And then when I reasonably explain in detail why I don't agree with Obama as being qualified to be the nominee you throw insults and act like how dare you. Isn't that why despise the W administration b/c its their attitude of either my way or the highway? That is enough I am tired of trying to have a reasonable conversation here its just not possible. If I incorrectly called you a moderate please accept my sincere apology that too was not intended as an insult as you see it. But if we can't reach the point where calling BOTH candidates Honorable Patriots is acceptable dialogue, you are right, there is absolutely no hope for unity.

Sorry blarg. To me you are. :)

Not many are as left as me. Trying to complement you. Add to your already sterling credibility. :)

you can't touch my posts clinton supporters/gop. You know i only mispell so you don;t run and hide in fear. You authortarians have to attack something. You can't touch my posts.

I would prefer a simple thank you.

States, not seats. States. For the slow people. I know some need to be spoon fed. there you go leachman. Don't say i never gave ya nothin.

Math won't work in swaying voters, but this isn't 2007, the primaries are now almost over so the two situations aren't comparable. Obama's pledged delegate lead is insurmountable, his lead in states will not be matched by Clinton, and the popular vote, including Florida and excluding the caucus states that went heavily for Obama (which aren't counted in the popular vote tally because they only count delegate votes, not actual votes) still is wide in favor of Obama, and without a HUGE victory in Pennsylvania, that may be out of reach as well. The math argument is bad before an election, but it's a good argument for the "inside the beltway" crowd after an election - the voters have spoken and we won, don't you dare think of overturning that.

jnoel: your observations are valid and primary states have nothing to dwith how the general election happens. Will Clinton supporters fall in line if Obama is the nominee and vice versa? 72% of Clinton supporters say no right now but 9 months is a lifetime. Many of them will, but considering that women do make up a majority of Dems, that may just not be enough in Nov. And I have not seen Obama make much inroads with hispanics maybe 25-30% which is critical in the sw. As much as Obama supporters think this is over far from it. Clinton's campaigns still has a strong argument that she will make a better general election candidadte. And Obama spending time in Utah, Alabama and Mississippi, in Nov. give me a break I am sure his campaign is not even that stupid IF they are the nominee.And oh yes the massive 9,000 Dems in Wyoming that is a winning strategy for Dems.

Where did anyone get the idea that I'm a moderate?

Math isn't a message? Chris, I love your blog, but really, what are you smoking?

How's this for a math-related message: the person who winds the popular vote and the most elected delegates should win the nomination.

Especially after the Gore-Bush debacle, that's a message people will have no trouble getting.

Posted by: Mayland
*********************
Bravo! I thought that Chris' endless bleating that math line was tiring enough on Tim Russert. Something tells me that Obama can make the math argument a compelling narrative for us simple folks outside the beltway, Chris.

leichtman, on the previous thread you whined about an Obama supporter who refuses to vote for Hillary. Then I asked you if you'll vote for Obama, and you responded with a long rambling list of why you don't like Obama. You said that you aren't sure if you'd vote for Obama, while insulting Obama supporters who won't vote for Clinton.

So how are you anything but a partisan hypocrite?

leichtman: Ignore jkrishnamurti, AKA rufus. He's just a blowhard.

to build a ground team for the remaining seats? what in the world does that mean?

Somehow calling blarg sophisticated is an insult. He is a moderate exactly like me who happens to be on the opposite side. As a moderate I feel that it is the moderates who have been told to leave the party by the netroots if they don't line up behind Obama. I have received multiple emails from moveone and DFA telling me exactly that so its hard to hear reasonable Obama supporters denying that here. I saw this at dailykos a year ago so it wasn't unpredictable, I saw it coming back then.

"You are sophisticated enough to understand that is a losing strategy, I suggest that you let his campaign know that"

WOW blarg. Clinton supporters are turning on people like you know? wow. Not very smart. If they turn on clear thinking moderates like you AND liberals like me, who do they have left? Republicans?

you can't win clinton supporters. It's not going to happen. She's just staying in to build ground teams in the remaining seats. Lose the venom. you have already lost.

the math argument should not be Obama's message blarg but unfortunately his speeches in Mississippi started out saying exactly that. To me arguing process, and I have the Math, is not very inspiring, but what we have heard from his campaign lately. You are sophisticated enough to understand that is a losing strategy, I suggest that you let his campaign know that. Note my last post to you on the mississippi post. At least you seem to be one of the more reasonable Obama voices here. Actually his speeches hamlin about process has been made to Miss and Pa voters not superdelegates as you conjecture.

I know you had a race session all day here yesterday.

"Race: It's fair to say this was an important factor in Mississippi. 91% of African-American voters backed Obama, while 72% of white voters backed Clinton."

Why did 72% of white people back clinton. :)

"Republicans: Is Rush Limbaugh's strategy catching on? 13% of voters in the Democratic primary identified themselves as Republicans, and they overwhelmingly backed Clinton over Obama, 78% to 22%."

No longer content to toil in their irrelevance like patriotic americans would. Their sabotaging. Let them try. Sad pathetic old men. Lied to for decades on end. We're going to free them. whether they want to be free or not.

http://www.crooksandliars.com/

"In the end, math won't be enough for Obama. He's right that Clinton isn't likely to catch him among pledged delegates but it's equally unlikely that Obama will be able to get to the magic number of 2,025 on the strength of pledged delegates alone."
The math may not move to many voters. But that memo wasn't for them. It was for the superdelegates. The more superdelegates Obama can persuade that Clinton is needlessly, recklessly drawing out the election, the more supers he will accumulate. And that plus his lead in pledged delegates will put him over the top.

Here's some math for you. Currently Obama stands at 1592 delegates, according to DemConWatch. That's 1385 pledged + 207 unpledged. Obama needs 433 delegates to reach the magical 2025.

Only 566 delegates remain in states yet to vote. 39 delegates have yet to be allocated. 377 superdelegates have not yet endorsed. That's 948 delegates still outstanding. Obama, who has won 51% of the delegates so far, needs only 45% of the remaining delegates to win. This understates his case.

Let's say Obama wins half of the remaining pledged and allocated delegates. A fair number. That brings him up to 1894 delegates, just 131 delegates shy of the magical 2025. That's only 35% of the undeclared superdelegates.

Who outside of the Hillery4Evuh! contingent thinks Clinton can force 246 of the 377 uncommitted superdelegates to ignore the will of a majority of pledged delegates and a nearly million-vote majority of primary/caucus-goers?

"The danger for the Obama campaign -- as we've written before -- is that math is not a message. Process arguments about the number of pledged delegates each campaign has won may well be effective for the inside-the-Beltway crowd but they aren't likely to move the needle with average voters."

You're complaining that a memo released to political reporters is only effective for the inside-the-Beltway crowd. Does that seem a little silly to you?

The math argument isn't supposed to convince voters of anything. Its purpose is to show that Obama will be the nominee, and that Hillary has no credible path to the nomination. The math argument isn't the campaign message; it isn't designed to get people to vote for Obama. It's designed to show how strong the campaign is, and get the media to stop talking about Clinton's "victories".

CHRIS!!!

"...released a memo asserting that the Illinois senator's defeats in Ohio and Texas last week will have no impact..."

I doubt that Plouffe released a memo mentioning Obama's "defeat" in Texas, since he won Texas. You'll see on his website that he rightly considers Texas a win, given that he received more total delegates from the combined primary and caucus processes.

And just to head off arguments to the contrary:

1. Your opinion of our caucus mess is irrelevant. It is what the candidates and we had to work with.

2. If you say we should wait for the final, actual results of the delegate assignments rather than accept the (valid) projections of Obama's win, then you can not also say that Clinton won Texas. Either way, Obama had no "defeat" in Texas.

egc: use moveon to bully superdelegates to do what Obama supporters insist on. That should go over well. Personally I quit moveon and DFC after they tried to bully me to support Obama and I have been a financial supporter and volunteer for both. Superdelegates are there as an independent voice and I imagine not moved by bullying tactics. They should be left alone and allowed to exercise their independent judgment which is why they were established in the first place.

Obama loses Ohio by 10% points and uses the Gilda Radner remark "Never Mind".

I didn't seem to hear John Kerry say that about Ohio in 2004 and not a particularly good message to the fine people of Ohio which is usually crucial in a general election.

I just don't see Obama being competitive in Nov without women voters who make up the majority of democratic voters or hispanics, the key demographic in california and the s.w.
It is naively presumed that these people will just come home after the convention. Not so fast. Many of the Clinton voters, and especially women are tired of reading comments by Obama supporters calling Hillary and her supporters evil, monster, and old women hags. If it doesn't stop soon I can envisage many women who don't like McCain's support of Justice Scalia as abstaining and not supporting Obama if he is the nominee and then voting a straight Democratic ticket for all local downballot candidates. At least that is what I am hearing.

.
.
.
I dunno, Mr. Fix.... I think people DO understand simple math. They expect the winner to be the one with more votes, more states, and more delegates. People DO NOT understand when a star chamber selects somebody who is in 2nd place. To me, the math argument is pretty strong to motivate the grass roots of Obama's campaign.

Which brings me to today's advice from the peanut gallery: Obama should use the next 6 weeks to activate his grass roots to petition, lobby, and cudgel their superdelegates and demand that the will of the voters not be overturned. Now is the time for Obama to mobilize his people's army (more than 1,000,000 donors, MoveOn.org, Unions) to overwhelm Clinton's top-down campaign.

Superdelegates are politicians. When a mob of constituents stand on their office doorstep (virtually) every day, they will take notice.

Peace.
.
.
.

"Process arguments about the number of pledged delegates each campaign has won may well be effective for the inside-the-Beltway crowd but they aren't likely to move the needle with average voters."
But Obama wins with the average voter; that's why he has the numbers he does. The question is whether the Clinton camp can persuade a large majority of the superdelegates to ignore the numbers.

pedromatos, I look forward to your post about the Hill & Bill fraud case in LA. I agree, it seems quite odd that this hasn't been covered nationwide.

leichtman:

You are making a mistake in projecting primary wins/losses to the general election. There is a good article on realclearpolitics.com that details why.

And have you seen the SurveyUSA 50-state polls matching each Dem candidate against McCain? You should; it's at pollster.com.

The survey shows 209 electoral votes strongly leaning Obama, and 199 Clinton. (Ohio is leaning strongly to both.)

Obama has 245 "strong-leaning" or "slight leaning" electoral votes, with 138 toss-up; Clinton has 250 "leaning," but only 65 toss-up. Looking at some of the individual states, it suggests that Obama does, in fact, put more "red" states in play than HRC.

There are some problems with SurveyUSA's methodology, but it's definitely a straw in the wind that demonstrates the hazards of inferring anything from primary wins one way or the other.

"I just don't see Obama being competitive in Nov without women voters who make up the majority of democratic voters or hispanics, the key demographic in california and the s.w.
It is naively presumed that these people will just come home after the convention. Not so fast. Many of the Clinton voters, and especially women are tired of reading comments by Obama supporters calling Hillary and her supporters evil, monster, and old women hags."
Posted by: leichtman | March 12, 2008 12:36 PM

So, are you basically saying that no matter who the Dem's nominate at this point its meaningless? Because both candidates have fractured the party past the point of reconcile? Because you seem to think that if Obama is the nominee than Democrats who supported Hillary won't vote for him, and I imagine you must feel the same way about those who voted for Obama voting for Hillary. (Since they have had a similar angst for young voters buying into all that "hype")
I think your thinking is premature. Hillary's base is mostly the tried and true Democratic party, which is more likely to vote for any democratic candidate, this would include Obama. That line of thinking is not naive. Especially when either candidate is going to try their best to frame McCain as W2.

The Post needs to get this time thingy fixed. I keep slipping back and forth in time, and I ain't no Michael J. Fox.

Novamatt-I wouldn't count Nebraska out as a possible pick-up for the Dems, either. They split their electoral votes by congressional district, and according to one SurveyUSA poll, in a McCain-Obama matchup, Obama would take 2 of 5 electoral votes in Nebraska.

OK, so math is not a message.

And Hillary's message is . . .

Good on the Obama campaign for pointing out that North Carolina could well be in play for the Dems in November if Obama is nominated. There's this nifty new tool online that allows you to play with the electoral vote map for November (http://www.270towin.com/) and it lists North Carolina as a swing state (along with NV, CO, NM, IA, WI, IL, MO, AR, KY, TN, OH, VA, PA, NH, FL, NJ, CT, in case you were wondering). I think Obama could definitely make a strong play for that NC in November, as well as VA. If he wins those two, it would more than cancel out a loss in PA.

I feel like a bit of a broken record, but I honestly believe that Obama would flip a few red states (not a Mississipi or an Idaho, mind you, but possibly the Carolinas, the Dakotas, almost certainly Colorado, maybe Nebraska, and just maybe, possibly Georgia).

Hillary and Bill Clinton have made a significant issue about how the press is treating Hillary unfairly in their hyper-critical reporting on her and their "softball" reporting on Barak Obama. Hillary maintains she has been fully investigated by the media and Barak hasn't!

As the Tony Rezko trial begins in Chicago, Clinton and her surrogates are linking Obama to Rezko and the media is speculating about whether Obama will be called to testify as a witness in the case. Obama has always admitted he received $85,000 in contributions from Rezko which Obama has now donated to charity rather than keep.

Yet the civil fraud trial of Bill Clinton for defrauduing Hillary's largest donor in 2000 into giving her campaign more than $1.2 million, pending in Los Angeles courts since 2003, is now preparing for a November, 2008 trial. The discovery that is now proceeding after a February 21 hearing, and the pending trial, have NEVER been announced by the mainstream media.

Hillary was able to extricate herself as a co-defendant in the case in January, 2008 after years of appeals to be protected by the First Amendment from tort claims arising out of federal campaign solicitations she made. Her abuse of the intent of California's anti-SLAPP law after the California Supreme Court refused to dismiss her from the case in 2004 is emblematic of her contempt for the Rule of Law.

Hillary will be called as a witness in both discovery and the trial according to the trial court Judge who so-advised Hillary's attorney David Kendall when he dismissed Hillary as a co-defendant in 2007. A subpoena is being prepared this month and will be served personally on Hillary, along with Chelsea, Pa Gov. Ed Rendell, Al Gore and other well known political and media figures.

Yet the media has refused to report about this landmark civil fraud case- brought by Hillary's biggest 2000 donor to her Senate race, regarding allegations that were corroborated by the Department of Justice in the criminal trial of Hillary's finance director David Rosen in May, 2005. That indictment and trial was credited as resulting from the civil suit's allegations by Peter Paul, the Hollywood dot com millionaire Bill Clinton convinced to donate more than $1.2 million (according to the DOJ prosecutors and the FBI) to Hillary's Senate campaign as part of a post White House business deal with Bill.

The media - except for World Net Daily- has also suspiciously refused to report on Hillary's last FEC report regarding her 2000 Senate campaign, filed in January 30, 2006. In a secret settlement of an FEC complaint by the plaintiff in Paul v Clinton, Peter Paul, the FEC fined Hillary's campaign $35,000 for hiding more than $720,000 in donations from Paul, and it required Hillary's campaign to file a 4th amended FEC report.

In that report Hillary and her campaign again hid Paul's $1.2 million contribution to her campaign and falsely attributed $250,000 as being donated by Paul's partner, Spider Man creator Stan Lee, who swore in a video taped deposition he never gave Hillary or her campaign any money.

Lee did testify to trading $100,000 checks with Paul to make it appear he gave $100,000 to Hillary's campaign (admission of a felony) but none of that has been reported by the "overly critical" media!

Where is the outrage from Obama that the press is engaging in a double standard relating to his possible role in the Rezko trial and his refunding the $85,000 contributed to his campaign by Rezko- which Obama has always admitted taking. The media makes no mention of Hillary's role as a witness in Bill's fraud trial for defrauding Hillary's largest donor- and Hillary's refusal to refund the $1.2 million she illegally received from Paul, which she has denied taking from Paul ever since the Washington Post asked her about Paul and his felony convictions from the 1970's before her first Senate election in 2000?

visit hillcap.org for more info

Ickes is one of the good guys in the Clinton camp, but the North Carolina argument is emblematic of why Clinton is wrong. North Carolina is a winnable state for Democrats if we pay attention to it. If we lump it in with Idaho and Nebraska and ignore it, then, no, we won't win it.

In the alternate universe where Clinton is the presumptive D nominee, they've already narrowed their sights to maybe a dozen swing states, almost all of which they have to win in order to get to 270. The Gore/Kerry strategy, in other words.

Forget that. Change the map. I want McCain playing defense in North Carolina and North Dakota and Alaska and Georgia and a bunch more states. The more McCain has to play defense, the less able he will be to pick off Minnesota or Pennsylvania or Oregon or New Hampshire, etc. If we see McCain campaigning in a hangar in Charlotte this October, that means a landslide for Obama.

It's all about the math and the momentum! And Obama has both right now! He may lose the momentum after Pennslyvania but if he makes it competitive (i.e. there is another record turnout and Obama campaigns positively but loses by less than 10pts) he can still claim front-runner status. Then if Obama wins the North Carolina and Indiana as well as the majority of the remaining primaries, he can solidify his argument of being the nominee.

But I do agree Obama needs to get back on message. He still needs to hold rallies but target his stump speech on how the costs of Iraq War and GW Bush's policies have effected Pennslyvania economically. And then he should offer what his economic plans for Pennslyvania as well as the country would be. The Iraq War will be his trump card, but like Jim Carville said in 1992, "It's the economy, stupid!"

It is true, Newsweek has also been highlighting the math, as can be seen in this article, which also shows some interesting Internet stats about the two;

Hillary vs. Barack:
The Google Factor...

http://newsusa.myfeedportal.com/viewarticle.php?articleid=57

BTW- I believe in the first paragraph of your blog there is a small grammatical error (Like we never make any!), "released a memo asserting that the Illinois senator's defeats in Ohio and Texas last will have no impact on the larger" (Should not 'will' be 'week'?)