I heard someone say that she'd have to win 57% of the remaining votes to win. She hasn't shown that kind of strength in any of her wins to date, has she? I think the clock is ticking .....

Just checking a trend here, I know Obama has won the last 8 in a row. But has anyone else noticed that Hillary has not cracked 40% since super tuesday.

Also, why doesn't the DNC release the delagate totals, each network has thier own number.

I think if it comes down to the superdelagates and they reverse the popular results and side with clinton, there will be a huge letdown in Dem turnout along with a 60 day window to mount a national campaign. Looks like the only way McCain can win.

If the Clintons really think that they can paper over a disparity of a couple of dozen pledged delegates without making the nomination not worth having, then they definitely inhaled and are still inhaling.

John King on CNN did a similar map scenario tonight showing that even if Obama wins ALL the remaining states 55-45, that still wouldn't be enough pledged delegates for him to reach 2025.

It seems very likely to come down to the super delegates unless there are more major 20+ point blowouts like tonight (for one or the other).

I just made up a little Excel spreadsheet of the remaining contests, and it looks like HRC will need to win 55-56% of all of the remaining pledged delegates to match Obama's pledged delegate count.

Wasn't the buzz that the superdelegates were waiting to see who wins the pledged delegate count?

I don't think Senator Clinton will win either Ohio or Texas. Unfortunately Senator Clinton's time arrived at the same time as Senator Obama's time. She should bow out while she still has good will. President Clinton can then divorce Bush the Moldier and the Clinton's can work their charitable magic around the world.

They would need to carry roughly 56% of the delegates to come within 30 pledged delegates of Obama (O 469 / C 606).

These margins are only going to get steeper next week, because it's a good bet that they are not going to make 56% in HI or WI. And when you start substracting places like MS and SD, which are obviously not Clinton country, it ends up meaning that they have to carry TX, OH, PA, as well as IN and in fact all the rest of the outstanding states, by margins parallel to Obama's VA margin tonight.

So, to begin with, Fineman is right that this is unlikely.

Next question: would coming within "twenty or thirty" pledged delegates actually permit them to carry the nomination with superdelegates plus the dreaded MI & FL argument?

Well, look. I'm a poor excuse for an activist. But I can tell you that if they try a stunt like that, I'm gonna show up in Denver carrying an angry sign, and bring a bunch of friends with me. And I'm definitely at the phlegmatic end of the Democratic spectrum. So, no, they can't do that. It would destroy the party and destroy our chances in the general election.

Which means that it's going to be time to drop out fairly soon -- certainly by early March.

We're also all assuming here that superdelegates will favor HRC overall. But this analysis disagrees: http://ccpsblog.blogspot.com/2008/02/predicting-who-democratic.html

Not sure if it's true or not, but the theory is that HRC has already gotten the "low-hanging fruit" superdelegates, and that more of those still left to declare will break for Obama. Plenty of those still out there...

I heard on the news that 9 of 10 African-Americans voted for Obama. Also that Colin Powell might be voting Democratic in 2008. Is he thinking of supporting Hillary? Or, does he all of a sudden agree with Obama's Democratc platform? Surely it's not just because of race, is it? Because I've been brought up to believe
that race should not be an issue. Apparently, loyalty is a one way street. African-Americans left Hillary so fast, it made my head spin.
Twisting anything and everything to rationalize stabbing her in the back. Hillary will be gracious in her loss and ask her supporters
to vote for Barack. She will even campaign for him. I don't think
I can forget or forgive so easily. Just as Michelle Obama said she didn't know if she could support Hillary if she won, I will re-evaluate voting, and may just sit this one out. This campaign is teaching/showing me that it's ok for African-American's to vote according to race. That seems pretty racist to me.

If there's anything we've learned, it's that anything is possible in this race. But Obama's haul HI and Wisconsin will have a lot to do with what's possible. If it puts her in a position where she needs to win 65% of the vote in PA/TX/OH/PR then I think she's done.

Someone needs to point out that a huge reason she's losing here is because she's Running a really poor campaign. This article in the Atlantic goes over the Heck of a Job Patti Solis Doyle actually performed, and how she was picked more for her loyalty then her skill.

Finally, the Dems Abroad primary ended tonight. Anyone know how their delegates are going to be apportioned?

Fineman's right. CNN ran out all remaining primaries using the Fancy Map set at a 55-45 delegate split first for Obama then for CLinton. Neither can take enough pledeged delegates

Yeah, I agree with fairandbalanced. It's gonna be ok. Once the superdelegates (and donors) see that HRC does not have a winning strategy that wouldn't also be a party-destroying strategy, there's going to be an intervention that brings this quietly to a close.

But it's important for the message to be delivered. In my opinion it would *not* be okay for HRC to come within thirty pledged delegates, use an edge among superdelegates to control the credentialing process, and then seat MI & FL in order claim a (retrospective) lead in pledged delegates.

That's clearly the scenario the Clinton campaign has in mind, and I'm not buying it as a legitimate end to this contest. Maybe it would have worked forty years ago, but that's not the kind of party we are in 2008.

So I very much appreciate TPM's offering us this thread to sketch out the possible end-games. Because if that's the only endgame HRC has on offer, I think the netroots could start politely indicating that it is not acceptable. A delegation of some sort from MI & FL can eventually be *seated*, but it cannot be used to determine the outcome of the election, when everyone agreed in advance that it wouldn't.

I think the real message in Fineman's piece is that the Hillary camp is hoping that they are "a couple dozen" pledged delegates behind when it's all done in June. That's how low their their hopes and expectations are. That implies two things, neither good for Camp Hillary. One, this is what will happen if pretty much everything goes how they want and hope it will, which is always a dicey proposition. Two, imagine you are working on the Hilary campaign, knowing the best you can hope for is a not-quite tie to go to the convention with. It's gotta be brutal.

This isn't my take because I have it in for Hillary. I don't. I admire her and her husband. Maybe she really can turn it around. But it is looking more challenging by the day.

My spreadsheet says Fineman's right. The only way Clinton comes close to Obama is by doing a 180 and stomping him by the same margins he's been generating (an avg of approx. 37 percentage points since Super Tuesday). This would be a neck-breaking turnaround of a sort that's hard to envision. Her average margin of victory to date has been around 14 percentage points -- and that's her BEST showings.

I'd say it's more likely her runs the table than she does. All said, the trend is not her friend.

Consider that Obama, with his money advantage and consistent (and subtly augmented) message, seems to be converting her base of low-information voters. What's more, voters are getting mixed messages from her campaign blunders. Whether it's fair or not to regard it as some sort of proxy for governing, these organizational missteps undermine Clinton's fundamental claim that she has the skill and experience to get things done. She denigrates Obama's management style, talks about staying on top of the bureaucracy, but is taken by surprise when her campaign runs through its record-breaking $100 million-plus war chest. She takes Obama to task for shirking fights then pulls a Giuliani, looking past and downplaying a string of defeats as his campaign scraps for every delegate in every contest. Like the delegate count, these things don't add up in her favor.

As for the second part of Clinton's increasingly desperate strategy, twisting superdelegates' arms...Without the White House in hand, what do the Clintons have to bargain with? What stick? What carrot? If I were an elected official, I'd be measuring the candidates' coattails, and Obama's would appear the better bet. Party officials? I'd wager they follow the pack.

And the justification for the superdelegates supporting a candidate who was "a couple dozen" elected delegates behind would be what?

The Democratic Party isn't going to destroy itself by making a mockery of the popular vote in this way. Bill Clinton may be influential but he's not Svengali. It's just not going to happen.

I think the corollary of these calculations is that this thing could be over sooner than we think.

Suppose next week's contests in WI and HI break 50/50, taking them out of the equation. At that point, there are only 981 delegates left in the race. If Hillary won 56% of those remaining delegates (pretty optimistic, given that NC, MS are included in the total) she would only be able to make up 120 delegates of the deficit she's now running. If it's true that Obama currently has a lead of roughly 165 pledged delegates, this means she would no longer be able to come "within twenty or thirty."

I think this means that Obama can put this thing away next week, if he picks up a substantial handful of delegates. If I were Team Clinton, I would do some campaigning in Wisconsin, instead of camping out in Texas.

I think this is definitely the beginning of the end
Wisconsin and Hawaii are next both are going to go big for Obama.

meanwhile HRC will see her Ohio and Texas leads melt away --

This thing is over Wednesday Morning
March 5th

great thread

what seems underplayed here is the fact that the Clinton camp has itself said it will never catch up to Obama's pledged delegate total--a significant and devastating admission.

once that admission reverberates in the media and through her campaign, there will be a slow but steady (or maybe fast and precipitous?) drop in morale as well as cash.

that "little red button" mentioned a few posts above might indeed have just popped out ...

Complexities complexities.

This is based on Wikipedia tables because they give the total map, not because I assume their delegate counts are best. But whose are?

Excluding Florida and Michigan, a tie +1 comes at 55.8% of the remaining pledged delegates for Hillary. That includes the 80 odd still unassigned pledge-delegates from past races (likely they are assigned but wikipedia hasn't pinpointed them yet). It does not include the 26 Edwards delegates who are for all practical purposes unassigned at this point, but if we treat them as unassigned it reduces that number from 55.8% to 55.6%.

She has carried 7 states with 55.6% or better. There is no chance she will overcome that deficit.

Moving to Florida and Michigan is a bit tricky. She got 55% in Michigan and 50% in Florida. Little chance she is going to improve on these, but let's do the following. We will give Obama the remaining 45% for Michigan (how he gets them, I don't know, but he'll get at least them, somehow) and the 33% he got for Florida. The remaining (Edwards) Florida delegates go to unassigned. Now Clinton needs 53.8% for a tie +1. Toss in Edwards delegates and that drops to 53.6%.

As a practical matter, she carried 10 states with more than 53% of the vote. She has to carry ALL the rest with this share. Keep in mind, she is going to keep losing next week. She cannot overcome that deficit.

That leaves her trying to steal the nomination with backroom deals with OLD STYLE PARTY REGULAR Delegates.

Neither of them can win outright, Obama needs 79% of the rest of the pledged delegates and Clinton needs 91%.

I think Howard Dean will keep a lid on this. My faith in him is not misplaced, though this will be a hell of a test for him. I expect that pretty soon, he will make a decision about how to seat the Florida and Michigan delegates. My guess: A caucus for MI and a national-proportional representation of delegates from Florida. Both of those will be net Obama wins.

I hope Dean announces this soon, so people don't have to keep wondering. This issue has to be settled first before all the suspicions and flames die down. And I think that this might over before April, because once the Michigan and Florida issue is ironed out, the uncommitted superdelegates will see the writing on the wall and settle this for Obama, with the help of 46 delegates pledged to Edwards.

Dean is right: This shouldn't drag on past the point when the winner is clear. I think there's a good chance that this will be in March.

Happy Warrior-Czar.

lump1: Can Dean do that on his own, or must he wait for the Credentials Committee? And do they convene at any point before the Convention?

The Call of the DNC contains all the rules that apply to the current situation re, MI and FL.

The Rules, Credentials and Platform Committees are made up of delegates selected by the State Delegations, 2 for each state, 1 for Territories, DC, Americans Abroad, etc. Thus the membership of these convention committees will not be set till all delegations are firmed up (mid-June) and they can caucus and select. Whoever controls each state delegation probably calls the choice.

The Credentials Committee would receive a petition to seat, and would then call a hearing, and eventually enter a Majority Report. If 25% disagree with the report, a Minority Report is filed. It then goes to the Convention Floor for debate and vote, Minority Report first. Decision by the convention is final.

You can circumvent the Committee Report system by filing a petition signed by 40% of Seated delegates, and go directly to the floor for debate and a vote. In neither process would MI or FL vote on their own credentials.

So aside from having a nasty floor fight the first day of the convention, what else can be done?

It really depends on the State Central Committees in MI and in Florida. They need to petition the DNC for permission to do-over the delegate selection process, and submit a plan that follows the rules applicable to 2008, again in The Call.

Thus the DNC can only act on this if asked to by the State Central Committees. I would rather suspect that Howard Dean and his staff are making efforts to get these party bodies to get the lead out and petition -- it certainly is in his interests and the DNC's generally to solve this without a huge floor fight -- but the DNC is the actual party body between conventions, they made their rules, and they have a duty to enforce them. Florida and Michigan intentionally broke the rule on the window for delegate selection -- and you are not entitled to run a bulldozer down the middle of Party Rules just cause you don't like them. So, in essence, they have to admit they were wrong by petitioning for a new selection process.

If FL and MI get seated and their delegates get to vote without there being another form of election, I'm bailing on this party forever. There would be nothing left to trust, and in this single act, the DNC will have proved right every aspersion cast by the GOP in the last half century. I won't support a party so corrupt.

Fortunately, I don't see that happening. HRC's campaign is looking a lot like Rudy's at this point. There's something to be said for momentum. One thing Fineman got right recently is when he said that the longer Obama is in the race, the better he does. As people get to know him, as they see other voters supporting him, as more come out to endorse him and add legitimacy to his campaign, the more others will join in.

On that same note, as Don in Seattle said, there will at first be a trickle of superdelegate defectors from HRC to Obama, but then there will be a flood. This mirrors his campaign precisely, and it is exactly what was predicted over a year ago when I started volunteering.

What I think we are seeing here - and Wisconsin will be the final proof - is a tide of a new inevitability. Not one manufactured, or bought, or brokered on false legacy promises, but one spawned by an idea of possibility, nurtured by hope and dedication, and allowed to grow and evolve organically.

Fruition is just around the corner!

A pretty important point is being missed here.

Hillary is definitely in big, big trouble, but you can't assume Obama is gonna somehow make up a 20 point deficit in Ohio or that he's suddenly gonna survive the hispanic vote in Texas or the elderly vote in Pennsylvania.

The fact is that the three biggest states left, the three ones everyone agrees Hillary needs a strong showing in, currently look very, very bad for Obama. He's down like 17 in the latest Survey USA poll of Ohio, and they've been the best polling operation by far this year.

I want Obama to win, but I'm not gonna convince myself that hundreds of thousands of people in a state halfway across the country from myself are gonna suddenly change their minds because they see Obama racking up victories.

We knew there was quite a bit of Republican cross-over voting for Obama, just not why there was:
http://robertbluey.com/blog/2008/02/12/why-i-voted-for-obama/

The floodgates have opened up for Obama and I think HRC and team are going to realize that it's over and that public sentiment on the issue of MI and FL will leave her dead in the water.

All of the strong supporters of Hillary are leaving her according to exit polls, so it's not an argument of disenfranchisement anymore.

It's not anything bad against the Clintons, hell we love em, it's just she can't compete with the message Obama is bringing now. The inspiration in his speeches and how can you argue with I'm a "HOPEMONGER"
The Clintons will bow down on this when it comes to that point. No worries