Thanks for the link. Very, very interesting.

Will keep this in the back of my mind, as the next few days unfold and as returns come in tonight.

I hope this post is right. And thank you for explaining where those February fundraising statistics went. I've been waiting for them. That's what really matters to the Superdelegates.

If he can roll out at least one Superdelegate (50+) for every Million Dollars ($50+) he raised in February parading around for 3 days starting tonight at 7:00pm, he'll definitely win the news cycle back (or at least tie with decent coverage).

EXCELLENT NEWS!!! FOR HILLARY!!!!

If it were true why would they hold off on announcing it? It would have been a good way to turn recent news cycles to their advantage, going into today's voting.

And if that Obama announces his superdelegates and a huge fundraising lead, The Clinton and the shrillbots will all whine about how unfair the media is to them.

I agree with the poster above, who sites holding this back as excellent "death blow" strategy. Clinton played her hand that her campaign will spin anything that possibly happens this evening as buyer remorse. Obama can counter with releasing the February fundraising and a big super delegate shift to offset her empty rhetoric, which the media will spoon feed on per usual.

Quote: "If it were true why would they hold off on announcing it? It would have been a good way to turn recent news cycles to their advantage, going into today's voting."

How about the super delegates not wanting to influence the primaries about to take place?

Obama is behind by close to a hundred Superdelegate pledges, so 50 would help him close some of the gap and such an announcement would only leave another 450 to announce.

Re: Buyer's Remorse: What's more devastating in this regard than the l-o-n-g string of high profile (John Lewis, thank you very much) formerly HRC committed SuperDelegates that rejected & renounced their HRC support in order to support Barack Obama?

I've been wondering also why Obama hasn't released his fundraising numbers prior to March 4th, when that little boost could certainly help him today, maybe a percentage or two.

Then I realized: He doesn't need to be helped a percentage or two. What he needs is to be able to show that any victories Hillary has today are meaningless.

Best way to do that? The day after any such victories, release a slew of information showing how strong his position really is, both financially with regard to superdelegate support. This allows Obama both to take back the media dialog and blunt any possible momentum Hillary might take away today.

The question is, will the MSM bite. They're in defensive mode right now, trashing Obama every way they can to "prove" to Hillary how "fair" they are, so who knows. It's pretty hard to avoid news like that though.

So, here's hoping this news is true. Guess we'll find out in the next couple days.

They need only be apart by 1 delegate for Obama (or Hillary) to win. Percentages are meaningless. How does one measure how close a candidate is to winning if we say they're only 0.000493% apart? (1/2025).

No. The delegate count gives a far clearer picture because it provides the ability to count delegates needed to win.

With each state primary that passes, and Hillary's delegate deficit doesn't shrink, that win becomes increasingly mathematically impossible. The percentages wouldn't reveal that.
This statement is highly misleading. The number of delegates apart is irrelevant- the question is do they have the 2025 needed to secure the nomination. The fact is neither side will get that without the superdelegates. The Obama camp is trying to steal the election by coercing the superdelgates to vote for him on the basis of his lead among pledged delegates. My point was that his lead among pledged delegates is statistically insignificant and that the superdelegates should be under no pressure to vote for him because of it. The superdelegates should wait until the enitre process is done and vote for the candidate they feel is best positioned to win in November and be the best president for America. Considering the way the delegate selection process works- IE you can win the popular vote somehwere but get less delgates- it is not some sort of mandate of the voice of the people and the Obama camp needs to stop lying and saying it is. Everyone needs to let the people vote, all of them. Let there voice be heard. If after that there is no nominee so be it. At that point the superdelegates should step in and make their choice, but not until then. And that should only happen after the public is able to see a clear analysis of the votes of all the states, how the delegates shake out,etc. I personally would like to see a system where the superdelgates from each state get together and distribute their votes so that the final delegate count from that state is as close to reflective of the percentage breakdown of the popular vote as possible. In other words, if Obama won 50% of the vote and Clinton won 50% of the vote in that state, but Clinton wound up with 55% of the delegates and Obama 45% (that is possible) then the superdelegates in that state distribute themselves so that the delegates from that state are reflective of the popular vote. In other words they even it out so both Clinton and Obama wind up with 50% of the delegates from that state.

Are you a crazy person? You are talking like a crazy person. Since when do parties wait until the last state (or territory) has voted before lining up behind a presumptive nominee?
They do that when none of the nominees has sufficent delegates to wrap up the nomination. It is called democracy in case you were unaware. Are you an ingnorant person or just plain stupid? My sincere condolonces either way.

If rjpjr is a typical Clinton activist, that explains a lot. Reading a post from him/her/it is like reading the pseudo science that gets quoted by Republicans denying the need to address global warming. Clinton's campaign is the one that was making all the ridiculous statements about how some states' votes don't matter, and that it's only the delegate-superdelegate count that matters -- as long as she had the lead. Suddenly, she's all about letting the voters be heard? That is truly comical. She manipulates voter ignorance, and has gotten very good at it. As US citizen, it's disgusting and offensive to watch.

Your post gives us a good way I think to evealuate what happened last night. As I understand things, prior to HRC's victories in TX, OH and RI, Tom Brokaw reported that a source in the Obama camp had advised him that 50 supers were going to announce their support for Obama. The bottom line is if that still happens then HRC's victories were insignificant. . .but if it doesn't happen and the drip, drip of supers going over to BHO is stopped, then it shows that the dynamics of the race have definitely changed.