If you hold back the 25 Superdelegates from Florida and the 28 from Michigan, we're talking about 796 supervotes.

The website which you cite says that 333 Superdelegates have made an endorsement, while PoliticalBase shows only 294, but either way, for an obvious or apparent Superdelegate trend to have any effect, the majority of the remaining 464 to 504 of them would have to publicize their choices.

If someone were to want to put a stop to the race, something which I don't think would serve the party at this time because every day that our candidates are in the headlines, we're getting our message out, but if some force were to want to stop it, my money would be on the party elders rather than a bunch of former state chairs and a handful of low level officials.

BTW: I'd put Obama's margin in VT to be slightly better than Hillary's margin in RI.

It's going to be very hard for many superdelegates to plunk down for Obama under the scenario you hypothesize.

He would have lost the major swing states of OH, and PA, and will have already lost the further swing states of MI and FL.

Unless they want to go with a candidate who is clearly weaker where he absolutely needs to be stronger, why would they every go for him?

I think urbinato is right- those are *best case* scenarios.

I had anticipated a 15 point BHO margin in WI. The day of that primary, perhaps based on media cold feet, I shaved it by a few points. I regretted letting the drum beat of previous days cloud that thinking. He won by 17.

I find myself in the same hesitant position today, like others, I'm sure.

I'm going to put my neck out there an insist on the same numbers I had a few days ago, based on basic demographic spreads from post super-tuesday races.

Texas by 12 points
Ohio by 6 points
RI, tie
VT, 20+ points.

Why these spreads when polling shows a much tighter race? Several factors relating to candidate enthusiasm and what I think is a systematic failure of standard polling methods to nail this. I believe in the *science* of polling, that is, when the right method is used.

Instead, the best predictor so far is simply prior races. Yeah.... yeah... yeah... past results do not indicate future performance.

If she does that well today (and she very well might), then the battle for Michigan and Florida blows up, big time. There is absolutely no solution to that debacle that will please even close to everybody. It's a God damned nightmare.

I hope Obama is more ready for that fight than he was for Kitchen Sink Week, when he let her define him at every turn. All of this could have been blunted. He might not have pulled as far ahead as he usually does, but he didn't have to help her surge in momentum. I'm pissed at him.

A couple of points. When a superdelegate commits, it does not count until they actually cast their vote. So even if they all committed today, it does not mean they still could not be swayed before the convention. Also, what about the supers whose states have not yet voted? And if no candidate gets the required number of pledged delegates to put them over the top, all bets are off. Winning the "most" delegates is meaningless, IMO, if the margin is around 2.5% of the total number. With no one clearly over the top, the supers are free according to current rules to consider any factors they want in casting their vote, not the least of which should be the total popular vote. The candidate who got the most popular votes is just as reasonable a choice as the one who go the most delegates, especially since many of the delegates were chosen in bogus caucuses with turnouts much lower than those in primaries and were apportioned in ways that were wholly undemocratic.

While it might be possible for supers who are elected congressional representatives to easily follow their constituents, it is not so easy for senators and governors and not even remotely possible for unelected supers. In addition, what Obama supporters are arguing is essentially that supers should be apportioned on a winner take all basis. That would be patently unfair. In that case, how about we redistribute the pledged delegates in the same fashion? I wonder how the math works in that scenario. The point is that if it's all about following the rules, you can't pick and choose which rules to follow. To just say it would not be right for any supers to vote for Hillary unless she has a slight lead in the pledged delegates is an illogical and self-serving position (and I have no doubt that you would all be saying the same thing if the tables were turned). If you don't like the rules, change them. Right now, some rules favor Obama and some might end up favoring Hillary. But you can't cry foul as long as all the rules are followed (which includes the delegates voting at the convention to restore the MI and FL delegates). But then that would be a mature, adult position to take...

This is such a red herring. As if New York and New Jersey aren't going democratic anyway. Give me a break. This is not the general election, it's the primary, for God's sake. Because Obama didn't win New York doesn't mean McCain will. It's a ridiculous argument. And the press records the Clinton ridiculousness as if it were fact. Some media bias.

Worst case scenario, McCain and Obama split independents, although I'm really sure Obama would get the lion's share of them. Hillary gets zip. Republicans for Hillary? Are you serious?

McCain beats her hands down on foreign policy and military issues, no matter what. Their policies are practically identical anyway, but Americans will go for the war hero. Please. The fallacy of the Clinton approach to politics their entire careers: caving to Republicans, becoming Republicans has done them no good whatsoever. Talk about judgment -- who in their right mind would still be playing that game that has cost them so shamefully?

The racist Democrats who aren't voting for Obama aren't voting for any democrat in the general election anyway.

So we're left with our solid, safe, knowable candidate who will tell us how superior they are on the issues, and the American people will make the logical choice. Of course they don't -- they didn't for Kerry, Gore, Mondale. And we play this same losing game that we've played for decades. I'm tired of it. And then there are the normal democrats who, a very few months ago, would have happily supported any of their democratic candidates. Happily. Hillary, with her Rove on steroids, take no prisoners, campaign of distortion and lies, has managed to horrify a good portion of her base, and will send the new voters back to their cynicism with no hope or trust in their candidate. Good job, Hillary.

I don't even recognize the CLintons I had defended and loved all those years. What an idiot I was. I may vote for her, I may not, if I have to make that awful choice. But I didn't feel like this January 1. I would have been happy to support her. Now I'm just disgusted.

Way to go, Hillary. Great job.

For the Clinton supporters who've responded to the post - thanks. I've really wanted to hear what you all think her path to victory will look like. Some of you are still making the case about who the better general election candidate will be, but what I want to hear is HOW you think Clinton wins this.

I think what some of you are saying boils down to this:
Hillary's best chance to win the nomination will be to win Ohio, Texas, and RI tonight by any margin. These victories totally change the dynamic of the race and the momentum pushes Clinton to victory in state after state. The superdelegates, seeing that Hillary that all the momentum is with Hillary now. They also want very much to win in places like Ohio and Florida and think she's the candidate to do that. So superdelegates flock to Hillary in droves.

I don't think Hillary can win this way because the superdelegates are very divided right now and many high profile members of the party (Bill Richardson)have said that the person with the most pledged delegates does matter.

Some real journalists have done a similar exercise as I tried above and come up with even worse news for Hillary: http://www.newsweek.com/id/118240/output/print

So basically, Hillary has one way to win the nomination at this point: the superdelegates.

A month ago, this looked like a winning strategy.
Today, not so much: http://bp0.blogger.com/_qJGvnOCBQcA/R8uIXZbOvoI/AAAAAAAAAGM/szH5M07WY0w/s1600-h/image001.gif

Good luck to all the campaigns tonight. (Obama, Clinton, and Gravel!)

Word!

So I'm having lunch with an old friend from the Clinton administration today, a veteran of the '92 and '96 campaigns and top-notch political operative, a true-blue Hillary loyalist who has maxed out to her campaign, took time off to go to Iowa for the last two weeks, helped out in the Potomac primary, etc. She is feeling guilty about not being in Ohio or Texas for these last few days, bemoaning the way the campaign has gone, talking emotionally about what a great President that Hillary would be.

At some point, I gently ask the question that has been on my mind for awhile: even if you get good news tonight, is there any scenario you see for a Hillary nomination that doesn't involve a really, really ugly endgame? You know, a nasty credentials fight, high-pressure arm-twisting and unseemly deal-cutting with superdelegates, continued trashing of Obama on every imaginable topic?

There was silence across the table. She said, "No, I can't think of any other way at this point."

Title of post: "I'm Ready for This to be Over"

http://www.openleft.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=4330

Wow! Your predictions are turning out remarkably accurate.

Indeed, the late closing precincts in Ohio are rapidly eroding Clinton's lead however, and I think it's going to be a single digit victory in Ohio by tomorrow morning.

In Texas I'm not so sure. Obama has always pulled ahead a bit at the very end, and I personally wouldn't call a race that's only spread by 3 percent until it's over.

Wow - these numbers not that far off.

For the record - this was not my prediction of what WOULD happen, but an estimate of the best possible outcome for Hillary.

In fact, as I noted, the delegate count will be much less in her favor even with these results because of the way the delegates are awarded. She may only escape with a 10 delegate victory.

I've posted again about what are the next steps and how Hillary could win (I don't think she will): http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/2008/03/the-math-and-how-hillary-wins.php