[QUOTE=Onomatopoeia]
Spanking new Supers for Obama today:
Audra Ostergard - Nebraska, which gives Obama all 6 Nebraska Super delegates.
David Wu - Oregon
[/QUOTE]
Audra was yesterday, along with 50 former Edwards supporters in NC. In addition to Wu today, he was also endorsed by 43 mayors in NC, and the IFPTE. It’s been a good couple of days for Senator Obama!
I suspect the Obama campaign is trickling out a bunch of endorsements they already have privately – keeping up the drip…drip…drip… of superdelegates and other declarations – for these reasons:
A couple a day means positive news every day.
It gives each new endorser his or her own turn to bask in the limelight – something no politician can resist.
It doesn’t come across as ganging up on poor little Hillary, thus plucking the victim card from her grasp.
[QUOTE=EddyTeddyFreddy]
I suspect the Obama campaign is trickling out a bunch of endorsements they already have privately – keeping up the drip…drip…drip… of superdelegates and other declarations
[/QUOTE]
Yep, I was thinking the same thing the other day.
[QUOTE=DSeid]
A cogent analysis.
[/QUOTE]
Glad to see others are reading that… Can’t let the blood pressure get too high!
[QUOTE=DSeid]
A cogent analysis.
[/QUOTE]
I think that, barring Obama doing much worse than expected in NC and IN, the superdelegates should start declaring in large numbers right after that. Maybe the rest of us, four months back, didn’t know what a superdelegate was, but they did. Resolving a close race is the job they signed on for, and they ought to get ready to do it.
I think the majority of the party is desperately seeking a way out of this that won’t give either side a major case of “We wuz robbed!” Either candidate is going to need the other’s supporters in November. The worst thing that can be done is to make either side’s supporters feel like their candidate was pushed out.
[QUOTE=jayjay]
I think the majority of the party is desperately seeking a way out of this that won’t give either side a major case of “We wuz robbed!” Either candidate is going to need the other’s supporters in November. The worst thing that can be done is to make either side’s supporters feel like their candidate was pushed out.
[/QUOTE]
Check out this Exchange from a 63 year old woman and her friends in the Clinton Demographic.
[QUOTE=Phlosphr]
Check out this Exchange from a 63 year old woman and her friends in the Clinton Demographic.
[/QUOTE]
Oh, agreed…I’m an Obama supporter, remember? I was just trying to couch that post in as neutral a language as possible.
A defection.
Not a superdelegate, but Hillary loses one of her Hillraisers.
[QUOTE=Gangster Octopus]
A defection.
Not a superdelegate, but Hillary loses one of her Hillraisers.
[/QUOTE]
Veddy Eeeenterresting.
[QUOTE=Gangster Octopus]
A defection.
Not a superdelegate, but Hillary loses one of her Hillraisers.
[/QUOTE]
Veeery Interesting though I’ve come to accept this kind of thing happening more and more, We should really be thinking about who he is picking for his veep or his first debate against McCain.
According to a column I read today on Politico.com, a critical mass of congressional Democrats are ready to support Obama but are waiting to say so until the time is right. One of the reasons stated is that “Hillary Rodham Clinton is such a polarizing figure that everyone who ever considered voting Republican in November, and even many who never did, will go to the polls to vote against her…”
This is apropos an email I got today that depicted a homeless guy sitting on a sidewalk in Las Vegas. He was holding a sign that read:
“I WANT MONEY
OR I WILL VOTE FOR
HILLARY!”
He was surrounded by dollar bills and casino chips. 
Oh, Terry McAuliffe how you do amuse me so.
[QUOTE=Gangster Octopus]
A defection.
Not a superdelegate, but Hillary loses one of her Hillraisers.
[/QUOTE]
He had this to say about his defection:
It seems that Democrats really want to, deep down, let people come to their own conclusions. Which looks like (and sorta is) chaos within the party, especially compared to Republican unity. I’m glad my party doesn’t suffer from that kind of unity.
[QUOTE=Fear Itself]
I just don’t get this argument. Is she seriously suggesting that primary outcomes in large states is in any way a predictor of the outcome in the general election? It is a specious argument that may fly with the average voter, but I doubt that savvy superdelegates will buy it and vote for someone who came in second in the popular vote, second in the pledged delegate count and second in the number of states won. It is a vain hope, but I guess if that’s all you have, you run with it. But nobody seriously believes that McCain is going to win in New York and California against Obama.
[/QUOTE]
Actually, Hillary is ahead in the popular vote right now.
I, for one, believe California could conceivably go to McCain if Obama’s scandals keep arising and some dems have expressed fear of that as well. He hasn’t yet been hit by the full brunt of the Pub machine in the general election that he would be. And Wright just spoke today (or yesterday) about Obama saying and doing “what he has to do” as a politician as opposed to what he says and does as a pastor. That story will simply never die.
Also, those large states are decided zero-sum in the general, not by proportional allocations, caucuses, etc.
Oh yeah, and Hillary won Texas.
She won in the same manner that will count in the general: getting more votes.
And thus far, more voters have cast their votes for Obama than for her.
[QUOTE=9thFloor]
Actually, Hillary is ahead in the popular vote right now.
<snip>
And thus far, more voters have cast their votes for Obama than for her.
[/QUOTE]
Huh?
[QUOTE=Fuzzy Dunlop]
I cannot understand how people continue to make this argument. Surely you realize the argument is not that she can’t win outright and should quit?
To win “outright” a candidate would need to win 62% of the 3253 pledged delegates. That’s quite a hurdle in a proportional system. Luckily nobody in Obama’s camp says Clinton should drop out because she can’t do that. What I have heard, on the other hand, is that she’s lost the pledged delegate vote, she’s lost the popular vote, she’s lost more states, and since Super Duper Tuesday she’s gained extremely few super delegates compared to Obama’s steady stream of them. In other words, to win the nomination she needs to win 67% in every remaining state and/or convince every remaining super delegate to side overwhelmingly with her, in spite of the fact that she has been unable to make any real progress toward either goal.
The argument is not that Hillary didn’t manage to take the super majority of pledged delegates required to negate the super delegates’ role and should quit. It’s silly and off point to respond that Obama didn’t do that either. Totally different definitions of “can’t win”. The argument is that there is no realistic scenario where Hillary can win the nomination over all, in the end, by whatever mechanism.
But on a visceral level, don’t you just feel ridiculous to claim that neither of them can win? When people say she has no realistic path to the nomination, and the reply is that Obama can’t win either, what do you imagine happening? Does Dean take the stage and say “I told you guys to get your shit together, but I guess we’re not fielding a candidate this year. In the end, neither candidate could win…”
[/QUOTE]
You’re asking my opinion? Okay: no, I don’t feel ridiculous to claim that neither of them can win the nomination by the (desired) rules set in place, which is to accumulate pledged delegates through votes. That’s simply a fact. The (undesired) way in which the nominee will be decided is by adding in superdelegates. That’s not something ANYONE really wants to do.
But, they will have to do it.
She has the popular vote by 100,000 right now.
When this is all said and done, she will have the popular vote and he will have the delegate lead.
At that point, the superdelegates will weigh in and the pledged delegates are even able to switch their vote.
It’s at that point that all will look and decide who is the best candidate.
To me, the answer is obvious. As it is, I’m sure, to Obama supporters in the opposite direction. 
The Obama camp continues to point out that she’d have to win 67% of remaining states to win delegates to earn the nomination – and not pointing out that HE WILL NOT EARN THE PLEDGED DELEGATES THAT WAY EITHER.
So, no matter what, they will end up in Denver.
One with popular and one with delegates, but neither with them minimum required number of delegates to clinch the nomination.
I’d love to see the party try to give the nomination to the candidate with fewer votes in the popular vote count (Obama) in a nomination process where Florida (of all states) wasn’t “counted.” That would be a real laugh.
Meanwhile, we’ll no doubt have found out by then that Obama has some other scandal in his past (or present). True believers, of course, won’t blink an eye if he’s exposed as, say, homosexual. Maybe he’ll give a speech about it.
San Francisco would be a good city for that, I think. 
[QUOTE=Santo Rugger]
I just ran the numbers on Slate. According to their calculator, and [del]ridiculously[/del] generously assuming 50-50 splits in North Carolina and Oregon, she’d need SIXTY point wins (yes, that’s 80-20), just to bring the current delegate count to tied.
[/QUOTE]
Since she has no plans to bring the current delegate count to tied, I guess that’s moot.
She’s going to Denver. So is Obama. No matter if she loses every single state left.
The Supers will decide.
[QUOTE=kidchameleon]
Huh?
[/QUOTE]
By 100,000.
“If Michigan and Florida are counted, Clinton is ahead by 100,000 votes – 15.1 million to Obama’s 15 million. Without those states, Obama has a 500,000 vote lead, 14.4 million to 13.9 million.”
That is not a quote from the Clinton campaign. That is a fact reported by CNN in that story.
“Neither candidate can capture the 2,025 delegates needed to secure the Democratic nomination with wins in the remaining Democratic contests, meaning the party’s superdelegates will probably decide who gets the Democratic nomination.”