Obama leads in delegate count

Every little bit helps.
.

[

](http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/post/samgrahamfelsen/CGGrH) It is simply breathtaking to see how this man has touched this nation. I am so proud to be a part of this history-making campaign.

$6,279,953

I don’t live in California anymore, but I spoke to a good friend who still does and she explained why the absentee votes changed things.

She votes absentee ALL the time, as she said it takes forever to actually go there and vote. The lines are huge and sometimes people simply take a look at the long lines and go home. She has to vote before or after work, so she knew it was not going to happen unless she voted by mail. According to reports, absentee votes were at an all-time high this time.

She, like millions of others, voted weeks before the actual election. She did vote for Obama, but she feels a lot of voters back then voted for Edwards (who was no longer in the running by the time of the election) and others might possibly have thought Obama’s chances were slight, given the polls just a few weeks ago.

Would those absentee voters have changed their minds and made a difference? Who knows? Lots of people made up their minds very shortly before the election, so those absentee voters didn’t have a chance to re-evaluate at that point.

RCP’s count includes superdelegates. The count the OP cites is pledged delegates only. Hence the difference, or part of it anyway. RCP’s tallies don’t yet include a number of delegates from Tuesday.

Depends. If the ‘deal’ is that a majority of the superdelegates will support the candidate that won a discernable majority of the pledged delegates, then I’m OK with that. If the superdelegates effectively nominate a candidate that clearly finished second amongst the pledged delegates, I’d be against it, and I think it would do the Democratic Party some serious harm in the near and middle term.

What worries me is the prospect that we’ll get to the end of the primary season, and Clinton and Obama might still be dead even, in pledged delegates, in votes over the course of the primary season, in popular support in the polls.

Then what sort of deal should they cut? Damned if I know.

Go Obama! Add my donation to the millions: $6,691,960

I’ll support Obama, but you know, when I ask an Obama supporter: “What will Obama do differently than Clinton, if elected?” they never can come up with an answer. They just mumble something about “change.”

I don’t find it breathtaking. It’s just imaging. He’s young, and he’s (half) black so somehow that means “change,” and everybody wants “change,” no matter how vague that word is. And he talks good.

Of course, how either of these two will behave once in office is a whole other question.

Here you go:

Obama will let us buy into a health care plan like elected officials get if we want to, but Hillary will force it upon us. I would buy into it as I can’t get health insurance any other way (which is why I left America).

Obama is not one of the good ol’ boys and will break the Bush/Clinton dynasty that has griped the US for two decades.

He will talk to Iran, Syria etc instead of just bombing them.

You don’t need to tell me this; I know it. I’m just saying the typical Obama supporter doesn’t know it. Your understanding is not typical among his supporters.

Also, I’m not so sure that Clinton would bomb Syria or Iran just like that. I think her militaristic stances have usually been cynical ploys to make her more electable to president. The whole “national security” thing was probably what got Bush re-elected.

For me, what they should be doing is evaluating the landscape and voting for the candidate they think has the best chance of winning the election. If the popular vote is close enough that the supers can easily swing it, I think they should swing it to the candidate they consider most likely to win. A close popular vote tells you that party as a whole likes both candidates. At that point, it should be up to the “experienced” party officials to choose.

If one candidate is way ahead of the other, that should tell you the party really prefers one over the other, so that’s who should be the choice.
What I think separates Obama from Clinton is the ability to bring differing sides together and actually make something happen. I don’t believe either one would get “their” health care plan in place. However I think Obama would get a plan in place while Clinton would get stuck in a partisan quagmire. Clinton is a polarizing figure, I think we’ve had quite enough of that.

Which is exactly the reason I’m voting for him if I get the chance. I disagree with practically every one of his fiscal policies, but there comes a time when a nation neads, more than anything else, a leader. Believe it or not, the world benefits when the US is both strong and principled. It is critically important to project an image of confidence and optimism. Our image is exactly what Bush destroyed and what needs to be rebuilt.

Well that’s just ridiculous. I don’t know who you’ve been asking, but everyone I know can tell you exactly what Obama would do differently than Clinton. I’ve posted several reasons myself, right here.

In fact, he’s got a 60 page Blueprint for Change that spells it out for you.

To me, the most important thing he’ll do is to fundamentally change the transparency and accountability in our government. Lobbyists and special interests will be severely curtailed, and their influence will have to be publicly disclosed. For details on how he plans to accomplish this, see the Blueprint linked above. It’s the first section, so it won’t be hard to find.

Nonsense. We have 11 years of elected office experience of Senator Obama, vs 7 years of similar experience of Senator Clinton to compare, and look to to see how they’ll behave in office. So far, in my opinion, Senator Obama wins that battle roundly. First, see this article that describes how he worked to broker a new law that significantly changed how police conduct interrogations in capital cases – something that no other legislator had ever had any success in accomplishing.

And on a more simplistic level, all I really have to do to see how different they’ll operate once in office is to see how differently they operate their campaigns, especially their websites. The blogs at Barack Obama’s official website are open to the public and unmoderated. Posts appear on the blog within 4 seconds of hitting the Enter key. The blogs at Hillary Clinton’s website are censored for content, having to be reviewed by a moderator before appearing, many of which never do show up.

I had the same experience. After Edwards dropped out, I emailed a couple of friends active in the Obama campaign in DC saying I was leaning to Obama, but wanted to be sold on him. One email back was brutally honest - telling me Hillary could not get things done because of her personality. The other was the typical line about hope and change and fluffy bunnies.

All I wanted was policy differences, and in particular why an ex-Edwards supporter would back Barack. Seems like that was asking too much.

Let’s be clear, though. I doubt the average Clinton supporter could answer the converse of that question, either. They’ll just “mumble something” about “experience.”

That’s another problem I have with superdelegates. Nobody agrees on what the score -really- is right now, even though the primaries are half over.

How does one get a list of superdelegates? I think the time has come for the people to start to lobby them. Maybe they want to stay with the status quo candidate, but perhaps if their mail was overwhelmingly in favor of Obama they might feel differently.

I was just thinking the same thing. Might not hurt for a superdelegate to get a few letters from voters within his or her district.

:dubious: An unbending insistence on confidence and optimism is one of GWB’s main and most egregious failings. I would say that at this juncture it is critically important for the USA to project an image of reason and consensus.

JRB

From here:

Shouldn’t be too hard to find.

JRB

20% of the Dem delegates will be superdelegates. That means that either candidate needs to win 62.5% of the pledged delegates to win without the help of superdelegates.

To me, that constitutes “way ahead,” and while the supers can’t easily swing that, they hypothetically could. And it’s certainly realistic to envision 3/4 of the superdelegates favoring a party establishment candidate over an insurgent (discussing this in the abstract; I regard Obama as an underdog but hardly an insurgent), who would then be able to deny the nomination to an insurgent who held a 55% majority of the pledged delegates.