To get right to the point, I believe Barack Obama is going to win the Democratic nomination setting the table for a great race for the fall.
Here's why:
In doing the math on delegates, it looks highly likely that Obama will end up with a pledged delegate lead when all this is finished by June. Even if Hillary wins some big states along the way, Obama will score enough delegates to keep his count moving.
The super delegates (those 796 party folks who can decide on their own who to vote for and change their mind along the way) will be in an unenviable position when all is said and done. They will be getting unbelievable pressure, especially by the Clintons and their establishment backing, to "pledge" to one or the other.
But here is the deal: how does a party who has protested and screamed and yelled about counting all the votes, that the popular vote matters most, that an election was stolen by the Supreme Court in 2000, go against the votes and participation by voters in the Primary process???
The answer is: I think it's impossible for the Democratic party establishment to go against voters in the Democratic primaries and caucuses.
It would be an untenable position for the super delegates to award the nomination to a candidate who is behind in the pledged delegate count. And if that was to happen, then the November election becomes a very difficult prospect in motivating voters who backed Obama in the nomination process. And since he seems to be the only one inspiring new voters to the polls, it is hard to dampen that enthusiasm.
So the bottom line is: Obama wins the plurality of pledged delegates, then the super delegates really have to go along with what the voters want. Otherwise, what kind of authenticity would the Democratic party have if it is not about counting the votes and it becomes the decision of the Democratic version of the Supreme Court???
Obama wins; then faces John McCain in the general election in an epic generational battle between two candidates who are calling the country to a sense of common interest and who are both about bringing the country together across party lines.
Now that would be a campaign worth the price of admission.
Originally posted at ABCNews.com
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
Yeah, but what if Obama leads the delegate count, and Hillary the popular vote?
Hey, it ain't over yet! The Conspiracy has many skills, there is plenty of time to steal the nomination.
E-voting is all over Texas and Ohio. Just prime to steal votes from the left to the right, so to speak.
Oh thank you again for shoving YOUR CHOICE down my throat...why don't you let everyone vote?
Or is my Pennsylvnia Vote not important enough?
Barrack Obama, is a New Democrat. Again I mean this figuratively, and if Democrats want loyal voters for the next 25 years its with a New Democrat. Period.
In many ways, the Old Democrats like Pelosi, Reid, Clintons have meaning but their foundation is crumbling and that is why see them spin - as in using word games and mind games to win, and spinning - as in spinning out of control. They have no IDEA of what to grasp on to, and this is why , Republicans keep beating them. Flawed as they are, at least the Republicans are grasping on to the Reagan revolution way of thinking. That is the thing about political revolutions, they stick until the next one comes along.
The Clinton era existed during the Reagan Revolution. Americans are survivors and need Political Changes, and now more than anytime in this uncontrollable Post 9/11 and being taken in by the Clinton's way of "winning ugly" is at best a can of worms, at worst disastrous. Is Winning Ugly, in a Post 9/11 world sensible?
Barrack Obama, is a New Democrat. Again I mean this figuratively, and if Democrats want loyal voters for the next 25 years its with a New Democrat. Period.
In many ways, the Old Democrats like Pelosi, Reid, Clintons have meaning but their foundation is crumbling and that is why see them spin - as in using word games and mind games to win, and spinning - as in spinning out of control. They have no IDEA of what to grasp on to, and this is why , Republicans keep beating them. Flawed as they are, at least the Republicans are grasping on to the Reagan revolution way of thinking. That is the thing about political revolutions, they stick until the next one comes along.
The Clinton era existed during the Reagan Revolution. Americans are survivors and need Political Changes, and now more than anytime in this uncontrollable Post 9/11 and being taken in by the Clinton's way of "winning ugly" is at best a can of worms, at worst disastrous. Is Winning Ugly, in a Post 9/11 world sensible?
I challenge the authors premise that the super delegates will go along with the popular vote and "do the right thing" because it's the best thing for the party and follows the will of the people. These super delegates are people, and people will often do things that aren't in their long term best interest. High pressure and inducements could tamp down the moral high ground.
Call me cynical, but people can rationalize anything. Example-Super Delegate's inner thoughts. "If only these people had the personal relationship that I have with Hillary, they would know she's the best person for President. Since it's my "responsibility" to pick the best person, I'll cast my vote for Hillary. They'll see, they'll come to know that I was right in voting for Hillary.... "
They'd be fools not to see that it would cost them a generation of voters though.
And despite what Hillary Clinton has said, super delegates are NOT designed to exercise their independant judgement. They're not to be confused with the electoral college.
They're supposed to provide the illusion of a unified party by backing the winner of a close contest, period.
They were formed after the 1980 convention in order to insure that the democrats never came out of a convention completely divided again.
Whether you are for Clinton or Obama, those of you who are concerned about the super delegate situation, I strongly urge you to lodge your opinion with the DNC ... http://www.democrats.org/page/s/contact
Remember, bringing our voices together is the only way to rock the establishment.
I agree completely.
I certianly will voice my concern to the DNC
Because of the honeymoon Obama has had with the press, most Americans don't know very much about him. For example, most Americans have no idea how Obama won his first State Senate seat by stabbing his friend and patron, Alice Palmer, in the back and having her disqualified for the ballot. Most have no clue as to the connection between Obama and Tony Rezko, the slumlord, who has given Obama upwards of $200,000 over the last several years, and who has now been indicted. Most don't realize that once Obama was elected to the Senate, he supported the war in all votes UNTIL he ran for president. Most have no knowledge of Obama's self-described mentor and spiritual advisor, Rev. Jeremiah Wright, who espouses an arguably racist Christian theology and who gave Louis Farrakhan (the white and Jew hater) a lifetime achievement award several months ago. You can bet the Republican slime machine is aware of these things. Please, learn more about Obama before you make this crucial decision.
he did'nt back stab Palmer, she pulled her own plug...i suggest you re-read the Chicago-Tribune four page article...
In recent interviews, Obama and Palmer agreed that he asked her whether she wanted to keep her options open and file to run for her state Senate seat as a fallback in case her congressional bid failed.
Obama says he told her: "We haven't started the campaign yet."
"I hadn't publicly announced," he said. "But what I said was that once I announce, and I have started to raise money, and gather supporters, hire staff and opened up an office, signed a lease, then it's going to be very difficult for me to step down. And she gave me repeated assurances that she was in [the congressional race] to stay."
Obama "did say that to me," Palmer says now. "And I certainly did say that I wasn't going to run. There's no question about that."
Then Palmer's congressional bid collapsed. On Nov. 28, 1995, she placed a distant third behind political powerhouses Jesse Jackson Jr., who holds that congressional seat today, and current state Senate President Emil Jones Jr.
"I thought the world of Alice Palmer," said state Rep. Barbara Flynn Currie (D-Chicago), now the House majority leader. But "at that point she had pulled her own plug."
He supported funding the troops as did Clinton who actually voted twice for the Iraq authorization (against the Levin Amendment and for the final resolution)...Obama came out in 2002 against the whole Iraq business...
If the Rezko business results in something with teeth then he deserves what follows but he has my vote until then...this is old news in Chicago and the press have been digging with no luck so far...if you are meaning to insinuate that one should vote for Clinton then good luck...i'd sooner cut my arm off before i'd pull the lever for her...
P.S. To Cheforacle
Although I don't totally agree with your assessment, I really appreciate the reasoned way you responded. As I have discussed Obama's record on various websites, I've not seen so much hatred and vitriol coming from the Internet since the rabid Bush lovers in his early years. You are a breath of fresh air.
To all who responded, please respond with credible evidence of the falsehood of my assertions. Insults do not equal arguments. Because of your infatuation with Obama, you may be able to explain away these issues, but many who find out about them later will not.
Please stop drinkin that haterade. There is nothing in your post except guilt by proximity. Not even association. Proximity. It's sad. Sad.
Who needs the republican slime machine with folks like you around?
All of these things have been in articles for months. For some of these things, there may be substance; others not. As for the Alice Palmer situation, different people have different perspectives on what went down. As for his pastor's giving an award to Farrakhan, Obama has condemned that and said he disagreed with the pastor. As for Rezko, the deal on the house seems shady though legal. Its a problem. But nothing compared to either Clinton's baggage or McCain's Keating Five past. I am not concerned in the least about the material the GOP will use against the candidates. They've got a lot more on the Clintons and there could be more as the campaign goes on. There is always a lot of controversy whirling around the Clinton Express.
Does anybody know if the 2025 it takes to win takes into account MI and FL delegates? Do all the delegates in the other 48 states and territories equal like 4049?
No, it counts MI and FL.
The problem with MI and FL is that nobody in the democratic party has the power to seat an unauthorized contest. Dean, Obama, and Clinton could agree to seat them tomorrow and it would still wouldn't be enough.
The states themselves have two options: to hold another primary or caucus, or wait until the convention, when the delegates will be given to each candidate in proportion to the delegates they've won in the other 48 states.
Yes, but what about Michigan and Florida? These voters had nothing to do with the decisions of their state committees to defy the DNC and their votes very well could change the direction of this race. If the superdelegates go with the people, then shouldn't it be ALL the people?
Michigan and Florida Democratic voters have learned a hard but fair lesson. There is no way of knowing how a legitimate primary vote would have turned out, as many Democratic voters stayed home knowing that their primaries were DOA, and no campaigning took place by the candidates (Obama was not even on the Florida ballot). Both Clinton and Obama agreed to abide by the national party's ruling. For either of them to reneg on that agreement would be tantamount to openly cheating.
The state parties could sue the national Democratic Party, but they would most certainly lose.
The voters of Michigan and Florida will still have the opportunity to cast ballots in the general election; perhaps they need to throw out their current state party leaders at that time.
All the candidates were on the Michigan primary ballot at one point. Edwards, Obama, and Richardson filed paper work to remove their names. Kucinich, Clinton, Dodd, Gravel did not. The DNC only asked that candidates not campaign or spend money in the state. They never requested anyone remove their name. Why did Edwards, Obama, and Richardson remove their names from the Michigan ballot?
Obama was in fact on the florida ballot. He recieved 26% of the vote. Edwards recieved 12% (I voted for him, as usual my candidate lost) and Clinton 50%. Obama was the only one who had tv ads that played in Florida. It was a record breaking turn out.
The Florida primary date was set by the state legislature totally controlled by republicans. The democratic state party officials begged the republicans to change the date to Feb 5 but the republicans refused. Why do you thing the republicans did that to the Florida democrats?
40% in MI were uncommitted and FL is not "winner-take-all" (Senator Obama won delegates in FL as well). It's beginning to look more and more that because of Senator Obama's large wins this month, even counting FL and MI would not give Senator Clinton the edge in elected delegates.
No, it's not the voters' fault. But it's also not the candidates' fault. No doubt it's a mess. Either they can seat the delegates in proportion to the existing delegate split (making no difference in the election) or they can hold new elections or caucuses that don't violate the rules.
Of course there's no way they can allow these states to "change the direction" of the race when the candidates weren't even allowed to campaign there!
As for the super delegates, I'm sure they will react in a variety of ways, as is their right. If "the people" or the candidates can sway them, so be it. Them's the rules. Watching how the campaigns choose to navigate the rules is part of learning how they operate as strategists (so far Obama's caucus-heavy strategy is looking pretty savvy).
Just a few segments in Obama's own words, along with come articles for those who really want to know more about him.
Obama's good judgment on Rumsfeld and other Bush cabinet appointees:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=jxPA37n0oOU
Obama is forced to admit his campaign played the race card: www.youtube.com/watch?v=vXXjWy-OztQ&feature=related
Obama misleads in the debates about his relationship to a pharmaceutical lobbyist as his state campaign chair: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iYVrMA9PkKo
Obama lies in the debates about his Pakistan policy: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2kkGGqufu2c
Obama is caught purposely midleading about his connection to Tony Rezko, the now-indicted slumlord: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pqhbihfwgx8
Discussion of Obama's arguably racist church and mentor, Rev. Jeremiah Wright: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0FUnBi1i90E
Article about Obama's church: www.newmediajournal.us/staff/rush/2007/print/02202007.htm
Obama's fundraising:
www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-galesburg_obama_webfeb01,1,6024020.story
Obama and the indicted Tony Rezko: www.suntimes.com/news/brown/757286,CST-NWS-brown24.article
Obama's mentor and spiritual advisor, Rev. Jeremiah, pastor of Obama's Trinity United Church, giving the church's lifetime achievement award to Louis Farrakhan, head of the Nation of Islam who has described white people as "blue-eyed devils," his "mortal enemy" and subhuman, and who describes Jews as "bloodsuckers" and the Jewish religion as a "gutter religion":
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uXS_YrYp07Q
No need to reply directly to me. These pieces speak for themselves.
SOME OF THE LINKS ABOVE WILL NEED TO BE CUT AND PASTED TO YOUR BROWSER.
SOME OF THE LINKS ABOVE MUST BE CUT AND PASTED TO YOUR BROWSER TO PLAY.
Personalities and positions aside there is a simple math that can can be gamed out and it favors Obama.
It is very likely that he will win all three of the Potomac primaries this week and after that even if Clinton wins every large state, which I doubt, the delegate splits will hurt her.
Penn. should be a solid win, but I think that Texas is still up in the air in spite of popular opinion to the contrary. Ohio isn't exactly a given either.
Mi. and Fla. will be resolved in time, but the most likely outcome will be a split, netting neither any significant gains and Obama will still be leading.
I think that the only thing that can save Clinton at the moment would be a monumental gaffe by Obama.
I really don't see how she can compete against Obama's charisma. Her style just isn't designed for the task. Given that he's a complete novice with zero experience in running a national campaign he should have faltered, but didn't. The difference lies in their ability to generate enthusiasm. It reminds me of MLK debating Bill Gates.
In my opinion, the two biggest mistakes that the Clinton campaign made were in not contesting the caucuses and allowing Bill to be marginalized. He was their biggest asset and he has effectively been neutralized. Without his dynamism they're left with a policy wonk competing against a charismatic.
Obama needs to stop talking about Clinton. His case has been made and now he needs to convince the voters that he can take on the right-wing attack machine. If he can effectively take on McCain, he needs to show us exactly how he plans to do it, now.
Playing defense against their spin machine is a losing strategy. He needs to set the agenda and begin an offensive attack that will neutralize their base. He has plenty of ammunition, beginning with the S&L crisis that cost billions and his good buddy Keating.
Of course I'm a nobody in the middle of nowhere, so what the hell do I know?
If these Obama believers get any dumber they're going to need someone to help them tie their shoes.
"even if Hillary wins some big states along the way..."
Even if? you mean like New York, California, New Jersey, Massachussets, Michigan and Florida? You mean big states like those?
Doesnt this guy know that if the Dems had winner take all primaries it would be over by now? Doesnt he know that you dont lose NY, CA, MASS, NJ, FLA, MICH, OKLA and TENN not to mention Texas, Penn, and Ohio where Clinton is a shoe in and get the nomination? Does he think like the other media morons that you just add up the states, like the 403 votes Obama got to win Alaska means one for Obama and the 1,250,000 votes Hillary got in New York means one for Hillary?
this race was over on Super Tues,Florida is going to be seated which gives her about a 150 delegate lead now, she is a lock to win Texas, Penn and Ohio which will give her an insurmountable 400 delegate going into the convention and probably more which means that the uncommitted super delegates are all going to her. Dont think for one second they are going to nullify a 400 delegate lead and the wishes of the democratic voters in NY CA FLA, MASS MICH etc and not give her the nomination.
The media which stupidly wants to count states as if Nebraska North Dakota and the Virgin Islands counts as much as New York, California, Florida New Jersey and Mass. just continues to destroy themselves. On super tues most media outlets were saying Clinton won 9 states and Obama won 13. Clinton got more votes in New York alone than Obama got in North Dakota,Kansas, Idaho, Minn, and Nebraska combined. This is just more Hillary bashing and using every kind of twisted logic in the hopes of adding momentum to Obama's campaign aint gonna work.
It's over and Obama hasnt got a chance to win this even if he has made it a contest.
Winner take all primaries would have had totally different campaign styles. Strategy would be different. Talk about twisted logic. Interesting about California -- Obama closes a 30-point lead of Hillary's in less than a month and it's a huge "loss" for him. HIllary lies about his pro-choice positions, riles up the feminist base in New Hampshire, ends with a tie and it's a "huge loss." The five days between Iowa and New Hampshire -- polls had no way of measuring anything.
The Republicans gained control by slowly growing their numbers in Congress and state legislatures, district by district. They made inroads everywhere and it led to Republican dominance. Obama's strong showing in these red states means coattails for Democrats, district by district and grows Democratic majorities.
The Clintons will not release HIllary's papers covering her tenure as First Lady or information about donations to Clinton's library or his foundations. WOn't release their tax returns. There's already been some palm greasing concerning a Canadian uranium miner making deals for a uranium mine in Kazakhstan, after Bill put them together. Then a 30 million dollar contribution to Bill's foundatio
Posted February 11, 2008 | 01:22 PM (EST)