Make HuffPost Your HomePage
Get Email Alerts
Obama Will Win Nomination
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
Comments for this post are now closed
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.
Most Americans ARE completely aware of the fact that Bill and Hillary Clinton are the two most corrupt, unscrupulous, and selfish politicians in the Democratic party. When will you wake up and and exercise your brain?
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.
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?
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.
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.
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?
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).
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.
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.
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?
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.
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?
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 MUST BE CUT AND PASTED TO YOUR BROWSER TO PLAY.
SOME OF THE LINKS ABOVE WILL NEED TO BE CUT AND PASTED TO YOUR BROWSER.
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.
Do FL and MI even count if no one campaigned there and their names (but Clinton in MI) weren't on the ballot? And didn't Clinton still come in a close 2nd to uncommitted?
Thats funny cause super tuesday was pretty much a tie for delegates and popular vote.
If you get overwhelming wins in the smaller states and get close to single digits losses in the large states you can still win the nomination.
You ignore the total Vote counts for ALL the states, and the total delegate count which by the way Obama is winning.
Its telling that you want to count Mich. where Hillary was the only name on the ballot.
If you like the way repugs do things maybe you should become one.
Jeezz, stop spreading this false information. Please look it up. Clinton, Kucinich, Dodd, and Gravel were on the Michigan primary ballot. Initially so was Obama, Edwards, and Richardson. They filed paper work just before the election to remove their names though the DNC did not request it. The DNC only asked the candidates not campaign or spend money there. Why do you think those 3 decided to remove their names when no one asked them to?
Um...
Most people I know know it's the delegate count, not the state count that counts.
To date, and after Tuesday, Obama will have more delegates pledged to him (including super delegates) then Clinton.
Also, I saw last night, to date, Obama has gotten more popular vote then Clinton nationwide.
Will Clinton "win" Ohio, Texas, Pa? Maybe. But Obama will collect delegates from EACH of those states. Clinton would need to win with 15% to 20% MORE then Obama to even begin to blunt Obama's momentum.
No, I am hardly cocky and I know all to well the nomination is still favored for Clinton with her Democratic establishment support. But only slightly.
If Obama continues to win more states by the MARGINS he did this past weekend, the momentum will only build.
But, let's see how tomorrow goes in Va, DC, MD.
I live in Ohio, so obviously it will be interesting to see if Clinton wins here and by what MARGIN.
no my friend. You are missing the point.
The Democrat leaders are waking up to the fact that Hillary is going to be defeated by McCain.
They want power back. They don't want to spend another 4 years minimum in the wilderness. These are congressmen, party leaders, officials from around the country. They know that ultimately the presidency is the fount of all honor and patronage.
Do you think they're going to risk the almost sure thing Obama is for the almost sure loss Hillary is?
Hillary had her chance, frankly. She had her chance to make her case to the voters and show why she was justly considered the inevitable nominee.
She failed to make her case. Now, pretty much, it's all downhill. Trust me, if the superdelegates were in favor of Hillary, they could have ended this much earlier, simply by coming out en masse behind her after super tuesday.
And what don't you get about the fact that Dems already have the big states in the electoral college--that it is exactly those small states, like Connecticut, Iowa, New Mexico, that Dems need to capture if they're going to get the White House back? Obama can win those states.
Hillary can't.
Thank you. NY and CA are virtual Dem locks. So, Obama has those + IL and a good shot at every battleground/ purple state.
Before you call the Obama supporters stupid, you might want to check those states you were referring to for Obama victories. Those were caucuses where the delegates from the meetings are counted. These are not individual votes like in a primary.
Yes these states are smaller, but more people showed up and participated than the actual "vote count" that show up at the end of the day. That is why you can not add up all the "votes" in this process (to determine who gets Super Delegates, etc...). A caucus state will always have many less votes cast.
Be careful who you call stupid. All your other points on NY/CA, etc... are also silly. Why do I care that Hillary carried NY and CA? She got her delegates, so did Obama, we move on. Either one of them will carry those states in the fall. I want a nominee that can carry other states this fall, particularly red ones.
The big state argument (NY/CA is the weakest one supporting Hillary). Drawing more voter excitement in states Bush won in 2000/2004 is something Dems need to focus on. Let's be smart about how we pick our nominee--as you say!
Get ready for a war if the delegate count isn't way over the top for Obama. Billary has no intention of losing the nomination. And he/she has the democratic machine behind them. The super delegates are going to be pressured to go for the Clintons. Plenty of back room deals will be made. Billary does not care if their efforts to win at all costs wreck the Demo partry at a critical time. Billary believes that they are entitled to the White House, again. He/she expected a coronation for so long, they became used to the idea. They will not go quietly.
It would be enlightening if the Obama fan club tsunami would demand more of their candidate that the ad nauseum repetition of "Change!" and demand he address the many pressing issues facing a new president in detail. We can't afford another Bush who will decide to decide once in the Oval Office.
Tell me three things Hillary has been more specific about than Obama? OK, two. Quotes and citations, please.
You can't because it's a canard!
Here's two for you: Why has Barack Obama in his two years in the Senate written, sponsored, or co-sponsored ten times the number of bills than has Senator Clinton in her seven?
And if experience matters, why is an amendment against flag-burning as one of your greatest achievements anything to brag about?
Hillary's idea of talking in detail about pressing issues, such as foreign policy, goes something like this:
"On day one I'm going to meet with my Joint Chiefs of Staff, my Defense Secretary and my National Security Advisor and we're going to figure out the safest, quickest way to get out of Iraq."
Wow, detailed. Presumably from eight years of seeing her husband in action she knows what a President does, in very general terms. It's only impressive to those to whom it is *supposed* to be impressive.
I should have coached the New York Giants in the Super Bowl. I know how to coach. I would meet with my offensive coordinator, my defensive coordinator and my special teams coach, and we would look at film and draw up some plays. Man, I'm smart about football. And all Vince Lombardi ever said was "Winning isn't everything, it's the only thing" (or was it Hillary who said that?).
Obama, even if he weren't a hundred times smarter than Bush, wouldn't ask-- after finding a country he never heard of on the map-- "Can we bomb them folks ASAP?"
Haha, great post.
It reminds me of the early debate where the candidates were asked if they would be willing to meet with hostile foreign leaders. Barack Obama said basically "yes".
Hillary Clinton then gets up and says "Well, first we'd have to do the advance work, and that includes low level meeting design to gauge the intentions of the foreign governments....."
And the audience is supposed to go "wow, she's so smart! She's ready on Day One!"
Loading comments…
(AP) TEGUCIGALPA, Honduras — Ousted President Manuel...
The nation's largest insurers, hospitals and medical groups...
HAPPY FOURTH OF JULY! The American flag has been painted on bathing...
***SCROLL DOWN FOR VIDEO OF PALIN'S RESIGNATION SPEECH...
I wish Hunter S. Thompson had lived to see this. As Hunter said, "When the going gets weird, the...
Anyone who is in any way surprised by Sarah Palin's announcement today that she will...
Sarah Palin has announced her abdication of the Governorship of...
Reporters are beginning to piece together an explanation for Sarah Palin's...
The first lady's garb is a great way to gauge what's hot for summer style. Michelle...
I'm liveblogging the latest Iran election fallout. Email me with any news or thoughts, or follow me...
Alaska Governor Sarah Palin has...
During his interview with ABC's This Week on Sunday, Vice President Joe Biden made...
The Cruise family is down under at the moment, and Sunday Tom, Katie and Suri went to the stage production...
A long weekend, parties, crazy hats, fireworks, and fun...
ANCHORAGE (The Borowitz Report) -- Moments after Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin announced...
DENVER — Casket makers catering to natural burials have offered biodegradable coffins made of...
Posted February 11, 2008 | 01:22 PM (EST)