Only two things really matter at this point.

1: The delegate lead.

2: The popular vote lead.

But the lead, however slim, matters a great deal. And that's where I part ways with you -- the superdelegates should (I don't think anyone thinks they have to, it's all a question of ethics, and even more so, of tact), SHOULD vote for the leader in both categories. If it's split -- with Obama ahead in delegates, Hillary ahead in raw votes, then they have a tough decision on their hands. But if Obama is ahead in both, he will rightly be perceived as the choice of the people.

Now, on moral or legalistic grounds, you are correct in saying the superdelegates are allowed, indeed encouraged, to vote their conscience. But that's a conclusion with very real consequences.

A decision of the superdelegates to go against the leader in delegates and popular votes, however slim that lead, WILL alienate that candidate's (I'll be real here and cut the euphemisms: Barack Obama's) supporters. It would cause an exodus and be perceived as cheating, elitism, and the media would be sure to do their part to fan the flames of these sentiments.

In other words, however noble the superdelegates voting their conscience may seem, it's absolute suicide. As Chris Matthews said tonight, expect a massive walkout of Obama delegates if that happens, and that "thud" sound will be the sound of all those new, young, independent voters falling off the Democratic Party like bugs from a zapper. It's suicide, absolute suicide.

What CFKane said. Barack Obama has energized traditionally disenfranchised groups that lean towards Democrats, but had yet to find a rallying point. Now that they have it, the party dares not take it away . . . I hope.

CFK and Jonathan:

I wish I could dig up my post from a while ago when I said just about what CFK says.  The winner of the popular and delegate vote, regardless of margin, should be the nominee, so long as that's the same person and so long as some interim revelation hasn't demonstrated that the popular choice is clearly unelectable.  (I have in mind a high threshold on that last point -- nothing like what we see now -- something that would move *pledged* delegates to change their vote at the convention anyway.)  

The rare instance where I see superdelegates playing a role is where, as Jon suggests, the popular vote and the delegate tally are split.  The reason I see a role there is that *both* candidates have a genuine claim to legitimacy based on the voting.  On the one hand, x got the most votes -- pretty strong claim to legitimacy.  On the other hand, y actually won the voting under the rules for what counts, when both candidates were playing to those rules -- also a strong claim.  (An analogy to show why the latter is also a strong claim:  In a presidential election, the winner of the popular vote who loses the electoral college *but was trying to win the electoral college*, with all of the arbitrary incentives it creates, doesn't have the same claim as a candidate who wins a popular vote in a theoretical system with no electoral college.)  You have a legitimacy tie, in a sense.  In that case, the superdelegates can serve as tie-breaker by voting based on their own opinion as to who would make the most competitive nominee, and it would be hard to say that they would be overturning the popular choice no matter how they vote.

If, however, the popular vote leader and the delegate leader are the same person, I have a hard time seeing how the superdelegates can assert their authority to overturn that without it being seen as a usurpation, even if the margin is small.  I wouldn't elevate it to the level of a "moral" concern.  The party can pick its nominee however it wants.  It could decide to hold no votes.  But holding the vote, and then changing the outcome is a slap in the face.  It says, My very dear friends, we've taken your suggestion as to who should be the nominee under advisement, and determined that your choice was wrong.  You'll thank us later.  I'd be pissed, and I *know* a lot of other folks would feel the same way.

One point you neglect, Jon, in your description of the "pool" of votes is *timing.*  That's a major issue here.  Suppose superdelegates actually voted right along with their states' voters.  That scenario is what your way of looking at it -- as a pool of votes, each as legit as the next -- brings to mind.  But that's not how it works.  The voters vote first.  And then the superdelegates vote.  Because of the timing, the supers are in the position to either *ratify* or *overturn* a previous outcome -- and that's the potentially nasty piece of this whole business.

As for your "statistical tie" concept, it's a nice try, but I don't think it will fly.  I don't know if you're a basketball fan, but say your team wins 100-99.  Pretty small difference -- you might say a "statistical tie."  I suppose we should then poll the fans to see whether your team's win is good for the sport.

I don't mean to trivialize politics -- it's not just a game.  And we Democrats really, really want to win in the fall, because the outcome matters a lot.  But the voters are hip to electability.  They get that.  They can be trusted to factor that into their decision.  Meanwhile, can superdelegates -- various party officials who may have all sorts of political commitments to think through when casting their vote -- be better trusted to make that call without fear or favor?  I don't know that.

Remember, too, that Clinton is clearly ahead in the Democrat vote. Even given margin of error, she's got a clear lead.

Why shouldn't the superdelegates consider the Florida and Michigan votes when evaluating the popular vote? Let's face it, demographics are brutally obvious in this campaign. Clinton won both and would win them again.

"As we all know, delegate counts are based on a lot of screwy factors, like the arbitrary (or, in many cases, not-so-arbitrary) lines drawn for congressional districts.  In Nevada and Texas, for example, Clinton got more votes from individuals participating in the contests but Obama emerged with more pledged delegates."

Yes, the congressional district allocation is sort of screwy, and there are rounding issues and weird things like the TX prima-caucus system, but those things mostly all come out in the wash.  It's certainly no reason to throw up your hands and say we'll never know anything from the pledged delegates.  I ran the numbers on what the pledged delegate counts would be if the delegates were all allocated proportionally at the statewide level, and it comes out to 1224 for Clinton and 1389 for Obama, a 165 delegate lead.  This is a bit bigger than his actual lead at this point, so if anything, the delegate allocation rules have slightly favored Clinton so far.

Also, a quick question: how, if at all, do the caucuses, where individual votes aren't reported, fit into that popular vote total?  The popular vote is important, but it's somewhat misleading if it effectively tosses out all of the caucus states (of course per Clinton, these states are "insignificant" anyway).

AlanSP:  Caucus vote totals aren't reported?  I didn't know that.  I was assuming (and assuming Jonathan was assuming) that those tallies were available.

jmkerr:

Well, I'm no expert, but my *hunch* is that Obama would have netted somewhat more delegates in Michican if his name had been on the ballot.

jhildner,

As I understand it, what is reported are the delegates to the state convention, each of which represent several voters.  A footnote from the CNN's Iowa results page: "State Del* - Instead of releasing caucus vote totals, the Iowa Democratic Party releases a total estimating the number of delegates to the state convention each candidate will receive. "  I'm not sure how reporting varies by state, but there are at least some states where the actual vote totals aren't available.

By the way, great analysis in your earlier post.  You pretty much nailed it.

According to Real Clear Politics, the states that haven't released popular vote totals are Iowa, Nevada, Washington, and Maine.

Jeez. If Clinton can claim a huge victory in Texas by winning by less than 3 percentage points, AND losing the delegate count, how come Obama can't claim victory with a small margin of elected delegates.

There has to be a way to pro-rata the 4 non-total-vote-reporting caucus states.  Then you do a firehouse primary in Michigan and Florida.  This doesn't seem that difficult, and for the "Gore got more"/"every vote should count equally party" nominating the total vote winner if the regular delagates don't determine the winners should be a no-brainer.

I'm with CFK and others.  If Obama leads in both pledged delegates and and popular vote, no matter how narrowly, the superdelegates either ratify the voters choice or the superdelegates will have created a serious and wholly avoidable crisis in perceived legitimacy.  If the Obama wins in the pledged delegate count but loses the popular vote, then a crisis in legitimacy will be inevitable and the superdelegates get to use their judgment based on all of the ancillary arguments the campaigns are using and the superdelegates' own preferences.

"Remember, too, that Clinton is clearly ahead in the Democrat vote."

If this were true -- and I'm not convinced by the pastiche of surveys, estimates, and inductive algebra required to make the claim -- then Hillary would have won more caucuses. The whole point of having a caucus is to restrict participation to the most committed, active members of your party. That's why establishment candidates with base rather than broad appeal like Hillary have always favored caucuses in early contests -- they know that caucuses are biased in their favor.

Also, the logically necessary obverse of that argument about Hillary being ahead among "Democrats" is that she must therefore be vastly unpopular among Democratic-leaning independents. And since Democratic-leaning independents are the voters who will actually decide whether our nominee becomes president, I'm not sure I'd be making that argument if I were Hillary. I mean, I've always believed that a vote for Hillary in the primary is equivalent to a vote for McCain for president, but for a Hillarista to claim that Hillary only wins base Democratic voters, not decisive swing voters, is to agree with me about her hopelessness against McCain. If Hillary is the "clear favorite" among Democrats, but she's only in second place for the Democratic nomination, that's a catastrophic indictment of her limited general-election appeal. If it's true, which I don't believe it is.

How about this strategy for Hillary: Stop whining about demographic arcana, start winning states by a large enough margin to erase Obama's leads in delegates won and votes cast. Or, in other words, win the nomination by finishing in first place.

I agree that the way delegates are determined is a bit screwy, but then why bother at all with delegates if we are not really going to use those results.  The reason we have the delegates is so that the SMALLER states are represented in a fair way which popular vote cannot define.  For example, if a candidate comes out with a policy that will eliminate income tax for people living in California, New York and a couple of other big states , they would get a huge chunk of popular vote while telling the rest of the country to basically go to hell.  That's why we have delegates and there's not much we can do about changing the way the delegates are delegated at this point in the process.  It starting to  remind me of playing a game called kick ball which my 8 year twin boys.  It's like baseball except when I'm winning, they'll make up some new rule - like if you pass first base you have to run to second.    Then they steal bases on me and when I try it on them they call out 'base lock' which means you can't  lead off the base anymore.

The rules of the game were agreed upon by all the candidates when the process started - including the fact that the primaries in FL and MI would not count unless they moved them back. The 'I won the big states' argument is divisive, and it's going to piss people off in the smaller states.   The fact that the Dems have had huge turn outs in the primaries would suggest that it really does not matter which candidate gets the nod, they have a good chance of winning.  It's not like everyone in Ohio (or the other big states) is going to vote for McCain because Obama is the nominee.  In this case, I would hope that the people in Ohio that voted for Clinton would be smart enough to realize that Obama is much close to Clinton than McCain is.  That's why it important for Clinton and Obama to make sure that they are trying to win each other's supporters without destroying the character of the other.

In the end though, the winner is the one with the most delegates.  I would hope, and as many other people have commented,  that the super delegates are smart enough to respect this as well.   Barring some stupidity, I will support  which ever candidate wins as long as they and the party play by the rules that were set out at the beginning of the process.

Is it just me, or is it no fun around here anymore? This election (-sob-) is tearing us apart!

The delegate lead should be everything.  Obama has basically won this, but Hillary Clinton and her sore loser followers* want to continue attacking the eventual nominee, tear apart the party, force the leader to spend money fighting her, and hand Republicans a victory in what should be our year.

*Many of her followers have gone through the stages of grief and accepted reality. I applaud their graciousness.  I'd like to think I would have done the same by now had my favorite candidate been in this position.  No disrespect to Hillary, who fought the fight, but she lost.  She could take the classy high road that Al Gore, Mitt Romney, and even Mike Huckabee have done at key points in their careers, or she can go out desperately flailing or win a pyrrhic victory like the once loved and now justly despised Joe Lieberman.

Wylie -- my thought is that the delagates are a "first way" for the Dems to nominate, and they give kind of a skewered reflection of the voters but do give a bigger voice to smaller states.  But if that process doesn't pick a winner, the "second way" shouldn't be the superdelagates simply echoing the regular delagates -- else why even have them?  The "second way"  should be to default to the more democratic total vote count, not "trends," "electability" or old fashion horsetrading.

If Obama wins the popular vote AND the delagates and the Dems don't pick him, all hell will break loose.  I wouldn't even vote for Hillary under those grounds, and I think I'm one of the more favorable to her here among the regular posters and have expressed contempt for those willing to sacrifice progressive principles for a protest McCain vote.  Democracy is a progressive principle!  

epicciuto:  I think that's in part because the TNR plank seem to have put everything on hold except politics, and pretty petty politics at that.  The most critical issue to our nation is energy policy and nobody talks about it, even in the context of the election.  The second is exploding baby boomer entitlements (during a recession and deficit spending period no less).  The editors wrote an staff editorial on illegal immigration months ago that seemed to go out of its way NOT to discuss research data, and then stopped discussing one of our most contentious issues.  You're right: Axelrod vs. Penn, all day every day, can get depressing!

The popular vote can only be relevant if ALL states had primaries, period, paragraph. The Dems made this system of caucuses and primaries, they need to live with what they built.

tkozal hit the nail on the head.

Cohn's post is written as if he forgot that some of the contests are caucuses.

"How about this strategy for Hillary: Stop whining about demographic arcana, start winning states by a large enough margin to erase Obama's leads in delegates won and votes cast. Or, in other words, win the nomination by finishing in first place."

Exactly. This was one of those posts where I could guess the author's name before scrolling down.

"just as I think Obama should stop making arguments that undermine universal health care." Give it a rest Cohn. Hillary attacking Obama personally and Obama attacking Hillary's positions are nowhere near the same. Hillary will continue to say Obama doesn't want to insure everyone, and Obama should not point out the downsides of her plan? Yeah, yeah, I get it, I get it, you just LOVE mandates and Hillary has them, but do you have to prostitute logic in your equations?

For the record I have no problem with Hillary mocking Obama's health care plan, that is what elections are about, but mocking him or his supporters, basically declaring him unfit for office (Only McCain and I are, Obama just made a speech) etc. is going too far.

the superdelegates are party rules that were put in place before the campaigns began.  The party put them in place to pick the candidates that they thought were the best equipped to be the best candidate (obviously, Walter Mondale disproves their utility).  Why should they have to ratify the "will of the people," as defined in ways that are obviously designed to fit your favored candidate's strengths?  Supers should ratify the will of their districts, unless that's against Obama, and then suddenly they (Kerry, EMK) should follow their own judgement.  If Obama or Clinton finishes a few thousand votes ahead by the end of the primaries, out of more than 30 million cast, why should superdelegates be confined by that?  

The nominating process is not winner-take-all election, it's a party picking what it thinks is its best candidate.  Caucuses are not really democratic (no hidden ballot, disenfranchising anyone who can't spend 2 hours at a specific night or weekend caucusing) but Hillary was roundly mocked for disparaging them--same thing should apply for supers.  

epic, yeah. my parents support Hillary, and are both long time Democrats, my two brothers are hard core Republicans (one just because he is rich, the other ideological) My sister and I support Obama. Needless to say, politics doesn't get discussed much at holidays.

Regardless of what happens, whoever wins in November the actual effect on the majority of readers here is much less than people imagine. Everyone will still go to their jobs, raise their families, etc. We have all survived Bush. I don't dispute who the President is doesn't effect many people (such as military families, the unemployed, the uninsured, etc.) just that there aren't many such people who post here.

Luckily, we are long past the days where we need a FDR to save us. Hillary's trillion dollar solutions won't solve anything since we don't have the money, Obama's rhetoric certainly won't either, and McCain's don't rock the boat presidency won't solve anything either. The bad business cycle we are in has no solution but to ride it out. When the upsides come back, in 2011 or so, then we can solve a lot of our societies issues since we will be better able to afford it.

lymon1:  The problem I have with using the delegates as only a "first way" of determining the nominee is that it's just too fuzzy.  How do you determine the winner if it's not the candidate with the most pledged delegates?  If you start looking at popular vote, then you get into this whole problem of dealing with caucus votes .  How would you count the caucus votes in TX - I mean, they voted twice.  Is a caucus vote worth more than a regular vote?  I mean, in theory, the people who show up for a caucus are more dedicated to the process and maybe should have a larger voice than the average voter?  You can see how this just all starts spinning out of control.  

Clinton can make any argument she wants, but I fear that if Obama has the lead in pledged delegates and she wins, the net effect will be that Obama supporters will feel cheated.  Would Obama supporters hold their noses and vote for Clinton in this case - probably, but would they ever want to/care to get involved again, donate money or help the party in any way - probably not.   As a super delegate, I think that would probably be my main concern and the overall health of the party would win my vote.

The problem with saying that the superdelegates have some moral obligation to vote for the "winner" of the primaries/caucuses is not only that you then have to decide whether that "winner" is the recipient of the most popular votes, the recipient of the most elected/pledged delegates, the winner of the most state contests, etc.  It's rather that it makes superdelegates into mere "honored guests."  But what the party rules give to these elected officials and party functionaries is not merely an admission ticket; it's a vote.  And they have every right to use their votes as they see fit, given their experience, their wisdom, and their stewardship over the party -- to advance the candidate who they think is more qualified, or to advance the candidate who they think is more likely to prevail in the general election.

Obama partisans have argued, correctly, that the party rules should be followed with respect to Florida and Michigan, and that, absent some new primary or caucus, those states' delegates, selected contrary to the party rules that everyone knew in advance, should not be seated.  They should adhere to the same principle and accept that superdelegates are free to exercise their discretion and vote for the candidate who they think is best for the party and/or for the country.

It's reprehensible for Clinton and her allies to suggest that the party's action regarding Florida and Michigan is disrespectful to those states' voters.  But it's also reprehensible for Obama's partisans to suggest that, if superdelegates vote for Clinton in sufficient numbers to outweigh Obama's plurality among pledged delegates, that the result is somehow illegitimate.  Them's the rules, and no one should cast aspersions on a result that comes from a fair application of them.

The big problem for Democrats is that what may seem like a "just" solution may also be a dumb solution.

Hillary may yet wind up with a higher vote count if she can gin up more sympathy ballots in the next few contests and that may embolden the Superdelegates to go her way. But it would also be suicide, for all the reasons CFK has wisely laid out. I don't understand at all this dunderheaded theory of jmkerr that says that she's good with Democrats but tanking with Independents and Republicans, so give her the nomination.

But I'm not a Democrat and I'm still bewildered why y'all thought John Kerry was your best choice...

epicciuto,

Coraggio!

I'm afraid I don't really understand what the overall "popular vote" has to do with anything (even leaving aside the very legitimate concerns raised above re: the problems of obtaining anything approximating a real total popular vote from a hybrid system of caucuses and primaries).    The Democratic system, as set up, is all about obtaining delegates.  Candidates, at the outset of the process, are aware that popular votes (insofar as the rules are concerned) only matter insofar as they net delegates for the candidates.  Relying on this fact, campaigns make strategic decisions about where to campaign and how to spend their money.  (For one thing, certainly if the Obama campaign knew at the outset that the overall popular vote would have any decisive role in determining the process's ultimate winner, the amount of time and money they invested in caucuses relative to primaries would have inevitably changed, as caucuses inherently produce lower turnout than primaries.)  I can't see this attempt to shift the focus from pledged delegates to the popular vote as anything other than an unfair post-hoc attempt to change the rules to fit whatever happens to suit Clinton's circumstances.

Admittedly, the campaigns might have foreseen that the popular vote might potentially have some impact in persuading superdelegates how to vote, and planned accordingly.  As a potential pro-Clinton argument, I think that's pretty thin gruel -- I think it only really has force to the extent that one candidate loses in the elected delegate candidate but _blows_ the other candidate out of the water in the total popular vote.  In that case, the superdelegates might have some reason to listen to concerns.  But if the total popular vote is even remotely close -- as it unquestionably will be here -- then I think this argument holds no water; you need to go by the election rules as they were initially established and made aware to all the candidates when they were deciding their campaign strategies.

At any rate, as a practical matter, this is all moot.  There is absolutely _zero_ chance of the superdelegates choosing against the wishes of the overall elected delegate count, even if Clinton is arguably ahead in the total popular vote.  At best, Clinton-as-VP might be forced on Obama, but I think it's complete insanity to believe there's any chance of Clinton losing the elected delegate count but winning via superdelegates.

I agree that it would be at very great peril that the Democrats would deny the enthusiastic new voters that Obama has brought to the process.  However, for the good of the country, as well as for the strength of the party, we must put a Democrat in office in 08.  Clearly the best way to assure that we do that, is to nominate the candidate who has the best chance of delivering the large swing states; Florida, Michigan, Ohio & Pennsylvania.  If Clinton is demonstrably stronger in those states, then I would not be surprised or even disappointed if the superdelgates deliver the nomination to her.   However, we must have legitimate primaries in Florida and Michigan.

Blackton, I want to get into it with you.  

First, there's no official standard of experience necessary for becoming president.  Its purely a judgment call and the candidates have every right to argue one way or the other.  I don't have a problem with Obama's experience - or with Hillary's - but, as we all know, they don't have a huge amount to argue about, policy-wise.  That's why Hillary has made the experience argument.  And that's why Obama has made the character argument.  

You're so sensitive to Hillary's "mocking" of Obama and his supporters, but I really don't think saying that someone is too inexperienced or "not ready" is an attack on thier character.  On the other hand, impugning someone's motives, referencing unfounded slanders against them (20-year plan among others), implying that they're devoid of scruples, willing to say or do anything for the sake of power, etc. - these are very clear character attacks.  (I know you consider those simple facts about Hillary, but this is an OPINION, based on your interpretations.  You can't prove it, and not everybody agrees with you.)

I'm not saying that Hillary hasn't crossed lines, too.  I don't mind the experience argument, but I really hate her comparing McCain favorably to Obama.  Also, bringing up Rezko when there is absolutely no evidence or even allegations of wrongdoing on Obama's part, is, in my opinion, Hillary's worst crime in the race so far.  Both sides have stretched the truth and been subtly dishonest in countless small ways.  But what drives me crazy is this constant assumption from Obamaphiles and the press that its Hillary who has created the bitter tone of this race, that every attack she makes is personal and nasty, while Obama can stand there and essentially call her a selfish, power hungry bitch and he's being too nice!

Why should superdelegates have a moral obligation to vote based on the results of any kind of democratic process--say, 60% of the voters in their state selected Candidate A so therefore 60% of that state's superdelegates should vote for Candidate A?

If you're going to require democracy, why have superdelegates at all?

The whole purpose of superdelegates is undemocratic. That's a given. So don't expect them to be or do something that, by definition, they aren't.

And while you're at it, please quit stretching the meaning of the word "democracy" so it encompasses a process with a single outcome stemming from primaries in some states and caucuses in others and both in one or more, where Democrats only vote in some places and Democrats + independents vote in others and Democrats + any and all mammals vote in others, where in some places everyone shows up to vote and then delegates are awarded based on algorithms found near the base of the Vaksala Runestone, where polls run out of ballots (how fucking hard can it be to print a few hundred pieces of cardboard with a few months' notice?) so judges get yanked out of taverns long enough to order polls to stay open one or two hours later in some places but not in others, etc. etc. etc. etc. etc.

This is an unfair but highly entertaining contest; may the best-funded, sneakiest, most backstabbing, most leather-skinned, most stone-souled, most media-savvy, most lawyered-up--i.e., most Presidential--candidate win.

I hate to break it to you, but the mere fact of winning the majority of the Democratic base in the big states means nothing in November. Mondale made precisely the same argument against Hart, that he was the favorite of the base, and we all know how many states Mondale won. Hillary is Mondale, but more divisive. Let's nominate her.

J. Cohn, thanks for a reasonable argument to balance J. Chait's hystrionics

All I wanna say is a lot of you guys have hammered me for saying 'legitimacy' over and over again in the last few days, and now that Cohn has written a piece with the concept of legitimacy as it's center, we got a long list of opinions from people about what they feel 'legitimacy' means.

Personally? I don't think a narrow (75ish) delegate lead and a 1% difference in the popular vote (if it turns out that way) with neither getting to 2025 is 'legitimate.' If that were the outcome and the Super Ds rushed toward Obama, too many HRC voters would be too upset. Of course, if they swung toward HRC, Obama supporters would be apoplectic.

The Super Ds won't do either, that's why you're gonna see re-votes of some sort in MI/FLA in the hope that voters give some legitimizing signal to one of the candidates to allow them to swing en masse and seal up the nomination.

I hope Obama wins, I really do. But the only way I see the super Ds bum rushing toward him is if he manages to secure a victory in either Pennsylvania or FLA, that will assure super Ds that he can step onto a big blueish battleground and emerge as the preferred choice.

newdex, that is fine. I am not arguing your points. Simply put, my fear of Hillary is that she is unelectable. When people like Coulter and Limbaugh urge Republicans to vote for her because they think she is far more beatable, and when independents and many Democrats say the same, maybe you should pay attention to that.

She is already hated by a very large section of the country, hated far more than Obama will ever be (let's face it, it is far harder to hate an "empty suit" than it is to hate a "soulless bitch")

I just don't see how she can turn it around against a war hero like McCain. Were you around when Mondale ran? I supported Hart and though we know he has turned out to be a flake for that election cycle he sure as hell would have done better than Mondale did.

This time, Obama is Hart plus. Hillary is Mondale minus (because Mondale was never hated like Hillary is now) and McCain is Reagan minus (he is not the incumbant, and Repubs. are in disarray)

Can Obama lose, absolutely, but the contrast between he and McCain can't be greater. McCain will take a woman as his VP, but not sure how much that will help.

Can Hillary win? I don't see it electoral college wise. And if McCain takes Condi Rice as his VP, it will be over in September. McCain might even win a majority of the black vote which would sink Hillary like a stone. Don't pretend otherwise. Blacks will only need an excuse to stick it to Hillary besides payback. Condi gives it to them. Will white women feel the same way about Barack? That is a great unknown, but on the war issue alone, I think not.

Hillarys only chance it to get Obama on the ticket, but lord how will it look when bigger crowds turn out to see him? Can she be part of a three ring circus, with Bill in the other one? Will people vote for someone who looks like they need to be carried?

Obama taking Hillary, of course, negates most problems. Will people turn out to vote against Hillary as VP? I doubt it. But I doubt Hillary would even consider it since I think she considers it is beneath her.

Let's all take it easy.  The primaries, as well as caucuses, do not elect anyone to any governmental post.  They provide political parties with a means, if they choose to take it, to decide whom they will nominate at their National conventions.  They can use any convoluted method they damn well wish or not to nominate a party candidate.  I would look forward to an open nominating national convention, at which the Democratic party, in whose State primary I voted, but to which, like many other party voters, I cannot honestly say I belong, can select its own candidate in accordance with its own rules.  The super-delegates perform a balancing role in the absence, or even in spite of, the election of delegates by a proportion of the voters, including some non-members of the party, in State balloting.  

"If this were true -- and I'm not convinced by the pastiche of surveys, estimates, and inductive algebra required to make the claim -- then Hillary would have won more caucuses."

This is nonsense. Caucuses skew liberal for Democrats, and Obama wins liberals. Besides, the caucuses are total less than a million voters.

Here's the updated numbers: www.theperfectworld.us/.../exitpollsum.htm

"Also, bringing up Rezko when there is absolutely no evidence or even allegations of wrongdoing on Obama's part, is, in my opinion, Hillary's worst crime in the race so far. "

That, too, is absurd. It looks very bad, and it's a risk to put him up against a Republican with that trial lurking out there. He's been busted for lying at least once on this. As far as mocking his experience, indeed she should. The Republicans will be brutal.

"Clinton can make any argument she wants, but I fear that if Obama has the lead in pledged delegates and she wins, the net effect will be that Obama supporters will feel cheated.  "

This is the risk. However, the Democrats only have to worry about black voters--and that's a non-trivial concern. Jesse Jackson has been very quiet, and I suspect is holding his fire to play a part.

They don't have to worry about the relatively few liberals who will go beserk.

Blackton, the electability argument is perfectly valid, I think.  I voted for Obama myself based on that - although I wish I was as confident as you that its the right choice.  But arguing about Hillary's high negatives, ability to win, etc. is a far different thing than arguing that she's inhumanly evil and cares nothing about the Democratic party, etc.  THAT is the argument I hear you and countless other Obamaphiles making all the time.  That's the argument that Obama (very carefully) embraces as often as he can.  What if she won?  How do constant, mean-spirited, viscious and only-very-loosely-based-on-evidence  personal attacks on the character of the (potential) Democratic nominee not count as divisive and possibly damaging to the party?  Making arguments against Hillary's health plan - even if it does reinforce arguments Republicans will use to kill ANY health plan - is one thing.  I don't care about that.  But personal attacks on Hillary's character, based on years and years of slander and distortion, are exactly the same as HIllary insinuating that Obama just might be a secret Muslim after all.  

jmkerr:

"It looks very bad [Rezko], and it's a risk to put him up against a Republican with that trial lurking out there. He's been busted for lying at least once on this."

Please tell me what, exactly looks bad?  The fact that he's had dealings a guy who has been busted?  Do you think you could find a single political leader who hasn't?  This is nothing but the beginning of Whitewater part 2.  Unless I'm mistaken there is not a single actual allegation that Obama has done anything remotely illegal.  If I'm mistaken, please let me know.  

The other Jonathan, below , makes the case for Hillary Clinton staying in the race and winning with superdelegates

Newdex, again good points. I will be brutally honest with you, if I were to see a woman carrying a baby about to walk into traffic I would be far more likely to yell the most vile thing I could to get her attention or the attention of people around her to stop her, this would be done after I had already yelled, hey, stop, miss, no, etc. Hillary is the woman, and the baby is the democratic party. I long ago made my peace with shrub being President, after him Hillary is a ray of sunshine so I will make my peace with that a lot quicker (I say again, I don't see her being elected)

I don't hate Hillary, to be honest I could give a rats ass about her, and she me (the same with Obama or McCain). Nor do I believe that any of the 3 have the faintest clue how to solve the disaster that Bush is leaving us. And to be honest, I think it is better for the disaster to play out. Housing prices falling is long term better for America, but sucks for homeowners now, why should we bail them out? why punish the young non homeowners, aren't they punished enough already? $4.00 a gallon gas, terrible for most people, but great for the environment, and will spur fuel efficiency like nothing else.

So since I think we are screwed no matter what, why not Hillary? Of the 3 I see her being the most illequipped to handle the shitstorm. She is running as the solutions candidate, but there really is no solutions. A flailing President with high negatives going in equals long term disaster for Democrats. In one sense, I wish Obama had never run and would have been happy to stick the Republicans with this mess. It would bring about the death of the Limbaugh wing of the party. And Democrats could take power in 2012 after the cycle has played out with a real mandate.

As to the personal attacks on her, come on, this is nothing compared to what the Republicans will do. But when they go too far, I denounce them myself here (her rumored lesbian affair, for example, was beneath TNR to even mention). Monster is meaningless though, and is the same as Obama is an empty suit. Yawn.

I do hate the way she has campaigned though, and am certain it would be disastrous for her against Republicans. I do like the Mandy Grunwald wing though (incidently, I hate the men in her campaign, but love the women. Penn, Ickes, and Wolfson are assholes, Grunwald and Williams are great, sadly she has listened to much to the men and not enough to the women)

Blackton, I hear you.  I disagree with a lot of your assessments.   I think Hillary would do a far better job than McCain and I don't think her campaign has been all that bad.  I do hope you realize that when you say the personal attacks on her are "nothing compared to what the Republicans will do" the exact same thing can be said of every attack Hillary's aimed at Obama.  My beef - and its not just with you, of course - is the whole notion that the bitterness and nastiness of the campaign all comes from the Hillary side.  In my opinion, the worst culprits haven't been either Clinton or Obama, but the media and - no offense - a lot of Obama supporters.  

"This is the risk. However, the Democrats only have to worry about black voters--"

JKerr. no offense, but are you completely nuts?  Just the black voters?? If the supers throw the nomination to Hillary despite Obama's lead in pledged delegates, millions of white Obama voters will also be enraged.  You might as well forget about Florida, PA, Ohio,  Michigan and a dozen other states, because a very large chunk of  Obama voters will stay "No F*king Way" and stay home.  So much for Hillary's electoral advantages.

Look, at the end of the day, one candidate will have a lead among popularly elected delegates, and one will not.  The supporters of the latter will be upset that their girl (or guy) finished second, but at least they know, as fair minded Americans, that 2nd place means you didn't quite make it.  They will get over it soon enough. The supporters of the first place candidate however, WILL NOT get over it (to this day there are Gore supporters who haven't gotten over it) if the nomination is somehow wrested away from their candidate and given to the candidate who finished second.

With the economy in such a mess, either Hillary or Obama can (will) beat McCain.  The only way we can screw this up is if the party shoves the voters aside by and placing the nominating campaign loser at the top of the ticket.   Remember "Resident Bush?"  It will be that all over again.      

How about this for a compromise - no superdelegates are allowed to vote on the first ballot.  They're undemocratic, they've got no real right to be there.  Or another compromise - no supers that disagree with me are allowed to vote on the first ballot.  Or if you carry a state, then you get every single one of the supers in that state.

If somebody gets the majority needed on the first ballot without the supers, then good for them, and we all salute that person and follow behind.  If it has to go to the second ballot, then everybody (including pledged delegates) is in the same boat, and they can vote their conscience.

You can't include MI in the popular vote total as NOT A SINGLE VOTE was cast for Obama there.  That said, even if you include Florida AS IS, Obama still has a small but statistically significant lead, unlikely to be surmounted by Clinton, especially given Obama's likelihood of blowouts in Mississippi and North Carolina.

So we fall back on the fact that Clinton's only path to nomination lies through persuading the SDs to overturn the 'will of the people,' which I'm convinced they'll be unwilling to do.

She's dead.  Let's just hope that following Chait's article, she doesn't destroy Obama's GE chances in the process of going to her final resting place.

Newdex, there is a difference between supporters and staffers. I don't care what any Hillary supporter says, but Mark Penn and Wolfson are a direct reflection on her, and those two guys are pure assholes. I love Grunwald though so I am not out to trash everyone there. Obama simply doesn't have such high ups who are so sleazy.

As to the media, I agree they have been snarky towards Clinton, but really lax too. Where the hell is her tax returns? Or the papers from the White House? Get it released now, because McCain will never let up. She has not been even closed to being vetted (we are talking about her GD tax returns being held back, and this is for the past 7 years, she is too busy? how lame.)

You can be damn sure there is a lot more out there about Bill and his shananigans the past 7 years. The Clintons didn't get to be worth over 100 million from Bills pension or Hill's Senate salary.

Romney got rich by being a brilliant investor, no way anyone will believe that about the Clintons.

naomi88 let me answer that. Yes he is nuts. He thinks Hillary that the independents and young people who go for Obama now would go for Hillary in the fall, but the dem base will go for McCain instead of Obama, just why I have never figured out. Mondale used a similar argument against Hart, that he held the base and was therefore the better choice. As weak as Hart was, he could not have done worse than Mondale. So yes, absolutely Kerr is nuts.

Why is are the elected votes better than the superdelegates? Some states allowed Republicans to vote. In other words, some elected delegates were elected by people who want a republican in the White House. By comparison, no superdelegate s Republican.

Joe Biden for President.

Super delegates, go to it.

Great post Mr. Cohn, just great.

People can argue all day long about whether the elected delegate count should prevail, or the popular vote count, or the inspired wisdom of the superdelegates.  I've certainly made my position known on other threads. (... which has been misrepresented by at least one other commenter. I don't find superdelegates illegitimate, since the Dem Party rules allow for them and therefore by their very nature they are legitimate.  I do think the superdelegates are an elitist construct though and shouldn't be part of the system ...)

The reality for me though -- and it sounds like for a number of other people looking on the situation -- is that if the superdelegates turn their back on the elected delegate count, I will turn my back on the Democratic nominee.  My vote may not matter in a vacuum, but of course when you add my vote to the votes of like-minded people, the Party should take notice.

That said, the superdelegate issue doesn't bother me as much as the FL/MI delegate issue. I don't think the results of their early primaries should count in seating delegates at the convention.  Nor do I think there should be any kind of "do over".  This talk about holding a new primary or a caucus smacks of even greater illegitimacy.  What is fair about changing the delegate game midcourse just because some people are uncomfortable with the delegate count right now?

That's right epackard-02, if it was a blow out, would anybody care about MI and FL? Probably not.   They moved their primaries up to be in the spotlight, and that's exactly what they would get now if they held them now.  It's unfortunate, but they laid down the rules when they started, including telling MI and FL that their delegates would not count, and now they should stick to what they decided.   Don't be changin' the rules half way through.

Jon Cohn, you're too kind to Clinton vis a vie her chances of catching Obama in the popular vote.  

Here’s a rundown of the states, not counting Florida and Michigan who have yet to vote with my guess as to the likely winner.

March 8, 2008

Wyoming caucus-O

March 11, 2008

Mississippi primary-O

April 22, 2008

Pennsylvania primary-C

May 3, 2008

Guam caucus-O

May 6, 2008

Indiana primary-O

North Carolina primary-O

May 13, 2008

West Virginia primary-C

May 20, 2008

Kentucky primary-C

Oregon primary-O

June 3, 2008

Montana primary-O

South Dakota primary-O

You should pay special attention to North Carolina.  Of the remaining states, Carolina is the second most populace behind Pennsylvania, and it’s a close second with a population of almost 9 million to PA’S 12.4 million.   What’s more, NC’s population is 21.7% black as compared with PA’s 10.7%, so there is every reason to anticipate an Obama blowout in North Carolina every bit as large as in its less populace neighbor to the south.  If we assume Clinton will do about as well in Pennsylvania as she did in similarly populous Ohio, she’ll pick up about 200K votes there, but if North Carolina even partially mirrors its neighbors South Carolina and Virginia, that will more than balance Clinton’s PA gains.  Obama bested her by 150K and 300K in those states respectively, neither of which is as populous as NC.

So that brings it back to Florida and Michigan.  In Florida she was up by less than 300K votes.  You have to be pretty optimistic to think she’d do as well a second time around.  With the first vote, Obama was looking like a flash in the Iowa pan, and with a revote he’d outspend her 2 to 1.  And Michigan, well, we don’t really need to say much about that do we? Her 300K margin there amounted to every single vote she received.  Unlikely with people actually voting for Obama she’d be able to repeat.

Right now Barack Obama looks like a loser.  He can no longer ride the wave of change and hope and whatever.  He needs to completely retool his campaign in preparation for the general election, and if he can't do it successfully, the party will find a way to just give him the VP slot.

So superdelegates should be free to vote according to their judgement and their conscience, just not this time?