Obama Sitting on 100+ Del. Lead -- Even Counting Superdels.

by Jonathan Singer, Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 07:08:17 AM EST

*** The delegate count: The NBC News Hard Count is Obama 1,192, Clinton 1,036. Obama picked up two more superdelegates last night and this morning bringing the superdelegate total to Clinton 254, Obama 203. (Since Feb. 5, Obama has picked up 33; Clinton has lost a net of six.) That's a grand total of Obama 1,395, Clinton 1,290. So when you include superdelegates into the mix, Obama has a 105-delegate lead.

Three sets of numbers really stand out there. First and second, the delegate counts with and without the superdelegates show Barack Obama leading Hillary Clinton by well over 150 in the former and even 100 in the latter -- marks that are viewed as key thresholds for being able to stake out a genuine position as a prohibitive favorite if attained at the time of the convention (should this contest go that far). Third, Obama has picked up close to a net 40 superdelegates since Super Tuesday at the beginning of the month, helping to pad his lead and undercutting the notion that the party establishment would inexorably move to help Clinton land the nomination even while and if losing among the pledged delegates.

For reference, looking through the delegate tallies of various news organizations (counting superdelegates), Obama's lead ranges from 81.5 in The New York Times to 97 according to CNN to 103 in The Washington Post to 104 from CBS News to 106 from ABC News, so that 105-delegate lead mark from NBC News seems to be within a reasonable estimation of Obama's support relative to Clinton. Our tally here at MyDD puts Obama's lead at 97 delegates, for reference.

Tags: Delegate Count, Democratic primaries (all tags)

Comments

82 Comments

Sort by

permalink

Re: Obama Sitting on 100+ Del. Lead -- Even Counti

undercutting the notion that the party establishment would inexorably move to help Clinton land the nomination even while and if losing among the pledged delegates.

David Axelrod's fear-mongering about scary cigar-chomping superdelegates with a fetish for backrooms being proven untrue? You don't say!

by blueflorida 2008-02-28 07:11AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Obama Sitting on 100+ Del. Lead -- Even Counti

The Clinton campaign put out multiple statements about using the superdelegates to overturn a pledged delegate lead. This was an inexplicable PR strategy, in my mind.

The Obama campaign (and surrogates like MoveOn) EFFECTIVELY pushed back against this. And it wasn't hard.

by pastor john 2008-02-28 07:38AM | 0 recs

permalink

We're starting to run out of SD's

There are a little more than 300 left. If Obama can keep or extend his lead between now and PA, they'd have to break to Clinton in a 2-1 margin.

by thezzyzx 2008-02-28 07:12AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Obama Sitting on 100+ Del. Lead -- Even Counti

Now that we have settled this - look to your right and check out the recommended diaries on this site. Why do I think that this is a Republican blog?

by marcotom 2008-02-28 07:13AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Obama Sitting on 100+ Del. Lead -- Even Counti

People will come around. Probably best to let them vent their feelings in peace for a while. It's no fun to lose.

by EMTP democrat 2008-02-28 07:22AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Obama Sitting on 100+ Del. Lead -- Even Counti

You are right. But it seems they are creating their own world that is hardly penetrated by reality and where Sen. Obama is not only an inferior candidate (that kind of thinking I could easily accept) but just plain evil. I'm afraid that some of them are actually not Democrats.

by marcotom 2008-02-28 07:26AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Obama Sitting on 100+ Del. Lead -- Even Counti

Oh yes there have been and will be right wing nutjobs, as well actual Republican staffers posting here. The ugliest words you read, were probably just that. Not to say that anger and disappointment didn't play its part too.

A game of football for example, which while fun means absolutely nothing, but can produce enough anger and sudden action that people die.

This does matter. And it produces many strong emotions. But what matters, the creation of a long lasting strong center-left coalition, is what we are doing.

The centre left has ruled in Sweden for 98% of the last 70 years. It is not that there aren't right wing Swedes, they just haven't won very often.

We can do better than that. but we have to get involved and stay involved and teach our children to be involved and we have to think that nothing is more important to America than democracy.

by inexile 2008-02-28 07:41AM | 0 recs

permalink

Let me be clear This is a great site

And the editors are progressives.

by inexile 2008-02-28 07:43AM | 0 recs

permalink

Absolutely

I give them major kudos for deleting a diary that shot up the rec list - but relied on a right wing nut job like Debbie Schlussel.

by zonk 2008-02-28 07:56AM | 0 recs

permalink

But

how many diaries shot up the rec list relying on right-wing smear jobs and weren't deleted?

And for that matter, how many diaries were taken off the rec list just because they pointed out Jerome made a mistake?

by MILiberal 2008-02-28 08:09AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: But

The road to recovery is walked one step at a time.

Step one is eliminate the Schlussels, Malkins, freepers, etc as allowed primary sources.

by zonk 2008-02-28 08:14AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Obama Sitting on 100+ Del. Lead -- Even Counti

Agreed. I just don't like the thought that some of Sen. Clinton's supporters mix together with suspected right-wing nut-jobs. They might get too used to this kind of discourse and keep the Obama hate up even after the primary, that is what I don't like about it.

by marcotom 2008-02-28 07:48AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Obama Sitting on 100+ Del. Lead -- Even Counti

I think one of the reasons the possibility of defeat is sitting harder with Hillary Clinton's supporters is that she started with such a sense of inevitability, the primaries were supposed to be a march towards what was hers, and without Obama, most likely would have been. Therefore, it's not like she is a losing primary candidate, but that she has actually had the nomination taken away from her having had it. Obama's loss would have resulted in some very upset and angry supporters, but then a "we'll do it next time" sentiment. Clinton's seems to be the end of something that cannot be brought back.

I do sympathize (former Edwards supporter, now happy Obama supporter), but it is going to be harder to cope with this than a more routine loss by a "new" candidate.

by mady 2008-02-28 07:34AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Obama Sitting on 100+ Del. Lead -- Even Counti

Let's also point out that many women AND men are angry and outraged by the race baiting, sexism and misogyny by the Obama surrogates, MSM and many bloggers. This is totally unfair and we do take it personally. This was a very undemocratic primary.

by tiffany 2008-02-28 09:36AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Wildly different views

I find it amazing that bright, well-informed, well-intentioned people can view this entire primary season from entirely opposite viewpoints.

I have no doubt that you believe what you say. OTOH, I think Obama has run a very clean campaign with few personal attacks. Sure there have been some obnoxious comments from some supporters and there has obviously been sexism at work in the media coverage, but I just do not see what you are talking about.

In my view the Clintons were the ones responsible for trying to make race an issue for Hillary's benefit, first by fanning the flames of the "is he black enough" controversy, and then with the comments of BC, HRC, and her surrogates. Clyburn and Brazile, who are independent, were the ones who raised concerns. Obama never accused the Clintons of being racist or even of injecting race into the campaign.

I have a Women's Studies double major, but I did not see any significant pattern of sexist or misogynist comments coming from the campaign.

Clinton has been far more negative and far more aggressive. I do not understand the sense of aggrievement that seems to afflict so many HRC supporters. I suspect your anger stems more from the fact that she was rejected by a majority of the media and the voters than that Obama's campaign was nasty or underhanded.

I am not trying to be snarky, I am sincere. I acknowledge your sincerity, but I do not see what you see. I would be interested to hear more about how you, or other HRC supporters, perceive the race.

by upper left 2008-02-28 10:21AM | 0 recs

permalink

Clean campaign? Ha, what a joke.

"I am not trying to be snarky, I am sincere."

Sincerely patronizing, perhaps.

Since you do not see what we see, perhaps you need to explain the New Republic's take on your boy's "clean campaign":

http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?i d=aa0cd21b-0ff2-4329-88a1-69c6c268b304

Recall, the New Republic is the same outlet that took the covers off of Ron Paul's past. The vetting of Barack Hussein Obama has just begun.

by BrandingIron17 2008-02-28 11:46AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Clean campaign? Ha, what a joke.

"Sincerely patronizing"

What a pleasant response to my effort to start a little dialogue. I can see why your user-name is "BrandingIron17," your words are pretty hot.

I have already read the piece you referenced. I commented there yesterday morning along with OVER SIX HUNDRED other readers. Try reading the comments, nearly 90% are opposed to the view that Sean Wilentz puts forward. Are you aware that MR Wilentz is a long standing personal friend of the Clintons? Are you aware that he has repeatedly published pieces about the campaign that have been viewed by most as highly suspect and one-sided?

Here is my comment from yesterday:

Posted by Kevin Kouns
192 of 636 | warn tnr | respond
What an incredible piece of tripe. This is one of the most offensive pieces I have seen in this election cycle. The writer is obviously an apologist for the Clinton campaign and goes out of his way to repeat Clinton campaign talking points. I don't have time to refute all the misstatements and shadings of the truth in this piece, it would take a few thousand words. However, a few points about the central argument of this piece. Wilentz provides almost no evidence to support his central argument that the Obama campaign fanned the flames of this controversy. Obama never made a single comment suggesting that BC or HRC was in any way a racist, nor did any campaign spokesman. JJ Jr. did assail the sincerity of her tears and suggested that she lacked compassion for the victims of Katrina. The comments were politically tone deaf and ill advised, but reflected no effort to race-bait the Clintons. In fact, the genesis of the press coverage about race was sparked by comments from Clyburn and Brazile (two unaffiliated AA leaders), who expressed concern that BC and HRC's comments were considered offensive by many AAs. Neither accused the Clintons of racism but both suggested that the Clintons needed to be more careful. The author provides no evidence to suggest that these comments were made under pressure from Obama's campaign. This is a lousy piece of journalism and an even worse piece of political analysis. This thin, bitter soup should have been poured down the toilet rather than splashed across the pages of the TNR. To quote a rather well known candidate, "shame on you Sean Wilentz, shame on you TNR."

Wilentz' piece is indeed a thin stuff. He is far from objective and his case is far from made. Apparently that does not keep you from lapping it up. The fact that you would take such a piece seriously suggests that you are not interested in a thoughtful discussion of the history of this race or why we see it so differently.

I do hope at some time in the future when the history of this campaign is written we are able to clarify whose view of things is more accurate. I would be willing to bet my mortgage payment that Wilentz's view will not be supported.

by upper left 2008-02-28 12:40PM | 0 recs

permalink

Sweet reason will return from her vacation

March 5th. Until then, it's Hellzapoppin!

by ReillyDiefenbach 2008-02-28 05:36PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Obama Sitting on 100+ Del. Lead -- Even Counti

I've seen that going both ways. Neither side really has a monopoly on ugly campaign practices. I would amend what you wrote to read "by the Obama and Clinton" surrogates. There is some equally distressing baiting going on from partisans of both campaigns.

by mady 2008-02-28 10:22AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Obama Sitting on 100+ Del. Lead

IF Obama continues this way, by March 11 Hillary won't even be able to catch him with the FL and MI delegates.

That's even if she wins both Texas and Ohio by as much as 15%.

by Walt Starr 2008-02-28 07:29AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Obama Sitting on 100+ Del. Lead

Not so, HRC is ahead when you include MI & FL, if she stays above 50% she's ahead with MI & FL.

I think most super delegates will go to the 48 state winner, but I have a feeling most delegates will vote to include MI & FL thus giving her the lead.

But.
The committe that will takes this up will be based on wins in the 48 states.

by rolnitzky 2008-02-28 07:45AM | 0 recs

permalink

Hey,

did you know that if you count straw polls and other contests that people never said would count in advance, RON PAUL is the FRONTRUNNER FOR THE REPUBLICAN NOMINATION!!!!!

R0N P/-\/|!!!

(sarcasm)

by MILiberal 2008-02-28 07:49AM | 0 recs

permalink

LMAO

Thanks.

by PhilFR 2008-02-28 08:16AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Obama Sitting on 100+ Del. Lead

It's fortunate for Obama then that FL and MI don't count.

She's also only ahead if you assign ALL of MI's delegates to Clinton. I think we all know that no matter how this thing turns out, that's not going to happen.

by Cycloptichorn 2008-02-28 07:56AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Obama Sitting on 100+ Del. Lead

>HRC is ahead when you include MI & FL

That's impossible. The two states combined would have had 44 delegates between them, and Hillary only won something like 50% of Florida and 55% of Michigan. Plus Obama won 33% of Florida (and 0% of Michigan.) So if those states were fully seated, she'd probably get 25 or so delegates out of it and he'd get 9. Give or take 5 for the weird county-by-county thing, but in her absolute best case scenario she would only decrease his lead by maybe 20 delegates from those two states. She's down by more than 100.

Unless I've missed something, Hillary is definitely NOT ahead if you count MI and FL.

by tjekanefir 2008-02-28 08:03AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Obama Sitting on 100+ Del. Lead

...I must be counting wrong. This isn't adding up right at all. throws hands up in the air

by tjekanefir 2008-02-28 08:06AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Obama Sitting on 100+ Del. Lead

...Ok, that's better. There are 366 contested delegates in Michigan and Florida, not 44. I was looking at the presidential electoral college numbers. (Duh!) Now the claim makes sense... if Hillary took about half of those delegates she'd have an extra ~180 to add to her total, and Obama would get ~70 from Florida, so that would indeed erase Obama's pledged delegate lead.

Carry on. :-)

by tjekanefir 2008-02-28 08:13AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Obama Sitting on 100+ Del. Lead

And that is precisley why the GOP Governor of FL is fighting to have those delgates seated, alongside Hillary's partisans. The GOP wants HRC to be their opponent.

by a gunslinger 2008-02-28 08:19AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Obama Sitting on 100+ Del. Lead

Nobody gets any delegates from either Florida or Michigan.

Those are the consequences of Michigan and Florida breaking the rules.

by Walt Starr 2008-02-28 08:14AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Obama Sitting on 100+ Del. Lead

I'm glad to see you've settled it for us.

by Zeitgeist9000 2008-02-28 08:54AM | 0 recs

permalink

I'm waiting for an answer

from the credentials committee organizer. I want to know for sure.

by corph 2008-02-28 09:23AM | 0 recs

permalink

Tehre won't be an answer until July

Obama will have it wrapped up before then.

by Walt Starr 2008-02-28 11:02AM | 0 recs

permalink

I think so too.

But it would be unwise to be unprepared, don't you think?

by corph 2008-02-28 11:24AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Obama Sitting on 100+ Del. Lead

What about the MI "uncomitted" delegate count from MI?

Since Clinton was on the ballot -- and Obama is the only remaining candidate, we sort of have to assume that Obama gets the lion's share of the "uncommitted" delegates, right?

Those 55 are an amalgam of both unallocated due to counts still proceeding AND MI uncommitteds, aren't they?

Are all 55 from MI?

What's a reasonable number of them for Obama to pull?

40? 50? Nearly all 55 (say... 51, 52, 53)?

by zonk 2008-02-28 08:00AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Obama Sitting on 100+ Del. Lead

Florida and Michigan have identical delegate counts.

Obama - 0
Clinton - 0

by Walt Starr 2008-02-28 08:14AM | 0 recs

permalink

Hey!

You left out a candidate! Its so discriminatory of you to leave out one of the two times that Mike Gravel managed to TIE the two frontrunners in a contest despite getting no money and attention!

The correct delegate count should be:
Obama - 0
Clinton - 0
GRAVEL - 0

by MILiberal 2008-02-28 08:20AM | 0 recs

permalink

Sure

BUt...

I assume MI chooses it's actual convention delegates just like everyone else, right?

I.e., the state has a convention where the caucus or primary delegates then select the final slate of state delegates to represent.

I'd have to assume that it at least seems reasonable that Obama takes the lion's share of those MI "uncommitteds", right?

by zonk 2008-02-28 08:17AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: The uncommitteds are just that:

I agree. Barring a do-over, which seems less likely by the day, MI's delegates will be allowed to do nothing more than confirm the collective judgment of the rest of the country. Which is a really polite way of saying they'll be disenfranchised.

(Note that I'm not making any statement whatsoever about what should happen or who's to blame for this train wreck, just that I think it's becoming clear how it will be "resolved", to use too strong a term.)

by Lou Grinzo 2008-02-28 09:18AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: The uncommitteds are just that:

Disenfranchised is the wrong word; it refers to the removal of a right. There is no inherent right to vote in a presidential primary election.

by Cycloptichorn 2008-02-28 09:22AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Obama Sitting on 100+ Del. Lead -- Even Counti

There are plenty of progressive sites that have had Obama as their implied or outright favorite. The progressives who run this blog for reasons that can be admired, fell the other way choosing to support Clinton.

It is one of the few, and it has drawn many many other Clinton enthusiasts looking for fellow feeling and support and encouragement and good news.

Some people can't fight, unless the other guy is bad. This is not the case. The people who have principled disagreements are still principled and part of our coalition.

""I beat you, you %$^$#!!" is not an argument, or mature or helpful. The partisan nature of Mydd.com will very soon switch to supporting the candidate of the Democratic Party.

I urge partisans to remember that we need soft votes and to be very careful not to ionsult or denigrate republican voters, we will need them in the fall, because we are forming a coalition to govern the entire country, for everyone fairly. We are not reaching out to Delay, we are reaching out to the people who have recently rejected him, and want good government first.

The leadership of the republican Party has been very very wrong, but they have been lying to the people even their own supporters for decades.

Many Republican voters thought they were stopping corruption and elitism, worthy goals. The evident corruption and hypocrisy of their leaders is part of what is driving them to the Democrats.

Common decency is also a factor, please remember that.

Be respectful.

Be kind to each other.

Anger causes heart disease.

by inexile 2008-02-28 07:31AM | 0 recs

permalink

Very well said.

The Dem party has an historic opportunity this year, regardless of whether HRC or OB is the nominee.

Let's not blow it with a circular firing squad, eh?

by PhilFR 2008-02-28 08:19AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Very well said.

RE: Circular firing squads

Not to put too fine a point on it, but you have met Democrats, right?

More seriously, I agree completely. You'd be hard pressed to find a better example of one party being able to run a clean, relatively smart campaign and lock up a virtually sure WH win.

by Lou Grinzo 2008-02-28 09:21AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Obama Sitting on 100+ Del. Lead

So is MyDD abandoning its practice of assigning Clinton Florida and Michigan delegates even though those states broke the rules?

by gobacktotexas 2008-02-28 07:32AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Obama Sitting on 100+ Del. Lead

None of the 2 million voters broke any rules.

Their only sin was that they lived in FL where the legislature, not even the parties, changed the primary date.

Democratic values should be one person one vote.
Even when the 'rules' said 1 Black person is half a vote or that a woman is not worthy to vote at all.

by rolnitzky 2008-02-28 07:49AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Obama Sitting on 100+ Del. Lead

You just cannot change the rules of the game after people started playing. That is a very simple fact and you might think the rules are unfair, but that is besides the point. The delegates will most probably be seated and they will count. However, they will not decide the nomination. This will not happen, I assure you.

by marcotom 2008-02-28 07:53AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Obama Sitting on 100+ Del. Lead

"Their only sin was that they lived in FL where the legislature, not even the parties, changed the primary date."

Those people knew well before their Primary that the delegates wouldn't be seated proportionate to the vote. It was widely publicized.

The FL and MI vote totals were shams, and this is common knowledge. Even in FL and MI.

Many people didn't even show up to vote in MI and FL because they knew it didn't matter.

But you know this already too....

by John in Chicago 2008-02-28 07:57AM | 0 recs

permalink

florida democrats were more confused...

by the clinton's campaign in florida to assure them that there delegates would be seated (before they voted) than the fact that the republican legislature screwed them in the attempt to get the tax vote right. the osceola democratic chair told me flat out that "hillary promised they would be seated," that she had given her personal assurances. which explains why the florida democratic party has no interest in a compromise solution.

personally, i agree with the republican solution here -- delegations from sanctioned states lose half their delegates. i'd have no problem with that solution, especially if they were placed in the back row in denver...

by bored now 2008-02-28 08:08AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: florida democrats were more confused...

Well, its getting to the point that Obama's pledged delegate lead is almost to the point where the issue becomes moot anyways.

Anyway, I believe both delegations will be setaed, just no proportionate to the actual vote totals, which are skewed for various reasons that have been listed many times over.

by John in Chicago 2008-02-28 08:12AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: florida democrats were more confused...

Can't blame it on the Republican leg. If the Dems in FL had appealed on that basis to the DNC, and if they had bothered to ATTEMPT to change the date in the leg, then they would have a leg to stand on. They did neither.

by Cycloptichorn 2008-02-28 08:24AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: florida democrats were more confused...

Not only that, but the DNC offerred to FULLY FUND a primary that conformed to the RULES. In fact, as per Howard Dean, that offer still stands.

by John in Chicago 2008-02-28 08:36AM | 0 recs

permalink

Last Hysterical Throes on MyDD

Which explains the last hysterical throes posted on MyDD right now (and these are the top RECOMMENDED diaries):

Shocker: Obama Campaign Reveals Fake Stand on NAFTA

How's He Gonna Blame Hillary for This One?

How Obama Played the Race Card

Barack Obama: Inexperienced Opportunist

Chosen One:The Truth Behind State Senator Obama's Rise

by pcjnyc 2008-02-28 07:37AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Last Hysterical Throes on MyDD

One day we'll look back on this and say, man, what were they thinking?!? And then we'll laugh as we start getting ready to re-elect President Obama in 2012.

by John in Chicago 2008-02-28 07:46AM | 0 recs

permalink

Now that's a comment

I can really get with!

by ReillyDiefenbach 2008-02-28 05:42PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Last Hysterical Throes on MyDD

Personally, I prefer the New Republic's article

http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?i d=aa0cd21b-0ff2-4329-88a1-69c6c268b304
Race Man: How Barack Obama played the race card and blamed Hillary Clinton.

Oops, did I say something wrong? What, the New Republic isn't legit anymore after it destroyed Ron Paul's campaign by uncovering his truths?

by BrandingIron17 2008-02-28 11:52AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Obama Sitting on 100+ Del. Lead -- Even Counti

I support Hillary and also understand that she has to get people to vote for her in TExas and Ohio. If she loses this time chances are there will be another opening for her in 2012. She has been a great public servant. Her campaign may have come up short but she has not done anything in the campaign that she needs to be ashamed of.She should run for an executive office such as NY mayor or gov of NY. I dont see how Obama wins his one.

by rocky 2008-02-28 07:48AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Obama Sitting on 100+ Del. Lead -- Even Counti

Agreed to everything but your last sentence. With your vote in November, he will win.

by marcotom 2008-02-28 07:51AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Obama Sitting on 100+ Del. Lead -- Even Counti

If polls stay the way they are with McCain ahead of Obama or Clinton by 2-6% HRC will most certainly run again.

And with Florida delegates picketing our convention, as Obama plans, it will doom our chances.

by rolnitzky 2008-02-28 07:54AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Obama Sitting on 100+ Del. Lead -- Even Counti

Obama plans to have FL delegates picket the convention? Wow, that's a new one.... lol

But keep on playing that tired old FL & MI card....

by John in Chicago 2008-02-28 07:58AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Obama Sitting on 100+ Del. Lead -- Even Counti

That would be pretty funny though. I think Jon Stewart should organize it.

by kasjogren 2008-02-28 09:57AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Obama Sitting on 100+ Del. Lead -- Even Counti

Obama's planning it because he doesn't want to seat them. But you greatly underestimate the furor of the Florida delegates right now.

by BrandingIron17 2008-02-28 11:54AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Obama Sitting on 100+ Del. Lead -- Even Counti

polls showing obama beating mcain?

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/ 2008/president/national.html

cause the rcp avg has obama beating mcain while hillary would lose to mcaina dn this is just the national vote.

state to state match ups shows obama would beat mcain in the electoral vote.

but in the hatred for obama facts mean nothing. i keep forgetting.

by Leftyy2k4 2008-02-28 08:04AM | 0 recs

permalink

Also

Right now I think there are a lot of Clinton supporters on the fence about whether or not to vote for Obama. That's only natural after the long and bitter primary we've just had. But I suspect that they'll come around by November when people start to realize McCain is an anti-choice, pro-war, pro-Bush Republican.

by jkfp2004 2008-02-28 09:31AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Obama Sitting on 100+ Del. Lead -- Even Counti

2012? not likely. she would be 68. its hard to run at that age and only a few can pull it off.

to me this is it for her.

same for obama. he has made it clear in his book and in other speeches and words from his wife he would run once. not including re-election if he makes it but it was a up or out plan.

so i think alot of peoples views that obama could run again or hillary will if one of them loses is foolish. reality is who ever loses will likely not be running in 8 years. who ever it is.

by Leftyy2k4 2008-02-28 08:01AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Obama Sitting on 100+ Del. Lead -- Even Counti

Actually --

Clinton won't be 68 until 2016, after Obama's 2nd term ends.

I'd be leery of pronouncing that "too old".

I remember in 2000 - after Bush finished off McCain, everyone saying it was his only shot - because he'd be "too old" to run in 2004 or 2008 (he's 71 this year, I believe).

Clinton will very much be able to run at age 68 in 2016. Hell -- there's a very good chance I'll even support her in 2016. I just support Obama in 2008.

by zonk 2008-02-28 08:06AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Obama Sitting on 100+ Del. Lead -- Even Counti

its to old. very few at that age can pull it off. most who run at that age don't do well. some do. Hillary could be one of those but i doubt it.

by Leftyy2k4 2008-02-28 08:10AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: B.O.'s Goose isn't just cooked

I was wondering who was the guy that lived in an alternate universe whom Penn's ridiculous "We're on the verge of clinching the nomination" statement was intended for. Now I know!

So tell me, Hunter, (which, BTW, is a mockery for you to use Gonzo's name), how's the weather in Alternate Earth? Did Gore win the presidency there in 2000? I guess so, and I guess Hillary never had to vote to authorize the Iraq War either, since she's apparently winning on your planet...

by John in Chicago 2008-02-28 07:52AM | 0 recs

permalink

Come on...

Be fair.

I'm pretty sure it was actually Harold Ickes who claimed they were on the verge of "locking up" the nomination a few days ago :-)

by zonk 2008-02-28 08:03AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Come on...

Oh yeah, he was the "good cop" to Penn's "bad cop" routine, right? lol

I stand corrected. ;-)

by John in Chicago 2008-02-28 08:06AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Obama Sitting on 100+ Del. Lead -- Even Counti

The one thing I would point out to HRC backers is that the only way she can win is in disputed terms at the convention. Is that really what we want when the republicans have settled their nominee fight in Feb?

by wasder 2008-02-28 07:59AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Obama Sitting on 100+ Del. Lead -- Even Counti

hillary supporters don't care. they are blind. they assume they are entitled and all those who voted other wise were duped.

just as they failed to plan past feb 5th they have not planned how to put us back together after they steal the nomination. Mark penn is doing some polling.

by Leftyy2k4 2008-02-28 08:08AM | 0 recs

permalink

Even Counting Superdels.

The way I understand it, the winner of the most pledged delegates controls the Credentials Committee at the Convention, and that committee decides on the seating of FL and MI. So if Obama wins the most pledged delegates, his campaign will be in the driver's seat.

by global yokel 2008-02-28 08:18AM | 0 recs

permalink

Even Counting Superdels....

'wasder' wrote-

"The one thing I would point out to HRC backers is that the only way she can win is in disputed terms at the convention. Is that really what we want when the republicans have settled their nominee fight in Feb?"

Amen. The question is not whether there is some mathematical possibility that Hillary could still pull out a win, but rather, could she do it in a way that provided legitimacy and broad Democratic Party support going into November? I don't think so...

by global yokel 2008-02-28 08:24AM | 0 recs

permalink

FL & MI Discussion is Premature at Best.

Let's take the dead horse to the glue factory, shall we?

First, as an Obama supporter, I freely admit that I believe in my candidate, and would attempt to rationalize, bargain, and scheme any scenario i could to assure a chance of his victory. I cannot then hold it against the HRC supporters for doing the same. They are a passionate, intelligent bunch...the GOPs trolls propping her up here (fratboy22, deanno, weneed3party, etc.) non-withstanding.

However, there is a dose of reality needing to be reasserted into the whole delgate debate vis a vis FL/MI.

THERE IS NO HURRY TO RESOLVE A NON-PROBLEM AT THIS MOMENT OR AT ANY TIME IN THE NEXT 3 MONTHS

A candidate WILL become the presumptive nominee with 3-4 weeks (perhaps sooner), and the other will drop out. I personally believe it will be Obama, given the momentum and nature of the race. For HRC supporters, if you all truly believe Hillary can pull off the 20 point blowouts from now until the end of primary season, or knock Barack out of the race in 3 weeks the way many of you post...then why the rush to change the rules NOW, when a clear winnier will be revealed WELL before the convention?

Here's what to do in order to be the most fair to each candidate, the national DNC & the state parties, IMO.

1) Let the primary season play out. One candidate will withdraw. As above there is no LOGICAL & IMPARTIAL reason to change the rules in the middle of the season. I sympathsize with HRC supporters, but there is no reason to do so when...

2) The winner of the primaries creates the Credentials Committee. When the candidate becomes known the democratic party will allow their delegates to be seated from each state.

In this way, no one is left out. The candidate is selected, delegates from the states whose legislatures screwed them initially get seated, and the national party avoids a royal mess.

Again, I appreciate and sympathize, but you cannot reverse-engineer a process soley designed to justify the outcome you want. Bush did THAT in deciding to invade Iraq...we are better than that, aren't we?

by a gunslinger 2008-02-28 08:42AM | 0 recs

permalink

agreed but...

Of course I agree with what you are saying gunslinger and this is definitely a dead horse, but I don't think that enough people are thinking clearly about the realities that would be attached to Hillary winning at this point...

by wasder 2008-02-28 08:58AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Obama

I have my doubts that Hillary supporters will vote for McCain who voted to impeach Bill Clinton and who wants 8 more years of Bush policies. At heart, Hillary supporters are democrats first and they will reject McCain/Bush/Cheney and the republican party values. Hillary supporters do not want more tax cuts for the wealthy or another 4000 american soliders to die in Iraq.

by hawkjt 2008-02-28 09:52AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Obama

You greatly underestimate the patiences and power of Hillary supporters (and of their party). We Indies are Clintonites, too.

by BrandingIron17 2008-02-28 11:57AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Obama

I guarantee you that there will be many Hillary supporters who vote for McCain if she's not on the ticket. Not all of them will be voting for McCain because they don't like Obama. Many people will view Obama as not ready even though he's smart and likable.

The man was a state senator 3 years ago and he wants to become president at a time we're engaged in two wars. His opponent is a national war hero. Ya, he'll get my vote and most people on this site, but all the money in the world will not save his candidacy.

He's pinning his hopes on his right judgement call on Iraq. That is weak and will not fly in the general election. The man has had exceptional press coverage so far and his negatives are already about 45%. And that's before the Republicans have even warmed up their slime machine. This could be a landslide loss.

by mmorang 2008-02-28 12:01PM | 0 recs

permalink

Pledged delegates can and do change their minds

along with super delegates. All the stuff you didn't know about Obama or forgot is coming out now. If something catches fire and Obama's numbers take a serious dive then obviously Hillary could win this thing.

Obama is a great Democratic primary candidate and a terrible Democratic nominee for the general election. He and his wife are making it too easy for the Republicans.

His wife just became proud of America a few days ago. Obama will not wear an American pin. Now we find out the man goes to the home of actual terrorists who feel no regret for setting off bombs. Add to that Obama's support of drivers licenses for illegal aliens (so he could cut into Hillay's lead among the hispanic vote) and you have a candidate that should be easy pickens for John-Weekend-at-Bernie's-McCain.

The nation is engaged in two wars, a man that was a mere state senator 3 years ago will not get elected with all the money in the world.

Democrats must love to lose presidential elections. It reminds me of the joke about the hunter who keeps going to the woods to try to kill this bear. With each attempt the bear escapes unharmed and forces the hunter to have sex with him. But the hunter never gives up, he keeps going back to the woods with bigger weapons and he keeps getting forced to have sex with the bear. Finally, the bear, after avoiding getting killed again, puts his arms around the hunter and says "you really don't keep coming to the woods for hunting, do you?

Why do Democrats even bother to run candidates for the presidency? Surely, its not to win. Luckily, Hillary is still in the race.

by mmorang 2008-02-28 11:54AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Pledged delegates can and do change their mind

LOL @ the bear/hunter story. I'd never heard that one before, thanks for the laugh.

by BrandingIron17 2008-02-28 11:59AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Pledged delegates can and do change their mind

All the stuff that is coming out - do you mean the hit-pieces on myDD that never leave the site because they cannot bear the unfair bias of reality?

by marcotom 2008-02-28 01:55PM | 0 recs

permalink

Pledged delegates can and do change their minds

A couple of questions come to mind since, if I'm not mistaken, you are a Clinton supporter.

1) Do you think those examples of attacks on Obama have been effective? Have they lowered his polling numbers vs. McCain or negatively impacted the positive/negative perception of him?

2) How do the following perception poll results add up to a Clinton win against McCain vs an Obama win vs McCain?

LATimes/Bloomberg poll 2/21-24
McCain Favorable 61 Unfavorable 26
Clinton Favorable 51 Unfavorable 42
Obama Favorable 61 Unfavorable 27

USAToday/Gallup poll 2/20-22
McCain Favorable 56 Unfavorable 33
Clinton Favorable 48 Unfavorable 48
Obama Favorable 61 Unfavorable 32

Please explain why you think Clinton has a better chance in November. I'm just not seeing it.

by GFORD 2008-02-29 05:36AM | 0 recs

permalink

Reality Check

I just saw a poll which showed Obama with a 45% negative (this early). He was down by 2 points to McCain in the latest LA Times/Bloomberg poll.

Why do I think Hillary is a much better better candidate?

All my points have to do with the general election voters, not Democratic primary voters. For the simple reason that she is seen by the general population as having much more experience than Obama. The nation will not elect Richie Cunningham, Community Organizer while we are engaged in two wars or occupations.

Obama has been attacked but not anywhere near the level of attacks he will receive. His image will dramatically change. Right now he is the new flavor of the month. He will be anything but that in about 10 weeks. Media coverage matters.

He is perceived to be a rookie and when it comes to a national race, he is.

Obama cannot win or even threaten to win one southern state. Again, the Democratic primary is not the same animal as the general election. No Democrat has ever won the whitehouse who didn't win a southern state. Gore and Kerry did great except they didn't win a southern state. Hillary will win Arkansas (polls show her trouncing all opponents). That isn't talked about much but it is huge. She might even win Tenessee. She will also force McCain to spend money and time in Florida. Obama will lose by 25 points in Florida.

I'm not sure Obama would win any red states if the election were today. But I can guarantee you that he won't win any in November. I don't know what people are smoking. I know he has a huge money advantage and people are sour on the Republicans, but get real. Look at history. The Republicans have done it again. They got the candidate to run against that they wanted. And they have fielded perhaps the only candidate that could defeat us even though they don't much like him: John-Weekend-at-Bernies-McCain.

by mmorang 2008-02-29 04:39PM | 0 recs