Uhh, because we levied those punishments against Florida and Michigan, and Senator Clinton agreed that was the number until it suited her politically? And that every time Obama gets a chance to campaign in a state that favors Clinton, he brings her numbers down dramatically, sometimes forcing to a win? And that there were literally hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions, of people who would have voted, had they thought it would matter? And that Obama has more delegates than Senator Clinton, along with popular votes, etc?

Sorry... hope that doesn't get in the way of your "point".

Somebody correct me if I'm wrong here, but I thought Shrub (Boo! Hiss!) got the smallest voting margin in history in 2000 or 2004.   Where am I wrong?

I have to admit, you had me going until I read the tags.

i will be checking back with frequency to see the answers. rec'd.

To be as objective about it as I can be, I'd have to say declaring victory at 2025 is purely a PR move. It's the moment he passes half of the official delegates (at the time) and combined with a handy win in Oregon will give Obama a big boost and put the loses in Kentucky and West Virginia behind him.

Then the DNC rules committee will approve a plan both Clinton and Obama can accept to seat Florida and Michigan, which will likely be half votes for all their delegates and some compromise on the Michigan split (and in an ideal world none of the supers, to ensure this doesn't happen again and punish the people responsible, but that's neither here nor there). This bumps the magic number up roughly a hundred and puts Obama below it again, but the writing on the wall will be even clearer then than it is now and the pundits will talk more about how this clinches it for Obama than his jumping the gun claiming victory.

Finally, combine the continued super movement we're likely to see with the probable Obama wins in Montana and South Dakota and he makes up the delegates won in Puerto Rico (which Obama might even win) and Obama passes over the new magic number and declares victory again.

The short version is claiming victory now lets Obama control the narrative for the rest of the primary season, and lets him "win" twice at no extra cost.

there have been tons of diaries about this lately, I think everyone has at least one version they agree on probably beat into their heads...do we really want to go here again??  I'm an HRC supporter but I don't want to fight over this anymore, it helps neither candidate!!

JFK was nominated on the first ballot.

The third ballot nominee you're thinking of is Stevenson in '52.

How come you guys always get your facts confused?

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/article s/2007/12/politically_uncorrected_conven .html

Don't worry. Hillary won't be nominated.

I'm not sure what you're suggesting.  During the old days (and I'm talking up until 1932) the Democratic party had a rule that any candidate put up for the nomination had to win 2/3rds of the delegates at the convention.  If that rule were around today, I think it's pretty clear that neither Obama nor Clinton would get the nomination.  One possible hypothetical beneficiery: Al Gore.  The race would be wide open, though, so who knows?  

The most notable president who won the nomination by being the second choice candidate among the rival factions of his party, btw, was Abraham Lincoln.

If, however, you're suggesting that the Dems should nominate Hillary Clinton, well, c'mon.  All of the problems you're mentioning would also apply to her.  I don't get how Clinton supporters don't think a win by superdelegetes wouldn't be completely devestating to the party's chances in November.  So long as Obama arrives at the convention with a margin of more than 50 pledged delegates, there really is no serious argument that his nomination was tainted (despite the Hail Mary play the Clinton campaign is trying to pull off now).    

"Mayor Quimby supports revolving door prisons. Mayor Quimby even released Sideshow Bob. A man twice convicted of attempted murder. Can you trust a man like mayor Quimby? Vote Sideshow Bob for Mayor."

Currently there are 4051 (in this general newighborhood and this will likely change on May 13) delegates.  A candidate will not get the nomination with less than 50% the delegates.

Currently in pledged delegates Obama is closing in on a majority of pledged delegates and it would take a freak of nature for him not to receive a majority of pledged delegates.

Obama has currently taken the lead in super delegate support.  I think that whoever the nominee is will have more than 50% of the pledged delegates.

The 2209 number applies if MI and FL are seated fully.  There will be a meeting May 30 (or is it 31)  of the Rules and By-Laws committee to determine how they will get seated.

It merely repeats the Party line about what is required.  Hillary and I, like you, are both well aware that the Party is currently only requiring 2024.5 delegates to nominate.  However, neither of us has ever said that's a good idea.

I am asking once again, why is it a good idea for the party to nominate anyone who has the support of less than half the party?

You know how in a democracy, each person is entitled to one vote? That fact is what is known as a "rule." These "rules" dictate just how things go down in an election. For instance, a person cannot vote twice in an election (a corollary to the above rule). Certain people are ineligible to vote (say, for instance, a non-citizen, a person not a part of said democracy). And so on and so forth.

Now, the "rules" in the Democratic presidential primary are slightly different. As you've picked up, the "rules" state that the nominee is determined by a simple majority of delegates. The "rules" state that these delegates have earned their vote through various processes. Some have earned their status by being a respected member of the party (elected official, former president, etc.). Others earn their status as representatives of democratic votes in various areas.

OK, so the "rules" out of the way, here's how it works out...

There are currently 4048 official delegates. Divide that by 2 and add a half (because some delegates count for only a half vote, again, "rules"), and you get 2024.5.

Thus, by the "rules," 2024.5 delegates is how many a candidate needs to get nominated. And by the power of math, it also happens to be more than half of the potential delegates.

So there you go.

Because they're the rules, and they were set that way for a reason.
If you break the rules, there must be consequences. Otherwise, you have chaos. If the Michigan and Florida dems would have done what they were supposed to, they would've been HUGELY influential. Instead, they were stripped of their delegates.
EVERY state where both candidates campaigned, Obama closed Hillary Clinton's lead. It's logical, her name recognition along was worth five to eight points in most states. It stands to reason, then, that he would have done better in these contests if he had spent time there. (Yes, one Obama ad ran in a  part of Florida on a cable station. One ad constitutes a state-wide campaign no more than a speech outside a fundraiser that looks suspiciously like a rally.)
Obama followed the rules in Michigan and Florida. Should he be penalized delegates for this? Do we want future candidates breaking any rule that gets in their way? Isn't that how the country got 'the law doesn't apply to me' Bush?

Those delegates should not be seated at the convention. However, I am absolutely certain they WILL be seated. How will they be seated? No telling, at this point. What I can say is that they won't be seated unless it won't make a difference.

Because he WILL have more than half the vote.

Declaring victory at the 2025 mark is largely symbolic, but rest assured, at the convention he will receive the votes of well over the 2209 number.  In fact, there is a good chance he will reach that number by June 3rd.

Judging from your comments thus far, as well as your ridiculous poll choices, you aren't going to be happy with any explanation that doesn't fit your agenda.  Said agenda is, evidently, that Hill gets to have all those votes (and delegates) from FL and MI in spite of the rule breaking.  

Her own campaign chair had to sheepishly admit yesterday on 2 talk shows, that taking away 1/2 the delegates certainly makes sense, just as he threatened to do to MI when he was party chair.  

What I wanna know - is when do Hill's supporters intend to back the actual nominee?  When is the writing on the wall just that? When does splitting hairs become a sign of cognitive dissonance?

Simple, because it makes more sense then nominating the candidate with even less support, less delegates and less votes. That's why the super delegates will continue to move in ever increasing numbers to Obama.

As Clinton repeatedly informed us the 'Automatic' delegates have the superior experience and understanding of the process and will make the choice that is right for the party in November by picking the strongest candidate. I'm sure that about a month from now that among Obama's biggest supporters and strongest campaigners will be Bill and Hillary Clinton.

When they agree to seat Michigan and Florida which everyone with any sense agrees they will, the number again becomes 2209. And Obama is no where near that number. So the race WILL be decided by superdelegates.