Nowhere did I say that the rules require the pledged delegate leader to be nominated. I did, however, explain why most superdelegates would choose to make sure that the pledged delegate leader will be nominated.
Stating that they could choose otherwise, and be in keeping with the rules, is technically correct but ignores my analysis. It's not a difference of opinion; you're simply not addressing it at all.
I'm a permanent resident, I've lived here my entire adult life, I've donated thousands of dollars and volunteered thousands of hours and knocked on thousands of doors for Democratic candidates, and you ask me why I'm "sticking my nose" in?
Wow. I thought immigrant-bashing was a Republican thing.
I'd like to see at least two weeks pass between each set or primaries, because you're right, when they're too close together, there's a pile-on effect. What has happened in recent cycles is that Iowa and New Hampshire decide it. If they both go for the same candidate (Kerry in 2004), that's pretty much it. If they give us a split decision (like this year), then we get a real contest, but only with the two winners of Iowa and New Hampshire - nobody else has a chance at that point. I don't like it, and think we'd do better spacing them out more.
However, that's irrelevant here. The calendar was already set, most of the votes have already happened, Obama and Clinton had a real, fair contest in the plethora of states that voted in February and early March, and Obama won the contest. We can't re-do the calendar, space out the states, give Edwards a real chance past New Hampshire, etc. We can do better in the future, but the past is past.
Actually, if you take the trouble to read my post, I'm not saying "please drop out Hillary", I'm staying "please stop voting for her". And I explain the reason, too: It's not because I think Hillary can win the primaries (she can't), it's because I want to reduce the probability of a convention fight (which she would probably lose too, but would be damaging). Saying "It's obviously not as over as you would like it to be" just shows you didn't actually read my post.
Now, there's an obvious reason Obama isn't doing what McCain is: Obama still has someone campaigning against him. He's in the same position McCain was in late February and early March: Huckabee was still in, and McCain and Huckabee were actively campaigning against each other, even though the outcome was already known. Then Huckabee dropped out.
You can bet that if Hillary dropped out, Obama would be preparing for the general too, just as McCain has been doing ever since Huckabee dropped out.
Also, as I pointed out in my post, Obama wins even with counting Michigan and Florida. And counting Michigan would be illegitimate, since he wasn't on the ballot there.
Someone named Blue Jean just went through all the comments here and troll-rated every comment that appears to support either Obama or the fact that he has won, and mojo-rated every pro-Hillary comment, regardless of the quality or depth of any of those comments.
Okay, let's remember to come back to this comment next week and see how that turned out, shall we?
Everything was supposed to change after Ohio and Texas, remember? In reality, that was the day Obama's win was pretty much sealed. Despite Clinton's narrow win that day, it put so many more delegates on the "already voted" side of the ledger that it pushed her future targets out of range. Before that day, she just needed to average high 50s, which she could conceivably do. But she got high 50s only in Ohio and Rhode Island, while losing Vermont and winning Texas narrowly (then losing its caucus). Without getting high 50s everywhere, she pushed her target to 65%, which she has demonstrated she cannot achieve.
I will make one thing clear: In this post, I did not call on Clinton to quit. Rather, I called on people to stop voting for her. You may think that's a trivial difference, but I don't.
Now, what exactly is going to change after Pennsylvania? A high 50s win for Clinton won't do it for her. And she's not even sure to do that well (she might, but she might not).
Your scenario only makes sense (holds out any hope for Clinton) if Obama loses very badly in PA. If Clinton just gets a New York level high-50s win in PA that doesn't change my analysis. She'd have to get nearly 70% to have any chance, and that is just not going to happen without something so big that she doesn't even need to still be running - what I called the "Spitzer scenario".
So yes, in the very unlikely event of a Spitzer scenario (or terminal disease or whatever), Clinton can be nominated. But she doesn't need to keep running for that; she can just step back in when it happens. If that doesn't happen, though, there's no way she's getting a big enough win in PA to change this analysis.
I don't know the specific game you're referring to, but in general sports analogies don't hold up because there isn't a fixed allotment of points per unit of time. I once saw the Miami Dolphins score three touchdowns in the last four minutes of gameplay - more points than had been scored in the whole game until then. In a game, if you play really well, you can score really fast. But no matter how you stack it up, 83% of delegates have already been voted on, and only 17% remain. That makes the analysis very different than it would be for most sports.
Everyone's choice is important, but that doesn't mean Clinton can win. Enough people have already voted that Obama wins because of everyone's choices - and that includes all the people who haven't voted yet. They can, of course, still vote, and I hope they do, but that's not going to change the result.
You will note that my argument isn't that people shouldn't vote, it's that they should vote for Obama because the only thing Clinton is still campaigning for is a damaging, losing convention fight.
Now, I didn't decide the electoral calendar. And I'm a noncitizen (I have a green card) so I didn't even get to vote. Your presumption is amusing but irrelevant.
As for Michigan and Florida: I've advocated on several blogs that they should hold new elections, and offerred to contribute money if they needed to fundraise for it. Unfortunately, it looks like that won't happen. Your presumption that I don't want MI and FL voters to count is less amusing because it's clearly empty rhetoric.
However, I did answer it in two prongs:
1. Michigan and Florida did not have free and fair elections. All candidates were barred from campaigning (or did you volunteer at a Clinton field office in Florida that I somehow missed?). Obama wasn't even on the ballot in Michigan, and there are no write-ins in a primary. Counting that election would not undo the problem: those voters did not get to count due to things that have already happened.
2. Even if we count Michigan and Florida, Obama still wins.
I have not seen any of the campaign's internal data on this, but my guess is that the more reliable primary voters are also more likely to support Lieberman. Lamont supporters are more likely to be people who don't always vote in primaries. High turnout, I think, means more of them are voting, so I think it's a good sign for us.
The theory you're describing is one that tends to apply to downballot challengers. When you're contesting a downballot race, high turnout means more people turned out to vote in the race at the top of the ticket, people who are much less likely to have paid attention to your contest, and they will break for the incumbent. In this case, though, Lieberman-Lamont is the top of the ticket, which means it's the race that's driving the turnout one way or the other.