Why Obama is Closer to the Nomination Than You'd Think - from Kos

[Bread and Circus]

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/2/12/94442/2551/708/454910

snip

But there are only 1,277 pledged delegates remaining up for grabs. For Obama to get to the 2,025 threshold without using super delegates, he would have to win 1,013 out of 1,277, or 79% of the remaining delegates. For Hillary to do that, she would have to win 1,076 out of 1,277 or 85% of the remaining delegates. That is virtually (make that actually) impossible.

What does that mean? It means that the super delegates get to decide the race. The problem with that, of course, is how shockingly undemocratic it is – party insiders choosing the nominee when we were led to believe that primaries would do that. But what’s worse is that we could have a situation where Obama wins a majority of the pledged delegates and the super delegates decide to hand the nomination to Hillary anyway. This would cause an all out civil war in the party, and would make Hillary one of the weakest nominees in modern Democratic politics, virtually assuring a President John McCain.

Here’s the catch: The party understands this, as do the super delegates. Though the above scenario is possible, it’s exceptionally unlikely. Elaine Kamarck, a senior DNC official and super delegate herself, told me Thursday that it would never happen. "Super delegates are cowards – we would never do that." This, by the way, from a woman who has endorsed Hillary Clinton. Chuck Todd, political director for NBC News said on Saturday that super delegates are likely to follow the pledged delegate winner, especially if that winner is also ahead of McCain in the polls. And because more than half of the super delegates have yet to pledge, it’s likely that this would be more than enough for Obama to maintain his lead, even when super delegates are added to the mix.

So what does that all mean? Counter-intuitively, the fact that, mathematically, the super delegates get to decide the race means they don’t actually matter. If the super delegates are unwilling to throw the race against the public will, then they are just going to support the winner of the pledged delegates. So that should be the only number we care about during the analysis: the number of pledged delegates.

end snip...more at link

[SoFlaJet]

Of course Markos

is now "on the list" of sites and commentators and networks and politicians and artists who will no longer be watched, read, or listened to OR tolerated by many supporters of a certain candidate for president

[Bullet1987]

1. Which is why the Clinton campaign is making such a big deal about

seating the Michigan and Florida delegates now...WITHOUT a caucus. They want to win and they want it THEIR WAY. We'll see if that happens.

[IDemo]

2. Why are they being so heavily recruited by both campaigns, then?

Does lunch with Chelsea count more than who XYZ's state supported in primaries??

[housewolf]

3. Interesting & pertinent perspective

Thanks for the post.

[BamaLefty]

4. Interesting article, B&C

Thanks for posting.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

5. I think the race is now less competitive than is being suggested.

In makes news dramatic, which means better ratings. That's fine with me, because I also wouldn't want any disenfranchised voters.

[TexasObserver]

6. She can't win it without getting it from the superDs. The superdelegates aren't that stupid.