Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Watching the Inexorable Trainwreck of the Democratic Primary

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
EV_Ares Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-13-08 06:03 AM
Original message
Watching the Inexorable Trainwreck of the Democratic Primary
My very politically astute mother urged me not to write this article, deriding it as mere 'common wisdom' and perhaps beneath the high quality of punditry which I aspire to maintain. But I'm afraid the thought keeps nagging at me and I can't resist, even if I'm stating something which may seem a bit facile and even obvious to some.

The thought occurred to me looking at the results from Super Tuesday and has been reinforced in the week since then — and with the outcome of subsequent primaries. The dynamic of this primary election for the Democrats seems inexorable. It's like watching a trainwreck in slow motion, knowing that disaster is coming but also knowing that there's nothing which can be done to sway the juggernauts from their track towards destruction.

In the aftermath of the Bush administration and with the hostility which so many on the right feel towards John McCain, it would seem obvious that any reasonable candidate nominated by the Democrats would have a clear path to an easy victory and probably two terms in the White House. Something truly disastrous would have to take place to negate that obvious outcome. The interesting thing is that as the primary is shaping up, disaster seems not only likely, but inevitable.

The root of the problem is the practice of the Democratic Party of giving a huge number of party luminaries positions as 'superdelegates' with a vote in the outcome of the primary at the convention. Almost a fifth of their total delegates are picked this way, chosen by the party rather than by the people. This creates the possibility for the catastrophic scenario we now see unfolding.

In primary after primary we see Barack Obama winning by a small margin and gradually advancing his delegate count ahead of Hillary Clinton's. As it stands right now Obama has a lead of fewer than 100 voted delegates, a margin which will likely widen but probably never to more than 300 delegates out of a total which will eventually be around 2000. Clinton leads substantially in support from superdelegates, and with about 400 of them as yet unpledged, many of those are likely to go to her, preferring someone who is more predictable and more of a party insider. Clinton is also already campaigning to have the punishment which banned Florida's delegates lifted or to have that primary revoted, bringing her another nice chunk of additional delegates.

So at the Democratic convention we're quite likely to see Obama with a majority of the delegates voted on by the public in primaries and caucuses, going into the convention looking like a winner, and ultimately not getting the nomination after a bitter floor fight in which superdelegates and reinstated Florida delegates give the nomination to Clinton instead.

The Democrats will face a primary whose outcome after the convention looks disturbingly like the 2000 election between Gore and Bush where the system stole the election away from the person who appeared to be the peoples' choice. It's an ugly scenario, which might well tear the party apart, with outraged Obama supporters refusing to vote for Clinton and just not voting or even going over to John McCain. Even more than with angry Democrats, it will outrage independents by reminding them that the Democrats are more about empowering the establishment than about real change. They already don't like Clinton, and if she gets nominated out of this kind of controversial scenario they won't hesitate to vote Republican.

Obviously, party leaders are staring at the numbers from each primary in a sick fascination, trying to figure out how to avert the outcome, but the potential solutions are less than inspiring.

One solution might be to combine Clinton and Obama into a 'super ticket'. This is an appealing idea, but for it to work you'd have to get one of the two very proud and successful candidates who think they are winning the primary to concede they are subdominant. Clinton is almost certainly constitutionally incapable of yielding to Obama and accepting the Vice Presidential slot. Obama could probably accept such a deal, with a promise of the nomination in 2016. He's young and could stand the wait. The problem is that his fans aren't going to be so accommodating. They're going to see it as a victory for the establishment and be repelled by the image of Obama as a virtual "house nigger" for the Clinton machine. Hillary + Obama might well be weaker than either of them alone.

Another option might be a true brokered convention. Throw out all of the caucus and primary results and start over again at the convention. This scenario would work best with a third option available. It would be a chance to bring in an entirely different candidate and shove all of the controversy aside. For it to work, the candidate would have to be of such high stature that no one could complain without looking like a traitor to the party. The problem is that there aren't a lot of living Democrats with the stature to pull this off, unless they discover that the tabloids are right and that JFK is secretly still alive. That's unlikely to happen, so the best they have is probably Al Gore. Some people would find that appealing, but is he charismatic enough to unite a fractured party? It would also help if he wasn't so quintessentially white and male.

The last and perhaps the most obvious solution is for the party to slap Hillary Clinton down so hard she bounces. Party chairman Howard Dean would have to step in and negotiate with the superdelegates and convince most of them to switch from Clinton to Obama for the good of the party, so that Obama would end up with a decisive victory. Clinton would probably have to at least be offered a prestige payoff, like being Secretary of State or perhaps an even more powerful position like Majority Leader. Even with that she's going to be furious and out for revenge, which she can probably exact slowly and painfully from her position in the Senate, especially as Majority Leader, and her loyal followers will be right behind her. They might well be cutting Obama's legs out from under him to get him the uncontested nomination.

Any way you look at it, the situation for the Democrats is much more precarious than you would expect, given the disunified and discredited state of the Republican Party. The irony of McCain's primary victory over all the objections of the far-right, is that he is the one candidate most capable of reaching across party lines and offering a welcoming hand to Democrats and independents who feel betrayed by the Democratic Party. Unless the Democrats come up with some sort of miracle they're heading towards a smash-up from which they may not be able to recover.

Can you say "President John McCain"? Get used to it.

Link to article: http://blogcritics.org/archives/2008/02/13/051652.php
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
donheld Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-13-08 06:10 AM
Response to Original message
1. "In primary after primary we see Barack Obama winning by a small margin"
VA Obama - 63.6% Hillary 35.5%
ME Obama - 59.5% Hillary 39.9%
ID Obama - 79.5% Hillary 17.2%
ND Obama - 61.1% Hillary 36.5%
NE Obama - 67.6% Hillary 32.2%


You want me to go on?

President Obama, get used to it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
XemaSab Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-13-08 06:12 AM
Response to Reply #1
3. GMTA
:D
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Clovis Sangrail Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-13-08 08:30 AM
Response to Reply #1
17. that's where I stopped reading
why go further?

generally, if I'm reading something and the author gets something 'sort of' wrong, I'll keep reading...
but if they make a statement that's just flat out WRONG I tend to stop reading right there.

... especially if their basing their opinions on that thing they have WRONG

:eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
polpilot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-13-08 08:53 AM
Response to Reply #17
26. BEST Demo primary ever. Strengthens party adding repubs & Indies every day
Edited on Wed Feb-13-08 08:54 AM by polpilot
PERFECT storn for November. Whiny 'get alongs' don't understand. Revolution Time!!!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cloudythescribbler Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-13-08 08:56 AM
Response to Reply #1
28. somehow that name is SO much more comfortable than ... President McCain

"For more wars"
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
karynnj Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-13-08 09:03 AM
Response to Reply #1
30. Not only is he wrong on the facts as you note, what he suggests is undemocratic
Obama is, at this point, winning a game that had been stacked against him. Clinton had the connections, money and a media calling her inevitable. The media has been developing the Hillary story since the 1990s, especially since she was in the Senate. She was not in the Senate more than one month when the stories of how she was graciously taking the role of a typical freshman Senator, alternating with long term Senators being asked if there was any thought that seniority would be waived to give her a chairmanship.

To suggest that even as it first becomes possible that she could lose, that they should subvert the primary process and have Obama, who now has a real chance of being the nominee agree to be vice President is beyond strange. Almost as strange as Penn saying Obama never was in a tough race - ignoring Clinton hasn't been either - unless you count the race they are in - that she is not winning.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DaLittle Kitty Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-13-08 09:27 AM
Response to Reply #30
31. The Establishment WILL Play Games @ Convention, BEt On It! Obama Was supposed to "BLOCK" For Hill..
Now the "SCAM" has Backfired certainly and the Insider Game is going to be UGLY... This IS NOT To say that OBama is really ANY LESS an ESTABLISHMENT Candidate comparatively speaking from HillBill.

HillBill and Obama are NECK AND NECK in taking THE MOST $ FROM WALL STREET! Both ARE BOUGHT, PAID FOR and CONTROLLED by the Nuclear Industry... (Read Exelon Corp for Obama and NRG for HillBill!)

This IS TRULY Pathetic!

A brokered START OVER FROM SCRATCH Convention may be the ONLY recourse for the Democratic Party to Restore any scintilla of Credibility without turning away a significant portion of its BASE.

The answer at the convention may in fact turn out to be... John Edwards!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
karynnj Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-13-08 10:25 AM
Response to Reply #31
34. That is insane - there is NO reason to turn to Edwards
Edwards never got the support of anything like a majority of the Democrats - in 2004 or 2008. In 2004, even when the choice in a poll in early February was limited to just Kerry and Edwards, Kerry got over 2/3 rds of the Democrats. This year, Edwards did get positive press throughout 2006, but never broke 20%. He was the first to formally announce in the race and there was ample coverage of his New Orleans event - but he still did not break 20%. There is NO WAY to make a case that he is the people's choice. He just isn't.

He is also clearly not the Party's choice - HRC was. He is not the choice of his former peers in the Senate - I think NONE endorsed him and Feingold, who has had the positions that Edwards only speaks of made it clear that he was 100% not in favor of him. (Take any issue - there is usually nothing that made Edwards a leader in the Senate on it.)

People here speak of corruption as an Edwards issue - but Obama is the one who got significant provisions controlling the lobbying problem and several other things he worked on with Feingold, his ally on the rules committee. Edwards repeatedly distorted the information on money. Obama took NO MONEY from corporate PACs. Those numbers are the aggregated contributions of people working in those industries. That Obama got more money from most sectors, if not all of them, reflects that more people preferred him over Edwards. It was not Edwards intention not to raise money.

Did you ever consider that a brokered convention that turned to Edwards would be intensely undemocratic. He was in the race - and was rejected. Both HRC and Obama were preferred by far more voters than Edwards. Other than the fact that you prefer him, what is your case on why he should be selected by insiders? (I like Kerry better than Obama, but I can't imagine anything worse than a convention that would turn to Gore or Kerry as a savior. I hated the Carville suggestions after Kerry had mathematically cinched the nomination in 2004 that a brokered convention could still happen. )
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Maribelle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-13-08 10:44 AM
Response to Reply #30
37. Connections, money and a media baised towards him has given rise to Obama.
To think otherwise is to play the fool.

Obama would be nowhere on his own.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Maribelle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-13-08 10:47 AM
Response to Reply #1
38. Of the over 20 million votes cast already, Obama has not won 50% yet
Edited on Wed Feb-13-08 10:50 AM by Maribelle
In fact, he is over one million votes short of 50%.


We live in a democracy, you arrogant Obama pumpers should get used to that.



on edit: corrected the subject line
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
XemaSab Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-13-08 06:11 AM
Response to Original message
2. Interesting article...
My point of contention is with Obama's supposed "winning by a small margin."

He is CREAMING her in most of his states.

He's beaten her by 20-50 points in all 7 elections since Super Tuesday, for a total of 15 states that he's beat her by over 20 points in.

In contrast, she's beaten him by more than 20 points only in Oklahoma and Arkansas. :shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bicoastal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-13-08 06:16 AM
Response to Original message
4. This guy clearly thinks HRC is an unstoppable force...
...she isn't. She's running out of money, staff, and time. But one thing Hillary Clinton is NOT is an inhuman monster. If at the end of the day, she's lost the popular vote and the delegate count to Obama, but he's just short of the total because of her loyal Superdelegates...

...something will give. HRC is fully aware that she, like her husband, has a legacy to uphold. I will trust her to do the right thing.

Then again...:shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Window Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-13-08 07:16 AM
Response to Reply #4
10. Speaking of Hillary running out of money, read this:
http://online.wsj.com/public/article_print/SB120286639798963915.html

Big Clinton Fund-Raisers
May Run Their Own Ads

Rich Backers Huddle With Lawyers to Help Cash-Strapped Effort


February 13, 2008; Page A10

WASHINGTON -- As Sen. Hillary Clinton faces a money crunch, several of her top fund-raisers are considering using independent organizations to wage their own campaigns on her behalf.

<snip>

It's not certain that any of the efforts by the Clinton fund-raisers will get off the ground. Campaign-finance law makes it difficult for campaign insiders to fund independent efforts to elect candidates.

<snip>

"We're just trying to figure out things to do to help," Ms. Buell said. "We all feel very passionate about it, so the question is, what is the best thing we can do to get her across the finish line?"

Another Clinton fund-raiser, who didn't want to be named because he hasn't made a final decision, said he may pump as much as $500,000 into television, radio and newspaper ads for Mrs. Clinton.

Still, at least one Clinton backer is looking at launching an independent effort. The fund-raiser who didn't want to be named says he is talking with his lawyers to figure out how he could set up an organization to fund TV, newspaper and radio ads for Mrs. Clinton. This person says he would put up as much as $500,000 and might seek money from others. The ads would run in at least some of the big coming primary states, such as Texas, Ohio and Pennsylvania.

<snip>

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Orsino Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-13-08 07:52 AM
Response to Reply #4
13. ...and that McCain can stay awake through the entire campaign.
If the Republican nominee wins, it will be due to crookedness. Not even the Democratic Party can eff this one up without the blatant conspiracy of Rove and the MSM--on levels they're not capable of reaching.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
polpilot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-13-08 08:43 AM
Response to Reply #4
23. 'trust her to do the right thing' NOT a good idea.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Blue_Roses Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-13-08 10:37 AM
Response to Reply #4
36. this guy is a Libertarian...
he could care less about this issue. It's his cause that he's trying to stir. Read between the lines if you can read this tripe that long.:eyes:

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
the other one Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-13-08 06:30 AM
Response to Original message
5. McCain will have no trouble with Obama or Clinton
I am sorry to have to say this, but the dems are going down hard this year. I expect that despite the current long odds, the GOP will take the top job and both houses of congress.

The easiest election to win, and the dems are giving a clinic in how to lose. Remember that Kerry led Bush by 12% at this time in 2004. McCain is much closer, and traditionally the polls "overestimate" dem support by 3%.

But it won't matter: at least we will have the consolation of nominating the first woman or the first black to the top spot, even if they don't win. Yippee.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Guava Jelly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-13-08 06:34 AM
Response to Reply #5
6. I respectfully disagree
McCain will be no cakewalk but we have two pretty kickass candidates.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BlueManDude Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-13-08 06:37 AM
Response to Reply #5
7. It's true that McCain will be the next president but...
I don't see both houses flipping - unless we nominate Clinton. It should be a good year for Dems in general with lots of GOP retirements and the anti-GOP mood. This will be cancelled out by a Clinton nomination. If However Obama gets the nod while he'll still lose we'll make gains in congress and on the state leg level.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
salin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-13-08 08:35 AM
Response to Reply #7
19. the dudes predictions are based on nothing
at the top of the ticket as well as in congress. There will be no republican president, unless there is large, wholesale vote fraud.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
polpilot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-13-08 08:45 AM
Response to Reply #7
24. ...a post from Fantasyland!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
democrattotheend Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-13-08 07:10 AM
Response to Reply #5
9. Don't know about Congress
But now that McCain is their presumptive nominee, I am a lot less optimistic about winning back the White House. I don't see how they take back the House or Senate though...they can't even stop their members from retiring!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
salin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-13-08 08:34 AM
Response to Reply #5
18. given the stellar high repub primary/caucus turnout
yes, the prognostication that not only will McCain win but the pubs will take BOTH houses of congress? Given the high rate of repubs in the House not running for reelection - ya that's is always a sign of big pickups in the House. Given the polling results in the senate campaigns that show several repub seats likely to flip dem - yep the senate is going red.

Good luck selling this - there is absolutely nothing to back it up. No turnout data, no polling data, no fundraising data (dems at all levels are FAR outraising repubs for the first time in decades).

Not that dems should be complacent at all - but the doom and gloom based on NOTHING - is not only absurd, it seems patently intentional in terms of tamping down participation. Good luck with that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
babylonsister Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-13-08 08:39 AM
Response to Reply #5
21. How can you say that? McCain thinks we're in a 100-yr. war. The
majority of Americans are finally waking up to the fact this illegal occupation should never have been started. Do you think the people who long for peace will vote for McCain, and that's the majority. I don't think so. Add the last miserable failure of the past 8 years; I think you're very wrong if you think the majority of Americans have been impressed at the way this country has been run into the ground.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
salin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-13-08 08:48 AM
Response to Reply #21
25. and he touts continuing bush's economic plans (that consist only of
tax cuts for the very wealthy and more and more deregulation) - and most folks are pretty sour on bush and his handling of the economy. It is now the number one issue for voters (at least the last time I looked - and that was before the negative job growth of January). Last time I looked - bush's poll numbers were in the toilet - and McCain is running as a "stay the (bush) course" bushite.

McCain as the inevitable next pres.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Thepricebreaker Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-13-08 09:43 AM
Response to Reply #5
33. Mccain will be a force..
Mccain will be a force.. a lot of things can change ...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MadHound Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-13-08 06:59 AM
Response to Original message
8. What a piece of shit, well, OK, half a piece
If Hillary gets the nod, we are probably likely to end up with McCain. A Hillary nomination will energize the right to come out and vote in droves. It will also prompt the anti-war left to either go Green or go home on election day, and many conservative Dems and most independents will go for McCain.

However none of these dynamics will be in play with an Obama nomination. Rather the RW fundies and ultra conservatives will stay home on election day out of disgust for McCain, the anti-war left will stay in play, and Obama will grab most of the independents.

It still comes down to who our nominee is.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
aquarius dawning Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-13-08 07:48 AM
Response to Reply #8
12. It's quite an assumption to assume that conservatives will stay home on Nov. 4th for any reason.
especially considering the ass whipping they no doubt remember in 2006 and considering that Obama is the biggest liberal in the senate according to them. Quite an assumption indeed.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DaLittle Kitty Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-13-08 09:28 AM
Response to Reply #12
32. Yes a Rediculous Assumption...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mr_Jefferson_24 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-13-08 07:35 AM
Response to Original message
11. "...she's going to be furious and out for revenge..."
I think she already is, and has been for a long time.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Vinca Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-13-08 08:07 AM
Response to Original message
14. IMHO, you're way off base. The party is the exact opposite.
We have an excess of good candidates and it's evoking strong emotions. I don't see anything wrong with that. In the end, when it's between our candidate and John "100 Years of War" McCain, the Democratic candidate will win. Even in the primaries, Democratic voters are showing up 2 to 1 over the Republicans. A week ago, when I was annoyed about the "cult" meme, I said I wouldn't vote for Hillary. Well, that was a lie. I want Obama, but I'll vote for Hillary if she pulls it out because we cannot allow the war to continue. Grandpa McCain will not be elected.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
anamandujano Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-13-08 08:24 AM
Response to Original message
15. It doesn't bother you that Repukes are allowed to influence our
primaries and then head home for the GE? Neither does it bother you that caucuses are decided by a tiny percentage of voters.

Oh well.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
onenote Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-13-08 08:38 AM
Response to Reply #15
20. Maryland: Closed Primary -- kinda blows up your theory
Totals are comparable to what we've seen in open primaries. If you have actual evidence of a statistically significant influence from votes cast by repubs (not independents), please provide it.

Also, these millions of repubs that are part of a big conspiracy to vote for obama to screw the Democrats have secret cellars where they go and get messages that they decode with their magic decoder rings and that's why no one has leaked the fact that they are just puppets following the instruction of some great rovian puppeteer?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LWolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-13-08 08:24 AM
Response to Original message
16. A brokered convention with Gore nominated
may be the only chance the party has left for my vote in November. :shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
boricua79 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-13-08 08:41 AM
Response to Original message
22. If Obama is not the nominee, they lose my vote
it's that simple. And Clintonites can go at it alone with McCain.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rolleitreks Donating Member (282 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-13-08 08:54 AM
Response to Original message
27. Your Mommy told you not to write? Tells me all I need to know. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cloudythescribbler Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-13-08 09:02 AM
Response to Original message
29. There is NOTHING inexorable about the SDs pushing HRC in the face of primary defeats
If Obama is able to maintain his strong performance in upcoming primaries/caucuses -- particularly in WI, TX, OH, PA, IN and OR -- then I would expect, if he ends with a CLEAR lead in both pledged delegates and raw votes, that the majority of Superdelegates will line up behind him.

And this NONimpossible outcome could be made significantly more likely if folk, like us at DU, got together and insisted, by petition etc, that the nomination MUST go to either candidate who ends up with such a clear lead. (As a matter of reality, it seems all but impossible that HRC will gain such a lead from the primary season, in the absence of some kind of media feeding frenzy directed at Obama; either you'll have some kind of 'gray area' outcome or a clear lead for Obama, even if less than the magic number.

Thus NOT ONLY is the outcome predicted by EV_Ares NOT inexorable, an alternative is highly possible AND WE CAN HELP MAKE IT HAPPEN.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
salin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-13-08 10:29 AM
Response to Reply #29
35. psst minor correction...
IN isn't in the upcoming primaries... we don't vote until May.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cloudythescribbler Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-13-08 11:50 AM
Response to Reply #35
39. Indiana may not be coming up this month (neither is PA) but it is "upcoming" in general
The point is that those 6 states are the ones that (a) have the most delegates and (b) where the outcome is still uncertain.

(I didn't include N Carolina as b/t VA (which was said to be written off by the HRC campaign), S Carolina and Georgia, it looks like a 'safe' Obama primary state. I know HRC has a large lead in some of the other states but Obama has come from behind and won quite a few such states.

BTW -- ARE THERE ANY POLLS OF INDIANA DEM PRIMARY VOTERS ON THEIR PREFERENCES B/T OBAMA AND CLINTON? (I'd be curious to know).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
salin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-13-08 01:10 PM
Response to Reply #39
40. That would be interesting to see as well - I am off to work
but when I come home I will poke around to see what I can see. I would guess Clinton - we trend centrist and I believe the perception is more centrist. What I would be more interested to see would be the polls pitting the top dems against Mccain - folks here are fed up - with local govt with state govt and with the fed govt (three repub congressmen were ousted by dems in 2006) If there has ever been a time when there is a small chance that this state might vote D at the top of the ticket (we are notorious ticket splitters in this state) - this would be the one time in my lifetime that it *could* happen.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Tue Apr 23rd 2024, 11:04 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC