Is this where we are headed?

[kentuck]

Going into the convention in Denver, neither Obama or Hillary will have the votes necessary for the nomination. Both will be short. Obama supporters will argue that he won the most states and most delegates so he should be the nominee. Hillary supporters will argue that all the candidates were on the ballot in Florida and she won by a landslide, so those delegates should be counted. Also, the Michigan delegates that voted for her should be counted. If they had voted for Kucinich, he would have kept them in his fold. With those states, she would be the nominee? What do we do if that is the case? Do we have any other choice other than to let the "super delegates" decide??

[John Q. Citizen]

1. I'm not worried at all. The Supers by and large will go with the person who

won the most elected delegates as reconized by the Democratic National Committee. They have already decided not to reconize the delegates from states who broke the rules.

We are headed to a big Obama win, at this point in time. That could change if Hill pulls a rabbit out of her hat and wins TX, OH, and PA by large margins. I doubt that will happen.

[DemVet]

3. What they are not "recognizing" in FL and MI is the people!!!!!

n/t

[John Q. Citizen]

8. They don't recognize 12 year olds or foreign nationals either. Something about the rules., Oh yeah,

It's against the rules for 12 year olds to vote and for foreign nationals to vote.

Their votes don't count either. Because it's against the rules.

I think Floridians and Michiganders should clear the rule breaking idiots out of their state party apparatus who thought breaking the rules was smart. They have a right to be pissed off. Their state officials let them down.

[cloudythescribbler]

2. Let's examine the situation: Projected outcomes of primary campaigns & convention

First, the scenario described, where EVEN WITH Florida and MI counted, Hillary Clinton ends up with more pledged delegates and/or raw votes than Obama (even though without them, Obama is in the lead) is a narrow band of possibility that at this point -- barring some kind of massive media feeding frenzy directed suddenly at Obama, something I am NOT predicting -- seems to put forward a picture of Obama faring much less well than appears likely at this point.

Let's for the moment completely discount Obama's ENORMOUS momentum, and imagine that the votes and caucuses in various jurisdictions more or less go as currently expected. Wisconsin is close, Hillary wins solid victories in both Ohio and Pa, and a less solid (I don't know of any polls in TX more recent than 1/31, before Tsunami Tuesday) victory in TX. Obama, as expected, wins out S Dakota, Mississippi, North Carolina (fairly large margin, as in S Car, Georgia and Alabama), Wyoming, Montana, Hawaii and Vermont. The remaining states (RI, Oregon, Kentucky, Indiana) and Puerto Rico are harder to predict, although the most recent poll I've seen for Rhode Island shows HRC in the lead. But let's suppose arguendo that ALL these states go at least narrowly for Hillary.

Obama's overall lead in raw votes, as well as pledged delegates, while less than at present, is likely to be maintained. In this scenario (towards the optimistic end of the spectrum for Hillary Clinton), Obama still is in a very strong position, with many Superdelegates likely to rally behind him, to avoid an unclear outcome or 'brokered' convention. In the scenario of the OP, one would have to assume that the SuperDelegates, many of whom are wavering in their support for HRC, would be stupid enough to create a huge crisis within the party in order to INSIST on Hillary Clinton, and for what? Without maintaining her still significant SD lead, there's no WAY she gets the nomination, and little reason to believe the rest of the SDs would break HEAVILY for her, as would be more or less requisite in the OP scenario. If the SD's rally behind Obama, then there is little crisis, and Obama runs as strongly against McCain as HRC and quite possibly more strongly (as a whole battery of national polls now suggest).

In short, the scenario posited seems highly unlikely. But the more COMMANDING a lead Obama ends up with, the more easily he will unify the party, and the less conflict there needs to be over the nomination. It is for this reason that supporting Obama, for those inclined towards him, is necessary at this point, even if he seems destined to win (or to lose) a particular state primary or caucus.

[mohc]

4. I am not so sure

The variables shaping the possible scenarios are the pledged delegate count, FL/MI situation, and the superdelegates. My guess is that the FL/MI situation and superdelegates will be determined only after the final pledged delegate counts are known. If the pledged delegate count favors Clinton, I think its a fairly safe bet to say the FL/MI situation will be resolved by full seating of their delegations as well as the superdelegates coming to her side in numbers large enough to secure the nomination. At this point however, it will require large wins in OH, TX, and PA for her to accomplish this, which seems unlikely. If Obama secures a large pledged delegate lead, he will probably choose to seat the FL and MI delegations in a show of reconciliation, and the superdelegates will not go against the clear choice of the people. But it is quite conceivable at this point that Clinton will either slightly lead in delegates for the remainder of the race or at least break even, so Obama building a large delegate lead will depend on beating expectations on March 4. I guess the real question is what is the magic number, at what pledged delegate lead for Obama will he be able to sway the superdelegates to his side? I believe if its clear that the superdelegates are siding with Obama, a deal will be reached on FL and MI. So that even if including them would swing the nomination to Clinton, enough of Clinton's superdelegates will side with Obama so that the delegations can be seated. In other words, I see almost no scenario where the seating of FL and MI truly wins the nomination of Clinton. If they put her over the top, it will be because the superdelegates sided with her in the first place in order to seat them, so in truth it will be the superdelegates swinging the nomination. Honestly though, I think anything under the 111 delegate lead Clinton holds in FL and MI, and she will have a good enough argument with the superdelegates that it will be a fight for every last superdelegate at the convention.

[kentuck]

6. I don't think we can make any assumptions about the SD's at this time...

Most of them are politicians.

[kentuck]

5. But Hillary is ahead in SD's at the moment?

How do we explain that?

[IDemo]

7. Super D's are being treated as a separate electorate

Clinton has already announced she will aggressively recruit them and does not agree that they should follow the wishes of their respective state voters. She stated that she would be happy to have Kerry and Kennedy's endorsements in that case. Like it or not, the Supers were not modeled after the Electoral college, but the smoke filled room. While most party members and talking heads like to claim they will move in the direction of the obvious leader, it would be naïve to believe all of them will. A large enough number of them will not to make it "interesting".

Rodriguez, a party official from Colorado, reserves the right to back Clinton, no matter that Colorado and a majority of other states have so far chosen Obama.

"I do not go with the candidate who is always winning. I go with the candidate I believe in," he wrote recently to a voter who asked how he could side against the Democratic voters in his own state.

Dan Parker, chairman of the state party in Indiana and a super delegate, feels just as strongly -- even though his state will not vote until May.

"I have made my decision, and I am supporting Sen. Clinton, and that is not going to change," Parker said.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-assess13feb13,1,2790739.story

[kentuck]

9. One point about super delegates...

They are voted for and appointed by the Establishment of the Party that was "in charge" previous to the present election. They are not independent voters. They cannot be trusted to do the will of the people, in my opinion.