Tom Daschle SD just said he was for O on Jon Stewart nt

[stop the bleeding]

[Fenris]

1. He's been on his campaign for a while.

[stop the bleeding]

3. yeah did you see what he said after my OP? nt

[AX10]

2. Old news.

[Emit]

4. He was on Charlie Rose the other night

Here's a link:

http://www.charlierose.com/shows/2008/03/03/1/a-conversation-with-tom-daschle

[stop the bleeding]

6. cool - thanks

I put the OP up cause I think it might be useful to what light he could shed on this mess.

and he did

[woolldog]

5. Not new.

Daschle is one of those who was behind Obama running in the first place. he was involved in the early stages of Obama planning a run.

[stop the bleeding]

8. so then it is moot what Tom said after my OP

it is old news and all.

The OP was an FYI so that people may want to hear what a SD is saying about this mess.

[woolldog]

14. You didn't actually say anything!

you just said "hey he was on last night and he supports O"

I read that and was like "um, ok" lol

Maybe add something to your OP to explain what your point is next time? no offense. :hi:

[NoBorders]

7. Also said he would switch to Clinton if she won pledged delegates.

[stop the bleeding]

9. THANK YOU - someone finally gets it!

Yeah he said they all have been talking and the SD's want to put this behind them and they will for the majority will surely go with the voters ie: whoever leads, ie: math

[jackson_dem]

10. Interesting. That is the Obama line. Why not the popular vote?

After all, if your true concern is to reflect the will of the voters you would go with the popular vote (hint: Clinton erased about 300,000 of Obama's popular vote lead on Tuesday).

[anigbrowl]

11. At least you acknowledge he still holds a lead.

It'll widen after the next two contests as well.

[Spider Jerusalem]

13. Because delegates decide the nomination, that's why

And 'popular vote' discounts all the states that hold caucuses and don't report vote totals.

[HooptieWagon]

15. Because the winner is determined by delegates

Popular vote isn't an accurate way of determining the nominee, since some states caucus, some states vote in a primary, and Texas does both.

[NoBorders]

16. I agree. It's a mess.

It may well be they should go with the popular vote. I wouldn't necessarily be opposed to that, even though I support Obama.

[Gore1FL]

18. It thought we went by delegates.

How many is Obama ahead by in the popular vote, now? How are caucuses reflected in popular that vote? How many apples = one orange?

[HooptieWagon]

20. We do.

deciding by popular vote is a Clinton meme they're floating out there. It has no precedent, and discounts caucuses.

[TheDoorbellRang]

24. That's fine. Obama leads in pop.vote by about 600,000 n/t

[Cha]

12. Thanks! I have delegate question

that my son brought up tonight when I was on the phone with him in Hawaii..he says the news there is reporting that Obama won't have enough "pledged delegates" to take him over the required amount at the time of convention? If that's true how will they settle that?

I keep reading how there's no math where hilary will win but what about Obama's necessary delegates by convention time? Thanks!

[stop the bleeding]

17. Tom said that he and several other SD's have been discussing this issue

and they will vote with the will of the voters. So they will go with whoever has the lead, and Jon asked him even if that was HRC and Tom said yes even though he is a supporter of O.

I think anytime one of these SD's opens their pie hole people better sit up an listen cause these are the people that are gonna select our nominee.

[Cha]

21. Thank you, stopthebleeding!

I'm going to call him right now..he's such a good Obama supporter out there on the Islands B-)

[HooptieWagon]

19. Neither candidate can get to 2024 with pledged delegates alone

since 2024 represents 50%+1 of the total delegates, and the candidates will end up at something like 44%/36% without the superdelegates. Superdelegates will be the deciders, but all indications are the majority of superdelegates will line up behind the candidate with the most pledged delegates in order to avoid a fractured party.

[Cha]

22. Thanks to you, too, HooptieWagon!

Good info from both of you. :)

[TheDoorbellRang]

25. They'll both need super d's to take them over the top.

Obama will just need less than she will.

[Cha]

31. Thanks, TheDoorbellRang!

I'm glad I asked:)

[Gore1FL]

28. There are 796 super delegates

When that number is added to the pledged delegates, 2025 = 50% of these +1.

While it is possible for one candidate to get to the 205 mark without Super Delegates, they are, nonetheless part of the equation.

Super Delegates tend to go with the Pledged delegate leader, thogh it could get arguably dicey if the came in nearly tied. (such as Clinton winning each remainng contest by 605)


In all likelyhood, based on the current Obama lead in pledged delegates, and the contests left on the calendar, Obama will go to the convention with a lead of approximately 100-175 pledged delegates. (the range of 1657-1732 for Obama to 1557-1482 for Clinton)

In this range, Obama would need 368-293 Super Delegates out of 796. Clinton would need 468-543 Super Delegates of 796 to win)

That means in the worse case scenario for Obama, He would need to convince 46.4% to vote for him. In his best case he would need 36.8% to vote for him. Remember, he is the leading pledged delegate candidate, and they TEND to go with the pledged delegate leader.

Conversely, in the Worse case for Clinton, she would need 68.2% of the super delegates. In her best case, she would need 58.8% of them.

She would have to convince a rather large majority to overturn the pledge delegates.

To make things a bit more dicey. Obama currently has 202 Super delegates committed to him. Clinton has 242 comitted to her. (there are rumors there is a block of 50 ready to pledge to Obama, but it hasn't happened, so we won;t count them for now)

This means that in order to reach the delegates needed in best case scenario, of the 352 remaining uncommitted Super Delegates Obama would need 91 or 25.9%, or 45.1% in the worst case.

Conversely, in her best-case scenario, Clinton would need 64% of the remaining 352, and in the worst case, 85.5% of the remaining.

When you consider her best-case is to win 64% of the remaining super delegates with the argument of "It will be so cool to give me a pyrrhic victory, and destroy the party by overturning 6 months of primaries and caucuses!" she is pretty much not going to get the nomination.

[Cha]

30. Thanks, Gore1Fl!

I'm saving this one too for future referencing! DU's the best:)

[Gore1FL]

32. Glad to be of service.

If that block of 50 Super delegates is true:

http://tailrank.com/5334686/Clay-Confirms-Obama-Has-50-New-Superdelegates

The it really gets compelling.

That would give Obama 252 to Clinton's 242, leaving just 302.

Meaning in a best-worst scenario:

Obama needs

13.8% of the remaining, best case, or 38.4% of the remaining in the worst case.

Clinton needs 74.8% in the best case, or 99.3 of the remaining in the worst case.

[seabeyond]

23. ya well only cause he is male and being a knuckle draggin chauvenist sexist.....

am i close. any hillary supporters say it yet.

btw... i am being sarcastic. seems anything against hillary last 24 hours seems to be cause she is woman

[BenDavid]

26. oh yes the former senator from s.d. that could not defeat

John Thune, in which the other democrat senator Tim Johnson defeated Thune two years earlier....he is like Kerry both could not win the big one....

[jlake]

27. Old news. The establishment has been behind 0bama for some time now.

[loveangelc]

29. interesting, he said the overwhelming view of the superdelegates is that whoever wins more pledged

delegates should win the nomination.

[milkyway]

33. He's been a driving force of the Obama campaign from the beginning. Some of his top staff

went to work for Barack. NYT had an article on it within the last couple of months.