And Hillary, being a giant douche, will contest this based on MI and FL. Even though, of course, she agreed to rules that omitted them from mattering, but then put her name on the ballot anyway disengenuously, and is now seeking to cheat her way into having the rules changed. Let me say it again: Hillary, being a giant douche...
Why is Obama trying to shut down the voting prematurely? He needs the undecided supers to get elected. That's why they are there -- to elect the most marketable candidate in the General. Let me repeat that -- that's the whole reason the superdelegates exist. So for Obama to try to shut this down before the undecided superdelegates make their decision is wrong. Very wrong. He can't win on pledged delegates alone. The numbers don't add up. This move is a signal of weakness by Obama. He wants to shut down the process because his General election prospects are looking worse. Because the supers are voting for the person best fit to win the General, he wants the voting stopped before Hillary can decimate him in KY and WV and generate momentum. This move is called -- trying to end the game in the fourth quarter when you are ahead. It's chickenschitt.
1. I think Obama's jumping the gun. 2. If he keeps running against her, this will happen soon anyway. She's spending her own money now, and it's hard to keep a desperate campaign going when you are spending your own money.
hehehe, he looked terrible tues night. hehehe, john sunni/shia mccain is killing the dems through all this in the polls straight forward analysis for you dude, heard a pundit on television give reasoning for obama doing so well this past tues. when finally a real issue like this gas tax holiday popped up, he killed both opponents. the pundit's point was that he is comfortable talking real issues, imagine that from a presidential candidate.
This is a legitimate criticism of Obama through the campaign but one thing he has to do is stop letting hillary define the battle. next she's going to be crowing about Kentucky and W VA being key states, no disrespect to people of these great states.
I am going to go against my better judgment and actually answer this post. You and everyone that knows they are going to vote for McCain would like nothing better than to see Obama and Clinton fight a protracted battle all the way through August. Honestly, I can't say that I blame you. When the Texans play other teams there is nothing as distracting as a quarterback controversy. A lengthy nomination season wastes precious resources and time that could be spent on building infrastructure for the general election. The sooner they can cut this off, the cheaper and the better for working on defeating John McCain. But another reason is that for Hillary Clinton it is reality check time. The chances of her winning the nomination within established Democratic party rules are essentially gone. Don't believe me? Think he is calling the game too early? Let's look at possible scenarios needed for her to win: 1. If Clinton were to receive 60% of the remaining delegates from primary contests, she would need 72% of the remaining SuperDelegates. 2. If she were to TIE (50/50 Split) the remainder of the delegates received from the remaining primaries, she would need 80% of the SuperDelegates. 3. If Obama wins 55% of the remaining delegates from primary contests, she would need 85% of the undecided SuperDelegates. 4. If the POLLS hold up to what they are saying now (which is unlikely) here is what the votes may look like. To show how far fetched this is, I will even skew some of these in Clinton's direction by overestimating her vote higher than the polls have given her so far. West Virginia - Clinton wins 58% - 42% Kentucky - Clinton wins 62% - 38% Oregon - Obama wins 52% - 48% (skewed in her favor believe it or not) Montana - Clinton wins 62% - 38% South Dakota - Obama wins 56% - 44% Puerto Rico - Clinton wins 57% - 43% Then she would need 76% of the remaining Super Delegates to CATCH Obama. Clinton would need 81% of the SuperDelegates to get the nomination. If the above poll numbers stay true, Obama would only need 31% of the remaining SuperDelegates to get to the required number for the nomination. Finally, since you are a markets guy, I thought you would enjoy this: Courtesy electoral-vote.com: Here is what the www.intrade.com charts for Obama and Clinton look like as of this morning. If you think Barack Obama is going to be the nominee, you can put down $90 and win $100 if he is nominated. If you think Hillary Clinton is going to win it, for $9 you can get $100 back. It's pretty clear what the market thinks.
In addition, here is a history of the Super Delegate. Lessons of the 1980 Democratic convention and nomination race were not lost on the member of the Hunt Commission (named for its Chair Governor Jim Hunt of North Carolina) as they met to write delegate selection rules for the 1984 nomination season. The 1980 race had concluded in an especially bitter and contentious convention fight between President Jimmy Carter and Senator Edward Kennedy. The convention fight had centered upon Rule 11 (H) that bound delegates to support the candidate in whose name they were elected. Senator Kennedy’s campaign, in an effort to convince Carter delegates that they should abandon Carter and support him, waged a series of platform and rules challenges culminating in the fight over Rule 11 (H). In short order the Commission agreed to get rid of the controversial Rule 11(H) and replace it with a less intrusive rule, but one that, nevertheless, urged delegates to vote for the presidential candidate they had been elected to support. The new 11 (H) read: “Delegates elected to the national convention pledged to a presidential candidate shall in all good conscience reflect the sentiments of those who elected them.” (This rule exists today, in 2008, as Rule 12 (J) of the delegate selection rules and has not changed since.) Yet the exorcism of Rule 11 (H) was not sufficient to solve the deep doubts about the nominating system that had arisen as the result of the bitter rules and platform fights at the 1980 Convention. Congressmen, stung by the lack of impact they had been able to have on the 1980 process, and fearing that 1984 would be a repeat, banded together to ask that 2/3 of the Democratic Members of the House be elected by the House Caucus as uncommitted voting delegates to the 1984 Convention. Led by Congressman Gillis Long, Chairman of the House Democratic Caucus, Members asserted that they had a special role to play in the nomination process and in the platform process. In his testimony before the Hunt Commission, Long put the views of the Democratic Caucus as follows: “We in the House, as the last vestige of Democratic Control at the national level, believe we have a special responsibility to develop new innovative approaches that respond to our Party’s constituencies." (Testimony before the Hunt Commission, November 6, 1981) Governor Hunt, Chair of the Commission, also made the inclusion of more elected officials a top priority. In a statement that reflects the sense of helplessness with which many elected officials had watched the events of the 1980 nomination season, Hunt said, “We must also give our convention more flexibility to respond to changing circumstances and, in cases where the voters’ mandate is less than clear, to make a reasoned choice. One step in this direction would be to loosen the much-disputed “binding” Rule 11 (H) as it applies to all delegates. An equally important step would be to permit a substantial number of party leader and elected official delegates to be selected without requiring a prior declaration of preference. We would then return a measure of decision-making power and discretion to the organized party and increase the incentive it has to offer elected officials for serious involvement.” (Remarks of Governor Jim Hunt, Institute of Politics, JFK School of Government, December 15, 1981) Hunt was joined by the AFL-CIO and the Democratic State Chairs’ Association in calling for a plan whereby 30% of the 1984 convention would be composed of uncommitted delegates drawn from the ranks of party leaders and elected officials. Ironically, this number is close to the number of delegates (38%) who had gone into conventions “unaffiliated” in the pre-reform years. Only a large number of unbound delegates — who had not been required, by virtue of filing deadlines and fair reflection rules, to declare a presidential preference early — could return a modicum of flexibility or deliberativeness to the post-reform conventions. Opposition to this proposal came from supporters of Senator Edward Kennedy (who, at the time was expected to make another run for the presidency) and from organized feminists. Kennedy supporters on the Commission feared that a large number of Senators and Congressmen at the convention could stop him. On the other hand, former Vice President Walter Mondale, felt certain that a large number of these delegates would favor him and his operatives, therefore, embraced the 30% number. Organized feminists, on and off the Commission, however, make a new argument. Speaking on their behalf, Technical Advisory Committee Member Susan Estrich of Massachusetts argued that creating a new category of delegates who were not subject to the fair reflection and candidate right of approval rules would create a new status of delegate which she referred to as “super-delegates.” These delegates, argued Estrich, would be overwhelmingly white and male. Even were they balanced by an equal number of women in the total delegation — there would still be the problem of “equal power.” The “super-delegates” because of their greater flexibility in the choice of a nominee, would have greater power than the female delegates committed to presidential candidates. (“Unintended Consequences,” by Susan Estrich, Memorandum to the Hunt Commission, September 9, 1981.) The issue was finally resolved through a compromise created by Congresswoman Geraldine Ferraro. The Ferraro Proposal reduced the total number of un-pledged delegates to 566 or 14% of the Convention, but it left selection of the Congressional delegates in the hands of the House and Senate Democratic Caucuses. (See, Bringing Back the Parties, by David Price, Congressional Quarterly Press, 1984) The 14% number was far short of the original proposal that 30% of the convention be unpledged. However, if the number had been much larger, it would have been practically impossible to meet the equal division between men and women requirements in the rules. Super-delegates today, in 2008, are no longer elected by congressional caucus. There have been some additions over the years and thus the total number of super delegates as a proportion of the convention has increased by about 5%. Elaine Kamarck is a lecturer at the Kennedy School of Government, and will serve as a super-delegate at the 2008 Democratic National Convention. http://belfercenter.ksg.harvard.edu...f_superdelegates_in_the_democratic_party.html
T_J and texx used the Intrade markets when Hillary was ahead there. When Obama went ahead, they no longer believed in them. Like always (and their mentor Bush), they simply change the logic to fit the conclusion they want.
The thread title and article title are enormously misleading. Plus, though you have the link, you don't have the story posted, so few probably actually bothered to read it. The first line of the story, which you quoted, is not anything anyone, except presumably the journalist, said. Obama's campaign manager said, based on the article: Which is not Obama Declares Victory. Obama himself, based on the article, said: Not only is he not declaring victory, he's pointing out that he still has a lot of work to do.
(Now that I have dealt with the facts I can go ahead and say this) The article and the thread are based on reporting by Faux News so misleading is to be expected.
That makes a lot more sense. I didn't get why Obama would alienate Hillary and her supporters yet again. Let her unravel on her own time. Be conciliatory and respect for her. Praise her for being a tough competitor. But don't outright declare victory. The more I see in their interviews, the deeper the bags I see in their eyes. You don't want to have a game seven in the conference finals when the other team has already swept theirs.
This is essentially what he said on CNN today. "Sen. Clinton has shown herself to be an extraordinary candidate. She's tireless, she's smart, she's capable, and so obviously she'd be on anybody's short list to be a potential vice presidential candidate," he said. "But it would be presumptuous of me at this point ... to somehow suggest that she should be my running mate." Keep in mind that she had the audacity over a month ago to suggest Obama should be her VeeP.
1. Register Republican 2. Turn off reading comprehension 3. Turn on Faux News 4. Nod head 5. Act as meat-puppet sheeple for O'Reilly, Coulter, Malkin, Limbaugh, et al. 6. ??? 7. Profit
Obama plans to declare victory May 20 Not long after the polls close in the May 20 Kentucky and Oregon primaries, Barack Obama plans to declare victory in his bid for the Democratic presidential nomination. And, until at least May 31 and perhaps longer, Hillary Clinton's campaign plans to dispute it. It's a train wreck waiting to happen, with one candidate claiming to be the nominee while the other vigorously denies it, all predicated on an argument over what exactly constitutes the finish line of the primary race. The Obama campaign agrees with the Democratic National Committee, which pegs a winning majority at 2,025 pledged delegates and superdelegates--a figure that excludes the penalized Florida and Michigan delegations. The Clinton campaign, on the other hand, insists the winner will need 2,209 to cinch the nomination--a tally that includes Florida and Michigan. "We don't accept 2,025. It is not the real number because that does not include Florida and Michigan," said Howard Wolfson, one of Clinton's two chief strategists. "It's a phony number." Wolfson said they intend to contest the DNC's 2,025 number "every day," as well as any declaration of victory made by Obama based upon that number, because it does not include Florida and Michigan. In January, Clinton won both states by wide margins when Obama did not actively contest them. The two states were stripped of their delegates for holding early primaries not sanctioned by the Democratic National Committee. Obama will not reach the 2,025 magic number on May 20. Rather, on that date he is all but certain to hit a different threshold--1,627 pledged delegates, which would constitute a winning majority among the 3,253 total pledged delegates if Florida and Michigan are not included. "On May 20 we're going to declare victory," said an Obama senior advisor who asked that his name be withheld to speak candidly, adding that after those contests they will be "the ones with the most pledged delegates and the most popular votes." While the nature of that declaration of victory is "still developing," in the advisor's words, the Obama campaign contends that the winner of a majority of pledged delegates should be the party nominee. "Senator Obama, our campaign and our supporters believe pledged delegates is the most legitimate metric for determining how this race has unfolded," wrote Obama campaign manager David Plouffe Wednesday in a memo to superdelegates. "It is simply the ratification of the DNC rules - your rules - which we built this campaign and our strategy around." But the Clinton campaign's insistence on counting Florida and Michigan would alter not only the overall delegate math, but the pledged delegate math as well. Because if the two states are included in the count, the total number of pledged delegates would rise from 3,253 to 3,566--which means the magic number for a majority rises to 1,784, not 1,627 as the Obama campaign asserts. By hewing to that interpretation, the Clinton campaign would thus be able to raise doubts about a May 20 declaration of victory by Obama. Since the earliest possible resolution of the Florida/Michigan dispute is May 31, when the DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee will meet in Washington to address petitions from Michigan and Florida DNC members, the 11-day period between the May 20 primaries and the RBC meeting could produce a chaotic stretch where Obama claims to be the party nominee while Clinton argues otherwise. Already, the two campaigns are gearing up for the battle. "With the Clinton path to the nomination getting even narrower, we expect new and wildly creative scenarios to emerge in the coming days," wrote Plouffe in his memo. "While those scenarios may be entertaining, they are not legitimate and will not be considered legitimate by this campaign or its millions of supporters, volunteers, and donors." "You can declare mission accomplished but that doesn't mean that the mission has actually been accomplished," Wolfson said. ======-===========-======= Besides my heavy disappointment that an Obama aide is stupid and petty enough to leak this (Hillary can win political points by just bringing up the May 31st Michigan and Florida decision over and over again), I find it interesting the conflicting message between Howard Wolfson in this interview ("We don't accept 2,025") and Terry McAuliffe in the Faux interview (“Until you get to twenty-twenty-five or twenty-two-oh-nine, none of this matters,”). I also like the gall among Hillary's camp in their attempts to explain Michigan in the Fox interview: "McAuliffe said he had not had time to review Michigan’s plan to divide the delegates, but he can’t imagine they’d be excluded from the convention. “I think we ought to get all the delegates. [Obama] took his name off the ballot, deliberately, politically; it’s a political decision which he made, which is fine, but they are going to give him all the uncommitted, I guess, John Edwards’ and everyone else’s,” he said.
