Political Insider

I think that is the exactly point many are making - it WILL require HRC to do some sort of back room deal to win.

Such a move would very likely split the party right down the middle thereby making the election a cake-walk for John McCain.

I don't really think the nation would be best served by and Obama/HRC ticket - in what ever order.

there is a huge ground swell of young people who won't go for an old time deal - I'm an old timer and I don't think I will either. It's time for some judgment by the person who claims to have all the experience in such matters and do what is best for the nation - withdraw and realize that it wasn't meant to be.

If she continues, the public will see the same type of megalomania in Washington as is there now. We don't need any more of it.

I'm not sure I agree with the assertion that HRC leaving now is good for the party, well, not any more good than it would have been for BO to have left when he was down for a long stretch; maybe even better for him to have left. I'll point out why later. However, It seems more like a kick when she's down from a BO supporter than anything else.

The point that HRC will be required to do some sort of back room deal to get the nod is no more important than the fact that BO will have to do the same to get the nod.

You've got to be a megalomaniac to run for president. If you think anyone in this day and age is above that, you have consumed too much of the Kool Aid.

Bottom line: The dirty little secret no one wants to admit, especially not the talking heads, is that at this point, the party is already going to be badly hurt by this, no matter what. It's a flawed system that obviously doesn't work. It's like the butterfly ballot in Florida. We only find out after it's too late that there are serious problems with it. We are spending all of our time examining hanging chads when we should take a step back and realize the underlying problem; In this case, the democratic primary system doesn't work. Had one of these two fine candidates stepped out of the ring after super Tuesday, we might have avoided this, when HRC was ahead btw, but now, it's just too late...

The term "back room deal" implies that a few elite people are thwarting the will of the majority by deciding who wins. If Barack Obama is ahead in the popular vote of primary goers and in the delegate count, the will of the voters is that he become the nominee. For someone to try to get the superdelegates to endorse someone who is behind both in pledged delegates and the popular vote would be a "back room deal."

It is false to state that both candidates are both in the same boat because neither has enough delegates to end the nomination. For HIllary Clinton to argue that the superdelegates should back her AND that they are reflecting the will of the voters, she needs to either pull ahead in pledged delegates or in the popular vote.

Imagine if Kerry had won the popular vote in 2004 but some of his electors, defying the popular vote will of their states, voted in the electoral college that Bush should be president based on their "better judgment."

Saying politics is just about math is facing reality: a candidate who wins the most votes and the most delegates (or electors) becomes the winner. Just because the narrative or momentum might change between the election and the gathering of electors does not mean that math doesn't matter. Just as electors should not be able to thwart the will of the voters (even though technically they could), superdelegates should not go against the primary season popular vote and the will of the pledged delegates.

If Obama were ahead in pledged delegates and Clinton were ahead in the total popular vote of the primary season, things would be different. Democrats should ask themselves, how would we feel if the California electors in the fall went against the popular will and voted for McCain? An honest answer to that question is necessary to cut through the candidate-loyalty spin and get down to who really deserves the superdelegate vote.

Back room deal implies dealing with the superdelegates to get their vote. Both candidates will have to engage in that to win, bottom line. Those are the rules. If you don't like them, take your marbles elsewhere.

You can twistlogic to assert that because BO has or will win both committed delegates and popular vote that that somehow means she's being the party pooper, but it's just not true. Like I said, the system is broken. The fact that superdelegates are playing a role in this beyond being figure heads is evidence of that.

Using the national vote analogy is illogical as the rules are different; Either way, how I would personally feel doesn't matter. The rules are the rules.

BTW, the point that mr Goddard was making, insofar as it relates to these posts, was that both candidates are going to have to engage in "arm wrestling" and "Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama will win the Democratic primary because they made the math work for them", or as I like to call it, "back room dealing".

Who you thnk deserves the superdelegate vote is also irrelevant. They will go to who can sway them...just the way it works. Besides, who "deserves" them depends on your definition of that term, and I'm sure it wuold differ depending on who you sided with.

Again, the bottom line is that the rules the Democratic party created for their primaries are ridiculous. Suggesting either candidate is somehow above that because they are slightly, or even way ahead, but still short of the nomination, is short sighted and illustrative of ones preference. It discriminates one candidate for following the rules because the system is failing both candidates.

While people may differ on who "deserves" the superdelegates, if they vote contrary to popular vote and the pledge delegates, they are not reflecting the will of the voters.

It is in fact analogous to presidential electors voting against who they are pledged to vote for. Someone might argue that because they think Hillary Clinton may be more electable or a better candidate or more prepared to be president, the superdelegates should vote for her. Fair enough.

But if the superdelegates do so contrary to the popular vote and pledged delegates, you cannot argue that the superdelegates are reflecting the popular will. Instead you are saying that other considerations are more important. I firmly believe the person who deserves the superdelegate votes is the person with a popular vote lead, but people are free to disagree. However, I also believe that electors should vote the popular vote in their state in the general election, and people disagree with that statement as well.

The person who "deserves" the superdelegates is the person who is the choice of the majority of primary voters. Any other criteria may have a basis, but it ignores the will of the people.

superdelegates are uncommited => not analagous. The electoral college is committed by law, except in one or two cases I think.

You are right that they are not reflecting the will of the voters, but which voters should count? That's another reason why the system is broken. It's not HRC's fault that the system is broken, or that the rules allow her to take the nomination if and when she's behind at the convention, but those be the rules.

Your entire point rests on that false assumption that the superdelegates should do the will of the popular vote. Maybe ideally, but that ain't reality. The reality is that primaries are chock full of independants and republicans. Should their voice count in the democratic primaries? Should their voices count in swaying a superdelegate? personally I don't think so, but again, it doesn't matter.

The rules are the rules and both candidates are following them. The party will now suffer greatly because of these ridiculous rules, not because of either candidate.

I'm comfortable with either candidate, but the fact that the current delegate apportionment system is flawed and nonsensical is beside the point. Super delegates are not committed to any candidate. Those are the rules.

Calling it "back room dealing" doesn't change that. They are not required to vote in accordance with the delegate count, the popular vote, their horoscope or anything else.

You can just as easily make the case that Hillary has won more primaries, which are more truly representative of the will of a higher percentage of the voters in the state, so she should get the lion's share of the super delegates.

More of Obama's delegates have come as the result of caucuses, and thus represent a far smaller and more easily manipulated number of voters.

the flawed system was my direct point and
itt relates directly to mr. Goddard's point of arm wrestling, therefore, very sensical and not at all besides the point.
Yes, you can call it whatever you like. I like the term, "back room dealing", but thanks for reiterating another of my points.

The reason the convention even has voting superdelegates is for the very reason of thwarting the popular vote. As technically unfair as it is, its a completely justified move. We can wax lyrical about 'the will of the people', but its all a much-of-a-muchness given everyone's acknowledgment here of the various ways this 'will' might be interpreted from the results.

Winning without the popular vote is as American as electoral colleges and gerrymandering. We all know that the Obama wins in Idaho, South Carolina and Nebraska, and a slew of other states, are essentially worthless in the context of the general election. Ohio will probably decide who wins the presidency come November, so when Hilary beats Obama with a reasonable margin and that particular demographic combination, then the PLEOs are going to taken notice. The super delegates like democracy but they like winning more. Come convention, when everything is laid out on the table, the party elders are going to back the best option for winning the Presidency (and congress seats) come November.

Pledged delegates are all well and good, but they there is no guarantee that the situations that delivered them are going to be repeated in November. It may not be the fairest system, but in a cutthroat presidential race its hardly surprising.

Senator Obama has lost all big states so far. How can he win in the general election?
I don't think he will win PA next month and what do you think about a candidate who has lost all big states?
Will you, as a superdelegate vote forhim?
If so, you have voted for GOP.

You are so right, that is why Virginia is not a big state. That is why Wisconsin is not a big state. That is why Washington is not a big state. That big state argument is nonsense. Do you really think Hillary is going to win TX because she won it in the primary?

Actually, Gabe, Virginia, Wisconsin and Washington are NOT big states, and I'm from Washington. They are mid-size states. You've just validated Myleca's point.

Oh I see...so then I guess we are going to win Texas then since Hillary won it in the primary. And I guess there is no way Obama is going to win NY or CA since he did not win them in the primary, and McCain did?

Regardless of what you want to label a big state. I would agree with you to a point that you could call them "mid size states," however for electoral vote purposes I would think they are pretty big.

My question would how can Hillary possibly win if she can't even wrap up these mid sized states in the primary?

There is now practically no way to avoid having superdelegates decide this thing at the convention.

Assuming Clinton carries PA and PR by 60% AND there is a revote in Florida and Michigan and she carries those states by 60%. That would gain her about 120 delegates over Obama. But Obama will carry the other states - NC, Miss, etc. (and likely split KY, IN), so he's likely to make up AT LEAST 20 or 30 delegates in that margin. That means that the BEST Hillary can hope to do is to close her margin with Obama to under 40 pledged delegates and that includes getting re-votes in Michigan and Florida (there's no way she'll get the delegates seated without a revote).

So Hillary's strategy is to carry this fight to the nomination, scraping for every delegate she can in order to end up getting to a barely significant deficit in pledged delegates, but convince the Superdelegates she has the "momentum" and should be at the top of the ticket. Not a bad strategy as it has a 50/50 shot. If there's only a difference of 40 pledged delegates but Clinton wins PA, PR, Florida, Michigan (maybe closely Indiana, Oregon) going into June then the argument to be at the top of a Clinton/Obama ticket will be hard for Superdelegates to refute.

Obama then has to prevent a re-vote in FLA and Michigan (or if there is one, he has to campaign like the dickens to come up with a victory in MI and keep Fla to a texas sized margin for Hillary) and tamp down Hillary's win in PA and PR, maybe win Indiana, KY by slim margins (but claim he's making inroads into the blue-collar vote) then he goes into the convention about 140 pledged delegates ahead, his current margin, and keeps a lid on the Clinton resurgence story. If he maintains the margin of 140 pledged delegates all the way to the convention, then the media spin will be, he's "holding her back from overtaking him" and it would be hard for Superdelegates to buck the electorate and say in any way that Hillary "earned" more right than him to be nominated and not put him at the top of the ticket as they know that would lead to a voter revolt. And as others have said if the Superdelegates break for Obama there's no logic putting Hillary on the ticket so, it's a more courageous thing for them to do so it would be a real squeaker, many Supers would still side with Hillary out of loyalty, so it could come down to probably a delegate or two for Obama and pretty much the end of the Clinton dynasty.

But anything is possible and there will be hard lobbying to get Superdelegates to commit to both candidates. But most Superdelegates want to win in November more than they want any specific candidate so most are going to wait till we get to the convention to see where the electoral "momentum" is headed and how the media spin is playing out.

If it ends up Obama vanquishing Hillary, he'll come out looking like a tough fighter able to go against the strongest of political machines and win in the end. He'll have a great chance against McCain.

But if it breaks the other way and Hillary cements her momentum then she'll have turned off independent voters doing it, and she'll have to eek out support going into the general and won't have a lot of time so it's hard to see how Hillary/Obama wins in November. She'll have to make up quickly with BHO and send him out quickly to shore up the idealism vote. It's possible everyone will kiss and make up in that scenario but I'm doubtful. Why do you think those sneaking Repubs are voting for Hillary? Could be - irony of ironies - the biggest mind-*** the Repubs do on the Democrats this season is get Hillary nominated. Wouldn't that be a crocker?

Remember he won't be able to win with "pledged delegates" either. Both he and HRC will have to cut a back room deal to win. Also if you look at the map, she has won elections in major states, which is not the same as winning a caucus in a small state. She crushed him CA. He barely hung on in MO the only battleground state he won.

Obama had a bad week! I think spme more times are ahead for Obama! Poor judgement in selecting advisors, Slum Lord Pal Rezko in trial , the Farrakahn
Connection, lies about Canada and NAFTAS, etc.

It has been quite a week!
It's been one to remember. Here's a run-down:

* Samantha Power. The Bad: It does a campaign based on a new style of inclusive politics no good to have one of its advisers call the opponent a "monster." The Good: What is Power's gaffe compared to Howard Wolfson's comparison of Obama to Ken Starr?

* Susan Rice. The Bad: You can imagine the reaction in Obama HQ while watching one of its foreign-policy advisers admit that neither candidate was "ready to have that 3 am phone call."

* March 4. Losing is bad enough. But almost all talk of Obamamentum ended when the candidate couldn't pick off Clinton's core voting blocs, as he had done in Wisconsin, which is looking more and more like the exception to the rule. The Good: Wyoming and Mississippi. Knowing it will likely pick up two consecutive states is the campaign's silver lining to March 4.

* Rezko trial. The campaign saw this one coming, but the response from the candidate only made matters worse. Peppered by the media at a Monday press conference Obama walked out after taking just eight questions. Bad move. From the Sun-Times' Lynn Sweet to the Post's Dana Milbank, the wrath of the reporters was unleashed. (Side note: The Sun-Times' Steve Huntley has a good column on this today here.) The Good: There is no evidence (yet) that Obama is hiding anything about his relationship to Rezko that he hasn't already fessed-up to (i.e., the sweetheart housing deal). And with the trial almost guaranteeing that something is bound to come out, one would think the Obama campaign would want to control the story by admitting it first. Hasn't happened, which might mean there's no there there.

* NAFTA-gate. The Bad: The original CTV clip sped around the Web as fast as those celebrity paeans to Obama. But again it was the ham-handed response from the campaign -- first denials, then grudging acceptance -- which constituted the first real blunder by the Obama campaign. The Good: With Ohio behind him and reports that Clinton's people were also sending signals to the Canadians, NAFTA-gate might not have the legs to continue.

* It began a week ago today with the Clinton campaign's release of the "3 am" ad. It's always tough to gauge the effectiveness of any particular ad, and late deciders in the this campaign have consistently moved toward Clinton. But on the margins in Texas at least, where the fight was neck-and-neck, the ad might have made the difference. The Good: Clinton tax returns. The Obama campaign immediately made an issue of them the day after Texas and Ohio. Some suggest this is ruining the campaign's "purity." Please. Whatever purity existed was lost the minute the votes started getting counted and anyone who thinks that Obama can win this riding the white stallion is drinking some serious Kool-Aid.

It's not a wash. Despite holding on to his delegate lead, Obama has had his worst week to date. It'll be a measure of the candidate's strength and resolve how he deals with the setbacks.