Obama has not won

I’ve had it with media trying to kick Hillary Clinton out of this race. It is not over. And Barack Obama has not won, not by a long shot.

Obama, just like Clinton, will depend on the super delegates to get the nomination. Obama, just like Clinton, stands virtually no chance of getting to the convention the winner from elected delegates.

Obama and his camp are speaking out of both sides of their mouth about the party’s nominating system. On the one hand, we have Nancy Pelosi and others arguing that Obama should get the lion’s share of the super delegates because he’s ahead in the popular vote — though he has just over 50 percent of it. (And here are big Clinton and Democratic donors protesting Pelosi’s early call of the election before it is over.) But the voting isn’t over yet. And that’s not how the system was designed. If we land at the convention with no clear winner, then the point of the super delegates — the legacy of the smoke-filled back room, the party’s safety valve to prevent another George McGovern — is to do what’s best for the party and to try to get a winner in November. That is the system. Not fair, you whine?

Well, there is nothing fair about disenfranchising the voters of Florida and Michigan. There is nothing fair about Obama himself arguing that, hey, that’s the system and so they shouldn’t come to the convention. There’s nothing smart about this, either, because this will surely alienate voters in two key swing states. But we have Howard (the loser) Dean to thank for that as well as Obama himself.

Go to the CNN delegate calculator and run some scenarios. If Clinton took 60 percent of the remaining vote, she’d come to the convention with 1827 delegates, Obama with 1846. With 60 percent of the super delegates, she’d get 2032, enough to win. Not possible? No, it’s not. So let’s say that Obama gets 60 percent of the votes left — also not possible; he’d get to the convention with 1961 delegates, still not a winner. Let’s be more reasonable. Let’s say Obama gets 55 percent of the remaining vote and 50 percent of the super delegates, which is about his fair share given his current votes; he still lands with 2105 delegates, not enough.

picture-8.png

So why do I hear that it’s unfair for Clinton to rely on super delegates when Obama relies on them as well? Because there’s nothing fair in love and war, especially media love.

Why does Politico declare Clinton toast? Michael Scherer at Time.com says it’s nothing less than link-whoring. Or influence peddling. Or maybe they just hate Clinton. But they’d never admit that.

Why should anyone be calling for Clinton to drop out of the race? Obama hasn’t won. Indeed, the latest Rasmussen poll says equal numbers of voters — 22 percent in each case — say that Clinton and Obama should drop out. And, of course, we have today’s Gallup Poll saying that 28 percent of Clinton voters will switch to McCain if she does not win vs. 19 percent of Obama voters. You could say that’s not fair or it’s sour grapes — or it’s democracy.

It’s an election. Let the voters vote, all of them. It ain’t over till it’s over.

: LATER: I just got scolded in the comments for not disclosing my Clinton affiliation, though I ve done it a score of times and it should be neon-obvious in this post. But fine: I voted for Clinton and hope to have the chance to do so again. There.

  • http://www.tyndallreport.com Andrew Tyndall

    Point of clarification, anyone —

    Does the nominee have to get 2024 delegates to win or 50% + 1 of the credentialed delegates? These amount to the same thing if Michigan and Florida are seated. If they are not given credentials, the 50% + 1 number falls to 1846, by my calculation.

    Is Donna Brazile out there among BuzzMachine readers?

    Curious on the Lower East Side

  • Adam

    2000 election, version 2, here we come!

    This is all so tiring. Florida and Michigan were not issues until it was obvious the race was close. Don’t blame Obama for this mess. Blame the Democratic party as well as the part officials in Florida and Michigan. They were warned, and they still went ahead and broke the rules. They should be held accountable for disfranchising their voters. Now, if those voters actually turned off American Idol, and stopped taking campaign speeches as the gospel, and held their state and party officials liable for this huge mess, we might actually get somewhere!

    I can’t bring myself to vote for any of the three. Which one is the least bad? How can I tell?

  • PXLated

    As an independent, I find the fact that the democrats can’t get their act together and pick a viable candidate for the third election in a row highly amusing. They couldn’t defeat Bush, probably one of the weakest candidates in history, twice and now they look like they will beat each candidate to death so neither can win. McCain has to be doing a jig before bed each night.

    PS: I notice you don’t (transparently) disclose your Clinton love anymore.

  • http://www.buzzmachine.com Jeff Jarvis

    Andrew,
    It’s so confusing it would be quite plausible that I’m wrong about something in the numbers.
    But the CNN calculator I used said 2024 delegates needed. It’s all the more confusing because I can’t tell how they calculated Florida and Michigan.

    PX,
    Done.

    Adam,
    Obama and his crew have refused to allow a revote in those states; he has responsibility. Clinton could have gone for seating the delegates as is; instead, she went for a revote. He went for disenfranchising two key states. Real smart.

  • Jennifer Grey

    In writing that “there is nothing fair about disenfranchising the voters of Florida and Michigan” let’s make it crystal clear to the Democrats in FL and MI: The party rules were _very_ clear on one point. If you moved your primary ahead of the traditional leading primaries, your votes *would not count*.

    The state Democrats in FL and MI deliberately broke the rule and moved their primaries ahead of the others. They deliberately disenfranchised themselves.

    When you break a rule that has clear consequences, only a child would expect that those consequences won’t be felt.

    In fact, my four year-old knows better. Just a few weeks ago, I warned him that failing to eat his vegetables would mean no dessert. He broke the rule, and did not get dessert. Now, he eats his vegetables every day, gets his dessert, and thanks me–never once complaining that he didn’t get dessert one day.

    It’s a shame that grown-up Democratic party leaders in FL and MI did not learn this life lesson.

  • aucontraire

    Guess maybe what I’d like to know after all these rants against Obama and declarations of support for Hillary Clinton is what you see in her that’s so bloody presidential, Jeff. Give me a few examples.

    Surely dodging sniper fire in Bosnia? Right?

  • http://www.knightopia.com/journal Steve K.

    Why are people calling for Clinton to drop out? Because they want to WIN the general election in November, Jeff. Your candidate is fatally flawed. She is damaged. She’s a liar. Her politics are old school, dirty, bad news, no good for America. Some Democrats actually care about winning, Jeff.

    I say let ‘em duke it out until the Democratic convention. That’s probably what is going to happen. I don’t imagine Hillary throwing in the towel before then. I think the superdelegates can pick the right candidate — the candidate who has the momentum and broad-based appeal to win in November. But the longer this indecision lasts, the more it benefits the Republicans, and yes, McCain is laughing himself to sleep every night.

    You can crunch the numbers all you want, but you’re missing the seismic shift that is happening outside your window. Millions of new people are supporting a fresh new Democratic candidate, the first Gen X president, the first real Internet president, etc., etc.

    I’m just shocked that you are so anti-Obama. I have yet to read anything positive from you about how the Obama campaign has absolutely used new media will excellence and skill, building a strong coalition of supporters (like me), raising record-breaking amounts of money online (mostly from small donors, like me), and done it with style (e.g., from his logo and brand to catchy slogans and clear messages).

    Come on, Jeff, is it so hard to acknowledge that Obama has done some good things from your Internet/media perspective? I mean, he’s kicked Hillary’s ass on the media/communication side, as far as I’m concerned. I’d like to hear if/why you think I’m wrong about that ;-)

  • http://thecorner.typepad.com/bc/ bob c

    Jeff, the increasing pettiness in your voice on these posts is a striking contrast to your typical writing style.

    What is up with that ?

  • david ryfe

    It seems to me that the politico.com article stated pretty clearly why Hillary has no chance of winning–if she does not win the popular vote or is ahead in the delegate count, then on what basis will the superdelegates cast their votes? If they vote on the premise that Clinton is more “electable,” then what have they just told their most loyal base of supporters (i.e., African Americans)–after Obama won the popular vote (by however slim a margin) and the delegate count (by however small a number)? Will these most political of creatures risk offending this group so blatantly? It doesn’t sound reasonable…especially when considering the tactics Hillary will have to (and is) employing just to get close to Obama. The argument that “the process is the process” and “superdelegates can vote anyway they wish” ignores the political reality. Of course they can do this–but will they when they have no political justification for doing so other than the crass (and ultimately unprovable) assertion that Clinton is more “electable?”

  • kat

    And Obama isn’t a liar? The media just hide the fact, that’s all.

  • MarkJ

    Dear Steve K.,

    Perhaps if you look at something else besides Obamathons on YouTube you’ll discover that your “fresh new Democratic candidate” is increasingly seen by many in your own party as the “Same Old S*** from Chicago.”

    Does the name Reverend “G-d damn America” Wright ring a bell?

    How about Obama’s bold, assertive, courageous habit of voting “Present”…or not at all? If JFK had written a book about Obama, he would have titled it “Profiles in Covering Your Ass.”

    http://www.votesmart.org/voting_category.php?can_id=9490

    How about Tony Rezko? Nothing yet?

    How about Obama throwing his “typical white granny” under the bus just the other day…and then backing over her to ensure he made his point perfectly clear?

    Ditch the talking points, sweet pea, and start researching your own candidate’s history. You might be surprised by what you find…or not find.

  • kat

    Thomas Sowell has a good piece about Obama. I just had to laugh how busy CNN got to try put the Wright piece to rest– every damned show had an hour of Obama campaigning and preaching his points and covering his ass–Larry King, Blitzer, Cooper, and then blurbs on every other show. It’s so obvious it makes you puke. He’s the media’s chosen one.
    http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/03/post_25.html

  • http://niload.com/ erik

    Personally, I’d take Reverend Wright over Richard Scaife any day:
    http://www.slate.com/id/2187473/

    (for the record I work for the same organization that owns Slate, but not in an editorial capacity.)

  • http://thegreenagenda.blogspot.com Schultz

    Jeff – you sound almost as whiny and catty as the candidate herself. Assuming the two split the remaining Super delegates, Clinton wins PA by a healthy margin, Obama wins big in NC and OR, and then the rest of the pledged delegates are roughly split between the two candidates – guess what?! Obama is still up by about 150 total delegates and he clinches the nomination. Clinton cannot win!!!!

  • http://canthook.com Harl Delos

    The CNN calculator is all screwed up. It credits Senator Clinton with delegates from Florida and Michigan, when neither has had a valid primary. People who didn’t bother to show up, because they KNEW the elections weren’t valid, were never counted.

    Judging by the latest state-by-state polls I can find, I expect Pennsylvania to go 92-66 Clinton, Guam to go 3-1 Obama, North Carolina to go 65-50 Obama, Indiana to be split 36-36, West Virginia to go 17-11 Clinton, Oregon to go 32-20 Obama, Kentucky to go 26-25 Clinton, Puerto Rico to go 37-18 Obama, Montana to go 8-7 Obama, and South Dakota to split 8-8 Clinton. If the superdelegates split 174-168 Clinton, that gives Obama 1873 delegates and Clinton 1696.

    The Clintons appear to be campaigning for John McCain. Why? Because even their own staffers say it’s 10 to 1 odds against Senator Clinton winning the nomination. Perhaps they figure if McCain wins this fall, they won’t have an incumbent to run against in 2012. Or perhaps they figure that Senator McCain will offer Senator Clinton the opportunity to be his running mate. She’s been awfully hawkish all along.

    But things don’t stay static. Although Senator Obama’s negatives have grown with the Rev. Dr. Wright publicity, Senator Clinton’s have risen even faster. And with the stories coming out about Senator Clinton’s elitist church, I suspect they will rise even higher and faster.

    Other democrats don’t like the Clintons, because they don’t have ‘coattails”. When Bill ran in 1992 and 1996, the party fared VERY poorly in House and Senate races. The superdelegates are slowly but steadily defecting from Senator Clinton to Senator Obama, and I suspect that it will soon be a mad rush, as it looks more and more like the democratic party is disintegrating.

    I don’t have a horse in this race; I am registered as a Republican in Pennsylvania, and I suspect I’ll vote for Ron Paul next month, not because he’s a racist, but because he’s a libertarian.

    Who knows? With the democratic party falling apart, and the republican party already divided, it wouldn’t be impossible for dissatisfied republicans to vote for the FAIR tax, dissatisfied democrats to vote against war, and independents to join with them to put Mike Gravel in the White House.

  • http://www.youtube.com/user/EricJaffa Eric Jaffa

    The superdelegate system was created after Jimmy Carter lost in 1980 (not after George McGovern lost.)

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superdelegates

  • http://www.buzzmachine.com Jeff Jarvis

    But the smoke filled rooms existed long before that; I’m saying that superdelegates are a continuation of that. It’s the system.

  • alkali

    If it were only a matter of fighting for the nomination, sure, why not roll the dice? But the fact of the matter is that for a candidate to press on without any clear path to the nomination will impose a real cost on the Democrats in the general election. At some point there has to be a recognition that the game is not worth the candle.

  • http://blog.syracuse.com/newstracker Brian Cubbison

    This is the post-objective journalism we’ve heard about. If you don’t like The Daily Obaman, you have to start The Daily Clintonian.

  • Harold

    The point is, the superdelegates should vote based on the regular delgate totals, and the popular vote. It’s virtually impossible that Clinton will have more of either by the time the convention rolls around. What do you say to that? Seems pretty air-tight to me.

    Clinton is damaging the party by staying in a race that she can only win under implausible scenarios.

  • BowChikaBowBow

    Well the Obama supporters aren’t talking about delegate arithmetic, they are simply saying the man got the most votes, so he should be awarded the nomination for that.

    The only thing that is better about the GOP is their primary process.

  • Scott

    Jeff,

    Could you answer me something: Did Hillary Clinton or did NOT Hillary Clinton go along with this whole “if you move up your primary” crap from the very beginning?

    The way I see it, two states—democratically governed states, may I add—through democratic process (and in FL’s case, against the state’s Democrat representatives’ votes) moved up the date they hold their IN-STATE primary.

    The DNC had warned the states ahead of time not to do this. Howard Dean even went so far as to get both Hillary and Obama to sign into their infamous “pledge” as a threat. I did not hear Ms. Clinton nor Mr. Obama railing against such a heavy-handed and potentially disenfranchising move AT THAT TIME.

    The only reason Clinton ended up on the Michigan ballot AT ALL and Obama did not comes down to a linguistic dispute about what constitutes a pledge “not to campaign”. (Hrm. What the definition of “is” is?) [Personally, I find it abysmal that Ms. Clinton vowed not to “campaign” but then, contrary to the spirit of the pledge, saw fit to allow her name on the ballot…why didn’t the Clinton campaign decline inclusion on the ballot?]

    To me, this isn’t all so hard to understand. Howard Dean is a horrible leader, for a leader doesn’t resort to threats–childish or otherwise. The DNC should have done “the Right Thing”: offer monetary support to oppose the legislation in the states if needed, offer amicus guidance as to why moving the primaries was bad, pledge to help the states (Florida, here’s looking at you) get over the electoral problems that had plagued them in prior elections, but finally to submit to the outcome of the process regardless and deal as best as possible which ever way it goes. That could have meant less coordination resources, smaller financial injections, and fewer campaign stops; so be it! After all, that’s the way DEMOCRACY works!

    However, in all of this, a lack leadership has been the most tragic missing element. How neither Obama nor Clinton could have seen this situation coming when Dean started throwing his 800lbs around is beyond me. How neither could see how such ridiculously heavy-handed tactics such as ‘pledges’ and not seating delegates for ENTIRE states for disobeying the party leader was simply wrong. (Fascist?) How neither of the now-remaining candidates stood up, at any time BEFORE something really could NOT be done about this WITHOUT COSTING MORE TAX MONEY, and said “Hey, this just isn’t right, just isn’t fair, and just isn’t reflective of the Democratic party’s ideology.”

    All of that would have taken a LEADER, someone who could see the farce for what it was, for what it has become. Someone who had guts, temerity, and principle.

    Unfortunately, this whole affair seems, to me, to be an indicator of what I can expect from the current crop of Democratic “front-runners”, “power-brokers”, and “hopefuls”. Act like jackasses, create more problems than the country already has, make (more) promises, connive to use problem to a selfish gain, smear each other after the fact about subtle differences in said false promises, offer to throw some (more) cash at newly created problem, piss (more) people off, act innocent of the whole process, promote gloom and doom and with end-of-everything tantrums, and make the whole bunch of us look like fools for paying to watch from the cheap seats.

    All of these folks should be ashamed. They’re not. They’re each on a mission that really doesn’t involve the rest of us.

    It saddens me deeply. I feel disappointed, and ultimately betrayed. I don’t think this has to go to August to destroy the party…it is already gone.

  • Johnnyt

    This is the BEST political theater I’ve seen in my lifetime! Hamlet got nothin’ on it. Even Machiavelli doesn’t, LOL!

    Anyway, looks like the good Rev. Wright just spiced it up again, calling Italians ‘garlic noses’ and Jesus’ crucifixion ‘a public lynching Italian Style.’
    in addition to saying yet again that White Supremacists and the KKK run America. And all this in a tribute of remembrance! Is ther ANY part of world history Wright doesn’t see through the prism of his own narrow racism?

    I think you can scratch Obama’s Italian support now, along woth the rest of the white community’s. Even the most gracious of us will tolerate a crazy uncle acting out for so long. Obama’s Titanic of a campaign will not survive the Wright iceberg. And he just keeps ramming into it.

  • http://www.thepodosphere.com mheister

    Jeff –

    With all due respect, you are incorrect. The mainstream media keeps reporting on Senator Clinton as if she’s still a viable candidate. It was politico.com that correctly observed that H. Clinton has essentially zero chance of winning the pledged delegate race or the popular Democratic vote. Further, for the “superdelegates” to overturn the express will of the voters would make a mockery of the selection process, and would clearly be electoral suicide for the party in November. Richard Wolffe of MSNBC noted that were the situation reversed, Obama would have already dropped out of the race.

    It is, in fact, H. Clinton, who, by refusing to recognize reality and withdraw with even a shred of grace, threatens to snatch defeat in November from the jaws of victory with her reprehensible campaign tactics. Sadly, she is also so sullying her own reputation as well as that of her husband that both will be hampered in their efforts to do otherwise commendable work in the US Senate and on the global stage respectively.

  • mike s

    People want Clinton out because they’ve always wanted her out. And she’ll not likely win against McCain because a ton of voters think she is a terrible person. Obama being president will be America putting it’s best foot forward. That choice represents so many good things. Clearly Obama is the most intelligent, the most consistent choice over the other two. He’s also the most understanding of Technology. Actually Mike Gravel would be a more awesome choice since he’s running independent now but I digress.

    Clinton likes to save our kids from video games. thanks nanny Hillary. We’re so happy you saved all those 17 year olds from GTA San Andreas. Thanks for pretending that Hot Coffee was something more than a patch enabled outside the game contents. Thanks for wasting our money investigating Rockstar and then getting it flat wrong. Thanks for playing up the fear in your own way. I absolutely truly believe we are better off without a president than with hillary. Not joking or being sarcastic, but I think she does so much more harm than good. Same with McCain.

    She’s the queen of waste in this race. And what’s up with the bogus crying. that’s what you call a showstopper. Pathetic. Seeing her over the next 4 years is a terrible thought. whereas I actually learn something from Obama’s speeches. They are interesting, thought provoking.

    Here’s the thing about Hillary for me. I actually can’t believe people would want to vote for her. I mean I can’t see any reasoning at all for that. It’s the same as I can’t understand why anyone would use Crystal meth. It’s so far beyond me that I can’t even imagine being that kind of person. McCain, I can understand that because many republicans I know don’t really follow issues, they follow the party. But with Clinton, she is old news and I’ve enjoyed literally nothing that’s ever come out of her mouth. How is she charismatic? She’s can’t even hold a candle to Martha Stewart when it comes to charisma. Strange.

  • mike s

    Wow MarkJ in the comments demonstrated he has heard all the conservative media sound bites and hasn’t listened to one real speech. I still haven’t gotten how the “threw grandma under the bus” came about. I know you didn’t listen to his perfect union speech because if you did, you’d know that ‘under the bus’ comment doesn’t even make sense. It’s just made up words trying to falsely convey something. It’s embarassingly bad writing.

    His grandmother told him that she thinks/used to think black men were scary and unfamiliar, even distressing to her. It was a fact that is similar to a lot of people’s experience. Including mine. It isn’t “throwing her under the bus.” Don’t be stupid. Black people are intimidating. Sometimes it’s not their fault, sometimes it is. Healing would be nice. I’m not one of those people that think blackness is bad. Even so, the crime percentages and what I witness in my neighborhood is enough to get me down, to keep me in a cautious state. Reality my friend. Obama is right, and so is his grandmother. Both sides need to heal, need to find common ground.

    Oh and the voting “present” Yeah you read that Karl Rove article ey? Too bad that was a lie. He also said Obama was lazy in that article. Rove, the king of painting the picture for you, hoping you didn’t see what was actually there. Listen to Rove if you want. But he’s one of the most racist and divisive people, and has gained from it for decades. Read Lies by al Franken about Karl Rove’s little bigoted schemes. He’s been playing off peoples prejudices for years, playing it against opponents. It’s really sickening actually how his twisted mind works. I was actually shocked what Rove has pulled to make other candidates look bad. uh hello John McCain’s black child? How soon we forget. Um yeah that’s Rove dude.

    MarkJ go ahead and keep living your little fantasy about Obama. Keep gathering your tasty little bites to try to shoot him down. Oh dear, Obama has a pastor that said Goddamn America. Oh wow that’s so scary that an old black man would state the obvious. America has too much blood on it’s hands to get all teary over it. Our President, our Attorney General can’t even choose the high road when it comes to torture and illegal wire tapping. So remind me why I’m supposed to be proud of my country when it’s government is corrupt? God doesn’t bless a corrupt America. That’s the point the pastor was making. I totaly feel what he’s saying and I know I’m more of a patriot because I care that we should be doing the right thing. Because our values and actions MUST MATCH. when they don’t then get out the torches, time to change the guard.

  • Mark

    Jeff: you’ve used a wonderfully colorful term to explain Politico’s motivation for publishing a post. What is the equivalent term for the New York Post’s amusing headlines?

  • JennyD

    Jeff, a couple of things:

    Just a few posts ago you wrote about how people in power don’t trust the public. I guess that would include the Democratic party and its reliance on superdelegates and smokefilled rooms, rather than actual voters and caucus-goers.

    I live in Michigan so I am painfully aware of the wrongheadedness of the party people here. The state’s Democratic delegates must not be seated as is. Obama, Edwards, and Richardson took their names off the ballot at the party’s urging. Only Clinton, in a fit of hubris, left her name on. And according to the primary voting rules, if you wrote in Obama instead of voting for “uncommitted”, your ballot was thrown out as spoiled.

    Even with those rules, Uncommitted got 40 percent of the vote here. In my community, Uncommitted got more than 50 percent of the vote. Clearly a true primary might not have ended with Clinton as the top vote getter.

    The Republicans moved their primary too, but the national party leaders had the sense not to forbid the delegates. They cut the state’s delegate count in half so the primary counts for less. Thus no problem. Michigan’s presence at the GOP convention is diminished, but not shut out.

    Looks like the Republicans trust the people more than the Dems.

    But whatever you think about the party. Clinton did not win Michigan. No one won Michigan. If the delegates are seated as is, there will be an uproar.

  • Keith1965

    Jeff,
    You wrote about the vote “he has just over 50 percent of it” Yep, that is the way we decide things in this country. The person with over 50 percent wins. It sucks sometimes, but no one has come up with a better system.

    You wrote, “So why do I hear that it’s unfair for Clinton to rely on super delegates when Obama relies on them as well?” No one has said that. Seriously. What they say is that if the superdelegates go a different way than the voters voted, people will be pissed (and that applies if the result is Clinton or Obama). It would have a deeply damaging, long term negative effect on the party. I used to think that no one wants that. But sometimes in the last couple of days, it looks like some Clinton supporters might actually want that if she can’t have the nomination. Do you?

    You wrote, “Obama and his crew have refused to allow a revote in those states; he has responsibility.” Nope. That is spin. Obama is just going with the rules as agreed. A long time ago. When your guy/gal is behind it is tempting to think that those agreements don’t mean anything. But they still do.

    Keith

  • JennyD

    Obama blocked a revote? Not exactly. The way the primary runs in Michigan, it is an open primary. Anyone can vote in either party. You go in, choose a ballot from a party, and vote.

    So…that means that in the January primary, lots of people who might have voted Dem chose instead to take a GOP ballot because it looked like the vote would count. The Dem national party had said the primary wouldn’t count.

    When the revote was being discussed, Obama wanted to have another open primary. But Clinton wanted to allow only those voters who had chosen a Dem ballot in January to vote. That meant that any Democrat who had voted in the GOP to have his vote count would not be allowed to participate in the revote. It also meant that anyone who didn’t vote because the national party had banned the delegates wouldn’t get to participate in the revote.

    Obama didn’t block a primary. They just couldn’t agree on the rules.

  • Ryan

    Ugh. Make it stop. These rants make Geraldine Ferraro look clear headed and rational.

    Jeff, you’re a smart guy. I’d be interested in hearing you make a case for why Hillary would be the best person to lead this country over the next four years without tearing down Obama. I’d also love to hear you address your philosophical inconsistency regarding Obama’s campaign — he employs so many of the things you preach (transparency, trusting the people, grassroots, etc) that it’s baffling to see your distaste for him. Is it a generational thing?

  • Ralph Kramden

    “Let’s say Obama gets 55 percent of the remaining vote and 50 percent of the super delegates, which is about his fair share given his current votes; he still lands with 2105 delegates, not enough.”

    Not enough? I thought 2024 was enough. Isn’t 2105 greater than 2024?

    Please explain.

  • http://www.buzzmachine.com Jeff Jarvis

    Ralph,
    The explanation is that this is why I got shitting SATs in math. I screwed up and I’m not with my notes right now. I believe it was 2015, a mere case of dyslexia without diagnosis. But I’m not sure and I’m mobile right now so I can’t go back and, as they told me to do in 7th grade, check my work.

  • Ralph Kramden

    Well, the reason I asked is I played around w/ that CNN calculator thing and it was pretty easy to put Obama over the top with 50% of the supers. Even with a 60-40 PA win for Clinton, if everything else is 50-50 (including the supers) Obama gets 2059.

  • http://www.buzzmachine.com Jeff Jarvis

    Ralph,
    I came nowhere near that but then, my cipherin’ credibility is shot. I’ll play again when I get home.

  • Joan. A

    Hilary Clinton ready to lie on day-one.

    Now that Hillary Clinton has been nailed in an outright fabrication of her role in Bosnia, it is time to remind ourselves of another, even more galling fantasy that Hillary tried to sell the voters.

    After 9/11, Hillary had a problem. New Yorkers were desperately focused on their own needs for protection and they were saddled with a Senator who was not one of them — an Arkansasn or was it a Chicagoan?
    Interviewed on the “Today” show one week after 9/11, she spun an elaborate yarn. The kindest thing we could say was that it was a fantasy. Or a fabrication.

    She said that Chelsea was jogging around the World Trade Center on 9/11 and happened to duck into a coffee shop when the airplanes hit. She said that this move saved Chelsea’s life. But Chelsea told Talk magazine that she was in a friend’s apartment four miles from ground zero when the first plane hit. Her friend called her, waking her up, and told her to turn on the TV. On television, she saw the second plane hit, disproving Hillary’s claim that “she heard the plane hit. She heard it. She did.”

    So why did Hillary make up the story about Chelsea? Most likely to was because her co-senator (and implicit rival for the voter’s affection), a real New Yorker Chuck Schumer spoke of his daughter, who attended Stuyvesant High School (Dick’s alma mater) located next to the TRade Center, being at real risk on 9/11. Hillary needed to make herself part of the scene.

    She invented the entire story on national television, the “Today” show, and didn’t blink an eye.
    Her fabrication on the “Today” show was no unique foray. It is her standard M.O.. It gives us pause in evaluating all of her stories and calls into question her entire credibility.

  • sandra

    Hilary RAMBO Rodham Clinton or

    Hilary LIAR Rodham Clinton.

    Take a pick please.

  • http://www.buzzmachine.com Jeff Jarvis

    Lock up the kids. Here come the trolls.
    I’ll take only so much of that.
    Invoking the stupid rule: if it’s not substantive, I reserve the right to kill it. I will leave that post from “sandra” as an example of stupid.

  • Ralph Kramden

    Jeff – try this: give Hillary a 59-41 win in PA *and* a 60-40 win in superdelegates. Make everything else 50-50. Obama will have *exactly* 2024 delegates.

    A question on that CNN thingie, though. It has wins for Hillary in FL and MI. Does it credit her with delegates there?

    Another question – have John Edwards’s delegates gotten assigned to either of the remaining candidates?

  • Marc W.

    Jeff,

    Who won the popular vote in TX?

    Who won the most delegates?

    Whose campaign is yelling that delegates must follow the popular vote?

    Even in the “new politics”, hypocrisy reigns!

    This campaign is relatively mild compared to the history of US politics. This is not even the first time it has come down to the super delegates and brokered convention (see Mondale v. Hart 1984). If one of these candidates could stop doing an imitation of the the Monty Python Fish-Slap Dance and start talking about a real plan for the economy and ending the problems in Iraq, rather than one-liners, this protracted campaign will be one of the BEST things to ever happen to the party. This has zero chance of happening if Hillary pulls out.

  • http://www.nuclearbeef.com Darwin

    @Scott:
    The way I see it, two states—democratically governed states, may I add—through democratic process (and in FL’s case, against the state’s Democrat representatives’ votes) moved up the date they hold their IN-STATE primary.

    The DNC had warned the states ahead of time not to do this.

    (emphasis mine)

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florida_House_of_Representatives

    Republican Party 77
    Democratic Party 43
    Total 120 – Majority 34

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florida_Senate

    Republican Party 26
    Democratic Party 14
    Total 40 – Majority 12

    http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/2007-05-21-florida_N.htm

    Gov. Charlie Crist signed a bill Monday moving Florida’s 2008 presidential primary to Jan. 29 and shaking up the race by bypassing a dozen other states set for Feb. 5.

    Crist, a Republican, and other state GOP leaders have argued Florida’s diversity and size merit more influence in deciding the nation’s leadership.

    So.. let me get this straight. A Republican Governor, in association with a Republican dominated State Senate and State House Of Representatives, decides to move Florida’s primary election up and the DNC decides to.. punish.. Floridian Democrats by not counting their delegates? There must be something I’m missing, no party could possibly be this hamfisted… ?

    =darwin

  • jammerbirdi

    What kind of Democrats have we passed the liberal-left mantle on to that they applaud the application of a political party’s RULES over allowing Americans to vote in free elections and to have their votes counted? We’ve lost the soul of who we are. Because some of us want Barack Obama to prevail we’re fighting, at least rhetorically, to try to prevent a revote in Michigan or Florida or the seating of those state’s delegates.

    Who has taken over the left and what’s next?

    When do we start calling each other comrade?

  • http://blog.stevious.com Stevious

    That CNN delegate counter is out of date.

    Obama wins most Texas delegates: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080331/ap_on_el_pr/texas_delegates

    And I think the Clinton strategy for staying in the race is more about relying on malicious crossover voting than superdelegates: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080401/ap_on_el_pr/vote_switching

  • joi

    Sorry to say to all Hillary suppoerters Barack Obama has 1629 votes so for, Hillary has 1486 so far. On cnn.com their is a little summary about the electoral college 2024 is the magic number to win the nomination, but 1627 is the magic numberbefore you reach 2024 to give the opponent the chance to step down, because YES OBAMA HAS WON! Hillary can not win no matter, unless she pulls a George Bush and cheats. And these people saying they won’t vote for Obama if Hillary don’t win or even vice versa about Hillary, YOUR NOT A TRUE DEMOCRATE ANYWAY THEN!!! SO VOTE FOR MCCAIN IT WON’T MATTER, HE CRAZY ANYWAY AND ANYONE WELLING TO RISK AMERICA ON A NUTCASE IS CRAZY TOO!

  • sharon wineman

    I think obama is like a little puppy dog with his trail between his legs when he doesn’t get his own way he just cries. I don’t the we would be any better with him. hillary is the stongest of the two of them. she could hold her own with other countries. I don’t trust obama

  • Pingback: The Column » Blog Archive » Open Season on Hillary