McCain's wrapped up the GOP nomination...

[GePap]

Originally posted by Ramo


The Obama wing and the Clinton wing are purely artifacts of these specific candidates. Male, educated, black, young vs. female, working class, latino, old? These are coalitions that are never going to appear again in a national Democratic Primary.

I am not sure of that at all. There certainly is a significant amount of identity voting going on, but even there, there is a clear distinction between people doing okay in this economy voting for Obama, and people who are not or don't feel like it voting for Hillary.

Also, a bit from:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/horseraceblog/2008/03/how_clinton_won_tx_and_oh.html

thought the last paragraph was interesting:

Final point. The Obama campaign is proclaiming they won the Texas caucus by double digits. Indeed, that seems to be the case. Nevertheless, they need to be careful not to proclaim this too loudly. How will it look if Clinton wins a majority of the more than 2.5 million Texans who voted in the primary, but Obama wins the caucus in which about 100,000 people participated? That might help Clinton because it is evidence that the caucuses are not a good gauge of voter preferences. Obama needs to talk up his pledged delegate lead, without reminding people of how it is heavily dependent upon the caucuses. The Clinton camp is going to start attacking these caucuses.

[Ben Kenobi]

It was always going to come down to the superdelegates, regardless of today's outcome; even before today, neither candidate had a realistic prayer of taking the nomination with commited delegates alone. The hope in the Obama camp was, if they won, they could either get Hillary out of the race or force a stampede of superdelegates to their side. But it was always going to come down to the superdelegates.

It's like playoff elimination, a mathematical formality. Now there is no chance of Obama getting the required delegates from just winning states and winning big.

With a gap of about 100, Hillary could close in Pennsylvania, and from there it's anybody's guess.

Not to mention the fact that Michigan and Florida are now on the table too, thanks to Hillary. If they are back on the table, chances are the Hillary results will stand. I don't know who was advising Obama, but if your rival is on the ballot, you better be there too!

Obama needed to win here, he didn't and he's let Hillary hang around.

[snoopy369]

One real issue for the dems is that in a convention where the nominee is unclear, choosing a VP candidate becomes something you do with the intent of gaining the nomination - not with the intent of gaining the presidency. This weakens them somewhat, for example if Obama chooses Edwards with the understanding of gaining his delegates, because Edwards is not the strongest VP candidate for Obama (and even worse for Clinton).

[Ramo]

I am not sure of that at all. There certainly is a significant amount of identity voting going on, but even there, there is a clear distinction between people doing okay in this economy voting for Obama, and people who are not or don't feel like it voting for Hillary.

The candidate who represented that constituency dropped out after FL. The primary reason why Obama did so badly in this constituency last night - Goolsbeegate - only happened because he realized that Clinton was more vulnerable than him on NAFTA. But that doesn't change the fact that we're dealing with two people who are not protectionists.

Final point. The Obama campaign is proclaiming they won the Texas caucus by double digits. Indeed, that seems to be the case. Nevertheless, they need to be careful not to proclaim this too loudly. How will it look if Clinton wins a majority of the more than 2.5 million Texans who voted in the primary, but Obama wins the caucus in which about 100,000 people participated? That might help Clinton because it is evidence that the caucuses are not a good gauge of voter preferences. Obama needs to talk up his pledged delegate lead, without reminding people of how it is heavily dependent upon the caucuses. The Clinton camp is going to start attacking these caucuses.

FWIW, the Dem caucus numbers for my precinct were ~15% of (Dem+GOP) registered voters and the Dem primary numbers were ~45%. I'm somewhat dubious of that 100,000 claim (incidentally, it's 2.8 million, not 2.5 - more Texans voted in the Dem primary than voted for Kerry).

But I agree, the propaganda win in TX goes to Clinton even if the delegate win may not. It's worth noting, though, that it was supposed to be a rock solid Clinton firewall a few weeks ago; I thought that Obama would lose the primary by a bigger margin than 3%. What this does is keep Clinton in the race.

[Ramo]

With a gap of about 100, Hillary could close in Pennsylvania, and from there it's anybody's guess.

The pledged gap is 150. The supers are not going to obstruct a pledged lead.

This weakens them somewhat, for example if Obama chooses Edwards with the understanding of gaining his delegates, because Edwards is not the strongest VP candidate for Obama (and even worse for Clinton).

26 delegates are not going to decide ****. Edwards won't be Veep, nor does he want it.

[SlowwHand]

I MIGHT vote Obama in the general election. I will not, under any circumstances, vote Clinton. I think many feel the same way.

[Ramo]

About that TX trend:

[Admiral]

Well, no one can accuse of Clinton of not winning the expectations game.

[Ben Kenobi]

The pledged gap is 150. The supers are not going to obstruct a pledged lead.

Why do they exist at all then?

They can and they will decide whatever strikes their fancy. You can thank McGovern for that one.

[Ramo]

Please, stop pretending you know anything about American politics.

For starters, the super gap is not going to be ~50 by the time the PA primary comes along. It'll tighten (unless Obama's campaign implodes, in which case it'll diverge).

[SlowwHand]

Obama regains delegate ground based on Texas caucuses

http://www.dallasnews.com/

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Ramo
The pledged gap is 150. The supers are not going to obstruct a pledged lead.

They have before and it is part of the reason they were created in the first place, is it not?

[Wezil]

Originally posted by GePap


NO, but in the US there is no such thing as a Party leader, since while parties put up nominees for President, you are really voting for the person at the end, not the party.

Come on really, the difference between a Parlimentary system and a presidential system sould be clear to all by now.

It is the person the party should put forward.

I'm clear on the differences.

[Ben Kenobi]

Please, stop pretending you know anything about American politics.

Wow I am bested by such a profound argument.

If you can't debate then don't bother.

[Ramo]

They have before and it is part of the reason they were created in the first place, is it not?

No, they haven't before. And the original intent of the provision is not relevant, nor applies (the supers don't see Obama as unelectable relative to Clinton). The self-interest of the politicos involved is relevant.