CHESSNOID

I know many people are sick of listening about the length of this nomination process but I think that is just because the media keeps trying to influence us into thinking that it is annoying. Everyone participating wants their pick to win, and many whiners are claiming if they don’t get their way they will not vote for the party. This is what seems to scare the superdelegates. They don’t want to alienate anyone but the DNC has already done that with 2 states. That is a whole lot of votes and we all know Florida was critical in the 2000 election. I personally am not tired of watching each states’ votes results and am glad they are both continuing to the end. This is all part of the process.

The truth of the matter is neither candidate can not win without the superdelegates. The democratic nomination process sucks. If this process was like the Republican process, we would have a clear winner right now. It may not be the person you want it to be, but the frustration of waiting for the outcome would be a foregone conclusion. According to Sean Wilentz at Salon.com:

Unlike the Republicans, the Democrats in primary states choose their nominee on the basis of a convoluted system of proportional distribution of delegates that varies from state to state and that obtains in neither congressional nor presidential elections. It is this eccentric system that has given Obama his lead in the delegate count. If the Democrats heeded the “winner takes all” democracy that prevails in American politics, and that determines the president, Clinton would be comfortably in front. In a popular-vote winner-take-all system, Clinton would now have 1,743 pledged delegates to Obama’s 1,257. If she splits the 10 remaining contests with Obama, as seems plausible, with Clinton taking Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Kentucky, Indiana and Puerto Rico, and Obama winning North Carolina, South Dakota, Montana, Oregon and Guam, she’d pick up another 364 pledged delegates. She’d have 2,107 before a single superdelegate was wooed. You’d need 2,208 to be the Democratic nominee. That would leave her barely a hundred votes shy, and well ahead of Obama. It is almost inconceivable that she would fail to gain the required number of superdelegates easily. No more blogospheric ranting about Clinton “stealing” the nomination by kidnapping superdelegates or cutting deals at a brokered convention.

I didn’t do the math myself and just accepting it at face value. Just from the rough numbers it looks to be accurate to me. And of course, if you want to confirm it yourself you can find it all on the internet. I personally get tired of the Obama campaign saying things that it is mathematically impossible for Clinton to win without the superdelegates, when the exact same thing is true for him. The superdelegates will decide the nominee.

The superdelegates are in a dilemma because their goal is to help with the process of picking the best candidate. I think if it was clear cut they would have done it already. What I think they are having issues with is the argument Clinton makes that she is more electable. People who are interpreting that as personality traits like charisma, honesty, and motivational prowess is missing the MATH of electability. I beleive the superdelegates are trying to see if this process was the Actual General Election how many electoral votes would each candidate have. Below is a big quote from TalkLeft- the Politics of Crime:

There’s no question that superdelegates will consider electability as a factor in deciding whether to vote for Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama. Based on this analysis by long-time Democratic party activist William Arnone, which I return to again and again for the numbers, here’s what I think they need to look at:

• Who can best hold on to the 20 states the Dems won in 2004? Which candidate is more likely to put these states at risk in a battle with John McCain?

• Which candidate has the better chance of winning states that voted Republican in 2004 but are now seen as vulnerable for McCain?

• Which candidate has a better chance of getting the votes of four key constituencies that could carry the election for McCain?

Answers below: [More...]

In 2004, the Dems carried 20 states with 252 electoral votes. It wasn’t enough. In 2008, the Dems need to carry these states again, plus pick up others. How can they do it?

First, we need to figure out which of the 20 states are vulnerable to McCain and decide whether Hillary or Obama has a better chance of carrying them. Mr. Arnone says those states are: Pennsylvania, Michigan, Minnesota, New Hampshire, Oregon and Wisconsin, which have a total of 68 electoral votes.

Next are the ten states the Dems didn’t win in 2004 that there’s a chance of winning in 2008. They are: Arkansas; Colorado; Florida; Iowa; Missouri; Nevada; New Mexico; North Carolina; Ohio; and Virginia. Of these, all but North Carolina have already voted. Mr. Arnone says:

The winner of the popular vote in the Democratic primary or caucus in each of these key states will have a higher likelihood of carrying that state in November. This is a critical consideration in determining who is likely to be the Party’s most successful Presidential candidate in the general election.

Thus far, Hillary Clinton has won five of these key states — Arkansas (decisively), Florida (decisively, but in a primary that was not recognized by the Democratic National Committee for the purpose of selecting delegates to the Party’s convention), Nevada (solidly), New Mexico (slightly), and Ohio (solidly). Barack Obama has won four — Colorado (decisively), Iowa (solidly), Missouri (slightly), and Virginia (decisively). Clinton’s popular vote total in these keys states was 3,179,630 (2,314,531 if Florida’s vote is excluded), or 52.7%, vs. Obama’s 2,852,885 (2,281,552 if Florida’s vote is excluded), or 47.3%.

Of these states, Clinton’s five have a total of 63 electoral votes, while Obama’s four have a total of 40 electoral votes.

Together with all of the 20 states that went Democratic in the 2004 Presidential election, both Clinton’s and Obama’s key states would have enough electoral votes to give the Democratic Presidential ticket victory in November.

Personally, I will vote whoever they pick and I won’t be disappointed whoever they choose. I think both will do a good job. I also think the person who doesn’t win the nomination will enjoy not cleaning up Bush’s crap.