Indeed.

Gramsci, I'm not at all sure that the effect that Gyuri notes has been eliminated. The Pennsylvania polling is all over the place, but some recent polls have what was once a 20 point lead for HRC down to single digits. And we still have three weeks to go.

And by the way, an extra hearty welcome to Gyuri, who I just realised is an long-standing "real world" friend.

No, hang on, that's not right, though. His lead without Michigan and Flordia is a little over 700K; his lead with Michigan and Florida included is under 30K. Polls being what they are, there is almost no way Obama will win the popular vote if you include those states.

Still, even if you exclude those states - assume she wins PA by 10-15 points. That's about 250K votes. Assumes she wins Puerto Rico by 20 points - that's another 200-250K votes. Now Obama's margin would be down to a quarter of a million votes. It would still be a struggle for her to pick up the remainder from the other smaller states, but she looks good for wins in Kentucky and West Virginia, so it's not impossible at all.

Thanks for the OTF-world welcome, UA. After months of unsuccessfully trying to register on old-OTF, the one real benefit of new OTF is that I can actually do more than lurk for hours on end.

QUOTE:
AG, I think you're just saying that a popular vote lead would give Clinton a plausible argument with superdelegates, but the argument that going with the pledged delegate leader and not the popular vote leader is "stealing" the election is really just a cynical argument that the rules themselves don't matter

Well, OK, but there's nothing in the rules that says superdelegates have to vote for the person who won the elected delegate count, either. They're supposed to have the freedom to vote for whomever they think would make the best candidate. If Obama were to win both the delegate count and the popular vote, he can make the strong case that he is "the choice of the party" and superdelegates should vote for him on that basis, regardless of what they think of him personally. If Hillary nicks in and wins the popular vote, that argument goes out the window. Superdelegates are effectively "released" to vote how they want.

They might still deliver the convention to Obama, of course, but it would be for different reasons.

"his lead with Michigan and Florida included is under 30K. Polls being what they are, there is almost no way Obama will win the popular vote if you include those states."

He wasn't even on the ballot in those states. It's absurd to include them.

QUOTE:
Well, OK, but there's nothing in the rules that says superdelegates have to vote for the person who won the elected delegate count, either. They're supposed to have the freedom to vote for whomever they think would make the best candidate.

Well, they can vote for whomever they want for whatever reasons they want, regardless if they think s/he would make the best presidential candidate. They can vote for Obama based purely on his sandwich-making ability if they so choose, or, less ridiculously, if they think he would have better coattails in their state or district even if they think s/he'd lose the presidential election.

While Clinton nicking the popular vote would give them cover to choose her, claiming that a slight popular vote win makes her the "choice off the party" requires ignoring how the primaries/caucuses were set up and how they were contested. Or at least I think so. I believe that campaigning strategies and tactics have a real effect on outcomes (which is why I think that viewing the MI and FL results as representative of anything meaningful is nuts).

I don't think winning the popular vote on its own makes anyone vote for her. I think winning the popular vote means that superdelegates can't just say "Obama's the choice of the people, let's all vote for him". What it does is keep the superdelegates in play. As long as they are in play, Obama can't win until Denver, and - who knows - things might change by then.

Agreed on MI and FL.

If Obama is leading on delegates and popular vote, then there's almost no democratic case that can be made by Hillary to the superdelegates; only a realpolitik one about her being the better candidate. As soon as Hillary has any leverage - even if it's popular vote including Fla and Mich - then she will be able to create a democratic case, even if we think it a completely uncompelling one.

AG, I completely agree that Clinton winning the popular vote will make it more difficult for the superdelegates. I don't think it will go until Denver, though. Dean, Reid and Pelosi have already made it clear that they think the superdelegates should decide by July 1, and, as the three key members of the Dem leadership, I think they will be able to force a superdelegate decision (maybe through a "superdelegate primary") before Denver. Of course, I'm probably just being uncharacteristically optimistic.

Yeah, Gyuri, thats all I was saying. Sorry if I was unclear.

If Obama wins the popular vote, I think it will be over in June - no reason to wait more than a day or two after Puerto Rico votes.

But if Hillary wins it, I can't see how Pelosi et al are going to make that July 1 thing stick. Superdelegates will take their sweet time making up their minds (and extracting favours in return)
and there's not a damn thing the DNC can do about it.

It's not just "uncompelling", though. It's insulting. MI and FL broke the rules set by the party establishment, which is why they won't be seated. That very same party establishment makes up the superdelegates.

AG, I think I mistook your argument for what the Clinton campaign's position would be for an argument validating that position as the correct one. I've spent so much time arguing about this with friends of mine who work on the Clinton campaign (or are friendly with those who do), that it gets my ears pinned back immediately.

I think that Pelosi and Reid have quite a bit of leverage over the elected superdelegates (campaign money, committee positions, scheduling of legislation, etc.) to push them to make a decision before Denver. I have no idea whether Dean's position as head of the DNC gives him any useful leverage over the un-elected superdelegates, though.

Welcome Gyuri. Good to have an OTFer with a Hungarian user name.

Thanks, ad hoc. I've no Hungarian blood (though my mother's long-time boyfriend's last name is Magyar), but had recently read Under the Frog when I first tried to register for old OTF a while back and one of the protagonist's names stuck with me.