Weren't the electronic markets predicting, as late as Sunday, that Obama would win TX 80-20?

Weren't the electronic markets showing Kerry beating Bush 90-10 on Election Day in 2004?

You are putting too much faith in electronic markets' ability to predict. They are driven by information, good or bad. GIGO.

The Democratic party is screwed, no matter who the nominee is. If Obama clinches, say goodbye to Latino, Catholic and Jewish votes. You'll be lucky if only 25% of the Dem base is lost. If Clinton steals the nomination, which is more than likely (she is not going to quit, having just won TX,and OH, and certainly repaeting the performance in PA, KY, IN, and WV, at the least), say goodbye to the black vote. Couldn't happen to a nicer bunch of identity political hacks.

The black vote won't leave altogether but yes, it will be diminished with Clinton as our nominee instead of Obama, but the Latinos who voted for Bush in 2004 are swinging heavily towards Clinton in 2008 - and that demographic remains key to Clinton's defeat of McCain and will make up the difference fro Clinton.

Obama knows how to make great speeches and win caucuses and smaller primaries, Clinton knows how to win the battles needed to ultimately win the general election.

The difference is experience.

Obama has won 13 primaries compared to Clinton's 12.

We'll see if Clinton can sustain her "mo" in Wyoming and Mississippi. If she can then the whole race really does change.

Naw - as I said a month ago - Ohio, Texas and Pennsylvania are the keys...

Note also though that these results dont reflect florida and michigan representation either. To deny either of them delegates, could force them to have to defend michigan, or to not even be able to compete in florida. What would the delegate count be right now if the FL and MI delegates are included?

The key is that smoke filled room. If it goes there, I'd put money on Clinton. The democrat party apparatus is still controlled by white, old school politicians. Most of them will have owed their positions to Clinton, many are probably cautious of what the Clintons know, or might extract for revenge. Obama might not owe them anything, but won't be able to deliver either. Going with Clinton might cause pain in the party, but most factions will still likely vote for the annointed nominee. They ones that won't probably couldn't be counted on anyway.

There's zero probability that the Michigan delegates could be seated since Obama wasn't on the ballot there. Florida has a better case and that would net Hillary about 30 delegates. She still falls short.

If Florida were to revote my guess is Hillary would win but by less than her previous margin on 17%.

If Michigan were to revote let's assume it follows the pattern of neighboring Ohio and she wins by 10%. In Ohio, she netted just 9 delegates so in Michigan it would be 8 or less.

So we could generously give her a net 40 which still leaves Obama about 40 on top (using some very optimistic projections for Hillary in the coming races).

Obama hasn't "won the race fair and square" UNTIL and UNLESS he wins 2025 delegate votes. To claim otherwise is simply a false statement.

He apparently cannot do this with pledged delegates won in primaries and caucuses, so WHAT has he "won" so far? NOTHING!

The "smoke-filled room" you disparage so much, recall, was how Wilson, FDR, and JFK were nominated. Wilson and FDR faced NO primaries, and JFK only nine (including DC). It was not until 1972 and on that the majority, even, of delegates were determined by primaries and caucuses. The nearly 200 year tradition of the Democratic Party had been delegates determined by party leaders, elected officials, and state conventions.

The super delegates are part of the mix since 1980 for the exact purpose of using their own judgment, not merely ratifying the plurality winner of primaries. Despite the high sense of entitlement of Obama backers, this judgment will not be based on some arbitrarily imposed rule which has never existed.

I'm one of those guys on the right you speak of but just as you got your rumors about Clinton leaving the race all wrong, you've also got me all wrong.

I want Clinton to win because I want her to be our next President. Not Obama and definately not McCain.

Clinton would be great for the Republican party. Plus, she's such a divisive person she wouldn't be able to do any damage to the country while at the same time being wonderful for the conservative movement in the United States.

Obama and McCain would be terrible for conservatives. So it's Clinton all the way for me.

Baggi - sorry I neglected to consider folks like you who despise McCain so much you'd rather have Hillary for four years.

By the way, for those interested, Clinton's net delegate count from last night is down to 11 and they're still not done counting the Texas caucus results. Sorry to disappoint you.

He apparently cannot do this with pledged delegates won in primaries and caucuses, so WHAT has he "won" so far? NOTHING!

Nothing except the majority of elected delegates, the majority of popular votes and the majority of state contests.

We are all perfectly aware that neither candidate can go over the top without superdelegates. The question is pretty simple: will the Democratic Party regulars who make up the superdelegates overrule the will of the people and select Clinton over Obama even though she won a minority of the votes, a minority of the elected delegates and a minority of the states? I suppose if you were a fan of the 2000 election you would agree that they should.

They superdelegates should not vote in opposition to the will of the people, but not because it's a rule but because they are considering what's best for the Democratic Party.

That said, the "they" in question is a big mix of people from all over the party, and they do not vote as a bloc, so saying what you think "they" should do may be missing the point.

Individually, it will be tough decision for as yet uncommitted superdelegates (and some that are committed). Do you go against the pledged leader and risk turning off a large and important chunk of voters? If you are in congress, do you go against the majority of your constituents? Many would hesitate to do so.

But Jim is right, Obama hasn't won anything. He's gotten votes and he's gotten delegates, the majority of them, but the win is still down the road. It ain't over til...

The superdelegates will hopefully do what the rule says they should do - vote for whoever is the in their opinion the best candidate.

If all they do is rubber stamp the leader then there was no reason to create the superdelegate class of delegate in the first place. Duh!

If all they do is rubber stamp their home constituencies, then Senator Kennedy needs to switch his vote to Clinton since she won Massachusetts, and we know that won't happen.

So hopefully the superdelegates will exercise individual thought and do the job they were charged to do - make up their own minds. Just like Obama wants Kennedy to do - but not the superdelegates that favor Clinton - lol!

The superdelegate is there to prevent the popular candidate from getting the nomination if that is the wrong choice in their view.

The whys and wherefores have all been explained ad infinitum, but the Obama camp insists on ignoring or pretending the rule is a bad thing -- they just didn't bother to complain until now even though the rule has been in effect for 20+ years. - link Scroll down to the video clip for the history and background behind the rule.

Larkin wrote;

[b]The question is pretty simple: will the Democratic Party regulars who make up the superdelegates overrule the will of the people and select Clinton over Obama even though she won a minority of the votes, a minority of the elected delegates and a minority of the states?[/b]

That might be a simple question for some but scratch the surface and things aren't so simple.

For example, the will of the people of Massachussettes is that Hillary Clinton gets the nomination. However, two super delegates, Kerry and Kennedy, have pledged their delegates to Obama.

If the will of the people is the overriding factor here, shouldn't the super delegates in Massachussettes go for Hillary?

If the will of the people is the overriding factor here, shouldn't the super delegates in Massachussetts go for Hillary?

No, they should vote for Obama because he will have won the most elected delegates nationwide. All of the other superdelegates should do the same.

Fundamentally what I'm saying is that the superdelegates shouldn't overturn the will of the voters unless they have a darn good reason. Vague aspersions about the Rezko affair when Clinton has a dozen or so scandals herself just doesn't measure up.

"Fundamentally what I'm saying is that the superdelegates shouldn't overturn the will of the voters unless they have a darn good reason."

I agree that there should be a good reason, and it can be a good reason that is as arbitrary as Senator Kennedy's decision that one candidate is better than the other, despite the fact that his Massachusetts constituency overwhelming choose Clinton 56% to Obama's 41%.

Wait a minute here. If the "national popular vote" is, or should be, the deciding factor in the nomination, the Democrats should just have one national primary, shouldn't they? Of course they don't do that, though.

The super-delegates should have a good reason for who they choose, but there is no rational need for their "default" position to be popular votes or pledged delegates. They were added to use their best judgment considering ALL factors.

For example, just for the sake of argument, let's say Joe Biden had won the most popular votes and delegates going into the convention, but couldn't make a majority without the supers. Suppose, also, that the weeks before the convention Biden had several revelations and/or committed several gaffes which diminished his chances - and that of the Democratic down-ticket nationally - of winning in November. Would the supers still be "morally bound" to "honor" the national plurality?

The "majority of states" is meaningless. There is no such measure which has any meaning under the rules.

And the examples of the contests upcoming in Wyoming and Mississippi illustrate why, too - Obama may sweep them. SO WHAT? Neither state will vote Democratic in the fall. Neither Obama nor Hillary will bother spending any money in either state for the general election, nor should they. So "winning" them is of particular importance beyond the actual delegates awarded . . . why, exactly?

Would the supers still be "morally bound" to "honor" the national plurality?

As I think I said before if there some extraordinary compelling reason to overturn the will of the voters they should do exactly that. I just think the chances of that occurring are extremely remote.

It's virtually impossible for Hillary to recover from her deficit. The Wyoming and Mississippi races are crucial for her to see if she actually has momentum. They have become must wins for her. If she loses Obama will erase the small 11 net delegates (and shrinking because we don't know the Texas caucus results yet) gain that she made on March 4. In fact, I'll put even money that after the counting is done in those two contests that Obama will have made a net gain in pledged delegates in March. And as we have seen the superdelegates are moving to Obama at increasing rates lately. There's no reason that trend shouldn't continue.

This thing really is over. Someone needs to tell Hillary.