Michigan & Florida: Don't Worry About Ickes' Threat

The Democratic Party's Rules Committee has decreed that Michigan and Florida will each have all their delegates seated, with each getting a half a vote.

Is half a loaf better than no loaf at all?

Not according to Clintonista campaign poobah Harold Ickes, who "reserved" Hillary's right to take the fight over Michorida all the way to the convention floor in Denver at the end of August.

Relax. Calm down. Don't get all pissed off at Ickes and the Clinton campaign.

All Ickes is doing is what lawyers do. They bluff and bluster. And they do so the loudest just before they cave in and settle. Believe us--we've seen it, and we've done it over a long legal career.

Ickes is the designated bulldog. He has to do this because Hillary hasn't quite yet conceded. She can't play her own barking dog, because then it would be strange indeed for her to concede a few days later.

At this point, the Clinton campaign is holding out one last hope: that it can pull upsets in Montana and South Dakota, proving to superdelegates that Obama has indeed been weakened of late.

We're not saying it won't happen--there's always a chance. But it's not likely. If Hillary doesn't win those states, and can't claim the popular vote title, then look for her to concede by the middle of next week.

[In case you're wondering, the new delegate math is as follows:
Delegates needed to win the nomination: 2117
Obama delegates to date: 2053 Additional needed: 64
Hillary delegates to date: 1877 Additional needed: 240]

Will Oregon Be An Ugly Surprise for Obama? UPDATE: Or Not!

Not too long ago, it looked (based on polls) as if Obama would crush Hillary in Oregon (while getting walloped in Kentucky) tomorrow. Now, it's not so clear.

Most voters in Oregon cast their ballots early, by mail. Accordingly, about half of the state's voters have already expressed their preferences. In other early voting states, Obama has done quite well with the folks who opt to cast ballots before election day, so you'd think by now he'd be well ahead of Hillary in Oregon.

But he's not. According to analysis of two recent polls by the CCPS blog, Obama and Hillary are dead even in the mail-in ballots. Those who say they still INTEND to vote heavily favor Obama, but with half the ballots already in, it appears his margin of victory will be fairly small, and that only IF those folks who say they still plan to vote actually do so.

Meanwhile, Kentucky clearly looks like a repeat of West Virginia, with Hillary likely to cruise to a 20+ point victory their.

It doesn't matter much in terms of whether Obama will get the nomination: after tomorrow, he will need fewer than 70 delegates to clinch the nomination (and his margin over Hillary currently stands at 182). Nonetheless, team Obama would surely like to do better than to limp across the finish line, so a strong Oregon finish is important.

We'll see what happens in this often surprising election season.

UPDATE: Two more polls out today show the opposite: Obama has a large lead in the early voting in these polls, from Public Policy Polling and Survey USA, both of whom have been pretty reliable this election season. Indeed, in the PPP poll, Obama has 59% of the early voting ballots, and they called it quite correctly in NC. So maybe Oregon will be an Obama blowout after all (consistent with his HUGE rally yesterday).

Where Do Dems Stand Now?

With most Democrats now presuming that Sen. Barack Obama will be the party's nominee, where do things stand?

First off, Democrats are now virtually assured of avoiding a bloody and divisive floor fight at the Denver convention in late August. That is certainly good news.

Second, a side benefit of the prolonged nomination fight is that millions of new Democratic voters have registered across the country.

Third, an Obama candidacy is likely to bring new voters to the polls in November and energize at least some segments of the party as never before.

But at the end of the day, is Obama the best candidate? That's a difficult question.

There's no doubt that Obama's image suffered in the long, drawn-out contest with Hillary Clinton. The Reverend Wright issue will linger on to be exploited by Republicans in the fall. Still, better that Wright's views came up during the Democratic battle, rather than later. Obama will have to continue to distance himself from Wright and prepare for the inevitable attacks.

Obama certainly needs to do extensive work with three groups of voters where Democrats should have an advantage: white women, blue collar workers and senior citizens. These are groups that, in the Democratic primaries, showed a distinct preference for Hillary Clinton over Sen. Obama.

But will those voters opt for John McCain over Barack Obama? That's the battle ahead, and we bet Obama and his strategists are well aware of the work they need to do.

We think Obama is the better candidate, but concede it's a close call. Too bad we can't combine the best qualities of both Obama and Clinton into one awesome candidate, but that's not possible.

It's also extremely unlikely that Hillary would agree to run as Obama's VP, so he needs to start looking for someone from a battleground state that appeals to Hillary's constituency.

Meanwhile, we're content to let Hillary continue on with her quest through the last contest in June. It's not that far off and she's already showing signs that she'll lay off Obama as this thing winds down. We're going to miss Hillary. We hope she'll be able to play a contructive role in trying to capture the White House in November.

Obama Takes Big Lead In NC Early Voting

Some polls suggest that the NC race may be tightening up a bit. On the other hand, it appears that the early voters in NC have gone heavily for Obama, so he may already have locked in a significant advantage.

According to the Center for Congressional and Presidential Studies, which does some excellent number crunching, 144,000 North Carolinians had already voted on the Democratic side as of this past Tuesday. (The number came from the NC Board of Elections.)

While CCPS noted that the demographics of those early voters appeared to favor Obama, we now have further data to support that. A Survey USA poll released today includes the results from early voters--kind of an early exit poll. While the sample is quite small, Obama was leading 57%-39% amongst those who said they'd already voted.

A day or so earlier, Public Policy Polling also released a poll that included separate results for early voters. In that poll, 14% of respondents had already voted, so the sample is a bit larger. The results were even more dramatic: Obama 63% to Clinton's 31%.

If those numbers are accurate, Hillary starts in a pretty big hole on election day. We saw the inverse of this in Texas, where polls showed the race narrowing, but Hillary had a big lead in early voters. Ultimately, she won by a comfortable margin.

Meanwhile, Obama continues to outpace Hillary in new superdelegate commitments. Before the Pennsylvania primary, Obama's overall delegate lead got as high as 142. After Pennsylvania, Hillary closed the gap to about 130 delegates, but Obama's lead is now back up to 139 (we use the RealClearPolitics.com delegate count).

Yes, the Rev. Wright controversy has been a drag on Obama. But it doesn't appear to be enough to change the result for Democrats.

Hillary Math Doesn't Add Up

Increasingly desperate as it becomes more and more obvious that Senator Barack Obama has a virtual mathematical lock on the nomination, Hillary's supporters are resorting to some awfully dubious math to say that she is still in the picture--or even in the lead!

One of the more fascinating aspects of these mathematical gyrations is that both the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal are giving them favorable play. The Times, of course, placed only the thinnest of veils on its endorsement of Hillary for President. The WSJ, on the other hand, only wants Hillary as the Democratic nominee, in the clear hope that she will make it easier for John McCain to be elected President in November.

So what of Hillary math? One good example can be found on Not Larry Sabato, the entertaining, often newsworthy, and widely read blog of Virginian Ben Tribbett, a prominent Hillary supporter in the Commonwealth. NLS has a Democratic Delegate Count on its website that might surprise those who rely on the Mainstream Media for their information.

According to NLS, it is a very tight race indeed! Obama has 1794 delegates, just 8 ahead of Hillary, who has 1786. And both have a long way to go, needing 2208 delegates to win--not the 2025 you'll see on most delegate counter websites.

How does NLS get these numbers? It's not really explained, at least in an easily accessible manner, but you can figure it out. NLS includes Michigan and Florida in the totals. Well, kind of. You see, NLS gives Hillary full credit for the delegates she would have won based on her showing in the Michigan and Florida primaries. But since Obama wasn't even on the ballot in Michigan, his supporters had to vote for "uncommitted." NLS doesn't credit Obama with those "uncommitted" delegates however. Instead, they are in a separate "uncommitted" category.

Add the 55 uncommitted Michigan delegates to Obama's total, however, and he now has a 63 delegate lead over Hillary, even with her getting the full benefit of both those contests. Now, here at the Curmudgeon, we've said all along that we'd be willing to seat the full Florida delegation based on the outcome there--we doubt a new primary would alter the result at all.

Michigan is a different story, however. Hillary cheated. She had her name on the ballot, the others didn't. It wasn't a valid election in any sense--many of Obama's people clearly stayed home--the turnout proves it. Yes, Hillary would probably win Michigan--it's like Ohio and Pennsylvania. But we doubt if her margin would be as large.

In any event, the NLS numbers, which aren't explained (at least in any easily accesible manner, such as clicking on the delegate table) seem to be a bit optimistic even with the various assumptions NLS has made.

We looked at a website that's pretty good--and neutral--with numbers: Democratic Convention Watch. They list the numbers with all kinds of options for Florida and Michigan, and in the one that gives both candidates the Michigan and Florida results (as is, but with Obama getting the 55 uncommitted Michigan delegates) he has an overall lead of 67, probably because he's picked up a few more superdelegates than NLS is willing to give him credit for.

Every day it seems, Obama picks up one or two more uncommitted superdelegates--he's certainly been racking them up at a greater clip than Hillary for the past two months. So after North Carolina and Indiana, his lead will still be quite sufficient, regardless of Michigan and Florida.

Bear in mind also that the ultimate decider of whether and to what degree the Michigan and Florida delegations get seated is the convention as a whole (excluding the challenged delegations). In such a showdown--we shiver at the prospect and hope it will never occur--Obama's fairly large lead in pledged delegates from states excluding Michigan and Florida should be enough to put him over the top in terms of any floor challenge.

So, Hillarymath or not, Obama still leads. And that will be enough to sway the majority of remaining uncomitted superdelegates his way, and to make sure that any floor fights over Michigan and Florida work out in his favor as well.

Indeed, Hillarymath is just about as good as McCainmath, under which it is now okay to cut taxes to the point they bear no relationship to expenditures. Evidently, McCain, like W Bush, has no objection to China and a bunch of Arab oil states owning the United States via its debt.

Obama Inches Closer To The Nomination

Although Hillary had her expected day in Pennsylvania (with the margin predicted by the Curmudgeon), the inexorable delegate math still points heavily to Obama.

In the all important delegate count, Hillary shaved 15 off Obama's lead, which now stands at 127 (in the RealClearPolitics.com count, which we use). But Obama got himself 63 delegates closer to clinching the nomination, reducing his magic number to 312.

As the remaining contests wind down, Obama will need to sway fewer and fewer superdelegates to get himself over the top, whereas Hillary will have to win over something like 75% of those who haven't yet committed.

Here's the math. There are 408 pledged delegates yet to be selected. They will be allocated over the next six weeks in the following order (numbers in parentheses are unpledged delegates available in each remaining contest):

Guam (4)

Indiana (72)

North Carolina (115)

West Virginia (28)

Kentucky(51)

Oregon (52)

Puerto Rico (55)

Montana (16)

South Dakota (15)

So far, neither Hillary nor Obama has been able to produce much of an "upset," i.e., winning a state that demographically favored the other. Furthermore, with the Democratic Party's proportional delegate allocation rules, neither candidate is going to run away with the rest of the delegates.

Obama should win NC, Oregon, Montana and South Dakota; Hillary should win W.Va., Kentucky, and Puerto Rico; and Indiana is a toss-up. So they're likely to roughly split the remaining delegates evenly. If that happens, Obama needs just 108 more of the roughly 300 remaining uncommitted super-D's. But Hillary would need 235 of them. It's not at all clear how she'd persuade that many superdelegates to go her way.

At this point, Hillary really does need a miracle. Money talks, and that's what the money is saying these days as well--Obama is continuing to raise record amounts, while Hillary's campaign is severely flagging on the financial front.

So, while Hillary's Pennsylvania victory earned her the right to continue her quest, the odds become longer every day. We don't think she should quit--let the voters in the remaining states have their say. But she should think twice about going negative. It's one thing to have fought the good fight and lost; it's another to have fought a nasty fight and cost the party the White House in November.

Please Hillary, go out on a high note.

The Election Hiatus Is Over

Finally, the long hiatus in the primary election season is over. Pennsylvania votes tomorrow, with Hillary Clinton highly likely to win comfortably (we expect something like 55%-45% or better for Hillary, despite polls suggesting it is closer).

Then come Guam caucuses on May 3 followed by North Carolina and Indiana on May 6, with Indiana probably the only remaining contest with any real suspense in it. (Obama has a huge lead in NC.)

After that, it's a quick run through West Virginia (Hillary will win), Kentucky (Hillary will win), Oregon (Obama will win), Puerto Rico (Hillary), Montana (Obama) and South Dakota (Obama), with it all done by June 3.

And guess what? At that point Obama should have a lead of at least 100 delegates and he should be within less than 100 delegates of clinching the nomination (one pretty persuasive projection we saw put him within 70 delegates by June 3). So by that point the remaining uncommitted superdelegates will be under intense pressure to commit, especially to Obama if it looks like he's inevitable by then.

It's the home stretch of the marathon (or the marathon leg of the triathalon?). Obama has a decent lead. Hillary is hoping he'll stumble and trip. We're comfortable letting it play out into the middle of June--we see very little likelihood at this point that the race will be undecided all the way to the late August convention.

Let the final sprint begin!

Two Specious Arguments From Camps Hillary and Obama: One Red and One Blue

If you're following the daily debate between the Hillary and Obama camps on who should be the nominee and why, you'll frequently see the following two arguments, both of which are specious.

Camp Obama says that the fact that Obama has overwhelmingly won Democratic caucuses and primaries in a number of "red" states proves that he's the candidate who can expand the Democratic base in November and carry states Democrats have never carried before.

There's a grain of truth to that, but not much. For example, Obama beat Hillary by a whopping 57%-39% in the Utah Democratic caucus. But there's no chance in heck that Obama is going to carry Utah in November. All he proved is that among the tiny percentage of Utahans who happen to be Democrats, he is the favorite.

He also had large margins in places like Idaho, Wyoming, and North Dakota, but he's not going to carry any of them either.

The grain of truth is that Democrats in red states do judge Obama as more likely to be able to broaden the party's appeal and bring in new voters in those states. In some place--Virginia for one--that just might make enough difference to swing the state. But it's not like Democrats in those states wouldn't vote for Hillary.

The Hillary camp has the opposite argument. They argue that Hillary's strong showings in the larger industrial states, many of which are blue, show that she will be the stronger candidate in November. Again, this is specious. It's not like most Democrats in traditionally blue states--like California, Massachusetts, Connecticut and New Jersey--WOULDN'T vote for Obama in November. If anything, polls in those states show both candidates with about the same percentage in head-to-head match-ups against McCain.

Nor does Hillary's stronger showing in a swing state such as Florida show that she has the ability to win Florida in November. It's hard to believe that Hillary Clinton, who is viewed and defined as a "traditional" Democrat, will do much better than either Al Gore in 2000 or John Kerry in 2004 in a state like Florida (or Ohio).

The arguments--and they're aimed largely at superdelegates--will keep coming, but it's worth seeing through the BS. Of which there is much, on both sides.

Obama's Delegate Lead Continues To Widen

Interestingly, Obama's lead in delegates continues to inch up day by day as uncommitted superdelegates, in onesies and twosies, break his way.

A month ago, the Realclearpolitics.com tally of delegates had Obama up by 119 (1589 to 1470). Since then, Obama's lead has stretched to 137, with him leading by 1640 to Hillary's 1503. Not all of the difference since then is superdelegates--some represent the Mississippi primary and additional delegates awarded in Texas caucuses, as well as a handful from other states as they've held county and state conventions.

We wonder whether Hillary has much room to maneuver at this point. Presumably, her core supporters amongst superdelegates have already committed to her. Indeed, how much of a Hillary supporter could you be if you're still holding out at a time when she needs to prove she can overcome the gap?

In the meantime, Hillary's lead in Pennsylvania polls continues to shrink to as small as just two points in one poll (Public Policy Polling) released yesterday. We'd still bet on Hillary winning Pennsylvania, probably by at least 5 or more points. But we had thought the long break between primaries, along with the Rev. Wright albatross, would have weighed Obama down during this period, which clearly hasn't been the case.

Of course, every time Hillary has been on the brink, she's come back to fight for a few more weeks, so we're not ready to write her off just yet!

Pennsylvania Narrowing A Bit

A couple polls from Pennsylvania suggest that the Democratic primary race there is narrowing a bit.

Rasmussen has Hillary up by only 5 points, 47%-42%, whereas Survey USA gives Clinton a more comfortable 12 point lead, 53%-41%.

We're not too impressed. The polling in Ohio showed a similar narrowing before Hillary blew Obama away on primary day. Apparently Obama has been spending a lot on television in the Keystone State of late. Our observation in this campaign has been that television hasn't made much of a change in voters' attitudes.

We still expect Hillary to win Pennsylvania fairly comfortably, but then lose North Carolina by a similar margin. (Polls in NC give Obama a 15-18 point edge.)

If it works out that way, Hillary will barely gain anything on Obama, so we'll be right where we are now.

What To Do About Michigan, Florida and the Superdelegates

Oh vey, what a mess.

Democrats continue down the path to deadlock and a contentious convention with floorfights over Michigan, Florida and probably a few other issues. Meanwhile, Hillary and Obama make each other look small while McCain issues grandiose (and moderate-sounding, compared to Dubya) foreign policy pronouncements.

Today's Wall Street Journal has an interesting take on the Michigan/Florida mess from a Republican, former Bush economic adviser Lawrence Lindsey, who did a good job analyzing some numbers. (See "Hillary's Last Hope.")

[We take issue with Lindsey on one point, his claim that "Only lawyers could have invented delegate selection rules as complicated and opaque as the ones the Democrats are struggling under." The Republican system is, in fact, more complicated and opaque, as every state sets it's own rules, ranging from Louisiana's bizarre caucus system to New York's pure winner-take-all closed primary. The GOP came very close this year to a meltdown similar to that on the Democratic side--if Rudy G.'s non-strategy had worked in Florida, Republicans, too, would still be at it right now.]

In any event, Lindsey correctly notes that there are significant differences between Florida and Michigan, and he makes a convincing case that the Florida primary pretty much mirrored what would've happened anyway, both in terms of turnout and result.

Although we've supported Obama, we don't see a good argument for not using the Florida results as-is. Both candidates were on the ballot, neither actively campaigned, but the turnout was about what would've been expected. Obama was not going to win Florida, and he wouldn't in a re-vote. If I was a neutral superdelegate at the convention in Denver, I'd vote to seat a Florida delegation that mirrored the primary results.

Michigan is a different story. In Michigan, only Hillary was on the ballot. While supporters of Obama (or any of the OTHER candidates) could've voted for "uncommitted,"--and many did--it is clear that many Michiganers stayed home from the polls in what obviously was a non-contest. Lindsey suggests, based on demographics of other similar states, that Hillary still would've won Michigan, and he may be right, but we can't really tell based on the turnout. (And Lindsey points out that Hillary's margin likely would have been smaller.)

As a neutral superdelegate at the convention, I could not support any seating of the Michigan delegation based on the clearly distorted primary results from that state. The DNC needs to find some way to get a Michigan re-vote done. By the way, it doesn't matter what the campaigns want--obviously, they want the deck stacked in their favor. What matters is how the uncommitted superdelegates would vote in a rules/credentials challenge at the convention. Perhaps the DNC should survey those delegates.

By the way, even if Hillary got the benefit of both Florida and Michigan as they voted, she'd still be pretty far behind, although after winning Pennsylvania she could make it quite close.

Speaking of superdelegates, Tennessee Governor Phil Bredesen has an interesting idea: bring all the superdelegates together by mid-June for a mini-convention at which they are required to commit to one candidate or the other, thereby deciding the race at that point. It's a good idea, but probably won't happen.

We were a bit surprised, however, that the Clinton campaign seems quite opposed to the idea. Apparently they want a war of attrition through August. Someone at the DNC needs to start really taking a leadership role on all this, or John McCain will waltz into the presidency come November.

Dangerous Lull For Hillary and Barack

We meant to say this before we left for Spring break, but better late than never:

The relatively long interval between primaries at this juncture is a dangerous time for both candidates. Without the daily grind of the horserace--sprinting from one nominating contest to another--the media inevitably turn to other issues, desperate to fill their news cycles.

Moreover, the political blogosphere can't stand a vacuum--we have to have SOMETHING to write about.

It's at this point that trivial matters start getting blown up. This distant supporter of Obama, or that low-level aide to Hillary, said something silly, stupid, offensive, or just inane. The campaigns, too, have nothing better to do than to play up some little irrelevancy. All of a sudden it gets to be like last summer when, for some bizarre reason, Rudy "Bad Strategery" Giuliani was inexplicably leading polls for the GOP nomination (remember him? he did earn one delegate).

It's during periods like this that the candidates seem small, inconsequential. While Barack and Hillary are sniping at each other over trivia, McCain is visiting Iraq and doing his best to look presidential.

We look forward to getting back into the horserace again--but it's still four more weeks to Pennsylvania!

Hillary's Hollow Complaints About Caucuses

It's pretty obvious that both the Clinton and Obama camps are completely result-oriented in their respective complaints about delegate selection and allocation.

We find Camp Hillary's complaints about state caucuses particularly hollow. Caucuses have been around for a long time. They are less expensive than primaries. Most importantly, they have traditionally served as a means to get input from the party's most active participants--the precinct captains, the donors, the voters who follow the ins and outs of the race, the folks who think in terms of "who can win."

To hear the same people who speak virtuously of the "superdelegate" concept denigrate the caucus system is cynicism at its worst.

Bill and Hillary Clinton have been powerful party insiders for nearly 20 years now. If they thought there was something wrong with caucuses, they could easily have done something about it. Of course, they didn't--indeed, Hillary had every reason--as with superdelegates--to think that those party insiders who attend caucuses would be her core of support.

Her campaign's mistake, however, was to ASSUME she'd win caucuses without really working at it. And that's where Obama's campaign--through sheer determination, strategy and organizational savvy--simply outmaneuvered her.

So, Hillary, don't complain about caucuses. Next time, have a stragegy for them as well.

Now that brings us to Camp Obama. They like caucuses, but not superdelegates. Get over it. As we said above, the two are analogous: both are intended to put power in the hands of party insiders. You can't accept one, but not the other.

Furthermore, Obama has the chance to persuade the superdelegates that he is the right candidate. It comes down to electability. If they think Obama can beat McCain, and Hillary can't, they will come over to his side.

There are some legitimate beefs out there. The so-called Texas two-step--both a primary and a caucus--is ridiculous. It adds the exclusivity of a caucus to the expense of a primary. It exhausts the party's workers. It's confusing. And it's unnecessary. We'd like to see the party ban anything like it in the future.

Then, there's what to do with Florida and Michigan. A do-over, while not perfect, is the best option. Those states' voters should have a say, especially in such a close race. By the same token, it would be ludicrous to reward Hillary for staying in Michigan while Obama stayed out. And the Florida vote was terribly flawed by the circumstances. So do it over. Both should be primaries, as they were intended to be.

Hillary's supporters think those states will somehow put her over the top. They won't--not under the proportional allocation system. Even after her big victories in big states this past Tuesday, Hillary barely closed the gap. So, barring an unlikely blowout in either state, Hillary won't win the whole thing if we do it over in Florida and Michigan. But it will avoid a nasty floorfight at the convention.

Since it's clear that the remaining contests, without Fla. and Mich., won't decide it, the Democratic Party should--in the lull before Pennsyslvania--get this resolved and set the new primary dates in early June.

What If The Democrats Used Winner Take All?

Three weeks ago we calculated the Democratic race as if each state awarded it's pledged delegates on a winner-take-all basis, rather than proportionally, concluding that it wouldn't make all that much difference. (See "Democratic Deadlock: Don't Blame Proportional Representation . . .") At the time, Obama would've had a small lead in delegates under the winner-take-all formulation.

What about now? It would still be close, but Hillary would have a distinct advantage, mainly based on winning Texas.

If the pledged delegates from every state were awarded on a winner-take-all basis, Hillary Clinton would now be leading Barack Obama by 1417 to 1212. It wouldn't be enough to put her over the top without superdelegates, but it might be enough to be an insurmountable lead, potentially leading to a deal where Obama agreed to be the VP nominee.

If you include all the superdelegates from each state as pledged delegates, the result is about the same, with Obama actually a tad closer: Clinton 1746; Obama 1551. Of course, in this scenario, one of them--probably Hillary--would eventually win, without resort to unpledged "superdelegates."

Still, it isn't like the Republican party where McCain, despite some very slim victories, has waltzed in by a wide margin.

Democratic Ground Hog Day--Eight More Weeks (Or Six More Months) Of Battling?

Hat tip to one of our anonymous commenters, who called yesterday Democrats' Ground Hog Day, meaning they have at least eight more weeks of battling for the nomination thanks to Hillary's comeback in Texas and Ohio. More likely, it's six more months.

Here's where we are: Sen. Clinton had to win Texas and Ohio to stay credible, and she did. But in the Democratic way of allocating delegates proportionally, she didn't gain much ground--depending on whose doing the counting, she narrowed the gap by maybe 15-20 delegates. Of course, clinching those key wins last night staunches the flow of superdelegates to Obama, and may even bring a few back home.

What's crystal clear is this: neither Clinton nor Obama can win the nomination--nor even come close--on pledged delegates alone. Indeed, neither can win it with the remaining pledged delegates even if you include their superdelegates. Here's the math--bear in mind that the delegate totals vary depending on your source (ours is realclearpolitics.com).

According to RCP, Obama has 1546 delegates (1344 pledged) to Clinton's 1449 (1208 pledged).

The remaining primaries/caucuses have 611 pledged delegates, and it takes 2025 to win. So Obama would have to take 479 out of 611 pledged delegates (78%) to win it, while Clinton would need 576 out of 611 (94%!) to win it. With the Democratic Party's proportional allocation rules, neither will come close to that, even if they sweep the rest of the contests.

[The candidates actually need slightly fewer delegates than we've set forth above because about 67 pledged delegates from prior contests--48 are from Texas--haven't yet been assigned. Still, you get the picture in terms of the math.]

In any event, neither candidate is going to sweep the rest of the races. If anything, last night's contests showed pretty clearly that where the demographics favor Hillary, she'll win; where they favor Obama, he'll win.

With that in mind, we'd expect Obama to take the next two contests--the Wyoming caucus on Saturday and the Mississippi primary on Tuesday. After that, it's a long wait to Pennsylvania, where Hillary should be favored, especially after the result in Ohio. After that, give Obama the edge in Guam, Indiana, North Carolina, Oregon, Montana and South Dakota; give Clinton the advantage in Kentucky, West Virginia and Puerto Rico.

All that, of course, depends on no one having a major stumble or gaffe between now and June.

So, when the last contest--Puerto Rico--is completed on June 7 (assuming, for the moment, no re-vote in Florida and Michigan), the margin is likely to be about the same as it is now--Obama leading in pleadged delegates, but still well below the magic number of 2025, and Clinton likely to lead in superdelegates, but behind Obama.

Unfortunately, there's no clear path to victory for either Senator that doesn't include a deadlocked convention, unless a sufficient number of superdelegates fall to Obama to put him over the top. The potential for floor fights over Florida and Michigan delegates, and maybe some others, looms large.

This is not a happy scenario for Democrats.

March 4 Is Do or Deadlock For Democrats

With Barack Obama's surprisingly lopsided victory in Wisconsin last night, coupled with his expected runaway in Hawaii, the die is cast for a decisive showdown on March 4.

That day will be a bit like the Florida primary was for the Republicans: had anyone but McCain won Florida--whether it had been Romney, Giuliani or Huckabee--the GOP race would have been up in the air for at least another month, maybe longer.

On March 4, Democrats will go to the polls in Texas, Ohio, Rhode Island and Vermont. Barring some major gaffe between now and then, Obama should take Vermont with ease. Hillary has declared Texas and Ohio to be her "firewall," and Rhode Island--looking a lot like Massachusetts--should lean her way as well.

If Hillary wins Texas and Ohio, she will have stopped Obama's increasing momentum--10 straight victories--cold, and she'd probably earn enough delegates from those two large states to close the gap Obama has opened up.

The problem for Democrats is this: if Hillary wins both Texas and Ohio, it doesn't mean she's got the nomination wrapped up. Far from it. Instead, it would be more like what would've happened if Giuliani had won in Florida: it sets up a virtual guarantee of a deadlocked convention.

You see, after March 4, apart from Pennsylvania, many of the remaining contests favor Obama. Neither Hillary nor Obama could come anywhere close to the nomination on pledged delegates alone, and with Hillary's prospects still alive, there'd be no stampede of superdelegates to either candidate. Indeed, the most likely scenario would be a waiting game as approximately 200 undecided superdelegates courted both sides while furious back-room maneuvering occurred all summer.

In contrast, if Obama wins both Texas and Ohio, he's got the nomination. No, he won't be over the top in delegates, anymore-so than McCain was after Florida. But at that point Obama is unstoppable: superdelegates can't afford to pledge to Hillary; her money dries up; and party elders begin the game of trying to get her to gracefully bow out.

What if Obama and Clinton split Ohio and Texas? At that point, Hillary is pretty badly wounded (especially if she also loses Rhode Island), but she probably presses on, at least for awhile, until Pennsylvania. (In the meantime, Obama would likely win the Wyoming caucuses on March 8 and the Mississippi primary on March 11, but after that there's nothing at all until Pennsylvania on April 22). [Note: we would've had Florida and Michigan in this period if they hadn't unwisely moved their contests up; they could've been the decisive contests.]

In short, the only way Obama really becomes the "presumptive" nominee is if he wins both Texas and Ohio. Otherwise, this race is bound to go on into late April, perhaps much longer.

The good news, for Obama fans, is this: polls show both Texas and Ohio tightening considerably, even before Obama's route in Wisconsin. Perhaps more importantly, Obama has two weeks--a luxurious amount of time in the crowded, hectic campaign calendar of this year--to personally stump through both states. So far, the enthusiasm of his rallies has been infectious wherever he's gone. We think he has an excellent chance of winning Texas and a decent chance in Ohio, so Democrats' worst nightmare--a deadlocked convention--may yet be avoided.

Democratic Deadlock: Don't Blame Proportional Delegate Allocation Or Superdelegates

As Democrats increasingly face the prospect of a deadlocked convention and a long summer with no nominee, many party members are turning to their party's system for allocating delegates proportionally, and the reservation of nearly 20% of the delegates as uncommitted "superdelegates" as possible problems that need to be "fixed."

We were wondering whether the proportional delegate system and superdelegates are really part of the problem, or whether it's simply that this is such a tight race.

Our conclusion: don't blame proportional delegate allocation, and maybe don't blame superdelegates either.

We went back through all the Democratic nominating contests held so far and reallocated the delegates on a "winner-take-all" basis, a system the Republicans use in some, but not all, states, which many believe is why the GOP nomination process appears to come up with a winner sooner.

The Democrats have finished 36 contests to date (including Samoa and the Virgin Islands, but excluding Florida and Michigan, which awarded no delegates). According to the website RealClearPolitics.com, Obama has earned 1134 pledged delegates out of that process so far and Clinton has earned 996, for a difference of 138.

What if we re-allocate the pledged delegates on a winner-take-all basis? Well, it's closer, with Obama still leading with 1096 delegates to Clinton's 1075, a difference of only 21 delegates. In other words, winner-take-all just makes it a closer contest, not a run-away for either candidate. It would still come down to the 796 "superdelegates" to decide the nomination.

So, you say, let's get rid of, or at least pare back, the superdelegates so that someone can win without going all the way to the convention. It's certainly true that without superdelegates, either Obama or Hillary would eventually win. But neither would be anywhere close at this point, and it would again be very close.

Again, let's allocate each state's superdelegates on a winner-take-all basis to the candidate who carried the state. Now we have Obama leading Hillary by 1396 to 1325, a margin of only 71 votes. (By the way, that's almost identical to RealClearPolitics.com's margin for Obama when superdelegates are included now: 1302-1235, for a difference of 67!) That's certainly close enough for both candidates to continue competing at least through April, and probably all the way to June.

It's also close enough that Florida and Michigan would make a big difference, especially on a winner-take-all basis, and so it might still all come down to a convention challenge over seating those state's delegates.

The bottom line is that this is simply a very close race between Senators Obama and Clinton, with each taking a number of states. In such a tight race, no delegate allocation system is likely to give one a significant enough advantage over the other to force him or her out of the race early. And while the superdelegates virtually assure that neither candidate can win this BEFORE the convention, it is not clear that elimination of the superdelegates would avoid a convention fight the way things have gone this year.

Don't Let Florida (and Michigan) Despoil The People's Will Again

In the 2000 Presidential election, it all came down to a flawed ballot in Florida. In the process, the voters got screwed and saddled with one of the worst Presidents in history.

You'd think Democrats, being on the short end of that stick, wouldn't make the same mistake again. Think again.

Predictably, Hillary Clinton's increasingly desperate campaign is maneuvering to reinstate the Democratic convention delegates taken from Florida and Michigan when they defied party rules and moved up their primaries.

(Ironically, both states would have had more influence by keeping their primaries later in the season: see Texas, Ohio).

Of course, the Clinton campaign is pushing to seat the Florida and Michigan delegates because Hillary "won" in both states.

The problem is that Hillary "won" only because Obama played by the rules, while she didn't. And it's not just Obama--recall that at one time there were half a dozen or so Democratic candidates, all of whom abided by an agreement not to campaign in Michigan and Florida.

Clinton's argument in Michigan is particularly ludicrous. There, Obama (and Edwards) weren't even on the ballot, having withdrawn in compliance with party rules. There is simply no way you can award Hillary delegates for Michigan under those circumstances and call it fair or reflective of voters' preferences.

Democrats should heed the lesson of 2000. They should not award the Florida and Michigan delegates based on flawed primary elections where the two candidates played by different rules.

IF Michigan and Florida want to play a role at the Democratic convention, they still have the opportunity: they can either (1) hold party caucuses in which both Clinton and Obama compete, or (2) hold new primary elections. The latter is not very practical. The former probably won't happen because Clinton supporters oppose caucuses, claiming they are at a disadvantage in them.

(The reason for Clinton's disadvantage in caucuses is that latinos and working class women, two groups that disproportionately favor Hillary, are less likely to show up at caucuses. Indeed, in Nevada, Hillary won the caucuses in large part because of "at-large" caucus meetings held in casinos, which allowed her working class supporters to attend--it was these very at-large meetings that her campaign unsuccessfully sought to prevent, in a lawsuit, because evidently they didn't understand where her support was coming from.)

You might ask, how would the Democrats decide whether to reinstate the Florida and Michigan delegates? Good question--the answer is that the Superdelegates would ultimately decide the issue.

Here's how it works: if there is a dispute at the convention as to the seating of delegates, it gets referred to a Rules committee. When things are tight, as they likely will be in Denver this August, the decision usually gets referred to a floor vote, i.e., all the delegates (except those who are challenged) vote on whether to seat the challenged delegates. Those delegates already pledged to Clinton and Obama will vote based on the interest of their candidate--Obama's against seating Michigan and Florida; Clinton's for it. But neither will have enough to win, so it will be up to superdelegates, uncommitted delegates and Edwards' delegates. The vote could decide the nomination, and thus could be quite bitter.

In 1952, Republicans were deadlocked between Eisenhower and Taft as their nominee. The convention came down to seating of three delegations: those from Georgia, Louisiana and Texas. In each state, there were two delegations--one favoring Taft and one favoring Ike--so the winner of this battle would get the nomination. Earl Warren, then Governor of California, had about 100 and something delegates from his run for the nominatin, and he sided with Ike, helping get Ike's delegations seated and putting him over the top (and later becoming Chief Justice of the Supreme Court).

Democrats could be headed for a similar scenario in 2008. (Not that we're saying John Edwards will become Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.)

Shedding Light On Differing Delegate Totals

Confused about how many delegates Barack Obama has so far compared to Hillary Clinton? Wondering why Obama has 993 delegates according to the New York Times, but 1270 according to RealClearPolitics.com?

So are we. Here's an article from today's Wall Street Journal that helps shed some light on the subject: "Obama Gains, But Delegate Counters Still Disagree."

One reason for disagreement is that some outlets don't include caucus delegates until they're officially allocated at a state convention, which is often many weeks after the initial caucus with its "straw poll."

Likewise, some outlets don't include so-called "superdelegates" since they are unpledged and can easily back out of any commitment they've made to a candidate.

Even so, the outlets that count superdelegates don't agree on how many have committed to each candidate, nor do they agree on the number of pledged delegates, as shown in the very helpful table contained in the WSJ article (which Blogger is not letting us put here for some reason).

The one thing that makes NO sense is the New York Times methodology: it excludes caucus delegates, which artificially reduces Obama's numbers because he has won all but one caucus so far, while including superdelegates, which increases Hillary's numbers because she has more of the party faithful who comprise these delegates. Come to think of it, the Times methodology does make sense: it favors Hillary.

Despite Obama's String of Victories, Democrats Must Face Horrible Scenario That They Likely Won't Have A Nominee Before Their Late August Convention

Democrats now clearly face a major peril on the road to the White House: themselves.

Barack Obama swept the "Potomac Primary" yesterday, absolutely trouncing Hillary in Virginia, Maryland and DC. The magnitude of the victory in Virginia--64% for Obama--was quite impressive. Virginia hasn't gone Democratic in a Presidential election in 44 years, but it will clearly be a "battleground" state in November, with a decent chance of going blue. Virginians clearly signalled they believe Obama is the one who can make that historic leap in November.

But here's the problem: it is almost impossible at this point for Obama to win the Democratic nomination based on pledged delegates, i.e., those delegates who are bound to vote for Obama at the Democratic convention, as opposed to the nearly 800 uncommitted "superdelegates."

Here's the math: according to RealClearpolitics.com, Obama currently has 1104 pledged delegates to Clinton's 964. If you add in those "superdelegates" who have committed, Obama leads 1260-1221. (Note: you'll find different totals on different websites--but most have Obama with a small lead.) (Second note: the fact that a superdelegate has announced for a candidate doesn't mean they can't change their mind.)

It will take 2025 delegates to win. (Unless the Dems change their mind about sanctions imposed on Florida and Michigan.)

Roughly two-thirds of the states have already voted (34 states and the District of Columbia). There are 18 contests left (16 states, plus Puerto Rico and Guam), which account for 1075 pledged delegates.

If we use the higher RealClearPolitics numbers--which are higher than other websites have--for Obama, he still needs 765 delegates to go over the top, meaning he would need to capture more than 70 percent of the remaining pledged delegates to get the nomination. Likewise, Hillary would have to do even better than that to get over the top herself.

Now, a couple caveats on the math: John Edwards has 26 delegates, who could be released to vote for either Obama or Hillary. In addition, there are still roughly 70 pledged delegates not yet allocated from contests that have already occurred, of which 57 are in Colorado and Washington, both caucus states that Obama carried handily--meaning he will pick-up roughly two-thirds of those later on. Finally, Obama has won 10 out of 11 caucus states--in each of those states, his lead in delegates could shift slightly more in his favor as the caucuses proceed to state conventions. (The reason is that often delegates chosen at the earlier stages drop out along the way, concentrating voting power in the candidate with the majority.)

Still, let's say Obama gets two thirds of the Edwards delegates, two-thirds of the yet-to-be-allocated delegates and picks up another 15 in caucus states, he still needs about 700 delegates to put him over the top (without additional superdelegates).

Even if Obama wins every remaining contest, he's not likely to get 700 delegates under the party's proportional system of allocating pledged delegates. (One other caveat: Puerto Rico, which has 55 delegates, says it intends to give all its delegates--in violation of party rules--to the winner of its caucus, which is not until June 8. Given Hillary's relative strength amongst Hispanics, she should be favored there.)

Of course, if Obama pulled off the feat of running the rest of the table, it would be folly for the superdelegates to deny him the nomination, but he's not likely to do that. In any event, one problem--clearly revealed in the disparity of delegate counts on various websites--is how to count the superdelegates. At what point are they thoroughly locked in? In reality, never. Moreover, many of these superdelegates realize they gain more and more leverage the longer they wait, as they can cut deals for their support. (Deals that can only hurt in the general election, as they will be for special projects and special interests.)

There are a couple other problems as well. First, there very well could be a convention floor fight over trying to reverse the sanctions against Florida and Michigan, both of which were won by Hillary, but only after Obama played by the rules and didn't campaign in those states. Second, there could be a floor fight if Puerto Rico defies party rules and awards its delegates on a winner-take-all basis, also provoking a possible challenge by the loser to the seating of some or all of those delegates.

So, will Democrats have to wait until the last week of August, at their national convention in Denver, to finally know who their candidate is, while John McCain campaigns all summer as the GOP nominee?

That's a horrible scenario, and yet it looks probable at this point. About the only way out of it would be for Obama to graciously accept the Veep nod under Hillary. But why should he do that, and with Bill kicking around with nothing to do, why would he want such a position? Especially if he is leading in pledged delegates--the true measure of a candidates elected support--going into the convention.

Democrats are in trouble. Can anyone step up and lead them out of this mess?