Superdelegates? This whole process is about 3 orders of magnitude more complicated than it needs to be.

Obama will get there. Once Edwards leaves and his delegates have to make their choices, those anti-Hillaryites will go more towards Obama than her.

Hillary herself was resigned to not winning earlier today. Her camp had no idea they were even in the ballgame. It is being said that it was older women voters who made up their minds months ago who pulled her ahead.

Come election day they won't matter a hill of beans...

Hillary shot her one load in N.H. Now she is in for a serious reality check going forward...

Right. Because this country needs John Edwards. Are you paying attention?

But plants need brawndo. It's got electrolytes!

Hillary is going to have an uphill battle in Illinois and South Carolina. One is his home state, both have a large African American population.

Some polls have said African American women are leaning toward Clinton though, and ol' Billy is popular with this particular community, so SC might sunrise us. But I'm guessing for sure Illinois will go into Obamania.

But my experience amounts to watching CNN and reading blogs all day, so what do I know?

I meant "surprise" not "sunrise". Damn spellchecker.

I won.

Since Dan is introducing the consideration of superdelegates, let's just leave it as Clinton= 183, Obama= 78, and Edwards= 52.

I can live with those numbers.

fat body made Clinton a contender in NH! Identity politics, what a drag. I can not believe people fell for that and her crocodile tears as well! Imagine Clinton with a decisive loss in NH! Instead of people voting on ideas or issues, they get sucked into Clinton’s emotional hot button traps, including Edwards. Anyways, if Obama can not defeat Clinton, he might have a hard time defeating the Republicans. You have to kill the troll before you can take on the Dragon. Oh, the drama, the drama.

Hi Big Sven.

A much more interesting page:

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results/scorecard/#D

The clout given to IA/NH/SC etc by the big media establishment (tongue only halfway in cheek) and these other people who supposedly know what they're talking about is kind of mystifying me at this point.

A very small percentage of the total delegation has actually been decided, yet everyone, including Seattle's only newspaper, are obsessed with NH's measly 22 pledged delegates? (that is to say, the ones directly affected by tonight's vote) This compared to the 2,025 deligates needed to secure the nomination?

Obama has only secured 25 of 3,253 pledged delegates, that's 0.8%. Hillary has only 24 delegates so far!

I'm ignoring this aristocracy-esque "superdelegates" bullshit at this point, mostly because they've only been "surveyed", and only a small number of them even responded.

All of this ignores the fact that some states split their delegates, and some award them fully to one candidate like some kind of electoral college bastard child.

I know the narrative is supposed to be that IA/NH/SC are historically good predictors, blah blah blah, sets the page, blah blah, but this is 2008. The political landscape changes every year. Besides, I looked at the data from Iowa posted here a few days ago comparing the IA pick to the actual nominee, and I wasn't even that convinced.

Am I missing something?

Disclaimer: I question the effectiveness of the current primary system itself, under the assumption that simple party affiliation is a much more dominant dynamic in the general election than what caucus goers and primary voters agree with. Case in point, the college youth who supposedly rallied for Obama in Iowa are exactly the same kind of pricks who won't actually show up to vote D in the general, regardless of who the nominee is. The problem is all the wonks already caucused.

What actually seems effective at winning elections these days is putting stupid hot button issues like gay marriage on the ballot. This isn't just about electoral college votes (remember those?), it's also about congress. Anyone with an R after their name, really.

"What's the Matter With Kansas" describes this phenomenon quite well.

Woops, that was long.

Thank you w7ngman, you twisted my head around until my neck was a tight coil, then it all unspun and corkscrewed me through the floor, and now I'm dizzy.

Just remember: The Republicans WANT to run against Hillary. They desperately want to run against Hillary Clinton. Why? In a general election the GOP Wins the White House against Hillary Clinton but the GOP looses if it is Obama or Edwards.

Actually I think the GOP wants to run against Obama. Thus the gloating in the washington post after Iowa.

Does not really matter who won. Billary won along time ago... She has all of the Super Delegates. You didn't think Democrats select their candidates democratically did you? Everything from here to the convention is just an elaborate marketing stunt.

Obamatron-

Hi, yourself. The contest between Clinton and Obama will be all about "ideas or issues". In fact, you've hit it squarely on the head.

One of the reasons that Obama and Clinton supporters often seem to be speaking a different language is because they are. They have a diametrically opposed view of what their candidates should be about.

Clinton looks at political power, and tends to collect supporters (such as myself) who also look at political power, through the prism of specific policies and actions- what bills will we propose today, what policies will we put forward today. It's a pragmatic, checklist-based view of leadership. FDR, for all his eloquence, had this style.

Obama looks at the process it terms of what ideas and long term goals get you up in the morning, and what are the goals of the people supporting you. He thinks that if you have the right vision, the details will work themselves out. Churchill had this style.

But it's why he's ultimately not really excited talking about policy details. And she hates the touchy feely stuff that he's good at. It's also why, when she had her "emotional moment" it manifested itself in the statement that "Some of us know what we will do on day one, and some of us haven't really thought that through enough." Because for her, that is the essential characteristic of a leader.

I totally understand why some people chose Obama's ideological (note: not partisan) style over Clinton's more pragmatic approach. Pragmatism isn't exciting, and it's often not motivating. But for some of us (a plurality in NH yesterday), the comfort of knowing that Ms. Clinton already has her "to do" list for day one is what we *love* about her.

So you're right- people will be voting on ideas or issues over the next couple of months. And their will determine who we have representing us in the fall.

One final point- the difference in their leadership style makes me think they would make a *great* Prez/Veep team. There's probably already too much blood spilt, but one can always hope.

Nice post, Sven. And to "Just Me": Have you learned nothing in the last 24 hours about the danger of premature judgements in this election cycle? To say something like this, the day after New Hampshire, is flat dumb:

"In a general election the GOP Wins the White House against Hillary Clinton but the GOP looses (sic) if it is Obama or Edwards."

Wake up, man... Chris Matthews already made a giant ass out of himself.

@16 Boy Big Sven you really are drinking the Hillary Kool-Aid by the gallon.

She even has you regurgitating her talking points.. "the comfort of knowing that Ms. Clinton already has her "to do" list for day one is what we *love* about her."

That rhetoric is exactly that type of stuff she wants people to believe to forget that Obama is picking up momentum and she doesn't know how to counter it...

13, read this:

http://www.horsesass.org/?p=4058

16, saying she has all of the superdelegates is a gross exaggeration. Only a small number of them even responded to whatever survey the news sites are using for their numbers. On top of that, the super delegates are, I think, only about 20% of the total delegates.

To me, just like in the general, the big hitters are CA, NY, FL and so on, the states with a lot of delegates due to their high populations. If I were to make an uneducated guess I'd say those would swing towards Clinton, the establishment-y candidate. Time will tell though.

That last part was to 15

Actually, I think Mitt Romney has the most GOP delegates, and Barack Obama has the most Dem delegates.

Not that it matters - Feb 9 will be the deciding caucus state.

Reality Check-

I like your candidate Obama, and if he's the nominee I will gladly support him.

But I think you're an immature dick. Take your ad hominems and nihilistic snark and go pee in someone else's pool.