Eli, if there are swirling questions about whether Obama can win the states he lost to Clinton, why aren't there swirling questions about whether McCain can win the states he lost to Romney and Huck?

who's paying for that? not me.

let's say she takes them both by the same percentage she took texas. the race just gets tighter, she doesn't take a lead, and not a commanding lead.

the fact that she hasn't won already is proof that she is NOT the best candidate.

Nope not interested.

Those 2 states had their chance. Their political leaders in those states decided to try and thwart the rules. They were told not to and now they are being punished.

I could care less if the "voters" feel disenfranchised. It is only the primary, and not the general election.

If the citizens of Michigan and Florida have a problem with it they can kick their leaders out, or bring charges against them for their ineptitude.

Either way they need to understand that we don't get to "re-invent" rules as we go, and then ask for mercy and a "do-over" when you get your hand slapped for being a fucking idiot in the first place.

Maybe Obama would be smart enough to get his name on the ballot in Michigan this time around? Biggest mistake of the primary so far IMO.

@3, wow, so if you live in a state with Republicans in power (a la Florida) and the Republicans decide to move up the Florida primary, then you're just SOL?

That's really harsh.

@2, the idea has been floated that Obama and Clinton should split the cost between the two of them.

I think it is in the best interest of the Democratic Party not too punish the voters of these two crucially important states.

Average Joe's and Joanne's in Florida and Michigan have nothing to do with the party trying to jump the gun but they are being disenfranchised by the DNC and I think that sucks. I think it also makes people pissed at the Dem's and no matter who our nominee is, they will have to deal with the backlash down the road.

@4,

You're joking, right?

I have no problem with Florida or Michigan holding a proper primary.

I've long opposed trying to legitimize their previous primaries, which is bullshit. Obama wasn't even on the balot in the Michigan primary, so you can hardly claim that their primary has any relevance whatsoever. Most people knew Florida's primary wouldn't count. So the only people that voted were the people who were too stupid or uninformed to be aware of that, or who hoped it would count for something. Again, hardly a representative sampling or any true indication of the will of the people. Plus Hillary sorta campaigned there even though she promised not to, which is pretty underhanded.

But if either state wants to hold a legit primary, and let all of their citizens vote fairly, and let the candidates campaign and compete fairly, more power to them.

The problem with a re-do is that it smacks of special treatment for Hillary, as if the party is trying to find a way to let her win.

Both states knew that by having their primaries early they wouldn't get seated delegates, yet they proceeded anyway. Now they want a re-do? Interesting.

I say make them count or don't make them count, but a do-over is kind of dumb.

Love the idea!

Sounds like a plan!

@9, the average democrat in florida and michigan had no control over moving their primaries. in fact democrats didn't have control in florida over moving their primaries, because REPUBLICANS are in charge. sheesh.

If you think it's fine to disenfranchise people because they might vote against your candidate, then just say so.

I'm sorry. I loved Dean. I thought his 50 state strategy was excellent. But this? Is a mess. And it's making me question whether he should resign as head of the DNC or not.

Playing off #1's question, it really seems to me that the question of Obama or Clinton being able to win states in the general that they didn't win in the primary or caucus season is comparing apples and oranges. With the generally higher proportion of Democratic turnout compared to Republican in many states, it really seems like the question is whether or not enough Dems will vote for whomever the candidate is in order for them to beat McCain via the popular vote. To clarify, let's look at Texas. Clinton got roughly 1,450,000+ votes to Obama's 1,300,000. So Obama lost. But their popular vote counts beat McCain's (at 700,000+) by 2-to-1. If we pretend the general elections votes are going to be pretty much the same in the primary, meaning that the Clinton folks didn't vote for Obama (if he was the nominee), or the Obama folks didn't vote for Clinton (if she is the nominee), either candidate would still beat McCain. Even if all the Huckabee voters (500,000+) switched to McCain, which is highly unlikely. Comparison of popular vote totals by candidate to me seems the best predictor of whether someone can win a state or not at this point in the general. While folks suggest that Obama and McCain are fighting over independents, it seems unlikely to me that any independent who voted for Obama would switch to McCain.

I'm an independent voter and I was solidly pro-Obama until today. Now I'm really starting to question the Democrats' ability to lead anything. They're disorganized and, if you look at Congress' ability to take on the executive branch, inept. I'm starting to wonder if either Dem candidate could beat McCain. I'm leaning towards no.

Again, say what you want about the Republicans and their policies, but they have their shit together and get things done.

John @ 10 - I think that simply making them count as they stand now is really a non-starter. No one seriously campaigned in either state and not even all candidates were on the ballots.

I think the only sensible thing is not to have them count. It might seem unfair to Dem voters in those states, but the state parties made the decision to hold the primaries early, and wanting a re-do now is kind of unbelievable. They suddenly want to be relevant now that it's a close race, and this just seems like the making of a huge fiasco.

Sure, revote. It doesn't matter. In the deeply fucked first elections there, Clinton picked up what would have been a 19 delegate advantage in MI, and 31 in FL. She only won 55-40 against "uncommitted" in MI. That's 50 total -- nowhere near enough for her. And put Obama's name on the MI ballot, and tell Obama supporters in FL that this time they're supposed to go to the polls, and it's tighter than that.

Unless the trend of Republicans voting for Clinton in the primary continues. I guess they should be able to bar anyone who previously voted in the R primary.

@15, I'm an Indie too. And, I totally agree with you.

it is not acceptable to make them count now.

where were all the voices for a do-over in the weeks prior? if the voters didn't want to be disenfranchised, if they wanted their vote to count, they should have expressed that opinion much earlier.

i would be okay with a do-over vote, i guess. but it seems like you are rewarding them for breaking the rules earlier.

Go on - give 'em another vote, or at least a caucus. It's less unfair than ignoring them altogether or pretending that either of those sham primaries meant anything.

@15 - They "get things done"? I'd like to welcome you back from the eight-year coma you appear to have just woken up from.

@13 No, I don't think voters should be disenfranchised because they might vote for my candidate. But the prospect of two states re-doing their votes because the race is close and Clinton needs a way to pull ahead is an awfully unseemly situation.

@16

I don't think it's right to tell voters in Michigan and Florida that they're SOL because random officials tried to game the system. That's basically the definition of disenfranchisement.

I agree though, making them count now isn't fair to Obama. Holding them again isn't really fair to Clinton.

@13: So the MI and FL Republicans hijacked the Democratic primaries, and the DNC just stood by and let them? No, not exactly. Democrats in MI and FL were fully in favor of moving their primaries against the DNC's wishes, so the DNC disinvited their delegates. But yeah, probably not Dean's finest decision.

@8
You're an idiot. Obama was the one who ran ads in Florida, though he promised not to. Hillary did fundraising in Florida, which she is allowed to do. So run your fucking mouth some more about shit you know nothing about.

thank you bookworm. ive been makign that point today. The primaries are not a good indicator of electability in the state because of the ratio of primary turnout, and because there is no basis for extrapolating a margin of victory in a primary to anything in the general election.

Oh yeah. Make 'em caucus. See how Clinton likes them apples.

@2 --

the fact that she hasn't won already is proof that she is NOT the best candidate.

Um, Obama hasn't won yet either.

@ Fnarf, I thought you hated caucuses with a firey passion?

So does this mean she'll be 101 - 19 = 82 delegates behind or 101 + 6 (from the new vote) delegates behind?

Either way she's got to win every state by 18 points from here on to have a chance of winning ...

Fun and games based on Dan's map of states each one won:

1. correction. look at 270towin compare Dan's map make the two maps line up to see: did HRC or BHO win more electoral college votes by winning primaries or caucuses so far?

It's 259 for HRC versus 197 for BHO.
conclusion: a. big states are more important than small ones, duh.
b. HRC does better by this yardstick.
c. at a minimum it's close and not all the yardsticks favor Obama.
d. Under other rules that would have been viewed as just as fair, such as winner take all, HRC would have had a blow out win by now.

2. OK let's be realistic, only the swing states are in play. So look only at the states that were "very close" in 2004 on the 270towin web site. Line up those HRC or BHO has already won or is likely to win in the nomination contrest we have:

HRC gets NV NM MI OH PA NH FL = 99 electoral college votes.
BHO gets OR CO MN IA WI = 43 total electoral college votes.

Conclusions:
a. Again, HRC is the stronger candidate for winning the general by this yardstick.
b. Big states count more particularly like PA OH FL. A dozen smaller states doesn't equal those big 3 swing states.
c. The whole idea of pursuing SC and ID and ND and other states where BHO did well is a bit of a chimera, fuck it man, we don't have PA and OH and FL nailed down.

Other yardsticks are relevant too and some of the favor BHO -- like delegate count and by a tiny hair, total votes cast so far. But if you focus on winning the general election, and look at the big states that are in play, and for good measure thro in the fact that BHO isn't well liked prolly in FL as he is saying don't count 2 million votes there....HRC seems a stronger general election candidate.

Looking to the general, I think the Democrats need to revote (or caucus or whatever) in FL to keep Floridians from defecting to Old Man McCain. McCain will be able tell those aged Dems that they should vote for him because those darned kids in their own party disenfranchised them (made even more effective if there is tape of Clinton using that word).

So yes, it's dumb, but they should do it.

unPC, is there any basis for using primary results as an leading indicator of general election success?

i thinks not.

you dont need florida or ohio to win 2008. VA and any 5 EC state will do. i'm sorry you dont think about doing what is neccesary to win.

The obvious solution is to have Michigan and Florida re-vote. That will give Hillary the chance to include those states she so disparately wants seated at the convention. To pay for it, you impose a $100 per person poll tax, which favors the Obama-leaning affluent community. Everyone wins.

unPC, you are dishonest. It's as simple as that. You are a terrible, terrible advocate for your candidate.

unPC isnt only dishonest, he isn't even thinking outside the box on how to win the general. you dont need ohio or florida to win.

the best part about the electoral votes is if hillary wins OH PA and FL but loses MN, WI, OR and ANY STATE besides vermont she will lose the general.

@32
i agree with you unfiltered primary results are not a leading indicator of general election success. That's been my point over and over: you can't say Obama will win in the general after being attacked by the GOP just because he's winning in primaries without ever having been attacked by the GOP. Whereas HRC already has won despite such attacks. (She won NYS by huge majorities twice).

In general the primary is designed to show us who will do best in the general. So noting that the race is pretty even by most yardsticks, I thought it would be interessting to focus on the issue of whether HRC or BHO is winning in the swing states. I think this is "more relevant" than focusing on ID ND UT AK and similar states where BHO has run up his lead in delegates, where the D's are not going to win in the fall.
This yardstick of looking only to the swing states favors HRC significantly it turns out.

But yes, I think there are other consdierations esp. this: if HRC's patty cake attacks reversed his momentum and drove down his votes in TX and OH....despite his outspending her 2 to 1.....how can you argue his charisma will defeat the much more intense GOP atttacks in the big media states in the general election?

Saying "well he's got the math he will win on delegates" does not answer the question.

You are right that we can win with what we got in 2004 plus Virginia and a few other states. But we really don't even have PA and MI nailed down, so just assuming we will get them is risky. BHO did not win CA NY TX FL OH MI NJ MA -- 8 big media driven states -- HUGE RED FLAG. I say secure your base and work outwards. (The 50 state strategy should be pursued in the sense that there should be a presence in all 50 -- but not major resources or money or effort in certain-to-be-lost deeply red states.) Nail down PA and MI, don't let them go R because we didn't count their votes in the nomination process. Fight like hell for OH which should be ours, shit their economy is in the dump. Go for FL. And yes, make big efforts in MO IA NV NM CO NH ME maybe VA and AR (if its HRC). But KS MT ND UT etc.? Fughedaboutit.

Most of all, put both of them on the ticket so that we capture the strengths of both of them as well as their respoective "teams" (voter base, energy, good will, donor base and volunteer base).

I was mainly responding to the argument that we should nominate Obama because he's done well in Idaho and North Dakota and SC and Ga and a dozen other states or caucuses where we aren't going to win in the fall; it's smarter to focus on who does well in the big swingier states like OH PA FL MI.

So far that's clearly HRC.

Best... Frist post... Ever. Logical, succinct, and humorous, by virtue of the poster.

i dont think anyone is advocating a strategy where democrats pursue utah or idaho, but i see something different here.

there are simply too many states in play to focus on PA, FL and OH alone. trade WI, MN, and our own state and you've lost again.

and the size of OH, FL and PA is the reason that focusing on them alone isnt going to win it. they cost so much money to win but are they really worth the same amount in states that equal the same amount of EC votes?

you could make the argument that for democrats in the past 2 elections, they focused so hard on OH and FL that Kerry lost because he spent so much in those two states when he had a better shot turning in victories in IA, NM, and possibly.

I think that the strategy for obama if he wins the nomination is to focus on 1 of OH, FL, or PA, and then pursue Iowa, and VA, NC, GA, SC. He needs to maintain some upper northeast states and upper midwest states.

If it is Hillary I think she needs to focus on 1 of OH, FL, or PA and pursue southwestern states and maintain OR, WA, WI, MN.

lets also think about where mccain is inherently strong and weak. is mccain strong in the same places as hillary and is obama strong in the same places as mccain?

if it turns out that mccain is strong in ohio, and florida but weak in PA both campaigns should go there and then focus on other states where mccain is weak.

You guys should stop listening to the troll known as UnPC. UnPC is clearly a Republican trying to make you debate his/her idiodic and unfounded positions. Ignore the troll.

You are spectacularly full of crap, unPC. You think CA, NY are huge red flags? You're on drugs.

Your continued insistence that Obama only has strength in states like UT and ID is, frankly offensive. There are other big states, a lot of them, and they add up Dem. Obama can win them.

Anybody who doesn't accept the true word of the Messiah is crazy and stupid! Don't listen to them with their eeeeeeeeeevil math story problems!

Obama SuperFan @42: Anybody who doesn't accept the true word of the Messiah is crazy and stupid! Don't listen to them with their eeeeeeeeeevil math story problems!

Hey, here's some math for you, Faux-bama SuperFan. It's looking like Obama could come out of Texas with three more pledged delegates than Clinton.

So says the Austin American-Statesman. Referenced by Daily Kos.

Oh, and Chuck Todd of NBC/MSNBC calculates that Obama comes out of March 4 with a 142-pledged-delegate lead--a lead that analysts say, for all practical purposes, is insurmountable.

So the only way for Hillary to win the nomination is to not only engage in character assassination against the Abe Lincoln of our time, but also to undermine the will of the voters.

The Clintons and their self-absorption have already cost this nation one potentially great president in Al Gore. It's looking like they're happy to cost this nation another potentially great president in Barack Obama. The only consolation this time may be that John McCain is a dramatically better alternative than George W.

Oh! She called him a 'faux-bama fan!' Buuuurrrn.

Thas all

Neither Hillary nor Barack is going to be able to get enough pledged delegates to win the nomination at this point. It's basically impossible for either one of them to do it under any realistic projection. So, they either have to win by the nomination by (1) gaining additional pledged delegates from Florida and Michigan; (2) outdoing one another in superdelegates; or (3) some combination of (1) and (2).

People have generally expressed disdain for the nomination being decided by any of these measures, but this is what we're faced with at this point in time. Accept it.

The Orange Kool-Aid is the best!

Not to pile on unPC, but Fnarf's remark is the best so far: you are truly lousy advocate for your candidate. If you want to try and advance her cause then you've got to come up with arguments that fail to pass the laugh test.

Seriously, you're wasting tons of verbiage on arguments that anyone who passed 9th grade civics knows are flawed.

*don't* fail...argh

Cressona-

The Clintons and their self-absorption have already cost this nation one potentially great president in Al Gore.

Funniest SLOG quote of the day! Oh... shit... you were serious? Never mind.

I like unPC. His posts are about an order of magnitude too long, but he's a wellspring of inexhaustible righteous Clinton energy. Rock on.

Hmm the cult perceives a heretic and they all leave the hive to attack!

@49
u r right -- 2 long. A defect. Regrets. Probably cannot change. Oh dammit defeatist again!!

@39
a reasoned argument, thanks.

@40
attack messenger -- as old a trick as Rome itself, Cato. Indicates cannot deal; is weak.

41"You are spectacularly full of crap, unPC." Ditto.

"You think CA, NY are huge red flags? You're on drugs."
I wish!
BHO consistently loses big media driven states that resemble a general election; he wins states that do not or can't be won by the D's (caucus state; deeply red or high % AAs).

In TX/OH with 2:1 $$$ advantage BHO LOST due to HRC patty cake attacks (3 am, NAFTA, SNL); in general GOP would beat the shit out of him much worse.

"Red flag" does nto deny his strength and is a moderate word denoting caution and risk only, not that he can't win or won't win -- only that it is not a shoe in.

Freaking out in response to reasonable, moderate arguments like that is culty.

"Your continued insistence that Obama only has strength in states like UT and ID is, frankly offensive." Go after that straw man! When reasoned argumetn and opposition and debate is termed = "offensive" we have a cult issue. Are you going to arrest me for "making comments harmful to the Soviet State" or something?

"There are other big states, a lot of them, and they add up Dem. Obama can win them." Does not compute, I talk about all big states Obama failed to win not just 2 of them all of them (CA NY TX FL MI OH NJ MA PA) as well as the 2 he won (IL and GA) -- there are *not* "a lot" "more" big states than those.

"and they add up Dem" = yawn, tedium sets in, bluster is yet another sign of inability to meet an argument, oft used by folks caught up in groupthink whose very identity is challenged by opposition or dissent.

"The revolution will too triumph in the end!"

"Well, our God will prevail in the end!"

Obama is a great candidate and likely nominee. WE need to be sober in figuring out if he should be or if he is, how to best ensure he wins in the fall. The point of what I've said lately is (a) assume he wins the nomination, (b) he still has flaws and limitations god dammit he just lost 3 of 4 can you read election returns and (C) the RX is we UNIFY to win in the fall by (d) putting HRC on the ticket.

I am not even focusing on arguing against him as nominee and u guys go ape shit.

Guess the unity thang is just like NAFTA ...inspiring talk, but no real change ... and frankly, it's offensive.

PS: u sound like guys u may not be.

PPS: U guys ever learn what he achieved organizing or at law firm? Other than the changes inside himself he talks about in his book.

Memoirs are always %100 true!

Sven combined with your quote (The Clintons and their self-absorption have already cost this nation one potentially great president in Al Gore)
this is the funniest.

So the only way for Hillary to win the nomination is to not only engage in character assassination against the Abe Lincoln of our time, but also to undermine the will of the voters.

Cressona you make the case that the Clintons assssinate character by assassinating their character.

The people of MI and FL wanted their primaries earlier so clearly we should count them because it is the will of the people.

The first problem with making our votes in MI count as we cast them on primary day is that, had I believed my vote in the Democratic primary would actually count, then I would have voted for Obama, not John McCain in the Republican primary (where my vote DID) count, sorta. In fact, many folks were publicly urging Democrats to vote in the Republican primary (mostly to vote for Romney.) So, the outcome of the Democratic primary may not actually represent the will of Michigan Democrats.

The second problem is that Obama wasn't on the ballot. Let's say that we take the vote as it is. How fair is it that Hillary gets those votes because she kept her name on the MI ballot, while Obama did not? You couldn't vote for Obama, you could only vote for uncommitted. Remember, there were several others in the race at the time. So perhaps people voted for Hillary rather than have an uncommitted vote possibly go to John Edwards at the convention.

I also wonder how the Republicans feel about all this, not that it really matters now that everyone but McCain has dropped out. If we did a do-over it does seem unfair that I'd get to vote twice, once in each party. I'm not complaining, but I wonder if Republicans will now go and vote in the Democratic primary to muck things up (would this do-over be open primaries like they usually are?)

And the problem with a do-over is who's going to pay for it? Michigan has no money, zilch, zero, nada. Plus we have a Republican controlled legislature that is unlikely to allow use of state funds, even if we had them. And the Michigan Democratic committee apparently doesn't have enough money to run a primary over again. I've heard that a caucus would be cheaper, but Hillary's not going to like that idea very much.

Who's going to pay for it?

Well, they can do a caucus for relatively little cash - in fact, it pays for itself.

If they want a primary - they pay for it.

Breaking the rules has consequences.

Please do not disenfranchise the voters of these two populous states.Stop playing politics.Why did Obama take his name off the Michigan primary ballot?If he would not have done that, we could use the previous results.Would he want to disenfranhise if he would have come out ahead? I think not.

Please do not disenfranchise the voters of these two populous states.Stop playing politics.Why did Obama take his name off the Michigan primary ballot?If he would not have done that, we could use the previous results.Would he want to disenfranhise if he would have come out ahead? I think not.