Can anyone else see where this may be heading?

Clearly the Democratic bigwigs want this to be over. I think the slow steady trickle of SD's moving to Obama will speed up with the recent high profile defections from Senator Clinton.

However.....Obama appears to have peaked. Senator Clinton really appears to be surging at this point, and Obama looks very vulnerable (certainly more vulnerable than he's been in many months.)

So..... what if we get to August, and Obama has a clear delegate lead (and perhaps even the amount pledged necessary to win), but the polls show Senator Clinton ahead of Obama and defeating McCain in November? Do we nominate the less popular candidate? This is a real possibility folks.

(and please don't accuse me of being a shill for anyone. I'm trying to be an objective outsider, and i'm just looking at polls, watching candidates, and putting my finger in the air to see where the wind blows.)

And that in June.

Alter the outcome of the primaries and I know I'd have to reconsider my affiliation with the Democratic PArty

Delegates are the point of the whole thing.

The only reason Primaries are held is to select the Delegates for the Convention.

That's the Whole Point.

... for the 2008 Democratic National Convention. The Rules govern the development and implementation of a delegate selection process by each state and territorial Party.

http://www.democrats.org/a/2006/08/highlights_of_t.php

that the DNC rules claim that whoever has the most pledged delegates wins, regardless of what the superdelegates do? Or do you claim that the superdelegates are bound to vote for the person with the most pledged delegates?

Either way, you're wrong. I'm just curious to know what exactly you're wrong about.

yes, I made up that rule.

I'm not the only person to do so, either. I'd say a good chunk of the African American community possibly agrees with me on that standard as well.

and Clinton swoops ahead in delegates, but Obama is plainly ahead in the popular vote?

What then?

What then? Hey, it's just as likely as your scenario.

uncomfortable, because your "beliefs" depend on where your candidate is positioned.

I'm not "uncomfortable" at all bucko. If it were proven conclusively by recount that Obama had actually not won all those delegates, I would accept that and move on. See, I believe very firmly in fairness in all this, unlike HRC own's campaign (with regard to Michigan and Florida). I'm here all the time and I only ever see Obama people talking hard numbers, not posing silly theoreticals such as the one you posted. But if all this were reversed, I'd be resigned to the fact that HRC would be our candidate. If by some insane happenstance she *does* become the candidate, I will vote for her.

See, that's where it gets dicey. Do we give a shit about the voters, or do we care more about delegates, who are unfairly awarded in some cases, based on repeat performances by precincts/districts? When a candidate wins the popular vote, and loses the delegate count, that does make the average voter feel that they don't count, and are disenfranchised. And that's a problem.

I've always said I'll vote for the nominee, FWIW. Always. Even before the race narrowed.

It's a fact of the system that popular vote doesn't end up picking the winner all the time. I support the person who has the most delegates, period. The only thing that would piss me off is having the super delegates choose a person who didn't have the most delegates. Using any other standard than delegate count is either subjective or outside the rules of the process. You mention that delegates can be unfairly awarded, but I don't believe that is true. I think that aspect of the system *supports* democracy by rewarding districts that turn out in large numbers. I see nothing unfair about that.

Interesting that you don't think the popular vote is more important.

I think the delegate system ought to be scrapped, myself. It was useful in the old days, when it was one MAN, one vote, slaves were worth a percentage of a human, to be voted by their masters, and women had no vote at all. Nowadays, it is just an anachronism. It is not fair and it is not representative. If we didn't have a delegate/electoral system, President Gore would be finishing his second term, and maybe Vice President Lieberman wouldn't have turned into such a monster.

"Rewarding" districts that turn out just means in many instances that some candidate dropped a lot of street money on the ward bosses. It doesn't mean, necessarily, that the "voters" rose up in a mighty democratic (small d) wave and DECIDED, on their own, to get out and vote. The beaters were out, beating the bushes, and getting paid to do it. All politics is local, after all. If Old School Pol X in Ward Y, who has a hell of a following, asks his acolytes to get on out and vote for Candidate Z, they do it. They might not even know who the hell Z is, but if X told them, that's good enough for them.

I expect most of the SDs to declare their support very soon after Montana and South Dakota have their say.

Even after the recent boost in Hillary support, both candidates still can perform admirably against McCain. Certainly, I don't think a case can be made that either one is a sure-fire loser against him. And without being able to make a case that Obama has absolutely zero chance against McCain, it probably will be difficult to turn the tide against him.

If we're just going to have the polls decide the race then why did everybody waste their time voting? The super delegates can choose whoever they want, but basing their decision on what the media tells them isn't a great idea. For one thing the polls, especially months out, are not going to predict the outcome of the November election.

It wont matter if Hillary is ahead of McCain, has most of the white vote, has the blue collar vote, has the female vote and wins all of the battleground and big states. None of this matters. It is all about math, so they will go with Obama no matter what.

and it involves rules and consistency. Hell, if I could make George Clooney the candidate I'd do it, but I don't get to do that and neither do you or Howard Dean or anyone else.

And there's a good chance she won't get them.

Spin cycle is on, Captain Kirk.

:)

A place of unbridled paranoia

I can assure you I'm shilling for no one. I'm an unapologetic political junkie watching whats right in front of me. And it makes for an interesting discussion point. Imagine nominating at the convention a candidate who, at that point in time, is behind in polls against his or her primary opponent. It could happen. (my take by the way is that the leader in delegate winner wins. Otherwise, why even go through all this crap? Just have a poll in August and the leader wins)

Is John Edwards still polled against McCain?

If June roles around, and Obama has a delegate lead, but not enough to put him over the top, yet Hillary has the lead in polls.....do you really think she'll drop out?

Lots of if's, but i'd be willing to take bets at this point that come August....she'll still be hanging around....

people answering the calls are smart enough to know the landscape and what their answers imply.
I heard the only real poll is the election results.

He's being attacked and campaigned against by Hillary Clinton, Bill Clinton, sane Clinton surrogates (Evan Bayh), whackjob Clinton surrogates (Lannie Davis), and just regular Clinton surrogates.

He's also being hit by the GOP, John McCain, FOX News on an hourly basis, "editorial writers" like Karl Rove, Bill Kristol and Charles Krauthammer, and GOP media-types like Joe Scarborough, Bill Bennett, and Pat Buchanan.

Since the GOPers know good and well Obama's the nominee, Clinton has become the Incredible Invisible Woman to them. It's all Obama, all the time.

Even a candidate as strong as Obama can't take a constant beating from every possible corner and not be weakened a bit. The fact that he doesn't seem to have weakened significantly, that he polls well, that his supporters have stayed firm, that he continues to pick up superdelegates, and that his fundraising is still phenomenal are all testaments to his strength as a general election candidate. It's amazing to me that he hasn't practically collapsed under the weight of this extended primary and a constant barrage from all comers.

Once Clinton leaves the race, he'll only have the GOP and the right-wing media to deal with, and a united (and HUGE!) party behind him. All things will change at that moment, and the GOP knows McCain is a flawed and weak candidate in a Democratic year, which is one of the reasons they're trying to throw it all at Obama now. Once it's Obama-McCain, and the dichotomy is abundantly clear to voters, this probably won't be much fun for them.

And finally, the Democratic Party does not, nor should it ever, choose its nominee based upon polls taken months before elections. Thank goodness.

Those who want to change camps from Clinton's, especially, will want to take care that their decisions are more or less in keeping with the perceived will of their states' voters.

I think what we have is a basic stalemate. Hillary and Obama have about equal support, which stays the same despite fluctuations.

Obama probably did peak. But I think he's about hit his basic level, which is about half the party for and against.

Therefore, IMO, what ought to happen, barring some unforeseen disaster, is that the democrats ought to follow the rules that were set down at the start.

Hillary needs to drop out b/c she lacks the votes. yes, Obama is the nominee. and ONCE HILLARY IS GONE, the enthusiasm will double - he'll have that bump.

Three supers in three days. That's the news story that people should be following, not the dirty tricks noise.