If you eliminate the Super Delegates, Obama has already won.

It would take 1697.5 pledged delegates to win and Obama has 1740 already.

It is the very fact that there are 290 Supers who haven't committed that is keeping this thing going and going and going...

If you eliminate the Super Delegates, Obama has already won.

However, as Obama's legions liked to remind everyone, there are rules to be followed, and the SD's are part of the equation, for good or for ill.

And it's funny that you would talk about a non-existent standard to evaluate this, as "if" that's a legitmate consideration, then I don't see how the consideration of other metrics (like primary wins in states with big Electoral Vote totals or the popular vote) are any less legitimate. The vote minus the superdelegates is just as relevant as the popular vote or projected Electoral College contributions, isn't it? That is, there's one way that the nomination is ultimately settled - 50% +1 of the voting delegates at the convention.

It is the very fact that there are 290 Supers who haven't committed that is keeping this thing going and going and going...

Bug or feature?

Explain (hopefully, to the widespread satisfaction of the KV audience) why this big break hasn't already come. Any theories? I'm still trying to work this one out - but one thing that keeps sticking in my head is that if Obama's case is so compelling, why haven't they simply knuckled under to inevitability and broken for Obama? Is the outcome really all that certain?

This isn't a rhetorical question, by the way. I really don't know, and I don't presume to know.

____________________________

"It's gettin' so a businessman can't expect no return from a fixed fight. Now, if you can't trust a fix, what can you trust?"

I'm reminded of the March/April talk at Daily Kos and elsewhere re. how undemocratic it would be if Clinton were to win based on "superdelegates."

That was if superdelegates had pushed her over the top after losing the committed delegate count, a reasonable complaint since the superdelate is a un-democratic concept.

Not really an issue since Obama is winning in every significant metric except "states where his name did not appear on the ballot," where Clinton has a narrow lead.

"Inevitability" hasn't been a word I've seen used to describe the Obama candidacy, until he amassed this big lead in commited delegates and SDs. It's Hillary for whom that term was coined, and the SDs were larded with party operatives who owe the Clintons, or hope to owe them in the future (like our own Bill Owen). It was her race to lose, and the SDs were her firewall. That cracked when John Lewis defected.

Given that she's closed strong in the last lap of the closest race in party history, I'm not surprised that so many delegates are holding out -- a core of Clinton loyalists, a bunch of would-be Clinton loyalists (like Al Gore), who no longer have any love left for the Clintons but are reluctant to come out against her unless they absolutely must, true undecideds who have doubts about Obama's electability but fear the consequences of going against the probable winner, political animals like Phil Bredesen who want to be double-dog sure they don't damage their own political futures and people like Donna Brazile, whose career as a pundit is best served by waiting it out, even though there's no doubt as to which way she's leaning -- particularly after this past weekend.

And finally, there's Jimmy Carter, who's going to be for Obama, but is trying to heighten the drama. or something.

Seems to me the operative word is sure. It's still just hard to accept that the Clintons will lose this race, even for someone like me who doesn't support her.

"Inevitability" hasn't been a word I've seen used to describe the Obama candidacy, until he amassed this big lead in commited delegates and SDs.

I saw it as early as February coming from the Obama camp. Here it is, three months later, and the majick number is still not surpassed.

2/21/08 - Obama's campaign manager, David Plouffe, dismissed the Clinton camp's hopes of making a comeback when the power states of Texas and Ohio hold their primaries on March 4. "This is a wide, wide lead right now," Plouffe said in a conference call with reporters. "The Clinton campaign keeps saying the race is essentially tied. That's just lunacy."

There's been an air of triumphalism despite those and other errant predictions from Obama's team in the days and weeks since. (Still, the national primary isn't exactly a south-side scrabble over supposedly illegitimate petitions.)

My feeling is that those uncommitted are basically waiting for Clinton to drop out. (And speaking of our most prominent SD: personally, I wish that Al Gore had fought 1/10th as hard to become president as Hillary has to become the nominee. He had a clearer case.)

____________________________

"It's gettin' so a businessman can't expect no return from a fixed fight. Now, if you can't trust a fix, what can you trust?"

Andy, here's a possible answer to the question of why SDs are taking so long to jump:

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/06/02/sources-most-uncommitted...

Somewhere I read an old quote from Sen Clinton
that went something like this

"This race will be over..midnight..western time
Feb 5th.."

That's hubris.

The Clinton campaign just wasn't on the ground in the
caucuses that choose delegates...allowing Obama to gain
140 or so delegates.

In Idaho,Colo,Kansas,Wash.state & Minn
The Clinton campaign was not really there.

In Nev a caucus she won

But when the process was over
Obama won,14-11,in delegates.

She won the Tex primary but didn't
get her folks to the Tex
caucus

Obama ended up with 4 more
delagates in the state than Clinton.

Plus Clinton thinking it would be over super tuesday

Sen Clinton's campaign wasn't ready for the contestes
held from 2/9 thru 3/11.

Of the 15 contest held during that time
Clinton only won the delegate race in 2
states Ohio & R.I.

HUBRIS.

But then curtain was raised on the
3rd act.

Sen Clinton dusted herself off
gave it all she had..

Winning Pa.,Ind.,Ky.,West Va. & P.R.

But it was just not enough.

I've been for Obama since he started
talkin up a run in the late fall of
'06.

He's run a good race & is close to winning.

But Sen.Clinton will be kicking herself
for not fighting him in the caucus states
& no plan for the 4 weeks after super tuesday

HUBRIS!!!

I think Clinton's campaign just
didn't believe spending money
in caucus states was smart.

Ia was the exception & spent some
in Nev.

But they thought Super Tuesday was the big cheese
& put folks on the ground & money in the media for
those contestes.

Obama is the first insurgent to win the
nomination since '76.

For 30+yrs we've all watched Kennedy,Hart,Jackson,
Brown,Bradley & Dean make big splashes as the next
new thing..but never winning.

I think Clinon's campaign thought..we will beat the field super tuesday.

The insurgent's money will dry up along with their
support.

Game over.

If it's a postmortem, mine is that Obama has much better appeal. Discounting Appalachia, GOP mischief voters, angry women, etc.

(Hiding...)

Super delegates:

http://uspolitics.about.com/od/2008elections/tp/super_delegates.htm

Rationale For Super-Delegates
The Democratic Party established this system in part in response to the nomination of George McGovern in 1972. McGovern took only one state and had only 37.5 percent of the popular vote. Then in 1976, Jimmy Carter was a dark-horse candidate with little national experience. Super-delegates were implemented in 1984.
Super-delegates are designed to act as a check on ideologically extreme or inexperienced candidates. It also gives power to people who have a vested interested in party policies: elected leaders. Because the primary and caucus voters do not have to be active members of the party (in New Hampshire they can sign up and sign out going-and-coming at the polls), the super-delegate system has been called a safety-value.