Dem projections & good news for GOP

[BarbaraGordon]

Official projections from the campaigns are that Barack and Hillary will be roughly one hundred votes apart - one way or the other - come convention time. With four hundred SuperDelegates undecided, this means that - as Cali indicated the other day - the nomination will be left in the hands of the SuperDelegates.

Conventional wisdom is that the Dems would go with Hillary in that scenario. BUT, if the state-appointed delegates are favoring Obama (and this is looking likely), it would be awfully hard for them to justify allowing the S-Delegates to overturn the vote. For them to do so would undermine the legitimacy of the nominee, and create a lot of ill will toward the party. Plus, it's downright un-"Democratic."

The good news for the GOP is that while their candidate will have been determined, strategizing, and (hopefully) garnering support for nearly six months; the Dems are facing a situation in which their nominee will quite likely be determined at the last minute by a rather contentious series of un(?)fortunate events.

The Dems will come out looking muddled, confused, and divided. The GOP, oddly enough, has a chance to come out looking like a veritable bastion of unification and solidarity.

Either way, I imagine the Dem convention this year could be the most entertaining in decades.

I still can't help feeling this is like trying to predict the BCS.

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by BarbaraGordon

Official projections from the campaigns are that Barack and Hillary will be roughly one hundred votes apart - one way or the other - come convention time. With four hundred SuperDelegates undecided, this means that - as Cali indicated the other day - the nomination will be left in the hands of the SuperDelegates.

Conventional wisdom is that the Dems would go with Hillary in that scenario. BUT, if the state-appointed delegates are favoring Obama (and this is looking likely), it would be awfully hard for them to justify allowing the S-Delegates to overturn the vote. For them to do so would undermine the legitimacy of the nominee, and create a lot of ill will toward the party. Plus, it's downright un-"Democratic."

The good news for the GOP is that while their candidate will have been determined, strategizing, and (hopefully) garnering support for nearly six months; the Dems are facing a situation in which their nominee will quite likely be determined at the last minute by a rather contentious series of un(?)fortunate events.

The Dems will come out looking muddled, confused, and divided. The GOP, oddly enough, has a chance to come out looking like a veritable bastion of unification and solidarity.

Either way, I imagine the Dem convention this year could be the most entertaining in decades.

I still can't help feeling this is like trying to predict the BCS.

Let blood rivers flow in the streets.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by BarbaraGordon

Official projections from the campaigns are that Barack and Hillary will be roughly one hundred votes apart - one way or the other - come convention time. With four hundred SuperDelegates undecided, this means that - as Cali indicated the other day - the nomination will be left in the hands of the SuperDelegates.

Conventional wisdom is that the Dems would go with Hillary in that scenario. BUT, if the state-appointed delegates are favoring Obama (and this is looking likely), it would be awfully hard for them to justify allowing the S-Delegates to overturn the vote. For them to do so would undermine the legitimacy of the nominee, and create a lot of ill will toward the party. Plus, it's downright un-"Democratic."

The good news for the GOP is that while their candidate will have been determined, strategizing, and (hopefully) garnering support for nearly six months; the Dems are facing a situation in which their nominee will quite likely be determined at the last minute by a rather contentious series of un(?)fortunate events.

The Dems will come out looking muddled, confused, and divided. The GOP, oddly enough, has a chance to come out looking like a veritable bastion of unification and solidarity.

Either way, I imagine the Dem convention this year could be the most entertaining in decades.

I still can't help feeling this is like trying to predict the BCS.

I am not entirely convinced anymore it will be a drawn out process. The superdelegates, as you know, are free to change their vote at any time- whether they have committed now or not. If Obama continues winning states with 60% of the vote (which he is expected to do again today in each of the Potomac primaries), it will be really hard for Clinton to stay in this thing. The pressure on her will be immense to get out of the race if she loses state after state.

Texas must be her firewall state. If she loses Texas (still unlikely, but a growing possibility), I don't see how she can stay in. That would be her 9th consecutive loss (with at least 4 being blowouts and 3 more blowouts projected today). She would have to push her firewall to Ohio, but at that point she is running out of states, and it would be virtually impossible for her to overcome Obama barring a complete collapse in his campaign.

While it may come down to superdelegates, their vote will be heavily influenced by who is leading and who their state voted for (as you noted). It would be tough for Clinton to win in that situation.

[hyrum]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

I
Texas must be her firewall state. If she loses Texas (still unlikely, but a growing possibility), I don't see how she can stay in. That would be her 9th consecutive loss (with at least 4 being blowouts and 3 more blowouts projected today). She would have to push her firewall to Ohio, but at that point she is running out of states, and it would be virtually impossible for her to overcome Obama barring a complete collapse in his campaign.

I thoughtTexas and Ohio primaries were on the same date.
I think its WAY too soon to predict some sort of stalement that goes until the convention. One or the other will see the handwriting well before that.

[BarbaraGordon]

Originally Posted by hyrum

I
I think its WAY too soon to predict some sort of stalemate that goes until the convention. One or the other will see the handwriting well before that.

That would be true if the states were winner take all. It does appear that Obama will win at least seven states in a row. (Even the Obama campaign isn't projecting a win in Texas, they're hoping for a close loss.) But these are Democrats and the process is so...Democratic. With Obama/Hillary splitting everything about 55/45, it's looking like, including the currently designated Superdelegates, it won't be more than a 200 vote swing either way. Likely, less than one hundred. So there just is no handwriting on the wall.

Now, if the Party were smart, then, like Cali suggests, they'd take some sort of pre-emptive action to keep this from dragging out. They'd see that Obama has won the popular vote from the get-go, and they'd start lobbying SuperDelegates to move their support to him. But these are the Clintons we're talking about. I just don't see that happening.

-

Cali: I agree with your bottom line. While conventional wisdom dictated that the Superdelegates would go with Hillary, I think it's becoming more likely that once the people have spoken - even if it's for Obama - the S-Delegates won't risk going against the popular vote.

BUT, unless the Party starts planning now, I still see this lasting right up to the convention and giving the GOP a huge head start heading into the GE.

[Tex]

In another piece of interesting news, David Freddoso examines party primary turnout.

In the open election of 1988, 23 million Democrats voted in primaries, as did 12 million Republicans. Yes, you're reading that correctly. Nearly twice as many Democrats voted. That was a precursor to President Michael Dukakis's election.

In 1980, Democrats actually had an incumbent president, who was challenged by Ted Kennedy. Republicans, meanwhile, had a competitive primary between Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush. Democrats cast 16.1 million votes in their primaries that year, compared to just (corrected) 12.7 million for Republicans. We all know what happened in Jimmy Carter's second term, don't we?

Interesting read. It's a sad state of affairs that I have to take solace in such analysis, but when the excitement on the Dem side so far exceeds that on the Repub side, I'll take what I can get.

http://corner.nationalreview.com/pos...BlN2NlODA3ZTg=

[hyrum]

Originally Posted by BarbaraGordon

That would be true if the states were winner take all. It does appear that Obama will win at least seven states in a row. (Even the Obama campaign isn't projecting a win in Texas, they're hoping for a close loss.) But these are Democrats and the process is so...Democratic. With Obama/Hillary splitting everything about 55/45, it's looking like, including the currently designated Superdelegates, it won't be more than a 200 vote swing either way. Likely, less than one hundred. So there just is no handwriting on the wall.
...

BUT, unless the Party starts planning now, I still see this lasting right up to the convention and giving the GOP a huge head start heading into the GE.

But even if it takes all the primaries to determine who will have the most committed delegates, the primaries are over on June 7. The convention is not until August.

[BarbaraGordon]

Originally Posted by hyrum

But even if it takes all the primaries to determine who will have the most committed delegates, the primaries are over on June 7. The convention is not until August.

Hm. Perhaps you're not understanding me.

Although the state delegate count will be determined in June, the margin will be so small that - barring intervention on the part of the Party - the process will drag on through the convention. We're talking about Barack and Hillary, not Mitt. Nobody's going to be stepping down for the sake of Party and Country here. Not unless the Dem Party itself forces the issue (which, personally, I'm thinking they're going to have to do).

Perhaps I've got a cynical view of the two central characters involved, but that's my take.