*Ahem* A Milestone Has Been Reached (I've been waiting a long time for this)

[FlyingSquirrel]

With Michigan and Florida

Candidate - Delegates - Superdelegates - Total

Clinton ........... 1427 .......... 261 .......... 1688
Obama ........... 1473 .......... 215 .......... 1688
Edwards ............ 31 .......... --- .............. 31
Uncommitted ...... 55 .......... --- .............. 55
Undeclared .......... 0 .......... 373 ............ 373

Updated 3/20/2008 .... Delegates Needed: 2208

http://demconwatch.blogspot.com/

I repeat: WITH Michigan AND Florida, Clinton and Obama are now tied overall.

Obama's been behind up till now and he has finally caught up in this purely theoretical matchup wished for by Clinton.

NOTE, however, that 55 uncommitted delegates from Michigan are not added in to Obama's column. Many of them would likely vote for him, so he's essentially in the lead right now if MI and FL were to be counted.

The more of a lead he can take in this theoretical matchup, the fewer people will be carping about MI and FL. In fact, at a certain point it could no longer matter whether they are seated or not! Now wouldn't that be just wonderful.

[mattclearing]

1. With two states that were uncontested?

Uncontested means there was no contest. No Primary. People voted for nothing.

[FlyingSquirrel]

2. Dude. You don't get the significance of this moment.

The constant battles here on DU over MI and FL -- their days are numbered. Obama has just tied her, including superdelegates, and NOT EVEN COUNTING the uncommitted voters in MI.

So even if the thing you are opposed to were to happen, at this moment in time Obama would still be in the lead in total delegates.

The more he can pull ahead in spite of the lingering question of MI & FL, the LESS IT BECOMES AN ISSUE.

At a certain point, if this continues and Obama widens his lead, you'll hear Obama supporters start saying, "We should count MI and FL."

You may even hear yourself saying it!

:hi:

[Stephanie]

5. You should clarify your OP then

I did not read it that way. I thought you were telling me Clinton had gained on Obama.

[FlyingSquirrel]

9. Sorry, guess not everybody's been watching this as closely as I have.

I've been watching this one day by day, seeing Obama steadily cut into Clinton's lead in the hypothetical matchup where MI and FL are counted as Hillary wants them to be.

So I'm kinda happy to see him finally catch up to her and hoping he can build on this to the point where the press and DU no longer care about MI and FL.

I mean think about it, if Obama were ahead by 240 or so instead of about 120, would anyone even CARE about MI/FL to the extent they do now? No, they'd be saying, "Yeah count 'em, whatever. He wins either way."

It's getting closer to that point.

[mythyc]

14. I've been watching it that closely too =) k&r

check the Democratic Convention Watch page about 20 times a day just waiting for Obama to catch her even with Michigan and Florida included.

I was waiting to post it for when he passed her though. Thanks for stealing my thunder FlyingSquirrel ;)

the uncommitted delegates from Michigan are big by the way. It doubt she'll win Pennsylvania by that many, and after that most states will be neck and neck. It's pretty much a wash that he's going into the convention with the most pledged, the most states, and the highest popular vote --- with or without Michigan and Florida counted. And don't tell me she doesn't know it. At the end of the day numbers perception will rule the day, and she's trying to stage a preemptive strike on that front by getting them counted either literally or figuratively now.

good post :thumbsup:

[blonndee]

6. Lately I've actually been thinking "just seat them already!"

At least the Florida ones--MI wouldn't be fair at all the way it is, obviously. Yes, they broke the rules, but the price the Dems (and Obama, should he indeed be our nominee) might pay for not seating them might not be worth it. I'm just disgusted with this race now. I was so excited before but now it's just ugly and becoming more likely that no Democrat will become president. We still have a good chance but that's fading quickly each day. We need to get this over with.

[Blondiegrrl]

8. *butts in* But the Clinton supporters are counting on the SDs to make up the difference.

Obama can be ahead no matter what, and most of them are still convinced the SDs will nominate Clinton.

:shrug:

Therefore, the arguments will continue.

[FlyingSquirrel]

10. *sigh* you have a point.

But at least then we can just argue about superdelegates. The MI/FL thing is getting old and I really want them to be seated (in some fashion, perhaps with some penalty) as long as it doesn't make a difference in who wins. That's just good PR.

[joshcryer]

21. I don't know any Clinton supporter that doesn't think she needs a mandate to win.

A mandate can be one of three things. Popular vote, delegate lead, or national polls in her favor (due to something happening to Obama's campaign at the last minute).

That said neither candidate has a pledged delegate mandate.

[mattclearing]

13. I thought you were looking at it the other way...

Like Hillary ties now. I didn't realize Florida and Michigan even made it close. I guess since Obama nets no delegates, it should be obvious. Sorry. I'm just so sick of hearing about Florida and Michigan...the state parties shitcanned their votes. It's not Obama's or Hillary's fault, nor is it they're responsibility to fix it.

[joshcryer]

20. Obama is actually saying it. He said it on Larry King tonight. I'm glad.

[joshcryer]

19. Because campaigning is more important than voting.

:hi:

[leftstreet]

3. whatever

[gristy]

4. I don't understand your post

What does "WITH Michigan AND Florida" mean? I have a strange feeling it refers to events that might occur in a parallel universe, but have been deemed impossible in this one.

[Name removed]

7. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[k8conant]

11. No way would they count MI vote for Clinton when Obama wasn't on the

ballot.

[FlyingSquirrel]

12. You're like, the 50 brazillionth person to say that.

That's not the point of this post. The point is, even in that most unlikely of scenarios, which is still being clung to by many Clinton supporters, it no longer puts Clinton ahead in overall delegates.

[AlGore-08.com]

17. Yes, but to play devil's advocate (which is all I ever do any more it feels like)

To tie or even have the lead in pledged delegates is meaningless unless Obama's delegate total is 2025 - - ditto for Clinton.

There is nothing in the rules that says super delegates must vote for the candidate with the most pledged delegates. Or the candidate with the highest popular vote total. Or with the most impressive swing state wins. Or the best hair. Or the coolest ipod selections. The super delegates are supposed to vote for the candidate who they think will be the best nominee. There are excellent and bad reasons for super delegates to vote for either Obama or Clinton. At this point, we have polls showing that a certain percentage of each candidate's supporters won't vote in November if their candidate isn't the nominee. What if those percentages grow on one side and shrink on the other - - a super delegate should weigh that into their decision. I've seen a poll that shows more Obama supporters only vote in the Presidential race and don't vote on the down ticket races, while more Clinton supporters vote for the down ticket races as well - - if there is no other meaningful criteria to chose from, that could tip the scales for a super delegate or two. What if, by the time we're in Denver, one of the candidates is polling far worse against McCain than the other? What if a real scandal - - or one of the mini-pseudo-scandals that make American politics so pathetic - - suddenly makes one candidate's negatives shoot through the roof? There are a lot of reasons why a super delegate might not vote for the person with the most pledged delegates.

[Umbram]

15. It is times like these where I'm not proud of my fellow Obama supporters

The OP has a great point, very easy to follow and people get all reactionary and don't bother think it through before posting.

[FlyingSquirrel]

16. Well, I could have been clearer. I edited the OP after some of the comments

to make it more obvious where I was coming from.

[Two Americas]

18. you did fine

Thanks for the excellent OP. I don't think it is possible in this heated atmosphere to make it clear to some people "where you are coming from." Who cares "where you are coming from" anyway? You are coming down from the trees - that's where flying squirrels come from, so far as I know. People are so suspicious and overwrought they can't read and comprehend anything anymore.

I think you were very clear, but then I am not partial to either candidate so I am probably biased by being unbiased. :)

[Coexist]

25. that was my thought, too.

[Voice for Peace]

22. Thanks Flying Squirrel!

This has all been too confusing for my small brain. I'm glad to read a lot
of good news this morning, the last few days have been taxing with all
the negative spinning. (I should drop out of DU before it gets crazy again
but.. I can't bear to quit yet, and anyway there are so many interesting people
here, passionate writing, extraordinary perspectives, great links.

[rug]

23. She's only 46 pledged delegates behind? Cool.

Pennsylvania will take care of that.

[gristy]

24. No she is not. She is 171 pledged delegates behind.

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/

Obama: 1,413
Clinton: 1,242