“Let’s all join together and acknowledge that all of us are indulging in gross speculation…{kriitter

Well, we are blogging kritter. Don’t you think that is kind of a redundant statement?

Hillary’s side suggests that only her wins in big state matters, because these are states the dems must win. But we know that these results don’t really speak to whether Obama can beat McCain in these states. Nor do they really speak to whether Hillary can beat McCain in such states just because she beat Obama there. They really speak just as much to Hillary’s insider advantage in industrial dem machine states.

Here’s the thing. The blues won’t swap. NY and CA are in the dem pocket, IMO. And TX is dead red. Probably Florida too, given the “no cigar” results in past elections and the dem party snub on delegates.The purples can go either way. Places like NJ, OH, and PA are VERY likely to be in play come November regardless of who the dem nom is, and to pretend otherwise is blowing smoke..

Obama’s side suggests that the number of wins Obama has piled up are what matters. But these results cut both ways. They DO show that Obama has appeal with independents, because he’s gotten great turnout in states where dems struggle. But when it comes time to do the red/blue/electoral map thing, we know that it’s suspect to think Obama can carry many or even any of the reliably red states. His only real advantage is that he can definitely deliver a higher turnout and more lopsided than usual dem advanyage among blacks.

Let’s all join together and acknowledge that all of us are indulging in gross speculation about what the superdelegates will do. Every one of them CAN change their minds, and few of them will actually feel bound by previous pledges for either candidate if it comes down to a convention spectacle. Many of these folks are elected pols with jobs they want to keep. Placing a vote that doesn’t accord with their constituents is bad for job security. Right now, their plan A is to hope their vote doesn’t matter, unless they have a promise for a better job. [which, granted, Hillary has probably handed out like candy].

I know that mileage varies on the superdelegates, but I think we can probably acknowledge that at the very least, they’ll all think twice and three time before swinging the nomination to the candidate who’s behind in delegates and who has shown inferior support in all but the big industrial states and California.

There are 10 states and a couple of territories left. Suppose Obama wins the next 2, and then closes a 15-20 pt deficit in PA but only comes close. Then he’s still ahead in delegates. Then everyone starts talking about NC and IN, which may well be a split of pretty big delegate states. Hyperventilating about FL and MI grows. Let’s face it…most of the superdelegates will be crapping themselves under the mounting pressure from all sides. They could do anything.

“many of Hillary Clinton’s supporters…drawing convoluted scenarios for her nomination.” - Jason

I guess that would be me. Except that I am not necessarily a Clinton supporter. Call me undecided.

#1 and #3 are all that is needed. “Strong- arm” and “ham-handed” are emotionally loaded words, but that does not matter. Superdelegates will vote for what is good for the party, and the fallacy in your argument is that superdelegates voting in alignment with the pledged delegate lead is what is good for the party. It may be or it may not be. It’s all about perception, and Obama has a perception problem.

Obama went for the knockout punch. He outspent her 3 to 1, he had more troops on the ground and a better organization, he pulled out all the high profile endorsements and superdelegate conversions. He threw everything he had at her, and she won. This is telling. Weakness has been exposed. The superdelegates see it. He may have peaked. He is now the one with something to prove in Pennsylvania and he has seven weeks to do it. If he loses there, he loses the superdelegates and the nomination, regardless of the pledged delegate count. He gets the VP as a consolation prize to unify the party.

Oh- and the “tide-stemming” of the superdelegates is old news as of the results last night. They now stay on ice with Clinton’s big wins.

One more thing - how do you do that “Read the rest of this entry?” on this post? I need to know how to do that for my posts.

I think the re-do is what makes the most sense, and I’m glad that both candidates are accepting of it. The unanswered question regarding this remedy is “can they do it?” What has to happen for a re-do to ,occur? Are there arcane laws against it? Could the GOP push the rules and regs to prevent it, preferring to force dems to stew in their own juices?

You could argue the dems deserve to stew. I said at the time that the unseating of the FL and MI delegates was utterly idiotic, and now it’s bitten the party in the ass about as badly as it possibly could have. Problematic as it is, I have a deep appreciation for the poetic justice of it. It was an act of grand hubris for the party to tell the states they couldn’t have their primary when they wanted to, and then to punish them. After all, who PAYS for these primaries?

That raises a worthwhile issue. If the dems want a do-over, who has to sign off in each state? Both states are well within their rights to tell the democratic party that if they want a do-over, the party can pay for it. They already got their freebie, and it was rejected. If it was my state, I’d make the party chairman deliver the state one of those big giant checks to pay for the new election, along with a public apology.