The delegate fight: The narrow path
Posted: Thursday, March 20, 2008 9:13 AM by Mark Murray
The New York Times’ Nagourney has CW-setting expectations for Clinton and her fight for the nomination now that FL and MI are essentially dead:
1) "She has to defeat Mr. Obama soundly in Pennsylvania next month to buttress her argument that she holds an advantage in big general election states."
2) "She needs to lead in the total popular vote after the primaries end in June."
3) "And Mrs. Clinton is looking for some development to shake confidence in Mr. Obama so that superdelegates."
More: "Clinton’s advisers had hoped that the uproar over inflammatory remarks made by Mr. Obama’s longtime pastor that has rocked his campaign for a week might lead voters and superdelegates to question whether they really know enough about Mr. Obama to back him. Although it is still early to judge his success, the speech Mr. Obama delivered on race in Philadelphia to address the controversy was well received and praised even by some Clinton supporters."
And: "Clinton’s advisers said they had spent recent days making the case to wavering superdelegates that Mr. Obama’s association with Mr. Wright would doom their party in the general election. That argument could be Mrs. Clinton’s last hope for winning this contest."
So will the Clinton campaign be walking a fine line using Wright to make the case to superdelegates? Or does it make some of these undecided supers uncomfortable that the Clinton campaign is using it?
The Clinton campaign was able to wrangle 10 donors who promised to pony up $12 million for the Michigan revote, including Peter Angelos. Many Orioles fans probably are wondering why he won't use that $12 million for more steroid-free hitters.
Chris Dodd, who has endorsed Obama, released this statement on Michigan: "Even though I left my name on the ballot, it is clear that the results of the January 15th primary should not be used to apportion delegates. Many candidates were not on the ballot and many voters who might have voted in the Democratic primary did so in the Republican primary. Now, those voters would not be able to participate in a re-do election. For that reason, as well as concerns about private funding and concerns raised by clerks who would have to administer this election, the best outcome is to come to an arrangement where the delegates are apportioned fairly between Senators Obama and Clinton, so the Michigan delegation can participate fully in the Denver convention."
So is Obama's lead among the pledged delegates a large lead or not? Some have tried to argue that trailing by 150 delegates isn't a lot. But keep this in mind: Obama has won 53% of all the pledged delegates awarded to date, so he's up by 6 points on the pledged delegate front, but 2 percentage points on the popular vote.
Some Florida state Democratic lawmakers put out a new proposal to seat Florida's delegates. "The plan offered by the lawmakers would provide for 100% seating of Florida’s delegates. The compromise solution calls for 50% of the delegates to be awarded based upon the results of the January 29th Florida Presidential Primary vote. The other 50% of delegates could be allocated according to any of several formulas, including but not limited to:
-- an even 50/50 split,
-- a proportional share based on the total popular votes received nationally excluding Michigan and Florida,
-- a proportional share based on the total delegate counts nationally excluding Michigan and Florida.
The one thing to keep in mind when you hear about various proposals to split the delegates: Even if the campaigns agree to something, the plan has to be approved by the credentials committee, so nothing becomes final until then.
