Agreed, Greg

I don't like that so many of the networks factor in the superdelegates, which can change any time, and in no way reflect the people voting. The fact is, there has not been one day this primary season where Obama did not either win or tie in delagates.

The networks superdelegate tallies are junk. They date from an earlier era, and the networks ought to be ashamed to use them. Here's how they're compiled: someone at the network breaks out their rolodex, dials the numbers of every superdelegate, and asks them how they feel about the race this morning. No, I'm not kidding.

Of course, there's a much easier and more reliable way to count the delegates than a telephone survey - just add up all of the publicly announced endorsements. If someone issues a press release switching or rescinding their endorsement, subtract it out. And make the list of whose supporting whom publicly available. Until the networks tell us which superdelegates they're putting in which columns, there's no point paying attention to them at all.

If you want a current, accurate count, go visit: demconwatch.blogspot.com. And then ask yourself why two amateur bloggers are doing a better job than CNN or the AP.

Yesterday RT strategies had McCain beating Clinton by 4% but Obama beating McCain by 2%. CNN had Clinton beating McCain by 3% and Obama beating McCain by 8%. The day before yesterday the WaPo had McCain beating Clinton by 3% and Obama beating McCain by 3%. On Feb 1 Fox had McCain beating Clinton by 1% and Obama beating McCain by 1%. I could go on, but you surely see the pattern by now.

Goodness knows that these polls do not prove that Obama stands the better chance in the general election (we do not, after all, elect presidents based on popular vote totals), but they are the best evidence (as opposed to the equally important intuition) we have to go on, and they all suggest that Obama is the stronger nominee. For what little this is worth, my intuition agrees with that evidence-based conclusion. This is not an argument to the effect that I know that the remaining super-delegates will break for Obama, but I think that it is at least a good reason to hope that they will.

Ok another off topic post, but very informative.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Vote2008/Story?id=4245326&page=2

Who does this sound like? Anyone? I'll give you one guess and I am sure that you will get it right.

I tend to ignore the super delegate numbers since they can easily change. If Obama can walk into the convention with the most states won, most pledged delegates, and preferably the most votes in the popular vote he can convincingly make the case that the super delegates need to come over to him and seal the nomination.

He's on easy street money wise I think, I just made my second donation and am willing to keep doing so each and every month until he has the nomination.

Now that the schedule is not quite so hectic he can focus on retail campaigning state by state and blanket the states with tv, radio, and mail pieces. He's starting to make in roads into the Latino vote, he's starting to chip away at her lead among women. He survived super tuesday in good position, people are starting to give him a second look and liking what they see. He has a real shot at winning this thing.

The whole idea of "super-delegates" is a euphemism for party bossism determining who is nominated. It's a disgrace. Even Donna Brazile today, a Clinton supporter said, that if the super-delegates were to go against the candidate with the most pledged delegates she would quit the party. Shouldn't be considered, shouldn't be counted.

I do think that the delegate count confuses a lot of people, but as an Obama supporter, I don't think it's bad for him. Last month, everyone was scrambling to be christened the frontrunner in the hope that voters would rally around the perceived champion. But at this point, everyone knows that the race is going down to the wire, and I think that it's more to Obama's advantage to be perceived as an underdog battling the anointed candidate of the establishment.

Of course, I want him to get every delegate that he can, but I won't get "misty" if the media happens to represent the delegate count in such a way that he is perceived to be coming from behind. If nothing else, there will be a news moment when Obama surpasses Clinton in the total delegate count, which should occur next week. Next round of polls anyone?

Michael A:

By that logic, there's no point counting pledged delegates, either - after all, there's nothing that binds them to vote for the candidate they pledged to support (with the exception of delegates from a handful of states that do bind their votes).

In general, we have to take delegates at their word. If they say they're going to vote for someone, we have to presume they mean it. Other than those who abandoned Edwards, I'm not aware of a superdelegate who has switched a publicly announced endorsement this cycle. So it's well worth counting them, to the extent it's worth counting any delegates at all.

"Dont't we already know polls are not accurate? Didn't they say Clinton would lose 13 points in CA?"

Yes, but some other polls got it right. Every single poll I've seen has had Obama either beating McCain more than Hillary, or losing to McCain by less than Hillary. Not every poll showed Obama winning CA. To paraphrase someone else's point I read earlier, this is not proof, but it's the best evidence we have.

If this has already been asked and answered I would love a link but I have yet to hear who won the most overall votes on Tuesday. Anyone know?

Here's one for the political historians -- can anyone please tell me who the last Democratic presidential nominee was that lost MA, NY, NJ, and CA during the primary election?

Here's the central question for the reamining primary, and the general:

Will the full count of voters -- regardless independent or party affiliation -- prefer --

The white -- who happens to be a woman; or,

The male -- who happens to be black?

(Romney's done; stick a fork in him; Huckabee is about done, ready the fork; McCain will be rejected because 'way over the hill in terms of both politics and age.

The vast majority wants change; but their choices are: a white woman, and a male black. Push come to shove, regardless where each voter is when s/he goes to vote, at the point of doing so they become a cautious: they will look at the two candidates -- Hillary and Barak -- and choose change _coupled with experience/competence_. [Where, that is, was the massive "youth vote for Barak" on primary day? Didn't materialize; or at least didn't vote Barak.]

We've had enough of "learn on the job" during the past 7-8 years. Barak's is exciting but not sufficiently experienced/seasoned. He speaks in high-sounding generalities, with o specifics. Hillary has specifics because she has experience.)

Nowledge,

America lost. In November, you you will be voting for one of two lackluster Republican-lites . . . Or rather . . . Against one really old insane white guy.

Everything else is spin.

The idea that Terry McAuliffe, by virtue of his status in the DNC, could cast the deciding vote as a superdelegate, tells you everything you need to know about the fairness of the process.

The delegate system that the Democratic Party has created is an embarrassment. It should not be so hard to determine the delegate count that no one knows the actual number. What’s wrong with winner take all? Why are there committed and uncommitted delegates? Why are super delegates who are not bound by anything other than their personal preference such a large percentage of the total? This is ridiculously convoluted. It has the appearance of a system designed to minimize the value of the voter and maximize the value of the establishment.

If the Democratic party wants change it should start with the primary process. Here are a few suggestions.

1) All of the state delegates should be committed delegates to be won or lost at the ballot box.
2) Super delegates should make up no more than 5% of the total to minimize the effect of non elected votes.
3) While I can appreciate the need of proportional delegates early in the campaign, they should have a rule that if a candidate wins 50+% of a states total vote he wins all the delegates. This would allow a front runner to actually win the race or a candidate who started slow to actually catch up.

My 2 cents

Didn't the Obama campaign also release Super Tuesday delegate numbers that comported with the NBC News estimate?

Something like 845 - 836 for Clinton?

You know if Clinton's camp thought they had actually won the delegate count, they would have released their numbers and pushed them hard, so I think they have basically conceded the fact that Obama won more delegates on Super Tuesday and has won more delegates so far.

Here is how I think we should handle the superdelegates:

http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/2008/02/a-plea-make-democratic-superde.php