You can't not steal something from someone, if that person never actually possessed said item. If Obama does not clinch enough delegates for the nomination, it can't be stolen from him.

Only the most rabid are saying anything about "stealing."

The argument is that if neither has enough, then shouldn't the person in second place bow out, especially if the other has won more delegates, states, and popular votes?

Quinnipiac:

FL: McCain 44, Obama 43
FL: Clinton 49, McCain 41
PA: Obama 47, McCain 38
PA: Clinton 51, McCain 37
OH: McCain 43, Obama 42
OH: Clinton 48, McCain 38


Go ahead and turn a couple red states blue, but if you lose 2 of those 3 listed above, you will not be elected the next president. Hillary Clinton is the ideal candidate to win these three states. Her demographics are stongest in them, plus she has the support of both the GOVs of OH and PA.

No, not if they are polling stronger in the swing states. Take a look at the most recent (released today) polls from the big 3 (PA, OH, and FL): Visit http://www.realclearpolitics.com for the links to them.


Quinnipiac:

FL: McCain 44, Obama 43
FL: Clinton 49, McCain 41
PA: Obama 47, McCain 38
PA: Clinton 51, McCain 37
OH: McCain 43, Obama 42
OH: Clinton 48, McCain 38


Go ahead and turn a couple red states blue, but if you lose 2 of those 3 listed above, you will not be elected the next president. Hillary Clinton is the ideal candidate to win these three states. Her demographics are stongest in them, plus she has the support of both the GOVs of OH and PA.

Only the most rabid are saying anything about "stealing."

The argument is that if neither has enough, then shouldn't the person in second place bow out, especially if the other has won more delegates, states, and popular votes?

If you count just the votes in regular, Democratic Party-authorized primary elections:

Obama: 49.2%
Clinton: 47.5%
Obama’s margin: 501,298

Regular primaries + four caucus states:

Obama: 49.3%
Clinton: 47.2%
Obama’s margin: 611,520

Regular + Florida:

Obama: 48.3%
Clinton: 47.6%
Obama’s margin: 206,526

Regular + Florida + caucuses:

Obama: 48.4%
Clinton: 47.4%
Obama’s margin: 316,748

Regular + Florida + Michigan:

Clinton: 47.8%
Obama: 47.4%
Clinton’s margin: 121,783

Regular + Florida + Michigan + caucuses:

Clinton: 47.5%
Obama: 47.5%
Clinton’s margin: 11,561

That's patently unfair, especially since Michigan exit polls showed that if all candidates had been listed on the ballot, Clinton would have received 46 percent to Obama's 35 percent, giving her a lead of just 65,323 votes, not 328,151.

McCain has one big thing in his favor though. The public, historically in the post 1960s seems to prefer divided government. They don't seem to trust one party to have it all, which is generally a good instinct. If it wasn't for one party being in charge, Iraq might not have happened. So you can't really blame them for giving serious consideration to McCain even with all the flaws of current Republicanism.

Even during times of economic uncertainty and the current, one-sided view on Iraq? Seems like people might want the levels of government to push together as opposed to being divided on these issues.

Just my two cents.

As some mix of manic euphoria, delirium and exhaustion settles over Democrats nationwide, it's worth stepping back from the clamor for a moment to consider just why it is the Democrats have superdelegates (which the Republicans don't) in the first place and whether the whole concept should be abolished.

Obama supporters say that the superdelegates as a group should not overturn the verdict of the primary and caucus election process while Clinton supporters say that it's precisely the point of the super delegates to make their own considered judgment about who the party's nominee should be regardless of the finally tally of pledged delegates. The second accurately portrays why the superdelegates were created.

In fact, even this description puts too gentle a gloss on it. Coming out of the 1970s, the Democratic party establishment created the superdelegates precisely to put a brake on the power of "the groups", which was shorthand for, and not necessarily in this order, the hippies, the blacks, the gays, the feminists, the environmentalists and everyone else suspected of driving the Democratic party to the left of the American mainstream and out of contention in national elections. In this view, there were ordinary Democrats on the one hand and these assorted freaks on the other who came out every four years and out-organized the ordinary Dems to nominate rotten presidential candidates who got slaughtered in national elections.

The more palatable argument was that the superdelegates balanced out the idealism of party activists with the more pragmatic experience of party regulars and elected officials who had experience winning actual elections. But however you argue it, the supers were put there precisely to second-guess the results of the primary and caucus process.

I think what you say is definitely a factor. I see it as people not really being sure what they want - average people I mean, not hard-core partisans. They want the government to get stuff done but when that happens they often have real problems with what government chose to get done.

I mean, one way to interpret the Bush era is a sign of the problems with everyone cooperating. It seemed like 75%+ of this country was gung-ho to invade Iraq, not just right wingers. There's something to be said for gridlock, for an era of people having conflicting ideas. Everyone being on the same page was frankly scary as hell for a few years there.

So while I don't like a lot of McCain's ideas - especially his aggressiveness towards Iran, and his cluelessness about economics - I can understand some reasonable people voting for him.