Jake and Rick, can you guys give us the ability to edit our remarks?

You simply cannot be serious with your first two sentences. How is giving a niche audience special — and unequal — access to the polls is perhaps the least democratic (note the lower-case ‘d’) stance I could imagine.

That would be like saying Kentucky should place polls in Christian churches and extend voting hours to Wednesday evening so a major part of our electorate could participate and the results wouldn’t be “unfair.”

And until Obama has 2,025 delegates, any claim he makes to the nomination is completely specious. All candidates knew going in that superdelegates would be able to support whoever they wanted. Obama’s attempts to coerce these delegates to forsake their duties is as disheartening as Clinton’s attempts to validate the Florida and Michigan results.

As you can probably tell, I’m not an Obama guy. (I liked Richardson and Dodd). He doesn’t have the experience. His rhetoric seems shallow. Too many of his primary votes have come from the “ABC” (Anybody But Clinton) crowd, and the Independents and Republicans who have contributed to his lead are more likely to vote for McCain come November.

I can support Obama wanting to build a new base for the party, but it’s hard to see a liberal Democrat win in the Bible Belt and the Heartland in 2008. Maybe I’m too cynical, but it’s hard for me to set aside 40 years of election data.

Maybe the best option for Democrats this year isn’t Obama or Clinton. Maybe we need to draft a compromise candidate that everyone can support (and give Republicans little time to react).

And I’m really enjoying the lack of math skills in so many people. Obama doesn’t *have* to win Pennsylvania to become the nominee — he only has to maintain his lead in delegates — the superdelegates will either support the delegate leader at the convention, or the party is done for November, and it’s President McCain.

Daniel, no candidate controlled what day Nevada held their caucuses. The rules were understood in advance.

Huh?

The Dem nominee is going to win those states regardless. Claiming that winning a Dem primary in a blue state makes you more electable in a general election makes no sense to me. Now, winning Dem primaries in purple or red states DOES seem like a formula for gaining crossover voters.

I happen to like both Obama and Clinton. I lean Obama, but my real fave was Edwards. So I don’t truly have a dog in the hunt. But it surprises me to hear flawed logic like robertson’s implied argument above.

Obama’s camp made sure Nevada caucuses were held at casino locations so unionized casino workers — who backed Obama — could participate. No other group earned such an advantage. It led to Obama winning the Nevada Caucus in Bush-like fasion (losing the popular vote, winning the most delegates).

And if Obama wants Hillary to end her campaign, all he has to do is one thing: win Pennsylvania. He has the money and the volunteer base, so it shouldn’t be a problem.

Then again, he had those same advantages in Ohio and he still managed to lose by 10 points. If he can’t put Clinton away, how can we be sure he can put McCain away?

If the status quo is upheld, and MI and FL aren’t seated, he only needs 37% of the remaining up for grabs (with Hillary needing 63%).

The math is in Obama’s favor, and Hillary should drop out.

source