Whenever surveys, especially surveys of sexual practices, religious beliefs or potentially unpopular opinions, ask people to self-report, the results are dubious. Few American men acknowledged suffering from erectile dysfunction before the introduction of Viagra, yet as ads assure us, millions of motorcycle-riding, party-loving cowboys seem to suffer from it now.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the author using 'data' put forth in advertisements to show a supposed disparity between how people will respond to a poll and the truth? The implication is that the assertions in the ad should be taken at face value, and this should be taken as support for his general notion that people won't hesitate to fudge the truth.

The Ostroy Report: The Super-Delegate Debate: The One Question No One is Asking

I think it's pretty arrogant for Obama and his team to essentially be saying..."We're gonna campaign long and hard to convince enough Americans to vote for us so we can get the 2025 minimum delegates to win the nomination. But if we fall short of that minimum, even several hundred short, then we're gonna claim the nomination's ours anyway as long as we're ahead."

I don't hear the Obama camp saying that at all.

What I hear the Obama camp saying is making their case to the Super Delegates that the Super Delegates should vote to support Obama because Obama has won a majority of States and a majority of delegates. What's wrong with that?

On the other hand, the Clinton camp is trying to claim that the delegate race is a tie (conveniently now that she is losing and unlikely to ever regain the lead in delegates) and that is very wrong. It's certainly dishonest to characterize it as such.

Obama has taken the lead in every objective measure (e.g. number of states, number of elected delegates, number of public endorsements from super delegates), and yet this guy want to declare the real-time snapshot of this race a tie?

Maybe Clinton deserves to be selected as the Democratic nominee, maybe not. But we should at least agree to start that conversation based on the facts. The two candidates are not tied. There is one candidate that has proven thus far to be the most favored among states and delegates: that candidate is Obama. For better or worse.

The attack on Bob Herbert misses his point in that article. It ignore the fact that what was offensive was not just Clinton's words, "as far as I know," but the fact that she paused for a beat to lend emphasis to an expression of uncertainty, something the expression on her face and intonation, which made clear the "but who knows?" character of the remark.

Media Matters needs to read up on conversational implicatures. And not make tendentious attacks on well-respect columnists.

It was the one of the "sleaziest moments of the Clinton campaign," just as Herbert said.

According to Crooks and Liars story:

"Even elected and caucus delegates are not required to stay with whomever they are pledged to." -Hillary Clinton

I seriously hope she isn't implying what I think she's implying.

and Obama supporters want to call it a win.

By current estimates, Clinton would have to win all upcoming states with 60% of the delegates (and she may not even have won TX). It's a long shot, one quickly approaching miracle proportions, but true, technically, still possible.

That said, I have not heard the Obama campaign claim, post TX and OH, that Clinton should just drop out (because that claim is silly). There was discussion among all parties, including inside the Clinton campaign, which is tearing itself apart under her marvelous executive leadership, whether she should drop out if she lost one or both.

Quick remark: Clinton is right, and fully entitled, to claim that the democratic nomination often wraps up late. I think the Kerry campaign, being the most recent, has distorted our expections on time frame. Most democratic nominations contests last for awhile. See here for a review: http://www.slate.com/id/2185831/nav/tap3/

and Obama supporters want to call it a win.

Not a win yet, only winning. With all of the Clinton wins last week, the delegate count from last week alone ended up a tie, so Obama is still ahead by the same amount he was 2 weeks ago.

Obama is currently ahead in the popular vote by approximately 600,000 votes.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/democratic_vote_count.html

Granted, not a big lead, and Clinton could catch up, but I don't see the popular vote appeal for Clinton, given that she is losing this too.

So in the last five states she has out polled Obama by 300,000 votes Rhode Island, Vermont and Wyoming being a wash.

Fair enough (also why I added a 600,000 wasn't a big lead). We agree that popular vote is important. But she doesn't just need to win Penn. She needs to win by a huge margin (which, actually, she is expected to do in the latest polls), enough to close the gap on the many wins in smaller state Obama is expected to have.

But notice--to name the one electoral issue we haven't quite touched on yet--Clinton's 'oh but I want the big, important states' claim does not hold. Obama stacks up much better against McCain in Penn than Clinton--even though he is projected to lose against Clinton.

'oh but I want the big, important states

Should be "won" not "want". Dammit! My typos these days are atrocious.

So, lets say that the delegate split is less than 100 either way, and the popular vote difference is less than 250,000, either way. (Or, delegates go one way, and popular vote goes the other, which could happen)

What then? Superdelegates pick who gets to be president just on who their friend is and what positions they've been offered in the cabinet? They decide based on "electibility"? According to most polls I've seen, Obama is polling higher than Clinton against McCain. The only thing I see going for Clinton is the Democratic party insiders and Maybe the popular vote. Everything else looks to be leaning obama.

I hope the readership noticed that the turnout in Spain was 75%. Such a number is one that we can only dream about in the United States.

Zapateron's agenda in his first term included gender equality including rights for transsexuals (there are approx. 8,000) in Spain, the first country to legalize same-sex marriage through its legislative branch (elsewhere it was achieved through the courts), divorce rights, and the creation of 600,000 jobs.

Yet Spain is reaching a wall. Its housing boom has been impacted by the subprime mortgage mess and the slowdown of the economy elsewhere in Europe. Immigration is now a more serious problem and his overture to ETA failed.

Still, Spain went for the PSOE and for that I am happy.

Charles

I hope the readership noticed that the turnout in Spain was 75%. Such a number is one that we can only dream about in the United States.

Charles: We finally agree on something!

Norm and the rest, a propos our other topic, from the horse's mouth:

“I just want everybody to be absolutely clear, OK? We are in a tough battle. I don’t presume that I have won this election,” Mr. Obama said. “Senator Clinton is fighting hard and she is tenacious. She has worked hard to win the nomination. I want everybody to be absolutely clear. I’m not running for vice president. I’m running for president of the United States of America.”

See here

(I am glad to see he has forcefully rejected that little bit of political maneuvering. He has nothing to gain from it).

I know Americans are right now focused in their election, but I'm elated at the result of ours, here in Spain.

It will be a sad day when Zapatero cannot run for another term, his leadership has been such a breath of fresh air!

Clearly the economy is an issue that needs to be addressed, pronto, or they'll risk a "Mileurista Revolution" (professionals earning a lousy 1,000 euros/month). One of the biggest contributions he could make, would be the elimination of the so-called "contratos basura" (garbage contracts), which is the term used for temporary work contracts, usually 6 months. I still remember when they were initially introduced during the Gonzalez presidency, and promoted as an entry point for students and those needing to gain laboral experience. The problem is, now most companies use these 6 month contracts with everyone. Imagine trying to invest in buying a home or planning a family, when you know every 6 months you will be let-go and either get a job with another company or wait a month and a half with no work/pay until your company can hire you again with the 6 month "contrato basura"...

For once there's an American model I wouldn't mind acquiring, the open "at will" contract.

Saludos!

Not many Americans vote because so many of them are convinced that the system is broken and it is therefore a waste of time to vote.

Take Democrats, for example. Many of them feel that neither Hillary Clinton nor Barack Obama represent their views, and they know that a vote for someone such as Nader means nothing. Some consider voting for Nader a way of making a statement, however Nader votes are considered left-wing radical silly or a way of undermining the Democratic candidate by the majority of Americans. Therefore, the Nadar votes don't have much positive impact on people because of the way that the system is designed.

The same argument can be made by hard-right Republicans vis-à-vis McCain. They don't want to support him, just as some hard-left Democrats don't want to support either Clinton or Obama.

And then consider those Democrats in states with an overwhelming majority of people from a particular party. The recent election in Wyoming is a good example. While they have somewhat of a voice in the current Democratic primary because delegates are allocated proportionally, in the general election it's winner take all so they feel that their vote means next to nothing.

The way that we elect our candidates here in the U.S. is totally fucked.

You may be right that she doesn't win the popular vote but she did gain over 200,000 in Ohio and 100,000 in Texas and there is Pennsylvania still to come.

If the superdelegates go by popular vote instead of delegates we end up in a nasty floor fight where all Caucus states defect because they are essentially having their value in the party reduced.

I think it is also worth noting that Obama is leading national polls, I would assume that he leads in some states that he has lost in the past.

A significant part of Hillary's vote on feb 5th cam from absentee votes cast before South Carolina, meaning she may have lost day of voting is some of her victories.

Crazy reality is that Clinton could have a vote lead but obama could have a real time lead in support.

Which is more relevant? Should super delegates choose the candidate people want or the candidate people used to want?

Sure, a 75% turnout is something we can only dream about in the US.

But a 74% turnout resulting in a SOCIALIST victory!?! - oooooh that is my dream!

I was at the PSOE headquarters here in Madrid on Sunday (juuuust missed seeing Zapatero in person) and seeing the crowds of socialist supporters out in the streets had to have been one of the most comforting and disturbing moments I've had as an expat.

Comforting to see so many people embrace these ideals effortlessly, like it was so normal. Disturbing because at home it's so not normal, and I'd never see a similar thing in the States - at least not in my lifetime. Made me wish I could vote here!

Not many Americans vote because so many of them are convinced that the system is broken and it is therefore a waste of time to vote.

Choice 1: Vote for "Candidate A"

Choice 2: Vote for"Candidate B"

Choice 3: If you don't like either candidate, "Don't Vote" (the tertiary parties are rarely if ever viable in the Federal elections, so why bother?).

It's a product of two party politics created by the pluralist voting system. If another voting system were introduced (one that let you order the preference of the candidates) then voting turn-out would escalate.