Kindly take the talk of states with no delegates to another thread.  This thread is about the current math as laid out by the DNC.

an election where no one competed, and/or no opposition was voiced is a fair election?

I guess you loved the ones in the good old USSR.

"Obama knowingly took his name of the ballot."

As did all the others.  Senator Clinton was the only duplicitous one.

Why, AnyDem2008, did you HR this???

So THINK about it.

A vote for McCain is a vote for:

100 years of war in Iraq
trickle down economics
anti-choice policies and justices
injustice for minorities and homosexuals
no progress on global warming
etc.

A vote for Obama is the opposite of all these things.  Are you saying that you would not vote for him BECAUSE of the FL/MI situation?  Or would you never have voted for him anyway?  If the former, you should know that Obama was not the person that stopped the delegates from counting-- that was the state parties and legislatures and the DNC.  If the latter, than I remain convinced you are not a real Democrat.  Say what you will about Obama as a person, his policies will be infinitely more beneficial to our country and the Democratic cause than will McCain's.  

Then you're not a Democrat, you're an Independent. Supporting DEMOCRACY means you count every single vote, but taking on the Democrat partisanship moniker does imply voting for your party, for the sake of the party. I personally ascribe to your philosophy that voting straight one party is irresponsible, but I'm an Independent who lean Democrat. What would be irresponsible for us to do this year, as citizens, would be to vote for John McCain and continue the idiocy and unconstitutionality that the Republican party has employed over the last two terms. I personally loathe Hillary Clinton, and always have, but give serious consideration to voting for her EVEN THOUGH I HAVE NEVER RESPECTED EITHER HER CHARACTER OR HER APPROACH TO POLITICS. I don't expect to change your mind about Obama, nor should you expect to change mine of Hillary, but, for the sake of the country and the liberties we all hold sacred, we should all agree to disagree with the policies of G.W. Bush and the New Republicans.

make us any better?  You believe 4 more years of Republican support the war and damn everything else gives us a better future?

Peter Gibbons: Doesn't it bother you that you have to get up in the morning and you have to put on a bunch of pieces of flair?

Joanna: Yeah, but I'm not about to go in and start taking money from the register.

Peter Gibbons: Well, maybe you should. You know, the Nazis had pieces of flair that they made the Jews wear.

This diary is about the total of pledged and superdelegates.  There's really only a 30 delegate split between the supers of Obama and Clinton.

The historical trends have been a trickle for Obama, which won't be enough in the long run if they keep coming in 1 or 2/week.

I think the supers are waiting for someone to hit 1626, then they'll back that candidate in sufficient numbers to reach 2026.

I'm more then happy to do that.

Per DemConWatch, the totals - including all the delegates, pledged and super - stand at:

Obama - 1630
Clinton - 1496

Which is a lead of 134 for Obama; a not insignificant amount.  

In order to reach 2024 -

Obama still needs 394 delegates of any type.

Clinton still needs 528 delegates of any type.

Obama needs WAY less of the remaining in order to clinch.  Much less.  It's important for Clinton supporters to understand this fact.  She is much farther behind then you may think.

Clinton's lead in SD's comes ENTIRELY from DNC members; people not elected in any fashion.  Most of her lead comes from people who pledged long, long ago, most likely promised jobs and positions by the new administration.  Obama has steadily and consistently been closing the gap on her in S-D endorsements, and will pass her soon if things keep going the way they are going.

The math really just isn't in her favor, no matter how ya slice things.

"The only math that counts is the one that tallies up the majority of ALL delegates, super and pledged.

Why don't Obama supporters want to talk about that?"

because we are naive enough to think the DEMOCRATIC VOTERS should decide, not party elders in a smoke-filled room.

why are Clinton supporters so against the winner of the ELECTIONS getting the nomination?

The matter will be decided long before that; by May 20th, at the latest, Obama will achieve 2024 delegates.

There's only so many times the media can spin a popular vote win for Clinton that's a delegate win for Obama before they start to run out of excuses to call it what it is: an Obama win.

I still don't see the supers doing away with decades of tradition in the middle of a contest just to go for the popular vote, though.  

A. If you count caucus states and don't give Hillary all the Michigan votes (b) with Obama getting none she cannot catch up.

C. On Puerto Rico this will be an issue.  I think they should count, but a lot of folks don't think they should count.

E. In florida there were really important down ballot races.  I have a number of friends who did not go vote for Obama because they were told it would not count, I think the number is rather high who did not get to vote.

I'm predicting that the supers will end it by 5/20.

Listen, Clinton wanted this over on 2/5.  Nobody would be crying about hearing from every state if she'd landed a knockout blow with her 160-some legacy superdelegates and a strong Super Tuesday showing.

Most years, most states aren't counted.  We've been blessed this year, but that doesn't change the fact that the party wants to get things rolling against McCain.

It's not an arbitrary number, it's the pledged delegate count in a game where the super delegates aren't too keen on being spoilers.

They won't overthrow decades of tradition just because it's not entirely democratic.  

What you're listing are reasons for primary reform, not for messing with the current election.

Sorry, I don't have a time machine.

FDR said, "rules are not necessarily sacred, principles are." I can't think of more sacred principles in a democracy than allowing people to vote and having their votes count.

I think the best solution would have been a re-vote in both MI and Fl. And I think if both candidates supported such revotes, those revotes would happen.

What I don't understand is why the Obama campaign is reluctant to have a re-vote. They have the money advantage, Obama has a good chance of winning Michigan, and its likely that in FL, Obama would do better in a revote than he did in January.

Florida ballots included everyone's name. People voted in record numbers. How exactly is this undemocratic? Undemocratic is what's going on by not seating them.

I'm confident that the Florida delegation will be seated following all the recent talk by Dean.