(It won't matter what they do if Obama wins either state -- so please help him out!)

Why is the media uncritically reporting McCain's attack on public financing for the general?

McCain has no credibility on this issue -- he's flip-flopped on public financing for the primary, perhaps illegally. He's also financed his campaign with loans of questionable legality.

McCain Backpedals on Public Financing for the Primary By Emily Cadei, CQ Staff

Republican presidential front-runner John McCain today formally announced his intention to withdraw from the public financing system for the primary campaign. When he was still struggling in the polls and with fundraising, the Arizona senator applied to the FEC for matching funds and was declared eligible to receive $5.8 million this spring. McCain is now the GOP’s presumptive nominee and is no longer hurting for cash, but the spending limits required by the public funding system would put him at a significant disadvantage as he prepares for the general election. He was the lead Republican author of the 2002 campaign finance overhaul, commonly referred to as the McCain-Feingold law.

Clinton camp reimburses; landlord to donate check to Obama campaign

PORTSMOUTH — Rochester doctor Terry Bennett has finally been paid by the Clinton campaign for rental of a Portsmouth building he owns. Now, he says he will donate the $500 check to Barack Obama’s campaign. ... Bennett went public last week, saying he rented a warehouse/office space to Clinton campaign workers for five days prior to the Jan. 8 presidential primary. He rented the space for $100 a day to be used as a campaign headquarters and dormitory.

Not only was he not paid, but Bennett said the campaign volunteers left the premises trashed. He said there were fast food containers all over the place and lots of campaign signs left behind.

Bennett said he’s giving the money to Obama because, besides Clinton, he is the only other Democratic candidate. But he said he also likes the man.

Chris Matthews seems to have gotten the "college educated" vs. "non-college educated" memo. He bloviated on Hardball about "down-scale Democrats", asking why aren't more non-grads showing up to vote? Susan Page agreed with him, saying they just aren't excited. Advantage Obama, they both concluded.

Problem is, I don't think they are right. Based on numbers I ran for exit polls from Iowa through Super Tuesday, 58% of voters in Democratic primaries and caucuses didn't have a college degree. In 2004, 58% of voters didn't have a college degree. By the way, 53% of those voters went with George W. Bush.

Today, the Washington Post's Jon Cohen offered a criminally misleading analysis of exit polls, imagining a racial conflict where non exists.

"Education has been a key divider among white voters in a contest marked by an evident racial divide," Cohen writes. His analysis presents numbers showing that Clinton does better with white non-college graduates than Obama and that Obama does better with white college graduates than Clinton.

Cohen concludes that racism may explain this gap. "Just a third of whites without college degrees were that sure the country is prepared for a black president," he says.

The fact is that Hillary Clinton's race and Barack Obama's race have little to do with these numbers.

To understand that, you have to look at some recent history: the 2000 primary in New Hampshire between Al Gore and Bill Bradley.

In that contest, Gore was seen as Bill Clinton's heir apparent -- much like Hillary Clinton is today. Bill Bradley was the outsider, non-establishment candidate, the brilliant Senator -- much like Barack Obama is today. Heck, they both even like basketball, though Bradley (the white guy) was evidently a better player.

In that primary, Bradley did 13 points worse than Gore among non-college grads, who made up 45% of the electorate. (Although this isn't broken out by race, New Hampshire's Democratic primary voters are 95%+ white, so there isn't much need to do so.)

Meanwhile, among college graduates, Bradley did 9 points better than Gore.

In 2008, in a 3-way race, Obama did 9 points worse than Clinton among non-college grads, who made up 46% of the electorate.

Meanwhile, Obama did 5 points better than Clinton among college graduates, who made up 54% of the electorate.

2000 and 2008 aren't entirely comparable; Clinton has an appeal to women that Gore did not, and Obama has an appeal to blacks that Bradley did not. A three-way race (in NH) is different than a two-way race.

Still, on balance, the remarkable similarity between the 2000 education gap and the 2008 education gap seriously undermines the claims advanced by the Post that today's numbers are indicative of racism or racial divison.

They are not. They indicate a preference gap, seemingly tied to education. And in elections, that happens. Most of the time.

It's a mixed bag in Texas, which is a good thing for Obama, because Hillary Clinton needs to win something like 110% of the delegates there to be competitive.

Also, Pollster.com reminds people that white men have been supporting Obama all along, ever since Iowa -- no matter what Andrea Mitchell says.

Mark Penn is Hillary Clinton's chief strategist. By any measure, he's not doing a very good job, and he continues to stick his foot in his mouth with statements like this:

"I think for superdelegates, the quality of where the win comes from should matter in terms of making a judgment about who might be the best general election candidate."

One of the things that really makes people distrust Mark Penn is that he's not just Hillary's chief strategist, he's also CEO of Burson-Marsteller, one of the world's largest and most powerful public relations and lobbying firms.

Burson's clients include several sovereign wealth funds, which in plain English means his firm represents oil-rich foreign governments. Last August, for example, Abu Dhabi Investment Authority (a sovereign wealth fund) hired Penn's firm. A few months later, ADIA purchased a 5% stake in Citigroup. Other clients include Dubai International Capital and Dubai Group.

But the most unusual Penn connection may be his ties to John McCain.

You see, Burson (that's Penn's company) owns another company called BKSH.

BKSH describes itself as "a premier bipartisan government relations and public affairs firm." In other words, it's a lobbying firm.

The head of BKSH is a man by the name of Charlie Black -- and he just happens to be one of John McCain's key advisers. In fact, after Super Tuesday, it was Black who coordinated McCain's message that he was the presumptive Republican nominee.

The thought of Hillary Clinton's chief strategist as the boss of one of John McCain's strategists is, well -- peculiar.

I'm sure that many wondered whether the professional relationship between Penn and Black played a role in the McCain campaign's decision on Wednesday to attack Barack Obama -- using the exact same message that Hillary Clinton was delivering on the exact same day.

Then again, maybe Penn had nothing to do with it. Perhaps McCain was just trying to pick his opponent.

After all, McCain leads Hillary in public polling -- but he trails Obama.

Also, Jake Tapper has the transcript of a recent interview with Gary Hart, who blames his 1984 loss on superdelegates.

Convenient Omission in Mark Penn’s Analysis (via Ben Smith)

AP's Ron Fournier runs through some of the factors superdelegates will consider when deciding whether to vote for Hillary Clinton at the convention in Denver. The good news he thinks superdelegates will abandon Clinton. Unfortunately, the motives are often petty, even ugly.

Some are senators who had to defend Clinton for lying to the country about his affair with Monica Lewinsky. ... Some are folks who owe the Clintons a favor but still feel betrayed or taken for granted. Could that be why Bill Richardson, a former U.N. secretary and energy secretary in the Clinton administration, refused to endorse her even after an angry call from the former president? "What," Bill Clinton reportedly asked Richardson, "isn't two Cabinet posts enough?"

Superdelegates ought to support the candidate who wins the most democratically selected delegates -- it's the right thing to do.

MILWAUKEE — Representative John Lewis, an elder statesman from the civil rights era and one of Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton’s most prominent black supporters, said Thursday night that he planned to cast his vote as a superdelegate for Senator Barack Obama in hopes of preventing a fight at the Democratic convention.

...he said that as a superdelegate, he could not go against the wishes of the voters of his district, who overwhelmingly supported Mr. Obama.

Clinton counts on superdelegates
By Susan Milligan, Globe Staff

WASHINGTON -- Hillary Clinton will take the Democratic nomination even if she does not win the popular vote, but persuades enough superdelegates to vote for her at the convention, her campaign advisers say. (emphasis added)

This morning we have two superdelegates from different parts of the country landing headlines in their local papers saying they are fully prepared to ignore voters and trample democracy - as long as that lets them help Clinton potentially steal the Democratic nomination. [More]

The Democrats' nominee should be chosen by party faithful, not a small number of elite delegates.

Democrats have two worthy choices and do not need party bigwigs to decide for them. For the bulk of the superdelegates to commit now would be not only unnecessary, it would be undemocratic.

The New York Times has an interesting article on the delegate math. It begins with the obvious (emphasis added):

WASHINGTON — Senator Barack Obama emerged from Tuesday’s primaries leading Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton by more than 100 delegates, a small but significant advantage that Democrats said would be difficult for Mrs. Clinton to make up in the remaining contests in the presidential nomination battle.

As a consequence:

Mrs. Clinton’s advisers also made it clear that they were prepared to take a number of potentially incendiary steps to build up Mrs. Clinton’s count.

According to Future Majority, there are 15 superdelegates under the age of 36. That's just 1.9% of superdelegates.

Politico.com's Ben Smith (emphasis added):

Politico delegate count

My colleagues Avi Zenilman and Josie Hearn have put together an exhaustive, easy-to-use chart of superdelegates and their alleagiances.

Their current count is Hillary 230, Obama 138.5.

One interesting point, which is visible in the chart: Clinton has a lead of three among senators, a lead of 13 among House members, and they're tied among governors. So her real margin comes from the relatively anonymous DNC members, among whom she leads 125 to 57.5.

(cross-posted at http://www.ObamaIsWinning.com)

Clinton campaign operatives continue to make the disturbing argument that the superdelegates should trump democracy.

After Barack Obama's broad and convincing wins in Tuesday's Potomac Primary, Howard Fineman reported that Hillary Clinton was doubling down on an undemocratic superdelegate strategy. Here's Fineman's account of his discussions with Clinton campaign officials:

The game for Hillary Clinton is to somehow keep her distance behind as minimal as possible...if it's a relatively small and manageable number...they will then argue that they are free to use the superdelegates to try to somehow wrest the nomination from Barack Obama, even though he led in pledged delegates.

Clinton campaign operatives continue to make the disturbing argument that the superdelegates should trump democracy.

After Barack Obama's broad and convincing wins in Tuesday's Potomac Primary, Howard Fineman reported that Hillary Clinton was doubling down on an undemocratic superdelegate strategy. Here's Fineman's account of his discussions with Clinton campaign officials:

The game for Hillary Clinton is to somehow keep her distance behind as minimal as possible...if it's a relatively small and manageable number...they will then argue that they are free to use the superdelegates to try to somehow wrest the nomination from Barack Obama, even though he led in pledged delegates.

Earlier on Tuesday, in an effort to win popular acceptance of undemocratic superdelegates, Clinton adviser Harold Ickes' took the Orwellian approach of renaming superdelegates, calling them "automatic" delegates.

Today, Clinton's media guru Howard Wolfson took a similar tack:

We are not making distinctions between certain kinds delegates. We don’t make distinctions between delegates that are chosen by millions of voters in a primary or tens of thousands of voters in a caucus. We don’t make a distinction between elected officials.

Meanwhile, just days earlier, Hillary Clinton suggested that ther would be nothing wrong with superdelegates overturning the will of the majority:

Superdelegates are, by design, supposed to exercise independent judgment.

The bottom-line is that nobody seems to be buying what the Clinton operatives are selling. As Politico.com's Ben Smith notes:

The news organizations counting and referring to the delegate count have started much more clearly breaking out the pledged delegates from the superdelegates, and referring to the pledged delegates as a key metric.

MSNBC's Mark Murray offers a similar observation:

For Clinton to overtake Obama for the pledged delegate lead -- which we think is the single most important statistic for the superdelegates to decide their vote -- she'll have to win 55% of the remaining delegates. Assuming next week goes Obama's way in Wisconsin and Hawaii, that percentage rises to 57%. Toss in likely Obama victories in Vermont, Wyoming, Mississippi, Oregon, Montana, and South Dakota, then Clinton's percentage need tops 60% of the remaining delegates available. And this is simply for her to regain the pledged delegate lead…

That's the kind of math Obama campaign manager David Plouffe is talking about when he says:

"The only way she could do it is by winning most of the rest of the contests by 25 to 30 points," he said. "Even the most creative math really does not get her, ever, back to even in terms of pledged delegates."

It seems that just about everybody is recognizing the strength of Obama's victories and his wire-to-wire lead for in the battle for democratically elected pledged delegates. Even Bill Clinton's former campaign chair is now endorsing Barack Obama. The finish line is in sight.

With every passing primary and caucus, Barack Obama gets closer and closer to the real magic number of 1,627 -- the number of pledged delegates needed to secure a democratic majority. If he wins 46% of the remaining delegates, he'll hit the magic number.

Meanwhile, Clinton must win 57% of the remaining delegates to hit the magic number. She's only won 57% or more in four contests: in her original home state of Arkansas, her current home state of New York, Massachusetts, and Oklahama. By contrast, Obama has done so in seventeen contests.

That's why it's so unlikely Hillary Clinton can win a democratic majority.

Unfortunately, Clinton campaign operatives continue to advance their undemocratic superdelegate strategy.

That can't happen. Not on our watch. And it won't happen. Not if enough people know the truth: Obama is winning.

If you can afford it, please make a contribution today.

Howard Fineman reported tonight on MSNBC that the Clinton campaign thinks it is very unlikely to finish with more pledged delegates than Barack Obama.

Clinton's campaign is right: they are not likely to hit the magic number of 1,627 pledged delegates. To achieve a democratic majority, Clinton would need to win at least 56% of the remaining delegates, a tough challenge given that Barack Obama has led the delegate battle from wire-to-wire, building his lead at every stage of the campaign.

To put this challenge in perspective, Clinton has hit the 56% mark or better only four times: in her original home state of Arkansas, her current home state of New York, Massachusetts, and Oklahama. Obama has done this seventeen times.

The long odds against Clinton hitting the magic number doesn't mean that she should quit the campaign -- she's got loyal supporters and if she and they want to continue the battle, they should.

At the same time, if they press ahead, they must understand that unless they can hit the magic number of 1,627, they cannot win a legitimate victory. Without hitting the magic number, the only way they can win is by subverting the democratic process. Unfortunately, according to Fineman, the Clinton campaign is planning a strategy around doing just that:

The game for Hillary Clinton is to somehow keep her distance behind as minimal as possible...if it's a relatively small and manageable number...they will then argue that they are free to use the superdelegates to try to somehow wrest the nomination from Barack Obama, even though he led in pledged delegates.

Keep in mind that Fineman is reporting what the Clinton campaign told him, not what he thinks they will do.

Superdelegates are political insiders free to vote for whomever they choose. They make up 20% of the Democratic nominating convention and include members of Clinton's campaign team.

The Clinton argument that superdelegates should trump democracy has been brewing below the radar for some time now. One of her top operatives has been urging key supporters to start calling superdelegates "automatic" delegates, apparently in an effort to make them sound more palatable.

The Clinton campaign needs to abandon this argument now.

It would be a disaster if the rightful winner of the primary campaign had the nomination stolen from his or her grasp. We cannot allow this to happen to the Democratic Party.

As far as most people are concerned, 1,627 is the real magic number of the Democratic presidential primary. 1,627 is fifty percent plus one of the 3,253 pledged delegates to the Democratic nominating convention, all of them democratically selected through primaries and caucuses.

Once a candidate has 1,627 pledged delegates, he or she will win the nomination -- unless the judgment of voters is overturned by the 796 superdelegates, a group of political insiders that includes several members of Hillary Clinton's campaign team.

After tonight, it is becoming increasingly clear that Hillary Clinton will not be able to achieve that magic number of 1,627. Here's why:

2,178 delegates have been selected through primaries and caucuses through February 12. John Edwards has won 26 of them, and using a very conservative estimate, Barack Obama has won 1,131 and Hillary Clinton has won 1,021. (This estimate assumes that they evenly split the unallocated delegates from MSNBC's tally of 1,078 to 969.)

With 2,178 delegates selected, there are only 1,075 left to be chosen. (Yes, we're already more than two-thirds of the way through the primary and caucus season!)

In order to hit the magic number of 1,627, Barack Obama need only win 497 of those 1,075 delegates -- 46%.

Hillary Clinton has a much tougher challenge. She must win 605 of those delegates -- 56%.

Keep in mind, these numbers are very conservative estimates from Obama's standpoint. In other words, after the dust settles it is likely his delegate total will be more than 1,131 and Clinton's lower than 1,021, making Clinton's true distance from the magic number even larger. In order to hit 1,627, she may have to win as much as 58% of the remaining delegates.

We're a little under ten minutes away from polls closing in Virginia. An hour later, polls in Maryland and DC will close. We'll be following the results here.

For some perspective, between Saturday and tonight, 353 delegates will be selected -- that's more than Texas and Ohio combined.

(cross-posted at www.ObamaIsWinning.com)

In 2008, 3,253 delegates will be chosen through caucuses and primaries to represent Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton at the Democratic National Convention.

Once one of the candidates has won a majority of those democratically selected delegates (also known as pledged delegates), the only way his or her opponent could win the nomination is with the support of the 796 unelected, unaccountable superdelegates -- in the process overturning the judgment of the voters.

50% +1 of 3,253 is 1,627. Therefore, with 1,627 pledged delegates, a candidate will win the nomination -- unless the superdelegates step in and reverse the decision of the voters.

Greg Sargent (via Ben Smith) writes:

In a sign that the spin war over the significance of super-delegates is underway in earnest, Harold Ickes told assorted Hillary supporters on a private conference call yesterday that the campaign wants them to start referring to super-delegates as "automatic delegates," according to someone on the call.

The person I spoke to paraphrases Ickes, who is spearheading Hillary's super-delegate hunt, this way: "We're no longer using the phrase super delegates. It creates a wrong impression. They're called automatic delegates. Because that's what they are."

This is good news and bad news. The good news is that at least implicitly, Clinton's organization is recognizing they are wrong on the substance. The bad news is that they are trying to confuse the issue by changing vocabulary, a sign that they will be pressing ahead with an undemocratic, superdelegate-based victory strategy -- even though it's the wrong thing to do.

My buddy Justin and I worked on this site yesterday and put it up last evening. Already, over 10,000 people have visited and bloggers like Politico.com's Ben Smith and Andrew Sullivan are writing about it.

Pretty cool -- there must be a lot of people out there who want to know who is really winning this nomination contest.

In 2008, 3,253 delegates will be chosen through caucuses and primaries to represent Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton at the Democratic National Convention.

Once one of the candidates has won a majority of those democratically selected delegates (also known as pledged delegates), the only way his or her opponent could win the nomination is with the support of the 796 unelected, unaccountable superdelegates -- in the process overturning the judgment of the voters.

50%+1 of 3,253 is 1,627. That's the real magic number.

Once a candidate has 1,627 pledged delegates, he or she will win the nomination -- unless the superdelegates step in and reverse the decision of the voters.

(Updated 2/12 at 7:05PM)

There seems to be a growing consensus that if the contests play out as expected, both Clinton and Obama will essentially be tied in pledged delegates at the end of the primary season – leaving it to super delegates to decide the race. -- CNN, Feb. 9 (emphasis added)

By now, it is clear that there is a very real possibility superdelegates will block the rightful winner of the primary process from becoming the next Democratic nominee for President.

The best way to prevent that from happening is to document who is actually winning, because the more knowledge people have about who really won, the harder it will be for superdelegates to exercise their power to usurp democracy. And the real numbers speak for themselves: Barack Obama is winning.

Today, I put up a new web site at www.ObamaIsWinning.com to help make sure the truth is heard.

“If 795 of my colleagues decide this election, I will quit the Democratic Party. I feel very strongly about this.”
-- Donna Brazile, Al Gore's campaign manager and a super delegate

By now, you've probably heard of "superdelegates" -- the political insiders who could block the rightful winner of the primary process from becoming the next Democratic nominee for President.

The purpose of this blog is to document who is actually winning, because the more knowledge people have about who really won, the harder it will be for superdelegates to exercise their power to usurp democracy.

Tad Devine is one of Al Gore's top political advisers.

Superdelegates, Back Off

by Tad Devine (NYT, 2/10/08)

...the Democratic Party is once again engaged in a nominating process — this time between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama — in which the margin of victory will be achieved only with broad support from the superdelegates, the nearly 800 party leaders and elected officials who become delegates not on the basis of votes cast in primaries and caucuses, but because of their status under party rules.
...
The superdelegates were never intended to be part of the dash from Iowa to Super Tuesday and beyond. They should resist the impulse and pressure to decide the nomination before the voters have had their say.
...
After listening to the voters, the superdelegates can do what the Democratic Party’s rules originally envisioned. They can ratify the results of the primaries and caucuses in all 50 states by moving as a bloc toward the candidate who has proved to be the strongest in the contest that matters — not the inside game of the delegate hunt, but the outside contest of ideas and inspiration, where hope can battle with experience and voters can make the right and best choice for our party and our future.

This is pretty funny -- and smart.

My Brother the Superdelegate and Why I Don't Trust Him to Pick the Next President

My brother Rahm Emanuel is a superdelegate. I love my brother, and I trust my brother. But I gave up letting my brother dictate my life since he determined whether he got the top or bottom bunk in our bedroom back in Chicago.

So, as much as I love and respect him, I don't trust him and his fellow superdelegates to decide for me and the American people who should be the Democratic nominee -- and, therefore, most likely the next president of the United States.

“Superdelegates are, by design, supposed to exercise independent judgment.” -- Hillary Clinton, 2/9/07 (NYT)

“It would be problematic for the political insiders to overturn the judgment of the voters.” -- Barack Obama, 2/8/07 (NYT)

CNN reports (emphasis added):

There seems to be a growing consensus that if the contests play out as expected, both Clinton and Obama will essentially be tied in pledged delegates at the end of the primary season – leaving it to super delegates to decide the race.

Just because a contest is within a point or two doesn't mean it's tied -- essentially or otherwise.

For better or for worse, in democracy there are winners and there are losers -- there are no ties.

Even if there were ties, it's shouldn't be up to political insiders to break the tie.

Howard Fineman says the Clinton campaign will not concede even if they lose the battle for democratically elected delegates.

A commenter requested this chart of state-by-state totals for my "Obama is winning" post.

After last night's convincing victories in three very different states, it's fair to say that Barack Obama is winning.

Yes, Obama is winning.

Since the start of the primary process, Obama has received 275,000 more votes and caucus supporters than Hillary Clinton. He now leads her by 2% in the popular vote.

(Even if you include Florida's beauty contest, Clinton merely ties Obama; the two are separated by 0.07% with Florida's meaningless primary returns included.)