Obama plans to declare victory May 20

David Paul Kuhn
Thu May 8, 5:55 AM ET


Not long after the polls close in the May 20 Kentucky and Oregon primaries, Barack Obama plans to declare victory in his bid for the Democratic presidential nomination.

And, until at least May 31 and perhaps longer, Hillary Clinton's campaign plans to dispute it.

It's a train wreck waiting to happen, with one candidate claiming to be the nominee while the other vigorously denies it, all predicated on an argument over what exactly constitutes the finish line of the primary race.

The Obama campaign agrees with the Democratic National Committee, which pegs a winning majority at 2,025 pledged delegates and superdelegates--a figure that excludes the penalized Florida and Michigan delegations. The Clinton campaign, on the other hand, insists the winner will need 2,209 to cinch the nomination--a tally that includes Florida and Michigan.

"We don't accept 2,025. It is not the real number because that does not include Florida and Michigan," said Howard Wolfson, one of Clinton's two chief strategists. "It's a phony number."

Wolfson said they intend to contest the DNC's 2,025 number "every day," as well as any declaration of victory made by Obama based upon that number, because it does not include Florida and Michigan.

In January, Clinton won both states by wide margins when Obama did not actively contest them. The two states were stripped of their delegates for holding early primaries not sanctioned by the Democratic National Committee.

Obama will not reach the 2,025 magic number on May 20. Rather, on that date he is all but certain to hit a different threshold--1,627 pledged delegates, which would constitute a winning majority among the 3,253 total pledged delegates if Florida and Michigan are not included.

"On May 20 we're going to declare victory," said an Obama senior advisor who asked that his name be withheld to speak candidly, adding that after those contests they will be "the ones with the most pledged delegates and the most popular votes."

While the nature of that declaration of victory is "still developing," in the advisor's words, the Obama campaign contends that the winner of a majority of pledged delegates should be the party nominee.

"Senator Obama, our campaign and our supporters believe pledged delegates is the most legitimate metric for determining how this race has unfolded," wrote Obama campaign manager David Plouffe Wednesday in a memo to superdelegates. "It is simply the ratification of the DNC rules - your rules - which we built this campaign and our strategy around."

But the Clinton campaign's insistence on counting Florida and Michigan would alter not only the overall delegate math, but the pledged delegate math as well. Because if the two states are included in the count, the total number of pledged delegates would rise from 3,253 to 3,566--which means the magic number for a majority rises to 1,784, not 1,627 as the Obama campaign asserts.

By hewing to that interpretation, the Clinton campaign would thus be able to raise doubts about a May 20 declaration of victory by Obama.

Since the earliest possible resolution of the Florida/Michigan dispute is May 31, when the DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee will meet in Washington to address petitions from Michigan and Florida DNC members, the 11-day period between the May 20 primaries and the RBC meeting could produce a chaotic stretch where Obama claims to be the party nominee while Clinton argues otherwise.

Already, the two campaigns are gearing up for the battle.

"With the Clinton path to the nomination getting even narrower, we expect new and wildly creative scenarios to emerge in the coming days," wrote Plouffe in his memo. "While those scenarios may be entertaining, they are not legitimate and will not be considered legitimate by this campaign or its millions of supporters, volunteers, and donors."

"You can declare mission accomplished but that doesn't mean that the mission has actually been accomplished," Wolfson said.

Will Marxist-Obama disenfranchise FL and MI voters?

quote:

Originally posted by Proud American!:
Will Marxist-Obama disenfranchise FL and MI voters?

Obama's no Marxist, PA... not even close.

If he were, I'd be among the first to say so.

You can probably attack him a lot more effectively if you'd find some other words to use. Even Democrats know he isn't a Marxist, and most Republicans too!

And, what is more, not to put too fine a point on the matter, but it was the DNC that "disenfranchised" voters in MI and FL...

The GOP shouldn't have much trouble giving Obama a run for the money come November, especially if they don't resort to falsehoods in the process.

quote:

Originally posted by Michael S. Bell:

quote:

Originally posted by Proud American!:
Will Marxist-Obama disenfranchise FL and MI voters?

Obama's no Marxist, PA... not even close.

If he were, I'd be among the first to say so.

You can probably attack him a lot more effectively if you'd find some other words to use. Even Democrats know he isn't a Marxist, and most Republicans too!

And, what is more, not to put too fine a point on the matter, but it was the DNC that "disenfranchised" voters in MI and FL...

The GOP shouldn't have much trouble giving Obama a run for the money come November, especially if they don't resort to falsehoods in the process.

Didn't you have a discussion of "opinions" with someone?!

I like the label, therefore I'll keep it.


just a quick search....

While there are many theoretical and practical differences among the various forms of Marxism, most forms of Marxism share:

* a belief that capitalism is based on the exploitation of workers by the owners of capital
* a belief that people's consciousness of the conditions of their lives reflects material conditions and relations
* an understanding of class in terms of differing relations of production, and as a particular position within such relations
* an understanding of material conditions and social relations as historically malleable
* a view of history according to which class struggle, the evolving conflict between classes with opposing interests, structures each historical period and drives historical change

Reckon it is better to win the war than have an opinion about the battles though, eh, friend?

quote:

Originally posted by Proud American!:

quote:

Originally posted by Michael S. Bell:

quote:

Originally posted by Proud American!:
Will Marxist-Obama disenfranchise FL and MI voters?

Obama's no Marxist, PA... not even close.

If he were, I'd be among the first to say so.

You can probably attack him a lot more effectively if you'd find some other words to use. Even Democrats know he isn't a Marxist, and most Republicans too!

And, what is more, not to put too fine a point on the matter, but it was the DNC that "disenfranchised" voters in MI and FL...

The GOP shouldn't have much trouble giving Obama a run for the money come November, especially if they don't resort to falsehoods in the process.

Didn't you have a discussion of "opinions" with someone?!

I like the label, therefore I'll keep it.
> Suit yourself!

just a quick search....

While there are many theoretical and practical differences among the various forms of Marxism, most forms of Marxism share:

* a belief that capitalism is based on the exploitation of workers by the owners of capital
> Obama does not subscribe to that belief, in fact. he is an accomplished capitalist himself, and hangs around with several.

* a belief that people's consciousness of the conditions of their lives reflects material conditions and relations
> Duh!

* an understanding of class in terms of differing relations of production, and as a particular position within such relations
> On this point he is definitely NOT a proponent of the classical worker vs means of production theory.

* an understanding of material conditions and social relations as historically malleable
> Anyone prepared to argue otherwise is probably not alive.

* a view of history according to which class struggle, the evolving conflict between classes with opposing interests, structures each historical period and drives historical
change.
> That's a tough one... because it is half true, and use of the word "class" carries with it so much intellectual baggage since the Russian revolution as to be for all intents and purposes useless.

quote:

Originally posted by Michael S. Bell:

quote:

Originally posted by Proud American!:
Will Marxist-Obama disenfranchise FL and MI voters?

Obama's no Marxist, PA... not even close.

If he were, I'd be among the first to say so.

You can probably attack him a lot more effectively if you'd find some other words to use. Even Democrats know he isn't a Marxist, and most Republicans too!

And, what is more, not to put too fine a point on the matter, but it was the DNC that "disenfranchised" voters in MI and FL...

The GOP shouldn't have much trouble giving Obama a run for the money come November, especially if they don't resort to falsehoods in the process.

I agree with Michael, PA. Obama's no Marxist. He's just a plain old ordinary far left socialist who believes he knows what's best for us far better than we do ourselves, just like our Lamar friend. How that's better is beyond me, but to each according to his need, from each... uh, wait, I mean, to each his own.

quote:

I agree with Michael, PA. Obama's no Marxist. He's just a plain old ordinary far left socialist who believes he knows what's best for us far better than we do ourselves, just like our Lamar friend.

I struggle to differentiate ignorance from plain dishonesty with comments like that but I am leaning toward the later because I have stated my support for regulated capitalism and opposition to Marxism numbers of times. Let me do so again, though I doubt the truth will prevent our local red baiters from using big words that they know very little about.

Marx's predecessors were wrong because they trampled democracy and civil liberties in a attempt to achieve social equality, which they actually created by having no constraining checks and balances on political power. Marxism is full of gross oversimplifications that under-emphasize human choice and over-emphasize structural determinants of behavior.

Regulated capitalism, which I do support, advocates a limited but consistent protection of vital public interests from the excesses of laissez-faire economic anarchical capitalism. It stops child labor and prevents corporate entities from poisoning our water supply but at the same time allows the pursuit of capital with no limit except where such profits end at the door of public safety and health.

It would be a GD Republican tactic to declare victory before the war is over. Obama and Hillary are going to continue their death march to the last step, and they will drag the party along. At least everyone will have a reason to watch the convention, because it will be a shootout.

And only a GD Republican with no one to support and a bitter taste in their mouth after 8 years of the Bush fiasco would call Obama a Marxist. The sad thing for him is that after 8 years of Bush, Karl Marx would have a decent shot at getting elected over anybody the GD GOP nominates.

Why the GD's?! This to "make PA mad?"

Why not 'loser-republicans' or something else, why the GD word?

Just curious, as you have so much hate in you!!

quote:

Originally posted by Seth Jackson:
Regulated capitalism, which I do support, advocates a limited but consistent protection of vital public interests from the excesses of laissez-faire economic anarchical capitalism. It stops child labor and prevents corporate entities from poisoning our water supply but at the same time allows the pursuit of capital with no limit except where such profits end at the door of public safety and health.

That ^ is a sensible and good post, in my opinion.

How the hell anybody regulates, in practical terms, an economic system that is by definition driven by unfettered profit is the problem we are all suffering from... finding a balance between creative production and excessive regulation is a booger... the main result usually being that the producers normally end up with bearing the burden of sustaining the profit, while the owners of profit engineer regulations so as to be all but ineffective.

quote:

Originally posted by Proud American!:
Why the GD's?! This to "make PA mad?"

Why not 'loser-republicans' or something else, why the GD word?

Just curious, as you have so much hate in you!!

Actually, the entire phrase is God-Damn Republican Son of a Bi_tch, which is how I always heard it from my Dad and Grandfather. My Grandad hated Republicans going back to Hoover. He would have been furious if he knew I voted for Bob Dole, who he called a "one-armed bandit" and said "he's so crooked they'll have to screw him in the ground to bury him."

I could just use GDRSOB or I might shorten it to GDR.