The discussion of Super Delegates is very important for two main reasons:

1) The delegate count in 2008 may be very close and even a small percentage of SD's going against the grain of the electorate and pledged delegates could throw the convention. The time to raise issue awareness and prevent that from happening, is now.

2) The principle at stake and the party mechanics SDs represent need to be discussed openly by an informed public, not merely decided behind closed doors by party insiders. Remember this is The People's party, running on our contributions and taxes, only made real by our efforts. The overall question is whether the public is aware of the SD issue to begin with, and whether they be allowed to throw conventions, on what basis, if any.

***

Regarding the upcoming large states, Hillary needs to lead in them not just by narrow margins, but by big margins, to offset Obama's current 119 pledged delegate lead, likely to increase further on the 19th.

Wisconsin (Feb 19th) has 92 delegates, with Obama polling ahead by about 4 points, for a gain of about 11 points since December. If Obama wins there by 5 points that's about a 5 delegate gain, which would bring him to +124 in elected delegates. Hawaii I'm not sure about, but assume he takes it in a landslide putting him maybe +130 elected pledged delegates.

TX is the largest upcoming state with 228 delegates, and a hybrid primary/caucus on March 4th. Hillary was polling a 10 point lead prior to the Potomac primaries, though it's been declining as Obama gains. However, only 126 of TX delegates are pledged in the primary vote, the remaining 102 are decided by the caucus and later at the convention. Meaning that even if Hillary can hold a 10 point lead, that translates into perhaps a +12 gain in the primary part, with Obama's more politcal and motivated supporters typically doing better in the caucus part. Even if she gains a 10 point lead in delegates overall, primary and caucus, that's about +23 gain for her.

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/APStories/stories/D8UPL8G80.html

Ohio has 161 delegates, where Hillary is currently ahead by about 17 points. If that holds, it could translate into a +27 delegate gain for her, which is probably a best case scenario. However, the 17 point spread is down from a 25 point spread in Early January, and a 20 point lead in early February.

Pennsylvania has 188 delegates, and Hillary has about a ~16 point lead in her best case, which would translate into a 30 delegate gain. But again, her lead has been falling rapidly, 10 points since early January.

***

So, if you take Hillary's best case scenario within a range of probable outcomes, she picks up maybe +80 delegates. Then Obama would still lead in elected delegates by about +50.

Which would keep the Super Delegates rather relevant as her lead with them is ~75 currently, with hundreds still not "leaning" either way, and holding out for what, only they know.

Going onwards in May,  Obama probably does better with the remaining states, which could overcome the SD lead Hillary might retain.

But again, it's going to be close. And the Super Delegates do matter quite a bit, especially those who have yet to pledge, and whether they follow the lead of the electorate or play establishment gate keeper. If they go with the pledged delegates, then Obama is the clear winner. If they try to throw it to Hillary, it could be very close.

***

Josh speculates they would break for Obama and put him over the top if he is leading in all polls, beating McCain, winning the elected delegates, and the popular vote. However, as they say, power is corrupting, and I think he's under estimating the potential for patronage against democratic principles and rational choices.

Granted, it could go either way. Which is why this issue should be taken seriously. If the SDs throw the nomination it'll be an outrage. Better to prevent that now than divide the party and fix it later, the hard way, through a long and painful reform process during one or two terms of McCain.

Every single voter, every delegate, and every state matters going forward. This may not be decided till May.

Slate just published an article explaining some theories of what happened in NH. The one below is the one I've been talking about, basically the volatility of undecideds waiting till the last moment. (17% in NH)

Frome Slate: http://www.slate.com/id/2181118

Feiler/Skurnik Effect: What's stunning is the ferocity and speed with which Hillary's fortunes turned around in those final hours. Kf has a theory to explain that! Actually, two theories. The familiar Feiler Faster Thesis holds that voters are comfortable processing information at the vastly increased speed it can come at them. Jerry Skurnik's "Two Electorate" theory holds that voters who don't follow politics are much less informed than they used to be, which causes polls to shift rapidly when they do inform themselves. Put these two together and you've got a vast uninformed pool of voters that only begins to make up its mind until the very last minute--after the last poll is taken, maybe--and then reaches its decision by furiously ingesting information at a Feileresque pace. In fact, the percent of voters who made up their minds at the very end in N.H. was unusually large. (Add convincing statistic here!)

Two implications of the Feiler/Skurnik combo: a) Momentum from the previous primary doesn't last. When the early primary dates were set, the CW held that the Iowa loser would never be able to stop the Iowa "wave" effect in the five days between the two primaries. It was too short a time. In fact, it wasn't short enough. A three day separation and maybe Obama would have won. As it was, by the time the uninformed voters tuned in on Sunday and Monday, Iowa was ancient history.*** b) Instead, these voters saw clips of Hillary having her emotional tearing up moment. In other words, the Feiler/Skurnik Effect magnifies the significance of any events that occur in the final day or two of the campaign. After yesterday's election, expect more of these events.

Which basically has it, though it misses a few thing.

1) The kind of information processed at the last minute will tend to be superficial and largely dependent on MSM spin. A voter who remains undecided till the last few hours, isn't likely to read all their voting history, and all the debate on interpretations of that history, in the 11th hour. That underscores the unimportance of any "serious" campaign to get a message out well before the election, and to have the time to make persuasive arguments.

2) Momentum does still matter. Especially longer term averages, which predicted NH outcomes pretty accurately. Also, the perceptions of being a winner/loser are still very important, and the "last moment" voter will, by default, weight momentum and perceptions heavily.

3) As we saw in NH, the last minute voter is also very volatile, and can be effected by theatrics and last minute media sensations. The question is then, how often can that be accomplished, and is something of a gamble to try and create a last minute sensation? Hillary can only cry so many times. Even Arnold's car crushing routine got old.

So, there's definitely a battle to win the MSM, and win over perceptions. Bill for example has staked out the notion the media has been unfair to Hillary, and did so right after Iowa, which bore fruit with some pretty kind coverage to Hillary in the last moments.

Also it's still very important to establish a trend of momentum. Voters will still factor that heavilly, including last minute undecideds.

But, there is always a possibility for last minute swings as well in states with high numbers of undecideds, due to the volatility. So again, managing those last perceptions, and ensuring some media balance is vital to candidates.

With only 20% of precincts currently reporting, and Hillary holding a small lead, a lot of people are acting surprised Obama isn't yet winning in a blowout. Which makes no sense to me, and is a classic example of expectations being manipulated by the MSM to completely distort reality. And I was saying that days ago, when ARG and Zogby were putting out absurdly high numbers for Obama.

People need to remember some things:

1) Obama was double digits behind Hillary in NH just weeks ago.

2) The Iowa "bounce" isn't a physical law, it's something that may or not happen depending on a lot of things, not least of which is perceptions.

3) Distorted polls can cut both ways. they can boost candidates, but they can also create unrealistic expectations. Obama has alwasy said he's got a long hard battle, and no state is inevitable.

4) Edwards is splitting the "change" vote. that's huge. If his supporters went overwhelmingly to Obama, Obama would win in a blowout. But that's not happening yet.

5) ARG and Zogby called Iowa for Hillary by a landslide. And flipped to call Obama for a landslide. But they've generally been sloppy. More reliable polls had Obama picking up a lot of momentum after Iowa, but still a close race.

It's a popular meme on Republican sites to question whether FISA applied to the NSA wire taps, known to have occurred at ATT, Verizon, and other telcos. There's been quite a lot of dissembling on the subject coming from the RNC and its organs.

So, to clear this up, here are the basic facts everybody should know about it:

1) Q: What does FISA law apply to, and what does it require?

A: FISA requires that all domestic electronic surveillance require a warrant from a FISA court. Electronic surveillance is defined broadly, clearly as a catch all, and it certainly applies to all phone calls, emails, wired or wireless, and electronic communication. Surveillance is also defined broadly, as a catch all, referring to any mechanical, electronic, or other surveillance device.

FISA definition of electronic surveillance

(f) “Electronic surveillance” means—

(1) the acquisition by an electronic, mechanical, or other surveillance device of the contents of any wire or radio communication sent by or intended to be received by a particular, known United States person who is in the United States, if the contents are acquired by intentionally targeting that United States person, under circumstances in which a person has a reasonable expectation of privacy and a warrant would be required for law enforcement purposes;

(2) the acquisition by an electronic, mechanical, or other surveillance device of the contents of any wire communication to or from a person in the United States, without the consent of any party thereto, if such acquisition occurs in the United States, but does not include the acquisition of those communications of computer trespassers that would be permissible under section 2511 (2)(i) of title 18;

(3) the intentional acquisition by an electronic, mechanical, or other surveillance device of the contents of any radio communication, under circumstances in which a person has a reasonable expectation of privacy and a warrant would be required for law enforcement purposes, and if both the sender and all intended recipients are located within the United States; or

(4) the installation or use of an electronic, mechanical, or other surveillance device in the United States for monitoring to acquire information, other than from a wire or radio communication, under circumstances in which a person has a reasonable expectation of privacy and a warrant would be required for law enforcement purposes.

2) Q: What was ATT and Verizon doing, did it require a FISA warrant, and was it illegal?

A: The best information we have is from the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) a watchdog group and legal foundation. The EFF is prosecuting a case against ATT based on public information and a whistle-blower account of ATT's unwarranted wire tapping practices on behalf of the NSA.

EFF on NSA Spying

In 2005, Americans learned that the President authorized the National Security Agency (NSA) to wiretap phone and email communications involving United States persons within the U.S. without obtaining a warrant or court order pursuant to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (FISA). FISA prohibits unauthorized electronic surveillance. Shortly afterwards Americans also learned that the major telecoms participated in warrantless surveillance surveillance, handing over billions of their customers private communications and communications records. EFF later developed specific, undisputed whistleblower evidence demonstrating AT&T's direct participation in the warrantless surveillance by diverting its customer communications to the NSA.

EFF believes the warrantless surveillance violates the Fourth Amendment, FISA, the Wiretap Act, and most likely the Electronic Communications Privacy Act. Moreover, it is neither authorized nor justified by the Constitutional power of the executive.

EFF filed the first case against a telecom arising from the warrantless surveillance, called Hepting v. AT&T. This page collects information about the Hepting case, as well as about the nearly 40 legal cases that have arisen from the warrantless surveillance currently pending in the Northern District of California courts.

In summary, yes FISA clearly states that all domestic electronic surveillance requires a FISA warrant.

ATT, Verizon, and others are known to have proceeded with electronic surveillance of billions of emails and phone calls via the installation of special hardware, on behalf of the NSA.

The NSA did not obtain FISA warrants for the electronic surveillance.

T-Mobile is one company known to have refused and demanded a FISA warrant. Verizon claims to have ceased since the scandal became public.

The electronic surveillance done by the NSA, and participating companies such as ATT and Verizon is illegal.

Many mistake Obama's methods for nice or naive. That's probably due to the Clinton machine and unfortunately many pundits have bought into it.

Pundits need to drop the superficial analysis of both candidates and get into real policy and tactical differences.

The way I see Obama's universal HC reform plan, it has nothing to do with being nice or naive. It could be described as checkmate in several moves while controlling the board. It's prosecuting a case where he knows the outcome and just needs to walk the jury there.

Obama does not plan to sit the insurance corporations down at a table and sweet talk them as for example Kevin Drum mistakenly asserts. His plan is to incrementally squeeze them through a series of popular legislative steps, while maintaining public support, and avoiding public backlash. It's not a love-in, it's a well orchestrated power play to get universal HC insurance.

***

A critical issue to Health Care Reform is whether to use mandates to force voters to buy HC Insurance.

Mandates are currently the problem in Massachusetts, and a serious issue with Hillary's plan. Mass is a budding disaster on the level of "Leave No Child Behind." It's issued tens of thousands of waivers already due to popular pushback against the mandate. Some orthodox Dems don't want to discuss the problem. Many even bought into the strategy of mandates. But, it's a prime example of how mandating before people are ready, and without sufficient political clout to weather the backlash, is a foolish over reach, and jeopardizes the long term viability of the program.

Hillary's plan mandates from the start. It won't be able to build support or popularize the Gov Insurance program, or significantly fix the private sector, before mandating. In other words, it's a mandate before really establishing a popular option. That's a rather questionable strategy.

That plays to all the memes which get so much traction with moderates necessary to sustain HC reform, like "free market, big government, choice, and personal responsibility" memes. Basically all the high caliber Republican ammo.

***

Obama's HC plan doesn't mandate.

He'll subsidize the poor and children from the start. That's a political winner with a Dem Congress, and will score popular support for the program. He'll offer voluntary buy-in to a Gov program, for those early adopters who are going to be the best sales people to the general public. Again, politically viable, and scoring points for the service to build momentum. He'll move to regulate the private sector to force them to end predatory practices and be more efficient. Again, a political winner. Importantly, he's avoiding political backlash which could unravel everything, by avoiding mandates which are politically radioactive. We don't need another failed program and status quo for another decade.

At every step he's building positive brand identity for his program, to expand it. At every step he's in a position of popular political strength, and the insurance companies in positions of political weakness. That's controlling the game and forcing the opponent into a corner.

He's left open the possibility for a mandate later, and has expressed commitment to universal care as the final outcome. But he would only mandate once it was actually viable politically.

***

How will the Insurers respond to the Obama plan?

They'll lose customers to the HCI service Obama creates. They'll be under pressure. Their stock prices and profit margins will drop which will continually weaken them. They'll continually be forced to discuss issues of cost efficiency, bonuses, marketing, lobbying, profits, etc. which is a political loser for them. And when a GM, Google, or such buys into the Gov plan, it's be a nail in their coffin. They'll be forced simply by economic pressure to create new markets: i.e. supplemental insurance.

Which is the ultimate destination for them, to get them away from base coverage and into supplemental. They just have to be pushed, hard.

Will they fight? Sure, they'll fight any plan, Obama's or Hillary's.

But against Hillary's mandate they'll have far more ammo, and immediately counter attack against a fledgling program with it's own political problems. With Obama's plan they'll continually lose a battle of attrition against popular legislation.

***

Obama's plan isn't naive or sweet. It's the surest way to win by controlling the political support and momentum.

It's Hillary's plan that's so questionable. Can she really just mandate now? Without the time to get the kinks out? Without building popular support for the Gov Program? Before seriously reforming the private insurance industry?

How will voters respond to being forced to either buy into private insurance they can't afford, or buy into a Gov Program they don't know?

Mandates only passed in Mass, and they're already in trouble there. Hillary wants to attempt that on a national scale.

Whose strategy is really superior, and whose is naive?

***

Lastly, have the Clintons really learned from past failures? That's often presumed by them on the campaign trail, but where's the proof?

My feeling was always that NAFTA, the failure of 90's HC Reform, and other policy decisions were fundamentally due to their politics and whose counsel they take. Third Way and such. Has that really changed?

***

Rather than sound bites about "experience" and "change" I hope people look seriously into these policies, political ideology, counsel, and the different strategies they pursue.

I just read something which completely blew my mind.

At the Republican debate of presidential contenders, held at the Reagan museum, when Chris Matthews asked the Republican Presidential candidates to raise thier hand if they did not beleive in evolution, three actually raised thier hands.

(what?!!)

The nutty three are Sam Brownback, Sentaor from Kansas, former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, and Colorado Rep. Tom Tancredo. A Senator, a Governor, and a Representative. Powerful men still in office, in places which still have initiatives pushing to start teaching Creationism in public schools, in science class.

!

These kooks (let's be frank about it) are pandering to a fundamentalist religious base which has large and growing clout, remains GW Bush's staunchest base, and has a wide ranging agenda which can only be described as theocratic. Their interpretations of Christianity are considered kooky by everyone else, including other Christians.

Certainly this is an issue with tremendous political, and frankly American social evolutionary significance, that Democrats should address.

Q: The kooky three Republican presidential candidates are bad enough, but how about the others who didn't raise their hands?

Q: Are Republicans comfortable addressing the issues and taking a strong stand for science, evolution, the constitution, and secular government?

Q: To what extent are the Republican candidates depending upon, and hoping to turn out, the religious fundamentalist vote?

Q: To what extent will Republican candidates pander to, and make back room deals, with fundamentalists leaders?

Q: Aren't religious fundamentalists more similar to the people of various third world countries than the people of our developed allied nations?

Q: Aren't fundamentalists actually a dangerous form of zealous cultural devolution? Actually dangerous radicals by the standards of developed Western nations?

Republicans should be asked those questions until they are wiling to definitively state their position. Secular voting Americans, across the political spectrum, deserve to know whether Republicans are pandering to religious fundamentalists and what back room deals are being cut to secure the Fundamentalist voting bloc.

Bush while campaigning for 2000 spoke at Bob Jones University, which is known for being very Presbyterian Fundamentalist, vehemently anti-Catholic, nepotistic, and has only recently become accredited with the goal of turning out diplomaed fundamentalist soldiers.

After McCain criticized Bush for speaking there, for their anti-Catholic views and ban on interracial dating, it was a BJU professor who started the rumor McCain had an illegitimate black child after he adopted a child from Bangladesh, which was then push-polled and hurt McCain significantly in during the primary.

Shortly after George W. Bush won re-election in 2004, Bob Jones III sent him a congratulatory letter asserting that the new President had "been given a mandate" and urging him to put his "agenda on the front burner and let it boil. You owe the liberals nothing. They despise you because they despise your Christ."

Now McCain is courting fundamentalist votes and has said he wouldn't turn down an opportunity to speak at Bob Jones University. Similarly, Guliani and Romney have been courting fundamentalist votes.

..

I've recently been reading and would recommend The Creationists: From Scientific Creationism to Intelligent Design, Expanded Edition by Ronald L. Numbers who is a scholar respected by both scientists and creationists for his nuance and diligence studying the subject.

"Praised by both creationists and evolutionists for its comprehensiveness, the book meticulously traces the dramatic shift among Christian fundamentalists from acceptance of the earth's antiquity to the insistence of present-day scientific creationists that most fossils date back to Noah's flood and its aftermath. Focusing especially on the rise of this "flood geology," Ronald L. Numbers chronicles the remarkable resurgence of antievolutionism since the 1960s, as well as the creationist movement's tangled religious roots in the theologies of late-nineteenth- and early-twentieth-century Baptists, Presbyterians, Lutherans, and Adventists, among others. His book offers valuable insight into the origins of various "creation science" think tanks and the people behind them. It also goes a long way toward explaining how creationism, until recently viewed as a "peculiarly American" phenomenon, has quietly but dynamically spread internationally--and found its expression outside Christianity in Judaism and Islam."