If Hillary seizes the lead on the major popular vote tallies this Sunday in Puerto Rico, and this piece notes that that outcome is entirely possible,  we need to take this race to the convention and ensure that the Democratic nomination reflects the will of the people.  

Here's the case:

It really disgusts me that any candidate could go so far as to use the possibility of another candidate's death in an argument for political gain.

Really, truly, abhorrent...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=esdY8PK_q 8Q

I imagine that the Obama camp is trying pretty furiously right now the insist that West Virginia's results only reflect the difficulty Obama would face in West Virginia in a general election.  In fact, Obama's crushing loss tonight reflects an important disconnect with a major Democratic constituency and it tells us about what we might expect in states like PA, OH, and MI come fall (states we can't afford to lose).  

So let's take a look at the lessons of WV:

There may still be some good news left for those of us who have taken a look at this map (Obama vs. McCain) and this map (Hillary vs. McCain) and concluded that we're in for a rough fall if Obama gets the nomination.  Jay Cost, of HorseRaceBlog, has a hugely interesting analysis of the impact that the coming races might have on the nomination, and he suggests that Hillary could still pull this out.  

I've provided some excerpts from the article below.  Click here to keep Hillary in the race.

So let's touch on an argument which came up after Ohio and Texas and seems (for whatever reason) to be getting a lot of play once again. It usually goes something like this:

Hillary's wins in Texas, Ohio, and Pennsylvania, while embarrassing for Obama, don't actually change the likely outcome of the election. During February Obama was able to acquire a substantial lead in pledged delegates and, because the Democratic primaries grant delegates proportionally, Hillary won't be able to overcome that advantage. Since Obama will have the lead in pledged delegates, super-delegates will feel obligated (both by moral and by political reasons) to respect the popular will and support Obama.

The argument here assumes a link between a lead in pledged-delegates and an eventual rally of super-delegates (without which, neither candidate can win the nomination). The link is made plausible with a pair of claims:

• Super-delegates are politicians and are unlikely to buck the popular will. Popular support is demonstrated by a lead in pledged delegates.


• A lead in pledged delegates bolsters claims of electablity, and super delegates want to support the candidate who can win in the general election.

Step One: Attack. Hard.

Hillary needs to keep up the level of attacks that she's been going with. A lot of people have been saying that her attacks aren't doing anything to Obama or that they aren't enough. But take a look at the graph below. (Data from Rasmussen) Since mid-February there are only two big points on the graph where Obama's unfavorable ratings exceed his favorable ratings. The first starts near 3/13, when the Jeremiah Wright scandal broke. The other starts around 4/11 when Obama's bitter comments came to light.

That graph shows that everything Obama supporters are worried about is true. That Obama can be hurt. That his campaign has gotten consistently weaker since early March and that a lot of his strength now is riding on what he did more than two months ago.

This is also where we can help. We need to do two things. First, we need to get Hillary the money she needs to keep up the attack. Right now Obama is outspending us by pretty huge margins, and yet our attacks are doing way more damage to him than his are doing to us. That means that a dollar given by a Hillary supporter can actually make a lot difference - far more than a dollar given by a given Obama supporter.

Second, we need to keep up the attack in areas where Obama is vulnerable. This means hitting that gun-questionnaire over and over again. There are YouTube videos of Obama lying on camera that we need to push. There are also PDF files of the actual questionnaires with Obama's handwriting. We need to push these to everyone we can, especially starting this Wednesday so that Hillary can be strong going into Indiana and North Carolina. Both Indiana and North Carolina are full of gun-owners, and there's no way that focusing on this issue in those states can do anything but help Hillary on May 6th. So if you know people in those states, make sure they've seen the videos and the documents. If you live in those states, make sure everyone you know sees them.

Third, we need to send the message to Hillary that we believe in her and that we support what she's doing. We need to encourage her to stay in the race all the way to the convention. Part of this is accomplished by sending money, but things as simple as a letter of support to her campaign saying that we believe in her can really go a long way. (Anyone interested in starting a letter-writing campaign should PM me). Remember, a lot of this is game goes on in the candidate's head - we have to keep her confidant and let her know that, no matter how much people attack her, we'll support her.

So let's start with the observation that, barring some huge and unexpected event, neither candidate can realistically win the nomination without the help of a fair number of super-delegates.  This in turn means that a lot of what's left to be done in this race consists of making moral arguments to super-delegates to garner support.  

One of these arguments, and the argument obviously favored by the Obama camp, says that super-delegates are obligated to support whoever amasses the most pledged-delegates.  That a pledged-delegate lead, however small, reflects the will of the Democratic electorate and that to vote for anyone but the pledged-delegate leader would be to overturn the will of the people.  

But another, quite plausible position insists that super-delegates are, instead, obligated to support whichever candidate leads in the popular vote.  There's a strong case to be made for the claim that the popular vote reflects the will of the Democratic electorate far better than pledged-delegate tallies (though I'm going to leave that case for another entry), and if super-delegates want to avoid overturning the popular will, they should look the popular vote tallies in making their decision.  

So we all know that Obama got pwned by Hillary at the debate on Wednesday.  But what's better than seeing your opponent get reamed worse than Bush got reamed by Kerry in the first '04 debate?  Having your opponent drop a number of lies to lord of the heads of his supporters for the next few days.  So here they are: Major lies from Obama's debate performance.

And while there's always a tendency when you're swimming in Kool-Aid to disregard this sort of thing, it's wise to be careful before being dismissive.  After all, Hillary's trip to Bosnia wasn't a major campaign issue either until it came out the she lied about it. No one would change their vote because of that trip, but they might change their vote because of that lie.   So while a lot of the issues Obama lied about aren't big issues in their own right, the fact that Obama lied about is itself a big issue.

And that's what makes it important that we get out this message. Because campaigns are inherently comparative (you vote for candidate A because he's better than B), and we need to make this a fair comparison. Obama shouldn't get an undeserved boost just because his dishonesty hasn't come out like Hillary's.