50% +1 of the allotted votes to me makes the number 2209 regardless of whether Florida and Michigan are seated. FL and MI still have delegates allotted to them, they're just presently not seated, but I don't see why they would not count in the final number.

For example -- and my personal favorite resolution -- they might strip both states of their SDs but count all of the elected delegates just as they were voted (maybe with MI undecided going to Obama).

I do agree with J that:

You can't expect an air of legitimacy to surround a nominee when 2.3 million voters are excluded from making the determination.

Why do you suppose that is, hmmmmm?  If they thought he had it locked up and were comfortable with that, they'd be trampling each other in the rush to get on board.

I am curious what the current polling in these states reflects for Obama and Clinton. I haven't seen an analysis of the change in pledged delegate counts if polling data is applied to the delegates (using either a full or 1/2 delegate measure and an averaged poll result).

Has anyone run that analysis? Just curious.

I think the public perception is that Obama has won the nomination at this point. I think that perception will be further enforced with the remaining primaries. Reversing that perception will only serve to increase Clinton's negatives for the General Election.

So, many here state repeatedly that Obama can't beat McCain. I don't think the polls bear that out. I think Obama will destroy John McCain on the major issues: the "War", the economy, and Healthcare.

Second, it's the election, not the ROOLz, that I'm focused on.  I don't give a frak about the ROOLz.  I want the White House.  I want MI and FLA to go Democratic.  As things stand now, FLA definitely will not go blue, and MI is problematic.

1. Obama feels he has no chance here in the general election, and therefore feels like it's okay to kill the Democratic party in Florida (and Michigan?): thanks for all that party-building, Obama!
   
2. The Democratic party could care less about enfranchising Florida Democrats; more party-building! and
   
3. the systemic breakdown of the Democratic party, as evidenced by its spinelessness on every subject conceivable since they won back Congress in 06, is on full display now.

2290 should have been the number all along, since the DNC refused to count MI and FL.  The job of Dean and Brazile is to educated voters, not use their position to back their candidate.

I can just tell you all very honestly...from the perspective of an environment I spend over 9 hours a day (WORK) and includes Americans of Hispanic origin from over 12 countries in Latin America and Spain and the political mood in our office about 55% for Hillary, 35% for McCain and 10% for Obama.  Although we come from different political campaigns, we ALL agree that Florida and Michigan must count and therefore the number to become a nominee is 2209.  Nothing less will be accepted from Floridians, McCain will be number 2.  Most in Florida feel cheated first by our own government and the DNC but now with Obama as well.  His high-paid lawyers assured we would be disenfranchised.  That's unity?  No.  Barack Obama is the Manchurian Candidate.  Florida will never support him.

And that's from a Miami Hispanic and Jewish perspective.  And after the comments from the CNN "DNC" spokesperson that WE the Hispanics are part of the old coalition...in what world does she live in?  Well after a failed political campaign career, I'm not surprised.

Our people for the most part all across America support Hillary Clinton.  Hispanics will flock to McCain if Obama gets the Democratic Election.

After Brazile flapped her mouth about not needing the white blue collar folks, we don't need her, Dean, or the DNC. So much for that 50 state thing, BTW.

The whole CNN panel (is there ever a single Clinton supporter in that lot? They were all Obama fans - Davis called in longdistance) ridiculed the MI and Fl vote count  thing immediately (esp. Gergen) and Brazile's blood pressure went up and she had the usual back and forth as expected w. Davis calling him "Baby" in her condescending manner, of course, and telling everyone Obama was not responsible and did nothing wrong. When Davis came back on air later he repeated that Obama was most def. at fault and that he had blocked the revote. Maybe CNN has a transcript available.  

Host Anderson Cooper is no help. He sounded like a total nitwit. Guess he never heard that the MI and Fl issue was a huge problem for the Dems. The rest also acted as if it was a nonissue. Not worth their precious punditry time.

And then we have people who just do not seem to understand the basic principles of democracy, the importance of the integrity of the vote, and some of the worst offenders are the people who are in charge of the process and who are making the rules - for my money, the DNC is worse than useless, it has crossed over to being dangerous.

There are 50 states in this union.  50.  Not 48, not 48 plus 2 half-states.  50.  And those 50 states each have delegates.  Add them up, divide them in half and add 1: that's the number, and there is no magic about it.  

Stop with the blather about Obama not being on the ballot and Clinton saying the votes wouldn't count.  Voting may be one of the most important things we do a citizens; as I tell my kids, it's the responsibility we have for the privilege of living in a free society, and I'm at a loss to explain people who never vote.

The nomination belongs to no one at this point.  It's not in anyone's bag.  And it will be a mistake for any candidate to get it without according Florida and Michigan the delegates that go along with their seats at the convention.  As to how they get divvied up - it's time to deal with what is, to suck it up and - if some people have to - act like adults who care more about the principles and less about themselves.

Stop gloating, please.  For some of us, this has been really painful, and we don't understand why that makes some of you so happy that you seem to live for coming here, twisting the knife and pouring salt in our wounds.  It's not winning us over to your side, not making us feel the unity or the hope, so have the decency to back off.

I am Independent now.  So I may vote for him or I may not.  Not sure.  

So the real question is -- what is the Obama camp afraid of?  They have every advantage imaginable (fund raising, media support, SD momentum, etc.), and they won't do the right thing.

Given the amount of participation we've had in IN, OH, I can't see anyone begrudging Hilary to run a clean campaign, stay in the race, and run the campaign against McCain.  

But Obama is going to be the nominee, barring meltdown.  By every conceivable metric, delegates, votes, states, etc.  

Howard Wolfson, January 26:
[WOLFSON MEMO] This remains a delegate fight, with 1,681 delegates at stake on February 5th, and 2,025 needed to secure the nomination -- and we are ahead in that fight.

Howard Wolfson, February 12:
"We don't think either candidate will be able to get 2,025 delegates without the superdelegates," Wolfson said during Monday's briefing, a prediction that may come down to whether Clinton can stem Obama's February momentum by taking the majority of Texas's and Ohio's 389 delegates on March 4 (Vermont and Rhode Island also hold contests that day).

Howard Wolfson, February 13:
"Superdelegates are supposed to vote their conscience. ... That's essentially what my friend David Axelrod said on the Today show. ... No one is going to win the nomination without them. Our goal is to get to 2025 delegates. " - Howard Wolfson

Here's how I read this, from a Scalia-esque "strict constructionist" perspective:

If zero delegates were allotted to Florida and Michigan, or all of their delegates were "un-allotted," then the magic number is 2025.

If, on the other hand, delegates were allotted and then frozen/stripped, or otherwise prevented from voting, but not "un-allotted," the true number is 2029.

Of course, maybe strict constructionism isn't the best way to read a document that should be, above all else, Democratic.

How do we decide whether delegates were allotted in the first place, or if they were "un-allotted"?

The dictionary definition isn't very helpful.  It just means "parceled out" or "assigned."

"Senator Clinton is busy talking about me instead of getting to the issues."

"She was overheard to say just the opposite once she went backstage."

This assumes:
(1) the two candidates split the remaining pledged delegates, and
(2) Clinton refuses to withdraw if Obama fails to secure a total of 2209 delegates.

If OB had a shot in hell they would be shooting at him with everything they had.

They only take shots at the real deal, the one who can actually win it.

He can't so they shoo him in.

There are only something like 10 media corps in the world and everybody is owned by one of them so they make the rules and the toadys follow.

Little blogs that speak truth don't get many viewers but they sure make more sense.

Notice how rich Huffington and Markos are?

Notice they were republicans. Are they now just dems for a day or for pay?

They'd sell their souls for moolah.

Sorry, but in a system where superdelegates can effectively decided who gets to be the nominee, regardless of who has more regular delegates or more of the popular vote, "one person, one vote" is very misleading.  The supers were put in place for precisely the opposite reason of "one person, one vote", they are there to override our votes just in case we don't get it right.

"You can't expect an air of legitimacy to surround a nominee when 2.3 million voters are excluded from making the determination."

And you have the same problem when you include MI in which Obama was not even on the ballot.  Also, because everyone knew that FL was not going to count, not all of the candidates campaigned in that state like they normally would have, thus FL delegates are not necessarily "legitimate" either.