The great horror of this is the prospect of a brokered convention that leaves half the part feeling betrayed and enraged by a highjacked election (remember the recount battle anyone?) The prophylactic is obvious enough: the superdelegates need to commit themselves to voting for whomever gets the most votes from primary and caucus voters by the end of the season.

Who can carry this off? It seems to me that Dean should be working on getting both Clinton and Obama to tell “their” superdelegates to go with this plan for the good of the party.

Of course, it would also be helpful if the liberal bloggers embraced the idea….

What is the significance of Clinton’s (apparently) more lucid positions about health care, vs Obama’s (apparently) greater support from small donors? What effect will the enthusiasm among people in the Obama camp mean (or is it just a consequence of his more youthful base of support)? Has one led a more substance/fact-oriented campaign than the other? What will it mean for the Democratic party if the Obama campaign’s strategies succeed, vs the Clinton campaign’s? I haven’t followed the discussion all that closely so far, but it seems like there’s a real story to be told there, and a much more interesting one than trying to guess each candidates’ support from various demographic groups to the nth decimal place.

Not without knowing which districts (or even precincts) the “20% counted” represent.

Absent that information, these numbers could foretell a close Clinton victory or a complete blowout. (And even the Clinton victory would not be assured in my mind without the networks’ imprimatur, on the assumption that they have some people working for them who DO know that the first 20% of votes counted are not necessarily a random sample of the electorate.)

large enough for you?