Clinton Shedding Superdelegates, Obama Adding Them

The following jumped out at me from this morning's First Read:

Not counting Lewis (because the situation is confusing), Obama has gained 12 superdelegates since February 5, while Clinton has lost a net of three.

Josh Marshall has a great write up of the Clinton campaign's superdelegate strategy -- trying to cajole the media to count these unpledged delegates along with the pledged ones to help them pad their total and, moreover, trying to use a superdelegate lead in order to overcome a pledged delegate deficit in order to secure the Democratic presidential nomination -- that I would recommend you read in full. But I'd also like to point you to something in particular that Marshall wrote that relates back directly to the quoted section above from First Read.

The Clinton camp's super delegate gambit is not only audacious. Far more than that it is simply unrealistic. The super delegates who are gettable for Clinton by loyalty, conviction or coercion are already got. And enough's been seen of both candidates for everyone to be more than acquainted with them. The ones who remain -- who make up roughly half the total -- are waiting to see who the winner is.

Marshall gets to the heart of the problem of Clinton. But beyond that, as First Read notes, not only is Obama starting to get more superdelegates, directly cutting into Clinton's advantage within this group, Clinton is in fact losing superdelegates. Some are moving over to Obama, while others are simply balking at the idea being floated by the campaign that they should, in the case that Obama has more pledged delegates and overall votes, nevertheless help deliver the nomination to Clinton.

Now I think that Clinton could potentially come closer to erasing Obama's pledged delegate lead. I really do. But that would entail running a smarter pledged delegate campaign. No more overlooking caucuses. No more staying out of states until the Saturday before election day. And no more suggesting that superdelegates should reject the will of actual voters, both because that strategy isn't working and because it's counterproductive in terms of turning off actual voters.

Tags: Barack Obama, Democratic primaries, Hillary Clinton, superdelegates (all tags)

Comments

128 Comments

The fun has yet begun

If Clinton sweeps all three ... TX, PA, and OH, look out.   It will get interesting.

by dpANDREWS 2008-02-15 07:33AM | 0 recs
Re: The fun has yet begun

I love how Clinton supporters ignore the races between OH, TX and PA, you know the races that almost uniformly favor Obama; and the races that immediately follow PA, especially NC you know the staate that will basically cancel out any advantage Hillary might gain from PA (NC being bigger than NJ or MA, and having slightly more favorable demographics than VA).

by Socraticsilence 2008-02-15 07:41AM | 0 recs
Re: The fun has yet begun

The idea that so-called "super" delegates are now realigning on principle is nearly as silly as the earlier stories about them being "locked up" and should already be tallied in one candidate column.  

Come the convention, they'll get in line with whichever way the wind is blowing.

by cargocult 2008-02-15 10:42AM | 0 recs
I Agree

The argument that says, "I have won all of the states key to GE victory in November," is a powerful one.

by Zeitgeist9000 2008-02-15 07:41AM | 0 recs
Re: I Agree

Not really, as Obama would win all those states in the GE as well - in addition to a couple of the redder states where he has dominated.

by Cycloptichorn 2008-02-15 07:43AM | 0 recs
Re: I Agree

If he will win them (the Democratic states), why isn't he winning them now?

by Zeitgeist9000 2008-02-15 07:45AM | 0 recs
Re: I Agree

Because he's running against another Democrat instead of a Republican?

by Kal 2008-02-15 07:48AM | 0 recs
Re: I Agree

Now see, this is just rude. Nobody thinks you are stupid enough to consider this a legitimate question. Why even post something like this? You are insulting people by sarcastically pretending to be a moron.

by alvernon 2008-02-15 07:49AM | 0 recs
Re: I Agree

Stupid, sarcastic, moron. I'm feeling the good vibes of "hope" here.

by Zeitgeist9000 2008-02-15 07:57AM | 0 recs
Re: I Agree

Ignoring for a moment the absurdity of your question (an implied belief that democrats that vote for Clinton will not vote for Obama in any meangingful numbers.) I would like to take umbrage with something far more obnoxious: Your signature.

You can not be serious with that statement. Hillary is the glory of America? I hope you don't believe that when she is not even arrogant enough to believe that. She is no more "the glory of America" than Obama is. How about our great history or our belief in freedom? How about the hardwork of those who have come here? How about "the greatest generation?" All of these things could be viewed as our glory. But talking about one person that way....and you accuse Obama of creating a cult of personality.... the arrogance is astounding.

by JDF 2008-02-15 08:27AM | 0 recs
Re: I Agree

Okay, explain your question in a way other than this person did.

by labor nrrd 2008-02-15 09:41AM | 0 recs
Re: I Agree

You can't be serious.

by rfahey22 2008-02-15 07:49AM | 0 recs
Re: I Agree

Agreeing with the above posters; you hit that one back into the net, sorry to say.

by Cycloptichorn 2008-02-15 07:51AM | 0 recs
Re: I Agree

If Democrats constitute a majority in Ohio and Pennsylvania because we won those states in 2000 and 2004, then why isn't Obama winning those states?

Or even CA, where he lost by double-digits?

by Zeitgeist9000 2008-02-15 07:59AM | 0 recs
Re: I Agree

Once again, you are making things up.  Clinton won CA 52-43.  That's a single-digit win.

Clinton has a history of doing well in states which have a very well developed Dem party machine, b/c she long ago leveraged much of that machine to work for her, when she looked like the inevitable candidate.  In states where she has to compete with her opponent on a level playing field, not so much.

by Cycloptichorn 2008-02-15 08:05AM | 0 recs
Re: I Agree

Clinton won CA by 10 points.

The only thing that's being leveraged is your credibility.

And I'm afraid I'm going to have to foreclose because I have work to do!

Caucuses aren't level playing fields. Working-class and middle-class people don't have time to stand around and wax poetic about hope. And the Dem electorate in the Great Plains, Interior West and Deep South matters about as much in a GE as an umbrella in a typhoon.

by Zeitgeist9000 2008-02-15 08:10AM | 0 recs
Moronic

Per CNN, with 100% of the vote counted:

Clinton 52
Obama 43

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primari es/results/state/#CA

Please try to do a little research before running your mouth off about stuff you don't understand.

Your line about Caucuses is uninformed tripe.  You don't have to stay once you arrive, just mark down your choice and leave.  In many cases, this takes LESS time then standing in line to vote.

You're not representing your side of the argument well at all.

by Cycloptichorn 2008-02-15 08:15AM | 0 recs
Re: Moronic

Break that down to PARTY and Hillary was over 10% I bet =)

by sonofdonkeykong 2008-02-15 08:23AM | 0 recs
Re: Moronic

Good point, now if we can only figure out some way to prevent the GOP and Independents from being allowed to vote in November you might have a winning strategy.

by Socraticsilence 2008-02-15 08:48AM | 0 recs
Re: Moronic

;)

by seand 2008-02-15 10:31AM | 0 recs
Re: Moronic

Yeah, why would we want millions of independent votes in November? How could that possibly benefit the democratic nominee?

by godemsin08 2008-02-15 10:28AM | 0 recs
Re: I Agree

So now only some Democrats matter? What a gem!

That attitude is the reason we don't make more inroads into "red" states. It is cowardice, pure and simple. Either that or willful ignorance in support of the old ways.

by JDF 2008-02-15 08:29AM | 0 recs
Continue to ignore the point

Why does Clinton beating Obama in CA mean that McCain would beat Obama in CA.

Short answer:  Nothing

More interesting question:  Why are you pretending it does?

by labor nrrd 2008-02-15 09:43AM | 0 recs
Re: I Agree

schadenfreude

by JoeFelice 2008-02-15 08:00AM | 0 recs
Re: I Agree

So by this line of reasoning, Hilary will cost the Democrats Washington, Illinois, Minnesota, Maryland, DC, Connecticut, and Delaware plus give us no hope of turning places like Virginia or Missouri blue. Sounds great.

by bg5000 2008-02-15 08:17AM | 0 recs
Re: I Agree

This is easily the dumbest comment I've seen on this site in a while.

Please stop.

by mcdave 2008-02-15 08:26AM | 0 recs
Re: I Agree

And that's saying something given the competition.

by recusancy 2008-02-15 08:41AM | 0 recs
Re: I Agree

Obama will have to compete harder in those states and spend more money in the general than Clinton would ever have to.

Not to mention almost all of the DEEP red states Obama won will never go blue. EVER.

I'd also like to point out that Obama winning in those states is nothing special. Those states have a dem primary every election and a dem always wins. The states still stay deep red.

by americanincanada 2008-02-15 07:47AM | 0 recs
Re: I Agree

Your first line is an assertion.

Your second line is not only fallacious it is PERNICIOUS to our chances in Nov.  Do you know how to keep the majority of states voting red, forever?  KEEP TALKING about how they will NEVER be blue states!!!  Ridiculous.

by Cycloptichorn 2008-02-15 07:50AM | 0 recs
Re: I Agree

Fallacious and pernicious! Someone did well on their SAT verbals.

Listen, Obama has a verifiable disconnect with the Democratic base. Rank-and-file Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents back Clinton to a degree that Obama would have to spend an inordinate amount of time getting them to trust him. Also, let's wage a campaign where we shore up our chances in the states where we have a fighting chance FIRST--something that was lacking in 2000 and 2004.

by Zeitgeist9000 2008-02-15 07:56AM | 0 recs
Re: I Agree

This is simply untrue.

You are playing the same game that others who support Clinton have been - implying that only certain voters 'count' or 'matter.'  

A news flash for ya - Obama is WINNING the election at this point.  He couldn't be doing that if the majority of Democrats hadn't voted for him.  There is no disconnect between him and the voters.

And your line about independents is quite false.  Obama has won the independent vote in nearly every state in which they were allowed to vote.  I have no idea how you can write this stuff with a straight face.

by Cycloptichorn 2008-02-15 07:58AM | 0 recs
Re: I Agree

The only independent vote Obama has won is people who have never voted.

by Zeitgeist9000 2008-02-15 08:00AM | 0 recs
Re: I Agree

This is 100% false, and you are simply making shit up at this point.  Please try harder to present an actual case.

by Cycloptichorn 2008-02-15 08:03AM | 0 recs
Re: I Agree

And if this were true (and it isn't) why would this be a bad thing? We don't want to bring new voters to the process?

You're quickly becoming a cariacture. It is sad..really.

by JDF 2008-02-15 08:31AM | 0 recs
Re: I Agree

And we certainly don't want any of those thousands of new voters either to vote for the dem candidate in November.

by godemsin08 2008-02-15 10:30AM | 0 recs
Re: I Agree

The poster refers to Hillary as the "glory of America."  Dare I say that s/he has a ... "cultish" devotion to Clinton?

by rfahey22 2008-02-15 08:01AM | 0 recs
Re: I Agree

I've never been referred to as a "poster." I resent that remark.

I rather preferred it when the other guy called me a moron.

Hillary actually engages issues that are going to put food on people's tables, clothes on their backs, and keeping a roof over their heads. Obama got rich and forgot what being poor felt like. If he wants to run for president of the upper middle-class, he oughta move to Connecticut and be a Senator from there.

by Zeitgeist9000 2008-02-15 08:04AM | 0 recs
Re: I Agree

Don't forget, she also voted in favor of an issue that sent thousands of our soldiers to their graves. Go Hillary!

by mecarr 2008-02-15 08:06AM | 0 recs
Re: I Agree

Hey Bush and the GOP did that.

If you are having trouble blaming the right party maybe you are not helping...

by sonofdonkeykong 2008-02-15 08:25AM | 0 recs
Re: I Agree

So her vote for it didn't matter? All is forgiven? She is allowed her mistakes while others are essentially crucified for their's?

If we are going to have a discussion lets at least have an honest one.

by JDF 2008-02-15 08:32AM | 0 recs
Re: I Agree

I guess we see what we want to see.  Projection is fun.

by rfahey22 2008-02-15 08:07AM | 0 recs
Re: I Agree

Worse with each post.

Hillary's net worth is at least ten times Obama's and probably close to 30; and she hasn't been 'poor' in her life.  She never knew what it felt like in the first place.

You are down to repeating campaign propaganda instead of engaging in actual discussion.  Your third line is pulled straight from Hillary's speeches, and is essentially meaningless; there is no issue Hillary has engaged which Obama hasn't, and you know it.

by Cycloptichorn 2008-02-15 08:08AM | 0 recs
Huh?

It's a bit hard to swallow your premise when Zogby and Rasmussen are showing Obama beating McCain and Huckabee while Hillary would lose to McCain and just edge out Huckabee.

With Obama as the candidate, it brings many more states into play, states that we'd have to immediately write-off if HRC was the candidate.

by desertjedi 2008-02-15 08:18AM | 0 recs
Re: I Agree

So Clinton will have to work hard to win Illinois... must be according your logic.. How could win the state if she lost to Obama.

by labor nrrd 2008-02-15 09:50AM | 0 recs
Not so fast

What red states will Obama add in the general?

He won't win Fl for several reasons.

I think he will be seriously at a disadvantage in PA and OH.

Do you think he is going to flip South Dakota?  South Carolina?   Utah?  Where?   Fat chance.

I keep reminding people .... there are NO red states during Democratic Primary season.   A democrat wins all 50 states each and every time.

by dpANDREWS 2008-02-15 07:54AM | 0 recs
Re: Not so fast

This is easy:

He is going to flip Virginia, Colorado, & Iowa.  If he gets those on top of what Kerry won, he will have a 292 - 246 Electoral Vote Victory.

Virginia: Bush beat Kerry by about 250,000 votes in 2004.  This year, the Democratic primary had almost 500,000 more voters in it than the Republican primary.  Add to that Kaine or Webb as a possible running mate, or at the minimum campaigning hard and an increase in African-American turn-out and he should be able to win it easily.

Colorado:  Bush won this one by about 100,000 votes in 2004.  This year the Democratic caucus doubled the size of the Republican caucus.  A recent poll had Obama beating McCain in Colorado 46% - 39%.

Iowa:  Kerry only lost this by about 10,000 votes in the general.  In this years primary, Democratic turnout was about double Republican turnout.  Add to that the fact that McCain barely participated in the Iowa primary while Obama built one of the best grassroots political network in decades and it should be easy to flip.

by jbsloan 2008-02-15 08:09AM | 0 recs
Not if he loses PA

His stance on guns could have Republicans in VA flocking to the polls to beat him as well.

by dpANDREWS 2008-02-15 08:12AM | 0 recs
Re: Not if he loses PA

A poll this week had Obama winning in PA.  Granted it was a 1% statistical tie, but still, he has a strong shot there considering that Obama has never campaigned in Pennsylvania and he will likely grow in popularity and name recognition when he does.

by jbsloan 2008-02-15 08:20AM | 0 recs
Re: Not if he loses PA
I know it is now too days later, and people aren't likely reading this thread, but I wanted to add the recent Rasmussen results to solidify the argument:
Obama 49%
McCain 39%
by jbsloan 2008-02-17 06:44AM | 0 recs
Re: Not if he loses PA

And Kaine was against the death penality and it didn't stop him from getting elected.

When Obama talks about getting independents and Republicans to vote for him, he's not making the claim that ALL of them are going to vote for him.

The only candidate that will energize the GOP base is Clinton. If you're worried about someone driving up Republican turnout, you're focusing on the wrong person.

by kjblair2 2008-02-15 08:21AM | 0 recs
Clinton isn't going to win FL either

I've mentioned this in other threads - Florida is probably one of the least likely pick ups this year. It's trending red. (Compare Kerry's performance to Gore's and look at the relative strength of the two parties in the state.)

States like Colorado, Virginia, Iowa, Ohio, Missouri and New Mexico all are better chances.

We shouldn't concede the state, just not pin all of our hopes on carrying it.

by kjblair2 2008-02-15 08:13AM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton isn't going to win FL either

The point you make abuot Florida is so true, and I don't know why noone else will make, seriously if Mccain picks say Crist, we lose Florida by 10% at least.

by Socraticsilence 2008-02-15 08:51AM | 0 recs
Seems like a toss-up

I agree with you about Florida. Especially if McCain does something very astute and puts their governor on the ticket. The whole south is gone then except for Arkansas which Hillary can win but Obama can't.

I have my doubts about either CO or VA in the fall. Strong military votes there and McCain has that all over either Obama or Hillary.

They were virtually tied in both Missouri and New Mexico.

I don't see any structural reason why one would do better than the other in Iowa in the general. Sure Obama won the caucus but I think the correlation between primary Dem caucus winners and general election winners is low for Iowa.

That leaves Ohio. Dems have enough institutional strength there to prevent voting shenanigans this time around. We will see who is the stronger there in a couple weeks.

by ineedalife 2008-02-15 09:02AM | 0 recs
Re: Not so fast

Can I ask why you write off WY, MY, SD, IA, and ND off hand.  Every single one of these states had a state wide democratic win in 2006.  I think these states are very much in play and should be courted heavily.

Wouldn't it be nice after election when either Hillary or Barack wins to look at the map on A1 of the newspaper and be able to say "LOOK AT ALL THAT BLUE"?

by kasjogren 2008-02-15 09:11AM | 0 recs
Re: Not so fast

I love that polls are useless since it so far out (A point I basically agree with)

But your hunches about what will happen, let's take that to the bank.

by labor nrrd 2008-02-15 09:49AM | 0 recs
Re: The fun has yet begun

By fun, Bill and Hillary seem to mean a repeat of what George Bush did -- steal Florida.

by Fred Poole 2008-02-15 11:05AM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton Shedding Superdelegates, Obama Adding

Senator Obama's HOPE Fund has contributed more than 500,000 to Congress members and candidates in the 2008 election cycle.  Compare that with Senator Clintons, HILL PAC contributions.

The comparison is stunning.

www.politicalamnesia.blogspot.com

Thank you for your post.

by darlamc 2008-02-15 07:36AM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton Shedding Superdelegates

Maybe Clinton should challenge Obama to a debate in front of all the superdelegates.  Becaues hey, they deserve a debate, too.

by rfahey22 2008-02-15 07:37AM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton Shedding Superdelegates

Hey, if I send Hillary a letter you think I can get a debate too? I don't have anything going on next weekend.

by Socraticsilence 2008-02-15 07:42AM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton Shedding Superdelegates

Oh, God.

That really reminded me of SNL's parody of C-SPAN Campaign Journal in which Jerry Brown, Paul Tsongas and Clinton speak in front of a Star Trek convention.

by ChrisR 2008-02-15 07:45AM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton Shedding Superdelegates

"Santa Claus is not a leader. Captain Kirk is a leader!"

by alvernon 2008-02-15 07:50AM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton Shedding Superdelegates

Greatest Underappreciated Al Franken Impressions:

Pat Robertson
Paul Tsongas
Paul Simon.

by ChrisR 2008-02-15 07:53AM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton Shedding Superdelegates

"I think they really liked the bow tie."

Loved that bit.  :)

by tilthouse 2008-02-15 08:10AM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton Shedding Superdelegates

"I haven't been just a preacher.  I've been a caddy."

by ChrisR 2008-02-15 09:09AM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton Shedding Superdelegates

Dana Carvey as George HW Bush and Ross Perot was pretty funny as well.

by John Mills 2008-02-15 08:29AM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton Shedding Superdelegates

LOL Obama is their leader

by sonofdonkeykong 2008-02-15 08:27AM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton Shedding Superdelegates

Yes you can!  And Obama's a coward if he doesn't agree!

by rfahey22 2008-02-15 07:45AM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton Shedding Superdelegates

Um..... Wha??

by JDF 2008-02-15 08:35AM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton Shedding Superdelegates

What?  The person I responded to asked if s/he could get a personal debate from Clinton and Obama.  Don't tell me the sarcasm didn't jump off the page - that would just make me sad.

by rfahey22 2008-02-15 09:47AM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton Shedding Superdelegates

So now that the writers strike is over and new shows are coming back on, is anyone actually going to watch the next couple of debates?  It is not as though they are interesting, even to a political junky like me.  I don't think there has been an original word said in any of them in months.

by John Mills 2008-02-15 08:28AM | 0 recs
16 states(plus PR and Guam) remaining...

...and the 13 that aren't Texas, Ohio and Pennsylvania have more delegates combined than those three.  Obama won't ignore or bypass or write off TX, OH and PA, but it looks like the Clinton campaign hasn't completely learned its lesson about every state counting.  They've started to make an effort, but it may be too late.

She could very well win those three comfortably, and still fall behind in the total pledged delegate count, simply because Obama won comfortably almost everywhere else.  Plus, to be honest, winning one third or less of the 50 states does not seem like a great sales pitch to super delegates.

by megaplayboy 2008-02-15 07:44AM | 0 recs
Re: 16 states(plus PR and Guam) remaining...

Good point.  Somehow a lot of people are falling for the spin that OH, PA, and TX will automatically decide the nomination.  You would think that CA would be jealous - I thought that that was the only state that mattered.

by rfahey22 2008-02-15 07:47AM | 0 recs
Re: 16 states(plus PR and Guam) remaining...

Looks like the Clinton campaign hasn't learned that this isn't a "winner take all" system. Getting 55% of the vote in TX, OH, and PA won't nearly be enough to catch Obama, especially if he wins Oregon, North Carolina, and Mississippi by 20-30 points.

by Kal 2008-02-15 07:51AM | 0 recs
Re: 16 states(plus PR and Guam) remaining...

Yeah, for all the talk of Texas and Ohio:

Rhode Island, 3/4.

Vermont, 3/4

Wyoming, 3/8.

Mississippi, 3/11.

I know the Clinton campaigning is talking up their organizational efforts in Wyoming and their poll lead in Rhode Island, but does anyone know if they've set up a field office in any of those four states?  Can they afford to even run direct mail (Rendell stated with some frustration that they can't do it in PA right now)?

And for all the talk about Clinton's recent fundraising success, is there any doubt that Obama might be pretty much alone in devoting significant resources to those four states?

by ChrisR 2008-02-15 07:49AM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton Shedding Superdelegates

Obama can't count on Hawaii and Hillary can count on PR.

Everyone knows that if Hillary wins Texas, Ohio and PA it wil provide her with a powerful argument for the nomination.

Spin away bots...

by americanincanada 2008-02-15 07:49AM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton Shedding Superdelegates

See, your argument would be more "powerful" if you just included OH and PA, because you have to know that we won't win TX in the general.  But then, TX is big and so I guess that is consistent with your twisted logic that big states count for more than a large number of small states.  Surely you can see the inconsistency of your position.  Also, you completely overlook the fact that the choice between two Democrats in a primary is not the same as a choice between a Democrat and a Republican in the general.  That point is so obvious, and has been hammered home for weeks now, that you apparently have just chosen not to address it.

by rfahey22 2008-02-15 07:56AM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton Shedding Superdelegates

Hillary can count on Puerto Rico? Doubt it. The Gov of Puerto Rico just endored OBama yesterday.

by mecarr 2008-02-15 07:57AM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton Shedding Superdelegates

That comment shows how little you know about the politics of PR and the political machine there.

by americanincanada 2008-02-15 08:35AM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton Shedding Superdelegates

Ah yes, the "machine" of Puerto Rican politics. Give me a break.

by mecarr 2008-02-15 08:44AM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton Shedding Superdelegates

And a machine that is so poorly run that it doesn't include the Governor.

by ChrisR 2008-02-15 09:10AM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton Shedding Superdelegates

They didn't even want that office, beneath the power of the machine

by labor nrrd 2008-02-15 09:52AM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton Shedding Superdelegates

Texas, Ohio, and Pennsylvania?  A powerful argument for the nomination based on three states?

There are 56 contests in this nomination fight (50 states, plus DC, Puerto Rico, Guam, American Samoa, Virgin Islands, and Democrats Abroad).   Every single one of them has delegates, and given that we are the United States of America, they all count.  The great thing about proportional allocation of delegates is that the outcome reflects the will of the whole country, not just the will of a handful of states that someone spins as "important."

by Onward Virginia Democrats 2008-02-15 08:36AM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton Shedding Superdelegates

Whay can she count on PR, the FALN thing? Seriously, though how about you address the Biggest state left after PA, OH, TX and the only big state in which either is likely to get a 20% Margin-- NC, you know better demographics for Obama than VA, bigger than NJ or MA.

by Socraticsilence 2008-02-15 08:55AM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton Shedding Superdelegates, Obama Adding

There's no such thing as an 'automatic delegate.'

Man, it's amazing how quickly you guys buy in to the BS spun by Hillary's crappy campaign.  And you have the audacity to refer to others as 'cultists.'

by Cycloptichorn 2008-02-15 07:56AM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton Shedding Superdelegates, Obama Adding

I know you support Clinton (I don't) but this analysis is sound and refreshing in that it offers her a path to the nomination that is based on doing well in the remaining states. this is a far healthier and plausible scenario than counting on super delegates, florida, michigan or god knows what other convolution.

by pcjnyc 2008-02-15 07:56AM | 0 recs
Re: Ridiculous nonsense

Not at all.  Keeping the superdelegates close prevents either camp from doing an end-run around the will of the people.  I think we should all be happy about that.

by rfahey22 2008-02-15 08:04AM | 0 recs
Re: Ridiculous nonsense

lol, something tells me we're not all happy about that.

by JoeFelice 2008-02-15 08:21AM | 0 recs
Re: Ridiculous nonsense

Heh, probably not, but the point remains.

by rfahey22 2008-02-15 08:27AM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton Shedding Superdelegates, Obama Adding

"Automatic delegates" - did a talking points memo go out last night while I wasn't paying attention?

by rfahey22 2008-02-15 08:08AM | 0 recs
Automatic

It's like receive a bye in a college basketball tournament.

Kinda cute.

by ChrisR 2008-02-15 09:55AM | 0 recs
Clinton Shedding Superdelegates, Obama Adding

Great post Jonathan.  You and Josh Marshall have hit it on the nose.  The Super Delegates are going to break for the candidate who has the majority of the pledged delegates going into the convention.  They are not going to do an end run around the will of the people b/c that is a disasterous strategy for either Clinton or Obama.  

A convention where the Dems nominate a candidate not winning the majority of the pledged delegates is the only way I see McCain winning.  The convention would breakout into an uproar and frankly it could be like 1968 all over again.  And that is exactly why it won't happen.

by John Mills 2008-02-15 08:22AM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton Shedding Superdelegates, Obama Adding

If we don't have a candidate long before the convention it isn't going to matter. We need to sort this out.

by JDF 2008-02-15 08:39AM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton Shedding Superdelegates, Obama Adding

The primaries should sort it out.  My guess is we will know after March 4 who the nominee is going to be.

by John Mills 2008-02-15 08:55AM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton Shedding Superdelegates, Obama Adding

The only way we can no for sure is if one of them drops out OR a deal is made...

If Clinton wins on March 4th but it isn't enough to put her in the lead outright will Obama be in the mood to make a deal? Especially after the way she has been talking recently?

by JDF 2008-02-15 09:37AM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton Shedding Superdelegates, Obama Adding

Obama just picked up another one: Congressman Brian Baird (WA-03).  He also just got endorsed by the Mayor of Austin, not sure if he's an SD or not.  It will be interesting to watch the Clinton camp pivot on this issue when they lose the lead on SDs.  And before someone accuses me of being a hypocrite, when the Clintons start saying the SDs should all wait for the Convention before deciding, I will happily agree and support wiping this slate clean, like it should be.

by Piuma 2008-02-15 08:26AM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton Shedding Superdelegates, Obama Adding

Let them pledge how they want.

Come convention we will elect the most electable.

If Counting Florida and Michigan Hillary has the pledged delegates and popular vote it will be Hillary

If not it will be Obama

Thats how I see things.

A very close race likely goes to Hillary as She has won more of the Purple states that will likely decide the election.

by sonofdonkeykong 2008-02-15 08:31AM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton Shedding Superdelegates, Obama Adding

Any by more I mean higher delegate count

by sonofdonkeykong 2008-02-15 08:31AM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton Shedding Superdelegates, Obama Adding

FL and MI will not be counted intact.  The chances of this happening are slimmer then slim, 'specially if Obama is ahead on pledged delegates.

by Cycloptichorn 2008-02-15 08:37AM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton Shedding Superdelegates, Obama Adding

Obama may not be ahead in pledged delegates with Florida and Michigan counted. Don't count FL and MI and kiss the presidency goodbye.

by Alvord 2008-02-15 08:55AM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton Shedding Superdelegates, Obama Adding

Assertion unsupported by fact or logic.  You have no evidence that this is true, or that voters from those states are as pissed as you seem to believe they are.

by Cycloptichorn 2008-02-15 08:57AM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton Shedding Superdelegates, Obama Adding

But I have heard that said on rec diaries here for months, it must be true, it MUST!

by labor nrrd 2008-02-15 09:55AM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton Shedding Superdelegates, Obama Adding

IF it comes to convention time neither will be electable. How do we beat McCain with a two month campaign when he is going to be hammering on us from NOW through election day.

by JDF 2008-02-15 08:40AM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton Shedding Superdelegates, Obama Adding

Running against a corpse for 2 months is just as good as running against a corpse for 6 months

by kasjogren 2008-02-15 09:20AM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton Shedding Superdelegates, Obama Adding

Hmm... Which brings up another problem?

Isn't it in our best interest to force McCain to run from now until November? If we do that isn't he going to look exhausted beyond belief by election day? And is there any chance this country elects a man who looks like he is on his last legs?

by JDF 2008-02-15 09:35AM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton Shedding Superdelegates, Obama Adding

You've partly elucidated why McCain's VP choice will be the most scrutinized in memory.

If he picks an estalishment conservative, a portion the base will return to McCain, and Pat Robertson will lead prayers that God give him a stroke.
 

by JoeFelice 2008-02-15 09:56AM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton Shedding Superdelegates, Obama Adding

Also, if he picks an establishment conservative he might win back a portion of the conservative base but he will lose standing among indies and McCain leaning democrats. He is in a no-win situation in that regard.

by JDF 2008-02-15 10:01AM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton Shedding Superdelegates, Obama Adding

That's actually the beauty of our predicament.  McCain can't focus on either candidate exclusively, and so his attacks lack any real traction.  He has to resort to meaningless, stock arguments that he's better than any Democrat.

by rfahey22 2008-02-15 09:50AM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton Shedding Superdelegates, Obama Adding

but in the mean time we are not making a good argument on why we are better than McCain because we are too busy fighting eachother.

by JDF 2008-02-15 10:02AM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton Shedding Superdelegates, Obama Adding

Maybe, in which case it's a wash, but I'd rather have two candidates beating up one guy (and each other) than one candidate trying to beat up two others.

by rfahey22 2008-02-15 02:37PM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton Shedding Superdelegates, Obama Adding

I don't think anyone on Obama's side is doing a victory lap. I think, here at least, it is amazing how "in the bag" Clinton's supporters think they have it.

by JDF 2008-02-15 08:38AM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton Shedding Superdelegates, Obama Adding

So roughly 234 Super Delegates have endorsed Clinton.

485 have not.

...Why is she counting on the Super Delegates to put her over the top again?

by Kal 2008-02-15 08:41AM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton Shedding Superdelegates, Obama Adding

Here is for you Jonathan.  The web site that is impartial.

http://demconwatch.blogspot.com/2008/02/ obama-barely-cutting-superdelegate-gap.h tml

by Opandora 2008-02-15 08:44AM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton Shedding Superdelegates, Obama Adding

You forgot to note the changes from when that was posted to their current estimate.

Date   Clinton   Obama
2/13   232       146
Now    232       152

Note: I assume this has Lewis in the uncommitted column since their update for 2/15 indicates as such.

by kjblair2 2008-02-15 09:17AM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton Shedding Superdelegates...

I heard Congressman Wexler state on the radio yesterday that there are concerns about Hillary's electability among the members of the House of Representatives. Given the latest polls from Zogby and Rasmussen, I can see why.

There's some good info floating around on the history of the superdelegates. Apparently, they came into being to help prevent the party's loonies from getting unelectable (read too far left) candidates from being nominated. Something the Dem. Party seems quite adept at doing.

by desertjedi 2008-02-15 08:48AM | 0 recs
Obama Adding Them

It's amazing how much talk we've heard lately from the Clinton campaign about delegates and superdelegates.  The feeling I get is that she is already conceding that she's not going to win this outright, but is hoping to sneak in with some procedural nonsense at the convention.  It's a pathetic posture for her campaign.

by global yokel 2008-02-15 08:58AM | 0 recs
Hillary can't catch Obama in pledged delegates

Look, assume that all the remaining states other than TX/OH/PA are split evenly.  They're a wash.  Now, that's probably not true, Obama probably has a net advantage there, but for the sake of argument say they're a tie.

Hillary is down ~140 pledged delegates.  TX/OH/PA have 492 pledged delegates.  To make up that gap of 140, she'd need to win 316 of the 492 delegates, which would mean a 64/36 split her way.Other than Arkansas, she hasn't won a single state by margins like that...and she'd have to win ALL THREE by those margins.  Just to end up TIED in pledged delegates.

I simply don't see the superdelegates handing the nomination over to someone who doesn't have the majority of the pledged delegates.  That would be disastrous.

So...someone explain to me how in the world Clinton wins this thing short of getting FL counted and/or shocking upsets in WI/NC?

by EvilCornbread 2008-02-15 09:13AM | 0 recs
Count MI and FL

What's your definition of a pledged delegate lead?

This delegate trench warfare that the Obama campaign is waging will result in his defeat because delegate counting is proven to be an inexact science by the fact that every news organization has a different count!

Furthermore, it's the overall picture that's important: CA, FL, MI, and now TX, OH, PA and maybe Wisconsin.

Sounds like a winning formula for GE victory to me!

by Zeitgeist9000 2008-02-15 09:29AM | 0 recs
Re: Count MI and FL

Your assertion that Obama can not win those states because he lost to Clinton there (or MIGHT lost to Clinton there) is a logical fallacy. They are both Democrats.

Ohio, Florida, and PA are going to be fights for either candidate. The thing is Obama may put other states in play. Clinton is using the same electoral strategy that Gore and Kerry both lost with; isn't it time to try something new?

I did a write up on Obama's electoral chances; but I can't currently find it. It is in my comments somewhere though so feel free to look around for it. The crux of it was that Obama will be a lock to win 218 electoral votes and make a strong play for another 130... as well as a weaker play for another 32.

If I can find the link I will post it later.

by JDF 2008-02-15 09:44AM | 0 recs
Re: Count MI and FL

Yes, every organization has a different count, but they're all in the same ballpark.  CNN has Obama up 124.  RCP has him up 136.  CBS has him up 140.  The fact that there are minor differences doesn't change my point -- Hillary will need to win TX/OH/PA by 20+ points and tie everything else to even have a SHOT at pulling even.

If Hillary ends up counting FL/MI she will earn the (deserved) perception of having stolen the nomination.  Those elections were obviously invalid -- FL was told that its votes wouldn't count, and MI only had Hillary on the ballot.  Anyone with an ounce of sense knows that those factors will skew the results, and that counting those results is unfair to every OTHER state that DIDN'T play chicken with the DNC and had VALID elections.  That the discussion of them counting is even on the table boggles my mind.

For Hillary to take the lead, she's either going to need to get FL/MI to count, win a shocking victory in WI/NC, or win ALL of TX/OH/PA by 30 points or more.  I don't see either of the latter two happening, and I can't even imagine the damage to the Party if she does the first.

That's just how the math falls out.

by EvilCornbread 2008-02-15 09:46AM | 0 recs
Ounce

I don't have an ounce of sense. I started using the metric system years ago.

by Zeitgeist9000 2008-02-15 09:57AM | 0 recs
Re: Ounce

I'll take that response as a reluctant agreement with my analysis. :-)

by EvilCornbread 2008-02-15 10:10AM | 0 recs
Re: Count MI and FL

Where is she going to make up the electoral votes from not being able to win IL, MN, and WA?

by kasjogren 2008-02-15 10:04AM | 0 recs
Re: Count MI and FL

I love how "overall picture" really means "states Hillary won or is currently paying attention to".

by bg5000 2008-02-15 10:14AM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton Shedding Superdelegates, Obama Adding

I was actually suprised it took so long for automatic delegate to begin appearing.  I thought there would be a rec diary the next day..

Automatic delegate, priceless... Who is in the cult again?

by labor nrrd 2008-02-15 09:53AM | 0 recs
Re: Nothing, Absolutely Nothing Josh Says....

Is Credible, after the savage vitriol he has written about Hillary Clinton on his site. I know the difference between Josh's blog portion and Sargent's anti-Hillary portion of TPM as well. But, Josh Marshall is a disgusting Obama shill, and I won't read his site any longer because of it, and I hate to see him recommended or linked to by people here as a credible source, because HE IS NOT.

by Tennessean 2008-02-15 12:12PM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton Shedding Superdelegates, Obama Adding
The horse race is the horse race. What I want to know, irrespective of who wins:

What are they going to be up to on day one?

Let's make our democracy more democratic-- let's all play a role in setting the agenda.

by satyr9us 2008-02-15 12:16PM | 0 recs
Question for MYDD staff about NBC News

Why do you guys quote and use NBC sources so much for your front page content?

There are other news organizations out there... and NBC is not exactly one of the most fair minded.

by diplomatic 2008-02-15 12:28PM | 0 recs
Superdelegates Coming Home

Hi Folks.

Why is it a surprise that the SDs are leaving Hill and going to Barack?  

He is ahead in the agreed-upon primary delgates...the ones selected by the people in accordance with standing party rules.  Rules, I hasten to add, were approved by all ahead of time.

There is no support for changing the rules now, no matter who may benefit.

If HRC is beaten by Obama by double-digits this week in WI (a primary state very much demograhpically like MO) HRC ought to quit before the fight hurts her and Bill

by a gunslinger 2008-02-15 01:10PM | 0 recs

Diaries

Advertise Blogads


----------- myDD - skin -----------