Delegate Counts Show Obama Could Be Leading In Total Delegates Tonight
The news organizations are still allocating the delegates from Super Tuesday and the weekend contests, and it's definitely a tight race. Here are the current tallies, including super-delegates unless otherwise noted:
CNN: Clinton 1,148, Obama 1,121ABC: Clinton 1,149, Obama 1,127
NBC: Obama 958, Clinton 904 (Not counting super-delegates.)
CBS: Obama 1,139, Clinton 1,132
AP: Clinton 1,147, Obama 1,142
Bear in mind that these tallies differ for a few reasons, the major one being that each org is still working to apportion delegates at the Congressional district level. The bottom-line consensus is that Obama has a decent lead among elected delegates, while Hillary is able to narrowly edge him out thanks to her lead of roughly 90 super-delegates.
A big thing to look out for, though: If Barack Obama gets a strong winning margin for tonight's Potomac Primary, with its 168 delegates at stake, he will overtake Hillary in all delegate counts, including the super-delegates.
He is leading already. This is really pathetic. The superdelegates don't count at this point. Their vote can go either way regardless of who they endorse or claim that they will vote for. Obama is leading in delegates PERIOD.
February 12, 2008 11:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
You are correct and I want to add that also it has always gone this way. The candidate with the most pledge delegates from primary and caucus runs is identified as the frontrunner, and the runner up concedes. Superdelegates are added afterward and they usually are in alignment of who the real frontrunner was.
Just look at the 2004 Democratic nomination race.
Remember Howard Dean was the percieved front runner of the party for the nomination until the Super Tuesday's results put him 3rd to John Kerry and John Edwards. Then the Dean scream, and Howard Dean's presidential run was history, he dropped out.
It appears to me that the HRC campaign want to change the way this race works, they keep implainting this false histeria around Superdelegates as if they are more important than the state pledge delegates. It's BS.
February 12, 2008 12:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
I get so tired of networks citing her delegate lead using her superdelegates as well. It distorts the reality of how much Obama is kicker her ass. It is good that after tonight even her big superdelegate edge won't be enough.
I look at it this way: the superdelegates aren't deciding this thing. If the people vote one way, and the superdelegates flip it the other way, in either direction, the convention will turn into a riot. Maybe in past years that kinda crap would fly, but people on both sides are so passionate about their candidate that there will be a shit storm if the superdelegates switch the winner.
For that reason, all I care about is the pledged delegates and that is where Obama is clobbering Hillary, and will most likely continue to.
And I do think the superdelegates will definitely be jumping on his wagon soon on top of that.
February 12, 2008 11:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
Let's not count these eggs too early... I get antsy -- especially with the expectations game problems. Virginia is still very much up in the air.
Regardless, I think it's important to note that Obama got Delegate Holmes Norton's endorsement (a hatched egg!)--
http://www.examiner.com/a-1215081~Norton_endorses_Barack_Obama_for_president.html
-- a day after Clinton's DC voting rights pander.
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/02/11/clinton-calls-for-dc-voting-rights/
February 12, 2008 11:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
A look at whats to come...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/02/11/some-top-clinton-backers-_n_86028.html
February 12, 2008 11:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
Once again, the Obama camp wants only those votes to count that will benefit itself. If the Democratic Party put in a rule in 1982 to avoid another McGovern experience, it must immediately repeal them before it hurts your candidate -- or you're screaming and kicking until you get your way, the hell with the rules. And you're all for the 50-90,000 "bubble votes" being counted in L.A. County -- so am I, although it's strictly speaking against the rules -- but the credentials committee better forget about counting the votes from Michigan and Florida, though the voters didn't break the rules, the local parties did. Sort of like the bubble voters, no? Oh, but you'll kick and scream if anything unhelpful for Obama is done by anybody, anywhere. And the superdelegates! They're incredibly nasty! Except if the Obama lead gets large, and they start swinging his way, and then they'll be wise and true.
If he'd man up on health care and not wimp out to the ahem, "diverse electorate" he needs to beat the Democratic party candidate, I'd be for him.
February 12, 2008 11:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
Once again, the Obama camp wants only those votes to count that will benefit itself.
I'm curious—do you really think the Obama camp differs from the Clinton camp in this way?
February 12, 2008 11:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
I find it helpful when news organizations list the pledged delegates and super delegates in separate columns. I think the Obama camp's emphasis on pledged delegates is valid, though. My understanding is that the pledged delegate count is locked in, but a super delegate - who has committed for one candidate or another - can still vote for either candidate.
The pledged delegate count just seems more accurate to me.
February 12, 2008 12:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
The superdelegate process made sense to the DNC a quarter century ago, but seems anachronistic today. We're in the middle of a long process which should produce the strongest candidate, but it's never too early to verbalize our fears: Obama gets the most deligates, but the superdelegates select Clinton, thus realizing the prophesy that even in 2008, the Dems can find a way to loose.
February 12, 2008 11:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hey Ben, what was the turnout in VA where you voted? Any news on MD turnout? Any election news at all about what is going on? Anyone?
February 12, 2008 11:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well, I live in Charlottesville, which is undeniably Democrat country, but in my little voting precinct there'd already been over 100 Democratic votes cast before 8 AM (and maybe about 20 Republican votes cast). I'm judging this based on the number of pink vs. green slips that the guy who had the special voting passwords had by him. (They give you these slips when you declare whether you're voting in the Democrat or Republican primary. You then take them to the guy with the magic passwords. Which password you get determines which candidates you can vote for.)
Everyone I know who has voted went with Obama, but obviously there's some selection bias in there, mixed with the fact that this is a University town.
I'm afraid we'll have to wait several more hours before we know how things really turned out.
February 12, 2008 12:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'll try again. Sorry if its a double post. Thanks Ben I appreciate it. The lack of info is frustrating.
February 12, 2008 12:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hey Ben-- Glad to hear it. I saw that the SurveyUSA poll had central VA going strong and I knew that UVA folks were doing their part.
I'm guessing it wsill be a little while before exits or results start coming in anyway.
(Yeah, this is your old labmate Joe. Funny to be browsing TPM as usual and then see a familiar face in the comment section!)
February 12, 2008 12:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Great to see you on this site, too! I was somewhat regular about a year or more ago, but then dropped for a while—partly because I saw partisan stuff coming up that turned me off. I originally liked TPM so much because I thought most of the posters were able to admit when their candidate/party was wrong, and unfortunately that's changed somewhat. I haven't really found a site that does have this, however. I suppose it's partly the nature of the internet beast. *sigh*
But, yeah, I wouldn't really expect any results until 7PM (EST) or so—that's when the polls close here in C'ville.
February 12, 2008 12:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
If Obama does as well as expected, I assume that more superdelegates will declare for him. Maybe that will stop my short-sighted fellow Obama supporters from whining about the superdelegate count.
February 12, 2008 12:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Exactly. 1) Obama might well take a lead in superdelegates soon, so I submit to my fellow Obama supporters that we may be doing ourselves no favors to slight the idea of superdelegates. 2) We have bigger fish to fry at this point anyway, so grousing about superdelegates is a waste of time. Next time you feel like voicing such a complaint, might I suggest that you go to the campaign website and look up some voters in Wisconsin or Ohio or Texas to phonebank.
February 12, 2008 12:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Seeing as my comment was a response to Genghis, I think that I should make clear that the "you" in "you feel like voicing..." is a generic "you," not an address directed towards Genghis. Sorry for the ambiguity there...
February 12, 2008 12:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
I have a feeling that this "super delegate deciding the election against the will of the people" scenario is just drama being pumped up by the media.
When it comes to their own self interest, politicians are the ultimate pragmatists. If it is clear that the will of the people is behind Obama, the super dels will support him. They are not going to bet their political future on yesterday's news.
February 12, 2008 12:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why do we think Obama will pick up enough pledged delegates tonight to change the lead in any delegate count other than the AP (where he's only down by 5) tonight?
He would have to really win big to pull ahead in the CNN or ABC counts (where Clinton leads by 27 or 22 delegates, respectively), and given the delegate allocation rules, that seems highly unlikely, even if he wins by something like 10-20%.
February 12, 2008 12:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
The reason people want to draw a distinction between pledged delegates and superdelegates is not because it benefits one candidate or the other -- it's because the two are different. Pledged delegates are COMMITTED to a candidate. They cannot change their minds. Superdelegates can. So while adding them together gives one snapshot of the race at the moment, it's not entirely accurate. None of Obama's are ever going to wind up in Clinton's column, but some of Clinton's superdelegates may wind up in Obama's. (And vice versa, of course).
By the way, it is just a coincidence that whenever there's an item favorable to Obama, it's generally posted by Eric, not by Greg?
February 12, 2008 12:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Greg D - I have no problem saying as an Obama supporter that eventually the rules have to be changed about superdelegates. This is not a fair or democratic system, giving powerbrokers veto power over voters in close races. I hope Obama makes the issue irrelevent for THIS nomination. But down the road it needs to be changed so superdelegates are never in a position to veto the will of voters.
Having said that I find the comment of Swiftboat63 kinda weird. The whole point is NOT to change the rules in the middle of the game as Hillary tried to do in Nevada and continues to try to do in FL and MI. I haven't heard anyone suggest the superdelegates should be eliminated during this primary, simply that they should ultimately, if no one goes over the top in votes, go with the candidate who has a clear majority. I wouldn't support an insurrection by Obama if the positions turn out with Hillary clearly in the lead. But saying the superdelegates should support the majority candidate - especially if it's a large majority - isn't "not counting" votes for Hillary. Superdelegates by definition are not bound to a candidate. They're allowed to vote for anyone.
Nastiness? Seems to me there plenty enough on all sides. Look at your own tone, dude. And as for bubble votes - honestly, that's the first I've heard about this. I had to look it up. Guess I'm not as obsessed as I thought.
February 12, 2008 12:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
http://www.obamaiswinning.com/
February 12, 2008 12:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Here's what I'm hearing from Camp Clinton:
Hillary: Caucus states don't matter.
Gov. Ed Rendell: Conservative whites in Pennsylvania won't vote for a black man.
Bill Clinton: Obama's campaign is 'smoke and mirrors' (drug reference accidental of course).
Where do I sign up!
February 12, 2008 12:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
The NYT has a quite conservative approach to its count, which shows Clinton in the lead with neither having more than 1000 delegates. The NYT isn't yet counting some of the state results for which national convention delegates are to be finally apportioned by state conventions. I think this tends to undercount Obama's eventual support.
It's not a completely wrong approach. I heard on MSNBC that in 1984 the Mondale campaign was able to reduce significantly the expected number of Gary Hart delegates because of back-room chicanery at the state conventions. Mondale eventually won at the national convention because he had a plurality of the pledge delegates going in, and then the super-delegates put him over the majority number. Mondale was crushed in the Fall, not that Hart would have done much better at the end.
February 12, 2008 1:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
can i talk for just a bit about this stupid argument that "the MI and FL voters didn't break the rules, the Dem party members did." yeah well, the dem party leaders were elected/appointed (not sure how they got there) to represent the democratic voters of those states. If Florida and Michigan voters were really against their respective leaders decision to selfishly move up their primaries, they should have voiced their concerns when it was being done. You can't acquiesce to something and then complain when it has consequences.
February 12, 2008 2:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
If tonight goes as well as expected for Obama, I think the writing is on the way for the Clinton campaign in a way that hasn't been true since, well, the weekend after Iowa. Obama will be on track to getting a majority of the pledged delegates, Obama has plenty of cash and time to campaign to try for upsets in Texas, Ohio, and Pennsylvania, the electability factor (head-to-head polls against McCain), momentum, and the buzz surrounding the fears that superdelegates may trump the pledged delegate winner. At least one prominent Obama supporter, the slightly unhinged independent Andrew Sullivan, has started to ask when Hillary is going to concede. I might be wrong, but I would expect a gradually growing chorus to emerge soon among Democrats that will be asking for Clinton to withdraw from the race no later than the last caucus event (Puerto Rico) in June. We'll see.
February 12, 2008 2:53 PM | Reply | Permalink