I was thinking about this today in terms of the superdelegates who are members of Congress - especially those in the House.

If this thing goes down to the convention, those members of Congress (if any) who choose to vote against the results in their own districts will have a lot of explaining to do come re-election time. Methinks that has to be a factor, especially in those cases where the reps. haven't previously committed to a candidate.

Interesting. But this standard, Hillary would appear to carry an advantage since Democratic members of Congress most likely hail from Democratic states, which Hillary won (NJ, MA, CA, NY).

What about the remaining 400 superdelegates who are not elected officials (DNC members)? Should they side with the pledged delegate leader? This gets interesting.

Its shame that Bill Clinton is related to one of the leading candidates. It would have been nice to have a party elder referee this this thing if attacks go out of bounds.

Good for him, but…

It seems that there is a fundamental misunderstanding of the superdelegate role.

Following the McGovern debacle in 1972, the party elected to create a mechanism designed to prevent a candidate carried on the euphoria of the electorate from prevailing at the convention without overcoming the back pressure of long time party members who would act as a control mechanism—if they saw such a need—to prevent another electoral disaster.

I'm not saying that this is an optimal outcome: simply that is is a mechanism, just like closed primaries are a mechanism, to insure that a candidate is likely to prevail based upon the collective judgement of longtime party regulars. It's not perfect, but it's a means for the party to exercise control over the process. Just as it credentials delegates and schedules primary contests, a party needs control mechanisms to provide order and structure to the selection process.

The other party is surely far more anti-democratic, with its winner-take-all primaries and other control mechanisms. Its fine to pressure superdelegates to cast their lot with a particular candidate, but they are under no obligation to do so. They are obligated to follow party rules and act in what they believe to be the best interests of the party.

If you don't like the process, get involved locally as a precinct captain, earn your way over time into the party hierarchy and become a delegate or super delegate. Or, seek to reform the party rules by working at the local level.

This will only really become an issue if the superdelegates toss the nomination to one or the other candidate should an opponent otherwise be in the lead with pledged delegates. It is not likely to happen. Should they do so and select Senator Clinton over Senator Obama—and, should she go on to capture the general election—then they have done the right thing to insure victory. Should she lose, it will be construed that they made the wrong choice. The same holds true should they choose Senator Obama over Senator Clinton. If he wins in the general election, then they made the right choice. Should he lose, it was the wrong one.

You can expect, in either case, that should the Democratic nominee lose to Senator McCain, that the rules will be changed to shift more control back to the party apparatus in an effort to stem future losses. It's just the way of things.

Should we expect now the super delegates from Massachusetts Ted Kennedy and John Kerry to support Hillary just because she won there? I’ll bet the Obama supporters will be screaming bloody murder if that will happen. The convention did not start yet and his supporters are already whining like they usually do and threatening to sit out the general election……

Dear inyourfacepeaceseeker (nice oxymoron!):

Obama supporters will not "threaten" to sit out the election, they will simply lose interest. These are not traditional Dem party members, but they are a valued part of the electorate if the Dems hope to win. It's a chance for the Dems to realign the party -- they are *new* voters (either young or never-before-involved-in-the-process). And they are tied to Obama psychologically because huge numbers of them are giving money to his campaign. They feel tied to the candidate, not the party.

Part of the problem with some of the HRC supporters on TPM is that they tend to see the world as black and white. This may be a reason why the Dems have had a hard time capturing the White House.

LBJ got into the White House via the death of JFK and the huge momentum that followed. JEC got into the White House as a result of Watergate. And let us not forget that WJC owed a huge debt to Ross Perot for his win and, in fact, Perot is on record as he got involved in the election specifically because he hated GHWB.

The last time the Dems truly "won" the White House was... JFK. And that was a squeaker. Before that, HST barely wins in reelection.

In fact, the last time the Dems had an energized base prior to JFK was FDR himself.

So, in 1932 you have FDR putting together the new Dem coalition that would last a generation. In 1960, you have JFK energizing the base of youthful change from the 1950's.

WJC was a sort of energizing force in 1992, as the first baby boomer to run. But he only got the White House with a serious split in the GOP.

And now you have Obama. He has energized the base party as few have over the past 80 years and can even expand it in ways that WJC never did.

But when you expand the Dem Party, it will change somewhat. If you stubbornly cling to purity tests, the Dem Party will have the possibility of sliding into an irrelevance a la the Whigs in the 1850s.

Obama supporters don't have to "threaten" anyone. They might vanish into the night, disappointed... or be wooed by the GOP.

Just like Reagan did with a similar group in the 1980s.

This isn't spin, it's just clear thinking.

If its that close come convention time, maybe the super delegates should sit this one out?

And shouldn't there be a distinction drawn between caucus and primary states?
No need to be tedious and restate all the undemocratic aspects of caucuses but it seems to me that Walz, and all super delegates, (I have not looked at caucus participation in his district) would be perfectly justified in using whatever metric they wish, or not, to determine their vote. Much more so than a primary state's supers.
And even in primary states I think an argument can be made that super delegates, acting as a Senate to the popular vote results, simply mirror the republican tilt of our constitutional system. More Democratic than democratic.
But no matter.
Unless Clinton and Obama go into the convention with a virtual tie in the popular vote I doubt very much that the Democrats will allow super delegates to pick the nominee. That would be even more outrageous than allowing the Florida delegates to have the final say.

And I'll bet that even in the case of a tie in the popular vote a deal would be cut to avoid a public spectacle. Thus the real value in Edwards not declaring before the convention.
His reticence to throw his support early could prove to be as valuable, to the party as a whole, as his candidacy.

Yes, an 8.8% voter turnout in a corrupt undemocratic caucus gives a good reflection of what the voters of MN think. Gimme a break. Obama may have gotten the most pledged delegates last night, but he won five overwhelming victories in bogus caucuses, a few more in Hillary-hating hardcore republican states that will never vote for him in the GE, overwhelming victories in southern states that will also not vote for him in the GE, got 300 people out to the polls in Alaska, won his home state of IL by a large margin, and basically tied in MO. He may have a better chance of flipping CO, MO, and KS than Hillary does, but the caucuses are meaningless in that regard.

While I haven't looked at recent GE matchup polls in those latter three purple states, my hunch would be McCain is stronger than either of the Dems there. Hillary has a better chance of flipping Arkansas and TN and the primaries were indeed meaningful in that regard. As for IL and CT and DE, they are going Dem regardless. And she and Obama both have equal chances in NM. No, it's gonna come down to OH, MI, and FL again. Gee, too bad that Obama, in his infinite wisdom, pissed off FL and MI by participating in the disenfranchisement of their voters. Payback is gonna be a bitch if he refuses to seat their delegates and that ends up giving him the nod. If Hillary wins OH, she is clearly best-positioned to win the GE for the sole reason that she is more likely to flip that state plus FL and MI (and with the huge latino vote in TX, she could flip that one too.)

I wish I had a Dem congressman... mine is much maligned repub.... we have to get rid of gerrymandering, folks! Our former congressman has already endorsed Barak... so I'll take comfort in that.

Terry McCauliffe is a super delegate, elected by no one. I'm sure you can guess for whom he'll be voting.

re: Clearthinker

Clinton's campaign overspent last month, and blamed it on their campaign manager Patti Solis-Doyle...Overspending does not equal inability to obtain funds.

Many people who support Clinton are older, and are 1)Not computer savvy, 2)Don't even have access to the internet

Clinton is not down, and she's certainly not out.

It's going to be a fight, but Clinton will win out...That's not a psychic moment, but clarity...Obama's gonna go up in smoke like Howard Dean....yeeeeeeargggggggggggghhhhhH!!!

:)

N-Obama race baiter.

Destardi, that's silly. Heretic stated "a corrupt undemocratic caucus." That's accurate? Give me a break.

By the way, I am not fond of caucuses and I think that they should all be normal primaries, but I didn't make the rules and I wouldn't call them "corrupt undemocratic caucuses." Also, caucuses do have a purpose for both parties. It's kind of funny that clinton supporters whine about caucuses at the same time they whine about open primaries. Caucuses by their nature and rules actually are more indicative of the base of a party. The more loyal dems and republicans go through the time and effort to deal with the caucus bs. That's why the huckster won in iowa, because of evangelicals and romney has won in the caucus states without high numbers of evangelicals. Concerning obama, the anti-iraq war dems are coming out in droves in the caucuses. That's probably why he is doing better. Anyway I am sure if she was winning the caucuses clinton people wouldn't be complaining.

Anyway, the heretic's lead in is what warranted the response, which I didn't think was that over the top. Clinton people hurl over the top nonsense and then when you respond, you get tarred a variety of insults. I guess that's in the talking points.

Well, here's a thought . . . I surely wish Dean had won the nomination.

Here's another thought anti-war democrats are still following the death and destruction in Iraq and also wondering if the money we're flushing down the toilet in Iraq might not serve us better at home. Just a thought.

I agree that the "moving picture" has to go. It reminds me of watching peristalsis.

Obama needs to be the presidential candidate. If his movement is stopped by the establishment in Washington, cynicism will infect yet another generation. It's time for another Camelot to lift us out of the sorry mess we are in. Hillary Clinton can't get her baggage through the door to Camelot (think Wal-Mart, cattle futures, billing records).

Personally the moment I started thinking about Super Delegates over-ruling the grass-roots I started getting angry. True, the primaries aren't over yet but the should Obama fight Hillary and Bill to a draw, the new guy should be the nominee. And speaking of Bill Clinton, he does more for the right wing than he adds to the democrats.

Where this all might be going:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120234665854049297.html?mod=special_page_campaign2008_leftbox

It's only right. Much as I want Hillary to be nominated I think we all need to agree that the superdelegates should follow the will of the people.

I've met Tim Walz. He's a good and honorable man. If he makes a decision he does so because he believes in what he's doing. He does not take stands out of political expediency.

End of story.

Michael A.'s analysis sure explains why Obama won California, doesn't it?

And by the way, the suggested cure for the Democrat's purported difficulty in beating a moderate Republican (which McCain isn't) seems to be to elect a moderate Republican of our own (which Obama is)? Why should I be interested in doing that?

My thought in reading so many of these comments is "what in blazes is s/he going on about?" To wit:

Should we expect now the super delegates from Massachusetts Ted Kennedy and John Kerry to support Hillary just because she won there? I’ll bet the Obama supporters will be screaming bloody murder if that will happen. The convention did not start yet and his supporters are already whining like they usually do...

Whining? Where? Who is whining? I am an Obama supporter and I said right up top that I think that the superdelegates should be allowed to vote however they like, even if this goes against the will of their constituents (as, for instance is the case in Gov Minner of DE who is supporting Clinton). I see no objection to the idea of an undecided elected official simply saying, "I will defer to my constituents," but there is certainly nothing wrong with any superdelegate voting any way s/he chooses.

Yes, an 8.8% voter turnout in a corrupt undemocratic caucus gives a good reflection of what the voters of MN think.

What was "corrupt" or "undemocratic" about MN's caucuses? They were largely undistinguishable from a primary. There was voting by secret ballot all day long.

Hillary has a better chance of flipping Arkansas and TN

If by "better" you mean that she has an ice-cube's chance in Hell vs a snowball's chance, sure. Al Gore could not carry TN, so it is more than a little far-fetched to imagine that Clinton stands any chance. Meanwhile, my experiences in AK lead me to the conclusion that if she can carry that state she will need only one more miracle to qualify for sainthood.

No, it's gonna come down to OH, MI, and FL again.

I think that it is really a stretch to imagine that FL is in contention at all. Neither Obama nor Clinton will be able to carry that state.

Gee, too bad that Obama, in his infinite wisdom, pissed off FL and MI by participating in the disenfranchisement of their voters.

So you say. Do you have any actual data to back up that assertion?

with the huge latino vote in TX, she could flip that one too.

And we Obama people are accused of having drunk the drugged Kool-aid?!? Be serious, do. Do you mean to tell me that Hillary Clinton is more popular with Latinos than was Bill Clinton? Jesus Christ could not carry TX if he ran on the Democratic ticket. It is no real criticism of Sen Clinton to say that she has not a snowball's chance in Hell of flipping TX (Obama has none either), but your hype here would make even the most ardent Obama partisan's blush at your effusive codswallop.

re: motion sickness

All is better now for those that like static things. However, as part of the deal, won't you get now mention fund raising of the best Dem candidate for the White House to 2 of your close friends?

This isn't spin, it's just clear thinking.

???
-is this the first time ever for superdelegates or just the first time people really care because the race is so close?
???
-why hasn't anyone ever complained much before the results of Super Tuesday that showed both candidates almost equal?
- why is it that it sounds as if those superdelegates are being almost emotionally or mentally blackmailed into voting a certain way they have never been forced to before?
- could this barrage of demands for certain ways to vote ever be considered voter intimidation?

Not to try to defend Clinton but she didn't win the Hispanic vote by as much in NM but she did win it, it was not split.
Latino 18-29 (3%) N/A N/A
Latino 30-44 (8%) 56% Clinton 43% Obama
Latino 45-59 (12%) 47% Clinton 41% Obama
Latino 60 and Older (11%) 65% Clinton 26% Obama

On Super Tuesday, Obama won more delegates which mean in essence that he won more congregational districts.

As such even though HRC won the big states Obama was able to win lots of congregational districts in those states by smaller margin than Hillary while Hillary barely won a congressional district in many of the caucus states that Obama won.

Therefore, Obama presently should have more elected Officials superdelegate than Hillary if the follow waltz's thinking.

I don't have congressional district information, but if each superdelegate were required to vote for the winner of their state, they would currently break 248-180 for Hillary. And that's without Michigan and Florida.

Yes, an 8.8% voter turnout in a corrupt undemocratic caucus gives a good reflection of what the voters of MN think.

What was "corrupt" or "undemocratic" about MN's caucuses? They were largely undistinguishable from a primary. There was voting by secret ballot all day long.

This is not entirely true. We could only vote between the hours of 6:30pm and 8:00pm on the caucus day (no absentee ballots). We did not have to stay for the caucus so it was kind of like a primary in that respect. I certainly don't think that it was "corrupt" or "undemocratic" in any way.

Walz is my congressman and I sent him an email Wednesday asking him to endorse for just the reason he gave.

For those saying that he's just doing this to get support in his district, you're right. Afterall, his job is to represent his constituents.