This argument is essentially meaningless. As long as Obama keeps winning and we polls with swing state head-to-head matchups like the new ones from Rasmussen on the top of this page, the superdelegates will have to go for Obama.

Evidently Hillary forgot what happened in 2000 when an alternative body decided what was "best" for the country against the will of the voters. If she "wins" the nomination on the backs of superdelegates after Obama secures the popular vote and more delegates, a good portion of the party will be furious with her and she will have zero shot in the general election. She has to win it legitimately and the chances of doing that are getting smaller every day.

Can we get a listing of the superdelegates that have committed to the candidates thus far? CNN counts the superdelegates in their tally, but heck if I have seen the list per state of the superdelegates that are being included in the tallies.

I think there could be some fair apportionment of the SDs based on the districts they ostensibly represent. They could ask Senators and governors to support the candidate who won their state, and Reps the candidate who won their district. With 30-40 states in his column, that would allow Obama to claim the lion's share of those SDs, I'm assuming.

Or, they could break them down roughly along the total of the popular vote, i.e. that candidate with 55% of the national raw vote receives that percentage of SD votes.

There's only two ways this can go. If Obama has a 150-300 pledged delegate lead, than Hillary trying to wrest the nomination from him via SDs would destroy the party (about the only scenario I can envision under which I would not vote for the Dem candidate for president).

If it's much, much closer in the pledged delegate race, than one of the apportionments I outlined above should allow everybody to walk away from the table with their reputations, and a sense of fairness, intact.

I can't source this now, but I swear that I read (within the last day or so) that Obama will advocate that super delegates aligned with a state should follow the wishes of that state. So California's supers would presumably align with Clinton (as would New York's).

As I think about it, this sounds horrible for Obama. But I could swear I read this somewhere.

Wait a moment. I realize that Hillary has just introduced her 21st Century Solution Business campaign, so I may not full grasp all the nuances of it yet:

But But But But But,

Aren't Texas and Ohio considered to be "Red States", and didn't Hillary just finish telling us that the "Red States" for Obama should not count, so why is she trying to win them, and if she does win them, why should they count.

Hillary is in the 21st Century Doublespeak Business.

obama's argument isn't necessarily a slam dunk winner unless obama racks up a huge delegate advantage

True, but it doesn't have to be. The candidate who ends up with fewer pledged delegates (i.e., Hillary) will be stuck with the burden of persuasion on why the superdelegates should make her the nominee in spite of her loss in the pledged-delegate race. Obama's argument will be simple: "Vote for me, because I won." Hillary will have to convincingly rebut that.

But she really doesn't have much to work with. Sure, she can argue that Obama is asking superdelegates to go against the will of their state's voters -- but this argument has the basic problem of contradicting her own position (i.e., that superdelegates should pick the candidate they think is best suited to be president), not to mention contradicting the reason the superdelegates were created (basically the same as Hillary's position).

The Supers will decide this, in part, in backrooms that used to be filled with smoke.

This is how it should be.

They will be thinking strategically and thinking in terms of the direction of the Dem party. In fact, it will be a good indication of whether you may or may not want to stay in the Dem party. The Dems hopefully have learned the lesson from the 1856 Whigs.

Also: HRC may be leaning too far into the wind here. Look at:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap_campaignplus/on_deadline_clinton

For years, Bill and Hillary Clinton treated the Democratic National Committee and party activists as extensions of their White House ambitions, pawns in a game of success and survival. She may pay a high price for their selfishness soon. Top Democrats, including some inside Hillary Clinton's campaign, say many party leaders — the so-called superdelegates — won't hesitate to ditch the former New York senator for Barack Obama if her political problems persist. Their loyalty to the first couple is built on shaky ground.

As this article points out, eventually the chickens do come home to roost.

What Senator Obama has said is:

If he wins the most votes, and the most elected delegates, he can not imagine that the super delegates would go against the wishes of the majority of the voters.

Hopefully the superdelegates will look at the polls like the one Rasmussen released today on matchups in Colorado and New Hampshire. For NH, Obama wins by a lot and Clinton loses by a little (15 pt swing). For Colorado Obama wins by a little and Clinton loses by a lot (21 pt swing).

The superdelegate will be affected much more by this than by more Clinton whining.

This is not a tough argument. The superdelegates will undoubtedly go to the candidate with the best chances of winning in November. That should be pretty obvious.

(Wow, I sure will be glad when these boards are fixed. I am getting SO tired of having to re-login every single time I close my browser.)

The thing that makes this country great is knowing that however I vote, it doesn't matter. I get confused sometimes and vote for the wrong person. The SDs will sort out who I meant to vote for.

Thank God for SDs!

I suddenly flashed back to a press conference in November 2000, during the nonstop recount spin wars, when James Baker made some statement that I instantly translated in my head as "we are ready, willing and able to escalate this thing into a full scale constitutional trainwreck if that what it takes to win."

Up to that point, that had been kind an amorphous threat that hung unspoken between the two sides. It was, to shift metaphors gracelessly, like a kayaking down the Niagra. You knew that bigass waterfall was somewhere several miles downriver, but there was still ample time to turn in to shore.

I will always remember how my stomach did a flip flop on me as the falls abruptly and unexpectedly came into view. I suddenly realized, for the first time, that this wasn't just an extraordinary political squabble between rather ordinary politicians, but, rather a desparate battle with utterly unscrupulous men who felt such an overweening sense of entitlement and self-rightousness that they literally didn't give a flying f**k whether they started another civil war if that's what it took.

I am not saying that Hillary, Wolfson or Penn have gone there yet. I'm not even saying we can hear the falls. However, everyone needs to start thinking, right now, about the fact that we are on the Niagra, we know those falls are down there somewhere and we do not have a GPS.

Camp Hillary is now explicitly saying it would be perfectly legitimate and utterly unobjectionable if the superdelegates were to hand the nomination to a candidate who had won a minority of the pledged delegates (and no, I really don't think Edwards' handful of delegates will cause both Hillay and Obama to have a minority of pledged delegates).

Its just this simple, folks. If this nomination does not go to the candidate with the most pledged delegates by convention day, we could lose this election. Short of a massive scandal materializing out of thin air, that is the only thing I can think of that could really cause enough Democrats to sit this thing out, or even defect to McCain, to make that happen. I know Hillary's people, watching their inevitable win fmelt way before their eyes, are probably busy convincing themselves their talk of caucuses being squirrly and effete and Michigan and Florida being "disenfranchised" could give them enough cover to legitimize that outcome, but if they really believe that will wash, they are crazy. If they're really starting to believe that, the party elders had better pour them a great big pitcher of reality right damn now.

A modest Proposal:

Apportion the Florida and Michigan Delegates between Hillary and Obama on a ratio based on their final popular vote totals at the end of the primary contests.

That will allow Florida and Michigan to participate, but will not allow them to become King makers at the expense of all the other states that played by the rules.

Obama must win enough regular delegates to make not voting for him as a super delegate appear to be an act of absolute craven politics. That number will be different for each super delegate. So really, the campaign now is about both controlling the margin of Obama's lead AND controlling the perception of how that lead should effect the votes of the supers.

And as a previous supporter of Dean and now of Obama, I must say that I am impressed by the his ability to see that and compete. Dean got blindsided by the reality of running for president, but not Obama ... in fact, it seems the Clinton Camp has consistently underestimated him.

I don't see how you can go with the state's voters, when the state was split. I'm in CA, we don't all want HRC, in fact, where I live, Obama would get much more support and it is somewhat conservative here.

The truth is, the Democratic Party--and, by extension, its superdelegates--can do whatever it wants to do in deciding who its nominee will be, and what the selection process will be on making that nomination. The Party is a private body, and its internal processes are extra-constitutional.
Extra-constitutional, but not apolitical. As such, if Senator Obama retains his lead in the popular vote, his lead in the states won, his lead in the pledged delegates, and his lead in the total delegates, but the party, through its superdelegates, gives the nomination to Senator Clinton because she's "owed" it... Well, I fully expect the Democrats would lose not only the presidency, but significant congressional seats and a few state races. Voters ain't tryin' to buy what Senator Clinton is selling, and if that product comes together with the stench of a backroon deal between The Establisment and Washington Insiders... Well
That might prove to be a "21st Century Problem" for the Dems.

That is some stupid crap. The whole point is, whoever wins the popular vote (real delegates, not superdelegates) should win. Obama isn't saying there should be no superdelegates, he is saying they shouldn't change the results. Either the Hillary camp is just really really stupid and can't figure something this simple out, or they are totally screwed and they are just trying to confuse people by saying "superdelegates" enough times in one press release. Oh wait, weren't they supposed to be "automaticdelegates"? What happened to that trick Hillary? Did the ridicule make you think twice?

Just think of this:

If Obama wins more states, more pledged delegates and more popular vote, and still super-delegates give Hillary the nomination, Clinton will lose in November. It is as easy as it sounds. Furthermore, it gives McCain an argument-lead that would create a huge stupid situation of trouble for the democratic party.

It simply makes no sense.

I think the only way to parcel out the superdelegates, if it comes to that, is have the Democratic members of each state legislature vote on the issue and apportion them accordingly.

This ties the delegates down to the will of the state's voters, if only by proxy, but allows the party executive to weasel out of the problem.

Then for 2012, abolish them altogether.

If one takes the view that supers should vote according to their state's results, then they might as well be regular pledged delegates.

It's worth noting that because there are so many of them, and every state allocates regular delegates proportionally, it will be nearly impossible for anyone to win the nomination without the supers in any election ever, unless someone pulls away from the pack in the first couple of contests. This will make Iowa and New Hampshire (or whoever ends up going first) more important than they have ever been before, and practically guarantee a contested convention every time out.

If that were what the party wanted, I would say fine, but as it clearly isn't, I have to say that either proportional representation or the superdelegates have to go. My money is on the superdelegates.

There are still about 400 uncommitted super delegates. My guess is they aren't buying this argument from Clinton. They are waiting to see who comes out on top (or more likely, for the point in time that Obama is "inevitable") then will throw support behind him, effectively putting an end to the primary race.

Hillary is in essence saying this:

"In order to win with votes alone, you have to win in a landslide, getting 2025 pledged delegates. If you cannot manage a landslide, the margin between the candidates no longer matters, and superdelegates should decide the outcome."

Now imagine if a candidate just misses winning by a landslide. Imagine, say, Obama earning 2024 pledged delegates. By Hillary's reasoning, the superdelegates should still decide the outcome. Does this seem reasonable?

Arguing in favor of superdelegates hurts Hillary. It is more evidence that she is only interested in winning and not building a working majority. It is the same thing as her now trying to seat the delegates from Florida and Michigan; she is only comfortable playing on the margins. Sure, she might win but she won't have any power to make any real change.

At the end of the day, this election is about whether people want to continue the way things have been for the past 20 or 30 years or do we want to make a huge shift in our politics.

5 Stages of Grief...

Hillary's emerging from Denial and entering Anger.

Bargaining can't be too far off.

Her campaign really has to be careful about creating a "Kill the Witch" meme. If Democrats start to think they have to put a stake through her heart to get her offstage, this could be the most embarrassing breakdown since Britney.

Bill's legacy deserves better than that.

To get a majority of PLEDGED delegates, a candidate only needs 1627.

MOST superdelegates have NOT been elected to anything.

If Hillary Clinton takes the nomination through back room deals or by cheating with MI and FL delegates, she will prove everything the Republicans said about the Clintons is true.

if Clinton carries through with her stunt to seat those Michigan and Florida delegates and is successful, desertions from the Democratic Party will be massive. Her negatives are already high; this will make them gargantuan.

maybe she's just talking this way in order to show voters in the upcoming states that she's serious about winning (not to talk this way might be interpreted as giving up). But if she is really willing to go back on her pledge given months ago, and if she is really willing to take this ugliness to the convention, then it all serves as proof that she is as evil as people claim she is.

already this business is quite unseemly. In other words, "Clintonesque." Why is there always ugliness wherever the Clintons go? It's not just the media: Billary bring it with them too.

Just think of this:

If Obama wins more states, more pledged delegates and more popular vote, and still super-delegates give Hillary the nomination, Clinton will lose in November. It is as easy as it sounds. Furthermore, it gives McCain an argument-lead that would create a huge stupid situation of trouble for the democratic party.

It simply makes no sense.
Posted by Servat

...And will be the beginning of that third party many Americans wish they had.

So Clinton is threatening to go nuclear.

Does Obama return the favor? Threaten to go Independent and take probably 25% of primary & caucus voters with him should the supers overrule the popular vote and pledged delegates?

I doubt it could come to that, but seems to me that Obama is in the position to control this situation. Bottomline, the Democratic party needs Obama more than Clinton. I am hoping that he can appeal to the more sensible side of these superdelegates and not let this thing turn into a clusterf*ck for the ages.

Question: In a nominating process, how do you support proportional representation, so as to prevent underdog campaigns from being smothered early on by establishment candidates, and at the same time insure the ultimate victory of the winner of the plurality of pledged delegates come convention time? Answer: superdelegates. This works fine as long as the superdelegates understand why they're there. Obviously some don't.
Superdelegates are supposed to drag the winner of the people's vote across the finish line by delivering their collective vote at the convention. Those delegates shame the system and undermine democracy and the Democratic party by either declaring support for any candidate before the convention, or pontificating in public about how their vote might be swayed (dinner and a movie, political promises, etc.).
Let's get back to the purpose of the superdelegates... to declare No Smoked Filled Rooms at the Democratic convention.

One thing is clear to me: the symbolic value of even the slightest victory for Obama in TX or OH is immense. Even if the delegates are split 50/50, Obama would have the narrative on his side. Conversely, if Hillary wins both states, the narrative will swing back toward the "Comeback Kid" line, giving new "legitimacy" to her argument (even if she'll still be behind in delegates). Then we'll all be on board the express train to Clusterf**k City.

The thought MMASONM had also occurred to me. Would Obama use the brinksmanship of a proposed independent run to leverage the superdelegates? It would be seen as a Samson move, no doubt, but I think the idea would scare the bejesus out of Dean and the DNC leadership.

Misquoting from the great Bogart movie 'Treasure of the Sierra Madre':

"We don't need no stinking voters..." seems to be the attitudue of the Billary camp.

If the dimocrat party is willing to overrule a decisive 'elected' delegate lead of Obama (100+) to give the nomination to Hillary, a massive disaffection (and lack of turnout to vote in November) of Obama democrats & Obama independents & Obama republicans should be expected. A recipe for the disaster of a McCain presidency.

4 years of Bush I + 8 years of Clinton + 8 years of Bush Lite = 20 years of the screwing of the American worker

Let's hope this is just trash talk from the Clinton campaign, to keep the press from writing her off completely before the last big states vote. Even if this is the case, it's very destructive though.

I still have trouble believing that the party elders making up the superdelegates would split the party by nominating a candidate who lost the elected delegates. How many of these folks were nominated by the "undemocratic" caucus process or are from "insignificant" states, btw?

As The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve noted above, you end up not just with President McCain but also a seriously split party for a long time. And just imagine the a McCain-Rice ticket in that situation...you could be talking about some serious realignment here.

but a grassroots rejection of a HRC powerplay for superdelegates may lead to characterizations of Obama's supporters as members of a "cult of personality"

True, but the point would not be the grass roots revolt itself, but the threat of it happening. Obviously, no such threat would be made publicly... Obama would take the high road. The possibility of it happening should be enough for Dean, the DNC, and the super delegates not to let it come to that. If it actually happens, that means Clinton has already stole the election.

Probably this is much ado about nothing. The Clinton campaign on the ropes, flailing in desperation, hoping to land a punch.

Like most worst case scenarios in politics, this will probably all come to nothing and what actually happens is usually something totally unforseeable just a few weeks earlier. But if the last eight years have taught us anything, its that the operative words are "probably" and "usually."

My concern about the supers is no so much with the politicians as with the apparatchiks. If a politican isn't pledged now, he or she is waiting to see who gets the most pledged delegates and will act accordingly.

As to the apparatchiks, on the other hand, I have an unpleasant feeling that awful lot of them are people whose entire involvement in politics dates to the Clinton days and who unable to separate the concepts of "Democrat" and "Clintons" in their heads. I have no data on that, just anecdotal evidence.

And, based on my personal experience with the kind of DNC and state party functionary who thinks he or she is insider but has never actually had to run for anything, I'm also concerned that a lot of them could well be infected with that same inside the beltway disdain and condescension for the views of the majority we've come to loathe in recent years. And, being Democratic apparatchiks, I worry above all that a lot of them are driven by the fear-driven risk aversion that cost us election after election. (It's self-reinforcing: risk averson leads to defeat which leads to even greater risk aversion which leads to even greater defeats.)

In short, I fear the people whose attitudes drove me to be Obama supporters in the first place.

And for those of you who think Howard Dean can make the apparatchiks do what he wants, let's leave aside the fact that the bloodstains from Dean's skirmish with Rahm Emmanuel over Dean's 50 state strategy are still on the floor. These are Democrats not Republicans. You'd have an easier time herding the same number of cats than hearding three or four hundred Democratic party activists.