« Obama Hits North Carolina Airwaves With Two More Ads | Home | Obama To Pick Up Endorsement Of Super-Del Bruce Braley Today »
Obama-Backer McCaskill: Dem Battle For Congressional Support Effectively Over
The heated battle for Congressional super-delegate votes may be just about over, with Obama-backer Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-MO) saying this morning that most of the roughly 80 publicly-uncommitted members of Congress have already said where they stand in private.
"The majority of super-delegates I've talked to are committed, but it is a matter of timing," said McCaskill, predicting that her candidate would come out on top in the end.
Meanwhile, George Stephanopoulos reported this morning that the Obama campaign will roll out multiple super-delegate endorsements today, as part of a strategy to "try to get back on track" in the wake of the most recent Jeremiah Wright controversy.
Advertisement
That sounds very promising for Obama
April 30, 2008 9:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
BARRY BY DEFINITION
HOPEtimism: The sinking ship is not half full it is half empty.
(insert GOP laughter here)
April 30, 2008 12:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Indeed it does. It is not so hopeful for the re-election prospects of the super-delegates who vote for him.
April 30, 2008 9:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
Perhaps in Kentucky.
April 30, 2008 9:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
How do you figure that?
April 30, 2008 9:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hey, I didn't recognize you with your new avatar - nice!! ;)
April 30, 2008 9:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
"Indeed it does. It is not so hopeful for the re-election prospects of the super-delegates who vote for him."
Why do you say that AJM? Do you know who most of these 80 congressional super-delegates are? What can you tell us about their constituencies that leads you to that conclusion?
April 30, 2008 11:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
Let's just hope that this is not another one of those pieces of misinformation concerning SD backing as we know has happened numerous times in the past. I'm gonna play it safe and wait and see what happens.
April 30, 2008 9:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
God I hope so -- unless this is another one of these suspicious (ginned up by his opponents) stories that will have to be denied by the Obama campaign.
April 30, 2008 9:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
I agree. Gotta see it to believe it.
April 30, 2008 9:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
Could be, but I wonder, just because Obama denies doesn't always make it so.
He's campaign has been run brilliantly and so it doesn't seem a stretch that when that 50 SD black got leaked, and people like me were thinking "Announce them all at once! That'll show 'em!", his campaign rightly didn't, realizing this wouldn't change the fact that it would be a long race and so they have been revealing them drip drip drip ever since.
Also, doing them all at once right after Ohio (wasn't that when that was?) might have sent more people to Hillary, as we have seen in this campaign. Voters love an underdog.
April 30, 2008 9:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
I dunno, that's McCaskill talking, and she's so strong pro-Obama (helped him win Missouri), and a superdel, so she's an insider who knows what everyone's talking about. She wouldn't be saying these things publicly if she wasn't sure of what she's talking about. I think it's real.
April 30, 2008 11:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
I trust McCaskill. It was the report from Stephadiculous I was referring to.
April 30, 2008 12:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh come on, why would Steffy-boy say something stupid that would damage Obama?
April 30, 2008 9:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hmm...George say something stupid like "what about William Ayers from the ..." or "Is he more patriotic than you..."
April 30, 2008 9:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well, duh! This is one of the great poorly-kept secrets of this whole shadow puppet show. Of course they all have a preference. They're federal politicians actively engaged in the day to dayness of federal politics. Most or all of them know both candidates personally. Many of them have long-standing personal allegiences and relations.
There are virtually no "uncommitted" superdelegates, at least not among the elected politicians--and most likely not among the DNC'ers. There are only unannounced superdelegates. Some of them are in the bag for a candidate and have agreed to have their committment announced as the campaign chooses, for atmospheric effects. It's not a coincidence that several supers announce every time Obama loses an election but it does appear that Hillary has very few of these, if any. Others are waiting for an event that will give them cover to announce their private choice. Some few will switch to the candidate they don't prefer if that event doesn't come. The rest will wait out the close of the primaries, hoping against hope that Hillary will drop out before they are forced to announce.
April 30, 2008 9:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
So if Obama gets half of those 80 House SDs, which is a very conservative estimate, I'd say, his magic number would be cut to ~20? Beautiful.
April 30, 2008 9:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
This gets even worse for Clinton. Suppose the supers who are elected Dems break for Obama. At that point, the only group that can effectively put Clinton over the top are the unelected supers: the DNC party operatives. No way, no how.
April 30, 2008 10:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
Doesn't Obama already lead among SDs who are elected Dems? I thought he crossed that threshold about a month ago.
April 30, 2008 10:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
You are correct.
April 30, 2008 10:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
Poor, poor Idiotic ...
April 30, 2008 10:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well, this certainly sounds encouraging. Hopefully it is all true.
April 30, 2008 10:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
believe the mis-hype AGAIN if you want to, but seems i recall the same predictions following the losses in texas and ohio...and then again right after the pa loss...and now again after the wright controversy.
i don't claim to know the mind of the super delegates, but seems to me that politicians generally operate on a self-survival strategy 1st, and if voters of their states (their are 9 remaining) are voting for the other candidate, and if overall popular vote tallies favor the other candidate, and national polling against the republican candidate favors the other candidate, and head-to-head matchups against the republican candidate in key core dem and swing states favors the other candidate...
...that strikes me as a very, very difficult backdrop against which to come out for obama.
puts those endorsees potentially at direct loggerheads with their own constituents and that ain't good politics, generally speaking.
...but hey, we all wait with baited breath yet again to hear this "block" of obama super d endorsements.
can't wait.
April 30, 2008 11:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
Two so far today.
Incidentally, the popular vote tally favors Obama.
April 30, 2008 11:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
(Looks like a post-and-run by AJM.)
April 30, 2008 12:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Great news!
But why is George Steph.... the one breaking the story of the campaign rolling out supers today? Did they want to reward him with a scoop for his great moderating at the last debate? At least it wasn't Chris Wallace from FOX.
Isn't there a "friendly" reporter to give this story to?
April 30, 2008 12:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
George Stephanopoulos reported this morning that the Obama campaign will roll out multiple super-delegate endorsements today, as part of a strategy to "try to get back on track" in the wake of the most recent Jeremiah Wright controversy
Confirmed I should think by the fact that yesterday or perhaps the day before, Obama changed the Delegate Counter on his website
Where it had reported only pledge delegates it now reports total and subtotals "pledged delegates need for majority of pledged" (awk.) and "delegates needed to win nomination"
April 30, 2008 12:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
The writing has been on the wall for some time, now. Jimmy Carter, McCaskill, and then the reports from Texas and Ohio, as well as the hints dropped by Edward Espinosa (Mr. Super)....he's calm because he knows he has it.
April 30, 2008 12:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
you kids kill me.
i've the same admonition for you as for your candidate: "don't tell me what you're going to do, do it!"
don't tell me how you're going to "win texas" or "win ohio" or "steal pa" or "comeback in indiana"...do it.
some folks value words, some folks value action.
guess which camp i and all hillary supporters are?
so don't for the 3rd time in the last 3 months tell me about big super d rollouts: do it.
it's now 1245pm EST. precious hours in the news cycle are flittering by and still no announcement. i'm not a p.r. person, but seems to me that if you have something big lined up, the earlier you get it out in the day, the more chance you have to build positive news coverage of it, to build momentum from it, to use it to stem the tide of shifting poll #s.
so the question is begged: where's the announcement already?
April 30, 2008 12:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
We do it in a drip, drip fashion, water torture style...
May 2, 2008 11:37 AM | Reply | Permalink