« Hillary Backer Bayh Pressing House Members Not to Endorse At All | Home | New Poll Finds Al Franken Falling Further Behind In Minnesota »

Super-Delegates, Super-Delegates, And More Super-Delegates

Here's a quick round-up of super-delegate-related news:

* After Pennsylvania, many super-dels are accepting the fact that the contest won't end until the voting is over, and some even say that's a good thing for the party.

* Hillary's Pennsylvania win has persuaded many super-dels to remain neutral for the time being -- in hopes that the voters will render a clear verdict and relieve them of the burden of having to pick sides.

* A Hillary adviser says that her Pennsylvania win was what persuaded Tennessee Rep. John Tanner to come out for her yesterday.

* Fifteen House Dems gathered at Hillary headquarters yesterday to strategize about how to corral more super-dels for her -- the goal being to erase the sense of inevitability that surrounds Obama's candidacy.

* Howard Dean reiterated his call for the super-dels to make up their minds promptly after the voting ends.


96 Comments

| Leave a comment

Might want to add that sources say it's a lock that Obama has 20 SD's that he'll be rolling out from now until North Carolina. 2 yesterday, maybe more today...

Story here.

I certainly hope that Greg will add that to his superdelegate "news" roundup.

user-pic

I wouldn't hold my breath on that if I were you! ;)

I'm holding my breath. Please let me know when I can exhale.

It's hard to post a link, since the only legitimate confirmation is the mp3 link to the radio interview.

Still, we see if it's borne out or not in the days to come.

user-pic
Hillary's Pennsylvania win has persuaded many super-dels to remain neutral for the time being -- in hopes that the voters will render a clear verdict and relieve them of the burden of having to pick sides.

What in God's name are they waiting for? Are they delusional? Can they not do simple math? The voters are not going to render a clear verdict - neither Hillary nor Obama will get to 2025 without them. Obama will be ahead in pledged delegates and he is gaining support in every demographic group - and he cut Clinton's lead from 20+ to 9 points, even with the overwhelming advantages she had there. Why isn't that clear? She cannot catch him in delegates - do they not see that?

They're going to HAVE to decide - either now or later. They are really shirking their responsibilities and trying to take the easy way out. I suppose we can't expect anything more from Dems (they certainly haven't been able to get us out of Iraq yet, even with a CLEAR VERDICT by the people in November 2006). This is utterly ridiculous.

Isn't this a silly argument to make? Hillary Clinton was expected to win Pennsylvania from the start, so why would her winning Pennsylvania as predicted give the superdelegates "pause"? Greg, can you explain that statement?

user-pic

I disagree. Regardless of Hillary's minuscule probability of winning, there is still a perception that she can do it. If the superdels jump too soon, Clinton supporters will have the perception that the race was decided by the superdels, not the voters, and that's a bad thing.

I predict, however, that these perceptions will change after IN/NC. Between the two, Obama will win handily and erase all of Clinton's PA gains. After that, there just won't be enough delegates (or popular votes) to make a difference for Clinton. I expect the media to start calling it and many of the superdels to come off the fence at that time.

Her only hope to continue would be to convince people that Kentucky is the next "firewall" state, but I don't see it happening. There's no post-Kentucky game to make Kentucky matter. It's the last state of any appreciable size, but it's not big enough to make a difference on it's own, even if she wins it in a landslide.

In short, Indiana or bust. I can wait two more weeks.

If the superdels jump too soon, Clinton supporters will have the perception that the race was decided by the superdels, not the voters, and that's a bad thing.

Huh? Clinton supporters are counting on the race to be decided by superdelegates. Counting on it! In fact, expecting it, demanding it. This is the only way she can win. However, we do have a long history of Clinton and her supporters saying something is bad if it relates to Obama, but good if it relates to her. This is one of those instances.

Superdelegates pick Obama -- it's the end of democracy, the end of the world. Superdelegates pick Hillary -- it's EXCELLENT NEWS!!! FOR HILLARY!!!!

user-pic

Of course, they're counting on the superdelegates. But they're also counting on being able to create an illusion of popular vote superiority. They're counting on people being confused, and the media being too lazy to really look at the numbers.

It's not about truth. It's about Hillary's manufactured reality.

Manufactured reality = propaganda. And that's coming under fire from internet folks who investigate these sorts of claims.

I expect us all to unite and fight like crazy against McCain in a few weeks, so I simply don't "get" this.
There are three hurdles to the nomination.
1. Delegates earned in Primaries and caucauses(Yes. Iowa counts!). Obama check!
2. Lead in Polular Vote (Yes. FL and Michigan don't count!) Obama Check!
3. The Supers.
After Senator Clinton's failure to score decisively in PA, Obama has jumped over the first two. It would de disastrous if the Supers acted differently.

What are these people plotting? If it were to continue to unfairly attack Senator Obama, is it because they want him to lose so Clinton can run again in 2012? This reminds me of Joe Klein's book PRIMARY COLORS where, if I recall correctly, the Bill Clinton character says something like he is willing to destroy the party if necessary to get the nod. I'm having my suspicions about the Clinton cabal and their loyalty to the larger part,


user-pic

I'm way beyond suspicions - I'm dead certain that this is what they're doing. They are ruthless and will stop at nothing (even destroying the party) to get what they want. It's sickening. However, I believe that most of the supers will act purely out of self-interest and will not overturn the will of millions and millions of Democrats who put Obama on top. Nor will they want to piss all of the new voters that Obama has brought into the party (many of them young and raring to go), to say nothing of the African American community. Their political future is at stake and I don't believe that any level of Clinton loyalty is going to get in the way of that. We'll see, though...

Lead in Polular Vote (Yes. FL and Michigan don't count!)

With respect, dear Always Tip the Waitress, I think that it is a touch facile to say that FL and MI do not count. The popular vote is only significant insofar as it can be used in a pitch to the superdelegates. Will the superdelegates be impressed by stats and figures which make mention of FL and MI? Well, each super is an individual, so I dare say that it seems to me that some will be impressed by figures which include FL/MI and some will not. In other words, I think that it is fair to say that FL and MI will count, albeit not nearly as much as Clinton and her folks would like for them to count.

user-pic

I never know who to take at face value in the blogosphere anymore, and who's a paid troll-o-matic, so lately I'm hesitant to try to inject reason with any of this stuff...
Having said that, I think your a fellow traveler M.v. so...
When the volume level is lowered on the Florida/Michigan issue it seems that one thing is evident: the popular vote totals are made uncountable by the circumstances, but the VOTERS they represent must not be.
Even if the end result is a Hillary victory, sliding the Michigan totals into her category currently or in the near future will probably result in at least 40% (probably a lot higher) saying HEY! At that point the best that we can hope is that they stay home on Nov 11, the worst?
As to Florida, as I have been posting around the "sphere" if the 50 state strategy (Obama) is endorsed, Florida is probably not in play (ie. as important to Obama victory). If Hillary is the nominee, she better not be comforted by her results in Florida, she will have to fight the dirty deeds committee's "A" team to win there also.
Point being both campaigns have been imperiled by the situation with Florida and Michigan, however, no sense in blaming the "field conditions" for a lose, both teams are playing on the same field.

Convincing wins in North Carolina and Indiana will bring enough Super Delegates to Obama to end it. But they're not going to flock to him en masse after a loss (which would make him seem a bit pathetic.) They want to reward him for winning, not just hanging in there.

This is silly season. It's over for Clinton. Do the math. According to Newsweek poll, her negatives are worse than McCain and Obama. I think Dems don't realize how much Republicans hate her. And I know many New Yorkers who now despise her as well.

Watch for the NY Times to rescind their endorsement of her in the next couple of weeks.

user-pic

Super-delagates are polictians or political machines . . . None of them want to get burned. Clinton will scorch-earth anyone she thinks is crossing her (and has for the last decade or so). Hell, the issue is can you afford to wake up with your pony's head in your bed or do you have kids or poor parents or idiot cousins or brothers who sell beer & play saxophones . . .

The truth is the S-d's don't have to say until the floor vote is over. America is still a Representative Democracy.

Obama is going to win this, even if Clinton closes the gap in NC and wins Indiana. Super delegates up for relection or facing primaries better start doing the right thing.

I will work hard against democrats in primaries who don't lead the party by supporting Obama.

I don't understand why people say Fl and Mich popular votes "don't count." The popular vote doesn't count at all in any formal way. BUT, when the automatic (also known as super) delegates make their decisions, the preferences of millions of Democrats in those two states will be considered, with whatever caveats the individual dels want to include as they try to determine HOW WE WIN IN NOVEMBER. HRC has indeed gotten more primary votes than anyone in history. How this is weighed and which votes matter and what that all means is up to each individual delegate. THAT IS WHAT THE RULES OF THE PARTY ARE DESIGNED FOR. EVERYTHING COUNTS in this last phase. And please stop saying "she can't catch up." Who is ahead at this point is a factor in how the superdels decide, but 2025 wins.

The reason people say the votes don't really matter, especially in MI, is because Obama got zero votes. Yet in recent head-to-head polling matchups, he does much better against McCain than Clinton does.

When you try to spin the results of FL and MI as legitimate, it sounds really desperate.

user-pic

We're not arguing that Florida and Michigan don't "count" in the general election, or that the supers in those 2 states won't look at their voter preferences in making their decision, which they have every right to do. What we object to is the disingenuous argument that the Clinton campaign is making that Florida and Michigan must be counted in the popular vote total, and by virtue of this fact, she is ahead in the popular vote. There is no metric for popular vote in the Democratic nominee selection process for several reasons:

(a) Caucus states aren't counted
(b) A few states' voter totals aren't included because they don't release voter totals
(c) Obama's name wasn't on the ballot in Michigan; yet, she is counting her votes and not giving the 45% "undecideds" to him. Now, you can argue about the wisdom of his removing his name (which, by the way, she agreed to as well and then went back on that promise), but the fact remains that she's pulling a fast one here
(d) She agreed that Michigan's votes would not count
(e) Under DNC rules, neither Florida nor Michigan votes "counted" for the purposes of allocating delegates (which BOTH candidates agreed to at the start of the primary)

I'm sure there are more that I can't remember off the top of my head, but you can see why "popular vote" (which, by the way, is a new metric wholly fabricated by the Clinton campaign) is not a valid metric to be used - it's misleading and false in its premise.

ONLY when she adds Florida and Michigan in (and doesn't give Obama the "undecideds" in Michigan), and ONLY when she leaves out the millions of voters who voted in caucus states, does she take a slim lead in the popular vote. It's not a winning argument, to say nothing of her inability to hold to her word (about Florida and Michigan).

I hope this answers your question.

user-pic

I'm sorry that you don't understand but it's pretty simple - There were millions of FL & MI voters who stayed home because they were told by the DNC their votes wouldn't count. There were many Dems & Indies who voted in the Republican primaries instead since their votes wouldn't count in their own party. If you change the rules after the fact that means millions were duped into thinking their votes wouldn't count. To now say the votes cast in two invalidated primaries would be the worst kind of voter fraud imaginable.

As for Hillary getting the most primary votes in history, if Obama had left himself on the ballot in MI then HE would be the all-time vote getter in Dem primary history. Look at the numbers.

The only way Hillary comes out ahead is if you count her votes in MI and don't assign Obama any of the 45% who voted "Other." If you think that's fair then you must believe GWB won FL fairly in 2000.

More to the point, by the time this race is done, Obama will be unambiguously back in the popular vote lead. Her temporary gain post-PA will be shortly off set by his wide lead in the large voter turnouot in NC. As such, by the end of this match he, not she, will be the one with more popular votes than any candidate in history. If this really is a factor which matters, it will be a point in his favor, not hers.

For the record, Obama never lost the popular vote lead.

I do not really disagree with you, dear Angry Liberal, but I guess that I am skeptical of the existence of a thing called "the popular vote." There are as many formulations of "the" popular vote as there are weeds in my lawn, and Clinton has overtaken the lead in some of them.

user-pic

She is ahead if you count each candidate's vote in Florida and her vote in Michigan, but make no adjustment for the fact that he was not on the Michigan ballot and no estimate for caucus states that do officially tally of caucus participant numbers.

Is there another way she can claim to be ahead?

I have not seen one.

Can you bring one forward? If not, I think "some" is an overstatement. She's ahead in one way of counting, and it's the one that won't fly.

Obama is going to win this, even if Clinton closes the gap in NC and wins Indiana. Super delegates up for relection or facing primaries better start doing the right thing.

I will work hard against democrats in primaries who don't lead the party by supporting Obama.

Just out of curiosity, but has Hillary ever closed the gap leading up to a primary?

Good question. The answer depends, I suppose, on how you care to measure it. It has frequently come to pass that Clinton starts out a race a month or so ahead of the election with a wide lead, and Obama narrows that wide lead to a small lead or even a win for himself. The reverse of that has never happened (although the only state so far in which he has begun with such a lead was IL). On the other hand, it has happened that she starts with a wide lead, he overtakes her and then she retakes the lead. Considered from that perspective, she has narrowed his lead a few times.

It's as true now as it ever was. . . no super-delegate was to destroy the next generation of the Democratic party by overturning the will of the voters. Obama has set the part up for generational dominance. The fact that older women are sticking with their girl is something I completely understand and respect. I has the opportunity to sit and talk with an older woman volunteer for Hillary in Iowa for about an hour and it really changed my perspective. They have every right to have their voice heard and have the process carried out. In the end, however, they don't have a right for Hillary to be handed the nomination at the convention AND they recognize the importance of the energy and engagement in politics Obama has brought out of younger voters. They understand that and realize how important it is for democracy to be reborn in each generation.

lets entertain the thought that HRC somehow gets the nod. and lets imagine the Republican campaign reaction: "The Clinton's ignored their own party rules to get here, do you really want another four years of half-truths and blue dresses in the whitehouse?"

Is anyone going to mention the fact that if Hillary gets the nomination, Al Gore will not be working with her on the environment? Isn't this another strong point for Obama? Other than the fact that the Clintons so enthusiastically lie?

user-pic

Hillary knows that she has lost the nomination, public goal post moving talking points aside.

It is better to speculate why she may be holding off regarding the timing of her concession speech.

My own guess is that she is hoping to raise enough money from her diehard supporters in the near future to be able to pay off or reduce her campaign debts. [and I also believe that she is likely playing the money game in 'creative' ways to allow her very wealthy backers to hand over big bucks behind the cover story of increased 'small' donations] That debt consideration, I suspect, is a behind the scenes talking point which the Hillary campaign is making to a number of super delegates, who would themselves be sympathetic about red ink in campaigns.

If Hillary conceded now, she would not have the chance for more fundraising which would supposedly be tied to the next contests. But, she is on a razor's edge with this situation, too. As those next contests get closer, and the polls show her likely to lose, she faces a point of diminishing returns or even more red ink in her loss column.

user-pic

Yeah DonnaG - I agree with you.

It's interesting to me that Obama being heavily favored in NC (a big state) is not getting as much pub. PA, a state where Clinton was supposed to win, got as much pub as the GE. Indiana, the state where she has a shot to win is getting a ton of play. They are not giving Hillary a shot to win NC, and apparently she is not going to campaign there much - but somehow people are supposed to believe that she will fight for everyone? Say what you want about Obama, but he's fought in every state.

user-pic

Oh, but the media has been so easy on Obama - NOT! What a crock of shit. If Clinton supporters think she hasn't gotten a free ride, and tons of good (and free) press, they are crazy. Obama is fighting against not only entrenched racism but entrenched, institutionalized power. That he's been able to come this far is - dare I say it - a testament to the grassroots movement he has tapped into. People power!!! ;)

Fight the power, Carol.

Just don't say it too loud, you will scare all those old white ladies we are trying to win-over.

user-pic

Hey, if it weren't for L'Oreal I'd be one of those "old white ladies" LOL!!!!! ;)

Lookin' good! And I thought it was the Obamamania that was making your cheeks so rosy!

user-pic

Aw, shucks!! Thanks! ;)

user-pic

People Power! is the thing that's given me hope all the way through this. We're really seeing the power of the grassroots this campaign, and we're finally seeing the promise of the Internet beginning to bloom.

No matter what happens in the fall, the trends that we're seeing cannot be stopped. We're finally seeing how the power of a million "smalls" can best the "bigs."

NC won't get as much play because it has a large proportion of black voters and is a strong Red State in the Fall.....IN has similar demographics to Pennsylvania (lots of "bitter" white folks), so we ge to see how Obama performs. I totally agree with you, in that a big win in NC erases all of HRC's gains from PA, but the media is looking for drama, and they have found it with the dance between Obama and working class Whites.

Er, actually, neither of those two claims are true. Black voters do not make up an especially large portion of the democratic primary electorate in NC and the state is not solidly red this year. If you look at the demographic data for NC, you will see that blacks account for only ~22% of NC's population, compared to (for instance) ~29% of SC's or ~30% of GA's. In other words, NC's electorate is not nearly so black as to account for his large margin in poll numbers there. Meanwhile, if you look at the head-to-head polls, McCain is only barely ahead of Obama there and his support is trending down while Obama's is trending up.

Well NC has to be compared to the US average which is 12.8% AA's. What's interesting are the other demographics--bachelor's degrees and higher, US average is 24.4% with NC 22.5% and GA 24.3%; 65+, US average is 12.4% with NC 12.2% and GA 9.7%.

I know Obama said GA was in play for the general and this was dismissed. I think that was perhaps hasty. NC and GA seem very comparable and are perhaps both in play in the general election. I think only Obama would be able to win either or both.

PA got as much mention as the general because the campaign runup was seven weeks long. There was nothing else campaign-related out there.

user-pic

A point about this: "she is likely playing the money game in 'creative' ways to allow her very wealthy backers to hand over big bucks behind the cover story of increased 'small' donations"

Remember Hsu and the twisted way that money was coming from the hands of 'small' donors'?
Remember the NYC dishwashers story?

I'd sure love it if one of these super delegates would tell us how the Democrats are going to win the presidency with a candidate who can only manage 8% of the African American vote. I mean, I know all these dumb black folk are just supposed to fall right back in line and vote for the candidate who's been largely dismissive toward them, right after you fuck over the first viable African American candidate in history, but call me skeptical.

user-pic
, but call me skeptical.

Call me convinced. I know the voter dynamics.

I'll keep saying this: in one precinct here on primary night, 4000 people showed up where in '04 a total of 58 people voted.

That's what Obama can do for us.

Pure spin, all of it. PA win doesn't convince anyone. It was well-known in advance.

People sitting on the fence have been sitting on the fence for a while now. Although I bet HRC would like you to think that PA changed people's minds.

Okay, okay. We need to relax a bit. In 2 weeks this will really be over. Obama will blow her out in NC (erasing her PA gains) and if he can take IN, which I think he can, it's over.

I keep telling you, man, there is no "if" about it. Obama will win IN. It will not be a blow-out, but he is going to win there.

:-)

Has anyone wondered if Hillary is staying in this thing to shoehorn herself into the VP slot?

I can't imagine Obama ever offering her VP nor can I imagine Hillary ever accepting a VP slot. She would see it as an insult to play second fiddle to Obama.

I guess I agree, but could she be desperate enough for a shot at power?

Maybe better to try and sabotage Obama in '08 and reload for '12? That just seems impossible with the negatives she is racking up.

And so damn cynical.

The chances of her even polling in double digits in 2012 are likely to be very small.

Some of us do have memories...

Not to mention Obama would be constantly looking over his shoulder . . . If something "happened" to Pres. Obama, HRC would get what she wanted all along. I wouldn't put anything past the Clintons at this point.

I really don't think anyone would go this far just as a ploy to be VP.

She is enagaged in a scorched earth campaign, hopelessly bidding for the nomination, and screwing her legacy and the Democrats on the way down....I can't believe anyone would go that far either.

I think at this point she's making herself into a liability as a VP rather than an asset.

I agree, but she does have her whole: "poorer, less educated, older white people like me" argument.

I think we can find someone who has that appeal without the "everyone else hates me" baggage.

Jim Webb!

I like Jim Webb, and we all know he totes a gun (through airports, no less). However, I read that he is a "reluctant candidate" in general. He doesn't like campaigning and doesn't comes across very well. When I read that, I had to wonder how he managed to win in VA if that's true. But Webb would bring a lot of military/security cred, among other things.

user-pic

The supers are dickless wonders. "Please voters! Decide so I don't have to declare!" Typical pathetic Democrats, the very embodiment of why we are seen as weak. And as for media treatment of NC, it's this: any state Obama has in the bag doesn't mean anytthing, because, well ... he has it in the bag. Hillary wins PA by all of nine -- a state she couldn't have designed any better for a blowout -- and it's covered as a sort of "upset." The press is pukeworthy.

the goal being to erase the sense of inevitability that surrounds Obama's candidacy.

Hillary's is the arthmetically challenged smokescreen campaign.

I'm as sick of this as anyone (I'm really, really, really, really, really, really sick of it), but the gradual rollout of supers is the way to go. If he can get one or two most days up until May 6, he'll be positioning himself to have the numbers (in terms of public perception) "naturally" after NC and IN. This is important going into the general.

And if you want a relatively clean removal from this race of the tumor that is Hillary Clinton, it's best if she goes out on a loss. It needs to look like he won at the polls. (I know, I totally agree that he already has, but fairly or unfairly that doesn't matter so much at the moment.)

And for public perception reasons the media needs to get on board. Some of it already is (I think the NYT conversion is a major development), and the desperate defenses of Hillary are getting ridiculous, but they'll have no choice but to come around pretty soon.

I seriously doubt that any of the Supers are undecided at this point. They are undeclared, but I would be very surprised if anyone of them was still truly unable to make up their mind. I'm sure they each have their reasons for why they haven't yet declared, just as those who have declared have their reasons. The point being they are nothing like a monolithic block of voters at all. They are all acting on their own feelings and intrest, as it should be.

Some of the undeclared we can be almost totally sure who they will go for. Reid and Pelosi are surely going to go Obama, and it seems like Jimmy Carter is as well. If you dig in and look at who the undeclareds are, you could probably venture a guess on many. The hardest to tell(and really the least deserving to be Supers) are some of the DNC party people.

I really can't guess what Clinton's game is right now. If she really thinks she will convince the Supers to give it to her at this point, she must be delusional. Afterall, she must know many of those people fairly well, and she must know those who hate her, well, hate her. You know there must be a lot of people in the party who hate the Clintons.
If she thinks she would really have a shot in '12 if Obama loses, then she is just flat out batshit fucking insane. The whole "keep raising money to pay off the debt" thing is about the only thing that makes sense.

It's too fucking weird really. But it will soon be over. And I'm inclined to agree with Digby, I don't think the Dems can lose this November. There is just no way in hell that McCain doesn't step on his dick multiple times between here and November. Let's face it, the guy is a loser. The Republicans are only running him because they had nobody else.

I'm just still shocked that Hillary leads among Supers (albeit by an ever-decreasing number). And I know she had ~100 locked up before the primaries even started, but still...I don't get it.

user-pic

You know, I really don't think Hillary's win in Pennsylvania is having the desired effect. In almost all of the newspaper and TV/radio reports and interviews I've read and heard, they are talking about things like "well, Hillary won the battle but the war has already been lost" ... or "Hillary lives to fight another day but she won't catch Obama" - stuff like that. Her campaign is not having success in changing the dialog - even the campaign's claim of $10M is not having much of an effect on the "momentum" meme.

I think that in the days ahead, as more and more people look at the math like Chuck Todd has done on MSNBC, they will realize that it is a near mathematical impossibility for her to overtake Obama's lead, especially after NC, and perhaps the supers will begin to make their decisions even before June 3. If the rumors of Obama having 20 committed supers to drip out over the next 2 weeks is true (per Billy Sumday's link upthread which I'll post below), that might also sway them to get off the fence. Just a thought...

Here's the link:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/4/23/22010/3114/229/502171

Well, I'm glad the media is slowly approaching logic. It hasn't been framed as a comeback so much as a survival.

I was heartened to see the media narrative basically say, "Hillary wins PA, but Obama still leads." It is becoming increasingly difficult for the MSM to sustain the storyline that Hillary actually has a chance at the nomination. The NYT editorial yesterday, Obama's rollout of Supers, and the polls in IN and NC have pretty much pissed all over Hillary's parade.

user-pic

Obama will win the pledged delegate majority May 20. No doubt about it. He'll need fewer than 40 after May 6. He needs only 137 (33%) today.

As Chuck Todd said last night, we already know the pledged outcome. With a lead that big and so few votes left, networks normally call the race. Obama is the winner of the pledged delegates.

So, why, please, can't the super-delegates who are waiting for the pledged outcome stop waiting and speak?

I'm curious how many SDs he'll need to get to 2025 after all the primaries are over.

I messed around on Slate and got obama to ~1700 delegates when all is said and done.

user-pic

He'll need fewer than 100 superdelegates to seal the deal, and that's with pretty modest assumptions about the split on the remaining delegates. The actual number of additional superdelegates needed is probably 80-90.

Hillary would need to take remaining superdelegates at a rate of at least 2-1 over Obama.

I agree all the superdelegates want to go to Obama. They're just masochists!

The Edwards campaign manager, and other close Edwards people endorsing Obama yesterday was good news, but really begs the question about old John himself....He is risking irrelevancy here, or may have already achieved it.

I vote already achieved it.

Seconded.

I'm sure no one know what Edwards' plan is, but achieving irrelevancy in this crazy-ass campaign may be exactly what he's going for. Jet skis, indeed!

What Obama should say: "Hillary can move the goalposts as much as she wants, but all she's doing is kicking fieldgoals when she needs touchdowns."

She needs a touchdown, two-point conversion, on-side kick recovery, and another touchdown, and a two-point conversion, just to get into Overtime....

user-pic

Anybody have a link to who those 15 House Dems that gathered at Hillary headquarters yesterday to strategize about how to corral more super-dels for her are? Time's link to the WSJ doesn't work and neither does Google right now for WSJ. Not sure I could get in without a subscription anyway. I'd sure like to know so I could call those House reps and tell them to knock it off. A few well placed blog posts and a diary at the Great Orange Satan ought to put a stop to that.

user-pic

Dorn76 she needs a plane crash.

user-pic

Dorn76 she needs a plane crash to win the nomination and another to win the general.

I don't think this is so hard to understand. The SDs are asking the same question everybody else is: can a black man be elected? And the answer is no clearer to them than to anybody else. Early evidence suggested that he may be, but recent results have raised doubts. They're waiting for as big a mass of cumulative evidence as they can get before making a hard decision that will piss off half their party and that they can't take back.

What I wonder is how many super delegates are saying to themselves, "well, if this thing keeps going for another measly 9 contests, then everyone will get to vote!" Since the nominee is usually definitive after the first, oh, 9 contests, I can see why that sort of thinking might be compelling -- especially when the original goal this year was to get as close to a "national primary" as possible.

user-pic

At this point I think the SDs are willing to let Clinton completely humiliate herself before they endorse Obama.

I read this posting before I read who actually posted it. Saw that it was Greg S, and suddenly it all made sense.

From the Clinton's campaign's mouth to Greg's ears to TPM Election Central.

More oxygen to Fla/Mi - the Clinton campaign.

Damn!! I've said it before:

They're good.

BTW: Rove is running around basically saying much of what Greg posted here. Is there a direct line from Rove to TPM Election Central now???

drip, drip, drip

another endorsement from Rep David Wu, Oregon to Senator Obama, that makes 3 to 1 this week...If e can keep the pace in the next 2 weeks that would be nice...

Do we know any others that could come up this week?


I think we may see this go on to other states, even after IN and NC. I think that it will be close in some states and it will get ugly. I don't see her taking a big chunk of delegates, because it is mathematically difficult. She is waiting for Obama to make a mistake so that she can get the super-dels, even those who have gone to him. They will dig up something, just you wait! And even if it's fabricated. The Clinton's will spin, spin, spin. Then throw the Repubs into the mix, the NC Rep. Party leadership kind. We are in for a ride.

Obama needs to remain courageous, smart, take the high-road, but definitely be sharp and fight back with integrity and with substantive issues. He needs to work it, because you know she will.

Meanwhile, online, in the MyBo grassroots community trolls are everywhere, making it hard to get anything done. I encourage everyone to get involved and make phone calls etc. Clinton's element is fighting and she sees this as a fight. She is good at it. However, as president we need a leader who can bring people together and get things done for the good of all Americans, that is why we *need* Obama.

Even if Obama does take IN I don't see her dropping out. Clinton has promised Puerto Rico a vote for independence if they vote for her, come on, what it Obama promised them that? Media won't report on this, just like they didn't report on comments Bill Clinton made post-9/11 at Yale, or the photo of Bill and Wright.

I hope some super-del's act with integrity. And as far as Michigan goes, we need to put that idea to bed. Nobody wanted those voters disenfranchised, but it was the rules. Otherwise this problem will keep occuring. If states have problems with Democratic party rules then they need to change them within their party and work it out, not do selfish, immature action like hold the primary anyways. The Party has to uphold it's own rules or it would be a free-for-all for decades to come.

The longer she drags this out, then the higher the chance, she thinks, that Obama will make a mistake and/or gives him more time to get beat up by Repubs or to dig something dirty up on him. She doesn't mind getting stuff thrown on her. She doesn't mind getting her hands dirty, you heard Bill Clinton- "this is a hands-on sport"....

All the while Obama is trying to lift us above this, the Clinton's will continue to try and drag him into the boxing ring. Two different perspectives on the road to the Presidency.

user-pic

Howard Dean needs to get off the fence and start advocating for Obama. Because, unless something drastic happens, Obama is clearly the choice of the majority of Americans. Dean needs to make that point to the super delegates. He needs to tell them that unless they see some extremely compelling reason to overturn the will of the people, it's time to bust a move. And they should be provided with all the internal polling data they need to settle their minds about whether he can win in the general election. Because the ONLY reason to back Clinton at this point is clear proof that Obama can't beat McCain.

Dean must pick a side. And the side he must pick is the side the majority has already chosen. As head of the DNC, that is Dean's ONLY choice.

user-pic

Hillary Clinton is like the Glenn Close character in Fatal Attraction. The Close character is so obsessed that her goal nearly destroys the family of Michael Douglas. Hillary will destroy the DEM Party before she gives up. It is up to the SDs to end this nightmare. The delegate race is over. She can't win the pledged race. If the SDs overturn what the voters have done, then they will accomplish what Hillary is now doing; destroying the DEM Party. The SDs are the only ones that can save the Party and give the Party an opportunity in November. Each day they wait, the damage mounts up.

Leave a comment

Recommended Reader Posts

  • Unwritten...
    by stillidealistic
  • BABIES, RACCOONS AND HEALTH CARE
    by dickday
  • Two Dreamers, by Dorothea Lange
    by Rutabaga Ridgepole
  • Tsunami Wave: Will Wipe Out Republican Party
    by coonsey
  • OBVIOUSLY, YOU AREN'T A HUNTER.....
    by wvbiker
  • The Stupack Amendment played politics with women's lives and won.
    by J. Clarence
  • wooden projects
    by kubaser
  • holly colorado
    by blumun
  • boxes generator
    by boluwel
  • short stories
    by lumacer



  • Resources

    The Palin Effect

    GOP Map Of Sleaze

    Tire Swinging

    The Final Debate

    World of Sleaze

    All About Sarah

    The Presidential Debates: Round 2

    The Vice-Presidential Debates: Biden v. Palin

    Critic or Cheerleader The Definitive McCain Iraq Timeline

    The John McCain John Hagee Timeline

    Masthead

    Editor-in-Chief
    Josh Marshall

    Reporter-Bloggers
    Elana Schor
    Eric Kleefeld



    Subscribe to this blog's feed.

    Advertise Liberally
    Share
    Close Social Web Email

    "To" Email Address

    Your Name

    Your Email Address