Obama Campaign Manager Says Reports Of Secret Banked Super-Delegate Support Are "Not Accurate"
Here's one other nugget I meant to bring you from yesterday's Obama campaign conference call: Obama top adviser David Plouffe said flatly that reports saying Obama has a massive number of super-delegates secretly banked to roll out after June 3rd are untrue.
"That's not accurate," Plouffe said, when asked about such reports. "You know, we announce super-delegate support as people commit to us. We have done three so far today. So we are announcing them as they pledge their support to us...no, we do not have a bunch of super-delegates in our back pocket."
There's a simple reason that these rumors of blocs of super-dels secretly plotting to move en masse keep proving to be false: This isn't how the dynamic actually works. The reality is that getting indivdiual super-dels to commit -- and getting them to go public -- is hard enough on its own, let alone getting them to do so in a big group.
Once either campaign has got an individual super-del privately locked down, it rushes that super-del out the door and makes it public as quick as possible, in order to make it official. The campaigns don't privately hoard super-dels, because to do so would risk losing them.















It's my take that the Clinton camp keeps floating these rumors of mass superdelegate endorsements for Obama, so when they don't materialize, it makes Obama look bad.
May 29, 2008 10:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
Meh. I think it's been lower level folks in the Obama camp just speculating to journalists, who then run with the ball. The first two such rumors came from Brokaw and Stephanopoulus. It probably starts out as "there's a few dozen more superdelegates I think we have a good chance of wooing" and then the rumor snowballs into "a hundred new Obama superdelegates are going to form a human pyramid in front of the Lincoln memorial."
May 29, 2008 10:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
Absolutely. I'd be willing to get Hillary's people are behind every one of these rumors, especially considering that they are often reported first on Drudge.
May 29, 2008 2:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
This has been, what, the third time we've had one of these rumors? I think this idea of 50 superdelegates (or whatever) releasing a joint statement announcing their support is farfetched, if only because most politicians want their moment in the sun. It doesn't make them look/feel like a decisive leader if they're part of a large pack.
May 29, 2008 10:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
I actually think he's spinning a bit. He hasn't "banked" endorsements - but they've probably confirmed that a great number of Super Delegates WILL endorse after June 3rd.
That most of them are going to endorse Obama is an open secret
May 29, 2008 10:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
That is my take. I bet alot of them say privately they will go his way, but they don't want to stick their necks out until everybody has voted.
So I think it is just the definition that is confusing everybody. I think when people make the assertion "superdelegates in the back pocket" it is just those quiet assertions - waiting for the end of the primary.
May 29, 2008 2:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Good analysis gregg and it makes complete sense. Once they commit you want them to do it publically or you risk losing them. It ain't rocket science.
May 29, 2008 10:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
Are you seriously suggesting that there has not been some pattern to the last 6-8 weeks of Superdelegate announcements out of the Obama camp designed to maintain a steady drip...drip..drip...that is now a trickle?
Despite what you and Axelrod may say, the evidence of the past several weeks is too obvious to just be a coincedence.
I don't even believe Clinton "rushes them out the door" since she saved an add-on or two along the way to announce when she thought she had momentum.
And though it is harder to flip a Super that has announced, the fact that several have flipped so far this season shoots a hole in your theory that they rush them out to secure them.
May 29, 2008 10:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
Right. It is hard to believe that the Edwards endorsement wasn't timed.
May 29, 2008 2:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Any more info on the rumor of those 40 California Supers?
May 29, 2008 10:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
Supers can switch until the vote on floor.
Anything can happen.
May 29, 2008 10:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
While I'd prefer a flood, Ive been pretty happy with the drip, drip, drip.
It was done that way as to not embarrass Clinton and more than necessary.
If she announces that she is going to the convention after hearing the rules committed decision, then you WILL see groups come out for him.
Obama might not have them lined up personally, but when Pelosi & Dean say go, their handfuls will endorse.
May 29, 2008 10:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
It looks a little more "legit" if they're announcing the endorsements individually. If they announce en masse, it has more of an appearance of a group of folks ganging up to force an end to the race.
May 29, 2008 10:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
Is that a bad thing?
May 29, 2008 11:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for asking, Greg. Nice post and good work.
I'd love a flood, too, but like you say, joshuablog - I'll take whatever.
May 29, 2008 10:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
Greg, I think you mean "hoard." This isn't Warcraft.
May 29, 2008 10:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
Zug zug.
May 29, 2008 10:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
It looks like Greg must have fixed the typo. Or was it a Freudian slip?
Granted, he uses "hoard" above as a verb, but when used as a noun, either "hoard" or "horde" might be appropriate. If the Obama campaign had a group of SDs that announced at the same time, it would certainly be a "hoard", and the Clinton campaign would probably feel they had been overrun by a "horde" at the time of the announcement.
May 29, 2008 11:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
Whether or not he has a block of SDs locked up, I think after the last primaries are over on Tuesday, the remaining supers will finally come out of hiding - most likely in support of the pledged delegate winner.
May 29, 2008 10:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
One would think so, Hyper. That's the natural progression of thought and I hope to hell that's what happens but this primary is so crazy -
May 29, 2008 10:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
I have never believed that Barack's got 100 superdelegates trapped in the closet waiting to come out. But I would bet dollars to donuts that we'll see mass superdelegate action after the 3rd anyway.
I'm in Rahm Emmanuel's district, and I've been calling him routinely to tell him to grow a pair. What his office has told me is what most of the remaining SDs are saying - that they aren't supporting anyone until the primaries are over. Many more have said that they will support the winner of pledged delegates, too, and we haven't seen the last of those.
I think after June 3, when the votes are all counted, they're going to finally crawl out from where they've been hiding under the couch and announce for Barack. He'll be the clear winner of the delegate count without FL and MI seated, and if the 1/2 vote thing stands AND Hillary gets unfair allocations of all those delegates, he'll STILL be out in front. That's a death knell for Hillary, I'm afraid.
May 29, 2008 10:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
OT: Today has been refreshingly free of BS from the Clinton camp so far. Howard must not have set his alarm clock.
May 29, 2008 10:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
WOW, now this is breaking news. Off topic, but news. Murdoch is calling the November election for obama over mccain. Holy cow!
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/hilary-rosen/rupert-murdoch-says-obama_b_104018.html
May 29, 2008 10:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well well well -
What the hell is going on now?
May 29, 2008 10:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
Someone wants to be relevant post-GW
May 29, 2008 10:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
You said it in far fewer words than I did!
Too bad I was typing while you were posting - you got it!
May 29, 2008 10:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
To answer my own question - I think I know what's going on.
Money. Rupert sees more potential in Obama for money to come his way - that's it. He thinks that Obama is a better choice because the money is riding on Obama.
Not in any illegal way - I think Murdoch can see where we're' headed and he always did care mainly about going with the money - I never did think they were committed to the ideology of the Right - he was going with the prevailing sentiment at the time and now he's shifting to follow it again.
May 29, 2008 10:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think Murdoch realizes saying this also makes Fox News look a little less like his mouthpiece, too.
May 29, 2008 10:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yep, I bet you are right. Now fox news will be a cheerleader for the obama administration. Will that be a hoot. Not that I want a news organization to be a cheerleader for any administration. I want them to probe and get the facts regardless of who sits in the white house.
Too funny, when you think about it.
May 29, 2008 10:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
Call me naive, but I actually think that Murdoch is taking a slightly more principled stand on this. I don't think this is just a commentary on who he thinks will win. I think he is signaling that he actually wants Obama to beat McCain.
Why? Murdoch is a business man. He wants a business friendly enivronment. Economic recession is not business friendly and he does not appear to have much confidence in McCain's economic stewardship.
Here's some nuggets on his take on McCain:
McCain, Murdoch said, is a friend, patriot, and decent guy, though he conceded also that he is unpredictable, has spent too much time in Washington, and is not great on the economy (which he said is in a recession) or organizationally adept.
May 29, 2008 11:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
He knows what side his bread is buttered on. :)
May 29, 2008 2:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sen. Obama, run now! Run far, far away! Run fast!
May 29, 2008 11:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
under-promise, over deliver... the Obama team is very good for my nerves.
May 29, 2008 10:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
Nice to see the NY Post, Drudge, and Murdoch as legitimate news sources for TPM.
May 29, 2008 10:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well, they've certainly been good enough for Hillary throughout this campaign.
But I believe the story Greg is referencing this time is a post on Ambinder's blog over at the Atlantic site.
May 29, 2008 10:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
I don't know. Would you prefer the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review? Most Clintonistas apparently do.
May 29, 2008 11:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
Oregon is coming to Senator Obama.
Oregon DNC Gail Rasmussen has endorsed Obama. And he got 2 Oregon SuperDelegates today.
And he should get all the SDs from the Pelosi Club after June 3rd.
The Pelosi Club should endorse the winner of the pledge delegates, and for those who don't know.
Pelosi confirmed that the will do everything to avoid a fight to the convention. She made this public yesterday.
May 29, 2008 10:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
43!
May 29, 2008 10:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
Even if Obama loses all the remaining primaries 55-45 (which he won't), he'll stil pick up at least 35 or 40 pledged delegates. And we've got 3 or 4 people announcing their support of him a day WITHOUT the primaries being over. I don't need CNN's magic screen to do that math.
May 29, 2008 10:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
Once all the votes are counted on Tuesday in SD and MT, we'll have our nominee.
May 29, 2008 10:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
I've gotten annoyed with Madam Speaker from time to time, but in general, I really love her and the job she's doing.
I am so proud of Nancy Pelosi - she's the first woman Speaker and she really is an inspiration, AFAIC.
I don't always agree with her and I have been mad at the lack of action against Bush and his people, but I also understand the situation - we didn't have a majority in the Senate. There's no way Lieberman would have cooperated with the Democrats.
Sorry little piece of nasty, vengeful shit.
May 29, 2008 10:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
Pelosi has done an awesome job in a very difficult position. She is a great speaker and has been doing the best that she can in the current situation with a senate that is deadlocked by republicans and a president that will veto anything. I can't imagine another democrat in a leadership position doing a better job than her. Just wait until January 09, the game will change dramatically and she will become known as one of the greatest speakers in history.
May 29, 2008 10:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
Joe Lieberman really is a pimple on the ass of American democracy. But I digress.
May 29, 2008 10:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
Agreed. You don't hear Pelosi cry sexism or blame others when she doesn't get her way. I wish Clinton would follow her example.
And again, I just love her push-back on those extortionist fat cat Clinton donors.
May 29, 2008 11:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
I totally agree with you about how Pelosi has handled the fact that she's the first female Speaker. It's just matter-of-fact, the way that I think it should be. I think she's done more for females striving for equality than Hillary has with her "it's-never-my-fault" campaign.
May 29, 2008 12:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Uh, Pelosi is House Speaker. Why would Lieberman's malevolent presence in the Senate inhibit her from acting on her principles?
FWIW, I think Pelosi would make a great VP.
May 29, 2008 11:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
On lieberman, simple he is siding with republicans. By the way, even if he didn't she would have been stymied because of the filabuster and the king's veto. It takes the house, senate and pres to get anything passed. 60 senators and 2/3d's of both houses to override. Any chance of that happening until January 09, nope.
On vp, she would never take it in a million years. She has the most powerful position in our government right now, why would she give that up for a warm bucket of "spit"? Nope she is staying where she is, as she should.
May 29, 2008 11:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
Regardless of what Lieberman does, he's Reid's problem, not Pelosi's. I would expect that she pushes her agenda forward in the House without regard to what one rogue senator might do when the bill gets to the senate. It doesn't show a lot of politcal courage to hedge one's bets because there's a fool afoot. I doubt that Liberman plays very heavily into Pelosi's legislative calculations. If he does, then she needs to step down.
On the VP: she might take it for the same reason that anyone else takes it -- to run for president as an incumbent in 8 years.
May 29, 2008 11:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
The house did push through it's agenda and it got stopped in the senate. Lieberman is just a horse's ass.
On vp, why would anyone give up the most powerful position in our government to be vp or president for that matter. The speaker has more power than the president. Also, she could be speaker for 20 years if she wanted. It makes no sense.
May 29, 2008 11:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
The speaker has more power than the president.
I'm afraid I need a civics lesson. Why are people wasting billions of dollars and years out of their lives to become president if the House Speaker is the thing to be? What about that little constitutional anomaly that says if the president and the VP are both incapacitated at the same time, the Speaker assumes the presidental role? If the Speakership is so powerful, I would expect a) the president to fill in for the Speaker and not vice versa; or 2) the Speaker to say, "Pass!" when told that (s)he has to take over for the president.
May 29, 2008 11:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
Ahhh, I was waiting for that question. It's the constitution. All bills for paying for the government must originate in the house. No branch of government gets a penny unless it starts in the house. Remember when Newt the Nazi shut down the government. That's where the power comes from, the almighty dollar and that's why the founders made this a requirement that all spending bills must originate in the house. It used to be the people's house before gerrymandering, but it is still the house. She has the power to shut down the entire government or any branch if she wants by not allowing the bill to get to the floor.
And, there you have it. This is not including the declaration of war issue and all the other stuff. Bottom line, money.
May 29, 2008 11:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
Okay, you sold me.
But I still like the idea of President Pelosi.
May 29, 2008 11:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, but she could do so much more for the country for much longer being speaker of the house. Think about it, no lame duck 2nd term. Wow, the possiblities are endless as speaker and she is doing one hell of a job as speaker. Pelosi is awesome as speaker.
May 29, 2008 12:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
You guys are awesome. I actually read these little exchanges aloud to my 10th grade son, who's taking AP US History and Government last year. He totally digs it.
May 29, 2008 1:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
You are welcome. I only wish more people would understand the power of the speaker and that Pelosi got to that spot through hard work and her own bootstraps for 20 plus years in congress. It really is a phenominal accomplishment and she is doing a wonderful job. Talk about shattering the marble ceiling. That's one of the reasons why all this whining from the clintons really annoys me. Pelosi shattered the marble ceiling already and is being virtually ignored. It really is a shame.
May 29, 2008 2:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
It is interesting. Pelosi doesn't say "Look at me! First Woman Speaker!" The fact that she seamlessly blended right into the position - all her hard work and her personal disposition made her the perfect choice. It is these qualities that make her admirable.
Let's compare that to Hillary's disposition. (shudder)
May 29, 2008 3:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's really made me happy. I e-mailed the remaining uncommitted ones in Oregon the evening after Clinton's RFK comment. I even got a nice reply from Jenny Greenleaf, though it turns out she had already committed earlier that day before the incident.
A current list of the remaining SDs is here.
May 29, 2008 11:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well, we need first to move forward with this primary. I was a bit up after I saw the info about Pelosi.
There are also some rumors that Dean, Gore, Pelosi and Reid will intervene, if the Clinton camp is planning a convention fight.
May 29, 2008 10:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
I still say the majority of her supers will abandon her if she declares her intent to take it to the convention.
May 29, 2008 10:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
What makes you think that Hyper?
I beleive that thinking is less likely. In other words, you sound like Warren Christopher up against James Baker in the HBO version of RECOUNT.
Baker accurately defined the problem as political but immediately deduced that the fight would be a 'streetfight' not one based on principles.
Christopher took the high road and brought principles to a knockdowndragoutbrawl..he totally misjudged the landscape.
ANY Democrat who beleives that the Clintons will acknowledge, or accede loss are out of their friggin minds. They are brawlers and plan to fight to their very last breath.
Democrats need to be ready because that is what Hillary and BubbaBill are planning on. This is Hatfields and McCoys to them...they want the prize which is POWER over the Democratic Party.
They will not be pushed off stage they are going to have to be beat to a pulp and trashed.
If WE do not have the courage and strength of conviction to do so...we will LOSE to them because they do not mind getting down in the muck and mire squealing like stuck pigs.
Don't forget the Razorbacks call...soueee, souee...and what it MEANS!!
you have been phucked!!
May 29, 2008 11:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
My point wasn't about the Clintons power thirst but the sanity of her SDs. They may like Clinton but they're not looking for a suicide pact. The Clintons may try to incite a street fight, but they'll be doing it without any of their supers.
May 29, 2008 12:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
I completely agree with you on this point. I think while there might be some die-hard Clinton supporters amongst her SDs, I think a lot of them jumped on board quickly hoping to be rewarded for their early support. I think once they have political cover to move - they'll do it.
May 29, 2008 12:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't think there's any doubt about it. Dean has already signaled that the SD's should announce after June 3. The last thing they want is a cage match at the convention. Clinton is pressing on because she really has very little to lose, but the rest of the party members have a lot to lose.
May 29, 2008 11:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
I don't doubt they rush a super out the door and in front of the microphones as soon as they say they're ready to commit in public. That's critical to narrow the possibility they'll change their mind.
But it is absolutely inconceivable they don't also have a constantly updated list of all supers and their status and that on that list are many who've told them that they'll come out for Obama as soon as they think its safe/as soon as the last primary is over/if Hillary doesn't stop being an asshole/once it doesn't matter.
That list is, I suspect, the source of these rumors that keep surfacing. Thing is, there is simply no way for the campaign to even discuss or hint at the existence of that list that doesn't make the speculative frenzy among the MSMbeciles worse rather than better.
May 29, 2008 10:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
Man, that is one grammatical trainwreck of a post. Let's try again.
I have no doubt that they rush a super out the door and in front of the microphones as soon as he/she says he/she is ready to commit in public. That's critical to narrowing the super's option and reducing the chance he/she will change his/her mind.
But it is absolutely inconceivable that the campaign doesn't also have a constantly updated list of all the supers and their status and that on that list are many who've told the campaign that they'll come out for Obama as soon as they think its safe/as soon as the last primary is over/if Hillary doesn't stop being an asshole/once it doesn't matter.
That list is, I suspect, the source of these rumors that keep surfacing. Thing is, there is simply no way for the campaign to even discuss or hint at the existence of that list that doesn't make the speculative frenzy among the MSMbeciles worse instead of better.
May 29, 2008 10:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
Dude, this is too good not to steal!
May 29, 2008 11:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
O O!
That is too good not to steal.
May 29, 2008 11:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
Murdoch's just promoting the upcoming heavyweight fight.
Like Don King.
May 29, 2008 10:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
That as well, no doubt.
I know his motive - or at least, I am sure I'm right about it - it's money - that's all it ever is.
May 29, 2008 10:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
While I believe Plouffe and the analysis of why it is not a good idea to hold SDs, what may be true is that a large number of SDs have committed to Obama privately that following the end of the primaries they will put their support behind the winner of the pledged delegate majority.
Now that Obama has officially crossed that threshold, the SDs are "in the bank" for Obama though they have not officially endorsed.
And yes, I am willfully ignoring MI & FL.
May 29, 2008 10:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
And the second will start a trend, one can only hope.....
http://www6.comcast.net/articles/news-politics/20080529/Indecisive.Delegate/
May 29, 2008 11:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
As a superdelegate, the guy's got every right to vote for anyone he chooses and he certainly has the right to switch his vote at any time. But for him to say that he doesn't want to say why he changed his mind is pure crap. He should have enough balls to stand up and defend what he's doing.
May 29, 2008 1:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
There are a few Senators and Reps that have endorsed Clinton that have said they will back the candidate with the most "pledged delegates," yet they have not moved over to Obama. I wonder, if after Tuesday, we won't see some of these switch.
May 29, 2008 11:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
Obama's already picked all the low hanging fruit. He's already shaken the tree and all he could get were a couple of loose apples. The rest are out of his reach.
It's doubtful Obama's really has a super secret super delegate stash. If this secret stash did exist and it would put him over the top, why is he sitting on them?
May 29, 2008 11:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
IF he had such a stash, which he says he doesn't, he wouldn't reveal them all right now because Hillary would have a hissy fit about being forced out before all the voters had their say. We musn't disturb the Queen.
May 29, 2008 11:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
Bwahahaha.
If he has the stash he could clinch.
If it turns out he does, he's a liar.
Obama is more than a little nervous right now. He's fighting two fronts and winning neither.
May 29, 2008 12:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
and unfortunately for Hillary, she had her low hanging fruit picked by last November.
May 29, 2008 11:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
to go over the top with pledged delegates instead of supers.
May 29, 2008 11:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
So far, Obama already has over 40% of the total fruit, low hanging or not. Just 80 more of them, or just 40% of the remaining 195, and he'll have an absolute majority.
May 29, 2008 11:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
There are part of the Pelosi Club, and they should come public on June 4th. There are 8 of them, and 2 would stwitch from Clinton to Obama at that point
May 29, 2008 11:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think there is a hole in Hillary's fruit basket.
May 29, 2008 3:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, once they have a committment they roll it out as fast as they can... AND there are a large number of SDs who have publicly stated they won't endorse until after the primary season. You KNOW that BOTH campaigns know which way each one of them is leaning - and many more are going to endorse Obama. Some will do it on the 4th and others will drip, drip, drip. And then there will be some who'd otherwise support Clinton but who want to unite the party behind the candidate who won.
Obama will have enough to reach 2026 on Tuesday. And he'll get whatever more he needs after the FL/MI thing is settled. And then everyone will fall in line.
Except for Hillary and Bill.
And the rest of us will move on.
May 29, 2008 11:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
i simply don't believe that they aren't playing puppet master. things have been too regular. also, it looks like the 15 pledged delegates on 6/3 will put him over the top (2025 without mi/fl). what are the odds that would happen if no one is coordinating the flow of supers?
May 29, 2008 11:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
T minus 6 days and counting, and it will finally be Over.
No more "let the people vote" bullshit, which was invented after "we'll have this wrapped up by February 5th" went kaput.
May 29, 2008 11:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
This entire 'idea' of a 'stash' of SD's started with Howard Fineman on MSNBC claiming 'sources' had told him that if Obama won the TX primary they were going to release a slew of SD's.
Why doesn't someone call up Fineman and ask him to verify/clairfy his 'sourcing'?
May 29, 2008 11:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
Meh, I agree with the disagreement. While they may not have them 'committed' there is a certain amount of gamesmanship going on and the Obama camp has some idea of where SD's heads are at.
I think the HRC camp rolls them out as they get them since they are more likely to lose them but Obama may simply be exerting more pressure at some times than others.
At the very least, he has some idea of where the rest of the SD's intent lies otherwise he wouldn't be campaigning in NV & CO & MI & FL while the primary is still under way and he would be trying a lot harder in PR.
May 29, 2008 11:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
Here's the steady stream of crap from the Taylor Marsh site, which lets you know HRC is NOT even thinking about conceeding this think in June. QUOTE:
Based on the caucus results in the above states, Barack Obama gained 295 pledged delegates to Hillary Clinton's 158, a net advantage of 137 pledged delegates. Reallocating delegates based on the primary results or an interpolation based on the WA-TX-NE-ID data, Barack Obama would have won 233 to Hillary Clinton's 219, a net advantage of 14.
The use of low-turnout caucuses rather than higher-participation primaries is directly responsible for a net margin of 123 pledged delegates in Barack Obama's favor.
May 29, 2008 11:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
What? Buh? Based on only counting states where she won, Hillary is winning. WTF kind of statement is that? Those people over at Taylor Marsh really need to lay off huffing glue. That's the only explanation for a convoluted pseudo-analysis like that.
May 29, 2008 11:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think the Obama stockpile rumor has helped both sides. For Obamaphiles, it has given comfort and confidence during times of "she can't really pull this off, can she??!!" doubt; for HRC fans, it's fueled the conspiracy theory and the feeling that a vote for Clinton is a vote to "stick it to the man!".
What gives me comfort is the strong evidence of the last few months that whether they're doing it all at once or one at a time, the super delegates are coming to the realization that Obama is our best hope.
May 29, 2008 11:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
More stuff from Taylor Marsh:
Bill Clinton also said winning the popular vote “will prove she’s the popular choice of the Democrats,” despite ending with less delegates than Obama, the former president said in an impromptu press conference on the streets of Old San Juan. “And the party will have to decide whether they believe the caucuses -- where you get about one delegate for 2000 votes -- are more important than the primaries where you get one for 12,000,” he said. “And that this really astonishing race, where both have run amazing campaigns, they’re gonna have to decide how to resolve this.
----------------
These are the arguments we need to be able to counter and we need to have Obama supporters out in the press at this juncture talking against and refuting.
These are the challenges that need to be REBUTTEd if we are going to UNITE this party.
Folks are listening to Bill say this stuff and they BELIEVE him, because of his stature as a former President.
If we are unable to debunk Hillary due to not wanting to offend her supporters.
Then there needs to be a full fledged assault on Bill Clinton.
He has not respect for his legacy or the best interest of the Democratic party so why the hell should we?
It is time to take Bill Clinton down!!
Obvisously this is a man who has the unmitigated gall to challenge his own party after his total seamy fall from grace and his utterly heinous acts to defile the very Presidency in the eyes of the nation.
It is time for Bill Clinton to be taken down. We let him run all over this country in backwoods and rural counties polarizing the nation and demonizing the nominee on the basis of race.
I say enough is ENOUGH.
Take him DOWN and SHE will FALL too!!
He is her pedastal! He is the POWER...not HER.
May 29, 2008 11:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
Not to shift almost completely off topic (although this does kind of address the nomination) and not to put too much weight on one poll, but has anybody noticed what I would describe as a disturbing trend in Rasmussen's daily tracking poll? Obama's favorability rating has dropped and Hillary's has increased...they are now almost even. Even worse, Hillary is now tied with McCain while Obama has slipped to a five point deficit against McCain(he's lost a point each day over the last three days, after being tied on Monday) Finally, Obama only leads Hillary by 3 points in the Dem nomination poll...he led her by as much as 10 pts. as recently as 5/12.
Again, it's one poll, but Gallup's numbers, while a bit better for Obama, are showing a similar trend. And here I've been thinking that Obama has had two very good weeks. What's going on?
May 29, 2008 11:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
Rasmussen has been and probably always will be a right wing outlier. Check out the realclearpolitics combination of polls and average. Clinton is by far the worse. Obama and mccain are about tied and this is after all the crap slung at obama and mccain getting a free ride. Here it is. Rasmussen sucks.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/us/obama_favorableunfavorable-643.html
Incidentally, I was checking out rasmussen during this cycle and it was in line with the other polls around December. Then all of a sudden in a single 24 hour period there was a 10 point swing for absolutely no reason. I think it was about a week before iowa. Kind of makes you wonder.
May 29, 2008 11:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
Scott Rasmussen is definitely a conservative partisan. He lives in my town and is one of the exec officers of the Methodist association (not officially affiliated to any Methodist church) that caused an uproar last year by trying to prohibit gay couples (and many live here) from getting married in the pavillion on the boardwalk. (the association owns all the land in town, including the boardwalk) He was one of the driving forces behind the decision, which is still being challenged at the state level. Still, he appears to be a respected pollster, has been fairly accurate in a lot of cases, and I've often heard Markos say good things about his polls.
May 29, 2008 11:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
Don't know about markos, but his polling always and I mean always has a right wing tilt. I think it has to do with his methods, but if you compare rasmussen to other polls on the same topics, they always tilt right by 5 or more points. For instance, the king's job approval. Most polls have him at 28 to 29 percent and rasmussen has him at 34. I could go on and on, but there is definitely a right wing tilt and its probably by design and probably based on his methodology. I say take him with a grain of salt. Also, on that pollster ranking that was done a few months ago, he was at the bottom.
May 29, 2008 12:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
According to Chuck Todd, this is the dying campaign last gasp bounce: when no one is attacking you for weeks, you start looking less negative. It's like holding a beach ball under water. Once you let go, it goes up....but it doesn't go anywhere.
May 29, 2008 11:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
And as I write this, Obama moves back to a double digit lead against Clinton in Gallup's daily tracking today and moves ahead of McCain by a point, while Hillary slips to a two point lead (v. 4pts yesterday) over McCain.
I need to stop stressing over GE polls this far out from November. I remember only 6 or 7 months ago worrying that Rudy was going to get the GOP nomination and that he would be able to beat any of the three top Dem contenders. We know how that one worked out.
May 29, 2008 1:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Time for another installment of Wolfson's Whoppers:
"I'll tell you what really frosts my wienie," said Wolfson, speaking between hits on his crack pipe. "No effort has been made to ascertain the wishes of extra-terrestrials. Our campaign has received several trillion inter-galactic emails and they all say , 'GORP SHNARK PSSFT GOLUM,' which translates literally to 'We support woman who much lies.'
"So, there you go. I guess you want to discount these votes, too. Add in these 3 trillion votes for Senator Clinton, along with another 3.2 billion from Puerto Rico, and she wins in a landslide. [COUGH] [COUGH] Man, this is some good shit."
May 29, 2008 12:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Every day that goes by. A McCain show Obama to be th empty suit he had always been. Is another day that SDs pause to wonder just who the hell this guy is.
After 5/31 the magic number will increase. And once again neither candidate will have the nomination clinched on June 3.
And the SDs will still wonder...just exactly who is this guy.
Clinton is the best choice for president. That is what I am hoping they decide.
May 29, 2008 12:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
A true Clinton supporter wouldn't have an avatar that makes light of slavery. Asshole.
Crawl back up McCain's ass.
May 29, 2008 12:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
But as we've already seen, once a superdelegate announces their choice, it isn't written in stone. They can always change their mind.
May 29, 2008 12:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, quite a few Clinton supers have switched to Obama. Thanks for reminding us.
May 29, 2008 1:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
I so wish there was an "Ignore" button...It sure would make my day...
Poor Clinton trolls, it must be hard to live a delusional life
May 29, 2008 1:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
I can't get worked up over this, too many rumors and speculation shot down by Obama's continued campaigning.
He really is showing that even he doesn't know for sure until August.All the bluster about being the nominee on May 29 is being played out in the internet. He actually believes the miniscule support online will materialize in the real world. Time and again, Clinton a seasoned politico has proven otherwise.
The convention is too far away, the SDs have the luxury to change their votes. Its the tradition.
Obama's camp has tried to shout Hillary down and this is just one more shout down and has turned her supporters against Obama. He has run a campaign of bloggers who are mostly 20YOs with potty mouths that have demonized a decent lady.
Let the process proceed as scheduled.
May 29, 2008 1:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Before you level all sorts of accusations at Obama and his supporters, I think you should take a good look at yourself demonizing others.
By the way, I'm 42 years old.
May 29, 2008 2:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
if you read a right wing tilt to Kos'opinons is because he USED to be a Republican.
You be the judge. I say HE is STILL one or DINO.
I wish they would get out of the democratic party and join back to being Republican which he, Ed Schultz, Arianna are still, despite their ahem "conversions."
May 29, 2008 1:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think this report is probably more accurate than not. I doubt Obama has 100 supers in his back pocket. But, I think they often delay announcement of high-profile endorsements for a few days to maximize the effect (e.g., the Wednesday after an election he knew he would do badly in).
On the other hand, I think das2003 made a good point that the Obama camp knows of a number of supers that will break his way only after all the voting is done. Some of them have hinted as much publicly (e.g., Pelosi and Carter). No doubt Clinton has a few of her own as well, but given there's been very little public hinting from supers on that, I imagine the number will be significantly less than Obama's.
And, just on pure intuition, I think we'll see many more defections from Clinton to Obama after June 3. Any responsible party member will recognize that Clinton has next to a zero chance of winning this at the convention, but the cost of letting this play out will be too damaging for the nominee - whoever it would be. To avoid such a fight, they will praise Clinton as their first choice, but recognize the need to have closure and pledge their vote for Obama, who they also see as an excellent candidate and worthy of the nomination - something like that. Maybe I'll be proven wrong, but that's my prediction.
May 29, 2008 1:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Another reason why delegate-hoarding by the Obama camp until after June 3rd doesn't make sense: People like to back winners. You'd want as many superdelegates declaring before Puerto Rico, Oregon and the rules committee meeting since it may influence who primary voters select as well as what solution rules committe members decide on.
May 29, 2008 1:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
They may not hoard them but I'd be willing to bet Obama has pledges from dozens of them that they "are going to vote for the pledged delegate" leader immediately after the last primary.
May 29, 2008 2:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Now that I believe is true.
May 29, 2008 2:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Htere is something to the rumors: what's being referred to (obviously!!!) are private commitments that will be made public when the tipping point on public perceptions of the treatment of Hillary, amicable endgame, etc. etc., is reached, which will allow for the support to be made public. It's that simple. The rumor is that he has massive superdel support that is pent up by political consideration. She probably has some of the same, but not nearly as much as she needs. Then again maybe not, since what possible reason would any of her supporters have not to come out at this point? It will only become harder for them as the thing gets more and more over, and the pressure to rally around the nominee presumptive gets more and more intense.
May 29, 2008 2:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't think Clinton has any idea what the phrase "amicable endgame" means
May 29, 2008 2:44 PM | Reply | Permalink