The Latest on the SuperDelegate Front

By Jeralyn, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 03:29:47 PM EST
Tags: Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, 2008 (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

The AP has the latest news on the superdelegate front. Ignore the misleading title,"AP survey: Superdelegates jump to Obama" (which implies scores of delegates are jumping ship or changing from Hillary to Obama)and read the text of the article:

Clinton still leads among superdelegates — 241 to 181, according to the AP survey. But her total is down two in the past two weeks, while his is up 25. Since the primaries started, at least three Clinton superdelegates have switched to Obama, including Rep. David Scott of Georgia, who changed his endorsement after Obama won 80 percent of the primary vote in Scott's district. At least two other Clinton backers have switched to undecided. None of Obama's have publicly strayed, according to the AP tally.

The reality, from their numbers: Hillary still leads in total superdelegates and despite his ten or eleven recent wins, only 3 out of 246 have left her for Obama while two have changed to undecided.

Reality #2: The superdelegates can change their mind up to the time they vote at the convention. If Hillary takes Texas and Ohio and stays in the race, she could gain more or take some from Obama.

Right now, the superdelegates are not the issue. Texas and Ohio voters are.

< About Those Texas Newspaper Endorsements | Obama's Soldier Story Confirmed >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

The Latest on the SuperDelegate Front | 24 comments (24 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

do we have a certified (none / 0) (#1)
by Kathy on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 03:37:06 PM EST

pledged delegate count? And who gets to certify them, anyway?

I know I keep asking this and tell me to shut up if it's too much, but I cannot find anything on line that explains how this works and why every network has different numbers.

: Greenpapers (5.00 / 1) (#8)
by KevinMc on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 04:01:10 PM EST

The Greenpapers website has a pretty decent delegate breakdown. I'm not sure where all the different network TV numbers come from. Anyway here is the Greenpaper link

The Greenpaper Election 2008 Delegate Page

: Super delegates (none / 0) (#26)
by USAsince1680 on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 04:09:54 PM EST

Super delegates are not elected and are not selected based on party primaries, etc. They are seated merely because they are active in the political arena. They are suppose to remain independent of the voting public and base their decision on knowledge and experience. The very purpose of their creation was to balance the scales against uneducated, biased voting. It is expected that they will be above intimidation or coercion but, from what I can gather, many of them are confused themselves as to their appointment responsibilities. Obama's claim that they should follow the popular vote is proof that he has no clue. It is hopeful that when the masses are admiring the kings new clothes, these delegates will be the ones who see that "he is as naked as the day that he was born".

Feingold? (none / 0) (#2)
by Socraticsilence on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 03:48:29 PM EST

Russ Feingold appears to come out for Obama.

: Not as superdelegate (none / 0) (#6)
by Cream City on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 03:57:35 PM EST

so I read, not committed. "Likely" leaves a lot of time and political winds remaining, so that is wise of my Senator . . . since he hedged it with "high regard" for Clinton as well. Russ knows how to read what went on in Wisconsin this week.

The issue will "sort itself out" (none / 0) (#5)
by s5 on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 03:54:49 PM EST

I still can't believe Clinton is getting a free pass for her passive voice non-answer from last night.

And she said rules should be followed (none / 0) (#7)
by Cream City on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 03:59:37 PM EST

about superdelegates voting independently. Do you think so?


The rules are the rules (none / 0) (#13)
by s5 on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 04:15:13 PM EST

and clearly they're going to be followed. But she dodged the spirit of the question, which was to explain her views on the process, and her views on the popular will vs the will of insiders. "It will sort itself out" is a non-answer. Yes, obviously it will, but how? And who will sort it out? What will you do to help sort it out? etc. It was a question about values, not mechanics. Hence my objection to her use of the passive voice.


It will sort it outself out (none / 0) (#15)
by AF on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 04:21:58 PM EST

Is precisely the right answer. The super-delegates will decide how to sort it out. Nothing is accomplished by fighting over this now.


Agreed -- and so I did not like Obama's (none / 0) (#18)
by Cream City on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 04:43:50 PM EST

answer, continuing to call for not following rules.


: I didn't read it that way (none / 0) (#19)
by AF on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 04:59:04 PM EST

Calling for the superdelegates to abide by the will of the voters isn't calling for the rules to be broken. It is certainly within the rules for the superdelegates to vote that way.

: if the superdels can vote anyway they want. (none / 0) (#20)
by Tano on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 09:35:40 PM EST

then how is it possible for that rule to be broken?

Btw (none / 0) (#25)
by Cream City on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 09:05:04 AM EST

"It will sort itself out" is not passive voice.


Read (none / 0) (#9)
by tek on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 04:01:11 PM EST

the entire AP article. It sounds like the headline is a gross exaggeration. It doesn't matter anyway. They can change anytime until the convention.

: which means... (none / 0) (#21)
by Tano on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 09:36:50 PM EST

we should totally ignore any count of committed superdels, since they all have the ability to change, right?

I think it's closer to 400 (none / 0) (#10)
by Kathy on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 04:02:23 PM EST

superdelegates who have yet to endorse, which by my accounting means that a little under half have not stated their support one way or another.

I think we have to wait until March to see what happens. To me, the popular vote is also a factor. The pledged delegates might well come out to even due to gerrymandered districting. If the superdelegates decide this thing, they need to keep popular vote in mind.

Ugh. It's just a mess is what it is.

But, thank you for your explanation re: how they are calculated. It's the first one I've read that makes actual sense.

It would be very difficult (none / 0) (#11)
by AF on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 04:09:36 PM EST

For her to win, but she would have a rationale for sticking around if she had the money and inclination. I certainly wouldn't want Obama or anyone else calling on her to drop out at that point.

Good for you. (none / 0) (#12)
by oculus on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 04:12:46 PM EST

In that scenario (none / 0) (#14)
by s5 on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 04:19:11 PM EST

There would be enormous pressure on her from the party to drop out. The party needs to get busy and start running against McCain. I'm glad the primary has been truly national this year (instead of rubber stamping Iowa like Kerry in 2004), but dragging it out much past March 4th would be bad for Democrats. Ultimately the Democrats need to be focused winning the presidency, not on winning "Best Democrat EVER".


: I disagree (none / 0) (#22)
by nycvoter on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 11:08:16 PM EST

If she wins Tx and Oh and loses RI and VT, are you kidding. On to Pennsylvania, why don't we just start calling for Obama to drop out if he only carries RI and VT

Winning texas and Ohio (none / 0) (#16)
by Jgarza on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 04:29:15 PM EST

Winning Texas and Ohio means that she survived not that she is winning. Lets be clear about that.

: Maybe right now... (none / 0) (#17)
by Marvin42 on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 04:39:06 PM EST

That is the narrative, but if she wins clearly in both states the narrative may turn yet again.

: Survival to me means (none / 0) (#23)
by RalphB on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 11:20:59 PM EST

it should go on the PA and a win there would put it to the convention. Fight it out according to the rules. I've heard it said that they made em, live by em.

Reailty #4 (none / 0) (#24)
by BrandingIron on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 05:50:14 AM EST

Of ALL the people who've voted so far in this election, Clinton still leads in overall popular vote.

I went through each state's page on CNN and just wrote down the tallies of everyone who voted. I hope I got everything correct, but someone else with good math skills and some anal retention might want to double check for me. I did the total vote including Florida and Michigan (giving Michigan's Undeclared/Whatever vote to Obama, even though half of those voters might've been Edwards votes, too). I didn't do "Without Florida" because the voters were clear on who they were voting for.

Overall:

Clinton....9,472,386
Obama......9,153,984

Without Michigan:

Clinton....9,144,235
Obama......8,916,222

Without BOTH Florida & Michigan:

Clinton....8,287,027
Obama......8,347,181

So you can see why Obama wants to disenfranchise Florida (and Michigan) voters. He's winning (but by a hair of ~60,000 votes) without them, but with all who voted, he's losing by 318,402 votes. Even if we gave only half of the "Uncommitted" vote from the vague Michigan vote tally (giving him all of it is generous), he'd still be losing.

P.S. These totals do not include Super Delegates, because technically they haven't "cast their vote" yet. They've stated their support, which they don't have to, but they vote at the convention. I think that even with the Super Delegates on his side, it wouldn't make much difference for him: If he wants them to vote "the will of the people", then the clear collective "will of the people" right now is for Clinton.

P.P.S. I now realize that I forgot to include American Samoa in the totals. Clinton secured 163 votes and Barack Obama 121. That makes a teeny tiny difference.