A Response On Superdelegates

There have been lots of comments about reader Chuck Thies's superdelegate scenario.

Here's one additional comment that represents most of them from reader/Obama fan Ryan C.:

It's premised on a false assumption: that superdelegates will make their choice without regard to the overall state of the pledged delegate race.

Given that roughly 58% of the superdelegates are 'undecided' they clearly are watching the race. See also this:

http://openleft.com/showDiary.do;jsessionid=A3EE7193D2CCC1FF87CAEE900DA877EF?diaryId=3704

Super Delegates. Most super delegates are, in fact, waiting to see which way the wind blows before solidifying their endorsements. As long as there is a candidate with a clear edge in both pledged delegates and voter support during the nomination contests, in all likelihood the super delegates will back that candidate. While, as both pledged delegate totals and dueling popularity metrics show, we have not arrived at that point, odds are that we will arrive at that point by June 4th, the day after the nominating contests come to an end. It does not have to be a large advantage, just as long as it is a clear advantage

To the point: If Obama builds up a lead of 100 delegates between now and March 4th, and then manages a practical tie or even wins either OH or TX, they'll come down on his side.

Comments

If you feel the need to mention Ryan C. is an Obama fan (fair enough), why wasn't it necessary for you to clarify Chuck Thies was obviously a Clinton fan, thereby cheapening both comments by pointing out they are biased ?
I dont want to be paranoid but GOD this is too conspicuous to miss.

Posted by Benjamin | February 8, 2008 9:57 AM

Just in case Ryan C. missed it according to Obama's own count on his memo - he thinks he will have a only 75 delegate lead going into 3/4. 100 pledged delegate lead is not really feasible.

Now I agree that he rally needs to win Ohio or Texas to outright win this thing. Not from a pledged delegate count but from the point of view demonstrating of strength and overall dominance. But he won't have a 100 pledged delegate lead even if he wins Ohio, Texas and Penn.

That's the problem folks - there is not going to be that clear lead. There will be a lead but it may not be persuasive to go with the "new guy" - after all that would be "rolling the dice."

Posted by C.B. | February 8, 2008 10:21 AM

A lot of superdelegates fear having HRC at the top of the ticket b/c they know if Republicans and Independents show up to vote against her, they'll be taken out with the tide.

Posted by WWNPHD | February 8, 2008 10:26 AM

WWNPHD - very cool nickname. And very good point. Superdelegates will be persuaded by two forms of arguments:

1. The retrospective argument - I won more votes in more places and secured more delegates than my opponent; and

2. The prospective argument - I match up better against John McCain than my opponent and can not only win the White House but help you down-ballot.

When we get to the summer, a superdelegate ignoring the first argument risks dividing the party by going with the primary vote loser. A superdelegate ignoring the seond, risks sacrificing a Democratic White House and majority in Congress.

The task of the candidates now is to get to a place where both arguments 1 and 2 will be on their side. (Argument 1 will be verifiable. Argument 2, however, will not.) The true problem comes if there is a sense that Argument 1 and Argument 2 do not coincide. Then what?

Posted by Nate | February 8, 2008 10:35 AM

Dems want to win this time, but a thinking person might wonder if a Clinton presidency would be the last Democratic presidency for some time.

The Republicans may or may not be able to undo her as a candidate, but c'mon, getting that couple back in the White House for 4 years, what are the odds that some very bad things will happen?

Are the superdelegates smart enough to foresee this? Perhaps.

With Obama they can at least hope for an period of more liberal government in the country.

Posted by Kim | February 8, 2008 10:37 AM

If Obama sweeps February the momentum will carry him over Texas or Ohio or both. The Florida Giuliani example shows the power of momentum.

Look, most Democrats like both candidates and they want to end this damn primary, especially as the GOP has settled on its candidate. The next candidate to gain serious momentum will seal the deal. That's why it is ESSENTIAL for Hillary to slow him down THIS MONTH. And it looks like she's doing it all wrong. She should be in Louisiana working Cajun Democrats and yellow dog Dems in northern Louisiana. Instead, she sent Bill down for a photo-ops while Obama packed the house at Tulane and at an elementary school in New Orleans. She's conceding a state she could conceivably win.

Then there's Maine, a state she should win with its demographics. But she never bothered setting up any caucus organization system until recently and Obama is far ahead.

So where is she spending her time? In Virginia! She is down by from 15-22 points in Virginia and she has no chance there. It is a perfect state for Obama - white collar Dems and African Americans. Why is she wasting time and money in the Potomac primary?

If she fails to win Maine she will get crushed in every race, go broke again, and yield inevitability to Obama. At this stage in the race inevitability is actually a good thing because Democrats want to get it over with. TX and OH will likely follow suit and the superdelegates will jump to Obama.

All of this is because she blew it by failing to compete in Colorado, Minnesota, Alabama and some other interior states. She played defense in CA, MA and NJ and came out with marginal delegate victories in those states while getting slaughtered in places like Idaho.

Posted by Elrod | February 8, 2008 10:38 AM

This scenario omits Michigan and Florida (as well as Nevada). If Clinton is behind but within, say, 100 or so delegates, whether through party machinations or lawsuits in the end these delegates will be seated. No way will Clinton and the party big-wigs from those states permit them to be disenfranchised. Once the delegates from Michigan and Florida are seated, this will ultimately give the nomination to Clinton.

Of course, this will alienate Obama supporters -- and many will either sit out the general election or vote for McCain -- but that it a different matter.

Posted by ProfNickD | February 8, 2008 10:40 AM

"The true problem comes if there is a sense that Argument 1 and Argument 2 do not coincide. Then what?"

I think we're already seeing that split in the states who have voted already and McCain know being the presumptive nominee will likely force upcoming voters to focus on Argument 2 a lot more.

I'd say Elrod's analysis nails the current situation and, for the moment, Obama has a slight advantage that he can extend with a string of victories over the next two weeks.

Posted by Guy LeCharles Gonzalez | February 8, 2008 10:59 AM

Look - I think at this point Hillary has demonstrated she is not a strong candidate. She has enjoyed ALL the trappings of being an encumbant and has not been able to capitalize on any of them. She may survive Obama's challenge but she will go into November seen as less than dominant in her own party. (See Kennedy's challenge of Carter etc.) Her narrative is going to be "she barely survived." By comparison - Obama's narrative if he is nominated will be - "against all odds - he slew Goliath - next stop the Republicans."

She can't avoid the narrative at this point and the super delegates know it.

Posted by C.B. | February 8, 2008 11:12 AM

If Florida and Michigan are seated and this gives the nomination to Clinton, then you will see mass walkouts at the convention.

You cannot change the rules after the fact and expect the Obama people not to absolutely freak out.

And they should.

Posted by Lance | February 8, 2008 11:25 AM

Hillary Clinton is a very strong candidate. If her last name was not Clinton (ah, but where would she be without her last name?...I honestly believe she would be a senator anyway, she has the drive and the ability)everyone and their mother would be behind her, and she would of won the nomination and the presidency with ease...enter Barak Obama, who seems to have been pluck from "Democratic Heaven" has run the very best campaign, not in the last 50 year, but ever. Now with the weight of her last name coupled with Obama campaign is in some major trouble and should she win, she will split the democratic party amoung generational lines. The youth will come back, but not for awhile, and that means for the next 4-8 years down ticket nominees will suffer a lost demographic. Superdelegates may realize that they have outstanding IOUs owed to the Clintons..so the question becomes will they, the superdelegates, risk the party to pay some outdated IOUs?

Posted by Whoa Now | February 8, 2008 11:27 AM

Two things you all miss:

1. Hillary won't quit - no compromise will be accepted unless she is thoroughly beaten on only one metric: overall delegates (this will include the MO recount and fights over MI and FL). She simply won't quit, no matter who suggests it. So banish that scenario.
2. A lot of those "uncommitted" delegates on the list are HRC supporters who just haven't announced it yet - you can look through the names and pick out 20 easily...so it's an uphill battle for BHO on supers...

Posted by Tom W. | February 8, 2008 11:30 AM

Proof that Hillary is a good strong candidate is that the uber candidate obama hasn't beaten her.

Proof that obama is a strong candidate is that the uber candidate hillary hasn't beaten him.

why should either quit?
if it gets to a difference of a hundred at the end the superdelegates are there to be cajoled and enticed:

does anyone buy obama's ridiculas argument that superdelegates have to side with state majorities? that means teddy has to vote for Hillary, and kerry too?
He's just talking stupid stuff with this superdelegate issue.
Superdelegates have been trusted with thier decision. For him to threaten them is silly silly silly. Its an ugly brand of popularism like lou dobbs or Huey Long.
they are the tie breakers they vote their own mind.

Posted by Michael c. | February 8, 2008 11:47 AM

Proof that Hillary is a good strong candidate is that the uber candidate obama hasn't beaten her.

Proof that obama is a strong candidate is that the uber candidate hillary hasn't beaten him.

why should either quit?
if it gets to a difference of a hundred at the end the superdelegates are there to be cajoled and enticed:

does anyone buy obama's ridiculas argument that superdelegates have to side with state majorities? that means teddy has to vote for Hillary, and kerry too?
He's just talking stupid stuff with this superdelegate issue.
Superdelegates have been trusted with thier decision. For him to threaten them is silly silly silly. Its an ugly brand of popularism like lou dobbs or Huey Long.
they are the tie breakers they vote their own mind.
If he feels hamstrung by the DNC structure he can always run as an independent

Posted by Michael c. | February 8, 2008 11:49 AM

Michael C: I believe Obama's statement on supers was not so subtlely targeted at CBC members who've pledged to Clinton. Example: Maxine Waters is behind HRC but Obama won her district 6-4.

Whoa Now: You're spot on. Last Tuesday, after seeing my Obama pin, an older woman looked me in the eye and said with deep seriousness: "He HAS to win the nomination. If not, the young people won't show up in November."

If HRC wins the nomination on superdelegates, rather than the popular vote, she will enter the race as the most-tainted Democratic nominee in recent history. No one will doubt that the Clintons strong-armed supporters to override the popular vote. We'd certainly lose the claim of being Democratic.

Posted by GordonsGirl | February 8, 2008 12:28 PM

For what it's worth, Obama matches up better against McCain in this poll-

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1711123,00.html?xid=rss-nation

Posted by cousin vinnie | February 8, 2008 1:11 PM

Someone needs to hold that fat little loser Howard Dean's feet to the fire over the mess he has made of the DNC. The RNC is raising much more money than the DNC, Republican registration is up while Democratic registration is down, and the disaster Dean made of the Michigan and Florida situations may be beyond repair.

Maybe the Obama Cult Followers should look at Howard Dean as a cautionary tale.

Posted by robert ethan | February 8, 2008 1:17 PM

Obama fan or not, Ryan C. has a point. There's a reason so many Superdelegates remain uncommitted.

If Obama wins the pledged delegate count, I think that a number of Superdelegates are there for the taking.

Superdelegates were originally set up to protect the party from fringe candidates, from domination by factional interest groups, and to help coalesce support around well-funded, well-organized, mainstream candidates.

And, okay, Clinton is the establishment candidate by virtue of her history with the party and her mainstream ideology. But Obama is not the wild-eyed fringe candidate that Superdelegates were invented to protect the party against.

Obama, the supposed upstart, is the one with the superior fund-raising skills, the superior state-by-state organization, and (in my opinion) the superior ability to both win the election and elect Dems on his coattails in November. And he is the opposite of fringe--his ideology is mainstream in the party and his entire campaign is about uniting various groups. (The only one mentioning Jesse Jackson is, well, you know.)

Some in the Democratic Party do have IOUs regarding the Clintons, but the party did exactly flourish in the 1990s. And Howard Dean is not Terry McAuliffe.

I think the nature of the Obama candidacy, the current make-up of the national party and DNC leadership, and the dubious claim the Clintons have on being effective establishment leaders all make the Superdelegates very getable for Obama if the table is set properly over the course of the next month.

Posted by Bradley F. | February 8, 2008 1:41 PM

Hillary needs to win on pledged delegates to be the nominee, or she will lose a large percentage of Obama supporters, and as a result, will hurt Democratic office-holders all across the country.

If it's essentially a tie on pledged delegates (within 35 or so) after Puerto Rico, then, maybe, she can get away with taking it through super delegates. Any bigger swindle, however, and there will be a massive freakout by Obama supporters that will take a decade or more for the Democratic party to overcome.

Sorry, them's the facts. The winner has to win this fair-and-square...that means pledged delegates..or there will be hell to pay for the party. I guarantee it.

Posted by Ban Johnson | February 8, 2008 1:52 PM

OBAMA-HOPE-that's what I think when I see Hilary in Washington with nurses. Yes, I havent't a raise in since Clinton that didn"t just cover a raise in insurance; but repeating that past is not in my vocabulary. I will not make phone calls; but instead of copying OBAMA, let's vote for him-Change.

Posted by Marlene dorsey | February 8, 2008 5:21 PM

Any scenario in which super delegates tip the nomination against the leader in the primaries and caucuses - will the tear apart the Democratic party for years to come.

It is the ultimate Republican wet dream.

Posted by David | February 9, 2008 4:28 AM

The counter-argument about supers waiting to see the "overall state of the pledged delegate race" before deciding which candidate to support is speculative, partly accurate and partly naive.

Yes, some supers are waiting to see how their states and/or districts vote. Some are waiting to see how the country votes.

But, some supers remain neutral because they like being courted.

Others know that their vote becomes more valuable over time. As the pool of undecided supers shrinks, those that remain uncommitted are a rare commodity; it's a sellers market.

The reality is that supers --just like any other set of voters with something in common-- aren't monolithic in their approach to decision-making.

Regardless of how supers make up their minds, my argument remains true: with Hillary leading by 100 +/- and a pool of 500+/- uncommitted supers, it'd take a tidal wave of support for Barack to catch up.

Posted by Chuck Thies | February 9, 2008 8:53 AM

I think that Obama supporters are so eager to focus on the overall "pledged delegate" race that they ignore the state-by-state nature of our elections.

I think it is much more likely that uncommitted supers will support the popular vote winner of their individual states. Folks who are fixated on the "pledged delegate race" are convinced that for the sake of our democracy! the super delegates should, must, and will fall in line with the national pledged delegate leader.

A far more likely scenario is super delegates go with the people of their own state.

Already several are doing this.

If you are really in favor of super delegates honoring the small-d democratic process, then it makes much more sense to me that they will follow what their states' people say.

What does a super delegate from Tennessee care about pledged delegates from Nebraska? What does a super delegate from Minnesota care about pledged delegates from New York?

In a rush to coronate their guy, Obama supporters over look the vital local, state-by-state pressure that will be on these super delegates. I think if a currently uncommitted super delegate went against the popular will of their state the political pressure on them would be intense.

Posted by rcipw | February 10, 2008 1:14 PM