Supers

I tend to think that Barack Obama will have an edge in persuading superdelegates to come his way...on the thought that if those supers were really thinking about voting for Clinton, they would have cast their lot with them already.

But reader Chuck Thies has a different, and more persuasive scenario:

He writes:

Tere are apx. 299 Super Delegates committed to date.

CNN* has it at 193 HRC, 106 BHO.
NYT** has it at HRC 202, BHO 96.

For the sake of argument, we'll use the CNN numbers that favor Oprama.

There are apx. 842 Supers.

541 remain uncommitted. Making up a 90 point deficit with 543 votes on the table is tough.

BHO will have to win 316 to 226 just to tie.

AND...

According to ABC News*** on Dec. 28 HRC had 158, BHO 89. The CNN count today is HRC 193, BHO 106. That means in the same amount of time HRC gained 35, BHO 17.

During January when BHO had "The MO," HRC beat him 2-to-1 on Super pick ups.

*http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results/scorecard/#val=D

**http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/01/23/leading-among-the-unpledged/

***http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Vote2008/story?id=4060224

Comments

Look, when you are posting from some guy who calls Obama "Oprama" or "BHO", you just aren't being objective in any sense of the word. Consider the source.

You've become quite shameless in shilling for Hillary. It's quite sad to see - because most of the time, you are quite perceptive and informative.

Posted by Nate | February 7, 2008 12:21 PM

The point about her picking up delegates during the big mo time for Obama is misleading - how many of those pickups were people who just made up their mind, versus the number that were planned out well in advance by the Clinton campaign?

Posted by Anonymous | February 7, 2008 12:26 PM

Is Chuck Thies actually Mark Penn?

Posted by Hatch | February 7, 2008 12:28 PM

The hard numbers scenario made sense earlier in the game, but no longer. The longer this goes, the less it is about who actually supports whom, and the more it is about who has more pledged delegates. when one candidate is seen to start pulling away, even if it's 50 delegates, but they have a good scenario in the remaining contests, then all the super delegates become dislodged from their perches, and gravity comes into play. Many more of them will coalesce around the delegate front-runner than not. even some who are currently spoken for.

Posted by along | February 7, 2008 12:34 PM

Oprama? Seriously?

Posted by Chris O. | February 7, 2008 12:34 PM

Wow, I'm starting to think the one guy with worse political analysis than Marc Ambinder is reader Chuck Thies.

I mean, I exaggerate: you're a pro, Marc. But that you find this persuasive calls into doubt your facilities of critical thought.

Posted by jeff larson | February 7, 2008 12:37 PM

and super delegates can always switch their allegiance. nothing is set in stone and the longer this nomination is drawn out, the more time these people have to reflect on their ultimate choice.

i don't know what's in the water but steve clemons over on his blog had a similar, sloppy post that was seemingly being less than objective editorially...

Posted by carlos | February 7, 2008 12:41 PM

I beg to differ. Here are the numbers just reported by politico:

NYT, Nov. 8: Hillary 159, Obama 59
NYT, Jan. 23: Hillary 202, Obama 96
CBS, Feb. 5: Hillary 209, Obama 118

That means that in the first period (pre Nov. 8), HRC beat BO by 100 superdelegates (159-59). In the second period (Jan 23-Feb 5), she beat him by only 6 sds. In the 3rd period, BO picked up MORE sds (15).
Isn't this the exact opposite trend than the one you're claiming?

Posted by sb | February 7, 2008 12:44 PM

Obama didn't have momentum until after SC. After NH, HRC's national poll numbers bounced back and she looked 'inevitable' again. The margin of victory in SC was a surprise even to Obama's people. So this guy's argument is total nonsense.

Posted by ele | February 7, 2008 12:51 PM

See, Marc? sb above managed to offer a (more) persuasive argument, and did so without fifth-grade name-calling. When citing readers in the future, you might want to consider that.

Posted by Scientific | February 7, 2008 12:53 PM

Marc, I'd really prefer if you put some context to the nut case's rant.

Posted by Wayne | February 7, 2008 12:56 PM

superDs dont matter until the big fish endorse. and any superD that has already committed could switch. despite penn's "obama=establishment" claptrap, if Hillary wins bk of superDs she will have problems with the base (i.e. it was a coronation after all). fact is the longer the dems can hide behind the veil of no presumptive nominee the better there chances are in nov bk the republicans will have no time to whip their base into a froth

Posted by thies is wrong | February 7, 2008 12:57 PM

Let's count the errors in that post:

1) Obama and Hilalry have evenly split the superdelegates who have announced in the past month, 38-36.

2) There are only 796 supers, not 842. Michigan and Florida have been stripped of their delegates, and no major media organization counts them.

3) Each media organization counts differently. They conduct periodic telephone surveys. Typically, no more than two-thirds of the delegates they call even answer the phone or respond to the messages. That makes the counts extremely suspect, and impossible to compare. They also fail to disclose which superdelegates they've counted, who they've endorsed, or how they know. So comparing tallies as a means of gauging momentum is worthless.

4) Of the 796, 76 are unpledged add-on delegates. (These aren't necessarily party bigwigs, and they'll be chosen for their loyalty to the campaign that dominates the state party where they're selected.) The allocation of 18 of those delegates has effectively been determined by the results of some of the primaries and caucuses already held - they break 7 for Hillary, and 11 for Obama. So you can add those in to whatever tally you're currently using (no public source is bothering to count them at the moment) and the gap will narrow by four.

Posted by FlyOnTheWall | February 7, 2008 1:03 PM

C'mon, Marc, this analysis is garbage.

Moreover, folks are way too worked up about a potential superdelegate coup. Here's an assumption: most of the remaining neutral superdelegates care mainly about two things when it comes to the presidential nominee: electability and coattails. With the GOP contest just about settled, and with Obama increasingly making electability arguments, the media will begin to place a greater emphasis on general election polls. Over the next two months, if Obama continues to do appreciably better against McCain than Hillary does in both swing state polls and national polls, you'll see that the superdelegates will shift Obama's way.

Posted by Ryan W. | February 7, 2008 1:17 PM

You lose credibility with Bush-league posts like this. Oprama? This and the out of context clip of BO "attacking" Edwards you posted this week. I know you are more thoughtful than this.

Posted by souven | February 7, 2008 1:24 PM

Every time I read this blog, the most interesting part is the comments, which tend to be very illuminating and better informed and reasoned than the blog posts themselves. They also tend to rip the author to shreds, and there is never any response/defense by the author, or even from other readers. I've never seen anything like it.

Posted by Paul | February 7, 2008 1:29 PM

The political reality is that the Democratic party will never create the perception that the people wanted one thing and the party elite chose another.

I'd expect many supers to sit out and wait for a clear leader and then rally. It's about the people.

Posted by Chris | February 7, 2008 1:32 PM

Theis' argument is specious. He's assuming that Obama's lead in pledged delegates remains static. Given the rest of the February calendar and the vagaries of Texas' hybrid primary/caucus, that assumption is flawed. Obama will narrow the gap overall in virtually every state between now and March 4. Accordingly, we're not talking about closing a gap of 90, we're looking at closing something less than that, perhaps substantially less if you extend things into Mississippi on March 11. Furthermore, he's overlooking the fact that none of these superdelegate commitments are etched in stone. Any superdelegate count is at best a snapshot. People can and do change their minds.

Posted by Matt | February 7, 2008 1:39 PM

Just like that video of Obama making the joke about Edwards I find very strange that both Ambinder and Ben Smith once again felt the need to pull "comments" from a same Chuck Ties within 15 minutes of another. Especially since neither point the guy is making could not have been made with better sources and more appropriate wording. Why use that guy ?

Posted by Benjamin | February 7, 2008 1:49 PM

Both sides are hyperventilating. Superdelegates can change their mind. The last primary vote is cast in May. At that point, the winner of the cumulative popular vote -- be it Clinton or Obama -- will be in a strong position to gain the allegiance of superdelegates (especially so if that same person also leads in pledged delegates). It's simply too far out at this point to safely predict who that person will be.

Posted by Jasper | February 7, 2008 2:03 PM

Ben Smith has a new tally from the Obama camp - 170 to 209. I'd like to see the names and endorsements to back it up, but I'll presume David Plouffe isn't stupid enough to make such a claim without being able to substantiate it. So let's all give a big Bronx cheer to Mr. Thies, and ask Marc to delete this drivel.

Posted by FlyOnTheWall | February 7, 2008 2:11 PM

Please don't tell me the Atlantic is paying you, Marc, for foolish claptrap like this.

Posted by TIGHT | February 7, 2008 2:24 PM

The best list of superdelegates that I've seen are at:

http://demconwatch.blogspot.com/

Posted by converse | February 7, 2008 3:21 PM

BTW, I would suggest that Chuckie T's numbers fall in the category of "Twainian statistics".

Posted by converse | February 7, 2008 3:24 PM

Apparently the folks who embrace "Billary" have little tolerance for "Oprama." Where have all the fun loving politicos gone?

C'est la vie.

And really, I don't get all the ire regarding BHO.

Who wants to be called BO?

Geez.

Posted by Chuck Thies | February 7, 2008 3:56 PM

Actually I have tolerance for Oprama in Hillary-fanatic comments.
I have very little respect for Ambinder to publish a fallacious e-mail in his blog quoting someone using either Oprama or Billary. It is inappropriate for him to condone it.
As far as BHO goes ... disingenuous is the best way I can qualify your response.

The good news is considering your history in VA politics, you will probably an Obama advisor in four years (you know, when he runs for reelection).

Posted by Benjamin | February 7, 2008 5:02 PM