Dean: Superdelegates Should Decide By July 1

On CBS's "Early Show" this morning, DNC chairman Howard Dean said that superdelegates ought to decide which candidate to support by July 1.

Dean:

"Well, I think the superdelegates have already been weighing in. I think that there's 800 of them and 450 of them have already said who they're for. I'd like the other 350 to say who they're at some point between now and the first of July so we don't have to take this into the convention.

More:

“Well, I think the candidates have got to understand that they have an obligation to our country to unify. Somebody's going to lose this race with 49.8 percent of the vote. And that person has got to pull their supporters in behind the nominee. That's our obligation, because in the end this is not about Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. It's about our country. We're not going to have four more years of George W. Bush, which is essentially what McCain is offering us. There's a really big difference between our candidates on these issues. And I don't believe for a moment that at the end of the day, the Democrats are going to vote for somebody who's going to put more right-wingers on the Supreme Court. But we do need to keep in mind that personal attacks now, often do have the seeds of demoralization later on. So I want to make sure this campaign stays on the high ground.”

Comments

Can the super / premium / king s*** delegates go for "none of the above"?

Posted by D | March 28, 2008 9:45 AM

July 1???? Why is there a need to wait until then? The absolute latest date for the superdelegates to decide should be June 4, the day after the final primaries in SD and MT. But even that isn't necessary. The last "super Tuesday" is May 6 (IN and NC). By May 7, everyone should be able to put this thing to rest.

Please, superdelegates--allow America to enjoy its Memorial Day weekend!!!!

Posted by Dan | March 28, 2008 10:26 AM

In fairness, he said "between now and July 1st" and the impression on I got from watching was that he wanted this shit o-ver. That July 1 was the last date any sane democrats could continue to function in this electoral climate.

Posted by Kristen | March 28, 2008 10:29 AM

Here's an interesting question:

(1) Assume that the remaining primaries result in little change in the ratio of pledged delegates, or perhaps a small advantage for Clinton, but leaving Obama up by well over 100.

(2) Assume that the vast majority of the remaining supers then go for Obama (seems likely, given assumption #1).

That would put Obama up by over 300 delegates - but not quite with enough for a first ballot victory.

Question - does Clinton concede even then? Unlikely IMO. So even then this will go all the way to the convention.

Posted by LarryM | March 28, 2008 11:13 AM

LarryM,

Your math is a little fuzzy. Right now Obama has a total 1628 delegates (1418 pledged, 210 unpledged). Assume that he and Clinton split the remaining 566 pleged delegates evenly. That adds 283 to his column, for a total of 1911. That means that he needs only 114 of the remaining uncommitted 337 superdelegates to reach the 2025 magic number. In other words, he would need only 34% of the remaining uncommitted superdelegates to win. Thus, he does not even need the "vast majority" of remaining supers to clinch the nomination by June--only 34%.

This thing is over.

Posted by Dan | March 28, 2008 11:26 AM

It really is over. Obama has won because the only hope Clinton has is to tear the Party asunder. She openly stated her willingness to do that, on Fox TV no less, and has threatened House superdelegates through her superfunders, it really is over.

Superdelegates main role is to protect the Party. They are not going to let Hillary ruin it and their chances come the general election. She is turning toxic and Dean's response to that should be instructive. Read between the lines of all this and it says superdelegates need to start coming out now.

Posted by Mike | March 28, 2008 12:06 PM

Larry M, I think Dan has your numbers. As near as I can tell you need 50% + 1 to nominate; the only way he wouldn't be there is if the majority of undeclared supers are still wringing their hands long after everyone has voted.

I'd prefer June 4th as a deadline, but July 1st gives people almost 2 months to sulk.

Posted by Deborah | March 28, 2008 12:21 PM

It's good to hear that the math is better than I thought, but that sadly doesn't completely invalidate my point. I wouldn't put it past Clinton to stay in even then; she could still engage in an ugly fight over the Florida and Michigan delegates, and hope for a huge mistake or scandal involving Obama prior to the convention. I agree that her chances of winning are slim to none; my point wasn't that she can win, but that there is literally nothing stopping her from dragging this out until the convention.

Well, maybe not "nothing." I suppose that if Obama has enough delegates to put him over the top in late June/early July, the media narrative could turn so completely against Clinton that she finally folds.

Posted by LarryM | March 28, 2008 12:21 PM

I do agree, by the way, that the supers should and almost certainly will try to end this sometime in June or early July. The only possible monkey wrench would be a significantly better than expected Clinton performance in the upcoming primaries, which seems increasingly unlikely (I think the Casey endorsement alone could be worth 2 to 3 percentage points in PA). That might scare some supers into waiting.

Ideally the numbers will end up being so favorable to Obama when the dust settles that he can afford to seat the Michigan and Florida delegates without risking defeat.

Posted by LarryM | March 28, 2008 12:29 PM

Howard Dean cannot "force" or "require" the super-delegates to come to a decision by July 1 or any other date.

As a practical matter, the super-delegates will hold out as long as they can in the hope of exacting concessions from the candidates -- in other words, Clinton and Obama are (right now, as we discuss this) offering enticements such as federal spending programs to the super-delegates' states and administrative appointments to the super-delegates themselves in order to get their votes.

The super-delegates will hold out in order to get everything including the kitchen sink given to them and their states.

Posted by ProfNickD | March 28, 2008 12:41 PM

LarryM - The key isn't delegate math, although that's integral to making the argument against her. The key is drying up her funds. She can't campaign if she's broke, hence her loan to herself. That's why the media narrative needs to be "she's virtually done", which is true. But as long as the MSM continues to propose that she's a viable candidate, people will keep sending her money.

Posted by socctty | March 28, 2008 1:06 PM

It's good to hear that the math is better than I thought, but that sadly doesn't completely invalidate my point. I wouldn't put it past Clinton to stay in even then. --LarryM
Oh, I wouldn't either. But at that point everyone else will be moving on. Watching Hillary thrash about trying to bite everyone's ankles will be vaguely embarrassing, but not seriously affecting the contest. At that point, even if Obama is struck by lightning the nomination goes to someone who isn't embarrassing the party, which is where she'll be in July and Auguest as (if) she fights on.

Howard Dean cannot "force" or "require" the super-delegates to come to a decision by July 1 or any other date.
True. That's the official mocking date--if you're still saying "Gosh, it's just so haaaard" at that point, everyone can point and laugh and you'll become the hit of the Daily Show. A crack team of reps will storm Rahm Emanuel's office and pull him from under his desk, and any holdout DNC members hiding in there with him.

Clinton can't offer a whole lot, at this point. "Join me as I buuuuurn....we will pull the party down arooouuuuund ussssss." I've got to think, though, that the number of senators and reps who believe Obama offers them zilch, and a 2% chance of Clinton is preferable, are already out for her. That leaves party officials, who are less answerable (and already constitute the majority of her super support; they're pretty tied in sen/rep/govs) but do, in theory, care about the party.

Posted by Deborah | March 28, 2008 1:10 PM

ProfNickD -

While I don't doubt that those thoughts have crossed the minds of some of the super-delegates, or that they have the capacity to be quite shrewd, I have a hard time thinking that they're as irrational or impractical as you describe. For one, they know that a President can't just building bridges wherever he wants them, and they know that only so many people can be the Ambassador to Italy or the Secretary of the Interior.

Posted by socctty | March 28, 2008 1:11 PM

Evidently nobody has taken the time to look at electoral votes. Like "hello".... in the general election the White house is won by Electoral votes, If these primaries where done on the same system Your boy Obama would look pretty silly right about now, and although the primaries are not done that way it sure will be come November, it would be nice if we could keep that in mind.
Chuck

Posted by chuck | March 30, 2008 8:29 PM

The other larger than life issue that the supers have to keep in mind when they vote is what kind of ammo does the republicans have against a paticular candidate. it's one thing to drum up alittle war story (wich certainly will be jammed down Clintons throat) ...but statements like "typical white person",.."first time in my adult life i've been proud of this country",... "I would no more disown my pastor than I would my Grandma" (when it's pretty clear that this man hates whites and white America) And on and on and on..... The Republicans will make this man (Obama) look and sound as bad as Osama bin ladden weather its true or not. The primary goal is to put a democrat back in office, and like it or not these are the issues that the supers have to focus on when making a choice. Not win the fight and loose the war!
Chuck

Posted by chuck | March 30, 2008 9:00 PM

vxaplq prsqnt hzciu mpvsahxnw ijxpdc yaxp aqdkleo

Posted by hceiblw efnjtv | May 26, 2008 10:23 AM