« Rumor Patrol: Michigan On The Verge | Main | Important Point About Florida And Michigan » Rumor Patrol: Obama Doesn't Have 50 Secret Supers07 Mar 2008 09:41 am Rumor: Obama has 50 secretly committed superdelegates he's waiting to unveil, thereby crushing Clinton's candidacy in one press release. Originator: Tom Brokaw and other assorted characters: Truth: "Rumor," says Bill Burton, Obama spokesman. Others in the know say it's just not true -- the true number is much, much lower. Comments (23)
Here's my take on it: I bet there were and are 50 superdelegates in the back pocket. If Obama had done better on Tuesday, they would have announced as a block to get Hillary out of the race. But if they were to do that now, it would look desperate and like the superdelegates were countering the will of the voters on tuesday. So, I think they have decided to let these superdelegates go to Obama a few each day. This serves several purposes: a) it gets Obama a steady drumbeat of superdelegates support, without it looking anti-democratic. b) It keeps Obama's delegate count slowly increasing...we'll wake up in a week or two and realize that Obama's delegate lead has gotten much bigger from WY, MS and these superdelegates...and the long slog to PA is going to look even more useless for Hillary at that point. 
I think RKA is right. So far at least, he's still seeing a steady trickle of superdelegates. It's not making news, but maybe that's the point.
RKA, I'd go with that as a possibility. I think another reason why they would hold up is a lot of superdelegates want to make sure they are going to kill her before they strike. Wounded Clintons can be pretty dangerous.
10 superdelegates have already committed this week to Obama. If there is to be some one time press release announcing a block of superdelegates in it that is much much lower than 50... even if it's just 20... that would make Hillary's current super delegate lead something like 20. Very small potatoes. Next to meaningless. It would also make the overall delegate count reflect the pledged delegate count and easier for the average voter to understand just what Hillary is up against. It also means that her attempts to win the "perception" game are not working. Oh well.
I third the motion of RKA. Since Tuesday, there have been a few superdelegates announcing their support each day. If Obama had won the "primary part" of the Texas race, you would have seen them come out in force as Brokaw said. But now Clinton is doing everything she can to "freeze" them so they won't announce their support for Obama. I was foggily watching something (maybe Dan Abrams?) last night on MSNBC and found it interesting that several of the superdelegates are now using their positions to demand that the candidates give them or their states "favors" in order to gain the superdelegates' support. I'm not sure that's quite what the DNC had in mind when it established this system.
What's interesting about the 50 delegates story is that this was the number Obama needed to barely overtake Clinton in the super math. After a big win on Tuesday, they'd unveil them as a way to emphasize that Hillary no longer had any advantages. The denials don't seem to speak to there not being 50 supers total, but not a package of 50. So in the next six weeks, the announcements will trickle-out until a few days before Pa, the press will wake up and see Hillary's institutional advantage all but gone. Without a chance the supers will flock to her, what can she do?
I think that a steady trickle of superdelegates moving to Obama looks better - more natural, and less of a pile-on. It avoids the appearance of manipulation and planning, which would let the Clinton campaign play victim, yet again. Equally, it conveys the appearance of people being won over and changing their minds as the campaign unfolds. That helps build momentum, as well as visibly chipping away at Clinton's superdelegate lead a little every day.
I agree with most of the analysis upthread.
Having 50 superdelegates come out for Obama right after Tuesday would look really, really bad, for the reasons stated above. If there is a large group waiting to come out, I suspect they will wait until soon after he wins Mississippi, hopefully by an unexpectedly large margin. That could do a lot to reestablish a narrative of Obama as the front-runner. By the way, slightly off-topic, but a couple people have mentioned in the last day or so that Hillary could get an advantage by winning the popular vote. The problem is that the current popular vote doesn't include a bunch of caucus states that went for Obama, and a "moral claim" on the nomination isn't going to carry any weight unless those caucus states release their numbers--and then there's no way Hillary can catch up in the popular vote. I do wish the media would stop reporting the "popular vote" without noting that, as it stands, it doesn't count a bunch of Obama's states.
This Missouri congressman seemed to think the rumor was true and he made his statement after the Tuesday results: http://www.columbiamissourian.com/stories/2008/03/05/six-missouri-superdelegates-still-grabs/ U.S. Rep. Lacy Clay, Obama’s Missouri co-chairman and pledged Obama superdelegate, said that regardless of the superdelegate mathematics, the campaign is Obama’s. Clay said that later this week, Obama will gain the support of 50 undecided Democratic superdelegates. “She (Sen. Clinton) will not make up those numbers,” Clay said. “This race is over.”
This Missouri congressman seemed to think the rumor was true and he made his statement after the Tuesday results: http://www.columbiamissourian.com/stories/2008/03/05/six-missouri-superdelegates-still-grabs/ U.S. Rep. Lacy Clay, Obama’s Missouri co-chairman and pledged Obama superdelegate, said that regardless of the superdelegate mathematics, the campaign is Obama’s. Clay said that later this week, Obama will gain the support of 50 undecided Democratic superdelegates. “She (Sen. Clinton) will not make up those numbers,” Clay said. “This race is over.”
Along the lines of what others have said, remember that Lincoln held off on announcing the Emancipation Proclamation until after the Union victory at Antietam -- it looks better to make a bold move when circumstances are looking favorable for you. Otherwise, it looks desperate.
Concurring with the upthread analysis. If he'd won convincingly Tuesday, they would have come as a block, with big names (Richardson, Pelosi). Releasing them slowly will draw them even in superdelegates at the next election, so the delegate gap is the pledged delegate gap. It's also an argument the Obama people can make--help us send the message that the supers aren't trying to throw this, which most supers are saying is the message.
Concurring with the upthread analysis. If he'd won convincingly Tuesday, they would have come as a block, with big names (Richardson, Pelosi). Stupidest. Speculation. Ever. What better way to blunt your opponent's new momentum than to announce a big superdelegate haul a day or two after her triumph? Believe me, if they had these fifty supers lined up, they would have announced the news by now.
No, that wouldn't have blunted her momentum at all. That would have been spun as "Hillary wins, but meanie party officials won't let her have her day!" The victim card has appeared more than once this campaign. She'd be the comeback kid, beset on all sides by an unfair establishment that counts a woman out even when she's winning. And the big bloc theory is not "Pelosi/Richardson backs Obama;" it's "Pelosi/Richardson will back the person who is clearly going to win." But that only comes into play if it can be spun appropriately: the press needs to get on board that the outcome is certain, and a big win in Texas and tie in Ohio (narrow victory preferably) for Obama would have helped sell that story. He didn't pull it off. Math is, I am told, scary. And hard. The wonder of how she wins 62% of remaining delegates is mostly within Obama partisans--out in the wider world, it's the comeback kid in a close race, which is of course a much better story. (For example: here we are.) The party leaders don't want to be spun as crushing a nascent comeback by deciding too early, especially after a less than crushing Obama surge. The news was never going to be "Obama closes up 20-30 point gaps in a mere 3 weeks," it needed to be "Obama wins." Myself, I think Clinton plans to spend the rest of the race endorsing McCain's excellent qualifications over Obama, and pitching a massive fit when she eventually loses. It's coming, and would be best to get out of the way quickly. But I'm not Dean et al. They're still hoping for a way out of this in which there's a gracious drawing together. And maybe they're right; they know her better than I do.
Wow, this site is giving me Menières Disease, there's so much spin!
apropros of nothing, may i state out of nowhere that i fear one would have to be a mentally deficient old world primate to make the mistake of assuming that primary victories have any relation at all with electoral prospects in the general?
Here's my take: Obama is a liar and a dreamer in this 50 delegate "rumor" he started. Come August, the DNC will gladly nominate HRC because she's the only electable candidate they have. That's right. Your read that right. Barry is not electable. People will smile and tell the pollsters all they want to hear. "Why sure," they say, "that Obama looks good. I'd really like to vote for him." Then, in the confines of the voting booth -- where no one can see -- they'll pull the lever for President McCain. There is no way that segregated, lily white, color-fearing (and hating) voters (who are over 35, because no one under that age votes anyway) are going to put a guy named Hussein in the White House. You are drinking the Kool-Aid if you buy that they will. Where is Jim Jones when you need him?
You Obama People Don't Know How To Lose Gracefully Do You,Update Mr Obama Will Never Live In The Whitehouse.You Act Like Thug's With No Integrety,No Imagination,No Recoil,No Intensity,No Respect Just A Lot Of AA's With Nothing On Their Mind's Except Trying To Elect Someone That Has Told You Nothing About Himself,Except Hope,& Change Well My Answer Is What Hope What Change,All Promises Of Something That He Can't Deliver,You All Are Living In A Fantasy World With No End In Sight.Everything That Mr Obama Has Blame Hilliary For He Has Done And Is Doing It Again He Too Does Not Know How To Lose Gracefully,This Race For Different States Does Not Automatically Belong To My Obama.And BTW You Can Keep Trying To Do The Math To Suit You And Your Wishful Thinking But The Reality Of The Delegetes Is Senator Clinton Will Not Have The Delegates And Neither Will That Moron,When It Come's Time For The Democratic Convention In Denver,Colorado.Try Learning How To Lose Like,OH Hell Don't Bother You Thug's Don't Know Anything But Obama Thiss,Thatt,& The Othehe Ting.
Nothing personal Marc but why would you have more accurate info than a seasoned journalist like Tom Brokaw? Brokaw saw what happened to Dan Rather. I doubt he would go on TV to state this if he hadn't verified his sources.
Superdelegates announcing since polls closed on March 4: March 5: March 6: Sen. Barbara Boxer (CA), DNC Mona Mohib (DC) for Clinton March 7: DNC Alexandra Gallardo-Rooker (CA) for Obama That's seven for Obama, three for Clinton. At least one who announced for Clinton (Senator Boxer) was NOT totally unexpected. Also, since Clinton won the popular vote in Ohio, McLin's endorsement of Obama would seem to run counter to what would be expected. According to demconwatch.blogspot.com, the superdelegate count is now 243 for Clinton, 203 for Obama, a difference of 40. On February 10, the difference was 97.
This is the most marvelous example of mass rationalizing seen in a long time. I'm going to use it in a logic class. And thanks for the laughs!
|
Subscribe to this blog by Email Twitter || On Facebook || QIK Live Channel  Recent Posts
Monthly Archives
|
Copyright © 2009 by The Atlantic Monthly Group. All rights reserved.
| 
Correct me if I'm wrong, but just because something is a "rumor" (particularly if something is described by a campaign as a rumor) doesn't mean it isn't true -- sort of like how they really are out to get some paranoiacs.
Also, how about a little background on some of these "in the know" who say it isn't true? I've seen reports by the "assorted characters" who say that it is true, but I haven't seen anything on the other side -- save for Mr. Ambinder, and you'll forgive me if I seek corroboration.
Posted by Jeff Larson | March 7, 2008 10:03 AM