Why Are Superdelegates Waiting?

Clinton talking point: the superdelegates aren't satisfied yet; they want the race to continue; a large number are waiting.

Discussion: Many of those superdelegates are from districts and states that Clinton won, but they haven't endorsed her -- more so than there are undeclared superdelegates from Obama districts who haven't endorsed him. The undeclared superdelegates haven't endorsed Clinton..why? Probably because they don't want to, and they're waiting until Obama reaches the magic number of 2026, so they won't have to. Many of them are dealing with the reality of delegate math, which all but guarantees that Obama is going to be the winner, and the reality that the voters in their districts and states have chosen differently; they're not going to alienate the nominee of the party, and they're not going to alienate the voters in their district. So they're going to wait.

Comments

You forgot to close your bold tag...

Posted by Daniel | May 20, 2008 7:48 PM

I don't know. I think they're all just a little sleepy.

Posted by Monstertron | May 20, 2008 7:54 PM

Marc, could you clear something up for this low information voter? When the tv people and you say that if he gets 50 delegates tonight, he'll be able to maintain a majority even with FL and MI seated "in full", does that mean MI seated with Obama getting those Uncomitteds or just Clinton getting her MI delegates and zero going to him?

Also, I agree on the superdelegates' motivations. Coming out at this point, just before it's perfunctory, doesn't accomplish anything except fueling the bitterness (!) on both sides.

Posted by al | May 20, 2008 7:59 PM

It's almost embarrassing watching Clinton surrogates makes this claim. Personally, I think all these pols are terrified of losing access to Bill, let alone experience the infamous Clinton wrath. What they refuse to see is that the supers are trying to be kind to her.

The longer this drags on, the more HRC's campaign resembles Bush's Iraq policy: Never say give up, never change course, never admit reality. I only hope the party doesn't go the way of Iraq.

Posted by Judy | May 20, 2008 8:00 PM

How long until Pat Buchanan makes an ass of himself tonight?

Posted by JBS | May 20, 2008 8:01 PM

They're waiting because Obama wants the voters of South Dakota and Montana to put him over the top. It would look bad if the super's gave him 2025. If they endorsed now, it would look like they were trying to push Hilary out of the race.

Posted by BR | May 20, 2008 8:03 PM

Pat Hasn't made an ass of himself yet? I'm stunned, they must not have let him on camera yet.

Posted by Steven R | May 20, 2008 8:05 PM

Ha.

Chris Matthews just referred to John McSame as getting beaten in the past like "an old blanket".

That guy has problems, but that was really funny.

Posted by Sam Loomis | May 20, 2008 8:06 PM

Undeclared supers from districts Clinton won don't really need to endorse Obama, assuming they lean that way, since it's obvious that he has the nomination in hand. While they are surely seeking to avoid alienating their own constituents, they are also likely to be mindful of the fact that Clinton will continue to be a force in the party after the election. Why burn that bridge now when by standing mute they neither hurt Obama nor invite the wrath of Hillary? They can wait til the convention and vote for Obama in the name of party unity without really offending anyone. Call it pragmatic self-interest...

Posted by Kevin Pedraja | May 20, 2008 8:11 PM

I can think of roughly 15 superdelegates in the House who will be switching en masse from HRC and/or announcing their support for Obama in the next two weeks. Mark my words.

Posted by Anonymous | May 20, 2008 8:21 PM

Wow, Kentucky is a racist hellhole.

Always knew this but so sad to se it played out in the numbers.

Totally meaningless win for Hillary, unless she wants to congratulate herself on getting the racist vote.

Posted by eric blair | May 20, 2008 8:24 PM

who left the bold tag on?

Posted by bjd | May 20, 2008 8:27 PM

Marc: I would appreciate it if you would make a point of how Clinton is NOT really leading in the popular vote. It's dishonest of the campaign to complain about disenfranchisment and then neglect to count caucus state voters. And have the audacity to still include MI when Obama wasn't on the ballot.

That's the only spin that has really irked me and Chris Matthews comparing Clinton's loss to Gore's: like someone is stealing this election. That is the exact sentiment the DNC should be beating back tooth and claw because THAT is the sentiment that will alienate voters in the Clinton camp who have not been paying close attention and may push them towards McCain.

Personally: I don't want to see Sen. Clinton on the ticket. I've always been open to it; but the whole campaign has crossed my line. I don't know if Terry's popular vote mantra was the straw that broke the candles back or what but I really hope Obama chooses someone else.

Posted by Rhoda | May 20, 2008 8:27 PM

Is it true that the Clinton argument she's winning in the popular vote excludes several caucus states that in fact DID follow the DNC rules? That just isn't right! No Calvinball!

Posted by Beth in VA | May 20, 2008 8:43 PM

Close your bold tag!

Posted by max in fl | May 20, 2008 8:52 PM

"OPERATION CHAOS" IS A SUCCESS...!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Posted by BIFF | May 20, 2008 8:58 PM

I also think it has to do with a reluctance for people to be perceived as pushing her out. I think the Obama folks have purposely limited superdelegate announcements to about 5 per day in order to avoid this perception.

Posted by RKA | May 20, 2008 9:00 PM

Last week I spoke with Don Bivens, the chairman of the Arizona Democratic party. He is 'undeclared'.

He had spoken to Clinton recently, and her comment to Don was to not let the SDs force her out. Let the primary season go down to the end.

Then, she could rally her supporters, tell them they had waged a great campaign, and bring them back on board to battle McSame in the Fall.

But there would be great bitterness if Clinton was forced out.

Posted by drdave | May 20, 2008 9:09 PM

There are SDs waiting to endorse the candidate who wins the most pledged delegates. If an SD is inclined to support Clinton, he/she could delay until the FL and MI delegations are worked out by the DNC, but otherwise it seems likely that we will see larger numbers of SDs announcing their support for Obama in the next week.

There may be enough of them that by early June Obama gets a clear majority, although I think commenter BR may be on to something. Perhaps there are SDs who would prefer to wait until after the popular voting is over before they give it to Obama.

Marc A.? Are the SDs waiting for Obama to wrap up tonight or all the state voting to end?

Posted by wisdem | May 20, 2008 9:09 PM

BR and RKA may be on to a good political move - intentional or not. By bringing on a few superdelegates a day the voters are able to put Obama over the top and not the superdelegates.

Posted by LPH | May 20, 2008 9:13 PM

Are we not forgetting something.

It doesn't matter what the supers say at this point.

The precident of some Clinton Supers switching to Obama has given her the argument she needs.

The pledged delegates are "pledged" to vote based on the primary and/or caucus results. If they fail to do so it is a big issue.

The superdelegates are pledged to do whatever the hell they feel like doing.

Thus Clinton can argue that until the actual convention Obama hasn't won a thing. Until the supers actually vote for someone it doesn't mean squat, she can/will argue that she has 60 days to change the minds of supers and that will be the battle cry.

I could be wrong but we will see.

Posted by Peter Ingemi | May 20, 2008 11:22 PM

Hello, Marc, commenters-

I commend Marc's decision to once again open the virtual floor for comments, even for a brief period.

@ Beth in VA's comment above:

"Is it true that the Clinton argument she's winning in the popular vote excludes several caucus states that in fact DID follow the DNC rules? That just isn't right! No Calvinball!"

First and foremost - Beth's reference to "Calvinball" is a sophisticated homage to the comic strip "Calvin and Hobbes". "Calvinball" was a sport created by Calvin, and one of its most distinctive characteristics was that in the midst of play, the nonsensical rules of Calvinball could be changed by the participants at any time, for any arbitrary reason, or no reason.

Beth's note of the parallels between Calvinball and the current math used by HRC's campaign is accurate. Her question was:

"Is it true that the Clinton argument she's winning in the popular vote excludes several caucus states that in fact DID follow the DNC rules?"

HRC's claim to be ahead in the popular vote rests on a highly selective definition of the "popular vote". If one visits the definitive source on the subject, the RealClearPolitics chart on the various popular vote calculations:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/democratic_vote_count.html

Here's the basic summary:

If Florida and Michigan's previously-agreed-to-by-all-parties-as-meaningless primaries are excluded, Obama has a lead of well over 400,000 votes as of this writing. In fact, even if Florida's meaningless primary is included, he's still ahead as of this writing, by about 123,000.

The only way HRC is ahead, is if she counts both Florida and Michigan (in the latter state, as we all know, he wasn't even on the ballot). Giving herself 328,309 votes there, and Obama zero votes, she can declare herself ahead, by about 205,000 votes. That's also excluding the four caucus states that didn't report out totals, three of which Obama won.

If those four caucus states' votes are estimated, the HRC margin (counting MI and FL and giving Obama no votes at all in Michigan), drops to 95,000 votes. These "leads" of 205,000 votes and 95,000 votes may fluctuate, since not all of Oregon's votes are in yet. But that's the basic idea. She is ahead if - and only if - both Michigan and Florida are counted, and with Obama not given a single vote in Michigan, despite the substantial number of votes cast for "uncommitted" in that state. Her "lead", naturally, is wider if the four caucus states are also excluded; narrower if they are.

Thoughts are welcome.

Posted by ElectionNightHQ.com Publisher | May 21, 2008 12:42 AM

Seriously...

Someone needs to ask Obama why he met with Qazwini privately. If you guys knew anything about him, you'd know what I mean.

Not good at all. The rest of his family in Florida are also tied up in the Sami al-Arian mess.

This guy is the most two-faced 'so called moderate' ever. One soaring speech for the Americans, total reverse for muslims. The Times has a review of his book American Crescent written by Rashid Khalidi.

But don't be fooled, trust me.

Posted by candy | May 21, 2008 9:54 AM

Freddie Kruger, Michael Myers, Jason Voorhees analogies, however relevant, I think do not totally explain the relentlessness of Hillary Clinton's campaign. While I, like most voters, who operate on the right side of the bell curve, have been deeply offended by her NEOCON RACE BAITING TACTICS during this campaign, I believe that Hillary is sticking it out until the very end, for one purpose only: to cement the Clinton Brand that they will not be rolled, counted out or otherwise phucked with and that they will decide when the ballgame is over. It did not hit me until recently, that the marketing of her campaign is largely over. Hillary will not be the nominee but she wants to scare the hell out of anyone who may write her off or abandon her. Regardless of what she intends to do next, whether in the Senate or elsewhere, however unifying and diplomatic it might be, she has calculated that cementing the Clinton Brand is far more important than anything else.

Posted by Christopher London | May 21, 2008 11:16 AM

It was not a secret meeting. It was a private meeting. Qazwini has met with POTUS Bush.

The meeting with Obama came about after Qazwini had asked David Bonior, the former U.S. Rep. from Michigan, if he could meet with Obama during his visit. Qazwini was not selected to be part of a group of 20 people who met with Obama, but Qazwini later got a private meeting with Obama, Alawan said.

http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080515/NEWS05/80515096/1007/NEWS

Posted by Nardwilly | May 21, 2008 1:09 PM