Why do Supers wait?

Several good reference tools to determine how many undeclared Supers there are.  Politico has a good tracker (which lists 241), as does DemConWatch (304).  I've used the NY Times tracker (226) quite a bit though it appears, ironically enough, that one is the most liberal of all.

By whichever guide you use, there are roughly 130 Superdelegates who will not endorse without some sort of sea-change in the election.  This means that, depending on the Super tracker you use, the number of undeclareds available to endorse prior to that time is a paltry amount, somewhere in the range between 96-174.

On a number of occasions, I've referred to my March 19th post to outline two reasons why Supers wait to endorse.  But there is another element as to why Supers wait.

The reason that 130 are unlikely to endorse is because they are in positions which make it difficult for them to do so - endorsing could get in the way of them doing their jobs.  They may be Party leaders who must work with voters, activists and and both presidential campaigns without being partial to a candidate, or they are people who work for organizations and making an endorsement could imply that said organization has made the endorsement.  Or, they work for non-presidential candidates and picking a side could alienate a bloc of voters for said candidate in that race.

These are all predicaments that pose real impediments for Supers at work.  Perhaps this subtext is helpful in understanding why some Supers must wait.

Comments

[Kasturba]

Dear Mr. Super,

Thanks for posting this information. It is greatly appreciated.

[suekzoo]

Mr. Super,

When John Edwards suspended his campaign back in February, did he official drop out or is he in some kind of holding pattern?

This is some wild speculation I read elsewhere, but is there any possibility that due to the divisions within the party, that he could actually get nominated?

[Mr Super]

John Edwards suspended his campaign on January 30th, which means that he is out of the race - but that he still holds his delegates. Thus he could hold the key to the nomination. A compromise candidate? I suppose it is possible - but not likely.

[Joe]

True, Edwards has a very interesting position. I wonder what he's waiting for? Everybody has their own ideas, but clearly nobody actually knows because the ideas are all over the map.

Compared to that, the situation after June 3rd (short of 'lightning') is known to within reasonable bounds...

I don't suppose you have any insight on his position, Mr. Super?

[J S]

For those 130 Supers "unlikely to endorse", do you see any reason why they would hold off on endorsing after the last primaries are held? (Other than the handful - 9? - of DNC National Officers, who I understand need to remain neutral until there is a presumptive nominee)

Also, if you care to indulge in a little "what if" - with the proportional representation and all, do you think Sen. Edwards might have been able to roll up 200 or so pledged delegates if he stayed active through Tsunami Tuesday?

I mention it only as something the party leaders might want to consider for down the road. Thanks as always for sharing your thoughts.

[Mr Super]

Re: the 130 Supers - I think they should all be able to endorse without nearly as much political liability on June 4th. If this isn't resolved by then, we should expect to see an accelerated time line from that point forward. Measured in days.

"What if" re: John Edwards. Given his dwindling prospects after South Carolina, and that his money was drying up quick, it would have been unlikely that he could have reached 200 delegates on Super Tuesday.

As it stands, the 26 delegates he has now are strong enough on their own that they could be considered a "super bloc" held by him.

[Martin]

Edwards won't have 26 delegates at the convention. Iowa delegates can change their position as they work up through the county/state delegate selection process. A number have shifted from Edwards to Obama.

After the district conventions it looked like this:

Obama 16, Clinton 9, Edwards 4. 5 alternates were chosen, all for Obama.

I don't think NH or SC delegates can shift, so he won't lose that many, but he's losing some.

[heather]

Obama Only Needs 80 Supers to Cross Finish Line...ONLY 80....Why are the supers risking a win in November?

Pledged according to Obama: 1494
Supers according to MSNBC: 243
Subtotal: 1737
(Need to win: 2025)

Using Obama's own conservative projections, between now and June 3rd, suggests he is likely to win 208 pledged delegates :
208
http://www.politico.com/blogs/...

Subtotal on June 3: 1737 + 208 = 1945

Supers needed: 80

(FL & MI broke rules and don't count)

Using Obama's projections the Clintons will have:
1333=pledged as of today
264=supers as of today
200=pledged by June 3
1797=total pledged and supers on June 3

Supers needed= 228

228 vs. 80...........what are you waiting for?

[Kasturba]

Dear Mr. Super,

What do the supers feel about the 527 ALP running negative ads? Is this all par for the course in a contested election?

[Mr Super]

In elections of this magnitude, yes, it is becoming common.

[Bill R.]

Mr. Super, I will try again at this question. Any chance the supers will use their votes to impose a unity ticket?

[Mr Super]

Supers do have an ability to weigh in on the nomination, but it's hard to think that Supers can dictate how a presumptive nominee will take action. I think that we can make our wishes known, but I don't think there is a reasonable way for us to impose demands.

Ultimately, part of our decision in selecting a nominee will rest on our confidence in that person to exercise sound judgment - not only in governing but in building Party unity.

[Kasturba]

Dear Heather,

The character assassination that Carville did on Richardson might be one reason.
It is one of the reasons I can't vote for one of these candidates. I just cannot support thugs and bullies. People make the argument that the policy differences between the candidates is small. Who cares if the policy difference is small? One of them is a bully and has the Democratic party by its b*****. Do we really want to have them in power again? Do we believe that is what is good for our nation? Time to break free.

[Lynne B]

"One of them is a bully and has the Democratic party by its b*****. Do we really want to have them in power again? Do we believe that is what is good for our nation? Time to break free"
Well said, which is exactly why I opted to support Obama

[Lynne B]

Mr. Super- how many more supers do you think each of these candidates have in their pocket waiting for the word on when to endorse? In two days they seem to be rolling out one after another almost in response to an endorsement by the other candidate.
4/28 Bingaman Obama
Easley Clinton
4/29 Kirk Obama
Chandler Obama
Machaceck Obama
Skelton Clinton

[TheSteve]

Lynne B,

I've noticed that myself, lately. I read, recently, a theory on dKos that a "leapfrog" of Supers might be what's needed to push the remaining Supers out of "undeclared" status and into the fray. I sort of scoffed at the theory at first, though today for the first time Obama's come within 20 Supers of Clinton. The tightening of the numbers I feel might have perpetuated their early release of the Easley endorsement, which seems to have started the leapfrogging effect we're seeing today. I suppose the question here is: will the trend continue past today, and if so, will it crash after voting on Tuesday (or perhaps will the results amplify it)?
I wonder Mr. Super's take.

[Michael from FL]

Mrsuper,
You said:
"By whichever guide you use, there are roughly 130 Superdelegates who will not endorse without some sort of sea-change in the election."

Are you saying that these people will not cast a vote, even at the convention?

If this is what you intended, and is accurate, that significantly changes the delegate math:

That leaves few "available" deligates for either campaign to get. According the Politico, there would be only 109 delegates up for grabs. If we give Sen. Clinton a 55/45 win in each of the last 9 primaries(not a prediction, just for conversation), she will end up with 258 Supers (Politico numbers), 1560 pledged delegates (Slate numbers) for a total of 1818. If she gets all the 109 available Supers she will have only 1928 total delegates.

With the same assumptions, Sen. Obama would end up with 2023.

Comments?

[suekzoo]

Are you saying that these people will not cast a vote, even at the convention?
Michael from FL

Michael, they will vote. They just won't vote until a clear winner is on the horizon.

[Lynne B]

What I commented on yesterday continues today,
April 30, 2008 8:54 AM ET Braley - Obama
April 30, 2008, 9:14 AM George-Clinton
It's sort of fun to watch, I'm wondering who will run out of these supers waiting in the wings for the word on when to announce first.

[Lynne B]

And an hour later: Baron Hill Obama.
(I will quit now, you don't need a running total of supers pledging posted here, I just find the dynamics of this fascinating)

[dwoodard]

I just don't buy it. Since the Wisconsin primary, it has been indisputably clear that Obama would win the pledged delegate race. Never before has the pledged delegate winner failed to capture the Democratic nomination. Since at least that time, Hillary has made it clear that her campaign rests on the superdelegates overturning the will of the pledged delegates. Not only would this be historically unprecedented, but it would also alienate the new young voters Obama has attracted to the process and an overwhelmingly large (90%) segment of the Democratic coalition's most loyal supporters - African-Americans - who have voted for Senator Obama. It has been known since the Wisconsin primary that Hillary's only path to the nomination would do unprecedented, long-term damage to the Democratic party. There is simply no excuse for the unannounced superdelegates to have failed to align en mass behind Senator Obama six weeks ago and end Hillary's destructive "campaign."