It Feels Like We've Been Here Before...

The main talk among Supers today is not who to endorse, but when to endorse.  Because as much as we want this to be over, there is also a principled position that the voters in these remaining states deserve to have their voices heard.

More talk of a merged ticket in the NY Times with some good pros and cons on the matter.  And TAPPED acknowledges that both of these candidates are still turning out voters in record numbers.  According to the PA Secretary of State website, the margin is in precisely 9.2% for Senator Clinton giving her a lead of 208,024 votes.

Marc Ambinder says that the win in PA limits the Clinton campaign's financial resources.  But as I mentioned earlier, John McCain played that same gamble in Florida back in January and it paid off for him.  Though clearly the dynamics of this race are different.

Comments

[Dave]

I am not one to count the vote before all are counted, but as of 8:54 this morning the split is only 8.6 on the official website.

I am not sure why the Media can't wait until the vote is counted other then they make more money. I have been following Elections for over 30 years and never missed a vote. I can't believe that they have improved on the fact that they can count a state's total votes in less the 5 hours.

I was reading an interesting thing this morning that the exit polls totally got things wrong. They had one candidate ahead by 5 when in fact the other won by 8.6.

Sorry for venting Mr SuperD I am just hoping that we as a party can ride this out and win in November. The actual race was over after the 10 state win. the math doesn't add up there is no way to change the outcome.

Anyway hope your job gets easier. We are all waiting for this to come to an end. Hopefully with everything still in tact.

Stay Positive the win was expected.

[Bilbo]

Mr Super - What does a clear majority of delegates mean to you? According to the DNC rules, if one of the candidates cannot reach that definition than aren't we looking at a brokered convention?

[Matt]

Hi Mr S,

Love your blog. Thanks so much for doing it. If you don't read and respond to my comment, dayenu. (That's Jew-speak for: Just the blog is still more than enough for me to be satisfied.)

"The main talk among Supers today is not who to endorse, but when to endorse. Because as much as we want this to be over, there is also a principled position that the voters in these remaining states deserve to have their voices heard."

I appreciate the sentiment.

The party will hear their voices whether the nominee has reached the 2025 threshold or not. We don't owe it to any voters to pretend the contest is still up in the air if that's not the case.

In fact, it would be nice if we voters could all stop hating on each other and start considering whether we're ready to reunite around the nominee. I don't want us to keep stewing in our own juices any longer than is necessary. Personally, I can say with all honesty: It's taking a toll.

Clinton really worked hard to sew this up well in advance of ANY primaries, and many superdelegates were right there with her. That was a very visible element of her campaign before a single vote was even cast. She maintains that lead among superdelegates, and the momentum that comes with it.

For undeclared supers who support Obama, they wouldn't be unfairly tilting a race by declaring now. They'd be equalizing it after Clinton's supers very visibly threw their weight behind her. If Obama has equal or better momentum among the superdels, it's high time that became visible too - as a corrective measure. It would give us a more honest narrative than "Clinton has always had the support of the superdelegates, and Obama still has to play catch-up."

For undeclared supers who support Clinton, they're basically hoping to serve as queenmakers, overturning the primary/caucus results. Waiting until after the remaining contests would not make that any easier for the electorate to stomach. It'd be ugly, but if they're gonna do it, they may as well do it now - before Clinton's campaigning pisses off any more of Obama's voters.

Do the candidates know where the undeclared supers stand? Do y'all talk about that privately with them? If the nomination is already a foregone conclusion, they could stop fighting each other already, even as we wait and watch the remaining votes come in.

(adapted from what I said elsewhere, as it's more relevant here)

[Jay]

The voters of Pennsylvania are not fools. Obama spent 11 million dollars (a state record for any candidate for any office) and couldn't put Hillary to bed. This is a clear warning to the Party. You Obama supporters must keep in mind, had your candidate made his awful mistakes earlier, he would be out of the race by now. The process should continue to the end, flawed as it is with this proportional system. I can't for the life of me understand why Obama's people refused to allow a re-vote in Michigan in Florida, what were they afraid of?

[Nate]

Jay,

You should really take that spin elsewhere. Hillary was expected to win Pennsylvania by a much wider margin, and Obama closed the gap in all her key constituencies when compared to Ohio. Second, Obama's people are not "refusing to allow a re-vote" in Michigan and Florida, and this massive distortion is muddying the waters. If you care to follow the nuts and bolts of the Michigan and Florida problems, then please do so with educated statements instead of misinformed and politically biased accusations.

[Mr Super]

Florida & Michigan had the opportunity for re-votes, and both states opted not to on their own accord.

[G Davis]

I get a kick out of the *he can't close the deal* spin.

A year ago Obama was a virtual unknown nationally and has built an incredible organization to overcome the vast advantages ANY incumbent candidate would have had. I am astounded by his ability to build such a well run machine in such a short period of time. It bodes well for his administration skills.

The Clinton campaign, on the other hand, is very reminiscent of the first two years of the first Clinton administration...chaos and disorder which resulted in the loss of the Dem majority in Congress. Doesn't speak so well of their ability to build an organization, does it?

Another analogy I've heard is liken the Obama campaign to a new product roll out.

Product A has dominated the market for years. Young entrepreneurs decide to develop Product B that directly competes with Product A.

Product B producers develop their product, form an organization to market same and set out with minimal financing that will only continue if Product B successfully cuts into Product A's market share within one year.

Product B out manuevers, out politics, out organizes Product A at every turn over the course of that year not only cutting into Product A's national lead, but overturning it.

How is that not *closing the deal*?

The institutional advantages the Clintons had prior to this campaign...the inevitability meme, the money machine, the state organizational help...all of it overtly in the Clinton's corner.

Because Obama has only been able to cut a few states lead in half rather than overturning it completely is not a sign of *not being able to close the deal*...it only means there are some states that will never vote for this new product and are more comfortable with the status quo.

It's Coke and Pepsi. ;0

[Susan]

THE ISSUE IS THE CANDIDATE WITH THE MOST DELEGATES.....The democratic party cannot afford to lose the AA vote...If the party overturns the candidate with the most pledged delegates...I predict a summer convention in the streets....