I came across this site last week, which lists predictions of which way Superdelegates are going to vote. I spent some time over the weekend looking at the criteria, I was even interested to see my own name in the mix. The methodology is interesting. It got me thinking that, since I personally know a lot of the Superdelegates, I might be able to come up with my own predictions.
As I started to filter out who falls where, I was surprised to realize that there are far more "rubber stamp" voters out there than are being accounted for in public counts. In other words, of the 241 "preference unknown" Superdelegates currently listed on the New York Times Superdelegate tally, roughly 40% of them are not going to make an independent decision. Period. Zilch. Nada.
These people who won't make decisions are the ones who prefer that the issue resolve itself without the need for Supers to get involved. They are in positions where making an endorsement could actually impede their ability to do their jobs. And when they do get involved, it will be to follow the decision made by a majority of the Party - whichever way that may be. What does this mean?
It means that, realistically, there are only about 150 Supers actually up for grabs.
I'll post my full predictions later this week.
Excellent insight Mr Super! If there are only 150 up for grabs and Brian's predictions at CCPS are even close than it would seem Hillary has zero chance to overcome Obama's numbers.
Posted by: Bilbo | April 21, 2008 at 02:26 PM
When you say that 40% will not make an independent decision, does that mean that they intend to abstain or that they'll vote for whoever's leading? If after the other supers declare, one of the candidates is leading but is short of a majority, will they declare for that candidate to end the race or will we be deadlocked?
Posted by: smrk17 | April 21, 2008 at 02:51 PM
What I mean is they will vote, but that they will only do so to after all of the other supers have endorse and named a presumptive nominee. They'll put a "rubber stamp" on the process by just following the pack.
Posted by: Mr Super | April 21, 2008 at 03:40 PM
Hi Mr. Super,
In an earlier post (or maybe it was on demconwatch) you said that there would have to be a huge surprise for tomorrow to change anything on the super front. So assuming tomorrow is not a big upset for either Clinton or Obama (say, Clinton wins by 11 points as Drudge claims) does that mean only after Indiana/NC that we will see any definitive movement?
Posted by: Kasturba | April 21, 2008 at 04:59 PM
That is what I hinted at in my other post, but anything can happen!
Posted by: Mr Super | April 21, 2008 at 05:13 PM
Just curious, Mr. Super. Did CCPSblog peg your lean toward Obama or Clinton correctly?
Posted by: suekzoo | April 22, 2008 at 01:59 PM
Now c'mon...do you really expect me to answer that? :)
Posted by: Mr Super | April 22, 2008 at 03:38 PM
Why not? We don't know who you are so we won't be able to go look it up and see who you're supporting :)
Posted by: Alicia | April 22, 2008 at 03:48 PM
Sure I do!! Why not? You are anonymous, and I am not asking you to reveal anything more than either "yes it was close" or "no it was not." Pretty benign, really It would give some credibility (or take some away) from the prognosticating talents of the person who compiled the list. :o)
Will you at some point reveal your identity?
By the way, I appreciate this site you created. It been a good place to check in for some reality and calm! LOL Thank you!
Posted by: suekzoo | April 22, 2008 at 04:28 PM
These are interesting predictions as I scan the referenced web site. Here's my take though. The elected officials like Lincoln Davis, Brad Ellsworth, Jim Matheson, etc. who have not yet endorsed that come from conservative general election constituencies probably should avoid taking any position for as long as possible and simply focus on their own districts and general elections. Further, if I had to choose if I was these people, I'd go for whoever won my district (e.g., Matheson for Obama, L. Davis for Clinton; Ellsworth will have to wait). It will not surprise me if elected officials going against their districts/states in the primary end up with primary challenges of their own in 2 years. Especially if they pick the 'wrong' candidate: say Davis choose Obama, and Obama goes down to defeat against McCain in a Dukakis-style bloodbath. I'd use his vote for Obama as a superdelegate (and against his district) against Davis in a Dem. primary, especially if I were a conservative Democratic woman living in his district (and the vice versa logic works for those endorsing Clinton in Obama districts).
Posted by: John | April 23, 2008 at 07:24 AM