Election Night Update

I'm watching the numbers roll in after Senator Clinton's 10-point win.  I've spoken to one network and one newspaper.  Some rumors going around about some major Superdelegate shifts on Wednesday morning - that would be something if it were true, wouldn't it?  (It's probably not true).

There is a lot of debate going on over on private DNC member listserves tonight.  The main issue is a) do we make our leanings known now or b) do we wait until all of the states have had an opportunity to vote?

As of this writing, there is not a consensus.

Comments

[Kasturba]

Mr. Super,

Does the party believe this process is helping the Democratic chances in Nov? Is that a huge concern? Or is the belief people will just get over it in time for Nov?

[Alicia]

We're with you, Mr. Super -- this can't be an easy decision for all of you Super Delegates. I look forward to reading your thoughts as this process moves forward.

[Mr Super]

I don't know that it really matters what the Party believes...elections are up to the voters. But the Democratic Party has better candidates, ideas and solutions. These primaries are allowing our Party to develop relationships with people in states and small towns all over America. We will survive this nominating and process and we will win in the fall.

[Kasturba]

Thanks for the reply. I agree with most of what you say, but negativity in the campaign(s) seems to have ramped up. I can't imagine that it helps. But I guess 6 months from now it will be a distant memory. Best of luck with your decision.

[Dan_in_upstate_NY]

I have to say, Mr Super, that I'm beginning to agree with Bob Herbert's NYT editorial from the other day ("Road Map to Defeat"): the Democrats, once again, seem to have found an uncanny ability to self-destruct. Just a few months ago a Democratic victory in November seemed inevitable. Now, it's looking much less rosy (to my eyes, at least).

As this thing drags on, both candidates are losing electability.

I came into this primary season with so much enthusiasm and interest...but now I find the old cynicism & apathy creeping back...as we drift downward into the gutter. Yes, I'm bummed tonight that my preferred candidate fared poorly. But there's more at stake. After having so much potential, I wonder if the party is again losing its compass.

Please, supers, put this thing to bed.

[TheSteve]

Mr. Super,

I'm sure my lowly opinion doesn't amount to a hill of beans around private DNC circles, but I think it would be best to encourage the Supers to start announcing their leaning. Obviously I have my own preference for a candidate, but I will try to present this as basically as possible:
It's all about the money.
Every dime the candidates raise to fight each other is one that can't be used against John McCain in the general. Moreover, each new stroke of negativity fans the flames of contention between the different sides of the party. Obama has a great fundraising machine - but he can't put all his surplus funds to use. Hillary is putting herself deeper in debt each passing month. I am not, as many pundits tonight seem to be, under the faulty assumptions that her funds will somehow vanish fighting Barack. She will no doubt be able to borrow as much as she needs to continue onward. However, the more debt she accumulates, the less she will have to get the message out in the GE. If the supers start declaring, money will start to dry up for one side or the other, and we can all start to focus on the real race this year. There should be some kind of snowball effect that would be reflected in the following primaries as voters start to rally around the winner.
We all know how this will continue otherwise. Basically, the margins between the candidates on June 3rd will be practically identical, both in popular vote and delegates, as it is now. Except, the attacks will have only escalated, the bickering will have continued, and the vitriol will have become steadily more pronounced.
I just do not see the advantage of letting this play out when there's a mere 405 delegates left to split.

[Mr Super]

Primary and general election funds cannot be comingled, and there are limits as to how much a person can give for both a primary and a general. So I don't think that the candidates need to worry about that because what they are spending now they cannot use in the general anyway.

TheSteve, you make some good points. But why schedule elections if we don't intend to hear the voices of the voters in those states?

One of my colleagues said this evening that Democracy is sometimes messy. This is one of those times.

[hilzoy]

Mr. Super: There's the money, and there's also not being able to focus on McCain. He has, I think, huge weaknesses, but these won't do us nearly as much good if our candidates don't get to exploit them. We could be pointing out that his position on the economy is laughable when it's not heartless, that he essentially has no health care plan, and that even though he's running on the war, he can't get the major players straight.

But no. Our candidates get to beat each other up instead. Or rather, one of them gets to beat the likely nominee up.

I see the point about party building, etc. But please, please: this has gone on long enough. Please end it.

[suekzoo]

Mr. Super,

Couple of things:

Most years the nomination is decided before many states have their scheduled vote. So, I'm not sure I buy the argument that Supers should wait, especially those from states who have already voted. Why would they still to undeclared?

My one worry watching the slicing and dicing of the exit polls is the vast number of supporters on both sides who say they will not vote for the other candidate. I think that is only going to get worse the longer the primary goes on. What would (could) the party do to unify the camps in a year like this...other than strongly urge the candidates toward the Dream Ticket?

Thanks!

[Mr Super]

Read my 3/19 post for reasons why Supers stay undeclared.

[Darrin]

"But why schedule elections if we don't intend to hear the voices of the voters in those states?"

Exactly!

If, for the sake of argument, Obama were to finish ahead in pledged delegates (which he most assuredly will) and ahead in the popular vote (which he more than likely will), what will the superdelegates tell the voters of America if they reverse their choice? "Thanks, but no thanks?"

Put simply, Mr. Super: Is it actually possible that, come the end of this nominating process, the candidate who earns the nomination will be overturned because a select few THINK that MAYBE another candidate MIGHT win?

[Jay]

I stick by my comments last night before I knew the results. There is a good reason why traditional Democrats in Pa. turned away from Obama. You need to analyze the results especially among Catholic voters and Jewish voters. If you expect the party to win a national election, I don't know how you do it without getting a majority of both groups. If you have to wait a little longer to pick the right candidate-so be it. There is no rush. Of course I believe Hillary is more electable and for the first time the commentators were starting to agree tonight. Obama is a flawed candidate and it will be up to the Superdelegates to save the party from disaster. I am certain if Obama had been vetted earlier in the campaign, he would not have done as well in earlier primaries.

[Marvel]

I recognize that there's a risk of alienating Clinton supporters if the SDs come out decisively for Obama over the next few weeks. But speaking as an Independent who strongly supports Obama, can I just say that it would be such a mercy to stop this process sooner rather than later? I'm willing to sacrifice on some issues that matter to me because the possibility of moving past the Karl Rove era of politics is so attractive. Clinton has embraced that style of politics, to the point of embracing an endorsement from Scaife. I can't tell you how disheartening this whole process is getting as it goes on and on and on and on. God, I hate politics. And while I respect the ideals of the Democrat party, it's hard to maintain respect for a party that in practice seems incapable of decisively rejecting the base tactics of Senator Clinton. (It goes without saying that I will not vote for her in the GE under any circumstances).

[DavePez]

Enough with the BS. Here is why it has to stop.

We have a woman and a black man as candidates. No matter how smart or qualified WE DEMS think they are, they both start from 20 yards behind McCain based on race/sex. The GOP has started on both candidates (the GOP anti-Obama ads are going up in NC tomorrow). Right now, both candidates are being framed by a hostile media and the GOP. Everyday this primary goes on is another day that McSame is getting a pass on having to defend his policy issues.

Are we, the non-supers, nervous? Yes we are and history shows that we have every right to be. In the last two days we have seen "Osama/Obama Brothers?" and the talk of a nuclear counter-strike on Iran!!! And McCain just smiles and flirts with an Ex-WJC staffer on a Sunday morning show.

Basically, you Supers are coming across as smug kingmakers. Everyday you let this go on, you are pissing off your constituency. We don't care about who the nominee is, we only care about not having McCain in office. And everyday we see that is a more likely scenario.

[TheSteve]

Mr. Super,

It's true that the GE money and the primary money are different, but look at the scenario thusly (and please, correct me if I'm wrong about this as I don't know the fineries of campaign finance law):

The GE doesn't actually begin until after the Dem Convention in August and the Repub Convention in September. If Hillary were to suspend her campaign, or if her campaign money dried up and she gracefully faded from the limelight, there would be nothing stopping Obama from using his primary money to continue campaigning in the remaining contests, registering new Democrats, and recruiting into his "invisible army" of Obama Organizing Fellows to put volunteers in all 50 states knocking on doors and pursuing GOTV efforts. Alternately, if the opposite occurred and Obama suspended his campaign, of faded gracefully into the limelight, she could raise money and push a more positive image of herself (something she will need to do desperately if she becomes the nominee), as well as paying off her debts and pursuing GOTV, etc. (A quick aside here - what would happen if the primary ended and Hillary was still in the red? Would she have to pay debts from her own pocket, since she could not dig into the GE funds to pay off primary debts?)

Theoretically, our parties GOTV efforts, new voter registration, and candidate awareness will proceed under the current scenario with both candidates at each other's throats, but it will do so under the banner of a party divided. And if I thought for a minute the campaigns would start trending more positively I really would not be concerned at all. But both candidates seem to be picking up decidedly sharper rhetoric, whether retaliatory/justified or not. And, at least personally speaking, I think the more ardent supporters are getting exhausted and fatigued with the whole ordeal.

Moreover, and perhaps more importantly, if this nomination process continues on its current, indecisive track I think it might raise questions the DNC would rather not have to answer. Among them, does the popular vote become a factor? If so, does it included Florida and Michigan? If it does, Puerto Rico, being the largest population that late in the process, will probably be a deciding factor that pushes a candidate one way or another. Is a pledged delegate lead trumped by a popular vote victory that includes Puerto Rico, when PR does not vote in the GE? Regarding the pledged delegate lead, does it include in some way MI and FL? I personally agree with you that the DNC already decided on a solution by stripping their delegates, but at least one candidate seems to be successfully pushing the narrative in the media that the issue is still up in the air.

Democracy is indeed sometimes messy, and I understand the reservations Supers have about being the final deciders here. I suppose a good many of us will have to stay victim to the process. Though I don't know how attractive a big block of Supers moving all at once will look to voters one way or another, seeing how, by my calculations, one nominee will need at least 105 Supers to cross the finish, and the other at least 223. A big push of those kinds of numbers all at once would seem sort of... shady, maybe? I really don't know the best, face-saving solution here - I suppose I should be thankful the burden's not on my shoulders.

Anyhow, if nothing else, I want to reiterate how much I appreciate what you do with this blog. Your insight is more valuable than the ten thousand James Carvilles screeching at each other that has become the MSM. If I hear someone say, "can't close it up," one more time tonight I might just snap.

[Lynne B]

Here's the choice as I see it, supers go to Obama now, or Hillary knee-caps Obama all the way to the convention, at which time he will get the nomination anyway, but is so bloodied that given the short time left before the general he will be damaged goods and we can all watch McCain win the election and get three more ultra conservative Supreme Court Justices during his reign, and we will probably end up in a war with Iran.
I don't see that there is any viable option to supers declaring very soon, this is terribly destructive, and even though I support Obama, if it were Clinton who had the math going for her I would make this argument on her behalf.

[Mickey]

What started out as an embarrassment of riches for the Democratic party is rapidly becoming mere embarrassment.

With each long, painful, passing day, with each new low-blow smear, with each new indignity, both candidates are looking more and more unattractive. And John McCain is looking more dewey and youthful and well-rested.

As far as I'm concerned, the Clintons are holding the party hostage. After her win tonight she's screeching accusations that Obama "can't close the deal" against her.

By rights of where he currently stands, and the mathematical improbability of Hillary overtaking him, Barack Obama should be narrowing his focus onto John McCain. But he can't, because Hillary Clinton WILL NOT GET OFF HIS LEG! She is damaging herself, Barack Obama, and the party as a whole.

You supers need to put on those capes and fly to your secret lair and END THIS MADNESS!

Really - it's becoming intolerable.

[don]

Here are three reasons why the popular vote is the most illegitemate of all measures in this year’s democratic primary, independent of the FL & MI debacle:

http://dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/4/23/01152/2705/129/501246

It shouldn't be this way. The rules are a mess. I sincerely hope the party can clean this up before the next election. But this year, the rules are what they are and all primaries and caucuses have been influenced by that. In general I find Mr. Super's arguments very reasonable and I understand that this is a complicated and difficult decision for most supers. But this statement is disappointing:

"Average guy on the street doesn't have an interest in figuring out the intricacies of delegate math - but he knows what the popular vote is without anyone having to explain it to him."

The average guy on the street knows what the popular vote is supposed to represent based on what it means in the general election. But in this primary, it represents something completely different. Something that's ten times harder to explain than the delegate math and when it comes down to it, just doesn't make any sense. This is not the same popular vote as in Florida in 2000. This is not the popular vote, period.

The rules state that the supers can vote however they want. Flip a coin. It's their choice. A lot of people don’t like that, but those are the rules.

But relying on a non-existent "popular vote" as a basis for their decision is worse than flipping a coin. The people who voted for you expect you to exercise your best judgment, not to hide behind false measures just because the average guy on the street don’t know what you do and you don’t have the will to explain it to him.

I hope you share the above link with other supers. And seriously, it belongs in your Myth category (which btw, is excellent, along with the rest of this blog).

--

(apologies, i had two windows open and managed to also post this in a separate thread)

[Charles Gaba]

For the record, it looks like it's actually only a 9% lead for Sen. Clinton, *not* 10%:

http://www.electionreturns.state.pa.us/

CLINTON, HILLARY (DEM) / 1,232,401 / 54.3%
OBAMA, BARACK (DEM) / 1,039,024 / 45.7%

With 1% left (and presumably some number of provisionals/etc lying around), it could conceivably end up dropping as low as 8% (rounded down) when the results are certified.

Still a solid win for Hillary, but psychologically there's a huge difference between an 8-point win and a 10-point win.

Plus, it looks like for all of the strum und drang, she'll only end up gaining about 10 delegates out of the whole deal:

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/4/22/11912/6533/642/500733

[jesse]

Jay's suggestion that Obama is doomed because Democrats can't win without Catholics and Jews - much like Scarborough/Buchanan's endless hype about Reagan Democrats - is flawed on too many levels to count. But i'll try anyway.

1) Catholics are hardly a major part of the dem coalition, and Clinton is hardy guaranteed to their vote. Kerry lost it in 2004, and he's a Catholic! They broke Dem in 06, but even then we only won 55%.

2) The same goes double for Reagan Democrats, who, you may recall, are called 'Reagan Democrats' for a reason. Like Catholics, Obama doesn't need to "win" this group to win it all. He just needs to keep it close, which, judging from the PA exits, remains eminently doable.

3) Jews on the other hand are true-blue coalition members. BUT, there are only like 2 dozen in the entire country and half of those are in swingless states like NY and CA. Sure, we've got a minyan or two of our oldest in the Gator State, and we'd likely need them to win it. But you know what far larger Democratic voting bloc we'd need to win Florida (and everywhere else for that matter):

4) AFRICAN AMERICANS. Yeah, remember them. They've been the ones electing us for the past 50 years. And if you think Joe Lunchbox or Sixpack or whatever the latest euphemism for White Dudes is (Chris Mathews' preferred locution is "normal people") will resent being denied their 44th chance to crown one of their own, just think how resentful black folks will be when they're straight-up robbed of their 1st. If you want to talk about guaranteed electoral disaster, let's start there.

[Cheryl R.]

Hillary Clinton has proved that old-school scare politics still work the best for her. It breaks my heart. I'm afraid I might be one who just turns off again. I felt myself doing that tonight. I had allowed myself to dare to dream, watching Obama's remarkable ascent and feeling so proud of his outstanding campaign. But Clinton's own relentlessly negative campaign, topped with her ad of horrors, has left me sick to my stomach. I can't imagine ever voting for her.

I'm 55, white, and a woman. I worked for Bill Clinton's first presidential run.

[G Davis]

I have two reasons for thinking the time has come to end this thing.

First, look at the demeanor of both candidates. They, and their campaign workers, are dog tired and need to recoup before going to battle with the Reps.

Second, is an extension of the money theory. I do understand that the primary and general money pots are seperate, but as the negativity goes on folks will be less engaged and less likely to fork over anything for the same old kind of politics. The internet is a fabulous tool for money raising, but you have to seriously understand the folks that use it that way. They aren't big money donors and aren't going to react the same as machine financing.

Lastly, I'd like to say a word about the down ticket. All the attention and money are flowing to the presidential primary...what about those congressional seats that need our help and money?

The biggest problem is how early this thing started. We've been at this longer than any primary campaign in history and it's showing. Perhaps when the party reworks the crazy rules they have set up they could think about limiting the time a primary season can run. These folks are human beings and they're running on empty.

[Susan]

Dear Mr. Super
Time to have Clinton call in the dogs before Obama gets destroyed.
Note NYT article
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/23/opinion/23wed1.html?ei=5124&en=25460e9924d12741&ex=1366603200&partner=permalink&exprod=permalink&pagewanted=print

[Tony]

Great blog and commenting.

I would urge undeclared supers to not announce at this time. Look, I support HRC. I think HRC is not only the more electable candidate with her ability to maintain the blue collar voters we've had trouble with in recent years, but also the better candidate on the issues. That said, I'll vote for the nominee, as either one is better for this country.

That said, my reason for you (undeclared supers) to not declare is quite simple. You risk dividing the party more by announcing now. Wait two weeks. If you try to squeeze HRC out now, that's not going to reverberate well. Obama hasn't shown the consistent ability to reach out to blue collar workers and sell his economic message. Granted, he's faced two of the Party's best economic sellers in my generation in HRC and Edwards, but the facts are the facts.

We don't want to discourage them. The thing people assume too easily is that blue collar will go with us. You still have to sell the message. There were those polls a couple weeks back about how Americans largely felt the economy would turn around within the next year. Warning signs are everywhere. You still need to sell and show the ability to sell. HRC's economic selling has been underrated. People seem to forget that upstate New York is largely a Republican area. Don't give the blue collar voters a reason to not vote on the economy.

This is a prime time for us. This is a time for us to be a little partisan, to push liberalism to the left of center in America. I think declaring now is a big risk. Obviously, if the declarations are for HRC, then Obama supporters will get disillusioned.

Wait 2 weeks. See where things are. Maybe HRC's campaign runs dry. Two weeks will not hurt the party in anyway, shape or form. Maybe Obama shows that he can fight Republicans in North Carolina (where the ads are coming) and sell his economic vision in both states. Maybe another dynamic occurs. Simply put, playing it out is the right decision for the party. It's a no win situation right now for supers to declare. Maybe Obama pulls off two victories. Maybe Ace Smith surprises in North Carolina.

At the end of these two weeks, a lot more will be known. If it's still equal, 2 weeks won't kill the party and your declarations then won't change anything. But declaring now is a no win situation for the party. It sends the wrong message to both sides, but obviously, in this instance, to HRC's camp.

I ask only this - irrespective of what happens this fall, the party needs to take a hard look at itself. I know I'm in the minority on this, but I believe this election is more on Bush and less on the country coming attune with us. Thin line to draw, but I think a line is there. This is a prime opportunity to push the liberal cause in America, but we have to address our own issues internally first. I would hope our leaders, and perhaps some fresh voices are in place, would step forth and assess how we bridge the gap. Because very clearly, there are gaps in our party, and they are serious.

[Maggie]

Mr. Super, Are you concerned about Hilary's recent admission of her foreign policy stance towards Iran? To me, this is George W. Bush all over again. I'm not sure why more Democrats aren't outraged and the media is not all over this?

[Susan]

I agree with the poster above...Clinton is really scaring me...many are very concerned...are we going to end up with a Democratic version of Bush?
Very scary stuff...

[May]

Mr. Super,

Why are so many people (including the mainstream media) buying into the Clinton’s talking points about voters in later states being disenfranchised if the remaining supers endorse Obama now? It’s so ridiculous.

(1)The primaries don’t stop once a nominee is crowned.
(2)Ratifying the will of the voters
(3)Disenfranchising voters
(4)Florida and Michigan
(5)Electability
(6)Poll numbers

THE PRIMARIES DON’T STOP ONCE A NOMINEE IS CROWNED:
John McCain has been the official republican nominee for some time and they’re still having primaries – there was a republican primary in PA tonight as well. Republicans are still voting. The upcoming democratic primaries don’t have to be cancelled just because we know who our nominee is either and voters can still exercise their right to vote.

In many past election years, the party knew who the presumptive democratic nominee was well in advance of the end of the contests because that individual had built up a pledged delegate lead that would be next to impossible for his opponents to overcome, even if they hadn’t yet obtained the “magic” number of delegates needed to officially cinch the nomination. This is now the case with Barack Obama.

The difference is that this cycle, we have a malicious opponent in the person of Hillary Clinton, who will not accept Obama’s insurmountable pledged-delegate lead as a barrier, as she buys herself time to damage Obama, in the hopes that she can make him unelectable, so that she can then use the damage that she’s done as the reason for why she should be the nominee. Democratic presidential hopefuls have always fought hard for the nomination, but in the past, they had some principals and knew when to draw the line – but not Hillary. If Hillary was behaving like Huckabee did, there would be no problem, but she is trying to destroy the presumptive nominee, so that she can then offer herself as his replacement.

RATIFYING THE WILL OF THE VOTERS:
Yes, both Clinton and Obama need superdelegates to get them to 2025, but in endorsing Obama, the superdelegates would merely be ratifying the results of the primaries in supporting the pledged-delegate leader. In endorsing Hillary, they would be overturning the will of voters and choosing the loser, which is fundamentally different. In asking you to step forward and endorse Obama now, you wouldn’t be ending the primaries or changing the outcome of the primaries, because it’s already too late for Hillary to close the pledged-delegate gap (it has been for some time), but you’d be removing the one reason Hillary has for continuing to try to damage the presumptive nominee – the hope that she can convince you to overturn Obama’s lead and choose her. The solution is clear – give Obama enough support from the superdelegates to make him the official nominee, the primaries continue, and democrats begin to heal and unite, as the party starts going after McCain.

DISENFRANCHISING VOTERS:
It’s quite unbelievable how Hillary warns against disenfranchising voters in later states, as she simultaneously argues that the minute the primaries are over, the supers should ignore the pledged-delegate leader (thereby disenfranchising the voters that supported Obama) to hand the nomination to the person who lags in pledged-delegates and states won (by a 2-to-1 margin!). Voters in later states would NOT be disenfranchised, but she has no problems disenfranchising Obama’s voters.

FLORIDA AND MICHIGAN:
Not to mention the fact that, in order for Hillary to win, the supers would be changing the rules to allow Hillary to win by way of the popular vote, which she can only do by including the results of FL and MI, primaries where no one campaigned and Hillary won on name recognition, and which the candidates were told would not count. Obama and Edwards followed the party’s wishes. They aren’t stupid. Why in the world would they not compete in states with hundreds of pledged-delegates at stake if they thought for one minute that the supers would then turn around and include those results in the determination of who would be the nominee? Even if Obama’s name was on the ballot in MI, not competing in such a delegate-rich state would be tantamount to ceding that state to Hillary. If no one competes in a state, the advantage automatically goes to the candidate with the higher name recognition – which would be Hillary – so the FL and MI results are bogus. Even in states that Obama lost, when he campaigned in a state, Obama has always been able to cut Hillary’s initial poll lead drastically. Hillary once led in PA by up to 25 points. If Obama hadn’t spent money to get his name out in that state, he’d be looking at a 25% loss in a delegate-rich state, rather than a single-digit loss.

ELECTABILITY:
Also, who’s to say Hillary is more electable than Obama? The Clintons had one of the most scandal-ridden presidencies in modern times, and president Clinton was IMPEACHED. You’re talking about nominating the wife of an impeached ex-president and putting a person who lied about being under sniper fire in Bosnia up against a POW. McCain has personally told his staff to remain mum on the Bosnia issue so they can use it on her in the general election. Kerry said he was for the war before he was against it; well Hillary has flip-flopped on EVERY issue she has ever been asked about. The Saudi’s are funding the Clinton library, and Bill has all sorts of shady business dealings all over the world. Hillary’s major responsibility during her husband’s administration were healthcare reform and picking the attorney general, and both were disasters, so much so that the democrats lost congress. She lied about spearheading the family medical leave act (and many other aspects of her experience), and all this is just for starters. It’s no wonder the republicans want to run against Hillary. Haven’t you supers noticed that there has basically been a media blackout on all the Clinton scandals, Hillary has been endorsed by Richard Mellon Scaife (father of the vast right win conspiracy, and a person who accused the Clintons of the murder of Vince foster)? The republicans don’t want any of the good stuff leaking out yet, so they can hit Hillary with everything they have in a general election. We’re way beyond worrying about the shock of another of Bill’s bimbo eruption from the 90’s.

With Obama, the republicans have to try to pin him with Rev Wright’s comments – comments OBAMA never made – and complain about his inexperience. His team has some excellent plans for how to combat that one. Hillary is definitely NOT more electable than Obama.

POLL NUMBERS:
Hillary’s poll numbers against McCain at this point mean nothing. She has not been hit with the full brunt of her scandals. Obama has not run a scorched earth against her, but the republicans won’t be so gentlemanly. Also, McCain looks stronger than he is because no one is attacking him yet. After the worst month of his campaign, Obama is still leading McCain in many polls, and after getting a free ride, Hillary isn’t out-performing him against McCain. I’d say Obama is the stronger candidate.

Right now the superdelegates are behaving VERY irresponsibly by allowing this nonsense to continue.

(1)Hillary Clinton has won one of the most destructive and divisive nomination campaigns of any democrat that I have ever seen. She has alienated the democrat’s most loyal constituency (African Americans) and is trying to damage the presumptive nominee.
(2)The Clinton and Obama camps are becoming increasingly angry and divided over Hillary’s tactics. It’s damaging the base.
(3)The superdelegates have given McCain time to unite his base and skate by making gaffe after gaffe, while our nominees continue to fight it out in a battle Hillary can’t win.
(4)You’re leaving Obama less time fine tune and switch to his general election campaign against McCain, because he still has to run against Hillary.
(5)You’re giving Obama less time to raise cash for the general election.

It’s beginning to look as if the power of the vote that you have been given has really been placed in the wrong hands, since it doesn’t look like the majority of you can appreciate or handle the responsibility, and the party is suffering for it.

Having the remaining superdelegates consolidate behind Obama takes away Hillary’s reason for continuing to viciously attack him.

We know you’re not blind. The only reason for you to allow this train wreck to continue is if you’re all looking for a reason to hand this to Hillary. If that’s the case, I hope democrats lose in the fall. Obama’s followers (including African Americans) need to be clear once and for all what sort of party they REALLY belong to. If Hillary’s behaving like a republican, maybe it’s because the democratic party is really just the republican party but spelled with a “d”.

The democratic superdelegates are the most irresponsible people I’ve ever seen. You’re like the board of Enron.

[Susan]

Yup people in my "small unimportant" state of Maine are "scratching" their heads in total disbelief at how Hillary can spin this yarn and the media jumps to attention...they buy into her delusional reality..
The media is the only thing that is keeping this circus alive, and that is what it is turning into a circus...a tabloid circus.
And now? I will get worse in the next two weeks ...plan on it...talk about knee capping, she will hold no prisoners to win at whatever the cost...our party deserves better and this country deserves better, we have serious issues to face..very serious issues...and now..Hillary goes and drops her famous umbrella plan...OMG ....frightening...
SUPERS PLEASE...END THIS...THIS IS NOT LONGER PLAUSIBLE TO WAIT...ANY LONGER...

[Dan_in_upstate_NY]

I think today's NYT editorial puts it best: "It is getting to be time for the superdelegates to do what the Democrats had in mind with they created superdelegates: settle a bloody race that cannot be won at the ballot box."

Supers were created to exercise independent judgment. Now is the time when we need that judgment.

It is misleading to say that we need to "wait for the final popular vote". Supers cannot take refuge in the popular vote, for the simple reason that (as noted above) there is no non-arbitrary way to count the popular vote. (Do we include FL? MI? PR?) Moreover, the primary nominating process--with its large number of caucus states--is expressly designed to make the popular vote an irrelevant measure.

Look, supers: you will not be able to decide this on the basis of numbers alone. Use your judgment.

1. Those supers who think Clinton is the better candidate should endorse her now.

2. Those supers who think Obama is the better candidate should endorse him now.

3. Those supers who think that the pledged delegate leader should get the nomination should endorse Obama now. (Given the PA results, it is now mathematically impossible for Clinton to re-gain the pledged delegate lead.)

[Bilbo]

The undeclared supers have been waiting and hoping for politic cover to make their choice or for one of the candidates to concede. But, after Pennsylvania they understand now that their job is only getting more difficult. NC and Indiana aren't going to help much, he gets a big win in NC and she eeks out a win in IN. So, they should either make the decision now or wait until the end. Either way they risk the wrath of the other candidates supporters, no getting around it at this point. But, by deciding now they can prevent further damage to the nominee. They cannot pretend all the negativity, the media narrative, and free ride for McCain isn't hurting our chances.

[Susan]

Ok Supers you have two weeks...how about coming out in groups...or one by one..not in a big wave...but a stand has to be made...we know we can't wait until the end that would be suicide...
The media has a love fest with Hillary let's face it...all the talk of "oh the media is so hard on Hillary" is BS
She has them wrapped around her fingers....
The media loves it...they have juicy stuff to talk about and it keeps their ratings up if they can keep the primary process dragging out ...
The media can shift alliance quickly if they sense a presumptive nominee...SO LETS DO IT
AND STOP ALL THIS MEDIA FRENZY

[Jon]

Mr. Super:

I'm sorry, but you're just flat out wrong. The leaders of this party and the superdelegates are too far isolated from the people to understand that this primary process is becoming destructive to the party. More than destructive - it is ripping the party in two, more every single day.

When Senators Obama and Clinton attack each other, they do so understanding that in the end, the party will come together. When their campaigns attack each other's pastors, and associations, and trustworthiness, they do so knowing they will ultimately come together. They are Democrats.

That's not how the people think. When their candidates attack each other, they take it personally. They are offended. They grow to hate the other candidate just as much as they hate the Republicans. And they begin to see John McCain as a viable option.

On "Democratic" activist sites, such as DailyKos, Huffington Post, MyDD, Taylor Marsh, this party is SPLITTING down the middle. Every day of attacks, every day the leaders of this party fail to make a decision, the party loses more voters who will vote for McCain in the general. Now, more than 25% won't vote for the other candidate in the general. THEY WON'T COME BACK. They're not rational DNC members. They won't vote on the War and the economy. They'll vote on who they trust, on pastors, on Bill Ayers.

The superdelegates and the leaders of this party are too out of touch to see this, so I am warning you. Whatever good is coming out of this process by registering new voters pales in comparison to the harm being done.

The chances of the Democratic Party every reuniting are slim, but they get slimmer with every day, every attack. Please, open your eyes, take off off your superdelegate colored glasses, and see the world through the eyes of your party - which is splitting in half.

DECIDE NOW

[Dan_in_upstate_NY]

One more point. The claim was made above that "democracy is messy". Yes, I agree. But the main reason that the Democratic nominating process is so messy this time around is the existence of superdelegates. I don't mean that as an insult, but as an empirical fact: if there were only pledged delegates at stake (and no unpledged ones), then Clinton would have dropped out weeks (if not months) ago.

[McLovin]

Mr. Super.

As I listen to the "pundits" and supposed deliberations of the Super-delegates, I wonder more and more if you should be entrusted anywhere in this process.

You have one candidate whose, "missteps" have been manufactured, ridiculous affairs- flag pins? Wright? Bitter?. None of these are actual controversies and none of these would be the factors they have beenwith a united Democratic based supporting Obama. Obama and the Democrats could easily transverses this silliness against a Republican candidate that is far weaker than the media is portraying.

You also have a Democratic candidate that is running a Rovian campaign against a candidate that has the intellectual ability to realize that he loses if he attacks her.
The "he can't put her away" is a total farce beign perpetuated by the like of Pat Buchanan.

You people are letting the Buchanan's of the worlds dictate this race.

Clinton's sole strategy is to tear him down- period. Her only hope is to make him unelectable. THe New York times has never spoken more truth than today.

Your silence is a an endorsement of Clinton by proxy, it is an endorsement for Rovian tactics, it is an endorsement for the the kind of politics that will continue to destroy our democracy.

I still cannot believe that the Democratic leaders have not stepped in and end this thing. I cannot believe that you all would believe for second that the Republicans do not have a lot more to destroy Hillary if she is the nominee.

The will destroy here on the substance of who she is, not the garbage that Obama has been attacked with.

Mr. Super, get a spine.

[Chris O.]

Oh man, you guys are killing us. I'm from Montana, but there is really not a whole lot of good that will come from waiting until after Montana votes -- everyone knows that these lasts states won't decide it anymore than Pennsylvania did.

[Curt Kane]

It seems like the DNC is waiting to see just how ugly this thing can get. With every attack the Rebuplicans record another scoring point. The people would forget in Nov. but I assure you the Republicans will quickly remind them. I believe on thing that is being missed in Pa. is that there was over 4 mil. new registered Dems but less than 3 mil.total votes. I firmly believe the negative turn of the election turning these new voters off and they are not voting.You should weight the cost in voters if this primary continues and the loss of voters aby the choice in candidates

[jeanne]

Pennsylvania demonstrated that the democratic party is becoming more and more fractured. Many on both sides already say that they will not vote for the other side in the general election - which is the opposite response that most had a couple of months ago. Please vote now and end this before the republicans benefit even more from our party's dysfunction!

[Susan]

I agree with the poster above:
"I firmly believe the negative turn of the election is turning these new voters off and they are not voting.You should weight the cost in voters if this primary continues and the loss of voters any the choice in candidates"
This is true Supers
Get with the pulse...Hillary is only going to get worse...she will bring out all the stops now......it will only get more messy...even PA voters came out an said in exit polls that they thought that Obama would be the nominee...they went for Hillary anyway...why...h*ll knows...they also said that they thought Hillary had gone over the top in being way too negative on Obama...it was sick...even PA saw that ...and now with the NYT article...the pulse of the people is that they are getting more disgusted as the days go by....DO IT

[Allan]

Mr. Super,

I'll stick my two cents in for hoping that you all declare sooner rather than later. We need to start turning our guns on Republicans, not each other.

Many thanks for maintaining this blog.

[Mickey]

Mr. Super - a direct question: What do you make of Hillary's endorsements from Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, Pat Buchanan, Bob Novak, Katherine Lopez, and Richard Mellon Scaife?

[suekzoo]

The one thing I think the Democratic leadership really needs to take stock of and remember is that there is a lot of angst out here around the country. The movement away from the usual politics is growing. This year, there is more and more talk of the need to end the dominance of the two-party system. Unity '08 and other such movements are only going to get stronger, unless something happens within the Democratic party to change that momentum. Food for thought...

[Bill]

Mr. Super - As others have indicated, I don't think that you guys have an accurate feel for what's really on the ground. The party is really coming apart right now, and the decision of many people to move to McCain is not an idle threat any longer. If you guys do not act soon, John McCain will win the presidency. The vitriol between Clinton and Obama supports is only growing and has the potential to permanently damage the party. I promise you that you will lose an entire generation of prospective Democrats.

[Bilbo]

Mr Super

Proposal: Get together with your undeclared superdelegate friends and agree that 23 of you who support Obama will declare for him this week. No Hillary supporters can declare until after the next the NC/IN primaries. This will give each an equal number of superdelegates. Those who declare can make this their rational and thereby reduce any backlash. Draw straws if you have to. What will this do? It will put more emphasis on the delegate and popular vote counts. It should help to reduce the acrimony that now exists. Gives supers a bit more time to decide how to proceed. And, maybe just maybe this thing will resolve itself (unlikely).

[qazplm]

this makes no sense Mr. Super.

We know what is going to happen.

Obama will win NC, OR, SD

Clinton will win WV, KY, and PR

Guam, IN, and MT are tossups.

Clinton wont catch up in popular vote or pledged delegates.

We will be roughly where we are now.

Nothing is going to be different, so why wait?

[John]

I say declare later--and only declare contingent upon the 'winner' picking the 2nd place candidate as v.p. Since neither Obama nor Clinton is likely to win 2024 delegates in the primaries, the people have spoken. Just over half of those voting in Democratic primaries want Obama, and just under half want Clinton. Force the merger by sitting out until they agree to that.

Also, don't forget that while many of the new voters are young people supporting Obama, some of the new voters are also women who are now registered to support Clinton. Both of these groups need to be brought together, and women are more likely than young voters to be the swing group in the fall.

[Bilbo]

John - Don't be suprised if Obama picks a woman for running mate and it isn't Hillary.

[John]

One other comment as I scan the bulk of these comments. Keep in mind the voters in the Democratic party who are not on blogs. Look at survey data, and don't count blog commentary as representative of the Democratic party. It is representative of the wealthier, educated group, but not the rest. Go out and talk to voters in downscale suburbs (places where people aren't blogging today because they are busy at work) and see what they think. That's where Hillary and Obama are splitting support--and thus we need to get both of them on the ticket. Only the superdelegates can force that by not declaring until Obama agress to take Clinton as vp.

[Nate]

Mr. Super,

Sorry to belabor the money issue, but I think you and the commenters here have missed the real argument. There is, at the end of the day, only so much money from supporters the Democratic party can expect to raise in a recession, and that money (whether for primary or for general) is not being spent on battling John McCain.

John McCain, by the way, is still raising "primary" money, which he has used in his national heritage tour. So, contrary to your insinuation, primary money may be used to fight the general election opponent, and since there is no reason to believe that all the money spent in the primary may just as easily be replenished, we would do best to take advantage of our fundraising advantage against the Republicans now.

I'd say the Supers know that Hillary Clinton cannot surpass Barack Obama in pledged delegates, state's held, or popular vote, so the least they could do is demand that she refrain from divisive and vacuous campaign tactics. Remember, he can't be expected to counterpunch her like he can John McCain, because he's attempting to pull the party together after a long and divisive primary.

[Exhausted]

Hillary claims that the attacks on Obama toughen him up - that he has to be able to withstand her attacks to convince everyone he can withstand Republican attacks. But, this is not entirely true. If Obama hits back at her too hard, he risks alienating her supporters and he'll need her supporters in the fight against McCain, so he's campaigning with one arm tied behind his back. Also, Hillary is a "family member." When she attacks, she is telling her supporters not to vote for Obama. That's quite different from a Republican attack. On the other hand, Hillary doesn't seem to have any concern about alienating Obama supporters, which can't help either.

I agree with others who note how emotionally exhausting this race has become for people, like me, who were enthused about supporting a Democratic candidate this fall. A few months ago, I was planning to volunteer to help the Democratic campaign. After last week, I was seriously wondering if I'd bother to vote no matter who won. I will, of course, but I feel drained right now.

[Bilbo]

John - Don't be suprised if Obama picks a woman for running mate and it isn't Hillary.