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]

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?