Super Predictions

I came across this site last week which makes predictions as to which way the uncommitted Superdelegates will vote.  EDIT: Then there was this post on Kos, which says that Senator Obama only needs 43 undeclared Supers.

There's no way to tell if either are accurate, but they are both interesting.  And while I cannot pretend to know which way Supers will vote, I do know most of these people personally and I can offer some insight as to where I think each currently stand.  The list I am working from is the NY Times delegate tracker for it's easy sorting mechanism, however I recommend people fact-check everything at DemConWatch.  So here goes:

Governors (7):  All Pelosi Club members, though Kentucky's Steve Beshear could conceivably endorse Senator Clinton, and North Carolina's Mike Easley could endorse Senator Obama.

US Senators (19): As colleagues in the Senate, it's feasible that all could be Pelosi Club members.

Undeclared House Freshmen (18): All Pelosi Club.  there 40 freshmen in the class of 2006, the 18 who have not endorsed look to be facing tough re-elects and don't want to risk splitting their base by picking a side.  It's not what they were elected to do.

House members (52): Of the remaining House members, most are Pelosi Club.  There are a few who may endorse prior to their state's primary, that's a total of nine members when you take out the Freshmen who were referenced above.

DNC Members (126): Virtually all up for grabs, save for a few Party luminaries.

I honestly believe that the peacemakers in all of this could be Jimmy Carter, who though he was not a popular president has since become the most popular ex-president, and the award-winning and Al Gore.

Comments

[Nate]

Mr. Super,

I'm now even more worried about your basic comprehension skills.

The DailyKos post you referenced did not claim that there are only 43 supers that are undecided. In fact, that is not the conclusion at all. The conclusion is that Obama only NEEDS 43 more supers to declare for him to clinch the nomination when one factors in conservative pledged delegate projections for the upcoming races.

Starting to wonder if all the super-delegates are this, uh, misoverestimated?

[MM]

Nate,

Come on man, no need for the insults. It's very easy to misread something if you give it a quick perusal. I'm sure we've all been guilty of this.

Mr. Super,

Are the other superdelegates in your listserv falling for the Clinton talking points (popular vote argument, big state argument, MI/FL, etc.)? Or can they see through that? Since they're relatively neutral and pay more attention to politics than your average voter, I'm assuming that they can separate the spin from the truth. Please tell me I am right?

[Nate]

You're right, MM. Sorry. I guess I'm just a bit miffed that Mr. Super thinks handing the loser the nomination is similar to Howard Dean losing in 2004. Cuz it's not.

[The Grand Panjandrum]

I'm pretty sure the author got it. The point being that Obama only requires 43 more SD's to prevent Clinton from having only the remotest path to 2025 (required to secure the nomination). I would argue that the path is already so remote that these 43 additional SD's are more of a formality to strengthen the Obama campaign's argument.

The closer Obama keeps the races in states where he would have the most difficulty in securing a win, and widening the gap in states where he is favored effectively reduces that number.

To our anonymous host: I appreciate your take on the matter of FL and MI delegations. I for one would have no problem with reinstating half of each delegation and barring all SD's from voting for the nomination. They are the problem. Not the voters. But if the entire delegations are not seated I understand perfectly why that would be the case. I suspect that we will hear more about this matter in the coming weeks as we get to the end of this primary season.

[TheSteve]

Nate,

Mr. Super in no way said handing the loser the nom is similar to Howard Dean losing in 2004. In fact, most the the "hysteria" he points out comes from media pundits who claim the Hillary has a legitimate claim to the nom because most of her supporters say they would take their ball and go home if she didn't get the nom. Mr. Super is saying that the Supers don't give much credence to these arguments. In fact, the Supers consider a variety of factors. Do not assume that Supers are automatically predisposed to one candidate just because of their stature in the party, or feverishly looking for some reason to hand the nomination to the loser of the contest.
Mr. Super himself has not formally declared, but gives us some strong hints as to his inklings. It is incumbent on us to read between the lines and, also, not to jump to overly strong conclusions. Let's not let our zeal for our candidate of choice overtake us when we respond to him. I've said it on this blog numerous times already: Mr. Super is doing us a great, and entirely voluntary, service by offering us his insights into the process. Attacking our anonymous host can only result in a loss of good information for us, and, really, is pretty poor politics. You don't win somebody over by yelling at or threatening them, just ask Bill Richardson.

[Bilbo]

This says to me that Obama has it locked up.

[Kasturba]

I agree. I want to thank Mr. Super for his great job. Getting some understanding of what is going on the "other" side has been fascinating.

And the mutual anonymity hopefully results in a more honest presentation that might not be possible if Mr. Super had to be public.

Thanks again for doing this service.

[Kasturba]

I agree. I want to thank Mr. Super for his great job. Getting some understanding of what is going on the "other" side has been fascinating.

And the mutual anonymity hopefully results in a more honest presentation that might not be possible if Mr. Super had to be public.

Thanks again for doing this service.

[Chris]

Mr. Super,

Just to clarify, when you say "Pelosi Club", you mean that these supers will go for the leader in pledged delegates, with the popular vote NOT being a factor, correct?

[suekzoo]

Mr. Super, please clarify what you mean by the "Pelosi club." Thanks.

[suekzoo]

Mr. Super, never mind on the Pelosi Club question.

Check this page everyone:
http://demconwatch.blogspot.com/2008/03/superdelegates-pledging-to-back.html

[Mr Super]

Everyone - thank you for the compliments. Nate - thank you for setting the record straight. I don't really read Kos, I just scan it when someone sends me a link.

Pelosi Club - my analysis of this term is that it means overall delegate leader since that is what the DNC rules call for.

[LindaS]

Mr. Super,
Excuse me, what did I miss? When you say "overall delegate leader since that is what the DNC rules call for" are you implying there is something in the rules that say the SDs are supposed to vote for the overall delegate leader?? (sorry to be dense).

[LindaS]

Mr. Super,
Excuse me, what did I miss? When you say "overall delegate leader since that is what the DNC rules call for" are you implying there is something in the rules that say the SDs are supposed to vote for the overall delegate leader?? (sorry to be dense).

[Mr Super]

The rules to nomination are based on the ability of a candidate to win delegates. Not just pledged delegates or superdelegates, but all delegates. This is what I was referencing.

[Susan]

Mr. Super
I want to thank you for your service and this blog. You have had a hard task...I want you to know that you are very much appreciated...
Hugs to...........
((((((((((Mr. Super)))))))))))))))

[Anonymous]

Mr Super,

You say "Pelosi Club - my analysis of this term is that it means overall delegate leader since that is what the DNC rules call for."

Do you mean overall pledged delegate leader? Because obviously if this is a huge block of democrats, then they have the power to *determine* the overall delegate leader by who they back. That is what the fuss over the superdelegates is about -- if enough of them vote for Hillary, they give her an overall delegate lead (and the nomination), but not a pledged delegate lead (the ones that result from votes/caucuses). Please clarify.

[Mr Super]

Dear Anonymous:

This is a cut-and-paste from my reply listed two posts above your entry:

"The rules to nomination are based on the ability of a candidate to win delegates. Not just pledged delegates or superdelegates, but all delegates. This is what I was referencing."

[Angry Vet]

This is pretty cool to have a website for an undeclared super-delegate. I'm new here, but i guess all of these predictions and all come down to this:

As a Democrat, should I be worried that this fight could go all the way to the convention, thus resulting in disaster for the Democratic Party in November. Or, should I simply be patient, as this will work itself out?

Thanks. I know that is a difficult question to answer.

[Mr Super]

I don't think it's a difficult question to answer. It will be resolved in June.

[Angry Vet]

Mr. S,

Thanks. I think I can hold out that long. I appreciate your direct candor on the subject. I also understand the logic behind waiting until June. Besides, this gives everyone a chance to get involved in a real, meaningful Presidential Primary.

But, I can't help but be impatient. At least this will not be a long summer.

[eagleye]

Kos has been on fire lately, doing a great job of dismissing the spin and nonsense coming out of the Clinton camp. Here are links to four recent posts that are just devastating in their clarity. In one of them he provides quotes of Clinton hotshots McAuliffe and Wolfson stating that the race is about delegates. Of course, that was before their campaign fell desperately behind....

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/4/24/132543/942/817/502592

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/4/24/113851/565/912/502497

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/4/24/132833/040/170/502238

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/4/24/132833/040/170/502238

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/4/24/132833/040/170/502238

[Nate]

Hey Mr. Super,

Thanks for all the inside information. Quick question, when this is all said and done, and the Democrats win in November, are you going to "out" yourself?

[G Davis]

Mr. Super-I believe Ms. Pelosi has said she will back whomever the pledged delegate leader is....not including superdelegates.

http://demconwatch.blogspot.com/2008/03/superdelegates-pledging-to-back.html

[J S]

Mr Super:

"It is understandable that it's hard to imagine having to vote for someone other than your first choice for President. But as a Superdelegate I can say that my first candidate choice isn't going to be President, either - but I've dealt with it.

Democrats will do what it takes to bring these voters home in the fall - no matter who our nominee may be. Because when it comes to issues, positions and candidates - Democrats are better for America."

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

One potential flaw in your plan here.. while Sen. Clinton's support comes more from the Democratic base, Sen. Obama has attracted substantial numbers of Independents, Youth voters, Disaffected voters (I'm in this category, my primary vote was my first in over 10 years), and even some Republicans (and not because Rush Limbaugh sent them!)

I think you're right that disappointed Democrats will largely support whomever is the eventual nominee, but if the nomination is gained in what is perceived to be an unfair manner, the poll watchers may be very lonely in November.

As a supporter of Sen. Obama, I would say that Superdelegates overturning a substantial pledged delegate victory (and it's going to be well over 100 when we're done) will be viewed as illegitimate, barring some major new scandal making the primary winner politically radioactive.

And while "popular vote" wasn't the game (if this is going to be the determining factor, why campaign in caucus states at all?), any inclusion of the 'beauty contests' held in Florida and Michigan will be viewed as equally illegitimate. You and your party bigwigs may think that "it's just politics, people will deal with disappointment" - but the party ignores the future of the progressive movement at your own peril.

[Jay]

Dear JS: Your analysis is as flawed as your candidate. The idea that upper income Americans (Independents and Republicans) will offset the loss of traditional Democrats in November is sheer conjecture and folly. When these people find out that Obama wants to raise the cap on Social Security and raise the capital gains tax they will be running, not walking back to the Republicans. In the meantime, we leave our Democratic base scratching its head. The results from Pa. show the huge number of Democrats that are upset at the thought that Obama will be the candidate. Call him a "progressive" if you want but whenever the party nominates such people (McGovern, Dukakis etc) we lose. When we nominate someone more centrist (Clinton, the Candidate Carter) we win. Those are the facts. The rules were put into place just to allow the superdelegates to take these matters into consideration before casting their vote. My guess is that they will eventually vote for the candidate they believe will help the party below the Presidential level in their individual districts. It is my hope that they see that by nominating an unknown, untested candidate who is weak with the base, they will come to their collective senses.

[Nate]

Jay,

Your analysis is flawed because in none of those situations (Clinton 92, Carter 76) did chosing the "centrist" candidate entail disillusioning the most loyal bloc of the entire party--African-Americans, as well as record numbers of new voters.

If you pretend to know what's going to happen in November, you're just a tad bit ambitious. Also, I'd hate to see that this analysis means no progressive can ever be nominated. If that's the case, then why have a Democratic party at all?

[Laura]

Mr. Super,

Thank you for your observations. They are much as I surmised. While I have great faith that the nominee will work tirelessly to unify the party, I would also urge caution in not assuming the conventional wisdom with respect to unification will apply when there is an entirely new game in town. It would be unfortunate to end up with new support for the nominee that is soured on the party itself or the elected SDs. I would therefore recommend erring on the side of speed (something just short of precipitousness), even at the risk of being somewhat obvious.

[Martin]

"And while "popular vote" wasn't the game (if this is going to be the determining factor, why campaign in caucus states at all?), any inclusion of the 'beauty contests' held in Florida and Michigan will be viewed as equally illegitimate. You and your party bigwigs may think that "it's just politics, people will deal with disappointment" - but the party ignores the future of the progressive movement at your own peril."

I think there is a more serious potential problem that has grown from this campaign. Since Super Tuesday in particular, Obama has steadily increased his share of african american voters. There's been some insinuations that this is identity voting, etc. but talking to a number of people I think it's something very different and something that isn't being discussed.

This race started on a very level field - with Clinton polling very strongly with black voters. In fact, she led Obama by nearly 30 points back in October. But after 2/5, her campaign and moreso her supporters started making a case that caucuses were unfair, that big states mattered more or blue states mattered more, and so on. Arguments have been made for seating FL and MI even though it was clear to all that the delegates should not be seated. Bill Clinton even suggested that under GOP rules, Clinton would be winning. Now, I ascribe no malice to these efforts - they are normal political moves, spinning away your weaknesses. Obama spins as well.

But the repeated arguments that the rules should change - especially after the outcome was known. And the arguments that we should gauge based on popular vote instead of delegates. And the arguments that some voters are more significant than other voters (swing state, big state, blue state). And the argument that a winner-take-all favors Clinton and should be considered. Well, if you look at those things from the perspective of a minority - they are all reflective of efforts taken to keep minorities out of power. The 'big/blue/swing' state argument sound like arguments that the choice of the majority should be considered ahead of the majority choice. The rule change for seating FL/MI is an unleveling of the playing field because it is being asked when the impact of that change is known - the only thing the black community has ever asked of this nation is a fair playing field, and seating FL/MI is easily seen as a way to assist the white candidate. Blacks have seen this sort of thing before. It's well understood that the winner take all system is unfavorable to minority populations because the majority interest is forwarded as the sole interest - the minority view is lost completely. This is why Democrats use proportionate delegates because it gives a voice to minorities.

Now, I don't think that there is any malice here whatsoever, but at a time when a black candidate and when black voters most need a level playing field, the rules that everyone understood are asked to be changed by the white candidate. Arguments are made that people should pay closer attention to what certain populations want (big/blue/swing states) instead of what all populations want, and arguments are made that if we had a system that we know is more favorable to majority (white) voters, that the white candidate would be doing better and should be given consideration because of that. (This really has less to do with the race of the candidates than the preference of the majority of black voters).

All of these efforts which I think are just normal political efforts are having the effect of driving black voters away from Clinton in HUGE numbers because she is unknowingly arguing to disaffect their vote - mainly because I don't think her campaign or her supporters can see the situation from the perspective of the minority voter. It's not something that needs to be intentional, but the result is what matters. The danger comes if the party buys into this and black voters feel as though the rules were changed to help the white candidate. And it might be easy to dismiss and to wave it off but there are prominent people starting to suggest things exactly along these lines:

http://blogs.reuters.com/trail08/2008/04/24/top-house-democrat-denounces-clinton-campaign-tactics/

This isn't a die-hard candidate supporter - this is a very well respected congressman (and unpledged superdelegate) speaking about comments that he says he heard on the floor of the House. If black voters feel as though the Democratic party (either the DNC formally, or the party collectively through the actions of the supers) is complicit in denying a black candidate a fair shot at the nomination, I think it would be absolutely devastating to the party.

I don't mean to offer an opinion of how the supers should vote, but I hope that if they do decide to support Clinton as the nominee that they take special care to understand the viewpoint of the black community and to very clearly explain their decision.

[suekzoo]

Jay,

There is no such thing as a perfect candidate. Clinton has her flaws, too. Look at the on-going chaos in her campaign! Seriously flawed planning, sever money issues that resulted directly from the bad planning, the public in-fighting among staff, etc. Those problems speak volumes about judgment, management and leadership skills. This campaign is the largest thing she has ever run. I haven't seen the skill set that would be needed to run the largest economy on Earth. Have you?

Obama may be "untried" as you say, but comparing the manner in which they have exhibited their skills just in running their campaigns has some serious implications that can't be ignored.

Also, the idea that blue collar voters will naturally stay with her and outrightly reject Obama is a big supposition in a year when it's "the economy, stupid." Sure, some will be lost, but certainly not all.

The Democrat with the stronger pull down ticket is Obama, not Clinton. Remember that Democratic seats at all levels shrunk under that last Clinton administration. That is an important consideration for the Supers, I'd hope. Obama has grassroots organizations across the country, and she simply does not. (Back to the lack of planning issue...)

I think the core supporters of Clinton's that will be hardest to bring back into the fold should she not get the nomination are the age 50+ women. Being one of those, I know how we can be. But what does McCain offer them besides nothing? When they come to their senses that McCain will be choosing Supreme Court justices (certainly at least one), that will be a very loud wake up call!

Lastly, the constant moving of the goalposts by Clinton is really something. How can you take a candidate at their word, i.e. signing a written pledge to not count Michigan, and then trying to back out of it when it becomes personally inconvenient?

[TheSteve]

Just a quick note to all the commenters on here askin Mr. Super to clarify his position on the, "Pelosi Club," - please refer to my post earlier in this thread about being respectful and reading between the lines. Also, you can find the answers to these types of questions if you know where to look - hint DemConWatch.

[couchblog]

As a 68 year old white woman, I take great umbrage to Clinton's continual moving of her "goalposts," and of her including my demographic in her club!!! There are many women like me for Obama! We do not like Hillary Clinton and her continual, obvious lies and "dirty tricks!" If winning the total number of votes was the standard for winning the presidency, then, President Al Gore would just be thinking about moving out of the White House, and we wouldn't have been mired for years in a war that Clinton helped to create!!! I hope and pray that your estimate is correct, and I am helping Senator Obama every day to achieve his goal. If Clinton is nominated, I will definitely resign from the Democratic Party which I have belonged to for the past 47 years, and I will become an Independent. I could never vote for someone who campaigns as DIRTY as "Tricky Dick," Lee Atwater, Karl Rove, and the Bushes!!! Although I would not vote for McCain, nothing would stop me from voting for Ralph Nader!!!

[OlderVoter]

Mr. Super. I recently learned about your blog and appreciate the insights you provide.

Many superdelegates have tried to assure the media, one another, and the voters that back-stabbing activities occurring during this primary will not damage the party, and I think that is true.

The Democratic Party will continue limping along as it has for decades, apathetic Democrats will tune in when needed to vote, the DNC will wonder what happened to the 50-state strategy and will continue to seek that next "great" candidate to revive the party. So no, there will be no damage because, frankly, there is not much left to damage at this point.

However, what will also happen is that the party will lose a great, once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to revitalize and infuse the party with the energy of the young voters, the allegiance of crossover voters, and the money of older voters, some of us who have been waiting our entire voting lives for this.

I know that it is complicated for the supers; they have constituencies, consciences, and political futures to consider. I only hope they also have concerns about what may be lost by sitting on the fence until the show is over.

[BMR, Pittsburgh PA]

Mr. Super - Thank you for putting up this site. I've been reading it off and on for a few months now, and I really appreciate you sharing your information. If you do ever "out" yourself, and you turn out to be an elected official, I'll gladly donate to your next campaign. :)

[BMR, Pittsburgh PA]

OlderVoter says: "I know that it is complicated for the supers; they have constituencies, consciences, and political futures to consider. I only hope they also have concerns about what may be lost by sitting on the fence until the show is over."

I can appreciate your point of view. However, I believe the superdelegates should, for the most part, wait until June.

If they were going to move en masse, they should have done it back in February. Now, the process is too far along - and the numbers are too close - to short-circuit the primary season.

People talk about women voters, black voters, Catholic voters, independent voters, etc.etc. The fact is, we can't afford mass defections in any of these blocs. Things have gotten to the point where some voter loss is probably unavoidable, regardless of who gets the nomination. But the supers do have a responsibility to limit that damage as much as possible. The best way to do that, I think, is to wait until all the primaries are over.

Not only is that politically sensible, it's also the fairest solution. That way, assuming there's a clear leader on June 4, supers can move in the interest of party unity, and the presumptive nominee can get busy with the task of beating John McCain.

[Soldier of Christ]

Reading all these comments not only make me angry but shows how out of touch the democrats are with this elections. They don't read- they don't research- and they only think that without african americans or young youth, Hillary does not have a chance. But, without the religious, seniors, women, and blue collars, Obama doesn't stand a chance and these are the core of the democrat party, if you all forgot to remember. Let's talk the truth here, have nothing against Obama, but, I do feel that the media has made him an idol and the American people have not checked his background thoroughly. Most of us bloggers have known about the controversies concerning Bill Ayers and Rev Wright for many months and it was just matter of months before we knew the public would find the ties. This is why many of us, being colored, Hispanic, white and other races have prayed that Mrs. Clinton did not get out of the race. As for the "green substance" that is about to unfold for Mr. Obama, we feel it is his own fault for not taken care of this scandal which was first reported in Oct 07 and because of his bad judgment of ignorance, it is being reported in Puerto Rico's television networks.

This is exactly what he did with the Bill Ayers and Wright's issue. He believes the scandals will fade away but they did not. Most of you know the story being told over and over on the Internet about some guy named Larry Sinclair and his crazy notion that he had sex and did drugs with Obama in 1999. This story started in Oct 07 when Mr. Sinclair approached the campaign to tell them that he wanted Obama to admit that he had done drugs and sex when Obama was 38 years old. The camp dismissed him, and to tell you the truth, most of us did too, especially with his performance with the lie detector test done and showing that he failed. That is what we were told, but, that was a lie. He did pass the first test. But, the Obama camp hired others to make him look foolish and, well, that is fine, if you want someone to go away. Still, Mr. Sinclair kept being a pest and continued the crusade to expose Obama.

Now, please understand that the following facts are being investigated and will bring destruction to our party and these type of scandals are looked with distaste from church goers. To continue, while the issue was being played quietly concerning the sexual accusation, a gay man by the name Donald Young, who was a member of the Trinity Church Choir (the very same church Obama's mentor Rev Wright was the involved with), got in touch with in Mr. Sinclair during the time in question. They became close and began sharing information concerning Mr. Obama's sexual adventures. In the meantime while this friendship grew, Mr.Sinclair was STILL insisting that he had these acts with Mr. Obama and was making the David Axeroid's life unbearable.

After awhile Mr. Sinclair and Mr. Young did not talk any more, and Obama's camp continue their presidency campaigning against Mrs. Clinton and hoping that this evil man named Larry Sincalir would go away. But, something happen. Mr. Donald Young was found murdered in Dec of 07. The same man who was accusing of Obama having relationship with him too . The conversations between Mr. Sinclair indicated this and we, not being invesitgator do not know if they were taped. We will in the near future. Now, once again we have only ONE person accusing Obama. There was two, now one. Whether Mr. Young was murdered for some other reason, that is what is being investigated. On April 23, 2008, The Chicago Police Department got in touch with the attorney of Larry Sinclair , Montgomery Sibley to gather more investigation concerning the murder of this guy.

Now, we ask ourselves- is this going to be a scandal. Yes. Is it true that Obama had these relationships? We don't know because we are not the investigator, but, do we need these scandals? No. I believe that the Super Delegates are so much against having a woman in the presidency that they rather ignore these facts and hope that the scandals will come out after November after Mr. Obama is anointed.

Second scandal coming: A conversation with a man named Ali Abunimah, a Chicago-based Palestinian-American activist and co-founder of Electronic Intifada, a pro-Palestinian online publication, recalls introducing Obama at one such event, a 1999 fundraiser for the Deheisha Palestinian camp in the West Bank. This guy had a conversation with a interview with Democracy Now!, a nationally syndicated radio and television political program. This guy states that Obama told him that he was against the Jews occupation in the West Bank- and that he backs up the Palestine. Now we know why "hamas" endorsed him. This interview is being researched and the republicans are gathering the information to destroy Obama with his own words. The Jews in Florida, a state that I come from, will not be pleased with this comment that is concreted by the man named Obama.

Now, we ask ourselves, why in heaven sake are delegates swooming to give Obama his delegate pledges and knowing that this scandal is being played over and over in Puerto Rico and it will finally come to the mainstream media such as Billy Ayers and Wright? Are we that stupid? No, I believe the liberal winged democrats rather see a bloody man run for the whitehouse than a woman for president? Don't you?

[Another Mike]

Mr. Super,

You speculated that Mike Easley could endorse Obama. Of course, he has now endorsed Clinton. Any comment on this miss?

[Mr Super]

Another Mike: Was completely off the mark on Easley, seems that most people were. Very surprising. Especially considering how far ahead Obama is polling in North Carolina, and that both Democrats running to replace Easley (he's termed out) have endorsed Obama. Definitely a curve ball.