The Supers are Listening

As I've mentioned before, we Supers take our responsibility quite seriously.  The main question we grapple with: endorse now or after the final primary?  That's not an easy question to answer, though the public mood is clearly divided between voters in states which held primaries and those in states which have not.  Those who have voted are eager for Supers to endorse now, those who have not voted are not.

Two articles offer a good glimpse into this predicament.  The LA Times writes about views of Supers, outlining the pros and cons of a prolonged primary season.

The New York Times picked up a gem of quote from Congressman David Price stating that Supers, "...should intervene only in extraordinary circumstances that do not now exist."  The New York Times then wrote "The biggest well of superdelegates is in Congress" which is factually incorrect: the biggest well of Superdelegates consists of members of the Democratic National Committee.

Comments

[Scott]

Mr Super,

Reading between the lines, you seem to be saying that this election is already over, since noone believes that Hillary can catch up in pledged delegates and most of the undeclared delegates will break for the pledged delegate winner.

That being the case, the question is whether the Supers should let the rest of the country in on the secret, or whether they should let the formality play out. Would the remaining states still want to have a voice if they knew that it won't make a difference?

In my opinion, you need to end the campaign on a win for Obama. It seems the thing to do is to wait until Obama wins NC, and even if he loses Indiana, I think that can be the official "straw that broke the camel's back" on the chance of Hillary catching up (in reality, it was probably Wisconsin or the Chesapeake Primaries).

In a normal campaign (or a friendly Huckabee-like challenge), I think there would be a good argument for letting things play out through June, but as the campaign rolls on, the Clinton casual supporters (not the pros) are going to be more and more bitter to Obama the same way that the Red Sox fans hate the Yankees. The longer that they think they have a chance with the supers, the more invested their emotions become. When their team is officially eliminated, they can start to consider Obama as a candidate instead of a Clinton-slayer.

[Mr Super]

This race is not over.

[MM]

I think it would make sense for the superdelegates to endorse after one candidate wins a majority of pledged delegates (1627 delegates, after Oregon primary if projections are reasonably accurate). It puts pressure on others to end the race and it sends a clear message that the race is about pledged delegate and not some fuzzy popular vote math.

[LindaS]

I am still really nervous about this prolonged negative fight--with the Clinton spin and belligerence, and the MSM that plays along, including their own flagrant hyping of misinformation.

My hat is off, as the saying goes, to those SDs who are declaring now, no matter where they are from. As far as SDs in the states that have yet to vote, I've had to endure most of our Congressional delegation supporting the belligerent Clinton campaign since Jan., even though our state went overwhelming (68%) for Obama in Feb.

[LindaS]

I am still really nervous about this prolonged negative fight--with the Clinton spin and belligerence, and the MSM that plays along, including their own flagrant hyping of misinformation.

My hat is off, as the saying goes, to those SDs who are declaring now, no matter where they are from. As far as SDs in the states that have yet to vote, I've had to endure most of our Congressional delegation supporting the belligerent Clinton campaign since Jan., even though our state went overwhelming (68%) for Obama in Feb.

[heather]

I believe that if the supers succumb to fear and give the nomination to the Clintons there will be a never-before-seen-the-likes-of, non-violent revolt in Denver in August. I am a 50 year old white woman and I am ready to pass the torch. I certainly hope that you and yours are ready also.

[Joe]

I guess I understand the reasoning behind this, but I really wish we didn't have to sith through another month of politicking. I just read yet another article talking about statistically meaningless fluctuations in the polls, and this one didn't even bother to quote the accuracy of the poll (but it's reasonably assumed that no one is doing polls with 2% accuracy nation wide, and others from that source were 4-5%).

It doesn't help that Rev. Wright has reappeared, so we can expect him to be stalked by people carrying recorders who want soundbites.

Still, I almost wish the last few contests could just be moved up so that we could say that this is over.

I just hope you guys are getting everything ready for June 4th...

[Dave]

at one point I agreed that this needs to go through ever state. Then I here people saying Clinton has the popular vote. Truth being the popular vote has no effect on a PRIMARY. In the General Election Popular Vote is important because you are really measuring something. If only 30 percent of the voters in a Primary show up this is not an accurate measure of the true count. You are also measuring by Delegate count as the delegate count is weighted. Democratic areas of the country get more pledged delegates. If you understand this then you see that this thing is over.

Rules were laid out in 2007 as to the counting and the dividing up of the delegates. If Clinton could win any contest by 65 to 70 percent of the vote and sweep the remaining states I would agree that this blood bath should go on. She is going to have to win North Carolina, Montana, South Dakota, Indiana, and Oregon. Note she is polling 5 points stronger in Indiana right now,but that is 20 points short of where she needs to be to win.

We are burning money just to prove a point. If Clinton were to run a campaign that was not crash and burn I would agree this could go as long as June.

Do we sacrifice the party to please one person. The Clinton's and their surogates are driving a wedge deep into this party. I have friends who have decided to go to uncommitted just to put some distance between themselves and this fiasco.

We are going to have to come together at some point and heal. If you wait until June will there be time? We need to STOP feed the Republican Party sound bites to run against us in the fall.

I feel that now is the time to pull together and move forward.

[Dave]

Note to above: the only way Clinton has the popular vote is counting Florida and Michigan and giving Obama 0 votes in Michigan. That being said this is just spin.

[LindaS]

Dave,
I couldn't agree more...and I am dismayed at the desire of the SDs to hold back. It really is not necessary and I hope they step up their endorsements after May 6, regardless of the outcome in NC and IN. Those who support Obama, by not declaring now, are really just handing the Clinton "team" encouragement to continue with their negativity and smearing and deliberate twisting of information. By holding back, the SDs are just giving Clinton an excuse to show that playing dirty might just "win" her the nomination. If she "wins" in the upcoming states where she has not been favored but it's clear that it was through smear tactics and devious means, are SDs going to support her because she's the dirtiest player? I just don't get it.

~a dismayed Democrat, not looking forward to the bloody outcome of this primary season....

[J]

Mr. Super,

A few questions:

1) What are the Supers thinking about Rev. Wright?

2) Aren't the supers concerned about blacks not coming out to vote if they take the nomination away from Obama? Rasmussen had a poll that showed Hillary only getting 55% of the black vote and that is just right now. How do dems expect to win without the black vote.

3) Is there a chance that supers could come out after Indiana if Obama wins?

[Adam]

Those popular vote counts exclude states that don't release caucus voter turnout, which includes Iowa, Nevada, Maine, and Washington. Obama won by large margins in Maine, Iowa, and Washington, and only lost slightly in Nevada. I find it interesting how the Clinton campaign includes the unsanctioned Florida votes and Michigan (where Obama wasn't even on the ballot) but excludes any mention of 4 legal caucus states which have not released official voter tallies. Estimates from unofficial sources show a net of more than 100,000 votes for Obama from those states.

It is also important to consider that there was an organized effort for Obama supporters to vote "uncommitted" in Michigan due to the lack of his name on the ballot. Exit polls indicate that at least 35% of the voters that showed up did support Obama, so if Michigan results are included in the "popular vote" at least some of the Uncommitted votes should be applied to Obama.

sources:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/democratic_vote_count.html
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21225987/

[CTPatriot]

Mr. Super...

If you are truly listening, then I hope you will hear what I have to say. I have already made up my mind that if the Democratic party does anything which I perceive as manipulating the system in order to award the nomination to someone other than the rightful winner, I am resigning from the party, taking as many people with me as I can round up when I go, and will not vote for either the Democrat or the Republican presidential candidate in 2008.

This has nothing to do with loyalty to any particular candidate. I had been an Edwards and Kucinich supporter. When they both dropped out, I leaned towards Obama.

This has to do with ethics, integrity and fairness. For weeks now, I have watched the Clinton campaign use the most sleazy, unethical, underhanded tactics in order to tarnish their opponent and it has absolutely sickened me. Their behavior is contrary to everything that I believe the Democratic party stands for. Frankly, it is hard to see the difference between their behavior and that of the Rovian methods of the modern Republican party. And I truly want nothing to do with that kind of behavior.

It is clear that, barring a miracle, Barack Obama has the pledged delegates mathematically wrapped up. He likely also has the popular vote wrapped up.

Beyond that, even if Clinton does pull ahead in the popular vote, her popular vote totals and percentage of the vote are both being inflated by Rush Limbaugh's "Operation Chaos". A conservative estimate suggests that Chaos added 37,000 votes to Clinton's total in PA, an increase of 1.5% (if you want to see my math, drop me an e-mail).

In my opinion, these things need to be taken into account as tremendous negatives for the Clinton campaign when it comes time to making your decision.

FWIW, I am a middle class white man in his 50's who was once a staunch defender of the Clintons.

[Nathanael Nerode]

Superdelegates should all *join the "Pelosi club" now*.

Declare that you will support the winner of the elected, pledged delegate count.

That will be Obama barring a miracle. And it's quite fair and appropriate to say that in public, too.

(Last time I checked the math, it doesn't even matter whether you include Florida or Michigan -- though for the sake of honesty you can't include Michigan unless you count the vast majority of the 'uncommitted's for Obama.)

That way you help shut down the Clinton campaign, which now serves no purpose except to help the Republicans, and end this damaging endless primary.

But you don't in any way "disenfranchise" or appear to disenfranchise any of the voters in future primaries.

Simple.

[Bill R.]

Mr. Super,
Given the divisiveness and the possibility of major defections on either side, especially in the AA community if there is a perception of an override of a sizable pledged delegate lead by the supers. ( as stated by Rep. James Clyburn) is there any consideration being given to an imposed "unity" ticket? That is, the nomination is given with the imposition of a VP choice along with it. Anything to report along those lines?

[laurie]

Jed report speaks for me again.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/4/28/21558/7663/239/505228

I have given both time and $ to campaigns
(presidential, senate and house candidates)for the first and possibly last time. I am currently quite disgusted with the 300 supers who sit on the sidelines and are partly responsible for this apparent trainwreck. If/when the dem party goes down, I will go back to focusing my energy towards social justice outside the realm of politics.

[Tim]

Mr. Super,

Do the SDs consider Obama the "presumptive nominee", even though there is the possibility that some really damaging event could change that, or is even the idea of a "presumptive nominee" premature?

[serena1313]

In this age of instant gratification patience is not our strongest virtue.

I agree on one hand that allowing this to play out so all voters have a voice is the right thing to do. On the other hand, while I empathize with the Super Delegates positions, the rovian tactics employed by the Clinton campaign may very well backfire not only on her, Obama and the party, too.

Apparently Hillary learned the wrong lessons from the days she bore the brunt of the right-wing hits which explains why Obama supporters are upset.

We realize by every mathematical equation Hillary cannot catch up to Obama with the exception of the Super Delegates.

Meanwhile John McCain is taking advantage of this free time to define himself and his opponent and the press is giving him a free pass, too.

Personally I would have no qualms waiting this out if HRC was not trying to destroy Obama. But she is doing the GOP's opposition research work for them. And that is where the rubber meets the road.

It is a catch-22 for all concerned -- damned if you do and damned if you don't.