Supers Who Are Still Undeclared

A while back, I suggested that there are roughly 100 Supers (or 40% of the available Supers at that time) which will never endorse.  Interestingly enough, even with the nomination wrapped-up, we see that about 100 Supers remain undeclared even today, June 9th.

This reinforces the notion that many Supers had more to lose than gain by making an endorsement.  Because now, when there is seemingly little liability in making a declaration, we still see a significant number of Supers staying out of it.  The breakdown of undeclared Supers is about evenly divided between elected official vs. party official.

Some might think that these Supers are "not performing their duties."  The bottom line is that Supers didn't ask to be so super, and in fact are all elected to other positions which are, frankly, more important than being a Superdelegate. 

And for those conspiracy theorists out there: don't worry, there aren't enough undeclareds out there to make a difference in the delegate math should they all go against FPBO.  Just as there weren't enough from Florida and Michigan to make a difference even if those delegations were seated 100%.  Besides, Clinton is now officially a Superdelegate for Obama.

Comments

[Wes]

Only a quarter of these supers are governors, reps, and senators.

A third are add-ons who have yet to be named as of last week.

Some of the DNC members are prevented from endorsing because of rules.

[Tood]

The one that has puzzled me since Tuesday is Joe Biden. Even Carper has endorsed Obama, and what does Joe have to lose? He's the only former rival apart from Kuncinich who has yet to endorse Obama.

The Tood.

[Mr Super]

According to the NY Times piece that I linked to, 55 of the Supers are elected officials.

[Blame]

I for one am not worried about conspiracy theories.

Long before the convention Hillary's best people will have been integrated into the Obama campaign. The rest have been paid off (or not - Clinton was short of cash). Clintons's finacial backers are shifting to Obama too, with her blessing.

There is now no possibility of Hillary organising or financing a sucessful general election campaign if she was handed the nomination at the Convention, except with Obama's total cooperation. Even then it would be a desperate move.

[Joe]

http://wikileaks.org/wiki/Divide_and_conquer:_McCain%27s_plan_to_wrest_Clintonion_women_from_Obama%3F

There's nothing in the above memo that should surprise anyone, but it might be interesting to Mr. Super (assuming he hasn't already seen it).

While it might be fake, it looks real enough to me.

[Blame]

Joe

If is true we will soon know. The true organisers of dozens of “meet-ups” would be difficult to hide.

For that reason it is probably a fake, witten not by the Obama team but a rather nasty Obama supporter.

Sigh. Sadly there is no contolling suporters. Not even God seems capable of that.

[Joe]

I'm not sure I agree with that, Blame. I see a lack of motive in putting up an unpublicized attack like that

And surely they could've come up with something more damaging for either side? Oh no! They're organizing *meet-ups*! That just doesn't have any punch to it. I can find dozens of things that would be more damaging one way or another if someone were going to all that trouble to fake a thing like that.

But if, hypothetically, it's true, it makes me wonder how many other Republicans feel as betrayed as I do, yet work on campaign teams or things like that?

Were I more involved (and I'm not), I'd probably be leaking things like that. But all I get are bad jokes and the occasional memo to watch out for terrorists and illegal immigrants (who are apparently the same thing, more or less).

[Joe]

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/mccain-wastes-no-time-in-turning-negative-843556.html

I guess this shouldn't be surprising, but I still hold it against McCain.

[Joe]

http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2008-06/10/content_8336004.htm

This link is for Truth. It might allay some of his worry.

[suekzoo]

Party unity, anyone?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/06/09/obama-polls-number-bump-u_n_106160.html

Pollster Scott Rasmussen says that as of today, based on 3,000 automated telephone surveys over the past three nights, Obama gets support from 52% of the women in his national tracking poll compared with 40% for presumptive Republican nominee John McCain. He says that's better than Democrat John Kerry did with women against President Bush in 2004.

Scott attributes Obama's performance to unification within the Democratic Party over the past few days. "Before last Tuesday, Obama routinely earned around 70% of vote from Democrats," he tells us in an e-mail. "He's up to 81% today. Clearly the party has been coming together."

[Dave]

You ain't seen nothing yet.... The Regressives will do and say anything to stay in the White House. Mc Bush took the gloves off months ago. He tried to show up the progressives by scheduling a speech on the night of the South Dakota and Montana Primaries. McBush has no shame.

He is going to run on attempts to drag Obama's positive numbers south. McBush can't win on the issues so he has no choice. I guess we will see if we have overcome race in America.

[Blame]

suekzoo.

Thats for me.

I can see why some Hillary supporters are miffed, but McCain is no answer for femanism.

No, lets be honest, for femanists McCain is the devil incarnate, and Obama a choir boy. McCain's treatment of his ex-wives makes "Sweetie" a declaration of innocence (come to think of it, it is a declaration of innocence. you don't call young female assistants "sweetie" if your plans are anything like Bill Clinton's).

I doubt if any significant number will end up voting for McCain.

The two most recent polls Gallup Tracking and Rasmussen Tracking are in agrement at +6% for Obama.

That is nice, but he will do a lot better yet in unifying the party. Anything less that 92% support from democrats is weak. He should be at something like +12.

[Regina]

Glad to see Obama hired one of Clinton's economic advisors, and someone who worked for Bill Clinton's administration. Maybe he'll repudiate his comments about Bill Clinton and the 1990s next. I'm not on board with Obama yet. If the pollster called me, I'd say I'm not voting at this point.

[Judy]

Undemocratic Party = Superdelegates

Congratulations Mr. Super you have participated in one of the most undemocratic election processes in our history.

[Regina]

Judy, I agree with you. While not really reported, the superdelegates put Obama over the top. Neither candidate won enough of the delegates to win in their own right. The supers could have just not voted--or split their votes evenly--and let the convention battle it out with multiple ballots. That almost certainly would have led to the unity ticket. Instead, they went undemocratic.

[c_b]

Re: the last two posts by Judy and Regina

This was certainly the closest nomination contest in recent history. Even so, Sen. Obama did win a majority (51.8%) of the pledged delegates. Given the large number of supers, that was not a majority of all delegates. If the supers had split 50-50, that would have given the nomination to Obama.

If all supers had just not voted (a right they had, but not a proposition I'd ever heard before, nor one that would have been easy to co-ordinate) that would have kept anyone from getting a majority . I can't speculate how that would have played out, because it was so far from what actually occurred. It could have forced a "unity ticket" as you suggest - or just led to any number of moves and further delay in building a general election campaign. For this to have worked to build unity, I think it would have needed to be resolved well before the convention - not through multiple ballots after another 2.5 months of fighting.

I am curious why those who objected to Clinton being "rushed" or "forced" to concede want to force Obama to immediately choose Clinton as his running mate. Isn't it best if he can consider this important decision from all angles in a timeframe that allows that deliberation? Sen. Clinton liked to remind us that some nominations in the past were not decided before June. No VP selection has ever been named this far before the convention.

As far as this being "the most undemocratic election process in history" - remember that until recently only a few states used primaries and most delegates were controlled by party bosses (effectively blocks of super delegates). In 1968 nominee Hubert Humphrey did not win (or enter) a single primary. The process is far from perfect, but it's probably more democratic than it's ever been before. The implication that the process had a pro-Obama bias is absurd.

[Regina]

CB, I understand your point regarding trying to bring an end to the nomination process. But an easier way to bring an end to it would have been for Obama to have actually won. We often think of divisive past conventions as you correctly point out as the reason for why Democrats lose. But it's not the conventions that cause the loss--it is the divide in the party. Did Ted Kennedy cause Jimmy Carter to lose in 1980? Or was it because Carter was not even popular enough as an incumbent due to a bad economy to get near-unanimous support from Democratic voters in primaries? Obama could have wrapped this thing up earlier if he wanted to buy actually winning in Penn, Ohio, W. Virginia, Kentucky, and so on. Or by not losing by as much so he could get more delegates. He didn't even win Indiana or South Dakota, and his own campaign projected he would win these states. You don't blame Clinton for Obama's failure to wrap up the nomination by winning a majority of convention delegates through the pledged delegate process.

And then, after Clinton 'won the 2nd half' of the primary/caucus nomination race, the rush was to end it. She was rushed out of the race faster than any candidate in the history of the Democratic party who was in her position (in terms of sitting on a large number of delegates). The unity ticket obviously would have occurred had this played itself out according to the rules because the supers held the balance of power. There is nothing wrong with having votes at conventions, or else there is no reason to hold a convention. A deal could even be brokered before the convention if you are worried about timing.

[Truth]

Regina: She was rushed out of the race faster than any candidate in the history of the Democratic party who was in her position (in terms of sitting on a large number of delegates).

Actually, nobody has ever been in her position. Not even close. Republican or Democrat. George Bush Sr. didn't even give Reagan a real race and they didn't like each other.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9a/1980RepublicanPresidentialPrimaries.gif

c_b you are comparing a decision you have 100% control of the timeline (VP) to somebody that has no control over when the Primary dates finish. I'm sure if all primaries could have been moved to the end of March to wrap it up, Clinton would have accepted.

I can easily find thousands of Obama supporter posts claiming they would not vote for Clinton if the superdelegates decided the primary nominee. It was a "hijacking" of the democratic process. It was okay and perfect when it was "hijacked" in their favor however.

[c_b]

Regina, I agree that it would have been easier to agree upon a nominee if the race had not been so close. But it was that close.

This has played out according to the rules. The superdelegates are part of the process. The Clinton campaign has been the most vocal about that fact. They began and ended the cycle courting the super vote (and badly lost the 2nd half of that race, while making many of the same arguments you are making).

The convention is theoretically there to choose a nominee. That was it's historical purpose. The way it has evolved is to be a media showcase for party unity and launching the fall campaign. Allowing the GOP to have such an event while having the media focus the division at ours seems like a poor strategy.

I think most of the high-level pressure toward Clinton was based on the specific negative tactics she was using. Between now and November we will see many video clips of remarks she made about Obama. Indeed that pressure did spark a lot of sexist and personal crap that was thrown at her as well, and the message of "just tone down the attacks on Obama" was largely lost.

[Regina]

To C-B. I understand that in practice the convention has become a pep rally. But you suggest we should follow the rules, and the superdelegates are part of the rules. Fine, I agree. The rules also say that delegates nominate the vice president as well. If we follow the rules entirely, Obama doesn't get to pick his nominee, the convention does. So why is that not happening? Clinton should have stayed in to keep her leverage (with supporters like me) so that Obama would have to deal with her. It's the way politics works when no candidate wins the outright majority via pledged delegates. Why Kennedy gets to go the convention in 1980 but Clinton doesn't is beyond me.

[Joe]

Regina: "But an easier way to bring an end to it would have been for Obama to have actually won."

Win? How?

By getting a majority of pledged delegates?

By getting the endorsement of their rival(s)?

By getting a majority of delegates including both pledged and super delegates?

[Joe]

> If we follow the rules entirely, Obama doesn't get to pick his nominee, the convention does. So why is that not happening?

Because Obama controls enough delegates that he can pick the VP using their votes.

> Clinton should have stayed in to keep her leverage (with supporters like me) so that Obama would have to deal with her.

I believe she suspended her campaign, so her delegates are still under her control, and she has just as much leverage as she ever did. More, perhaps, if they're afraid of a threat to break the party in two by forcing the issue of VP at the convention.

You ought to give her more credit than that.

[Dave]

I find this interesting that with the exception of South Dakota the game played out just as the game was predicted. We can all debate what ifs the reality is after the 11 win streak and the close race in Indiana that Clinton was to win in a landslide the game was over.

Obama then turned and stumped for the General with the Primary in the rear view mirror. I did not vote for Clinton or Obama. I am not blinded by the deep attachment th at grew with the attachment of the Candidate. Mine was gone by California.

You can only have one winner in the Primary. I respect ALL of the Candidates that ran this year. I feel that overall the run to the end was important to Clinton and the people that followed her. For staying in there all the way to the end I felt she helped the party. I am not sure her supporters see things the same way.

She has shown that there is a place at the top of the ticket for a woman. She also has shown grace by backing Obama and trying to help unite the party. I am a bit bewildered though as to her supporters not being willing to help in this effort.

If you are willing to give up two or three Supreme Court Justices, Constitutional Rights, the economy,Four or five thousand more deaths of American Soldiers, Millions of deaths of Iraq men, women, and children and the life long suffrage of God knows how many people. Then take you hands and place them in your back pockets, find a chair turn in toward the wall, turn off the television and radio for the next four years. Then in 2012 if we still have a Country and you still have the right to vote you will be able to stand up, go to the polls and vote for Hillary again. God bless Hillary she ran the whole race. You should not count MI and FL under any circumstance. THEY BROKE THE RULES. Many people DIDN'T VOTE. I do understand for unity purposes the seating of Delegates. They should of been seated in a neutral way not to impact the overall Primary. re voting was stopped by MI and FL. Not by the Democratic Party.

This was not a case of the RBC disenfranchising the voter. You can't win that which never counted.

Please the time to move forward is now. Explain to me with why as bad as the Bush numbers are McCain can even be in the running?

This is the only party I know of that eats it's own?

[Regina]

To Joe, I didn't suggest Obama didn't win more delegates. He did. However, had he won Indiana by a large margin (it borders his home state) as his campaign had predicted, had he started racking up more wins after his impressive streak in February by building momentum like most other candidates have by winning Ohio, Pennsylvania, and other large states, he could have won the total number of delegates needed just with pledged delegates alone. That's why I am annoyed that I hear (1) people pushing false stories about Clinton releasing her delegates when she has not; and (2) the tsunami-style rush to get her to drop out. Obama could have made it a lot easier by winning big in the end like other nominees have (John Kerry, Al Gore, Bill Clinton all won pretty easily with pledged delegates and racking up wins at the end of the nomination calendar).

[suekzoo]

"Please the time to move forward is now."

Seconded!

[suekzoo]

Joe, this is for you:

McCain Calls Arizona a Swing State

http://www.washingtonindependent.com/view/mccain-campaign

[Truth]

So how is this "McBush" message going to hold up when we are reminded that a Kerry/McCain ticket was possible in 2004? Kerry thought of McCain that highly to entertain the idea?

-------------------
Kerry considered McCain as a possible running mate, initiating a series of phone calls to the popular Republican during the spring about a unity ticket, but McCain made clear he was not interested.

James Johnson, a Washington businessman and Democratic veteran who conducted the running-mate search for Kerry, said on Tuesday that Kerry's outreach to McCain reflected his desire to restore some civility to the political debates in the country and that the dialogue "was well worth having." Johnson said Kerry considered other Republicans as well, but he declined to name them.

Washington Post 7/7/2004
-------------------

Candidates Need An Economic Clue
http://www.forbes.com/home/2008/06/06/obama-mccain-economy-oped-cx_rl_0609croesus.html?partner=rcp

Croesus hates to say it, but presidential candidates McCain and Obama are largely bankrupt of fresh, realistic solutions for what ails the U.S. economy.

In their ideology--McCain's free-market laissez-faire and Obama's tax 'em high and create new programs--they are clueless about the shape of the world today.
-----------------------------

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/06/prochoice_democrats_and_john_m.html

McCain played a central role in the Gang of 14 -- the seven Democratic and seven Republican senators who joined hands to find common ground on court appointments. For his efforts at compromise, McCain took a pummeling from the right wing. Note that Obama, the self-styled foe of division, declined to join the bipartisan group.

And if a President McCain did put forth a controversial candidate, the Democratic majority in the Senate -- sure to grow after the upcoming election -- would put a quick end to the idea. That's why McCain would probably choose a cipher, as had some of his Republican predecessors. Ronald Reagan gave us Sandra Day O'Connor, and George H.W. Bush picked David Souter. Both justices were essentially friendly to Roe.
--------------------------------

So let’s talk issues already. Hillary supporters can go either way and using “fear tactics” isn’t going to work. We follow issue detail. Barack Carter v. John McBush won’t work on us.

[Joe]

Regina: Ok, I can agree with you there.

Truth: Actually, the flip-flop message seems more potent, Truth. I can hardly think of an issue where McCain hasn't changed his message.

This goes hand-in-hand with Suekzoo's story. I don't know if Arizona will be lost (11% margins don't seem that tight to me), but if he has lower than expected numbers, it has to be because people don't know who he is right now. He's flip-flopped on so many things, I don't know where to begin.

Anyhow, the real bite of the 'McBush' line isn't that he's a Bush clone, it's that he puts the Republican party as a whole in control. Even if people trust him personally, he hasn't shown much ability to lead (he couldn't even get them to pull a single racist advertisement), so how are people going to trust 4 more years of Republicans in power?

Speaking of flip-flops, didn't McCain promise not to do negative advertising (while insulting Hillary for her attacks)? Because he just started a negative campaign...

[Tony in MI]

Regina,
You make some valid points. If Obama had won the popular vote in Texas or if he had been closer in PA (say 6%), the race would have ended sooner. But it was an amazingly close race between two darn fine candidates. (Neither were my first or second choices see below)

To pick a nit with Indiana, it's true Obama's early predictions had him winning Indiana. But the same spreadsheet showed his winning NC by a smaller margin. For that day, he won his predicted number of delegates.

But he won the majority of the pledged delegates, however slim the margin.

For what it's worth: I still have a 'Draft Gore' bumper sticker on my car and made a token donation to that cause. Later, I contributed a modest amount of money to the Edwards campaign.

[Regina]

Tony, thanks for your comments. My point was just that if people want to complain about the long, drawn out process, they can blame Obama for not closing the deal. He won though, he got the delegates (but close). Others before have won by more.

I still like the 'Draft Gore' idea. If it isn't Obama-Clinton, I might be able to vote Obama-Gore.

[Joe]

Regina: For whatever it's worth, Gore would make a fine VP in my book.

[suekzoo]

Draft Gore was to draft him for the top of the ticket. http://www.draftgore.com/

[Blame]

Regina

How can we blame Obama for not closing the deal? He did the best he could against a tough opponent.

A point to make is that in the end it was Hillary who closed the deal. She could have taken the fight to the convention, but had the decency to know when she was beaten.

Had Hillary been the leader of some campaign against injustice (such as opresion of women by the Democratic Party, or a campaign to fully count FL & MI) there would have been a point to a floor fight. She had no such principle. She just used any argument she had to win the nomination.

We now know that Hillary's overiding principle is not MI or FL or changing the primary system to pure popular vote. It is to elect a Democratic President. That is what her actions tell us, and what she has actualy said.

She is right. Everything she has stood for is better served by Obama than McCain. That includes womens interests, and the chance that after Obama we will have a female President.

On the note of a future female president, I am worried. It is clear that Obama is not going to choose Hillary as VP.

What worries me is the repeated asertion (by men) that Obama should not choose another female as VP because Hillary supporters will be upset.

How far is this to arguing that no other woman should ever be given the chance to stand in the primaries because Hillary supporters will vote Republican if she wins, and her supporters will vote republican if she looses? In 2016 will these same men argue that Hillary is too old or too devisive, and there isn't any other viable female choices?

If you value femanism please try not to give substance to these arguments.

[Truth]

Blame, it is very simple. Hillary proved she was the most qualified person through her platform and her virtual tie with Obama. Nobody has been able to name another Primary that was this close Dem or Repub.

Out of one side of the mouth you guys are claiming we should accept Obama because his platform was basically identical to Hillary's, followed by Obama needs to find somebody more like himself. By your logic you should be just as happy replacing Obama with Jesse Jackson if you really only value "black equality". It was never just about Hillary being a woman. I felt no particular thrill (or shame) in supporting "a woman". I doubt the women that voted for Hillary would have voted for "just any woman".

Why is it so hard to grasp this easy concept? Your "just be happy with a woman" thought I'm sure is offensive to women. Being a man, I want Hillary as VP because there is no doubt she is at least the most qualified PERSON to hold that position.