Blue Mass Group

Reality-based commentary on politics.

2008: It all comes down to superdelegates

By

After the craziness of Super Tuesday, here’s what we know (or think we know):

  • According to the CNN pledged delegate tracker on MyDD, Obama has 635 pledged delegates to Clinton’s 630.

  • This does not include NM and CA, who are still counting theirs. It is reasonable to assume once those two states are apportioned, Hillary will and Obama will each have about 790 pledged delegates.  If anything, Hillary’s narrow win in California may make the numbers 800-780.  

  • It takes 2,025 votes to win the Democratic nomination.

  • Of the 4,049 delegates at the convention, 3,253 will be pledged.

    • We also know that:

  • On Super Tuesday, the candidates essentially split the vote.

  • While Obama is out-raising Hillary, she isn’t as poorly off as some Obamamites want to think..

  • Despite the expectations game, neither Hillary or Obama are likely to dip below 40% in the near future.

  • Gallup’s tracking poll is showing that Obama’s momentum has stalled.

Here’s where the numbers come from:

Scenario Clinton dgs. Obama dgs. Remaining dgs.
Current 790+193=986 790+106=896 1673+497=2170

So Hillary needs 1,039 delegates to secure the nomination.  Obama need 1,126.  There are 1,673 remaining pledged delegates gained through primaries and caucuses.

Even with 60% of the vote, Hillary Clinton cannot win the nomination without capturing at least 49 more “superdelegates”.

It is ridiculous to think after this campaign that Hillary or Obama are going to capture 60% of the remaining vote.  But we are in a zone right now where it all comes down to superdelegates.  It does not come down to the remaining voters, but to who captures these elected officials or party functionaries.

I’m not saying that I like it, but I am saying that’s what it is.

Please share widely!
fb-share-icon
Tweet
0

Comments

  1. …the game is rigged.  I would have selected the “Vote their conscience” option if I knew their consciences weren’t heavily influenced by potential personal political gain or retribution. Aren’t super delegates just a way of allowing party elite a safety valve to prevent upstart candidates from getting through to the general?

    <

    p>Frankly, I don’t know what the answer is, but the rules were laid out before the game started. The rules have to be followed for 2008. But in the future, perhaps super delegates should be bound to vote with their home state.

    • say on CNN that she doesn’t want to see it come down to superdelegates (she is one).  I think the two candidates should make a deal right now.  Clinton for Pres, Barack for Vice and start sharpening the knives for carving up McCain.  Barack needs more seasoning and there’s no better place than as VP.  Everyone would win that way, especially the Dems.  Won’t happen, but it could if the welfare of the country was the top priority.  

      • …and Hillary has too much invested over the last 10 years for her to slide back to veep without playing this out. Let the democratic process of the primary season bear itself out first. In my uneducated opinion, competition only makes the two candidates stronger. Look what competition with Edwards did to both Obama and Clinton.  

        • is not gonna get him there based upon the counts.  Save the mo for exciting the masses in the general.  It’s a win/win.  If Barack stepped down, there would be no disenfranchisement.  It would be seen as a sign of strength and caring about the end results.  Barack could set himself up for 2016 and be a hero of the party instead of going the ego route that in all probability will have the same results and split the Dems apart rather than uniting all.  Isn’t that what he claims to want?

          • …or the fervent Barack supporters. And besides, believing in himself and believing that he is best for the US is a sign of strength and shows he cares about the end results.

            <

            p>And the momentum and the votes aren’t going to get either candidate the nomination, but if Obama comes out with the elected delegate lead, he makes a stronger case that he should be the nominee.

            <

            p>The guy is rolling in campaign cash; there is no compelling reason he should consider such a proposal until he’s broke, and I doubt he will go broke.  

            • After all – Hillary has her base of support, too.  She’s raising cash as we speak, and her ability to “damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead” makes a stronger case that she should be the nominee.  After all, she’s already done a Republican trial by fire – more times than we can count.  We don’t want second best for the country either.  đŸ™‚

              • I think the 50/50 split showed that this race is a dead heat. Even if one candidate could today make a stronger case for the nomination, it’s far from overwhelming.  And if Clinton could make today a stronger case for the nomination, there’s no reason for Obama to not think he could make the strongest case when all is said and one. And vice versa for Hillary.

                <

                p>Like I said above, I love the competition and I think it will make the eventual ticket stronger. Keep on trucking, Hillary and Barack!

                • should shut the two of them in a room, lock the door and tell them they’re not being let out until there’s a plan that helps all Dems win.  We need a candidate to combat McCain asap, not a prolonged 50/50 race that does nothing but waste money, energy and time.  Coin toss, arm wrestling, staring contest, let them choose their method.  There is going to be a steady drumbeat to do exactly that.  Now’s the time, not August.  This election is too important.  

                  <

                  p>We, all of us, need to get out of this primary mode and into the pouring money, time and effort into the real battle for the future of this country.  This year is too critical for continuing games.  We need to unite now!!!  This country will literally never be the same if we don’t get it together.  

                • I agree that’s what Dean should do.  Give the states and territories a chance to vote.  A miracle might happen and nearly 2/3 of the votes start going to one candidate.  Otherwise, it’s down to the superdelegates.  I don’t want that.  In any case, don’t wait until the convention.  I don’t care if you flip a damn coin, but find a way to make it work.  I much, much prefer a deal over a floor fight because it gives the loser a graceful exit, and will diminish hard feelings (I hope) and their supporters’ part.  Nothing says “disunity” like multiple ballots, balanced on the fulcrum of party mandarins.

                • Just because they don’t share a preference for the same candidate, doesn’t mean Dems aren’t united. They’re certainly united on the issues – Iraq, healthcare, the economy, etc. The Dems are certainly more united the Republicans who can’t help attacking and name-calling McCain.

                  <

                  p>And the numbers show that Dems are voting 2:1 vs. Republicans. Republicans are unmotivated, whereas whoever is the Dem nominee will have an energetic base behind them. I’m not saying beating McCain is a foregone conclusion, but there is no reason to panic. It’s February; November is a long way away.  

                • …I’m that afraid of McCain when his own party puts out attack ads like this one:

                  <

                  p>

                  <

                  p>I’d be worried and all about party unity if this kind of stuff was driving the Barack/Hillary race. But so far, it’s been relatively civil, constructive, and informative.  

      • that would disenfranchise the half of the country that hasn’t voted yet. And hey, you don’t know what they’ll do.

        <

        p>How would you feel if Massachusetts hadn’t voted yet?

        <

        p>This would be another back-room deal, though a smaller back room (with only two dealers in it).

        <

        p>I think the race has energized our side and that running in every state is the best way to build for a victory in November.

        <

        p>It’s the other team that can’t handle democracy.

        <

        p>And, who says Obama would settle for #2?

        <

        p>Or should?

        <

        p>Or that, despite the obvious appeal of the idea, that he would be the very best running mate for Clinton? I can think of some objections.

        <

        p>Or that it’s tactically smart for our side to pick its ticket early, rather than keeping their side guessing (and saving a little drama for August)?

        <

        p>

        • the rest of the country is usually disenfranchised following Iowa and New Hampshire.  The longer and more McCain is exposed, the better.

  3. but anyway, do we know how the already-committed superdels are breaking out?  I’m under the impression their going to Hill.

    <

    p>Also, the “need to win 60+%” of the vote doesn’t hold water for me because it doesn’t seem reasonable that either candidate would win 0 superdels.  What would a minimum number be, on a really bad day?  30%?  Then what would each need to win out of the pledged?

    <

    p>Finally, the whole superdel thing seems to me like a way to tally up a big list of owed favors via backroom deals and shady shady pork payback positions undemocratic pork shade.

    <

    p>I’m just sayin.

  4. Thanks sabutai…

    <

    p>I am going to contact all of the superdelegates from mass. and ask them to support the Massachusetts overwhelming winner…

      • And I think it exposes something here.  I would bet that the ones who are screaming that the rules should be followed vis-a-vis the disqualification of Florida and Michigan delegates and the same ones who would now like to see the Super Delegates “follow their conscience.”  

      • I imagine the Obama campaign would not want the superdelegates to go with the way they states voted.  So far, Clinton has won most of the big population states and is expected to win the few remaining ones.  In fact, if all goes as the CW (and the “leaked” Obama memo from yesterday) say, of the top ten states by population, Clinton will have won them all except for GA and Il.  Given that a lot of the superdelegates are members of congress, and congressional seats are apportioned by population, that would seem to help Clinton.  Look at Massachusetts, does Obama want Kennedy, Kerry and Patrick to all vote for Clinton now?  Obama has been able to rack up his delegates by winning the small states and staying close in the big ones so that he benefits from the way the delegates are proportioned.  That winner take all superdelegate system would seem to hurt him.

        • The numbers of endorsements are continuing to accrue, but superdelegates — just like pledged delegates — severely overrepresent small, red states.  For instance:

          <

          p>Kansas:  1 superdelegate per 3.5 pledged delegate, or 1 per every 48,000 votes for Kerry in 2004.
          Utah: 1 super per 3.8 pledged, 1 per 40,200 Kerry votes.

          <

          p>New York: 1 super per 4.7 pledged, or 1 per 176,000 Kerry votes.
          California: 1 superdelegate per 5.2 pledged, or 1 per every 95,000 Kerry votes.

          <

          p>In red states, there’s a pattern of more superdelegates compared to Democratic votes and pledged delegates.  It’s to Obama’s benefit to take advantage of this valuing of land over people.

  5. With slightly updated numbers,

    <

    p>Pledged awarded: Obama leads 866-851
    Superdelegates committed: Clinton leads 203-113.
    Total delegates: Clinton 1054-979.

    <

    p>Delegates outstanding (2016)

    <

    p>Pledged (1524)
    75 more from Super Tuesday
    1435 from future primaries and caucuses
    14 spots won by Edwards in Iowa that will be reallocated to Clinton and Obama later on.

    <

    p>Unpledged (492)

    <

    p>410 uncommitted superdelegates
    70 add-on delegates yet to be elected
    12 Edwards delegates (these are pledged to Edwards, so they’re effectively unpledged in the Clinton-Obama race)

    <

    p>Now the 70 add-on delegates are elected unpledged, but you can be sure that they will likely be committed to one candidate or the other.

    <

    p>So well over 75% of the remaining delegate votes come from the primaries and caucuses.

    <

    p>So yes, if you want to wrap up the nomination using just the primaries and caucuses, it’s a steep uphill climb.

    <

    p>And a reminder who the uncommitted superdelegates in Massachusetts are:

    <

    p>U.S. Reps:
    John Olver
    Niki Tsongas
    John Tierney
    Edward Markey

    <

    p>National Committee Members Elected for Massachusetts:
    John Walsh
    Debra Kozikowski
    Gus Bickford
    Raymond Jordan
    David O’Brien
    Margaret Xifaras

    <

    p>National Committee Member At-Large:
    James Roosevelt Jr.

    <

    p>Former National Committee Chairs:
    Debra DeLee
    Paul Kirk

    <

    p>The committed superdelegates are 7-6 Clinton (4-5 on the elected officials, 2-1 on DNC members, and 1-0 on former DNC chairs).

    <

    p>You may not know the DNC members, but I’ve had the chance to meet them and see them in action, and they are the most committed Democrats you can imagine, and some of the most decent people in political life. With their network of contacts, they are far more likely to have full information about which candidate would make the best president. Likewise the four U.S. Reps have experience working with both Clinton and Obama on the Hill and can make informed judgments about them.

    <

    p>So yes, I trust they will make the right decision.

      • Just looking at the list, I can see people with certain leanings/linkages, even if they haven’t come out yet, pretty much breaks out evenly — surprise!

        <

        p>In the end, Howard Dean makes himself the nominee, shocking the convention with a speech about how he’s going to go to New Hampshire, and Florida and YAAAAAAAAAH!

        <

        p>I think I’ll fold the tent now, look forward to the Democratic Dispatch tomorrow!

        <

        p>H

        • the fact that many have leanings.  I just happened to be speaking to John tonight and he said it was definite and public.

          <

          p>As to looking forward to the Dispatch.  Can you look forward to something you write?

  6. No one knows what the future will bring. August is SIX MONTHS away. It is premature to say that the nomination will come down to superdelegates. Let the half of the country that hasn’t voted yet have their say, then we can see what’s what going in to the Convention.

    <

    p>Six months ago was August 2007. Would you have said then that McCain would have the nomination sewn up by now, and that Hillary Clinton would have been fought to a draw by Barack Obama — to the point where she had to loan her own campaign $5 million to keep the lights on, and top staff were going without pay?!

    • …that it is essentially mathematically impossible for either candidate to sew up the nomination through the voting process?  

    • It would take a Messianic candidacy to change the game so much, so quickly.  It’s no longer about coaxing away soft support — most of the support out there is hardening, and quickly.  Who do you think is going to get over 60% of the delegates still at play?  

      <

      p>It’s great that the soft support for the obvious candidate has evaporated, as it did for Lieberman in 2004.  But to say that the country is going to pivot on a dime and suddenly, overwhelmingly go for one of these candidates takes a lot of faith.

      • Just look at history. All kinds of things can happen. One of the candidates can make a huge mistake. There can be an intervening event, for example another 9/11 — that was pretty unexpected, as I recall, and who knows how it might affect things. How about if the dollar plunges because of all the recent interest rate cuts, and the stock market then drops 30%. Want more specifics even assuming nothing so major? Texas and some other states could break overwhelmingly for one candidate — let’s say 60-40 — why not? The polls haven’t been very accurate so far. Even if that doesn’t meet the mathematical test, it would have an enormous impact on sentiment.

        <

        p>My point is that, sure, this kind of speculation is entertaining, but it’s ridiculous to say that it “will be.” Say rather that if nothing changes this is one scenario that is perhaps increasingly likely compared to other scenarios.  

        • There is a difference between “definitely will happen” and “chances are overwhelming that”.  However, I’m not going by polls, but rather demographics and past results.  Outside of the red-state caucuses that Hillary didn’t contest, nobody has gotten 60% yet.  And everything from here on in will be contested, especially multiracial Texas.

          • From what I’ve seen, the math makes it exceedingly unlikely that either Obama or Clinton can muster a non-superdelegate-based victory, barring some extraordinary unforeseen event.

            • I’m just trying to leave some room open for possibility, as opposed to being a strict determinist — which, as I say, I think is not warranted and certainly not supported by historical experience.

              <

              p>But, of course, excellent post and I agree with the general argument.

Archives