No Super Delgate has voted yet. They can't vote until the Convention.

Alternate Delegates (Super Delegates) can't vote until the Convention. All 750 of them could cast their ballot for either Hillary or Obama.  There's no way to know who will be the nominee until the Convention seats Michigan and Florida and the Alternate Delegates cast their vote at that time.

There's 750 Alternate Delegates (Super Delegates). Not ONE has cast a ballot for either candidate yet. All 750 have no voting mechanism until they cast their ballots at the Democratic Convention. There is no winner until the ballots are cast. There's no way for either Hillary or Barack to have thenomination after the final states vote on June 3.

There's no OFFICIAL way for the Alternate Delegates to vote PRIOR to the Democratic Convention. The Alternates will vote for the MOST ELECTABLE candidate, that is their only FUNCTION. So Howard Dean is trying to break the rules by calling for the Alternates to declare (yes, declare, that is NOT VOTING) in June after the last states vote.

But nothing counts until they vote at the Convention in late August. That's a lot of time for more vetting of both candidates. That's where we stand now.

Hillary has the Big MO (momentum),and should take the majority of the states left to vote. The questionis Electability. Who can win against McCain in November. That is who the Alternate Delegates have to vote for.

Also, the first business is the credentials committee to seat the delegates. This is when Michigan and Florida will be ruled upon. They must be seated. Then the first ballot at the Convention might decide who is our nominee. Hillary and Barack are in a virtual tie and will remain so until the convention.  

Tags: Delegate Count, Hillary, obama, super delgates (all tags)

Comments

97 Comments

I knew this was going to happen.

Are you technically correct?  Yes.

Are supers going to start switching away from the perfectly viable candidate that they chose just because Clinton rallied too little, too late?  I'm thinking "no."

If Clinton continues to campaign the superdelegates even after Obama gets 2024 and is declared the presumptive nominee by the media and most Democrats, she's going to suffer backlash that makes the bogus gas tax holiday look like Christmas.

by Dracomicron 2008-05-04 03:31PM | 0 recs
Re: I knew this was going to happen.

she's not getting backlash from her plan to pay gas tax with big oil money, she's so right he has to lie about it and pretend her plan is like McCain's and that the tax money won't be made up. Pathetic, really, but I guess it's never to late to smear Hillary? yes, it's true, even if the supers say who they want, even if Hillary looks to be ahead, the votes can't count until the convention. the only way one of them could take it earlier is if the other one gives up. And why should either of them, Barack likes to say that it'll be over in June, but he can only guarantee that if he's giving up in June, otherwise it isn't up to him. And I expect that if she's taken the lead by then he wouldn't give up either.  Fasten your seat belts, this is going to go all the way to the convention. the good news is that we'll rule the news and we won't have to start thinking about McCain until September. Isn't that great?  

by anna shane 2008-05-04 03:43PM | 0 recs
Re: I knew this was going to happen.

It's a shameless pander.  When she was asked to name an economist who agrees with her plan she basically said, "Economists suck.  They're elitest."  The American people are smarter than Hillary Clinton thinks they are.

by SpideyDem 2008-05-04 03:49PM | 0 recs
Re: I knew this was going to happen.

Really? She said it was a political move, not meant to rescue the economy.  It's a first step in getting big oil to pay back what they've skimmed.  Didn't you listen?  

by anna shane 2008-05-04 03:50PM | 0 recs
Re: I knew this was going to happen.

Both of them have a windfall profits tax. The issue is that the holiday won't be an effective price-lowerer, and that the money from the Windfall will be diverted away from Alternative Energy research, where Obama would put all of it.

by Falsehood 2008-05-04 03:53PM | 0 recs
Re: I knew this was going to happen.

Also bad for the environment.

by soccerandpolitics 2008-05-04 04:07PM | 0 recs
Price-lowerer?

I have searched my college econ (Baumol) text high and low for the term "effective price-lowerer".  Must be in a new and groovy Obamanomics text...

by Sabrina Duncan 2008-05-04 05:51PM | 0 recs
Re: Price-lowerer?

I think you understood I was saying "effective at lowering prices."

If I offended your grammatical sensibilities, then I dearly apologize. And in this case, I'd remind you that the economists are WITH Obama.

by Falsehood 2008-05-04 06:17PM | 0 recs
Re: Price-lowerer?

One of the curious things I have learned watching Obama supporters refuse to accept is the importance of symbolism, of the political gesture.  

This is hard for people to accept, but yes, refusing to hold your hand over your heart during the national anthem is poor politics.  Refusing to immediately repudiate the anti-American hate speech of your long-time spiritual mentor is poor politics.  And criticizing the gas tax, which, may yield only a slight and short term benefit for people in need, is  yet another failure by Obama to seize on the stagecraft and symbolism.

What Obama consistently fails to do is see how much everyday Americans value someone who says, "I share your values".  Simple. Instead he spends his time rationalizing, explaining and intellectualizing everything.  A gas tax holiday is a political gesture, not economic policy.  

by Sabrina Duncan 2008-05-05 04:20AM | 0 recs
Re: Price-lowerer?

I've been to several athletic events recently - some people put their hand on their heart, most do not.

There may be parts of the country where hand-on-heart in the anthem is expected, but I only see it as required in the pledge.

One reason I support Obama is because of the stagecraft aspect - I'm sick of candidates being judged on their value by their ability to spin and campaign.

I think you're right that it's a gesture, but that doesn't mean I have to like it. Nor do I think you were asserting that.

by Falsehood 2008-05-05 12:42PM | 0 recs
Re: Price-lowerer?

When a stage full of politicians are photographed with their hands over their hearts and one is not,  it gets noticed.  This ain't a baseball game. Politics is theatre. I think Obama is extremely stubborn, and it hurts him when he tries to get into philosophical debates about patriotism and flag pins.  

He wants to be right all the time - if he gave in every once in a while he might not seem so doctrinaire and talky, which puts a barrier up between him and rank and file Democrats.  Some well-educated professional people love the intellectual subversion of it all, but many people are really troubled by Obama digging in his heels, on "principle" on some of this stuff.  

It is really about opportunity cost - think about all the substantive issues Obama could have brought attention to if he'd only spent his precious "political capital" on something other than explaining, more than once, why it is he won't wear that stupid flag pin.  Or why Jeremiah Wright was right, no wrong, no what was the question?

by Sabrina Duncan 2008-05-05 02:12PM | 0 recs
Re: Price-lowerer?

God forbid we EVER do things based on principle....

I'm not saying it didn't hurt him, I'm saying that you and I need to stop judging candidates by how well tey practice the stagecraft, and instead by how well they will govern.

Obama doesn't control what the media harps on - it's not his decision why he gets asked about the flag pin that none of the three candidates wear.

by Falsehood 2008-05-05 03:36PM | 0 recs
Someone who doesn't play the game....

...will never be president, that is precisely my point. He won't get to unpack all of his plans and his principles, because he will have failed to meet the criteria, shallow as you may think it is, to actually win the presidency.

Do you honestly think, after Gore and Dean and Kerry (all of whom I fervently supported, by the way) that "principles" are what win elections?  If that were the case, Gore would be finishing up his final year as President.  

Do you honestly think that Red America, upon whom our winning the white house, sorry to say, is contingent, isn't turned off by the patriotism issue, and the Wright issue?  What is so inspiring or forgivable among the young, activist Obama base  of our party is simply not valued and will not sell among these people in the General. Wishing will not make it so.

by Sabrina Duncan 2008-05-06 05:36AM | 0 recs
Re: Someone who doesn't play the game....

I'm not saying we should stop playing the game. I'm saying some parts of the game aren't helpful.

As someone who knows people in Red America (and is from that part of the country) I resent your implication that you know what these people can about.

Yes, some people listen to Rush, Sean and Neal. However, there are many, may more who do not, and who think this country is headed in the wrong direction.

What I go by:

The bottom line is that our job is harder than the conservatives' job.  After all, it's easy to articulate a belligerent foreign policy based solely on unilateral military action, a policy that sounds tough and acts dumb; it's harder to craft a foreign policy that's tough and smart.  It's easy to dismantle government safety nets; it's harder to transform those safety nets so that they work for people and can be paid for.  It's easy to embrace a theological absolutism; it's harder to find the right balance between the legitimate role of faith in our lives and the demands of our civic religion.  But that's our job.  And I firmly believe that whenever we exaggerate or demonize, or oversimplify or overstate our case, we lose.  Whenever we dumb down the political debate, we lose.  A polarized electorate that is turned off of politics, and easily dismisses both parties because of the nasty, dishonest tone of the debate, works perfectly well for those who seek to chip away at the very idea of government because, in the end, a cynical electorate is a selfish electorate.

-Barack Obama

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/9/30/ 102745/165

by Falsehood 2008-05-06 10:08AM | 0 recs
Re: Someone who doesn't play the game....

I have lived in red America too and some of my people are as red America as they come. And after listening to some of the liberal fantasists who support Obama while checking their liberal credentials at the door to trash Hillary in the most ungoverned and misogynist way, I have to say I am happy to turn in my membership card.  

The quote you cite sounds great.  It was likely penned by a 26 year old speech writer with bona fide literary gifts. But it is an intellectual confection. It makes a happy marriage  of warring opposites - how could anyone not want that? But assuming that someone could really change all of the things mentioned, is Obama really the one to do it?  A newcomer to the world stage, with a reed thin resume and a distressing habit of hooking up with the Ayerses and the Wrights and the Rezkos, probably for access and political expedience?  How can one who bemoans cynicism and "old politics" countenance the presence of people like that?  This is the guy who pitches the great dialectic of hope?  

by Sabrina Duncan 2008-05-06 11:49AM | 0 recs
Re: Someone who doesn't play the game....

Obama did write a book, you know. He is capable of penning a decent word. He also wrote his 2004 speech  and the first Rev. Wright speech on race.

I am with you in that there are supporters of Obama who have said and done horrible things. But it goes both ways. I have been called stupid, naive, foolish, idiotic, hateful, dumb and more by Hillary supporters. It's hard to not go negative.

Please don't buy into the hype. Obama had a pastor who had some very weird beliefs, but Trinity UCC is a mainstream Chicago church, and it does great things. Rezko was crooked, but he fund raised for all kinds of people, including George Bush.

Ayers doesn't count, no matter how much Sean Hannity wants him to. He's a mainstream Chicago professor, and I don't blame Obama for going to his house one time in 1996.

by Falsehood 2008-05-06 12:22PM | 0 recs
Re: Someone who doesn't play the game....

Based on last night's results, the "it's over for Hillary" media mob and the madness of crowds, I assume this race will end fairly soon.  Me, and people like me, will focus our lives and attention elsewhere, and it will be better to have only the converted continue the Obama love fest on sites like these until the General. That is as it should be.

But as a final response, I have to say that whether Obama himself wrote some beautiful lines, or issued them in a stirring way, is not the point.  Possessing inspiring philosophical thoughts, writing talent and smooth oratory doesn't necessarily mean someone can govern. That takes a different set of core skills, one more shrewd and perhaps more brutal than we'd like to think.  Skills better suited for the abbatoir than the poet's corner. It was ever thus.  

But to finally say "don't buy into the hype" about Wright and Rezko and Ayers, kind of brings this conversation back to the start. Of course I don't buy into the hype, but the electorate does!  That is what I meant about symbols, and gestures and theatre.  

Instead of seeing these relationships as the dangerous threats to his candidacy that they truly are, Obama supporters would rather spend time refuting and rebutting the criticism leveled against him and it simply begs credulity. "Oh, Wright was absolutely correct if you put what he said into proper CONTEXT, and his church has done some great work", or "Ayers was only frustrated with the Government so he was fighting back in the way that people did back then" or "so Obama got a political fixer to buy a strip of property and sell it back to him? That is NOT a political favor".  

Please.  These few brush strokes representing some of Obama's past associations paint a troubling picture to many people, but his supporters will rationalize, defend and excuse all of it, which is incredible, since he is the one who puts himself up as the candidate with superior judgment and character.

But I remember Al Gore, and I remember John Kerry, and I was part of the fun of the early DKos days - we were going to change everything.  And then came a few pathetic gaffes or lack of a powerful response to some below the belt accusations and they were both completed neutered and humiliated by the Republicans.  And now the Democratic establishment is committed to Obama, a beatiful mail order bride, no matter what.  Oh, and let's not forget the DNC ensuring our failure in November by pissing off Florida and Michigan - now that's smart politics!

But I digress.  I wish you the best of luck in the great progressive Obama miracle. But if it does not come into being, and Obama loses, it will be due solely to his own, very significant failings and the fact that his supporters, the media and the Democratic Party always looked the other way when any unpleasantness arose.  

by Sabrina Duncan 2008-05-07 02:08PM | 0 recs
Re: Someone who doesn't play the game....

First, I reject your implication that supporting Obama is akin to a faith-based religion. As a religious person, I find that comparison insulting.

Second, I reject the idea that you should disengage from the general. These two candidates were REMARKABLY close on policy. You may not be able to argue for Obama, but you can argue for the policies he and Clinton agreed upon. You can argue for withdrawal from Iraq and healthcare for all.

Third, I agree with you that a good campaign does not a president make. But consider these things: Obama has had a strong core, message that he has stuck to. His campaign has not had internal fighting or any leaks of substance. Last, there is no preparation for the presidency, but I initally gave Obama my support do to the way he handled substance in various Q&As, which gave me faith in his presidential ability.

Fourth, you make the assumption that the electorate don't have brains. Yes, some people will look at those, but please don't assume that everyone is going to suddenly reverse themselves. That's what was thought to be impossible in yesterday's contests, and Obama held steady. Oregon will tell you more.

I do not give my support to a candidate because of his ability to spin. When you heard those arguments from Obama supporters, they were justifying their own personal choice. As far as presenting that case to others, I would choose these simple arguments: Obama has disavowed Reverend Wright, who went out of his way to hurt his own church member's presidency. Ayers is a university professor whose house Obama visited over 10 years ago. They occasionally cross paths in Chicago, becuase they both live there. Rezko fundraised for many candidates. I find it odd that you aren't advocating against Bush (since we're talking to Republicans), since Rezko fundraised for him as well. How are those for comebacks?

For myself, I know that Wright's work was about more than those two damning clips, and I forgive Obama for sticking around in church when he said controversial things. Obama has said he wasn't in church for the Gd America quote, and that's the only one I would question if he had heard it and not spoken up. Ayers and Obama barely know each other, I don't see anything weird there in his judgment. If he had taken Ayers' council, that would be one thing, but these associations with Ayers don't matter to me.

The big mistake - the Rezko real-estate deal, has already been called "Boneheaded" by the candidate, and I agree with that assessment. The Tribune has exonerated him from any further damage.

Furthermore, you forget one big aspect: McCain is on record against this kind of stuff. Obama can hammer him when he doesn't speak up when it happens, and if he can't control it, that makes him look bad.

We do have a long ways to go, but I think Obama is a much better GE candidate than Clinton. I won't go into the reasons why, because they are negative, but that's where I stand, and I've read your comments.

PS: FL and MI will be seated, and the MyDD gizmo has MI for Obama.

by Falsehood 2008-05-07 04:33PM | 0 recs
Re: Someone who doesn't play the game....

In order to part ways as friends I'll say thanks and try to answer your criticisms.  

I don't believe I used the word "faith-based". I referred to "the converted" but I used it more generically than that.

My disengagement from the political process is not about policy, it is about a deep and abiding concern that the Democratic party is not my party any more - I must not share the same values anymore. I find it unforgivable that the party elite and its rank and file activists have both been willing to trash one of its strongest and toughest women, and I will not support it any longer.  

The "change" everyone thinks Obama will bring will probably be minimal in reality.  I disagree that Obama's core message has not changed or suffered from internal fighting or inconsitencies.  Samantha Power's telling comments that the Iraq policy is indeed fluid and subject to change, and Goolsbee's wink wink conversation with Canada about NAFTA shows a willingness to pander to voters on one hand and yet indicate to others the message may not really fit the reality. Those two instances alone are off message and probably show how truly "political" and opportunistic Obama is. He indeed IS a politician, but not a very good one.  He has cruised along a trajectory unlike anything in politics, buoyed by his charisma and appeal and tremendous amounts of good will.  Good on him.

The problem, in my view, over the past few elections is that the primary process is dominated by very liberal, mostly educated party activists. At one time, when I was a bit younger, I would have said, "Fuck Yeah! And that's the way it ought to be!"  But a bit older, and maybe wiser, I realize that Bill Clinton, our only recent D president, won precisely because he was a moderate, who appealed to Reagan Democrats.  Obama, and his supporters, are the newest form of the Deaniacs and the McGovernites.  His post-racial vibe is infectious, but he does not appeal to white lunch bucket democrats.  Fuck them! is what I hear from Obama supporters - who needs them? We have, we have US!

But we do need them to win.  And Obama has not shown he can reach across the divide and connect with them - even in North Carolina and Indiana, the demographic support changed very little.  

And either way, with McCain or Obama as president, little will actually change.  I don't but the whole "what about the Supreme Court appointments?" Thanks to the Naderites, the Supreme Court's die has already been cast.  And with Power's comments, who knows if Obama will actually pull troops out of Iraq.

It has taken several painful losses in the general to get to the point I am today, and it is only one person's view.  I am sure there are many more "activists" born every minute thanks to Obama.  But will that activism be enough to counter the remarkably conservative heart and soul of this country we live in?  I have seen the Democratic party fuck up and lose too many times, and I've had enough.

by Sabrina Duncan 2008-05-07 06:44PM | 0 recs
Re: Someone who doesn't play the game....

Thank you for a thoughtful response. I appreciate youu taking the time to share your thoughts. If you end up being correct, then a lot of people will have learned a harsh lesson, including me.

by Falsehood 2008-05-07 07:53PM | 0 recs
Re: I knew this was going to happen.

The windfall tax for the Alternative Energy Plan doesn't begin until 2009. The tax Clinton wants the energy companies to pay to offset a tax break for the consumer this summer has nothing to do with that. It is an entirely separate issue for the summer of 2008.

by LA 2008-05-05 05:09AM | 0 recs
Re: I knew this was going to happen.

You are correct, but I'm fairly sure Obama would propose his windfall profits tax for now if he wasn't sure it would be filibustered and vetoed.

by Falsehood 2008-05-05 12:38PM | 0 recs
The problem is...

...it won't work on any counts.  It will probably, by all expert belief, give money to the oil companies and not help anyone.  Clinton is alone on this.

Aren't YOU listening?

by Dracomicron 2008-05-04 03:54PM | 0 recs
Re: The problem is...

Wrong. Economists are coming around.. See the diary I posted below that has links.

by BostonIndependent 2008-05-04 05:34PM | 0 recs
Re: I knew this was going to happen.

My wife is currently in a program to earn her teaching certificate for elementary education, and one of the key aspects of her education is the belief that children are highly capable and intelligent.

Isn't it stunning that a candidate believes adult Americans to be less capable of deciphering the truth than teachers believe of seven year old kids?

by freedom78 2008-05-04 03:55PM | 0 recs
Re: I knew this was going to happen.

It is NOT a pander. I've been really bothered by this.. read http://www.mydd.com/story/2008/5/3/18303 9/0215
if you want to look at some data, and ponder for yourself. It also has links to economists who are now beginning to realize summer inventory levels and what price elasticity is about. And yes, Hillary's plan is quite different from McCain's.

Is Obama's position that working class Americans should just buy Exxon stock like he and Michelle did?

by BostonIndependent 2008-05-04 05:33PM | 0 recs
Not so much

What bobbank seems to not understand is that gas prices go up short-term all the time... Labor Day weekend, for example... and the oil companies aren't the sole people who can jack up prices.  Gas stations are perfectly capable of extorting more money if they think that people will pay.

Not only do gas consumers suffer from the close manipulation of an oligopoly, but they also get shafted by local vendors.

by Dracomicron 2008-05-04 05:48PM | 0 recs
If this goes to the convention...

...then I have a strong suspicion that a strangely well-funded challenger will appear in Clinton's 2012 Senate primary.

There's not being a team player, and then there's Hillary Clinton if she takes this to the Convention even after Obama has it locked up.

by Dracomicron 2008-05-04 03:53PM | 0 recs
heh!

i'm sure hillary's shaking in her shoes at the prospect. if your candidate can't handle her, i doubt you could do very well against her. she'll be in another job by then, anyway ;-)

and read the diary. nothing is "locked up" until the superdelegates vote in the convention, thanks to obama's poor performance. obama had his shot, and failed to get 2024 delegates. he's going to have to persuade the superdelegates to give him what the voters denied him.

by campskunk 2008-05-04 04:01PM | 0 recs
Re: heh!

And even then it's not over!  Obama could realize the error of his ways and cede the nomination to Clinton.  Or all the states that "don't count" could finally get pissed enough to secede, and the big, beautiful Clinton states could form their own even more perfect union.

by username3 2008-05-04 04:26PM | 0 recs
what. the. hell.

So, in your view, Obama doesn't deserve the nomination because he didn't get enough delegates to win it outright without needing supers.  So, according to you, that means that the nomination should go to...the candidate with even fewer delegates and victories?

Try making an argument for Clinton that has a shred of logical validity.

by hekebolos 2008-05-04 05:11PM | 0 recs
Re: Don't Worry

Not only can Obama handle Clinton, he did.  He fought her to a tie on Super Tuesday, then absolutely cleaned her clock the rest of February, proving just how flat-footed her campaign was when faced with the prospect of having to fight past February 5.  He then took the very worst she could throw at him and comes in to NC and IN with an insuperable pledged delegate lead, which is already emboldening superdelegates to go public with their support for him.  

by deminva 2008-05-04 05:24PM | 0 recs
Re: I knew this was going to happen.

The taxing of oil companies is a hypothetical non-reality.  That'd be like Obama proposing a gas tax holiday where the extra revenue will fall from the sky.  Neither is going to happen, so it makes her suggestion meaningless.  Her plan is McCain's plan made to SOUND (but not be) palatable to Dems.

by proseandpromise 2008-05-05 04:36AM | 0 recs
Re: I knew this was going to happen.
Thanks for the comment. There's a LONG way between now and August 26 (the Convention).
Just look what the media covered in the past month.  Have you been following the Rezko Trial?
Check it out "gavel to gavel" at www.chicagotribune.com  or www.suntimes.com.
It is total corruption of the whole political system in Illinois.  I'm saying, the alternate delgates can vote at the convention for the candidate that has the best chance of beating McCain (that's the overall goal).
by JohnnyB 2008-05-04 03:43PM | 0 recs
Why does the Rezko trial matter?

Obama was not involved with wrongdoing in relation to Rezko.  What's the point of bringing it up?

Oh, right, you want to scare the superdelegates into switching sides.

Nope, still not going to happen.  Supers (you call them "alternate delegates?" I thought the Clinton team called them "automatic delegates") are smart enough to realize that there's nothing on Obama with regards to Wright, either.  Certainly Obama's guilt-by-association issues are only a fraction of the slime that Republicans have prepared on Clinton, as well.

by Dracomicron 2008-05-04 03:50PM | 0 recs
Re: Why does the Rezko trial matter?

because he said that if you take money you owe. That can be applied to him, tony comes to mind, there may be others. I don't think he'll owe Tony for the help he got, but I don't think Hillary owes anyone either. Sauce for the goose?  If he doesn't want to hear about Tony helping him into his house, he ought not talk about Hillary 'owing' anyone either?  

by anna shane 2008-05-04 03:52PM | 0 recs
Re: Why does the Rezko trial matter?

I haven't really heard that talk - more that PACS and lobbyists have too much influence.

by Falsehood 2008-05-04 03:55PM | 0 recs
Who said what now?

Please cite what you're talking about.  If you're talking about lobbyist/PAC money, then that doesn't apply to his dealings with Rezko; Rezko isn't helping him become president, nor is he a federal lobbyist.  Even by your convoluted logic it's not the same as lobbyists helping Clinton become president and then maybe expecting her to do something for them.

by Dracomicron 2008-05-04 03:58PM | 0 recs
Re: I knew this was going to happen.

Well said, Johnny B.  Why should the Democratic voters have anything to do with the selection of their party's nominee?  That is sooooo yesterday!  Today we have smarter deciders, each of whom happen to actively support Hillary Clinton.

Awesome!

by niksder 2008-05-04 05:14PM | 0 recs
Re: I knew this was going to happen.

Me, too.  I predicted it last week here.  Look, I'm all for staunch support of political candidates.  Really.  But there's a reality check in order here.  Once the primaries are over, Obama's clear lead in pledged delegates will become a clear victory in the primaries.  By that time, more superdelegates will have gone public with their support for him.  He will in short order have, as you say, a technical victory.  If Clinton holds out, there will be endless talk by the pundits about whether or not it is at all plausible that this technical victory might be reversed, and the New York Times will run a long article with the key finding that virtually all Obama-supporting SDs are locked in in their support of him, whereas many Clinton-supporting SDs are hopeful that Clinton will concede quickly, so that the party can coalesce behind its nominee.

If Clinton refuses to concede on the grounds that all these SDs supporting Obama haven't officially cast their votes for him, extraordinary pressure will be brought to bear on her to get out of the race.  Remaining in the race will appear extremely self-centered and silly, as Obama turns squarely toward McCain.  It won't happen.

by deminva 2008-05-04 05:30PM | 0 recs
Re: I knew this was going to happen.

Sorry Deminva, but you have to be aware that a lot of information will come out between now and August 26 (the convention).  We MUST wait until the convention to pick our candidate because neither of them will have enough delegates through the primary and caucus process to garner the nomination.  

by JohnnyB 2008-05-04 05:51PM | 0 recs
Delegates

Obama will reach the point of having the majority of pledged delegates on May 20 at the latest.  Once he gets 1627 pledged delegates, there will be no way for Clinton to make up the difference, and he would have won had there been no superdelegates at all.

This will be a very compelling argument for supers, many of whom regret being put into this position in the first place.

I doubt the people who believe that superdelegates should not decide the nomination will be compelled otherwise once Obama has the un-challengable pledged lead.

by Dracomicron 2008-05-04 06:02PM | 0 recs
Re: I knew this was going to happen.

I appreciate the tone of your disagreement, johnnyb, but it's quite commonplace that the winner of the primaries is in fact only the presumptive winner until all the votes are made official at the party convention.  I'm generalizing here, of course, but the fact remains that Democrats have had this superdelegates system in place for decades, yet we've acted as though our presumptive nominee is in fact our nominee.

And look, if something really terrible arose that somehow disqualified Obama, there would be time before the convention for SD's and others to change their minds.  But Clinton would be absolutely discredited if she fell back on a technical argument that the delegates who have promised to support Obama haven't actually cast their votes for him.

by deminva 2008-05-05 03:25AM | 0 recs
Re: I knew this was going to happen.

Only if we follow the rules and ignore the math.

by Politicalslave 2008-05-04 06:00PM | 0 recs
re

That is true they cannot vote until the convention and they can always change their mind

by rossinatl 2008-05-04 03:31PM | 0 recs
Thank you for the info!

I'm glad someone is reminding folks that this thing could last until the convention. There is nothing that will help the Democratic party more than 2 1/2 months of candidates sniping at each other without any voters to be held accountable to.

by Democratic Unity 2008-05-04 03:32PM | 0 recs
Re: Thank you for the info!

that's the party rules. If we were like pugs she'd have had it locked up by now.  I certainly hope the Barack talks about himself when there are no more states to vote, and gives up smearing Hillary. What would be the point, once there are no more voters for him to pander to.  

by anna shane 2008-05-04 03:45PM | 0 recs
Re: Thank you for the info!

Tell me when Barack (not a surrogate) smeared Hillary.  Give me a good example.  I'd love to hear it.  

by SpideyDem 2008-05-04 03:47PM | 0 recs
Re: Thank you for the info!

he's called her the most divisive figure, he's said she can't be trusted? There's a list somewhere of like twelve nasty things he's said. He's saying right now that she'll owe favors to her donors.  Those are character smears.  

by anna shane 2008-05-04 03:54PM | 0 recs
Re: Thank you for the info!

In poll after poll, the American people have said that they don't trust Hillary Clinton.  Are we smearing her?

Saying she's beholden to big donors and he is less so is a very fair and valid point, and a key reason to vote for Obama.

I haven't heard him call her the "most divisive figure."  

by SpideyDem 2008-05-04 04:00PM | 0 recs
Re: Thank you for the info!

In vote after vote, they keep smearing her by voting for her opponents!  Have they no shame?!

by username3 2008-05-04 04:28PM | 0 recs
Not smears if they're accurate

"Smear" implies that it's inaccurate or misconstrued.

Clinton has high negatives by most polls; that's reasonably considered divisive.  One of those polls is trustworthiness; she's knocking on 60% untrustworthy in some polls.

The Clintons are famous for giving favors to donors and other loyalists.  I'm not sure how you could follow Clinton's career and suppose that this isn't true.  Did you not notice Andrew Cuomo becoming one of her add-on superdelegates?

It seems to me that everything he has said was documented by reputable sources.

by Dracomicron 2008-05-04 04:03PM | 0 recs
Re: Not smears if they're accurate

Apropos, I just ran across this Taibbi piece, which mentions her $2.2 billion in earmarks.

by username3 2008-05-04 04:32PM | 0 recs
Thanks for the link

I particularly liked

As is often the case with defense earmarks, some of Hillary's pork spending is taken out of the Army's Operation and Maintenance budget, which is supposed to be used for troop-support initiatives like body armor. In simple terms, Hillary's rampant marauding of the defense budget takes money away from troops in the field. Soldiers wind up short on equipment, and Clinton winds up with hefty campaign contributions and free flights on private jets. Carrying charges, my boy, carrying charges!

by Dracomicron 2008-05-04 05:23PM | 0 recs
Re: Thanks for the link

The real eye-opener to me was the ratio between earmarks and contributions.  Judging by Duke Cunningham's bribe sheet, our earmarkers in Congress are being taken to the cleaners.

by username3 2008-05-04 05:41PM | 0 recs
Re: Thank you for the info!

OK, you say it, I believe you.  Did you know, in the us vs. them of small town N.C. and Indiana, Bill Clinton says Obama is them.  I know it's not racial (Bill said so, and he's got a pretty good track record on this) but as Democrats talk about the need to bring people together, Bill positions the Clinton campaign as actually needing to keep us divided.

The definition of elitist seems to have shifted recently to mean all those who don't support the Clinton candidacy.

by niksder 2008-05-04 05:28PM | 0 recs
Re: Thank you for the info!

Those were the voters who said that.

by Politicalslave 2008-05-04 06:02PM | 0 recs
Re: Thank you for the info!

He flipped her off, remember?  Didn't you get the memo?!?!?

/snark

by ProgressiveDL 2008-05-04 06:34PM | 0 recs
I see

Now you are all for rules. This is new material from Texas caucus should not count yelling you did before.

by kindthoughts 2008-05-04 03:53PM | 0 recs
Re: I see

I was being ironic?  

by anna shane 2008-05-04 03:54PM | 0 recs
how were you being ironic?

by kindthoughts 2008-05-04 04:00PM | 0 recs
Re: Thank you for the info!
Thanks for your comment.
We need to pick the candidate that can beat McCain in November.  That's the goal.  The convention process will do that.  Neither candidate will have enough delegates without the Alternate Delegates casting their vote.  We will all back that candidate in November, some of us holding our noses while doing so, but we will defeat McCain.
by JohnnyB 2008-05-04 03:46PM | 0 recs
Re: Thank you for the info!

Sorry Senator McCain has already lost. My God I could beat McCain, Ha Ha

by Politicalslave 2008-05-04 06:04PM | 0 recs
Re: No Super Delgate has voted yet.

Er...Terry McAuliffe (sp?) says there will be a nominee by June 15.  I tend to believe it.  The line in the sand is drawn.  If one of the candidates drags this out past June that candidate will be persona non grata in the Democratic Party big time.

by SpideyDem 2008-05-04 03:46PM | 0 recs
Re: No Super Delgate has voted yet.
By June 15, there will be a "presumptive nominee",
but the nominee can only be chosen at the Convention.  
by JohnnyB 2008-05-04 03:50PM | 0 recs
Re: No Super Delgate has voted yet.

Yes, but that's so academic as to be pointless.  

by rfahey22 2008-05-04 03:52PM | 0 recs
Re: No Super Delgate has voted yet.

except that the supers can always change their minds. That's the rules too. I can't be over until the convention unless she gives up.  Or unless he gives up.  I don't see either of them giving up, especially if she has the popular vote and is ahead of McCain in the polls. I don't see him ever giving up. He thinks it's his.  

by anna shane 2008-05-04 03:56PM | 0 recs
The supers don't want that power

By and large, the supers don't want to be seen as overthrowing the choice of the people.  The blowback from nearly all sides (not just Team Obama) would be ridiculous.

Supers don't have the reason... or, by and large, the guts, to do this.

by Dracomicron 2008-05-04 04:05PM | 0 recs
Re: No Super Delgate has voted yet.

So can the pledged delegates.  But, that doesn't mean there's any chance of it actually happening.

by soccerandpolitics 2008-05-04 04:09PM | 0 recs
Re: No Super Delgate has voted yet.

You are so right about that and everybody knows it, including me.  I stand by my point.  If someone drags this out past June, that person will become a pariah.

by SpideyDem 2008-05-04 03:54PM | 0 recs
Re: No Super Delgate has voted yet.

Unless it's Barack, in which case you'd want him to?  If she's ahead in the popular vote and he's ahead in the delegate vote by less than one hundred, it's a tie, but she's morally ahead, because we are Democrats and we believe in one person one vote and majority rule.  If she also polls better against McCain we'll expect the super's to go to her.  

by anna shane 2008-05-04 03:58PM | 0 recs
Re: No Super Delgate has voted yet.

Bullshit.  Don't project your bias onto me.  I made my point and I stick to it.  If Hillary is the presumptive nominee by the end of June, and he insists on dragging it out past that, it will be very unpopular (he won't do that if it comes to that).  

Keep holding on to all those underdog arguments about metrics.  There was a great article on Politico making the point that the people who Hillary needs to convince of those underdog arguments are seasoned Democratic politicians/activists - the people who are least likely to buy into these arguments.

by SpideyDem 2008-05-04 04:06PM | 0 recs
Re: No Super Delgate has voted yet.

If one has 49.2 on June 3, should that person drop out if none of the Alternate delegates have not OFFICIALLY voted?  And please don't get personal.  It offends, when there's no need for that.  We're all in the same boat, and someone will be steering us to victory in November.

by JohnnyB 2008-05-04 04:27PM | 0 recs
Re: No Super Delgate has voted yet.

I didn't get personal, I got profane in defending myself against a personal attack.  

I presume the superdelegates will by and large declare themselves in a way that leaves very little doubt as to who the choice of the party is.  In that case, the loser needs to step down.  If that doesn't happen, all bets may be off, but I am confident that it will.

by SpideyDem 2008-05-04 04:43PM | 0 recs
Re: No Super Delgate has voted yet.

49.2% would mean she has 1991 delegates.  I don't know about you, but I don't see her getting anywhere near that close, considering she is at 1599 to Obama's 1736.

by ProgressiveDL 2008-05-04 06:40PM | 0 recs
Re: No Super Delgate has voted yet.

"She's morally ahead"

Wait...did you really just say that?  She's "morally ahead"?  Ok, we're done here.

by ProgressiveDL 2008-05-04 06:37PM | 0 recs
Re: No Super Delgate has voted yet. They can't

While technically true, I have not seen one credible account of how a nominee chosen in mid-August would be able to both unify the party before November and defeat McCain.  That is why even McAuliffe has said that the nominee will be chosen by mid-June.

by rfahey22 2008-05-04 03:51PM | 0 recs
No delegate has officially voted

None of the delegates, pledged or unpledged, have officially voted. Their job at the convention will be to vote for the most viable candidate to run against McCain and win. The most viable candidate is not Obama. I'm not saying he wouldn't win. I'm saying Clinton has a better chance. We need all the chance we can get.

by zenful6219 2008-05-04 04:10PM | 0 recs
Re: No delegate has officially voted

Except almost all of the evidence suggests that Obama would be the more "viable" nominee.

by DreamsOfABlueNation 2008-05-04 10:24PM | 0 recs
Re: No Super Delgate has voted yet. They can't

Technically true.  Also technically true that pledged delegates haven't voted yet and can't until the convention.

by soccerandpolitics 2008-05-04 04:12PM | 0 recs
Re: No Super Delgate has voted yet. They can't

"The Alternates will vote for the MOST ELECTABLE candidate, that is their only FUNCTION."

I've yet to see a single source support your assertion.  Can you provide a single link?

by soccerandpolitics 2008-05-04 04:14PM | 0 recs
Re: No Super Delgate has voted yet. They can't

As I see it, the super delegates exist as a sort of safety net. If a candidate, who wins the most primary delegates, is considered unelectable by convention time, the super delegates can salvage things and make sure Democrats nominate the most viable candidate. The name of the game is to win the White House. At present, many super delegates, like many supporters, are infatuated with the Rock Star Obama. But, we believe his star is fading.

by zenful6219 2008-05-04 04:25PM | 0 recs
it is going to be a floor fight

I see no reason for her to give up and hand it to him.  There is no reason for pledged delegates to determine this race and she is not going to drop out as long as more people have voted for her.

by TeresaInPa 2008-05-04 04:17PM | 0 recs
Re: it is going to be a floor fight

Yet another poll shows Obama has rebounded post-Wright.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/05/0 4/opinion/polls/main4069259.shtml

by politicsmatters 2008-05-04 04:48PM | 0 recs
Re: No Super Delgate has voted yet. They can't vo

In what respect does Hillary have the big mo?

She's lost 3 of the last 4 contests.  

And the most likely Tuesday scenario is a split, meaning that she will have lost 4 of the previous 6.

BTW, since NC is far larger than IN, an Obama win there yields far more delegates for him than a Clinton win in IN would for her.

by politicsmatters 2008-05-04 04:46PM | 0 recs
Re: No Super Delgate has voted yet.

You're right... and in the incredible moving finish line of success ---- this is a great argument.

Before the election, her campaign boasted of its edge in Automatic Delegates

Michigan and Florida broke the rules.

Nevada caucus is important.  

Oops I lost after I declared I won.

Polls are not as importanat as primary results

Small states are not as important as big ones.

Caucuses are not democratic so I refuse to count them

Lets count Florida and Michigan

The results in Texas and Ohio are important

Lets wait until everyone has voted

The Texas primary is important but not the caucus

I'm ahead in national polls so I should win no matter what other primaries are coming up

I won Pennsylvania, so that means I should win

All previous results should be ignored; we should focus on electability

If I beat the point spread in NC, I win

The winner of Indiana should win the nomination

The pledged delgates are obligated to vote in the first round for their candidate (by the way, one of the two campaigns vetted its state convention and national convention delegates to ensure it would still be ahead).

The SUpers are not obligated but can express their preference, dozens have abandoned HRC anmd gone to BO --- none have gone teh other way.

If you have a plan that gets you past round one of the convention to get teh nomination --- great but don't play pissant 1st year associate legal BS like suddenly the rules and the process are important.  

HRC has moved the measure of success so many times that its ceased to be meaningful.  In fact, at this point Obma could win Indiania 51:49 and HRC would claim that she had a majority of white
Catholic men and that was the demographic that would carry 11 states for her but not BO.

HRC is behind --- in every measure that counts.  By the arguments made in this blog, the Supers do not count until the convention.  

by kmwray 2008-05-04 04:52PM | 0 recs
Re: No Super Delgate has voted yet.

Kmwray:  They don't count until they cast their one ballot each.  Do you want Obama no matter what comes up between now and August 26?  Or do you want to take the White House in November. You have to wait this out for the benefit of the Party.

by JohnnyB 2008-05-04 05:56PM | 0 recs
Re: No Super Delgate has voted yet.

What evidence do you have that there will be any more damaging revelations about Obama than there will be about Clinton in the next few months?  It seems silly to say we should keep it open "just in case".  If there were a truly disasterous scandal revealed such that Obama was deemed completely unelectable by everyone, Clinton (or someone else) could challenge him for the nomination at the convention regardless of whether they drop out now or stay in the race.  If everyone agreed Obama could not win she (or someone else) would get the support of the SD's and some pledged delegates.

by DreamsOfABlueNation 2008-05-04 10:29PM | 0 recs
Re: No Super Delgate has voted yet.

By the same token, McCain isn't yet the Republican nominee either. The Republicans could have some sort of epiphany, think he's a RINO, and the delegates he has could vote for Rush Limbaugh instead. Yet all this doesn't stop everyone from talking as though he's the nominee, because we all know he basically is.

By drawing attention to this technicality, you're making the crazy crazy assumption that Democrats want this to go on until August. That's the last thing they want. If there comes a time between now and then that either candidate hits 2024 between pledged and super delegates, the other is dropping out. None of "Well technically, delegates don't vote until the convention..." will matter.

by Jaffee 2008-05-04 05:08PM | 0 recs
Re: No Super Delgate has voted yet. They can't vo

Why do you WANT this to go on until the convention? I don't get it. Its one thing to say that you want everyone's voices to be heard, its another to say you want this primary to last until the convention.

If Hillary has a chance, we will know after everyone has voted and after every superdelegate has announced his/her support for a candidate. Waiting an extra month will only further hurt the party, there is no doubt about that. So why do you want this to last until the convention?

Seems to me you just want Obama to lose.

by BlueGAinDC 2008-05-04 05:17PM | 0 recs
Re: No Super Delgate has voted yet. They can't vo

BlueGain.

Seems to me you want Obama to win.
It's not your choice now.  It's up to the Alternate Delegates.  Don't you think between Sept. 1 and Nov. 5 (?), everyone of us will get behind the Democratic nominee?  McCain is Bush over again.  Let's get the best candidate to go up against McCain.  Let the chips fall where they may AT THE CONVENTION, it is the final Polling Place.

by JohnnyB 2008-05-04 05:38PM | 0 recs
Re: No Super Delgate has voted yet. They can't vo

That's great if you think all the dems will get behind the nominee in that period. But neither Obama nor Clinton can win with only the support of Democrats. Either candidate needs enough time to take on John McCain, and less time being beaten up by a fellow Democrat. What is the point of waiting until the convention? Today's conventions are not made for fighting primary battles. They are an important infomercial for candidates. McCain will get his. Do you really want to give ours up just so we can wait an extra month to get a nominee?

If you really don't want McCain again, then I suppose you want either democrat to be in the best position to win. Trust me, waiting until the convention is the worst way to win a GE. We can argue back and forth about whether its good for us to go through June w/o a nominee (building up state campaigns is good, negative campaigning is bad). But there is absolutely NO advantage to waiting until the convention. All it can do is hurt our nominee, and hurt our nominee it will.

by BlueGAinDC 2008-05-04 06:12PM | 0 recs
Re: No Super Delgate has voted yet. They can't vo

West Virginia
Kentucky
Puerto Rico

Vs.

Montana
South Dakota
Oregon

Hardly seems like Hillary is poised to win a majority of the remaining states.

by Bobby Obama 2008-05-04 06:12PM | 0 recs
Re: No Super Delgate has voted yet. They can't vo
Bobby:  If we had the same process as McCain's party, Hillary would have locked up the race by a winner-take-all primary results.  The caucuses are a sham, but they are in the RULES, so is the alternate delegate vote, it is in the RULES.
There's only one place for them to vote, that is at the Convention.  Do you want to win in November, or are you just set on one of the candidates to fold before then?  Who would fold?
Hillary? Obama?  Sorry, neither will fold, nor should they.  
by JohnnyB 2008-05-04 06:20PM | 0 recs
Good post!

By the time the convention rolls around, Obama will probably be much weaker as we get to know more about him and Hillary much stronger.  GOOD POST!!!  Thank God they can't really vote until the convention.

by The Smoldering Crone 2008-05-04 06:31PM | 0 recs
Re: Good post!
Thanks Smoldering:  Pass this along to your friends.  Yes, they are not OFFICIAL until the convention.  Lots of time between now and then.
The saying goes "a day in politics is a year in life", or someting close to that.
by JohnnyB 2008-05-04 06:34PM | 0 recs
Momentum

The Big MO = 1 primary in a row.  I see.

by Same As It Ever Was 2008-05-04 07:57PM | 0 recs

Diaries

Advertise Blogads