Superdelegates say: We will decide

[NJSecularist]

http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/superdelegates-say-we-will-decide-2008-05-06.html

Uncommitted Democratic superdelegates in Congress overwhelmingly say they won’t necessarily back the presidential candidate who wins the most primary delegates. Instead, electability will be very important in their decision.

Of 42 lawmakers interviewed by The Hill, only four said they regarded the primary vote as decisive.

The congressional superdelegates’ independence is precisely what Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.) is banking on as she trails by about 130 pledged delegates behind rival Sen. Barack Obama (Ill.).

It also means the Democratic Caucus is unswayed by its leader, Speaker Nancy Pelosi (Calif.), who has warned that the party will suffer if superdelegates overturn the will of primary voters. Pelosi has said superdelegates should take into account whatever is important but not give the nomination to the candidate who lags in delegates.

But Pelosi’s troops on Capitol Hill say they are more concerned about electability, plus each candidate’s momentum heading toward the convention, and how their own constituents voted.

Clinton is given little chance of catching Obama’s delegate count in the last few primaries. But her campaign has gained momentum in recent weeks as Obama has been on the defensive over his former pastor and charges of elitism.

Only 10 percent of lawmakers interviewed by The Hill said the delegate count on June 4, the day after the final primaries in Montana and South Dakota, will determine whom they decide to support. There are 70 neutral superdelegates in the House and 22 in the Senate.

“What will be decisive will be two factors: who would make the best president and who has the best chance of winning,” said Rep. Howard Berman (D), an uncommitted lawmaker from Los Angeles.

It looks like the prevalant netroots memo that superdelegates will support the pledged delegate leader is just more wishful thinking. If they haven't endorsed Obama yet, what does that say about their feelings about his electability?

[GetTheRightVote]

1. The will of the people is that Obama is the nominee and HRC should step down !!

[NJSecularist]

2. Did you not just read the article?

The superdelegates will choose their endorsements on the basis of electability, not on the basis of low turnout sham caucuses that have artificially inflated delegate leads.

[DontTreadOnMe]

15. EMERGENCY "Snap Out of it Kit" needed ASAP!

"low turnout sham caucuses that have artificially inflated delegate leads"

you mean like... North Carolina?

[Kittycat]

19. You look like a republican when you post stuff like that.

[gbrenna]

27. if the Super Delegates pick Hillary over Obama...

when he has won by all measures then kiss this election goodbye. It's over. You could not heal such a rift-maybe not for years.

[Quixote1818]

95. Of course

They are only there to overturn an election where the person with the most delegates becomes unelectable because of something MAJOR that came up late in the campaign. Hillary was hoping the Wright thing would do the trick but it just didn't cross the threshold. Not even close.

[gbrenna]

103. True

I am sure Hillary is fuming about all her dirty tricks not working. I can not believe she is still running. Why? If she hurts Obama thus increasing her chances for 2012, she will despised. What is her end game?

[greguganus]

51. She's the least electable. Her insanity is showing more every day. n/t

[TheWraith]

52. Oh, you slay me.

Mostly because you're either unwilling or unable to recognize that Obama still beats Clinton even if you take out ALL caucuses.

And in case you hadn't noticed, every major named SD, like Pelosi and even some supporting Clinton, have said that the elected delegate lead will not be overturned. So the words of a few dozen unnamed SDs means exactly what, when you consider that both the Clinton and Obama campaigns expect congressional SDs to break almost entirely for Obama? They know who has coat tails and who has reverse coat tails.

Please, you're only embarassing yourself. It's over. Even the Clinton backers like DiFi and McGovern agree.

[psychopomp]

57. Sen. Obama has brought millions of voters into the process

and has out-raised Sen. Clinton in campaign funding with a massive grassroots campaign.

Who do you think the party will consider a more effective Presidential candidate?

Which candidate has consistently higher negatives nationally?

[otohara]

101. sham caucuses, just more excuses

for a poorly run campaign. maybe if she hadn't blown off those sham caucus states with the their inflated delegates, this would have been over for her a long time ago.

in looking back, do you think it was wise or ignorant/arrogant of her and her over paid gurus to have blown off those states?

[LakeSamish706]

3. It tells me that they are scared shitless of the Clintons and if so, what does that tell you...

about our party? You can kiss this party and this Presidency for a Democrat good bye if the SD's were to chose her over Obama.

[Quixote1818]

4. They are only saying that to make themselves feel relevant

and not just tied to the will of the primary voters. In the end they will vote for Obama

[berni_mccoy]

5. Did You Hear What George McGovern and Wes Clark Said To Clinton?

[Cali_Democrat]

6. Won't she need like 80%-90% of the remaining super delegates when the primaries are over?

You really think she can convince that many? :shrug:

[WeDidIt]

7. 70

That's all Obama needs to win in terms of Super Delegates.

267.5 are remaining.

He needs just 26% of the remaining super delegates for a win.

Tell me again how this doesn't work?

[yourguide]

8. The writing is on the wall

but you keep dreaming.

PS:

[DontTreadOnMe]

9. so what you are saying...

...is that Hillary could be the ultimate downfall of the entire Democratic Party?

Has she not hurt her legacy enough? Oh wait... I guess she might as well go "all the way".

How many blacks would stay home if they gave it to Hillary at this point of time in the Primary?

[AllentownJake]

14. Don't bother replying to the irrational

Other than it's over.

They know it they just haven't fully accepted it yet.

[NJSecularist]

20. How many working class whites and Latinos would stay home if Hillary is the nominee?

It goes both ways.

[Quixote1818]

22. You are comparing two totally different scenarios.

I think you mean women voters. The problem with your argument is that Obama will be seen as the legitimate Dem nominee. If the Supers put Hillary in there would be riots. If Hillary were in Obama's position and the supers gave it to Obama, then Women and staunch Hillary supporters would be outraged.

You are comparing two totally different scenarios.

PS. Obama won working class whites in several states and he won't have any problems getting the Hispanic vote.

[NJSecularist]

26. "The problem with your argument is that Obama will be seen as the legitimate Dem nominee."

He is?

Why did he lose Indiana then? Pennsylvania? Ohio? Texas. The netroots as been saying that Obama is the presumptive nominee for months, and yet voters keep voting for Hillary.

PS. Obama won working class whites in several states and he won't have any problems getting the Hispanic vote.

This is based on what? What states has Obama won the working class vote?

How do you know he won't have any problems getting the Latino vote? This is based on what, exactly?

[Gore1FL]

29. If you try hard you can name all the states obama lost

there aren't many.

[NJSecularist]

30. Why does Obama keep losing states if he is the "presumptive nominee"? n/t

[Gore1FL]

32. Why does Hillary stay in when she is broke and has no chance?

[NJSecularist]

33. Why does Obama keep losing states if he is the "presumptive nominee"? n/t

[Gore1FL]

34. Because most presumptive nominees

have opponents who can do math and say to themselves, "you know, I can't win, and I am putting my Senate seat in jeopardy by continuing my hit job on my party's nominee" and then they suspend their campaign out of common sense, the desire to unite the party, the desire to not garner massive financial support for a candidate from the left to take their current job, and to not have to bankrupt their loyal supporters over an ego trip.

Btw, presumptive nominees have lost contests late in the game before. You do know party history, right?

So basically, your argument has no grounding.

[NJSecularist]

36. Presumptive nominees usually sweep every state. n/t

[Gore1FL]

40. Not quite

but thanks for playing.

[NJSecularist]

42. Care to give an example?

The only state Kerry lost after he clinched the nomination was North Carolina. Which was Edwards' home state.

Gore didn't lose any states after he clinched the nomination.

Yet Obama has lost 2 states and counting after supposedly "clinching the nomination".

[Gore1FL]

46. Well Obviously I am older.

Look up Gary Hart, Moe Udall, Jesse Jackson, among others. for fun google 1968 and 1972.

[NJSecularist]

49. The primary system is a lot different today than it was in 1968 and 1972.

1976 on is the correct frame of reference.

Your examples of Gary Hart, Moe Udall and Jessie Jackson don't apply here. None of them won the nomination.

[Gore1FL]

50. Neither did Hillary...

If you'd like you can look up Walter Mondale, Jimmy Carter, and Mike Dukakis. They did when Gary Hart, Moe Udall, and Jesse Jackson ran.

Seriously, did you not know this, or just feel the need to respond?

[NJSecularist]

53. Umm.. what states did Mondale, Carter and Dukakis lose after they clinched the nomination?

Please let me know. Why do you keep ignoring my question?

[Gore1FL]

54. What state dd Obama lose after he clinched the nomination?

[NJSecularist]

60. Obama has lost Pennsylvania and Indiana since "clinching the nomination".

The netroots told us in March that Obama had clinched the nomination. Well, he has lost 2 of 3 states since then.

[Gore1FL]

62. So is Clinching being the obvious nominee?

You need to look up 1984 Hart Mondale in Google for starters.

[NJSecularist]

65. I remember 1984.

My point is that Obama is not the nominee yet. If he was the nominee yet, he would have reached 2025 pledged delegates and he would have likely swept the rest of the states.

This nomination process is not over.

[Gore1FL]

66. Wow, what a turnaround

So then you admit your original argument was false?

[NJSecularist]

68. What argument are you talking about?

I have said that Obama is not the nominee this entire thread.

[Gore1FL]

70. Obama has lost Pennsylvania and Indiana since "clinching the nomination".

sort of implied he was.

Which time were your lying, now or then?

[NJSecularist]

76. Umm...

If you noticed, the clinching the nomination part was in quotes.

Which meant that I was mocking the intepretation that Obama had clinched the nomination.

This isn't rocket science.

[Gore1FL]

83. Rocket science involves math

he is the winner. He just has to tie up thje loose ends at this point. I am guessing losing by 40% in each contest is a pretty easy minimum to meet.

[Gore1FL]

64. But I am proud of you for being able to admit Obama has clinched the nomination

before PA. That is a big step compared to the denial of many here.

[NJSecularist]

67. Sorry, I never said he clinched the nomination. n/t

[Gore1FL]

69. so "Obama has lost Pennsylvania and Indiana since "clinching the nomination".

was bullshit?

how do I know when you are telling the truth?

[NJSecularist]

71. The netroots has said he has clinched the nomination.

I was merely mocking how ridiculous of a concept that is, seeing as how Obama hasn't officially clinched anything yet and will never clinch anything without the help of the superdelegates.

[Gore1FL]

75. He has won the nomination, but hasn't clinched it.

Sort of like the Cardinals in 2005 didn't clinch the NL central in august, but it was obvious that no one was going to pass them.

[NJSecularist]

78. The baseball analogy simply does not apply here.

To win a baseball division, you need to finish one game better than the team behind you.

To win a presidential nomination, you need to meet a certain pledged delegate threshold.

[Gore1FL]

85. Which is one delegate in front of the candidate behind you

so far he is hovering around 140-150.

[NJSecularist]

88. Sorry, that is not what the nomination rules say.

The nomination rules specifically state you need 2025 delegates to win the nomination. It doesn't matter if you lead by 100 delegates, if you don't reach 2025 delegates, you don't win the nomination.

[Gore1FL]

91. 4048/2 + 1

pretty easy math.

[Gore1FL]

94. You know what? I am going to bed.

arguing the obvious is a little stupid... I feel like the guy in this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RDjCqjzbvJY

[Two Americas]

102. not true

Many candidates over the years have stayed in the race when there was little chance of winning. Kucinich, for example, in 2004. Jerry Brown, Ted Kennedy, Jesse Jackson, McGovern and McCarthy in '68 - none of them were as close as Clinton is. They weren't accused of ego trips, insanity, selfishness, etc.

Let Clinton run as long as she likes. Let people vote for Clinton in the remaining primaries if they want. Let people here support and promote Clinton if they so choose, so long as the nomination is not settled. That would be the democratic way to approach this, would it not?

[Quixote1818]

48. Most people don't pay attention to the netroots. Obama just became the

presumptive nominee in the eyes of the general public last night.

He won the working class whites in Minnesota for sure.

From DailyKOS:

Hillary Wins the rustbelt (Ohio, Penn, maybe Mich?), and Obama wins the heartland (Iowa, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Indiana?). He also won the white working class in Virginia/Maryland as well. note: Obama's actually polling even, or ahead of Clinton in Michigan currently. But what this all suggest is, it doesn't mean, he "can't win" those "rustbelt states" in the General (

Link: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/4/23/11012/4636/77/501322


From WSJ:

Sen. Clinton won them in Georgia, Missouri and New York, while Sen. Obama captured the working-class male vote in New Hampshire, California, Maryland and Virginia.


Obama won several of the most Hispanic counties here in New Mexico. And that was before Bill Richardson endorsed him. It's not that Hispanics don't like him, it's that they like Hillary better. I have no doubt that they will vote for the Dem this fall.

[kwenu]

45. Actually, it doesn't go both ways. We know what is happening if the delegate leader is passed over.

Hillary is so far behind there are no logical, fair arguments that will make her nomination right and still claim that we respect democracy. It's simply impossible.

[AllentownJake]

10. It's over

22 more supers and its mathmatically impossible.

[w4rma]

11. If they havent endorsed Hillary yet, what does that say about their feelings about her electability?

That argument is a double edged sword.

[Quixote1818]

12. Good point. nt

[AngryAmish]

13. Wrong. I will.

Who the fuck do they think they are?

[HughBeaumont]

16. Yeah, and you bastards BETTER decide wisely.

You know, unless you WANT to destroy the party and our chances for beating easily the weakest candidate since Bob Dole (An aside. True, Bewsh II sucked the balls of the dead even prior to 2000. But the difference is that he was getting that presidency come hell or high water. The corporations, their Media, bottomless Repuke dollars and voting machine companies in their pockets are kind of hard to stop).

[scheming daemons]

17. If they haven't endorsed CLINTON yet, what does that say about HER electability?

Remember.... she was the "known" candidate. She should've had them in the bag 6 months ago.



The fact that she STILL doesn't have them, means she likely never will.

[Yael]

18. There are a group who have taken the "Pelosi Pledge"

to support the one with the most delegates.

The others have their reasons.

I would imagine that the whole fundraising base thing is on top of a lot of lists.....

[my3boyz]

21. Mmmmm...hmmmmm...keep cherry picking articles and clinging to that

As many have said there has NEVER been a case where the Super D's have gone with the person that did not have the most pledged delegates. There is no reason to believe that politicians will put their own career on the line for the Clintons. ALSO, you have no idea which Super Delegates they interviewed. The could have selected those that they thought would be sympathetic towards Clinton for their "interviews".

[screembloodymurder]

23. Bullshit.

It's MSM momentum and it's designed to keep this race going. If the will of the people is overturned, the damage to the party will be irreparable.

[Quixote1818]

25. I agree. I for one would be outraged beyond belief. nt

[NJSecularist]

28. "If the will of the people is overturned, the damage to the party will be irreparable.".

What a bunch of hyperbole. Apparently you forget that Hillary has almost as many popular votes as Obama. It is way too close of a primary to say that nominating Hillary would overturn the will of the people.

[AirmensMom]

31. "Apparently you forget that Hillary has almost as many popular votes as Hillary."

Well, actually, Hillary has exactly as many popular votes as Hillary. And Obama has more. :shrug:

[Spider Jerusalem]

35. 'Almost as many' isn't 'more', and she's behind so far she CANNOT CATCH UP.

She will have a deficit of in excess of over one hundred pledged delegates, and a significant popular vote deficit. She cannot win, by any metric that defines 'winning'. Her nomination would be seen as deeply illegitimate, and would certainly lead to a Democratic defeat in November and the probable collapse of the party for a generation. You're incredibly stupid if you do not understand this.

[RiverStone]

37. It's not hyperbole to react to something that has NEVER happened...

...in US history.

For the past 30 years SD's have been in existence, they have never over turned the will of the pledged delegates.

They make history, and I assure ya our party would be torn apart for a generation.

Amazing that you think folks will simply say - OK, toss out the winner and life goes on.

It would be a political disaster of unprecedented proportions.

[kwenu]

47. A person would have to be apeshit nuts to believe that that would be okay. Give it up already.

[Dbdmjs1022]

24. It's over, and it's time to focus on McCain. Save the hostilities for him.

[Warren DeMontague]

38. And when the superdelegates move en masse to Obama, what will the storyline be then?

:shrug:

[Danger Mouse]

39. Do you honestly believe that Clinton would win if she won by the superdelegates overriding the will

of the people?
It would be a disaster of epic proportions.

[kwenu]

41. Sorry. No. You're grasping. The life of the Democratic party is at stake.

[NJSecularist]

80. Why is why it is important to nominate Hillary.

We can't afford to lose another election.

[jillan]

43. Off to the greatest!

[NanceGreggs]

44. Straw-grasping of the highest order.

If the SDs override the delegate count, and thus the will of the people:

(a) the Party will implode

(b) newly-registered Democrats, completely disillusioned, will take their future votes (and their future financial contributions) elsewhere

(c) many will stay home rather than vote for a candidate they perceive to be illegitimate, or who got the nomination by being 'installed rather than having achieved it through votes

(d) newly-registered young voters who are participating for the first time will dismiss the Democratic Party as being unfair and unjust - a position many of them will hold for a lifetime

(e) SDs holding elected office will be putting their own careers in jeopardy when they face re-election, due to the backlash of constituents who felt that they had participated in stealing the nomination from the rightful winner

(f) Many Independents, as well as Republicans willing to cross-over to vote for Obama, will not vote for Hillary

(g) The GOP would use The Democratic Party doesn't give a flying fuck about their own voters meme in every election for decades

At this point in the game, even if every last SD thought that Hillary was 'more electable' than Obama (which is a stretch to say the least), they still wouldn't hand her the nomination because it would ensure the loss of the GE in November, given all of the negative consequences outlined above.

Oh, and BTW, the substantial SD lead Hillary started this race with has all but evaporated - that might give you a clue as to what their thinking is on the subject.

But keep dreamin' ...

[NJSecularist]

55. You can't prove that any of that will happen.

You are formulating a doomsday scenario that you wish will happen if Hillary wins the nomination.

[Gore1FL]

59. Have you read your own posts lately?

[NanceGreggs]

79. If Hillary gets the nomination at this point ...

... she won't have "won" it; it will have been handed to her by the SDs.

But please do explain to me where my 'doomsday scenario' doesn't make sense. Are you really so delusional that you think that if the SDs over-rode the will of the people at this point, every Democrat would just sigh and say, "Oh, well, I'll just accept that and get out there and vote for Hillary"?

And I forgot to add another consequence to my original list- as if any more were needed: Imagine the GOP making hay out of the idea that "for all of their posturing about equal rights, the Democratic Party stole the rightfully-won candidacy from a black man and handed it to a white woman."

Yeah, now there's a weapon the party really wants to hand to the Republicans, to beat us over the head with and use to woo minority voters into the GOP camp.

Get real.

[NJSecularist]

84. Umm...

.. she won't have "won" it; it will have been handed to her by the SDs.

And this is different for Obama....... how?

If Obama wins the nomination at this point, it will have been handed to him by the SDs via backroom deals.

[NanceGreggs]

89. He's ahead in delegates ...

... which is what the primary is all about. How does that constitute a backroom deal?

That's like saying, "Candidate X won more electoral votes in the GE than his opponent - therefore, Candidate X won the presidency by way of a backroom deal."

[NJSecularist]

93. Actually, your comparision couldn't be further from the truth.

Obama will have won the nomination not on the backing of pledged delegates, but superdelegates and backroom deals.

It doesn't matter if he leads in delegates. He simply will not have enough pledged delegates to win the nomination.

[NanceGreggs]

97. But if you understand anything about MATH ...

... he has WAY MORE DELEGATES than Hillary.

By your scenario (i.e. wishful thinking), if neither candidate gets to the required number by the end of the primary process, the slate is wiped clean and they both start at zero.

That's not the way it works. And you know that - you just won't accept it.

Of course, the great irony in your thinking is that if Obama ends the process with MORE delegates than Hillary, and SHE gets handed the nomination by the SDs IN SPITE OF HIS OVERWHELMING LEAD, that somehow wouldn't constitute a 'backroom deal'.

Look, I know you want your candidate-of-choice to wind up with the nomination. I understand that, really. But coming up with these yeah, but what if scenarios isn't going to make that happen.

It's over. Accept it. Move on.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

56. Excellent Summary

For the sake of our country, I will pull the lever for the Democratic candidate in November even if I have to jam my nose shut hard to vote for a candidate (i.e. Hillary) forcibly "installed" by way of a virtual "coup" but my faith in the party (already severely damaged by a multitude of electoral blunders from 1994 onward) would be totally shattered for a LONG time and my hopes and dreams for a Democrat in the WH in 2008 would be reduced to nothing more than "wishful thinking". For the remaining SD to hand the nomination over to Hillary (absent a catastrophic implosion of the Obama campaign-although I can't imagine what might cause it) would be the ultimate "snatch-defeat-from-jaws-of-victory" scenario that we simply MUST avoid at all costs if we are to be successful in November.

[davidpdx]

58. Well put Nancy

[ButterflyBlood]

61. Sigh, this type of talk is so misleading

Hillary needs close to 80% of superdelegates, not a simple majority. They are NOT going to flock to her in numbers needed.

[OzarkDem]

82. Votes change, Super D's can switch

and I suspect many will be asking both candidates some hard questions in the next couple of weeks.

[Frank Booth]

63. “What will be decisive will be two factors: who would make the best president and who has the best

chance of winning.”

Yes! This means Obama will be our nominee!!

:woohoo: :woohoo:

[ShortnFiery]

73. Then DECIDE dammit!

:grr:

[Frank Booth]

87. Don't worry. They'll come out of the woodwork after Oregon.

A lot of the undeclareds are kind of gutless. It will be easier when Hillary's mathematically eliminated.

[ShortnFiery]

99. I hope that you are correct Walter Sobchak.

:hi: :-)

[Frank Booth]

100. They're politicians. Survival's the name of the game. Whether they support Obama or not, he's the

only viable choice left.

:hi:

(Plus he'll make the better president and is more electable.)

[OzarkDem]

72. Very encouraging

Dems may field a winning candidate after all.

[NJSecularist]

86. Yes it is. Let's hope most of the SDs come to their senses. n/t

[Frank Booth]

92. Don't stress out about it. They have come to their senses. The time's just not right yet.

After Oregon, it'll be completely safe for them to publicly endorse Barack Obama!

:toast:

[Quixote1818]

90. Yep, we now know Obama is in the driver seat!

They are going to pick the most electable!

:woohoo:

[Milo_Bloom]

74. In short... more than enough to make Obama the nominee.

Its over.

[OzarkDem]

77. Many say they'll support the best candidate on trade issues

I predict quite a few will base their vote on that issue and its not a strong suit for Obama.

More proof the Dems in Congress aren't all on the same page and some disagree with their leadership.

[nomorewhopper]

81. are you taking stupid pills?

or are you just an ignorant troll?

[whatchamacallit]

96. Ha, if they overturn the will of the people and install that hog, there will be hell to pay

It will spell the end of the SDs.

[Dark]

98. I've said it before and I'll say it again. If the supers don't honor the pop vote, I'll vote McCain.

Regardless of whether it's Hillary or Barack who does it, I will vote against such a thief. (Unless something arises that makes them utterly unelectable, such as a corruption or sex scandal).

That's how pissed off I'd be.

And that's the ONLY thing that could make me vote Republican.