Reader Posts
« previous | TPM CAFÉ READER POSTS HOME | next »
First new superdelegate endorsement after OH-TX vote goes to...
Obama:
...Dayton Mayor Rhine McLin today announced her endorsement of Illinois Senator Barack Obama...Spotted this at Politico first. Rhine is a member of the DNC from Ohio.
We could see a trickle of SDs becoming a flood for Obama, especially if the SDs believe two things:
- The person with the most pledged delegates should be the nominee and there is no mathmatical way that Hillary can catch Obama
- A continued Democratic primary only hurts the nominee at this point.
If that becomes the talk behind the scenes, then this will be over before Pennsylvania. The other thing to remember is that for every new SD that Obama picks up, Clinton will have to match it with at least 2-3 if she's going to overtake him. More breakdown and analysis here on the delegate math.
Advertisement
Comments (29)
The Super Delegates on all sides should be quiet because what we really need is a final tally of both pledged delegates and the popular vote before any of them make any decisions.
I don't support SDs coming out for Hillary either. It's unseemly.
March 5, 2008 12:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't support SDs coming out.... It's unseemly.
How so?
March 5, 2008 1:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
What an odd notion. Unseemly. After all, this is politics and nothing is dirtier. I have more respect for honest working prostitutes than for politicians.
March 6, 2008 1:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
But I think it's getting more and more likely they won't sit back. There is a growing impatience (based on some of the public comments by SDs) and they clearly feel a responsibility now to be the final referee that calls the match at the appropriate moment before somebody gets unnecessarily hurt.
March 5, 2008 12:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
I assume Dayton, Ohio went for Obama?
March 5, 2008 1:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes - apparently she committed to Obama because her city voted for him.
March 5, 2008 1:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yup. Well, Montgomery county did and Dayton's the big enchilada there. 54%-45%
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results/state/#OH
March 5, 2008 1:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
I heard on the Ed Schulz show this morning that Obama won Cleveland, Cincinnati, Dayton and Columbus. He won in all the big cities, where Hillary won in the rural outlying areas and smaller cities. She continues to claim that you have to win Ohio to win the nomination, but Ed's argument was that John Mccain will handily beat her in those areas where she won last night. The real place to win will be in the cities, where Barack won handily. It'd be nice to get some coverage of that.
March 5, 2008 2:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ohio will be a tough fight no matter who the Democrat is. Do you honestly think that African-Americans would vote for McCain over Hillary? Hillary's advantage over Obama in a state like Ohio is that she can hold onto a larger share of the blue collar union types.
March 5, 2008 3:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think it's a difficult exercise to make predictions about general election results based on primary results. A candidate has not proved they are better suited to win a state's general election by winning the primary, they've only proved they are more popular with the electorate able to vote in the primary.
I don't think Obama is losing New Jersey or New York if he is the nominee and I don't think Hillary will lose Maryland or DC if she is the nominee.
March 5, 2008 9:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree completely, which is why I find the Clinton argument on this point so silly. I'd actually like to try and find some historical back-up on the point that primary results in no way predict general election results, but I'd imagine it would be hard to come by anything useful, since the nomination has already been wrapped up by the time many of these contests were held in years past.
March 6, 2008 11:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
You may have, but honestly I don't know so I'll just ask the question. Did you say this before Hillary had built up such a large super-delegate lead, back when all the networks were including them in their counts to show she was leading even though Obama had more delegates?
March 5, 2008 3:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
The above was meant to be tied to destor23's comment...
March 5, 2008 3:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
With well over 50% of super-delegates already pledged, it's a bit late for "unseemly."
March 5, 2008 10:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
I would have said it if you hadn't.
Incidentally, with well over 50% of the super delegates already pledged, Hillary has a major uphill battle if she expects to use them to close Obama's pledged delegate lead. Approximately 2.5:1 in her favor.
That hasn't happened the entire election cycle, even when she was Inevitable. So I doubt it will happen now, unless she wins Pennsylvania by a large margin (aaaaaaaaaand I just jinxed it.. dammit).
March 5, 2008 10:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
John King did a rundown on CNN with the big magic touchscreen where he gave Clinton every state left at 55%-45% and she still doesn't catch up. The reality will soon be cemented that there is no way to avoid that the final decision will get made by the supers. They also are well aware that there is little to gain and much to lose by letting this drag on when there's no chance of avoiding this. It's this simple: Clinton can't close the gap and Obama will likely not make it to 2,025 before the convention. So if the supers will have to call it anyway and waiting is a detriment to the party, what do you think they will do?
Clinton needed blowouts in both TX and OH. She didn't get them.
March 6, 2008 3:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
I saw a Daily Kos diary giving her everything by 24.9% and she still didn't catch up!
March 6, 2008 10:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
Just two weeks after Pennsylvania you've got the last state with over 100 delegates, North Carolina (134). Obama should pick up between 10 - 20 delegates here.
There will not be any urgency for Obama's campaign even with a large loss in PA because the calender will continue to give him opportunities to win.
March 5, 2008 11:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
add another one for Obama:
http://demconwatch.blogspot.com/2008/03/illinois-superdelegate-williams-burnett.html
Clinton down to a 41 SD.
March 6, 2008 1:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
I've got 35:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/democratic_delegate_count.html
And if this is true, that won't last the week:
http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/2008/03/race-over-by-weeks-end.php
March 6, 2008 3:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
They've been predicting these phantom "50 Superdelegates" since last week - I think it was Brokaw who first reported it. They haven't materialized and the Obama campaign said they don't exist...you know something they don't? I hope?
March 6, 2008 8:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think another thing to watch is the difference in delegate count if FL and MI are added in.
According to DemConWatch (http://demconwatch.blogspot.com/) if you count all pledged delegates, super delegates and include FL and MI, the count is 1653 for Sen Clinton and 1631 for Sen Obama. If more SDs pledge over the next couple of weeks to Sen Obama, and he does well in some of the upcoming states (WY, MS, NC) and comes close or ties in PA, it will not matter if the FL and MI delegates are seated at the convention.
Right now the lead for HRC with MI and FL is just 22 delegates. HRC keeps pushing for the FL and MI delegates to be seated at the convention. She thinks this will win it for her. I don't think she has done the math. But that's nothing new.
I predict Sen. Obama will erase that 22 delegate lead before the PA primary, and further predict he will have at least a 10 delegate lead going into PA even if you include the MI and FL delegates.
The SDs could put an end to the MI and FL delegate debate by endorsing Sen. Obama.
March 6, 2008 5:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
Just a quick question, if you know: do all these estimates of what happens when Michigan and Florida are added in throw the Michigan "Uncommitted" delegates to Obama? Or do they just leave them off the tally altogether?
March 6, 2008 11:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
Somebody up thread asked an excellent question, to wit, did Dayton, Ohio go for Obama? Otherwise one would expect Senator Obama to "denounce and reject" the Dayton Mayor's undemocratic endorsement!!
March 6, 2008 8:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
Somebody up thread asked an excellent question, to wit, did Dayton, Ohio go for Obama?
This was answered up thread but since I live in the the Dayton area I can confirm that Dayton went to Obama by nearly 10 percentage points. When I voted on Saturday downtown at the Board of Electors most of the folks standing in line were Obama supporters. He had an excellent operation in Dayton.
Mayor McLin had promised the residents of Dayton weeks ago that she would vote in accordance with Montgomery County's primary results.
March 6, 2008 9:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
Guys, it's not about superdelegates. It's how she'll break the rules and get Michigan and Florida seated. That's how she intends to do it.
God I can't believe I loved the Clintons as late as January. I don't know these people. Is it possible I was that naive for that long?
March 6, 2008 9:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thankfully, Dean put this issue to rest this morning.
"The rules were set a year and a half ago. Florida and Michigan voted for them and then decided that they didn't need to abide by the rules. When you're in a contest you do need to abide by the rules," he said Thursday on CNN's "American Morning."
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/03/06/florida.michigan/index.html
March 6, 2008 11:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
"Is it possible I was that naive for that long?"
I think an awful lot of people forgot how bad the Clintons were for progressivism and the Democratic Party. This is somewhat understandable given the last seven years, but less so once we had a number of good candidates (Biden, Dodd, Edwards, and of course, Barack Obama) enter the race.
No matter who wins the primary, my faith in the judgment of many who consider themselves progressives has been severely shaken by much of the left's inexplicable support for Hillary.
March 6, 2008 10:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
"Do you honestly think that African-Americans would vote for McCain over Hillary?"
Not likely, but it is likely that they will have a massive 'sit-out'! Especially as the fact of the Billary Camp's Photoshopping of Obama's picture to darken his skin for mailers to white voters in Ohio and Texas!
Do you honestly think that a Repugnican will not use this against Clinton?
March 6, 2008 10:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
Post a Comment