« previous | TPM CAFÉ READER POSTS HOME | next »
Superdelegate moves in March: THIS IS EXCELLENT NEWS...
As has been discussed, and discussed, and discussed on TPM cafe, it's all about the delegate and superdelegate math now. Hillary simply won't catch Obama in the race for pledged delegates, even if there's a re-vote in Florida and Michigan.
So it's very likely that the superdelegates are going to end the primary - either early or at the convention. As has been noted by several TPMers, Hillary needs to get supers to endorse her at a rate of about 2.5:1 in order to catch Obama. And for every new Obama endorsement, that means Hillary has to pick up an additional 2+ superdelegates to make up the difference.
What's happened in the first 6 days of March? According to http://demconwatch.blogspot.com/ Obama has picked up 11 new superdelegate endorsements to Clinton's 1. Here's their breakdown:
3-1-08 - Added DNC Joe Wineke (WI) for Obama. Added Stewart Burkhalter (AL) as new add-on superdelegate for Obama.
3-4-08 - Added DNC Carol Fowler (SC) , DNC Mary Long (GA) , DNC Roy LaVerne Brooks (TX) for Obama
3-5-08 - Added DNC Rhine McLin (OH) , DNC Jane Kidd (GA) and DNC Darlena Williams-Burnett (IL) for Obama
3-6-08 - Added DNC Connie Thurman (IN) for Obama.
- Added Sen. Barbara Boxer (CA) for Clinton.
- Added Rep. Nick Rahall (WV) for Obama
- Added DNC Teresa Benitez-Thompson (NV) for Obama
Note that since Tuesday's vote, Hillary is losing the SD count 6:1. She's got to turn this around or it is going to be over very soon. Some people have noted that superdelegates supporting Obama could switch to Hillary but this isn't very realistic. I don't know of one case of an Obama SD switching to Clinton. It's just not likely to happen if it doesn't happen right now because the calendar is going to continue to give Obama good news, be it fundraising, or a win in Mississippi next week (and a win in North Carolina just 2 weeks after the PA vote).
It's worth noting that the net gain of ten superdelegates this week means that he has erased or overcome Hillary's likely pledged delegate pickup this month (still unclear but probably between 4-11).
Here's what I think you should look for in about one week. Obama is likely to have a huge victory next Tuesday in Mississippi and probably will win in Wyoming on Saturday. After he gets the momentum back and the MSM starts talking more seriously about the delegate math, I think there will be an opening for the superdelegates to end this.
Maybe they won't, maybe they believe that Hillary should get another firewall in PA. But I don't think they'll have the patience IF they do the math, IF they think that Obama's lead is insurmountable, and IF they don't like the harsh campaign tactics and messages coming from the Clinton campaign.
And yes, idiotic, let me save you the trouble to say that THIS IS EXCELLENT NEWS!! FOR HILLARY!!
As FlyOnTheWall would say, if you liked this post please share it with other readers by clicking the 'recommend this' button. and please check out my TPM blog.
Comments (45)
And yet, I see this headline on Yahoo's homepage:
Clinton's wins halt move of superdelegates to Obama
But they hate Hillary. Right.
Have they no damn shame.
March 6, 2008 5:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Just read that myself. I guess the story is that there were a bunch of Supers ready to end it this week and now their hesitating.
But again, let's see if they change their tune after two Obama victories in a few days...
March 6, 2008 5:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
I noticed too... I did a double take. Read really carefully- the pressure to "call on HRC to withdraw" has been stunted, not the commitment of the delegates themselves.
To get to the truth, despite whatever impressions the headline may give, it requires that the reader to not only know about the backstory, but that the sentence be parsed in a utterly ridiculous way. So, while the opening paragraph is *technically* true, the spirit of the article is totally misleading.
Anyone with a link to that AP article?
March 6, 2008 6:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
didn't notice- link is above
March 6, 2008 6:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yep.. On a further re-reading.. and re-re-reading, I realized that's the case. It requires completely counter-intuitive parsing of the language to actually make the headline accurate.
Irresponsible journalism at its best...
I'm half inclined to email the two authors and give them a piece of my mind.
Oh, and links indicating the +11 SD's Obama has gotten in the past week.
March 6, 2008 6:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Williams-Burnett endorsed Obama a while ago but we didn't have a source (until we wrote the story ourselves)
Boxer said she'd support whoever won CA before Super Tuesday. It wasn't until today that she repeated it.
And finally... we added Ian Carleton of Vermont a few weeks ago when he said he was going to vote for Obama a sa superdelegate. He officially endorsed Obama today.
So it's really 11 for Obama and 0 for Clinton since 3/1.
March 6, 2008 5:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah...I live out here in California and Boxer's going to support Clinton, but she's NOT a rousing Rah-Rah supporter by any means.
She said she'd support whomever won the state. Period. She's said nothing, at least here locally, endorsing Clinton in any way....
That, and she said it back on Super Tuesday, so it's hardly a March pick up for Hillary...
March 6, 2008 5:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Good post. But I still don't get the end...
How is this good news for Hillary?
(I'm not very political)
March 6, 2008 5:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think that was sarcasm
March 6, 2008 6:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
idiotic's comments are a take-off on the Clinton spin machine, which has spun every development, however bad for Clinton, as a positive for Clinton. Everyone does it, to a degree, but not with same black-is-white, alternate reality audacity. Michael Grunwald wrote about it in Time:
March 7, 2008 11:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
Read the comments to pretty much anything on TPM and you'll understand. Or just come back here--I'm sure idiotic will be around before too long.
March 6, 2008 6:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
There's a poster here named 'idiotic' who posts "this is EXCELLENT NEWS!!! FOR HILLARY!!" everywhere its actually terrible news, as a sort of sarcastic jab at a minority of Hillary supporters who don't recognize reality.
It's an ongoing TPM joke :)
March 6, 2008 6:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
And how!
March 6, 2008 8:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Nice post. I want to see end RIGHT NOW, if not sooner!
Obama's team need to work the phones HARD, need to ask big names to come out and say that whoever is leading, which we all know she can never catch him, WINS! This means it is over...
BTW, where the fuck is Richardson? He had said that on Tuesday night, whoever was ahead in delegates should be declared the winner, and we need to end the bullshit. Right now this nothing but an orgy of crap for the Tweeties of thr world to get higher ratings!
March 6, 2008 6:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Remember that the media has a core business interest in having elections every few weeks or so. The sports analogies bandied about to describe the primary season are crossing into bad taste territory. So, now that the media has declared PA the next super-tuesday III, they have a ratings bonanza on their hands.
Which means there's no or little incentive to discuss scenarios in the mainstream media that may short circuit their ratings bonanza. Indeed, the race will likely go to PA and maybe beyond, but what you will not hear are stories such as the main post above.
Which is why I'm inclined to think that the superdelegates will move in a way that could really start to close more doors for HRC. PA may matter, but the delegate result will be moot.
Steve
March 6, 2008 6:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Nice post. I love that you included idiotic's tagline in the title. That alone get's my recommendation. idiotic should get some kind of award for that line.
At this point, I suspect that enough superdelegates will wait for PA so that while highly unlikely, people will perceive that a Clinton win is still possible. So get comfortable, April 22nd is a long time away.
The good news is that we still get to say "THIS IS EXCELLENT NEWS!!!!! FOR HILLARY!!!" for weeks to come.
March 6, 2008 6:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm hoping that we don't lose idiotic after the primary is over...maybe he can come up with a new sarcastic phrase?
Maybe: THIS IS EXCELLENT NEWS!! FOR JOHN!!
Doesn't have the same ring to it...but I'll be glad when we take on the guy who's embracing the worst President ever.
March 6, 2008 7:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's not Hillary who would be needed for the line, it's the hillbots. I'm sure that there are plenty of obsessive McCain supporters (mccainiacs?), but they won't be posting on this site, so they'll be less fun to ridicule. I'm starting to miss the hillbots already.
March 6, 2008 11:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
I may start saying THIS IS EXCELLENT NEWS!!! FOR HILLARY!! in situations having absolutely nothing to do with Hillary.
March 7, 2008 12:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
I certainly don't know but I would suspect that the supers might make a break before PA. Maybe it's wishful thinking but they can do the math as well as anyone. And the fundraising ability of Obama has got to impress the hell out of them. Fly on the Wall the other day it would only take the movement of a few dozen supers to really make the math for Hillary truly impossible. We're getting closer every day. Not to mention the extra pledged delegate he picked up in CA the other day with the adjustments to the vote totals.
BTW, does anyone know the outcome (if any) of the NY vote counting issue?
March 6, 2008 7:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Update on the Superdelegate article referenced in the above comment thread. There's now a dueling article out from the AP:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080306/ap_on_el_pr/democrats_delegates
Basically, it takes what both campaigns are saying and prints them as fact. So there's valid point snad others that are totally BS (the big state theory).
It is great because it makes it crystal clear that Obama will win the pledged delegate race. Here's the best part:
"
March 6, 2008 8:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry. Here it is...
"Since an AP survey the week of Super Tuesday, Obama has added 53 superdelegates, while Clinton has had a net loss of one.
In the overall race for the nomination, Obama has 1,569 delegates, to 1,462 for Clinton, according to the latest AP tally.
The lobbying of superdelegates has been fierce, with at least six Clinton superdelegates switching to Obama. So far, none of Obama's superdelegates has strayed, at least not publicly.
David Parker, an undecided superdelegate from North Carolina, said he has been pressured by both sides to endorse. He offered some insight on how the outcome of the primaries and caucuses would influence his vote.
"In a fairly tight race — 35-50 votes — I think superdelegates have got a green light to vote how they want," Parker said. "If Obama's out there at 150, that's a red light, and I don't think the superdelegates have much business subverting the will of voters."
But, he added, "Every once in a while some people run red lights."
March 6, 2008 8:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
I saw Richardson on CNN last week. He said something that I thought was very interesting. While both camps have been lobbying him hard to endorse, there was a stark difference in the way that this was happening: Clinton's camp was coming at him from all sides, from any numbers of sources, whereas Obama always calls him personally.
It just struck me as another drastic difference in the styles of the two remaining candidates. It's not necessarily an indicator of anything in and of itself, but it's interesting nonetheless.
March 6, 2008 9:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
I saw that too, and came away with the impression that Richardson appreciated the personal contact with Obama a bit more...just an impression.
March 7, 2008 1:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'll assume everyone has heard the story about how Obama bailed Richardson out during one of the debates, but in case you haven't, it's a great story:
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/01/29/richardsons_choice.html
March 7, 2008 4:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
nice. THIS IS EXCELLENT NEWS!!! FOR HILLARY!!!
!!!HILLMENTUM™!!!!
March 6, 2008 8:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
There you are. I was getting worried about you!
March 6, 2008 9:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for the inspiration.
March 6, 2008 9:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
oreo at demconwatch posted this today:
http://demconwatch.blogspot.com/2008/03/special-election-in-illinois-on.html
Obama could pick up another superdelegate this weekend if the Dem candidate wins the special election being help for Hastert's old seat.
March 6, 2008 10:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
idiotic has a blog, by the way, which is full of excellent news like this.
Nice info, Yoda.
March 6, 2008 11:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
idiotic also has a blog - with no comments or posts as yet - called:
excellent NEWS for McCain!!
I can hardly wait.
March 7, 2008 10:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
McCainiacs are definitely out there.
Just look for the crackpipes and the uzi-strapping unicorns.
March 7, 2008 1:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
Ground control to Major Ballsssss...
Richardson - Edwards - mic check, 1-2-3- please???
March 7, 2008 3:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
Obama picks up another 4 delegates (and Clinton loses them) in California's final delegate allocation. It's really Clinton 203, Obama 167.
http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/2008/03/california-primary-results-cer.php
More excellent news!!
March 7, 2008 3:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
Clinton picks one up: Mona Mohib with the DNC.
http://demconwatch.blogspot.com/2008/01/superdelegate-list.html
I've said this before but it's worth noting that Clinton's superdelegate lead (40) is due almost entirely to DNC members. These unelected people have no business being suerdelegates. There's no accountability. That accountability with elected SDs is the reason for defections like John Lewis to Obama. (not that I'm advocating changing the rules now after they've been agred to by all parties.) Add this to the growing list of things to change about this process in 2012.
March 7, 2008 7:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
Have Hope, friend.
I cite here the tale of Sarah Swisher, Vice Chair for the Iowa Dems, and someone I know personally. She works for SEIU and was an Edwards Super until he dropped out(he had the endorsement of Iowa SEIU), then backed Clinton for a short while, then backed Obama when the SEIU did. Her first loyalty is to SEIU. There are other DNC Supers like her; some will be loyal to Clinton's big backers, like AFSCME, but in post-industrial America, SEIU is the largest union affiliation. Obama also has the UFCW and Teamsters.
I think we have yet to see the effect of some of these recent big Obama endorsements like SEIU. Similar to the way the Ted Kennedy endorsement got no traction up to Super Tuesday, but may well be a contributing factor in the Super numbers since then (and maybe the 12-win streak).
March 7, 2008 11:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
Actually most DNC members are elected by their state parties.
March 7, 2008 4:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Where's Gore?
Where's Edwards?
Where's Richardson?
They're out back with Obama playing cards and waiting (probably after the next few wins by Obama to come out for Barack and make a Pennsylvania win a non-event.
Then we will see the other 43 superdelegates flood over to the BIG "O"!
March 7, 2008 7:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
Where's Gore?
Where's Edwards?
Where's Richardson?
They're out back with Obama playing cards and waiting (probably after the next few wins by Obama to come out for Barack and make a Pennsylvania win a non-event.
Then we will see the other 43 superdelegates flood over to the BIG "O"!
March 7, 2008 7:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
Has anyone figured out the superdelegate magic number for each candidate?
Obama has 1366 pledged, Hillary has 1227 pledged so far.
So assuming the next contests break out as predicted, Hillary would need 140 more supers than Obama. So please check my math but 798 supers half of which is 399, 140 pledged lead for obama, so it seems like his magic number is 259 supers to hold a majority of delagates.
Does this seem right?
March 7, 2008 11:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
No, he would need 329 - a difference of 140 means that it's 70 fewer for him from 399 and 70 more for her. She would need 469 to make up a 140 delegate deficit.
March 7, 2008 4:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Just to add that CA final results certified gave Obama 4 more and Clinton 4 fewer pledged delegates than previously estimated.
Drip, drip.....
March 7, 2008 1:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well if he's got any big ones stashed away, now might be a good time to bring them out - what wit this Powers nonsense and all.
March 7, 2008 1:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
You all seem very confident that Obama is going to pull this out. I'm a huge Obama supporter, but I do see the momentum going for The Clintons at the moment. I wish I could be as confident as all of you seem to be.
March 7, 2008 3:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
gettex - I can't say I'm terribly confident. I mean, on the one hand, the math just doesn't add up for Clinton. Momentum or not. And I just don't see Obama coming after her the way I think he should (this doesn't mean tear her down by the way but he definitely needs to figure out how to win the news cycle back). I guess my biggest fear is that Obama wins the battle but is so badly scarred that he can't win the general. I desperately am waiting for the refs to step in and get Hillary to stop with the Rovian attacks. Endorsing McSame was disasterous for the Democratic Party.
I've said it before and I'll say it again, if this thing blows apart, I don't see how we put Humpty Dumpty back together again in November. We may very well need a Unity ticket to save us from ourselves. But that has to be determined before this powder keg blows.
March 7, 2008 4:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Post a Comment