Reader Posts
« previous | TPM CAFÉ READER POSTS HOME | next »
Buyers Remorse Sets in for More Hillary Superdels: LA Times
California superdelegates' wavering bodes ill for Hillary Clinton reads the headline of an article in today's Los Angeles times.
FRESNO -- Hillary Rodham Clinton, stung last week by the defection of a prominent superdelegate, could lose the backing of more of these Democratic Party leaders and elected officials if she fails to make significant gains in the remaining month of presidential nominating contests, several California superdelegates said this weekend.
Two of the five superdelegates aligned with Clinton who spoke at the annual California Democratic Convention here said they would reconsider their support if rival Barack Obama maintained his lead in elected delegates and the popular vote after the last contests on June 3.
Supporters of both Clinton and Obama have been lobbying the Clinton superdelegates to stick with Clinton, or attempting to get them to switch allegiance to Obama. Responses from Clinton's superdelegates varied, and some are waiting to see how the last few primaries play out before making a final decision. Obama's superdelegates, on the other hand, show no sign of wavering in their committment to the Illinois senator.
Christopher Stampolis of Santa Clara, a superdelegate who endorsed Clinton after the Iowa caucuses, said that he remained in the New York senator's camp but that his commitment expired with the end of the primaries.
"When it's done, all of us, whether we're committed or not, we're going to take a look" at the final eight contests, said Stampolis, who until recently worked in external relations for a Bay Area environmental firm. "Our job is to represent the constituents who trusted us to win the White House."
Advertisement
Comments (43)
Good news. Of course, hardly noted by the MSM. OH well, I suspect you'll see not only the supers jump to Obama, but many of the Clinton supers flee the sinking ship.
May 5, 2008 10:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
A rather idiotic post, this one. Buyers remorse does not describe what the above article is about. That article is about party unity once a nominee is found. If Obama leads in both the delegate count and the popular vote when all the races are over, then it's rather obvious that most Democrats will rally around him as the winner - Hillary included - a situation described by the supers above.
A more fitting title for this post would be "Hillary Superdels steadfast in their support, but will unify behind whoever wins the nomination process".
Of course, that requires objective reading comprehension - something that's rather lacking here in general.
May 6, 2008 7:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
As Junior Johnson once said, if you sit down to a breakfast of eggs and bacon, the chicken is dedicated, but the pig is committed. Hillary's superdelegate backers seem "committed" to her in the same way that she is "committed" to the American People...
May 5, 2008 11:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
This is what I like about the superdelegate system: it doesn't leave the fate of this country in the hands of the least educated portion of the electorate.
What we'll see on Tuesday is more of the same horserace/Hillary's momentum baloney, yet this article reminds us of the wonderful FACTS: The Superdelegates will decide this election based on the numbers. And those numbers are all Obama, baby!
May 5, 2008 11:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
This is merely saying the obvious - if the dynamic does not change by the end of the primaries, Obama will be the nominee. But the quoted superdelegates leave their options open: They would reconsider their support if rival Barack Obama maintained his lead in elected delegates and the popular vote after the last contests on June 3.
From RCP, Obama's popular vote lead, including FL and caucus estimates but not MI, is 315,000 - narrow enough that a strong Hillary finish could edge per past him. Long story short: If there weren't some real prospect of Hillary breaking through, no one would be having this discussion.
May 5, 2008 11:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
You can't include Florida.
May 5, 2008 12:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
ah, but the Hillfolks' newest mantra is "you have your math, I have mine"
...where have we heard that before?
May 5, 2008 12:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
And after all, mathematicians, like economists, are all just a bunch of elitists!
Does anyone remember the sceen in "the Killing Fields" (the film about Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge, if I'm remebering it correctly), where the made anyone who was educated or had an academic degree raise their hand? Then they took those "elitists" out to the fields and shot every one of them.
Hillary scares me. If her people ask about my degrees, I'm not saying anything.
May 5, 2008 12:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
May 5, 2008 12:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Typical of you proponents of science-based math.
How about opening your minds to allow the tenets of faith-based math an equal opportunity?
Meheheheh.
May 5, 2008 2:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ha! You get an extra tin can in your feed bag today!
May 5, 2008 3:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hmmm, cans!
Salty!
Meheheheh.
May 5, 2008 4:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
The problems with using popular vote totals have been well-documented: systematic under-representation of caucus states and over-representation of open primary states.
What they need is a point system whereby each state would get a number of points that would depend on the number of Democratic voters in that state. These points would then be allocated to the candidates based upon the percentage of the vote they received in each states' contest, whether it be a caucus, closed primary or open primary. With a system like that you could determine a clear winner.
May 5, 2008 1:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
That system is already in place, the points are called "delegates." :-)
May 5, 2008 1:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
No. Really??? So then why all this talk about popular vote?
May 5, 2008 1:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Best I can figure, it's the only argument Hillary has left: "If we count the popular vote where it benefits me (illegal participation in FLA and MI), and don't count the popular vote where it doesn't benefit me (13 caucus states), and factor in that James Carville said I have three testicles and Obama only has one, then the math is clearly in my favor!"
May 5, 2008 2:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
How long before logarithms come into the equation?
May 5, 2008 2:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Numerologists? What next, will Hillary be calling the national Science Foundation a bunch of alchemists?
May 5, 2008 3:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Too funny. There will be snark.
May 5, 2008 3:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
If only there were such a system, I'm sure that all the candidates would agree to it and abide by their decision.
May 5, 2008 1:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Genghis talks about that here:
http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/2008/05/the-beginning-of-the-end-or-ho.php
Long story short: Not gonna happen. Not. Gonna.
May 5, 2008 2:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
I have yet to see anyone get up from Obama's table to head over and sit down with the Clintons.
May 5, 2008 11:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
I just got back in from reading that in the newspaper. As much as I, as an Obama supporter, liked to see it, it shows again the LA Times duplicitous ways of abusing headlines. The blanket statement of "buyer's remore sets in" doesn't follow in the 2 of 5 superdelegates. Especially when you realize that 5 superdelegates in CA is barely a drop in the bucket.
IIRC correctly, there are 65 or 66 superdelegates in CA with 25 or 26 of them committed to Clinton. Talking to 5 of them is not research and saying that two of them willing to switch is "buyer's remorse set[ting] in" is a stretch.
God, I hate the LA Times.
May 5, 2008 12:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
The La Times called it "wavering", "buyers remorse" is my take on the issue.
May 5, 2008 2:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
The LA Times? A newspaper? I don't think so. Let them endorse Disneyworld.
May 5, 2008 9:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
I suspect you'll see not only the supers jump to Obama, but many of the Clinton supers flee the sinking ship.
But we were told that if Hillary won the popular vote in Texas and Ohio, the superdelegates would run from Obama to Hillary and she'd have the nomination clinched!
May 5, 2008 3:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
But we were told that if Hillary won the popular vote in Texas and Ohio, the superdelegates would run from Obama to Hillary and she'd have the nomination clinched!
Oops, my mistake. We were told that, but the prediction was superseded by a new prediction.
We were told that if Hillary won the popular vote in Texas, Ohio and Pennsylvania, then we'd see the superdelegates running away from Obama and endorsing Hillary, giving her the nomination.
May 5, 2008 3:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
We were told that if Hillary won the popular vote in Texas, Ohio and Pennsylvania, then we'd see the superdelegates running away from Obama and endorsing Hillary, giving her the nomination.
I'm so embarrassed. We were told that if she won the popular vote in Texas, Ohio and Pennsylvania, she'd lock up the nomination.
But that prediction was superseded by yet another one. If she wins the popular vote in Texas, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Indiana then Obama will be toast and the superdelegates will abandon Obama in droves and give the nomination to Hillary.
We'll have to wait until tomorrow to find out what state will be added in the next iteration of this prediction.
May 5, 2008 3:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
hehehehe..point well taken..
May 5, 2008 4:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
I have to hand it to Hillary: She is a master at political alchemy. Through sheer, mind-numbing repetition she turns flimsy arguments into points that are seriously debated by media talking heads. She recognizes that in today's chaotic, hyper-crowded media bazaar, repetition beats reason any day. Her "why can't he close"? argument is exhibit number one. He "cant close" for the same reason she cant. Nobody can mathematically close the door with this maddeningly democratic representational primary system until the supers vote. The only thing that would do the trick for her is if Obama was found in bed with a dead woman or a live boy. Goebbel's would have been proud......
May 5, 2008 5:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm an Obama supporter, but I don't think it's fair to call it buyers remorse. It is really more about deciding to unify the party around the candidate who did the best in the primaries, even if they do still really like the other candidate.
May 5, 2008 6:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think it accurately desribes Joe Andrew's decision to abandon Hillary for Obama, and as the article suggests, others are reconsidering their decision to buy into the Hillary campaign as well:
May 5, 2008 6:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Good point! Just made it myself up above, in fact :-)
May 6, 2008 9:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
Stevie Wonder to attend Barack Obama rally in Indianapolis
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/wire/chi-ap-in-obama-wonder,0,2543608.story
May 5, 2008 6:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
To Clinton supporters:
What do you think of her campaign at this point? About her recent statements on killing whole nations of people, of brazenly lying about Bosnia, of her new found right-wing friends, such as Scaife, Murdoch, Buchanan, Scarborough, while simultaneously attacking MoveOn.org? Or, how about her slash and burn - Karl Rove approved - campaign tactics?
Do you think her behavior is merely deceitful, or do you believe she is revealing her true self? What exactly ARE the reasons you continue to support her?
May 5, 2008 6:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
You know, it's funny. This past weekend, I ended up in conversation with the only two Clinton supporters I know who still support her. They like her style of campaigning. They say that that's just how politics works. They know the gas tax is bollocks, but they seem to find it endearing that she'll do whatever it takes to win. That, they say, is what we really need in November.
They think Obama can't win in November because, they claim, white working-class voters in Ohio and Florida (a group they describe as the "Democratic base") won't vote for him. They think he's dangerously naive to believe that his style of campaign could possibly beat the Republicans.
I'm amazed that they like this kind of campaign, and want to see more of it. But I should point out that these are not low-information voters. They both have PhDs, at least one of 'em in politics.
May 5, 2008 8:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
paging idiotic
May 5, 2008 6:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Since Pennsylvania, Obama has picked up 21 superdelegates, Clinton has picked up 11.
May 5, 2008 8:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
It sounds beautiful!
May 5, 2008 9:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
The Democratic party should want to win by telling the truth. Why are the CA delegates waiting for wins? Why don't they see that everything coming out of Hillary's mouth is a lie?
Honestly, she has been so brazen and ridiculous that I think her point is to prove that "old politics" wins over "new politics".
It is our job to say NO!
May 5, 2008 10:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
The popular vote, fuck that!!
Gore had it, but we all know he didn't really win the Presidency.
May 5, 2008 10:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Note the irony of June 3.
After that date, only the superdelegates have a vote. Obama will need just a few superdelegate votes to gain 2024 or 2025 or whatever the majority is then. And he will have gotten them.
So what are these Clinton superdelegates going to do then? Not support the winner? Go against the newest most powerful member of the party?
It's not buyer's remorse. it's cowardice.
May 6, 2008 10:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
Here's an interesting list:
According to DemConWatch)
Switched from Clinton to Obama:
Joe Andrew (IL, Former DNC Chairman)
Rep. John Lewis (GA, Representative)
Dana Redd (NJ, DNC member)
John Rednour (IL, DNC member)
Rep. David Scott (GA, Representative)
Sarah Swisher (IA, DNC member)
Harry Thomas, Jr. (DC, Add-on)
Senfronia Thompson (TX, DNC member)
Switched from Clinton to uncommitted:
Sen. Maria Cantwell (WA, Senator)
Denise Johnson (TX, DNC member)
Helen Langan (UT, DNC member)
Clinton super-delegates who have publicly stated they are wavering:
Christopher Stampolis (CA, DNC member)
Garry Shay (CA, DNC member)
Jennifer McClellan (VA, DNC member)
Lionel Spruill Sr. (VA, DNC member)
May 6, 2008 11:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
Post a Comment