Reader Posts
« previous | TPM CAFÉ READER POSTS HOME | next »
Obama Campaign: A Plouffe Memo To Superdelegates
TO: Superdelegates
FROM: David Plouffe, Campaign Manager
RE: An Update on the Race for Delegates
DA: May 7, 2008
There are only six contests remaining in the Democratic primary calendar and only 217 pledged delegates left to be awarded. Only 7 percent of the pledged delegates remain on the table. There are 260 remaining undeclared superdelegates, for a total of 477 delegates left to be awarded.
With North Carolina and Indiana complete, Barack Obama only needs 172 total delegates to capture the Democratic nomination. This is only 36% of the total remaining delegates.
Conversely, Senator Clinton needs 326 delegates to reach the Democratic nomination, which represents a startling 68% of the remaining delegates.
With the Clinton path to the nomination getting even narrower, we expect new and wildly creative scenarios to emerge in the coming days. While those scenarios may be entertaining, they are not legitimate and will not be considered legitimate by this campaign or its millions of supporters, volunteers, and donors.
We believe it is exceedingly unlikely Senator Clinton will overtake our lead in the popular vote and in fact lost ground on that measure last night. However, the popular vote is a deeply flawed and illegitimate metric for deciding the nominee – since each campaign based their strategy on the acquisition of delegates. More importantly, the rules of the nomination are predicated on delegates, not popular vote.
Just as the Presidential election in November will be decided by the electoral college, not popular vote, the Democratic nomination is decided by delegates.
If we believed the popular vote was somehow the key measurement, we would have campaigned much more intensively in our home state of Illinois and in all the other populous states, in the pursuit of larger raw vote totals. But it is not the key measurement. We played by the rules, set by you, the DNC members, and campaigned as hard as we could, in as many places as we could, to acquire delegates. Essentially, the popular vote is not much better as a metric than basing the nominee on which candidate raised more money, has more volunteers, contacted more voters, or is taller.
The Clinton campaign was very clear about their own strategy until the numbers become too ominous for them. They were like a broken record , repeating ad nauseum that this nomination race is about delegates. Now, the word delegate has disappeared from their vocabulary, in an attempt to change the rules and create an alternative reality.
We want to be clear – we believe that the winner of a majority of pledged delegates will and should be the nominee of our party. And we estimate that after the Oregon and Kentucky primaries on May 20, we will have won a majority of the overall pledged delegates According to a recent news report, by even their most optimistic estimates the Clinton Campaign expects to trail by more than 100 pledged delegates and will then ask the superdelegates to overturn the will of the voters.
But of course superdelegates are free to and have been utilizing their own criteria for deciding who our nominee should be. Many are deciding on the basis of electability, a favorite Clinton refrain. And if you look at the numbers, during a period where the Clinton campaign has been making an increasingly strident pitch on electability, it is clear their argument is failing miserably with superdelegates.
Since February 5, the Obama campaign has netted 107 superdelegates, and the Clinton campaign only 21. Since the Pennsylvania primary, much of it during the challenging Rev. Wright period, we have netted 24 and the Clinton campaign 17.
At some point – we would argue that time is now – this ceases to be a theoretical exercise about how superdelegates view electability. The reality of the preferences in the last several weeks offer a clear guide of how strongly superdelegates feel Senator Obama will perform in November, both in building a winning campaign for the presidency as well as providing the best electoral climate across the country for all Democratic candidates.
It is important to note that Senator Obama leads Senator Clinton in superdelegate endorsements among Governors, United States Senators and members of the House of Representatives. These elected officials all have a keen sense for who our strongest nominee will be in November.
It is only among DNC members where Senator Clinton holds a lead, which has been rapidly dwindling.
As we head into the final days of the campaign, we just wanted to be clear with you as a party leader, who will be instrumental in making the final decision of who our nominee will be, how we view the race at this point.
Senator Obama, our campaign and our supporters believe pledged delegates is the most legitimate metric for determining how this race has unfolded. It is simply the ratification of the DNC rules – your rules – which we built this campaign and our strategy around.











Comments (5)
Looks like it's sewed up. Obama should call for seating MI and FLA since he has nothing to lose (he's already won, right?) and if they are not seated soon those voters are going to sit out the general.
May 7, 2008 4:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
As soon as Hillary drops out, those delegates can be seated.
May 7, 2008 4:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
"if they are not seated soon those voters are going to sit out the general."
OK, you will have to explain this to me. In January, 2.5 million Dems voted in both states KNOWING that no delegates were at stake. Maybe millions more stayed home for the same reason. But you are arguing that IF the rules are not changed and the Dems who voted don't receive delegates (though they KNEW they were not voting for delegate counts), that they will stay home? So if the world is the way they always knew it would be, they will be pissed and not vote Dem? That makes no sense. And do you have any polling data supporting this conclusion?
Explain the flip side: aren't the people who did NOT vote because there were no delegates at stake going to feel cheated because you changed the rules after the fact and they did not have a say? Isn't that a BETTER reason to stay home, especially if you supported a candidate like Edwards, who could have used those delegates back in January?
The logic for seating the delegates simply does not hold for me. Maybe you can convince me otherwise.
May 7, 2008 5:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, first I don't really think Clinton has a chance anyway, but only because CW has ruled it, not because of the numbers. The whole pledged delegate leader=will of the people=winner was always just a spin that the press bought into. That said, when Fla and Mi were penalized by the Rules committee for jumping ahead of favored states, Dean said that ultimately their delegates would have to be seated and of course he's right.
Fla state Dems who voted for the date were forced to because it was attached to the whole elections bill. Regardless, the DNC nor the state legislature has a right to disenfranchise those voters. I cannot believe that anyone, much less supporters of the new politics Unity candidate, have argued for doing just that because it favors their candidate.
Clinton's lost this thing but I hope people wake up to the fact that it has been Obama and Axelrod who have run the win-at-any-costs campaign. I sure as hell hope Obama can beat McCain but he is not the progressive populist many think he is. By all accounts the Dem candidate should win but it will be very tough for Obama with his baggage.
May 7, 2008 7:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry, BRob, I didn’t really address your question. Voters (and I should have said many of those voters) will stay home because they believe, rightly so, that they have had their right to vote for a nominee stolen (Obama had an uphill battle as it was). The Fla vote alone, Dem and Rep, was 2.6 million. It was the largest Dem turnout ever. It does not seem that people were staying home, believing it wouldn’t count. People would not turn out in droves to vote in a primary thinking their votes were meaningless.
The Rules Committee punished Fla voters for what their Rep run state gov did with penalties even harsher than the rules required and harsher than the RNC. And the state Dems did take “provable positive steps” to try to stop the Reps. The Rules Committee decision is not the final decision on it; that is done by the Credentials Committee formed this year. Most believed and many DNC leaders implied that it would be worked out and sooner rather than later.
As you point out, votes become meaningless after a time, hence the whole fight over dates in the first place. I think Party leaders realize what’s at stake practically if not ethically. If the Democratic Party is a national party and is dedicated to democracy, none of these rules matters as the voters should not be punished because of what their Republican legislators do and should not be left “uncounted” as a remedy for anything.
May 7, 2008 8:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Post a Comment