« previous | TPM CAFÉ READER POSTS HOME | next »
Supers Need to Let the States of South Dakota/Montana Push Obama Over the Needed 2118 delegates
Super delegates should weigh in BEFORE Tuesday's primary in Montana and South Dakota.
The polls are showing Barack Obama currently leading in those two states; but even if he were to tie with Hillary, he would only get around 15 delegates total. This means he needs at least 33 super delegates to put him over the top.
In the interest of UNITY, at least 30-35 super delegates need to endorse Barack Obama by tomorrow night. This would allow the STATES to be ones pushing Obama over the required 2118 DNC rules count for the nomination.
Surely out of about 200 undeclared supers, 30-35 are willing to allow the States of South Dakota and Montana push Obama to the Democratic nomination?
These people would not only be helping Obama win, they would 'put excitement' in the states of South Dakota and Montana -- we normally do not win these States during a general election -- perhaps doing this would give them reason to vote Democrat in November.
So, come on supers -- let the States be the ones to be reported as having handed Barack Obama the nomination -- not the super delegates!!!
Comments (27)
EXCELLENT idea. I hope they read this.
June 1, 2008 10:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Me too. The media would be FORCED to report that it was the State of Montana (polls stay open one hour later) that put Obama over the top!
Go SUPERS!!!
June 1, 2008 10:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
If Obama picks up 24 supers tomorrow, then Montana and South Dakota will officially push him past the magic number. Tomorrow should prove interesting...
June 1, 2008 10:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
It would allow VOTERS to FEEL like THEY were the ones to be the DECIDERS -- not these SPECIAL FOLKS called Supers.
June 1, 2008 10:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
You've put forward this suggestion before.
It was good then, and it's good now.
Still, 24 is a lot in a single day.
C'mon, guys and gals!
Show some balls ... and, er, whatever the female equivalent is.
June 1, 2008 10:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
I believe Hillary calls them balls also.
June 1, 2008 11:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Petals?
June 1, 2008 10:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah... show us something.
Just no more of Opus. :-)
June 1, 2008 11:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree wholehearetedly
June 1, 2008 11:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
I would be shocked - and I mean shocked - if the superdelegates ever did anything useful.
At the beginning the SDs were giving Clinton an unearned bonus of 100 delegates, and now they can't get off their bums to end the agony.
Off with their heads I say.
June 2, 2008 4:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
Other than Clyburn saying he is endorsing Tuesday morning I haven't heard any assert any need to let the voters decide this. Myopia continues to rule among the supers.
June 2, 2008 8:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
That would require courage and commitment on the part of professional Democratic party politicians.
During the previous seven years they have evolved into a species of invertebrates, totally lacking a spine of any sort. Somehow I do not expect them to demonstrate even the basic common sense that now is good time to step forward for the good of the country.
June 2, 2008 8:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
Any delegate can change their mind at the Convention if something should develop or happen to Obama -- supers need to endorse TODAY, based on TODAY's current events.
June 2, 2008 8:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
The last time I saw a list of undecided superdelegates, it was predominantly comprised of unelected party hacks (although there were some elected hacks).
If they haven't publicly endorsed yet with all bet 2 contests left, I'd doubt they will until the voters have spoken.
June 2, 2008 10:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
Uh... this doesn't make any sense at all.
You're asking the super delegates to step in before the convention. Fine.
But it's not the states deciding anything. It's the supers.
Which is what's going to happen anyway. Face it, Obama can't win enough pledged delegates to clinch. So the supers will decide. They'll likely decide for him, but they're going to decide. It's not Montana and South Dakota. And why do you care if it is?
The election is so close it's going to the super delegates. Those are the idiotic rules we have.
June 2, 2008 10:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
Wonderful idea. However the supers seem most interested in not offending anyone, least of all the Clintons. Can you imagine the phone calls they get from Bill Clinton?
Pelosi and Reid will lead their pack of lemmings to finally endorse Obama on Wednesday, and they will all feel safe and self righteous. Endorsements today and tomorrow would show a lot more courage, but then some of them would have to step forward from the pack, unthinkable apparently for the majority of these characters.
June 2, 2008 10:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
I emailed Gore some time back with this same proposal when it became clear that the Superdelegates would be the deciding factor. I explained that it would be best if the Superdelegates would get off the fence before the last primaries to at least give the impression that it was the actual voters who decided this election. I also agree that it would give Montana and South Dakota a reason to vote for Obama in the GE.
June 2, 2008 10:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
Why do you want the supers to give what is basically a false impression?
The fact is that the voters are so evenly divided that the supers will choose the nominee. That's how it goes. We really don't need anything but the truth here.
I really can't figure out why it's preferable to give the false impression that South Dakota picked our nominee.
June 2, 2008 12:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Anything in particular you have against South Dakota? Or is it just a general "state that doesn't count" sort of thing?
June 2, 2008 1:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't have anything against South Dakota. I just want us to be honest about what happened in our primary. It came down to two people with very close levels of support and by our rules, the superdelegates will decide who the nominee is.
I don't want us to lose site of that because I think that after Obama beats McCain we should get to work on changing our party's rules so that superdelegates don't have more authority than the party's voters.
I object to the superdelegates acting in a way that will make it "seem" as if they didn't wind up choosing the nominee, which is what happened.
June 2, 2008 1:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Fair enough. I don't like the "superdelegate" system at all, myself.
However, to be logically consistent, I don't think either the superdelegates or the states by themselves have enough votes to declare the nominee. Even if all the superdelegates declared for Candidate A at the start of the process, Candidate A would still need to win delegates from the states. Therefore, it's no more illogical to say that a particular state put Candidate A "over the top" as it is to say that the superdelegates did.
June 2, 2008 1:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Actually I think there are enough pledged delegates out there that a candidate can win without the supers. But they have to win huge to do it. This race is too close for that so the supers make the call.
June 2, 2008 2:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well the super-delegate vote is similarly close. The only difference is the timing. States are required to hold elections on a schedule, the supers have the luxury of waiting and "voting" when they want to.
They should require all supers from a particular state to decide within one week after their own state votes. That is, if we keep the supers at all.
June 2, 2008 1:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
I want them gone but your idea is quite an improvement.
June 2, 2008 2:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes , the best solution is no super-delegates at all.
June 2, 2008 5:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
I have spoken to a city councilman in a large New Jersey City who privately supports Obama but is afraid of the Clintons. He has ambitions for higher office. "Those folks hold a grudge" were the words he used describing the Clinton camp.
There is something so ludicrous and yet so telling that lowly city councilman is cowering before the Clintons. Old time machine politics shows up in the most unlikely places.
June 2, 2008 5:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
While it may be a nice optic, I don't know what difference it really makes. Obama is so far ahead in pledged delegates that it is clear his win is fully legitimate and decisive.
For those who decry the undue influence of "the elite", "the super elite" etc., there is no issue since the superdelegates are in clear agreement with the pledged delegates. Take them out of the picture and the result is the same.
Not just that, but the evening of June 3rd will be all about the fact that it's over and Obama has decisively won the pledged delegate count - there are no more pledged delegates to be had, and Obama's ahead by over 100 points.
Clinton has a big speech scheduled for that evening, and if that speech (despite expectations) turns out to be a call to rally the troops, let's have more donations and off we go to the convention, she is going to seem very small and desperate - and extremely divisive, essentially killing any future role in the Democratic party.
If there is any mention of the fact that Obama doesn't have the 2118 delegates yet in tomorrow's news cycle, it's not much of a problem because that will then surely be the next day's news - two news cycles for the price of one.
Not just that, but that convention is almost three months down the line, with no "media oxygen" for her other than perhaps railing on about two delegate votes (4/2) in Michigan and a dishonest popular vote calculation in the meantime. I very much doubt that after close to three months of Obama and McCain campaigning against each other that Clinton will be able to re-insert herself into the conversation.
June 2, 2008 7:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Post a Comment