After Tuesday's results, I kind of expected a Wednesday superdelegate flood to Barack Obama. It didn't really materialize, though he did pick up some ground. And Thursday was the same way. And now looking at my inbox, it seems like more of the same as Rep. Peter DeFazio endorses Obama while Rep. Donald Payne switches from Clinton to Obama. Stuff on this scale doesn't -- and can't -- lead to a knockout blow, it's more of a death by a thousand cuts thing with the handful of superdelegate defections being especially damaging.
« Goldfarb: Who Cares About Recruitment? | Main | Food for Thought »
Dripping to the End
09 May 2008 08:40 am
Comments (39)
"as Rep. Peter DeFazio endorses Obama while Rep. Donald Payne switches from Clinton to Obama"
and Rep. Chris Carney endorses Clinton.
Funny how 'fair and balanced' Matthew missed that one.
He also got John Gage, a superdelegate along with the AFGE endorsement.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080509/ap_on_el_pr/obama_union
Jake--that may be true, and they don't want to make it look like they're giving her the bums rush out the door. They need her supporters in November. But it also may be that many of the supers are still scared that Clinton can rise, zombie-like, from the political graveyard. I honestly think that they're scared of the Clintons, and don't want to commit to Obama until there is literally no time left on the clock.
I heard — this is a completely unsourced rumor, but I heard it from someone in a position to know and hey, it's truthy — that this trickle of superdelegates is planned. Every time there's a news story that's good for Clinton or bad for Obama, Obama balances it out by asking two more superdelegates to announce their endorsement. It keeps the Democratic Party in the news in a way that a general election campaign wouldn't, it's not like he's in danger of running out of money, it saves up good news for when it can be helpful, etc.
When was the last time an Obama superdelegate switched to Clinton? (Not a rhetorical question; an actual question.) Have there been any?
If you're a super delegate and worry about the angry old woman and angry white working class vote in your district, you're just going to hold off for a while. And if you're a party hack, you may not want to burn any bridges with the Clintons. Just waiting for her to bleed out might be the best policy.
If these people don't want to stick their necks out, Obama looking like he's got the thing wrapped up could make them even _less_ likely to endorse than before. If you think the race is going to be over and Hillary's going to withdraw, why risk alienating her supporters? Better to wait until she withdraws...
If these people don't want to stick their necks out, Obama looking like he's got the thing wrapped up could make them even _less_ likely to endorse than before. If you think the race is going to be over and Hillary's going to withdraw, why risk alienating her supporters? Better to wait until she withdraws...
I think Helter's probably got it, though if true it doesn't say much for the political courage of our Democratic reps. (But then, what does?)
When was the last time an Obama superdelegate switched to Clinton? (Not a rhetorical question; an actual question.) Have there been any?
The answer is Zero. At least 3 have switched to Obama since last week.
This is all rather fascinating from a collective action theory standpoint. We've been saying (rightly) for months that the superdelegates are the key to the nomination, but they haven't made much at all of their collective power. Meanwhile, I'll assume that Cyrus is right for the purpose of armchair theory and point out that it takes a strong, centralized external authority to corral the supers into some kind of order, but, low and behold, that order benefits the centralized external authority and not the supers. So why do the supers accede to it?
I think there's something along these lines in the bloggingheads segment Matt did with Reihan a couple days ago. Reihan pointed out that in fact, China has assumed a relatively friendly posture when America's military buildup on its periphery is considered. Contra Reihan, this isn't because China is somehow friendlier than its stereotype. It's a direct consequence of the fact that we're very powerful and China can't coordinate any kind of coalition to take us on. That is completely contrary to the going Neocon take, which is that our power naturally provokes enemies that we must crush in order to stay powerful.
How these two things connect exactly is beyond me.
and Rep. Chris Carney endorses Clinton.
The significance is wiped away by the defection of Rep. Donald Payne.
Still, if superdelegates can switch from Clinton to Obama, then they could just as easily switch the other way, if Obama got toxic somehow. It seems to me that superdelegates who switch actually bolster the Clinton arguement that the final results could still go her way as long as Obama needs some superdelegates for the nomination.
considering how accurate the Obama campaign's internal expectations have been in regards to how many delegates they'd win in each state, i wouldn't be surprised if they are releasing just enough supers to be in a position to have Oregon to put them over the top, that way they can say "the voters made me the nominee".
Watch and weep Petey: at the end Edwards slips and admits he voted for Obama:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/24538467#24538467
I don't see any point in a knock-out blow, or any advantage to anyone in new endorsements. No one cares. Is Obama going to reward anyone for too little too late? The only thing left is to let Clinton continue begging donors to get some of her family's money back.
It seems to me that superdelegates who switch actually bolster the Clinton arguement
Not gonna happen.
Happy birthday to me!
I suspect the dripping is intentional as well. You simply can't give the Clintons a "we were forced out against the will of our scrabbly, working class voters, oh woe is me" excuse. You have to let them bleed out. If it takes a horror-movie like extended death scene then so be it. Don't give them a single lever by which to pry themselves out of the grave.
The supers don't want to give the impression that they are selecting the nominee. A flood of support might look like they are selecting Obama before every state has had a chance to vote. I think the majority are waiting in order to put their stamp of approval on the voters choice.
If any Obama super was going to jump ship it would have happened after Clinton's win in Pennsylvania. They could have stated concerns over Rev. Wright and buttressed their argument by citing Clinton 9 point win in PA.
ABC is reporting this morning that Obama is now ahead in the Superdelegate race. Give it another week or two, and the spread will increase by another 15 or 18 Supers, regardless of what happens in White Virginia...er, "West" Virginia (sorry, I must have channeled Hillary for a moment there).
A steady stream of Supers moving in his direction allows him to grow his lead without making her Highness feel embarrassed, which is, unfortunately, the most important aspect of the endgame here - whatever you do, don't do anything to make the Clintons feel disrespected, since they have the capability to make trouble and have demonstrated the willingness to do so when pushed.
Along the lines of one of those "seven reasons Hillary should stay in," might it be the case that the Clinton campaign recognizes the benefits to the Democratic party of continued voter turnout in the remaining states, and the continued outpouring of dollars into the Obama campaign's coffers?
Sick of her as I may be, part of me would like to believe there might be some sort of decent and unselfish motive for Clinton's remaining in the race.
I just shake my head at the spinelessness of the supers who won't declare at this point. There are really only a handful for whom there is a valid explanation: either they are representatives of jurisdictions that haven't voted yet, or they represent the top leadership positions in the DNC (and by top, I mean Dean, Reid, Pelosi, Gore, and that's about it - nobody else is toooo important to declare now).
Honestly - stop being such an old Democrat and show some fucking backbone...Declare already!
You simply can't give the Clintons a "we were forced out against the will of our scrabbly, working class voters, oh woe is me" excuse.
You forgot to add the "white" into their excuse, as in "we were forced out against the will of our scrabbly, working class white voters by the black people and the eggheads."
A knockout blow might stop these insane assertions from the MSM that Obama can't "close the deal," like he's some salesman trying to land a large account against an inferior firm. It completely ignores the that Hillary is REALLY strong candidate, in this and any other year. Its a media narrative thats been bugging me for while. I dunno, maybe the general public doesn't care enough about that narrative but it bugs the crap out of me.
Haha, I can envision Petey arguing with Edwards on why Clinton is more progressive than Obama and then he'd call Edwards a rich scumbag trial lawyer.
Addressing concern among some Democrats that Mrs. Clinton would fight on to the national convention in late August, Terry McAuliffe, chairman of the Clinton campaign, suggested that the race would end quickly after the final primaries early next month, sparing the party a potentially debilitating summerlong battle.
The Clinton people aren't stupid. The anti-Obama trolls should just be ignored.
It seems like their will be just enough super-delagtes in the bag for Obama that on May 20th, when he wins Oregon it will put him over the top for the nomination. That way he can say he won the nomination on the 20th and Hillary can sort of go out a winner as well if she wins Kentucky and WV.
Of course if Hillary keeps talking about being the president of white America she will still go out a loser, no matter what happens on the 20th.
"The supers don't want to give the impression that they are selecting the nominee."--justkarl
Exactly right. And yet that's precisely what Clinton's staffers and the uber-loony Clintonites at mydd and taylormarsh are counting on to happen. They WANT the supers to select the nominee (as long as it's Hillary), against all evidence that the supers DON'T want to be put in such a position.
And one more thing--do the Clintonites really believe (as they seem to) that once their candidate has the nomination bestowed upon her by the super delegates, that somehow the slate will be wiped clean and the Democratic Party will be unified and ready to face McCain? Do they really believe this to be possible?
Hey all,
I have a question that I hope someone can answer about the convention. Basically, I want to know how the superdelegates will be counted.
Will it be...
(Delegate Total)+(Superdelegate Total)= Winner
Or, because the delegate count will not reach the 2,025 amount for either candidate, will it be...
(Superdelegate Total)= Winner
Any help will be greatly appreciated.
-g
Mathematically, he who reaches delegate count + superdelegate count = 2025 will win the nomination. Anyone who falls short of 2025, despite their superdelegate or pledged delegate count, will not get the nod.
Chuck,
First off, thank you. I just wasn't sure about the math.
Second, this does still leave a question, though. Looking at Slate's delegate counter, I noticed that if you include MI and FL delegates, you can come up with the following situation...
1. Neither candidate gets to 2,025 w/ just the delegates and,
2. Both candidate exceed 2,025 with superdelegates.
Am I wrong in this?
-g
Ooops,
It looks like the Magic number rises if they are included.
Thanks again, though.
-g
Watch and weep Petey: at the end Edwards slips and admits he voted for Obama: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/24538467#24538467
(Imaginging Petey in a toga, surrounded by superdelegates.): "Et tu, Johnny?"
And one more thing--do the Clintonites really believe (as they seem to) that once their candidate has the nomination bestowed upon her by the super delegates, that somehow the slate will be wiped clean and the Democratic Party will be unified and ready to face McCain? Do they really believe this to be possible?
Sullivan linked to a plausible "blow up the party" strategy for the Clintons, basically writing off Obama's core voters in lieu of building a white white working white class + latinos.
Edwards voted for Obama, hm.
Clearly John Edwards is a careerist trust-fund scumbag who doesn't give a shit about universal health care. Edwards has got his, he'll never have to worry about what happens if he gets sick, so he can say "screw the ordinary working-class folks" and vote for the candidate of Marty Peretz and General Electric, along with all the other upscale woo-woos.
Did I leave anything out?
That should be upscale "goo-goos," not "woo-woos." We regret the error.
This is not a test of the Emergency Broadcast System. It is the sound of Petey's head exploding. The cognitive dissonance is causing his brain to shift gears without a clutch. We apologize for the error.
CS: "Still, if superdelegates can switch from Clinton to Obama, then they could just as easily switch the other way, if Obama got toxic somehow. It seems to me that superdelegates who switch actually bolster the Clinton arguement that the final results could still go her way as long as Obama needs some superdelegates for the nomination."
The key phrase is: "if Obama got toxic somehow".
This seems increasingly unlikely whereas Clinton is getting more toxic by the day.
If anybody knew anything about Obama that would make him "toxic" at this point, it would have been revealed - at least by the Clintons, if not the Republicans who presumably would be saving it until he gets the nomination. Or maybe not, since the Republicans would love to be running against Hillary, which would guarantee them the Presidency - therefore they would have revealed anything they had against Obama already.
Therefore, logic says there IS NOTHING "toxic" that is likely to happen to Obama - unless he personally screws up verbally in some totally awful way, which also seems unlikely.
Clinton is toast. However, as I've said she will fight all the way to the convention and then file lawsuits claiming she was denied the candidacy for various bizarre reasons. She intends to guarantee that Obama lose the Presidency to McCain, so she can get another shot in 2012. In reality, she will be treated like Nader by then - she might even lose her Senate seat.
| 
Heads in the Sand
C'mon Matt. Don't you think it's plausible that the Obama campaign is being careful with how it releases these endorsements, so as not to seem to be pushing Clinton out too forcefully?
Kos has a new diary up - looks like Edwards voted for Obama and may endorse soon. What's that sound? I think I just heard Petey's head exploding.
Posted by Jake | May 9, 2008 8:51 AM