A big day for superdelegates, as five endorse (three for Obama, two for Clinton) and one switches from Clinton to Obama. Over a dozen superdelegates have declared so far this week. Remaining ones -- especially the six governors, seventeen senators, and sixty-five representatives who are directly accountable to constituents -- should be encouraged to do so as well, in as timely a manner as possible.
« Casualties Up | Main | The Iran Factor »
Supers Moving
01 May 2008 01:42 pm
Comments (34)
Halperin has it at 5 supers going to Obama and a net of 4 going to Clinton.
And yes, this is very very good.
Actually, the one who switched made things worse, because if they start switching then we can't rely on a count of committed superdelegates to be reliable.
The sooner the better, my friends!
I thought of that too, cs, but I think it's ok. He moved to the frontrunner with the rationale being that his candidate already lost in real terms. I seriously doubt we'll see a flood of people switching from one side to the other, unless it's in Obama's favor.
So annoying that Ambinder still has comments turned off, though I guess I'm one of the biggest offenders.
In any event, his comparison of the Obama and Clinton spins on the race is illuminating. Obviously I find the Obama spin more convincing than the Clinton spin, but much of the Clinton spin is at least in the realm of the arguable. But one particularly absurd point leapt out from the Clinton spin:
the public acknowledgment of Republicans that she'd be the tougher candidate
Does she really think that anyone sitting on the fence is going to take that one seriously at all?
Not insignificant that Clinton's new support comes primarily from unelected officials. And most of Obama's comes from people who are actually responsible to an electorate.
It should be noted that if Obama picks up 85 more supers, he's won. Assuming he gets just 50% of the remaining committed delegates (a number that's almost certainly low), he'll be about 84 delegates shy of a majority.
These numbers are assuming that the numbers on supers on the site Matt linked are correct and up to date.
Is it possible the holdouts are holding out for bribes? Seriously. You know, earmarks for their districts/states, jobs in the administration, etc. Does this happen? I'd be surprised if it didn't, but I haven't heard any reports or allegations of it, which you'd think you would if it happened.
Eh, people who turn off their comments are thin-skinned cowards who can't take the criticism.
Unless you're deluged by Aryan Nation types or Anonymous (not that I'm equating the two), there's really no call for it. I'm shocked that ambinder did it. It's usually a sure-fire sign of a Clinton supporter to either turn off comments, or institute newly created (and unevenly enforced) standards with which to ban everyone you dislike.
Seems that the supers have finally decided what most of us out here have known for a while...this race is not solving anything and is only hurting the sacred party.
In my very humble opinion, I'm not sure hurting the sacred party is all that bad an idea...party politics is a large part of how we got to this polarized place we're in, but I'm also not sure the middle of a primary of firsts is the time to set a goal of dissolving the two parties.
What I care about more than anything is our world position and our bleeding treasury to overseas experiments. I know in my heart an Obama presidency will do more to solve that than any other, so good on the supers for growing a spine to support that goal.
Speaking of endorsers, can folks out here help me out with some additional information about Gov. Easley?
I know next to nothing about the guy. I had never heard him speak before his poorly phrased "Rocky Balboa" analogy, but I watched his interview with Charlie Rose last night and came away very impressed. For one thing, it's pretty clear that he will enthusiastically support either candidate, despite the seeming implication in his "pansy" remark that Obama is not tough. I don't think he believes that.
Anyway, my question is: a popular two-term Democratic governor from a big southern state-- why exactly was he not a presidential contender and/or someone you hear about as a vice-presidential candidate? Are there some skeletons in his closet or major weaknesses that I don't know about? He seems like he should be on the short list of VP possibilities for Obama or Clinton-- either of whom might have a chance to win N.C. in the general with Easley on the ticket.
DemmConnWatch has it at a net 2-4 advantage Hillary for today, but said they are not yet counting 3 for Obama from IL which while announced, won't be official until next week. So that agrees with the 5-4 count southpaw mentions.
Hillary got 4 add-ons from NY, Obama looks set to get 3 add-ons from IL. No shock there.
The shock is the switch vote, which hurts Hillary rather than just a lost super for her and a gain for Obama. This guy was the DNC chair while Bill Clinton was in office. OUCH! That one's gotta' sting.
Over the past week, the supers have been endorsing slightly in Obama's favor. Hillary needs to take them 2-1 (unless Obama holds his 150 vote lead in the pledged delegates, in which case she already lost). Drip, drip, drip.
It should be noted that if Obama picks up 85 more supers, he's won. Assuming he gets just 50% of the remaining committed delegates (a number that's almost certainly low), he'll be about 84 delegates shy of a majority.
I hate to be the wet blanket here, but that assumes that the Michigan and Florida delegates don't get seated. Yes, yes, I know what the rules say. And I agree that they shouldn't be seated. But the scenario is this: June 15, Obama has enough to win with Florida and Michigan not included, but not enough to win if they are seated. Hillary refuses to concede, and vows to have a credentials fight at the convention. Sure, it's a fight she would most likely lose, but just having the race undecided through the convention would IMO sink the Dems hopes in Novemeber (or at least badly hurt them).
So, what happens if the above scenario comes true? Options:
(1) The media narrative switches to "Obama has won, Hillary is a sore loser" (unlikely IMO).
(2) A flood of delegates switch from Hillary to Obama to remove all doubt of the final result (quite possible, assuming Obama doesn't crater in the next 6 weeks).
(3) A compromise on Michigan and Florida (unlikely; at this point, any reasonably fair compromise actually helps Obama).
(4) It goes all of the way to the convention.
The Joe Andrew endorsement is huge, it's the exact opposite of what the Clinton camp would hope for after last weeks win and another week of 24/7 Wright.
Is the smoke coming from the Sistine Chapel or from the ears of BigTentDem over at TalkLikeMeOrShutUp?
Either way the game is over, Obama will be the nominee.
Ambinder, I think, reported that Easley went with Clinton because he was pissed at Obama for backing off the NC debate, which he felt would raise the profile of democratic party in the state. Sour grapes, I think. He's not a machine politician and NC is not really a machine state so his endorsement won't help as much as, say, Rendell's or Strickland's. More helpful to Clinton are the Limbaugh Chaos project and the McCain campaign's Reverend Wright ad. And YES, it is the McCain campaign's ad, designed to help Clinton.
The pansy thing was stupid and gross. Hillary not saying anything about it was typical. For all her supposed toughness, she's a giant wimp when it comes to insisting on a high road.
More helpful to Clinton are the Limbaugh Chaos project
Is there any evidence at all that this is a significant factor? I know a bunch of Republicans switched registration in PA, but I was under the impression that exit polls showed them coming out for Obama.
The pansy thing was stupid and gross. Hillary not saying anything about it was typical. For all her supposed toughness, she's a giant wimp when it comes to insisting on a high road.
She's the Chameleon Queen. There is simply nothing that she won't do if it's to her advantage. Even if it means fluffing the man who accused her of murder and set out to destroy her husband.
So, what happens if the above scenario comes true? Options:
(1) The media narrative switches to "Obama has won, Hillary is a sore loser" (unlikely IMO).
(2) A flood of delegates switch from Hillary to Obama to remove all doubt of the final result (quite possible, assuming Obama doesn't crater in the next 6 weeks).
(3) A compromise on Michigan and Florida (unlikely; at this point, any reasonably fair compromise actually helps Obama).
(4) It goes all of the way to the convention.
DNC chair Howard Dean said they should have a candidate June 1st. A bunch of Clinton's deep pocket donors threatened Dean that they'd take their toys and go home if Clinton was forced to concede. I'm hoping Dean and other Democratic heavies try to force her to concede after the primaries are over, not that she will, but it would be nice to see the effort.
I'm hoping Dean and other Democratic heavies try to force her to concede after the primaries are over, not that she will, but it would be nice to see the effort.
But that's exactly why "forcing her to concede" isn't a real option. The only way to end this is if the math, including FLA and MI, is such that she doesn't have an argument left.
And, absent performances by Obama much better than expected in the remaining primaries, the only way that that happens is a flood of Clinton delegate defections.
Which could, indeed, happen. But if it doesn't, this is going all of the way to the convention.
Larry M,
Clinton has repeatedly floated the notion that even pledged delegates are not really committed. I think the purpose of her doing that is clear: she is announcing that she will be willing to take this contest to the convention even if the delegate count, including Florida and Michigan, shows Obama winning.
So there is no such thing as Clinton running out of arguments she would be willing to make as a rationalization for continuing her campaign. Rather, it is pretty clear she will only stop campaigning once she perceives it as being in her personal interests to do so. Which basically means the party leaders will have to find ways to threaten something she actually values--maybe her fundraising, maybe her Senate career, maybe Bill's legacy, or so on--or just accept she is staying in and hope she is treated by the media as irrelevant.
Clinton has repeatedly floated the notion that even pledged delegates are not really committed. I think the purpose of her doing that is clear: she is announcing that she will be willing to take this contest to the convention even if the delegate count, including Florida and Michigan, shows Obama winning.
The problem with THAT scenario, is that then (and only then - nothing less will do), the media narrative finally does shift to "she's lost, it's over." At that point, my guess is that she throws in the towel. But even if not, such a media narrative would mean that Obama could finally shift his attacks to MCain. It would also produce an accelerated shift of supers to Obama, not that that would even be needed at that point.
I also think that you have to discount some of Hillary's bluster (e.g., "even pledged delegates are not really committed") - honesty isn't her strong point. At the point she calculates (a) that she can't win in 2008, and (b) further sabotage of Obama is going to hurt her career post 2008, she is out of there. The problem is that she is pretty clearly convinced of neither of those things at this point in time.
Digressing, I do think Tuesday is going to be pretty darn significant.
(1) Obama wins both - the flood of supers to Obama intensifies greatly;
(2) A split - status quo;
(3) Hillary wins both - this is probably Hillary's last (slim) chance to actually win, as opposed to merely play the spoiler. She would still need to take it to the convention, but with this scenario she might have a slim but real chance to win.
LarryM,
I think we mostly agree, but I disagree about your condition (a) not being met: she has to know she can't win the nomination at this point unless some external event eliminates Obama from contention--and that disqualifting event scenario works just as well after he gets enough delegates as before. So I think the real bluster from Clinton these days is all the talk which implies she still thinks she can win. Rather, she is just using that talk to buy herself more time before the media calls it (for what purpose I will leave to other to speculate).
But in any event, we agree on condition (b) needing to be met before Clinton actually quit. And as a matter of fact, I think the party leaders are working on that one as we speak.
she has to know she can't win the nomination at this point unless some external event eliminates Obama from contention--and that disqualifting event scenario works just as well after he gets enough delegates as before.
Scenario, alluded to above:
(1) Hillary wins Indiana big, gets an upset win in NC (or even an unexpectedly close loss);
(2) Clinton moves on to more favorable terrain, wins big (as expected) in Kentucky, WV, and PR;
(3) No resolution in June, as Clinton's "momentum" nets a number of supers for Hillary, keeps some on the fence.
(4) The convention comes. Credentials fight. Just enough people on the credentials committee are swayed by the results of the later primaries to seat Florida and Michigan.
(5) The combined effect of Clinton's late victories, plus Florida and Michigan (recall also that Clinton managed to score some of the "uncommitted" Michigan delegates) gives Clinton a razor thin lead in pledged delegates.
(6) Just enough supers decide that, given Clinton's (now) (tiny) lead in the pledged delegates, and what will be perceived as Obama's late stumble, Hillary would be the better candidate. She wins a narrow victory over Obama.
Now, do I consider that scenario likely? Not at all. Maybe 1 chance out in a hundred. But, at the risk of doing some mind reading, my guess is that Hillary believes that that scenario is, say, 10% possible.
She will get out when that unlikely possibility becomes entirely impossible.
And yes, I realize that an actual delegate lead for Hillary, even with Florida and Michigan, is extremely unlikely. But (barely) possible. As would a scenario where she gets really, really close in pledged delegates (with Florida and Michigan counted), along with a lead in the popular vote (unlikely, but more likely than a delegate lead), and wins an ugly convention fight.
Again, none of that is at all likely. But IMO it's possible, and, more to the point, I bet Hillary thinks it's possible.
And really that's why I think next Tuesday is so important. Obama can pretty much close the door on that scenario. Even that would probably not be enough to cause Hillary to withdraw right away, but it would set up a mid-June victory.
LarryM,
Actually, that scenario is pretty much impossible. The basic problem is that Obama's lead in pledged delegates is just too big, and will remain so even if she does somewhat better than expected in the remaining states (by the way, don't forget about Oregon, Montana, and South Dakota--Clinton has yet to even keep it close in states in that part of the country). So Clinton won't be able to win the floor votes she will need to win, and won't be able to make up the difference with superdelegates. You might as well hypothesize lightning strikes Obama, since the odds are roughly the same.
Oh, and personally I do not believe that Hillary believes that is possible. At prior points in time, various people in the Clinton campaign let slip that they understood what they needed to achieve in order to actually win the nomination. Subsequently, after they didn't achieve what they had to achieve, they have shut up, but I think that is good evidence that privately they know they have lost.
I've run the numbers - it's unlikely but barely possible. Granted, it depends upon seating Michigan and Florida, Hillary winning NC, and Hillary beating expectations just about everywhere else.
But perhaps more to the point, if she does manage to pull the upset in NC (very unlikely), that might change the dynamics of the race enough to bring about the scenario where the supers go for Hillary despite a narrow Obama lead in delegates.
Now I agree that that would be both unwise and unfair. It's also extremely unlikely. But if Obama limps into the the convention with a string of blowout losses, and behind in the popular vote, it is a distinct possibility.
Again, all of this is extremely unlikely. But it becomes a lot MORE likely in the unlikely event he loses NC.
Look, I probably hate The Monster more than almost anyone on this board. And her chances are pretty damn small. But this notion that her chances are zero ... really, it's almost as embarrassing as the kind of pro-Hillary spin you hear from some of her fans.
If she loses both Indiana and NC, then it will be fair to say that her chances are zero. And if that happens, we are going to see a flood of delegates declaring for Obama.
LarryM, when you calculate popular vote, do you include caucus results? Do MSM networks?
I have no idea what the networks do with regard to the caucuses.
I rely on RCP, which is universally regarded as having the best & most comprehensive polling, delgate and voting data.
RCP does include caucuses. It's "front page" popular vote totals exclude the three states that haven't announce official vote totals, but estimates of those states are included elsewhere.
Excluding Florida and Michigan, and including estimates for the states that haven't announced votes, Obama has a lead of 611,688 currently. IMO this is the fairest way to count, though a Clinton fan would point out that it is also the most favorable assumption for Obama. Exclude the unannounced states , but include all of the other caucuses, and it's still a 501,466 edge for Obama.
612,000 votes, or even 501,000 votes ... is a lot. But Clinton's chance of catching up there, while much less than 50%, is much greater than her chances of catching up in delegates. To be clear, she almost certainly can't do it without a game changing upset in NC, and probably not even then.
But keep in mind that it is quite possible that she will get huge margins in Kentucky, WV and PR.
Look, I don't think it will happen, and I hope it doesn't, but it at this point I don't think you can say that it can't.
And of course Hillary is arguing that Michigan and Florida votes should be counted. I don't buy that for a second, and I doubt many people on the fence will either (especially with regard to MI), but certainly it's possible, even likely, that she buys her own spin on that.
All that being said, if you include Florida, but not Michigan, the numbers are a lot closer.
LarryM,
Well, of course it isn't literally impossible for Clinton to get enough delegates until Obama actually has the requisite number of delegates himself (which won't actually happen until those delegates vote for him at the convention, but I will hold that point aside for now). But I'd have to see your actual projections to judge whether or not your scenario is plausible enough to be taken seriously.
For example, we could describe a technically possible scenario in which Obama fails to meet the threshhold for getting any delegates in any of the remaining contests, or a scenario in which all of the remaining superdelegates commit to Clinton, or so on. But those are not likely enough scenarios to be taken seriously (indeed, as I implied you might as well be hypothesizing that Obama got struck down by lightning). And so the practical question is really whether the scenario you have in mind is likely enough to be taken more seriously than these other theoretical scenarios.
And I really think people are working backward at this point, largely because they are confronted with the reality of Clinton not quitting. In other words, people are starting with the assumption that she must have calculated she had some chance of winning, and then they are trying to figure out what scenario that could be. But working backward in that fashion doesn't address whether the scenario you come up with is within the range of plausible outcomes.
But if you instead relax the assumption that Clinton would only stay in if she had a chance of winning, the problem is resolved. In other words, we don't need to assume there is a plausible scenario in which she wins and then set about the task of identifying that scenario, because the existence of such a scenario is not a necessary condition for her remaining in the race.
DMT,
Well, neither one of us can read minds, so ultimately all either of us can do is speculate. I would note, though, that people's capacity for self delusion is large, and Clinton is not immune to that.
I'd also note that, independant of the specifics of how it happens (i.e., whether she actually catches up in delegates or the popular vote), if she does manage to win Indiana conviningly, upsets Obama in NC, and wins expected big (10 plus percent) victories in Kentucky, WV and PR, Obama is not going to be assured of victory by any means. At that point, with a series of big losses inthe last 6 weeks (combined with perhaps a few narrow wins in oregon, etc.) you would have to think that a lot of the supers would start having second thoughts, regardless of the committed delegate count. Even then, I think Obama probably would (and should) win the nomination, but it wouldn't surprise me if he didn't.
All that said, we are wasting a lot of time on a low probability scenario. Her chance of an upset in NC is very low. Heck, if you consider it a "lightning strike" chance (I think it's very low but better than that), then maybe we aren't really even disagreeing.
LarryM
"Look, I probably hate The Monster more than almost anyone on this board. And her chances are pretty damn small. But this notion that her chances are zero ... really, it's almost as embarrassing as the kind of pro-Hillary spin you hear from some of her fans."
No it's not. Hillary's chance of winning is about as likely as her getting hit by lightning. It's good that Obama and his campaign aren't acting like it's over but, sorry, it is. You're getting worked up over nothing.
What's bizarre is that her staff and donors aren't taking her aside and shutting it down. The press has a monetary stake in keeping it going so that's no surprise (as do Republican trolls).
LarryM,
With all due respect, I think you need to start putting hard numbers on your scenarios. Maybe you have done so privately, but unless you share them with us I find it impossible to comment on your scenarios within any specificity.
For example, the most recent scenario you laid out likely still has Obama finishing with a huge pledged delegate lead. Clinton would then have to get not just a majority of the remaining superdelegates, but rather an extremely large majority of the remaining superdelegates. Now my guess is that the superdelegate percentage she would have to get in this scenario is wildly implausible, but again I don't know because you haven't given me numbers.
So to be blunt, I don't take seriously anymore a scenario which ends with anything equivalent to "and then the superdelegates save her even though she lost the pledged delegate contest." Rather, I only take it seriously when people go state by state through the remaining contests, figure out the best case scenario for Clinton's pledged delegates, factor in the add-on delegates (which many people misleadingly lump in with superdelegates), break down the remaining superdelegates by type, and then explain how those remaining superdelegates will give Clinton the numbers she needs, making sure to address all the various pressures those superdelegates will be feeling in light of whatever office or position they might hold.
And when people actually do all that work ... well, Clinton's chances are truly negligible, whether she wins North Carolina or not. And you can bet Clinton has done that work, even if she is acting like she hasn't.
Comments closed May 15, 2008.
| 
Heads in the Sand
It looks like all those calls are starting to have an effect.
I'm glad this is happening in small chunks, a larger bloc movement would strike many as 'unfair', this makes it seem more organic.
Posted by soullite | May 1, 2008 1:59 PM