NYT Survey Shows Uncommitted Superdelegates Favor Backing Popular Vote Winner

New York Times:

Lacking a clear route to the selection of a Democratic presidential nominee, the party's uncommitted superdelegates say they are growing increasingly concerned about the risks of a prolonged fight between Senators Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama, and perplexed about how to resolve the conflict.

Interviews with dozens of undecided superdelegates -- the elected officials and party leaders who could hold the balance of power for the nomination -- found them uncertain about who, if anyone, would step in to fill a leadership vacuum and help guide the contest to a conclusion that would not weaken the Democratic ticket in the general election.

While many superdelegates said they intended to keep their options open as the race continued to play out over the next three months, the interviews suggested that the playing field was tilting slightly toward Mr. Obama in one potentially vital respect. Many of them said that in deciding whom to support, they would adopt what Mr. Obama's campaign has advocated as the essential principle: reflecting the will of the voters.

Mr. Obama has won more states, a greater share of the popular vote and more pledged delegates than Mrs. Clinton.

A New York Times survey of superdelegates last week found that Mr. Obama had been winning over more of them recently than Mrs. Clinton had, though Mrs. Clinton retained an overall lead among those who have made a choice. Over the past month, according to the survey, Mr. Obama, of Illinois, picked up 54 superdelegates; Mrs. Clinton, of New York, picked up 31.

"If we get to the end and Senator Obama has won more states, has more delegates and more popular vote," said Representative Jason Altmire, Democrat of Pennsylvania, who is undecided, "I would need some sort of rationale for why at that point any superdelegate would go the other way, seeing that the people have spoken."

Mr. Altmire said he was repeating an argument that he made to Mrs. Clinton during a session at her house in Washington on Thursday night with uncommitted superdelegates.

Keep reading.

Read the whole story: New York Times

Comments

[AMitchellStuart]

This can end sooner rather than later if the superdelegates were to realize that they can not fairly combine caucus and primary votes into one national popular vote. Even if Clinton manages to achieve a slim lead in the popular vote, such a vote would underrepresent the caucus states.

There are apples and there are oranges. Typically we know the difference. We have primaries and we have caucuses. And we usually know the difference. Yet, somehow, we now appear to have something that is neither a caucus nor a primary. It is sometimes referred to as the (national) popular vote. The latter is created by totaling the votes from all of the caucuses and the primaries. It is a chimera, a mythical beast, a red-herring with wings, etc. But the folks in the caucus states stand to be, shall we say, disenfranchised by this chimera. Consider, if your state holds a caucus, your caucus will involve many fewer participants than in a primary. When the apples and oranges of primaries and caucuses are combined into one large national popular vote, your state will not be adequately represented. Had the members of caucus states realized this before they set up their systems, they might have reconsidered. But they, as the rest of us, were told that citizens voted for delegates (directly or indirectly).

I have not seen one note in the Media or the Press, not one small asterisk, warning the American people that combining the votes in caucus and non-caucus states is not only unfair to the caucus states, but may misrepresent the strengths of the candidates and undermine the present system. For better or worse, we currently have a delegate system, and we need to play by its rules. By accepting a popular vote lead as definitive, especially a slim national one, the Democrats are inviting chaos at their convention.

The DNC did not send out a warning: Caucuses may be hazardous to your representation. It must now step up to the plate and defend its delegate system.

[SShaw490]

Oops, I didn't read far enough down and see your post before I posted basically the same thing later. Not only did I post the same message, but I didn't do it as well, so that's even worse. Sorry 'bout that.

[StephenS]

It's true that the national popular vote underrepresents the caucus states. However, if Texas is representative, the caucus states greatly underrepresent Clinton's popularity.

Texas is the one state where we can truly compare caucuses to popular vote, because both methods actually selected Texas delegates.

Clinton won the popular vote over Obama by >100,000 votes and 51% to 47%. The caucuses included ONLY people who already voted in the primary. At caucuses, CNN says Clinton lost 42% to 58%, and Obama's camp says they got 120,000 more double voters than Clinton did. That's the same as Clinton having about 430,000 primary voters (29%) disenfanchised by the caucuses.