Undecided superdelegates don't feel bound by primaries

digg Share this on Facebook Huffpost - Undecided superdelegates don't feel bound by primaries stumble reddit del.ico.us RSS

STEPHEN OHLEMACHER | April 20, 2008 03:15 PM EST | AP

Compare other versions »
I Like ItI Don’t Like It

WASHINGTON — Many of the Democratic superdelegates who are still undecided say the most important factor in their decision is simple _ they just want a winner in November.

Problem is, after nearly four months of primaries and caucuses in 46 states, territories and the District of Columbia, they still aren't sure who that is, don't seem be in any hurry to make up their minds and aren't interested in any artificial process that might force them to choose between Barack Obama and Hillary Rodham Clinton.

Most of the more than 100 undecided superdelegates who discussed their decision-making with The Associated Press in the past two weeks agreed that the primaries and caucuses do matter _ whether it's who has the most national delegates or the candidate who won their state or congressional district. But few said the primaries will be the biggest factor in their decision.

"I think it's really important that we keep our eye on the prize, and the prize is the win in November," said Gail Rasmussen, an undecided superdelegate from Oregon.

That's good news for Clinton, who cannot catch Obama in delegates won in the few remaining primaries and caucuses.

Obama has been arguing for months that the superdelegates would be overturning the will of the voters if they don't nominate the candidate who has won the most pledged delegates. He has a 164-delegate lead in that category. Clinton, meanwhile, has argued that superdelegates should exercise independent judgment.

Many of the undecided superdelegates say they don't want to be perceived as elite insiders, cutting backroom deals to select a nominee. But that doesn't mean they're ready to forfeit their status.

"The way the system is set up, the superdelegates are able to weigh in because we are the most experienced people in the party," said Blake Johnson, an undecided superdelegate from Alaska. "We are the ones who have been part of the party the longest and keep it running on a day-to-day basis."

Story continues below
advertisement

There will be nearly 800 superdelegates at the party's national convention in Denver this summer. They are the party and elected officials who automatically attend the convention and are free to support whomever they choose. They are in high demand now that neither Clinton nor Obama can clinch the nomination without them.

Clinton leads in superdelegate endorsements, 258-232, according to the latest tally by the AP. However, Obama has been eating away at her lead for much of the past two months, picking up 84 percent of the superdelegate endorsements since Super Tuesday.

About 250 superdelegates have told the AP they are undecided or uncommitted. About 60 more will be selected at state party conventions and meetings this spring.

AP reporters across the nation contacted the undecideds and asked them how they plan to choose. Of those, 117 agreed to discuss the decision-making process.

_About a third said the most important factor will be the candidate who, they believe, has the best chance of beating Republican John McCain in the general election.

_One in 10 said the biggest factor will be the candidate with the most pledged delegates won in primaries and caucuses.

_One in 10 said what matters most is who won their state or congressional district in the primary or caucus.

_The rest cited multiple factors or parochial issues.

Most undecided superdelegates surveyed said they hope the nomination is settled before the party's convention. However, by more than a 2-to-1 margin, they said they oppose any formal mechanism, such as a separate primary or caucus, for the superdelegates to decide the nomination.

"I think that is changing the rules in the middle of the process," said Rep. Dan Boren of Oklahoma. "Obviously there are some problems with the process; there need to be some reforms made. Frankly, I would favor the people making the decision rather than insiders and party bosses."

Many undecided superdelegates refused to discuss their decision-making process, showing discomfort with the subject. Eighty-nine undecided superdelegates didn't return repeated phone calls or e-mails in the past two weeks, and 42 refused to discuss their decision when they were contacted.

"If I answer any of those (questions), people might be able to divine which way I am leaning," said Wayne Kinney, an undecided superdelegate from Oregon.

Even some experienced pols demurred.

"I'm not saying anything," said Rep. Rahm Emanuel, an Illinois superdelegate and a former aide to President Clinton. "There's no value to it."

___

Associated Press writers Julia Silverman in Portland, Ore.; Steve Quinn in Juneau, Alaska; Ron Jenkins in Oklahoma City and Dennis Conrad in Washington contributed to this report.

WASHINGTON — Many of the Democratic superdelegates who are still undecided say the most important factor in their decision is simple _ they just want a winner in November. Problem is, after nea...
WASHINGTON — Many of the Democratic superdelegates who are still undecided say the most important factor in their decision is simple _ they just want a winner in November. Problem is, after nea...
Filed by Max Follmer  |  Report Corrections
 
Comments
560
Pending Comments
0
iPhone App Promo

Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to

View Comments:
Page: « First ‹ Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next › Last » (8 pages total)

If n

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:46 PM on 04/20/2008
photo

The superdelegates are the oligarchy. The wealthy and well connected who get to determine who governs us. Democracy and even the republic mover further and further away for the US of A.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:45 PM on 04/20/2008
- kevenseven I'm a Fan of kevenseven 501 fans permalink
photo

Girl.

You don't know s**t about American political history.

It is only very recently that the popular vote was even remotely polled to choose the nominee of a major political party.

The idea that you should have any say in who the nominee of the Democratic party is newer than I am.

The concept of supers can be debated, but I am not utterly opposed to them.

I like the idea of 800 of them. A large group tends to decide better than a small group. But proportionally they have too much influence. Let them continue but have only half a vote compared to the elected delegates.

Or better, 1600 with a quarter of a vote.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:56 PM on 04/20/2008

If they're looking to see who the best candidate to win in November is and they thwart the will of the people, Obama being ahead in delegates, popular vote and states, they'd better be prepared for many blacks and many, many other voters to stay at home. And they are asking for a repeat of Chicago '68 in Denver.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:41 PM on 04/20/2008
- kevenseven I'm a Fan of kevenseven 501 fans permalink
photo

Here's the deal:

I'll bust my ass to get Obama elected.

I'll vote for Hillary.

Of course, we all know that Bill and Hillary Clinton will campaign tirelessly for Obama after he gets the nomination, right?

Bwwwwwwwww­aaaaaaaaaa­ahahahhaha­haaa!

Sometimes I just crack me up!

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:01 PM on 04/20/2008

It's funny. If you read the majority of Obama supporters comments on this website, you are forced to conclude that there is nothing Hillary can do to escape their vitriolic accusations.

They accuse Hillary of being heartless, dishonest, devious and hellbent on the destruction of the Democratic party. They tell us that she has nothing to offer this country and represents a bygone era in American politics.

Should she lose the nomination, she'll be accused of undermining Obama's bid for the presidency. And should McCain ultimately emerge victorious, Hillary will be accused of an even greater Machiavellian scheme.

Obama supporters want Obama. That much is clear. But if anything goes wrong, it's Hillary's fault.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:44 PM on 04/20/2008
- patrice37 I'm a Fan of patrice37 3 fans permalink

If they deny the nomination to the candidate chosen by the voters, they'll more or less be voting their party out of business. But then, that's the kind of thing our Democratic "leaders" do.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:06 PM on 04/20/2008

And remember what we got in 1968...Nixon:(

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:09 AM on 04/21/2008
- S1m0n I'm a Fan of S1m0n 93 fans permalink
photo

"Bound" is the wrong word. They've worked hard to become superdelegates, and feel like they earned their position. Saying they should be 'bound' by the primaries negates them entirely. If that's the case, there's no reason to have superdelegates at all; it insults them.

Ask instead if the superdelegates should be 'guided' by the results of the primaries.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:34 PM on 04/20/2008
- army193 I'm a Fan of army193 9 fans permalink
photo

Why didn't the super delegates take charge in 2000 and 2004? Oh I forgot they blame it on the primary voters. The voters was right in 2000 and 2004 they just refused to count all the votes.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:28 PM on 04/20/2008

because in 2000 and 2004, the voters decided by enough that both Gore and Kerry got enough votes to win without needing the super delegates. That is not the case this year. The voters haven't made an overwhelming decision. If they had,one of the candidates would be at 2024 now.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:42 PM on 04/20/2008

but, but, but Nancy Pelosi already told them how they had to vote. Weren't they listening? Bet she's pi$$ed off. hahahahahaha

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:26 PM on 04/20/2008

The problem is that people want power, period. I often wonder how these rich people who haven't gone grocery shopping in years can ever relate to anyone. The democrats often "fight" for the downtrodden and decry the "rich." Well, according to the tax code, I am "rich." I clip coupons, shut the lights when I leave a room, and drive a pick up truck. I work 50-60 hours a week in a cutthroat industry and can be let go from my job any second.

This kind of super-delegrate nonsense is to be expected from these people. What do you expect from a pig but a grunt. And they have the balls to talk about the electoral college and the importance of counting every vote. What a sham.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:25 PM on 04/20/2008
- ljsfolly I'm a Fan of ljsfolly 6 fans permalink

So if Hillary has absolutly no chance to win the vote and delegates we still have to wait for these idiots who now feel they can hold us with the idea that they will be the "deciders" no matter what the voters say? Hillary cannot win and we all know that but the MSM puts her at neck and neck which is a big lie but they play it so they can keep the mess alive and they can manipulate those who are too dumb to read and pay attention to the numbers for what they are. If the superdelegates declare themselves to have this power and go againest the voters what price will the party pay? I already know that any superdelegate who has not declared themselves by now will never ever get a vote from me in the future. i have no use for the people who have decided they cannot make a decsion knowing what we all know about Hillary. Shame on the supers as I am not the only person who feels they have lost any future support from those they are willing to pander the vote for. They are in wait for Hillary to steal this and destroying the party or they will support the winner we already have.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:18 PM on 04/20/2008

Ijsfolly writes: "So if Hillary has absolutly no chance to win the vote and delegates we still have to wait for these idiots who now feel they can hold us with the idea that they will be the "deciders" no matter what the voters say?"

Let me say this again: BO has absolutely NO chance to win the nomination EITHER through votes and pledged delegates!!! Everybody is acting like HRC will somehow steal the nomination, but folks get real. BO will not and cannot get enough votes now to get the nominating number of 2025 anymore than HRC will. Just because BO is ahead slightly means nothing. Are all of you people idiots that refuse to understand this?? Let me be crystal clear: BO NEEDS THE SUPER DELEGATES TO PUT HIM OVER THE TOP THE SAME AS HILLARY BECAUSE NEITHER HAS BEEN ABLE TO PUT THE ELECTION AWAY AND WIN ENOUGH STATES. Got it!?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:41 PM on 04/20/2008

Mr Pragmatic, you are not a very pragmatic thinker, eh?

He is not "slightly ahead" he is A LOT ahead; he is -insurmoutably- ahead. This is what YOU don't understand. You cannot pretend it is a tie and it will just be a matter of picking one or the other, as if it were an even steven choice. It is NOT an even steven choice when one has already been chosen by the people and the other has lost.

Here is how it will work out:

Obama will need 30% of the remaining superdelegates to vote -with- the people, toi cinch the nomination. This number will be less than 100.

Clinton will need a whopping 75% of the remaining superdelegates to vote -against- the people and overturn the election. This number will be 200+.

In what reality is this even remotely plausible?

This is math. http://journals.democraticunderground.com/phrigndumass

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:59 PM on 04/20/2008

These are the Super Super Delegates the ones that believe in the old time politics. They probably aren't in to much of a hurry to have transparent government. These are the ones we need to get rid of this is not a monarchy.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:18 PM on 04/20/2008

Well if they continue to hold off and make this process continue they need to be voted out of Office. They are damaging the party.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:16 PM on 04/20/2008
- Amminadab I'm a Fan of Amminadab 11 fans permalink

The ones who built and sustain the party are now damaging the party?

I don't think so.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:11 PM on 04/20/2008
- McFlipFlop I'm a Fan of McFlipFlop 14 fans permalink
photo

Not all of them 'built and sustain the party'. Some are elected officials, and there's one 21 year old.

http://abcnews.go.com/politics/vote2008/story?id=4273078

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:33 PM on 04/20/2008
- Fabienne I'm a Fan of Fabienne 31 fans permalink

I've seen profiles of superdelegates who are still in college. They may be smart, but they are far too young to build and sustain any institution. Why don't you actually find out who the superdelegates are and how they are chosen before you decide they are all party elders who know what's what?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:13 PM on 04/20/2008

"We are the ones who have been part of the party the longest and keep it running on a day-to-day basis."

Really? So this is the party of the SUPER delegates, and here I was thinking this was a party of the people. Silly me, must have been that democracy thing that messed me up.

"The majority of a single vote (is) as sacred as if unanimous" - Thomas Jefferson

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:11 PM on 04/20/2008

if that single vote thing is so important, how did Obama get more delegates in Nevada when Clinton won the popular vote in that state?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:44 PM on 04/20/2008

The term "You have been HIllary Clinton'd" between me and my friends is catching on!

This primary season is like a real life soap opera. It needs to end. SOON. PLEEEEZE

Keep the comedy coming though lol

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:08 PM on 04/20/2008
photo

If they go against the will of the peeps and go for HRC, I'll vote for Nader. Even if Obama wants us to vote for the Clintons, it ain't gonna happen

If she's ahead in #'s, God Bless her, I'll vote for her but if he is ahead and they steal it from him, I'll be pissed and nader will once again get my vote.

I bet Democrats will once again screw this up, bunch of losers with no backbone

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 08:55 PM on 04/20/2008

I suspect that this is exactly why Nadar wanted her to stay in.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:20 PM on 04/20/2008

I think that that is the reason that he got in-to prevent her from becoming the nominee.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:38 PM on 04/20/2008

What a coincidence. Even if Hillary begs us to vote for Obama, we'd rather vote for McCain. Many people simply do not trust Obama, and there is no need to watch Tv stations to have this opinion.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:38 PM on 04/20/2008

Don't you ever stop to wonder WHY you "simply don't trust him"? Do you ever think that -maybe- it is YOU and not him, some problem YOU have?

He's been much more transparent than Clinton. She is -proven- untrustworthy and yet this doesn't seem to matter. Her associations are FAR worse, and this doesn't seem to matter. She lies -way- more, and this doesn't seem to matter.

There is simply no intelligent and objective reason for you to freak over distrusting him while supporting someone ten times less trustworthy. So "trust" is not the issue. It is FEAR, if you ask me.

But - considering the nation has been brainwashed for 6 yrs to fear brown people with funny foreign names - and he is a brown person with a funny foreign name - well, I think a lot of people might be experiencing this fear and mistaking it for "I simply don't trust him"

That's my theory. Otherwise you guys don't make any sense, with your irrational suspicion of the guy, while you overlook Clinton's complete lack of credibility. It has to be psychological.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:08 PM on 04/20/2008

Do it I dare you I tripledog dare you to overturn the will of the people.As a African American I can say this, attempt a coup and deny Obama you will lose the black vote lose the black vote you will lose Illinois, Michigan, Missouri and any other state where we are more than 5% of the vote.This is not a threat but a promise.You wont have to worry about who is more electable this year or any year after that.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 08:52 PM on 04/20/2008
- Tropiholic I'm a Fan of Tropiholic 20 fans permalink

They won't only lose the black vote. They'll lose the vote of this white middle aged surburban housewife too!

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:04 PM on 04/20/2008

My wife and mine also.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:56 PM on 04/20/2008
- mesuki I'm a Fan of mesuki 12 fans permalink

I'm right behind you on that !...If Hillary wins fare and square that's one thing,but if she is given the nomination while still being behind...they'll be a mass of people including all the new and the young voters that will not vote for her. Obama and his workers have broken their backs registering new voters and engaging young voters in a way that politicians in the past has never done,and if Hillary thinks that all those votes are gonna be handed down to her on a silver platter...­.....She's crazy!

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:08 PM on 04/20/2008

That's what I was thinking too. It's not like the Democratic party has gone out of it's way to do much for black voters, except take them for granted, in the past several decades, that includes during Bill Clinton's presidency. Going against the will of the people to deny Obama the nomination will be the last straw, then black people will know, no one has their backs, no one cares, and they simply won't vote anymore.

The same with the young voters this year. They are fired up for Obama, not for the Democratic party, not for any candidate, but only because Obama is running. If the Democratic big wigs decide to do a backroom deal and give it to Clinton after all their hard work, they will also sit it out.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:28 PM on 04/20/2008

"Given the nomination"? Here is the rub: Obama needs to be "given the nomination" the same as Hillary. YUP that's right. You see Obama will not win enough delegates from the primaries to clinch the nomination. In order for him to win he too needs the supers to "give him the nomination." So lets get real folks. The DNC rules are that if NO candidate gets the nomination through the primary system than the super delegates vote to make up the difference ...It says NOTHING about the supers voting for the person ahead in the pledged delegate count. BTW, it might be different if BO was ahead by a significant number, but he is not.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:30 PM on 04/20/2008

I recall hearing many times in polls taken that democrats are happy with either candidate.
I think that Clinton will not lose many voters to McCain.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:23 AM on 04/21/2008

Well, now hear this super delegates if you vote for Obama I won't vote for him and neither will most Hispanics, blue collar workers in the big industrial states, voters over 55 and millions of women who are offended by the way that HRC has been mischaracterized by the democratic party activists and the liberal and immature media. So go ahead and make Obama the nominee and Clinton and Reagan democrats will back McCain. I know because I am a centrist democrat who would never vote for Obama ever. Go ahead and make our day.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:10 PM on 04/20/2008

The only ones who could and should make Obama and anyone else the nominee is the people of the USA. no one else. I don't even believe in this concept of superdelegates and, in my opinion, they should not even be allowed to render a collective decision, unless there is a total tie.

MrPragmatic, if you choose to vote for Clinton or anyone else that is your right. However, you need to stop acting as if you speak for the entire hispanic and over 55 population. You do not and many of them do not share your disdain for an Obama nomination.

The democratic party is currently being destroyed by the Clinton decision to aid the republicans. The democratic party will be totally destroyed if the will of the people is overturned by the superdelegates negating Obama's victory and GIVING Hillary the nod.

I for one will welcome the end of this primary season. We need to get on to real politics. I welcome the Obama/McCain political season, during the general. I am so, so, so tired of the Clintons and their cronies.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:22 PM on 04/20/2008

WTF?

The difference is that Obama has won the most delegates, so he's fairly won the contest.

Where do you get off off holding your vote for ransom - demanding that if the supers don't overturn the election that you won't vote for the fair winner? Do you always cheat to win?

What makes YOUR vote worth more than anyone elses? How sickening.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:26 PM on 04/20/2008

MrPragmatic, well said, Independent here who has never voted Republican, but if Obama gets the nomination I will, and I am not the only one.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:39 PM on 04/20/2008

You can say this even if he wins the most pledged delegates and the popular vote? What if he still is ahead in both categories at the end of all the primaries? Most analysis says that even if you add FL into the numbers Obama will most likely STILL come out ahead at the end of the process...so you are saying that the Superdelegates should forget about all of this because you and other Hillary supporters are sore losers? Really? The simple fact is that Hillary led a horrible campaign and has lost fair and square. You think the party can win by losing virtually every African American vote in the country, the Move-On voters that she has insulted (remember, they don't "need" a President)as well as throw away the young voters that have been brought into the process? I can see that; what a great idea. The simple fact is that Obama is likely to win by every measure that is determined by actual voters and most of his supporters like myself believe that those wins should act as a significant barometer in Supers making their decision. I can promise you that if this nominations appears to be stolen by the Clintons there will be real hell to pay within the party. Actually there will no longer be a party. They will have blown it up.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:39 PM on 04/20/2008
- toby25 I'm a Fan of toby25 3 fans permalink

This superdelegate system just shows how ridiculous the democratic party has become since the 60's. The demcratic party has been lost to the far left loons and is just so full of hypocracy.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 08:47 PM on 04/20/2008
- ohiomark I'm a Fan of ohiomark 118 fans permalink

The whole superdelegate system was devolped by the Democrats after 1968 and 1972 because the party could no longer trust their voters to pick a "good" candidate. It became a safety net to prevent another McGovern from getting the nomination.

Now, because those far left loons have taken over the party, they now have two candidates that are worse than McGovern.
Poetic justice.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 08:56 PM on 04/20/2008

The "far left loons" have NOT taken over the party. The Democratic Party is conservative and, IMHO, spineless. If the left HAD taken over the party, Bush would have been impeached years ago.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:01 PM on 04/20/2008
Page: « First ‹ Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next › Last » (8 pages total)
Comments are closed for this entry

 You must be logged in to comment. Log in  or connect with 

Connect