Greetings Super-Delegate!
I guess you didn't know how popular you were!
There's a lot of noise being made at the moment - and you're on the receiving end of a lot of it.
And you are facing gargantuan pressures.
Some people are telling you that your role is simply to endorse whoever happens to have the larger number of delegates. That you should rubber-stamp whoever is in the lead - however slender the lead.
That argument is about "democracy" in the Democratic Party - even though many of those delegates were awarded by the votes of a large number of people who are NOT registered Democrats. Even though many of the results are far from being fully democratic - eg the caucuses that are voted in by a very small percentage of the overall electorate - because they are held in just a 2-hour time-frame - at times of the day that many older people and shift-workers cannot attend.)
But there's certainly a reasonable argument for just being a rubber stamp. After all, if you exercise your judgment and some people don't like it - you're not really looking forward to having some people claim that you have "thwarted the will of the people" just because you arrived at a different conclusion in the greater interests of the party.
Other people are reminding you that the role you were selected for was created and approved by the Democratic Party (following the 1982 Hunt Commission) because you are required to think for yourself and use your judgment about what will be good for the party overall and in the longterm. That you have been selected to use your wisdom - and not merely to be a sheep. Even though you might personally receive some short-term unpopularity for voting your conscience, your considered evaluation and your wise instincts.
In addition to that - there are a lot of mathematical equations and theories being kicked around.
I respectfully submit that there is a set of information that you should definitely take into consideration.
NOT to the exclusion of all the other data and perspectives. Far from it.
But to ignore this information would be a shame.
Whether we like it or not - the Presidency of the United States is NOT won by the general election candidate who wins the popular vote. Nor by the candidate who wins the most states. Or even the highest percentage of the vote.
The presidency is won by the candidate who wins the most votes in the Electoral College.
And that means that it pays to have a candidate who can win sufficient votes in the electoral college to beat the Republican candidate.
Barack Obama has run a superb campaign and has won 27 States so far. He's going to win Mississippi on Tuesday - so let's make that 28 States.
By contrast - Hillary Clinton has won 15 contests. If you add in the clearly-expressed intentions of the voters of Florida and Michigan that would be 17. Or you can keep it at 15 States.
Either way - advantage: Obama.
But - as we know - the US does NOT elect its president by the plurality of States won.
Winning the White House depends on winning a plurality of the Electoral College.
How is THAT race playing out?
Well that's quite a different story.
Obama has done a terrific job of winning a lot of states that do NOT yield a lot of electoral votes. That's not his fault. And it's not the fault of those states.
It's just a fact of life.
And since one of the primary objectives of the Democratic Party is to win - and retain - the White House - it is instructive to apply the State victories of each candidate - and look at how the two candidates are doing in respect of the electoral college states. Especially the big states that are the building blocks of a Democratic majority. And the all-important battleground states that are essential for a Democrat to win.
Doing such a calculation is not to in any way usurp the role of the delegates in selecting the eventual candidate.
But as a super-delegate it is one of your responsibilities to look into the ramifications of ALL the available electoral evidence.
If the two campaigns are citing opinion polls as evidence of how you should cast your vote - then it is certainly appropriate to apply the actual results of the primaries and caucuses to the electoral college - and see what those results tell us.
Here's where the two candidates stand at present in terms of electoral college votes:
BARACK OBAMA: 197HILLARY CLINTON: 219
BARACK OBAMA: 203HILLARY CLINTON: 219
Leave out the REASON for the delegation squabbles over Florida and Michigan for just a moment - and go on actual votes in those states. The choices of the voters in those two states WILL be counted in the General Election (Supreme Court permitting) so for the purposes of this exercise - we should count the votes they cast in January now. So add in Florida (27 votes) and Michigan (17 votes) to Clinton. That makes the score:
BARACK OBAMA: 203HILLARY CLINTON: 263
In the ten primaries and caucuses that will vote after Mississippi - there are a total of 73 electoral votes.
If Hillary Clinton wins Pennsylvania (21 votes) on April 22 - as both she and Obama's staff concede is likely - then at that point the score in electoral votes would be:
BARACK OBAMA: 203HILLARY CLINTON: 284
Even if Obama won all the remaining contests - the final result in electoral college votes would still be:
BARACK OBAMA: 255HILLARY CLINTON: 284
Just a little something to think about...
Follow Martin Lewis on Twitter: www.twitter.com/TheMartinLewis
My last delegate count was as follows. Senator Obama-1529.5,Senator Clinton 1417.5(NYT) Together they add up to 2947 total delegates gained by both candidates. The difference is 113 Obama over Clinton and if you divide 113/2947,that is the difference by the total one can determine that the difference is 3.8%. That is as it has been for several weeks now and quite probably will be at convention time.
By no measure is a 3%-4% lead a mandate. It is only 3:10,or 30:100,or 400/1000 or 4000:10000 and a long way from a commanding lead. It is and will be a virtual tie. It is at this time, convention time, that the superdelegates will be called upon. They will be required by the party to select a candidate who they believe can WIN the general election.
I personally believe that neither Senator Obama nor Senator Clinton can WIN. Racism is still rampant sadly and mysogeny as well as a "Clinton Thing" are still alive and that these facts will not allow either to WIN in the general election. This country is facing such terrifically terrible problems that we simply cannot allow another four to eight years of sad Republican rule. Just think of the very real possibility of three new members to the Supreme Court.
Therefore it will require extreme care of the selection process for the attention of the superdelegates. A draft of a more qualified winner would seem to be in order. Who? I do not know at present but I am thinking and I would hope that the superdelegates and party leaders are as well.
Yet, even as they tacitly admit that he can't persuade members of his own Party to choose him, they assert that he will persuade those who do NOT share his Party's goals and vision to support him in the general election.
Maybe if I were black/young/EDUCATED I would get their pretzel logic. But alas - I am only half-black, over 30, and only have a Masters from an Ivy League college. Clearly, the audacity of hope is not for the likes of me.
In spite of that, I should like to point out to Obama's supporters that Obama has just as much chance, and the right, to lobby the super-delegates. He has just as much right to use the existing system to his advantage. And should he be successful in doing so, he has every right to the nomination.
If he has half the ability to UNITE that his supporters claim he does, convincing the super-delegates to vote for him should be a walk in the park.
they will no doubt make their best case for superdelegate support. It's on
the superdelegates to choose wisely. If they go against the wishes of the
elected delegates, and the Demo candidate is then NOT elected in the fall,
there is going to be a HUGE number of pissed off Democrats. The notion
that it will be whichever candidate's fault for not being persuasive enough
is just 'hooey'.
Anyhoo, by your yardstick, Messers. Kerry and Kennedy should use THEIR super-delegate status to endorse and vote for Hillary Clinton.
Are ya starting to see how trying to bully the supers could backfire on ya?
My advice: Quit yer bullying, bitchin' and bellyachin' and focus on the Big Picture.
Hint: It's titled, "Democrat In The White House".
Oh, and your point about people voting who are not registered democrats is spot on! I wonder how many repugs have voted in an attempt to help create our present situation?
pleased just as long as there *is* a Demo candidate. Doesn't
matter that much who.
As for the Repos-disguised-as-Demos, surely there are a few,
but they don't matter that much, in most places. See also above.
Fact is, there are way more independents, and their opinions really
do matter, as there are more of them (us!) than there are Demos OR Repos.
You overlook another simple life fact - that Obama will win most, if not all the states that Hillary has won in the primaries (and vice versa), barring a complete collapse of the Democrats in a general election against John "Bush III" McCain ...
Furthermore, there was a national poll taken last week that showed Hillary beating McCain by 6% (9% Undecided) but Obama beating McCain by 13% (11% Undecided) ...
Nice writing and math exercise you posted, but it's pretty nonsensical in the big picture ...
Peace
JTD
If they do, they may only muck things up further. If the elected delegates manage
to get it wrong (depending on how the election turns out), at least they *might*
avoid some share of the blame.
After the first ballot, consider VERY carefully the likely electoral vote outcome.
It is very likely that some previously Red states will go Blue & vote for Obama.
It is also very likely, a slam dunk even, that Blue states such as NY, MA & many
others will remain Blue regardless. Clinton has strong negatives in many states.
The Red states of the South are going to stay Red regardless. Once you make
your choices, Superdelegates, if you get it wrong, you will be TOAST after November.
Count on it.
It is kind of a shame that in the general election they are going to let Republicans vote too. As we saw in the recent special election in Illinois, when Republicans are allowed to vote it is more desirable to have support from Obama than Clinton. I suspect that the superdelegates noticed that.
Second, your logic is flawed, for the states that Hillary has won are the big democratic states, the ones which have gone for a democrat every time in recent memory EXCEPT 1984, when Ronnie Raygun carried 49 states. By contrast, Obama is winning in Republican states, with very LARGE voter turnout, which means that HE is much more likely to pull off a Raygun, and carry more red states, which will give the presidency to the Democrats.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/raconteur
I have no idea how that applies to the content of this post.
wit: 1 a: mind, memory b: reasoning power : intelligence2 a: sense 2a —usually used in plural wit suggests the power to evoke laughter by remarks showing verbal felicity or ingenuity and swift perception especially of the incongruous. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary
This post as none of the above nor anecdotes. It is full of brash assumptions, and fallacious reasoning.
That being said, compelling arguements can be made that show that Clinton (or Obama for that matter) could be a better candidate in the general. This theory, however, uses false logic and only serves to muddle the debate.
SHUUUUUUUUTTTTTTTTTTTTTTT UUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPP!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Sitting surrounding by the mountains of paperwork created by our caucus...with hours of posting and planning ahead of me....
Forgive me...if I take a moment to say...
Caucuses are not any more or less fair for one candidate over the other... I live in a diverse neighborhood....People TOOK TIME out of their lives to take a stand..for both candidates..Ordinary people...People with kids and lives and 2 jobs..They had to plan....It was a SACRIFICE....
Thousands participated in every region of my state.. Many both and young and old who had never participated before...made the effort..
And HOW FITTING is it to know...that people who actually CARED ENOUGH to SHOW UP...and spend a couple of hours...in a gruelingly chaotic and exhiliarating demonstration of "real" grassroots democracy at work.....would have their voices their voices heard and their votes respected.
Heaven Forbid that those participating in caucus states should be considered a true reflection of my state's Democratic Party choice.
You know this isn't American Idol...We're choosing a nominee for MY PARTY...So someone needing to show up at a democratic party meeting(ie caucuses) ..to do that...well...yeah...so...
And while I'm at it...you know caucuses have been around a very long time...and I don't remember any candidate "insulting" us.....whining...and asserting that somehow our votes are less important..than the person who makes the "big effort" of coloring in a circle and dropping a card in the mail.
No It's Not Easy...and most of it is handled by volunteers...you need paper and pens...and a lot of toner...a huge helping of persistance and determination .....but there you are...an election....
Those of us in caucus states are really really really sick and tired of the Clinton campaign with the validation of the media INSULTING US and BELITTLING the VALUE of our VOICES and our VOTES.
Since The Clinton campaign hates caucus states so much. and values our delegates so little....what say..she give back those delegates..you know on the principle of the thing...
No?
THEN LAY OFF!!!!
GET IT!
sorry for shouting...
As for the Electoral College, itself, there are arguments FOR and arguments AGAINST. The Against argument is that it's focus is on large swing states, and on more populous states.
However, lets assume that in the States, that Clinton won, such as in California, New York, New Jersey and Texas, Obama is the nominee. Come November, Democrats worth their salt, will not allow a Democrat to loose in Cal., NY., and NJ.
Which leads to the conclusion, that Obama’s viability in big states is more than there. He overwhelmingly won Illinois, and came close in California, New York, and won the Caucus and nearly edged the popular vote in Texas, and Nevada. A strong Vice Presidential candidate -running mate, on Obama’s team will give him OVERWHELMING victories in Texas, California, New York, Michigan, and possibly Pennsylvania.
If you want to make a case for Clinton, that her Primary results would be a foreshadowing of the Electoral College who meet every four years to cast the electoral college vote for President, then Hillary Clinton should have won Texas, California and New York by a much much larger margin. A strong Vice Presidential candidate -running mate, on Obama’s team will give him OVERWHELMING victories in Texas, California, New York. A strong running mate for Obama, is what the Super-delegates should keep in mind.