The After-Math: Obama Will Be Less Than 100 Delegates from the Nomination
On June 4, 2008, Barack Obama will be less than 100 delegates from wrapping up the nomination. That assumes he gets 50% of the North Carolina, Indiana and Guam delegates, takes only 45% of the remaining 217, and no other superdelegates (SDs) declare between now and then.
Today's unpledged SD count varies, but approximately 290-295 have yet to declare.
That means that Barack Obama would need ~33% of the unpledged SDs to nail it. Even after Super Tuesday on February 5, and since Hillary's victories in Ohio, Texas and Pennsylvania, almost all the superdelegates have supported Obama.
The Clintons, therefore, must overcome 2 major hurdles. The first is that the SDs scrap Party rules to accommodate the Clinton's victory definition de jour. The second is that more than two-thirds of the remaining unpledged SDs buy their argument. Every additional SD that declares for Obama between now and June 4th makes the Clintons' hurdles even higher.
So, as originally suggested on March 14, 2008 ("A Primal Scream to Superdelegates: Don't Fiddle While the Progressive Movement Burns, There Is No Reason to Delay"), what in the name of Franklin Delano Roosevelt are the superdelegates waiting for? The Clintons' major argument to unpledged SDs is that Obama cannot (or will not) win the general election.
But Bill Clinton himself has shot down that argument as a rationale for denying the nomination to the person who has otherwise won it. Trying to assuage concerns that the protracted fight reduces the chances for the nominee to beat McCain, he pointed out that he himself was in third place (behind Bush Sr and Ross Perot) in 1992 at the time of the Democratic Convention.
Did anyone suggest that Governor Bill Clinton should not get the 1992 nomination because of those polls?
Right now, the polls (NBCNews-WSJ) show Obama doing better than Hillary against McCain. But, even if they showed Hillary doing better, as one recently did, Bill Clinton's argument and his victory suggests that such considerations are irrelevant anyhow.
Other than the results of the primaries, then, what is it that the SDs ought to consider in making their choices?
Today, we finally had a voice of reason. Joseph Andrew, former DNC Chairman under Bill Clinton, and former Hillary Clinton superdelegate, switched to Obama.
He recognized the "after-math".
Loading comments…
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
That assumes there is balance and justice in the process of Super delegates. HRC started the race with about 250 SD. She almost did not win any SD. She inheritied them from the name recognition and arm twisting of her husband former president.
On the other hand Obama is winning SD almost 1 per day. That is not fair unless she inhirits all the negatives of Bill Clinton (impeachment, NAFTA, etc.), as will.
Soon obama will tie Clinton in SD then surpass her. At that time the Clintons will invenet another new metric to make her more eligible for presidency. This arrogant woman believes that she is entitled to be the president by default. Clintons are divisive, negative, and annoying. I can't stand seeing and hearing them, for anothre month not another 4 years.
Great interview on Olbermann tonight with Joe Andrews. Though not all superdelegates may be able to express their convictions so beautifully, it sure is lovely to hear them speak up!
Superdelegates - please don't listen to the Sidney Blumenthal paid commenters - we have had enough of the Republican machine!
Jesus. We get it. "After-mat
The problem with this logic is that the SD’s were put in place for a reason and based upon the rules; neither Obama nor Clinton will have the requisite amount of delegates to win outright. That moves the process to the next phase that normally is done at the convention when there is no clear winner. Trying to jam the decision while the primary is still underway lacks objectivity and betrays basic democratic principles of any election.
Framing the electability argument to polls alone is intellectually dishonest, even though Obama has always over polled and Clinton likely wins the general Electoral College and Obama likely loses against McCain.
The SDs are allowed to vote their conscience, for the person they believe is more electable or for any other reason. This should be done without coercion or threats.
Indeed the delegates and super delegates can choose who they feel is the stronger candidate. For example, Clinton won MA, but Kerry is going for Obama, as is his right to do so.
"Framing the electability argument to polls alone is intellectually dishonest, even though Obama has always over polled and Clinton likely wins the general Electoral College and Obama likely loses against McCain."
Funny.... you simultaneously fling accusations of "intellectual dishonesty" like a monkey hurling feces while perpetuating your own intellectual dishonesty by ignoring the premise of bubba's poll-based arguments being disproved by actual history.
I agree that the SDs should vote as they see fit without coercion. However, when they speak up and the total quantity of endorsing SDs and delegates for Obama goes beyond 2,025, will you post comments here and elsewhere that hillary should concede? If not, at what number should she concede? Or do you encourage her to continue her "campaign" through the convention?
That assumes their is balance and justice in the process of Super delegates. HRC started the race with about 250 SD. She almost did not win any SD. She inheritied them from the name recognition of her husband forer president. On the other hand Obama is winning SD almost 1 per day.
That is not fair unless she inhirit all the negatives of Bill Clinton (impeachment, NAFTA, etc., as will.
Soon obama will tie Clinton in SD then surpass her. At that time the Clintons will invenet another metric to make her more eligible for presidency. This arrogant woman believes that she is entitled to be the president by default. She is divisive, negative, and annoying. I can't stand seeing and hearing her, or her husband, for anothre month not another 4 years.
Hillary has become a Zell Miller/Joe LIEberman clone. She's a Fox News darling now, she trashed fellow Dem Obama to Richard Mellon Scaife the same man that was behind her husband's impeachment, her surrogates are push-polling and sending out mailers/robocalls challenging voter registration in black voting districts in NC. She trashed party activists and MoveOn, the very same people who'd she'd need to beat McCain if she became the Nom. And she's completely alienated the black vote - a block no Democrat can get elected without.
I hope more supers realize this and go for Barack to save the party.
You, of course, realize that the superdelegates are not "locked in," right? The super-delegates, if they determine that Obama is NOT electable, can change their support right up until the nominating vote is taken at the convention. That is their purpose, to prevent another McGovern fiasco . . . you know, a wildly popular (but unable to win the major primaries) candidate who ends up carrying ONE state in the general election because he was seen as an elitist, ultra liberal.
If Obama had, indeed, wrapped up the nomination, he would not have lost Pennsylvania and his poll position would not be continuing to slide . . . let the campaign continue . . . that's what primaries are FOR , for gosh sakes. If he is the nominee following the convention, I'll be voting for him, but he HAS NOT WON, YET!
At this point, doesn't matter a lick what his delegate count is or isn't . . . what matters is whether he can win in November. The demographics and the polls don't support an Obama victory.
So, I have three questions for you:
1) If Bill Clinton was in THIRD place behind Perot and Bush Sr at the time of the Dem, should we have denied him the nomination?
2) How does a race between 2 Dems project what would happen w a Dem vs a Republican in the fall?
3) If Obama, say, is not considered the most electable Dem, should the entire process be open to ANYONE--i.
Paul, please allow me to answer on MzTexas's behalf using the same vacuous reasoning that hillary supporters are blessed with when it comes to this subject.
1). Of course not - because he won. This election is different.
2). Because Obama will lose all the big states. California, NY, PA - all the states that have voted Dem over the last few elections will break for mccain... because they just will.
3). Richardson does not have a vagina. The voters in Florida and Michigan - in concert with everyone who agrees with me - demand a candidate of the correct gender.
How'd I do?
Great piece. Today was a good day for the Obama count. He scored five delegates. The hope and expectation is that there will be more standing up and declaring their support. Many superdelegates are scared of the Clinton attack dogs like Bill himself, Carville and other vampires who would rather see the Democratic Party incinerated than tell the Clintons to pack up and leave the stage. The party is over, they should go home.
According to every economist I've heard this week on the gas tax "holiday".
Let's hope the Supers are doing the math on Operation Chaos too... not sure Republicans voting against our choice should get to drag this out.
On April 30, 2008, Hillary Clinton gave an interview to Bill O'Reilly in which she stated:
"You know what. Rich people, God Bless Us. We deserve all the opportunities"
watch and spread it : http://www
I was disgusted all the more with Clinton after I used your link to the video. But then I was made curious because the video ends as you have quoted, but it was clear her sentence wasn't complete. So I held my nose and went to the FoxNews website and watched the entire O'Reilly interview.
Hillary made it clear that the rich have a responsibility, because of their advantages, to the country that provided those opportunities and to future generations of Americans.
We Obama supporters have, also, a responsibility to be as honest and match the integrity of our candidate in this election. This YouTube video is dishonest in the worst way in that it cuts Clinton off to make it seem she took a Marie Antoinette position she, in fact, did not.
It is wrong when she and her supporters do it. It's wrong for Barack's supporters to do it.
"Nough said....
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
