:eek:
Yeah, I know it’s out there if you look for it; I’d like for it to be available someplace where the average lazy person couldn’t help but notice. Most people won’t go tooling around the blogosphere for that.
With today’s 3 primaries firmly on Obama’s side, the total delegate count as of this posting, including superdelegates is:
Obama - 1,223
Clinton - 1,161
Putting him ahead by 62 delegates.
When you take the superdelegates out of the picture, since they can switch at any time for any reason, his lead is much more substantial:
Obama - 1,082
Clinton — 951
Difference: 131
(I’m using this site for my numbers, which is an active scorecard, so as the numbers change, so will that link, so what I posted above may not appear the same as the referenced site when viewed at a later date.)
Hell, even CNN was finally forced to admit that Obama is leading in delegates.
Just the cynic in me, but I think it’s an uphill battle for Obama. IMO, the superdelegates are there to provide an edge to the establishment candidate that is running, in this case Hilary. I’d think Obama pretty much has to run the tables to overcome that advantage. I’m actually surprised that he’s gotten as many superdelegates as he has.
Ouch! Leggo of my moustache!
Not so.
Yeah, but superdelegates, being party officials, will dislike a brokered convention because it’ll lead to massive dissent within the party. I think that even if the last primary ends with Obama having a substantial lead in pledged delegates, the party officials will fall in line.
Obama is up by a little more than 100 pledged delegates, depending on how you count things. If you estimate that the superdelegates would favor Clinton 500-300*, he needs to widen his lead by maybe 100 delegates to sow it up even if it does go to those delegates. I think that’s doable.
*I continue to believe this race will be settled by the voters, not the superdelegates, and that most of the superdelegates will go for Obama if they think the voters have clearly chosen him because they will be told that a victory based only on superdelegates would be too reminiscent of Florida in 2000, and bad for the party.
This has probably been asked and answered elsewhere, but is there a breakdown of the superdelegates that are currently holding a public office or who are likely to run for public office in the future, regardless of their current or past offices?
Is there palpable pressure for those delegates to pledge according to the popular vote or risk the wrath of their current (and potential future) districts/constituents?
Here’s a very useful chart: Superdelegates - POLITICO.com
According to it, Clinton leads Obama by only 16 elected superdelegates (e.g. Govs, Senators, etc.). Her real lead is among DNC folks.
No offense, but your link currently shows Hillary leading in superdelegates by 210-141, which is the smallest lead I’ve seen for her anywhere.
this site shows her with a lead of 232-146, and it names each of those superdelegates, with each superdelegate name linked to a news source that verifies who they support.
I think that if Obama wins the popular vote but HRC is put forward as the Democratic candidate it would mean the end of the Democratic party. They have to realize that Obama would have a real shot running as an independent. I voted for Hillary ( a decision I am coming to regret) but if she gets the nomination despite smaller popular vote I certainly would not vote for her EVEN IF BUSH WERE RUNNING AGAIN.
I think we are gnashing our teeth prematurely, there is no way in hell the Democratic party (my party) would do this. (please let that be true)
You are absolutely right.
Are there any post-Feb. 12 polls out for the coming states?
Both Rasmussen and Strategic Vision have Obama up by 4 points in Wisconsin. Cite.
However, it looks like Clinton still has a healthy (but shrinking) lead in Ohio. Cite.
Ohio has 141 pledged delegates. Not taking the proportionality by CD into account, since I wouldn’t begin to be able to do that without knowing how their CDs are divided, 54% of 141 is 76, and 37% for Obama would be 52, with 13 unaccounted for in this poll. That kind of win would bring her closer by 24 delegates, but it’s still not anywhere near what she’d need to surpass him.
What everyone’s saying, and what her campaign is even acknowledging, is that she’ll need to win BIG in these states in order to even get close. Now they’re just working on the superdelegates, trying to convince them that somehow her wins are of a better “quality” than his, so they should support her.
On the good news front. . .
::dons cheerleader outfit, grabs pom pons::
Former Republican U.S. Sen. Lincoln Chafee today endorsed Democrat Barack Obama for president. “In backing Obama, the former senator said the nation cannot afford another presidential election with two candidates who supported the war.”
PA: Clinton’s up by 16 in Quinnipiac poll.
NC: Survey USA has Obama up by 10.
AFAICT, nobody’s polled Texas yet.
More cheerleading
<rah, rah!!>
“Christine “Roz” Samuels, a superdelegate from Montclair, New Jersey, who was supporting Hillary Clinton announced she was now supporting Senator Barack Obama for President today.”
“Texas House Democratic Leader Jim Dunnam announced today his strong endorsement of Senator Barack Obama’s candidacy for President of the United States.”
“Former 71st District Assembly Rep. Stan Gruszynski of Stevens Point (WI), a superdelegate in the Democratic Party, has announced his endorsement for Sen. Barack Obama for president.”
It seems Clinton wants to be President of Texas, Ohio, New York and California whereas Obama wants to be President of the United States of America.
Go Obama!