Yep.
And another yep.
It isn’t a science, but you have to seriously look at the numbers and then go with your political instincts.
What an absurd and totally laughable characterization of the situation.
Obama supporters don’t think he should be the Democratic nominee because of a “god-given right”. They think he should be the nominee because he’s earned it. More pledged delegates. More states won. More non-disputed votes.
And they don’t think Hilary should drop out “just because”. :rolleyes: They argue that her ascendancy to the candidacy through the primary process is a near-mathematical impossibility, and the only way she can gain the necessary delegate count is through convincing the superdelegates that she is still the superior candidate. Given that this is technically by-the-book doesn’t change the fact that it seems to violate the spirit of the process for those who think the one who has been more successful navigating the primary process in amassing pledged delegates should be the de facto winner.
It also doesn’t help that her only route toward convincing the superdelegates of her superiority is by tearing down Obama through the most malignant type of distortions, guilt-by-tenuous-associations, and deliberate misrepresentations of his character.
Has Obama run the perfect campaign? No. But Obama supporters don’t argue that she should pull out simply because they want their guy to win. They see her tactics (which are converging nicely with the GOP playbook) as incredibly destructive and counter-productive. Despite her significant psychological lead early on (in money, superdelegates, name recognition, etc.), Obama has assumed the actual lead because he hasn’t run the type of incompetent, overtly negative, ficsally irresponsible campaign she has.
That she is still resorting to the “kitchen sink” mentality on the sheer hope (in fact, her only hope) of winning by a technicality reeks of the worst sense of entitlement imaginable. She’s the one acting like the nomination is her “god-given right”, and the fact that a majority of the states and non-disputed voters don’t agree suggests that her ego is driving her continued fight for the nomination, not an interest in what’s best for the party.
I completely (and morosely) accept the fact that this is all going to Denver. And if she wins via superdelegates, will she have “stolen” the nomination? IMHO, no. But she will have (also IMHO) all-but-destroyed the Democrats’ shot at gaining the Oval Office and will set the interests of the party back many, many years.
So that’s not “just because”.
And Obama has to do the same thing. If all the superdelegates do is anoint the candidate with the most regular delegates, then why even have them in the first place?
Good question. Any superdelegate who is an elected officeholder had better vote according to his constituency, or be held accountable in the next election. That is a big motivator.
It’s the warm fuzzy feeling received from watching Dems replay Florida 2000 all over again, but this time with no consequences for the Republican candidate. 
But as has been pointed out in more eloquent prose before: which constituency? The Democrats of the persons county they reside in, the state as a whole, the country as a whole? I’m sure as a Democratic Senator from Pennsylvania you could make the case equally for either Obama or Clinton and back it up by saying you sided with your constituency.
Yeah. That’s what I meant by the caveat about not having any political considerations to worry about.
I think it’s more of an issue for House members.
If I found out my conresscritter did not support the candidate who won in my district, I would never vote for him again. All politics is local.
What if your candidate lost your district but your congresscritter voted for him/her?
Except it’s not that simple. If you look at the maps you’ll note that in the Hillary vs. McCain match-up she’s depending heavily on winning states that are listed as “Barely Dem”. Fully 80 of her electoral votes come from those states. John McCain only has 13 votes coming from “Barely GOP” states.
In the Obama vs. McCain match-up the math is very different. Now there are only 53 electoral votes in the “Barely Dem” column and 76 in the Barely GOP" column.
Obama has a more solid base to attack from. That means he can concentrate on pulling states out of the GOP column. Hillary’s support is broader, but more shallow. She has a number of battlegrounds that she has to defend, and not much opportunity to attack. If she can’t hold onto both Ohio and Florida (both listed as Barely Dem) she’ll be toast the same way Gore and Kerry were. Obama can win without Ohio and Florida.
Hey, I’m not about to defend the existence of the superdelegates. But the fact remains all Obama has to do is convince them he’s the superior candidate because he won the most states, the most pledged delegates, the most non-disputed votes. It’s a sound and perfectly reasonable argument to make.
She has to convince them that she’s superior despite not being able to make any of those claims. If she’s able to do that convincingly, then I suppose she “deserves” the nomination.
Unfortunately, if that happens, then the Democrats have no-one but themselves to blame for the consequences.
I think representatives should support the candidate who wins in their district.
It’s only common sense, really. If 60% of your district votes for Clinton but you vote for Obama, you’ve just pissed off the majority. Good luck holding your office then.
I’m curious now, anybody got a link for the pledged Super Delagates of Wisconsin?
To propose that the superdelegates retroactively nullify the outcome of caucuses in 14 states and 2 territories isn’t just an ‘alternate method of calculation,’ it’s crazy talk.
DemConWatch has a great list of committed superdelegates, arranged by candidate, and by state within each candidate’s list.
They also have a list of uncommitted superdelegates, arranged by office (e.g. House, Senate, Governor, DNC member), and by state within each office category.
Each committed superdelegate’s name is linked to a news source verifying their declaration of support.
There are a ton of other great goodies at DemConWatch. It’s a great resource.
Just not quite on the same scale. If the rest of the primaries play out more or less as expected, Hillary would need about 3/4 of the remaining superdelegates, while Obama would need more like 1/3.
Because the party pooh-bahs back in 1981 or whenever decided they didn’t want to be surprised by another McGovern or Carter coming out of nowhere to win the nomination without the chance for the party elders to vet them first.
Then after 1984, the superdelegates played only a ceremonial role for the next five cycles, and most people pretty much forgot about them.
That’s why we have them in the first place. They’re not there for a reason; they’re there due to a combination of history, institutional inertia, and amnesia among the rank and file.
The job of the superdelegates is to chose the candidate they feel has the best chance to become President- will of the people, popular caucus vote, all of that means nothing, as it should. Neither will have the guaranteed amount, so it goes to another method of choosing which she has a resonable chance of winning. And if anyone going to be pissed, I’d rather it be Obama’s younger voters that vote in fewer numbers than HRC’s older supporters.