Thursday, February 07, 2008

Do Superdelegates vote the same as their constituents?

WE'VE MOVED! Democratic Convention Watch is now at http://www.DemocraticConventionWatch.com

Now that a majority of states have had their primary or caucus we're going to compare the people's votes to the superdelegate endorsements. As with our other lists this will be constantly updated as new primaries/caucuses are held and as new superdelegate endorsements are made.

The table also shows where a majority of each candidate's support is coming from.

Unpledged add-ons will not be included in superdelegate numbers until they are offically assigned.

StateClinton Superdelegates

Clinton Primary

Obama Superdelegates
Obama Primary

Alabama1 of 7

42%

1 of 7
56%

Alaska1 of 4

25%

0 of 4
75%

American Samoa4 of 6

57%

1 of 6
43%

Arizona4 of 10

51%

2 of 10
42%

Arkansas9 of 11

70%

0 of 11
27%

California25 of 66

52%

9 of 66
42%

Colorado4 of 15

32%

4 of 15
67%

Connecticut1 of 11

47%

5 of 11
51%

Delaware3 of 7

43%

0 of 7
53%

Dems Abroad0 of 8

-

0 of 8
-

District of Columbia
11 of 21

-

3 of 21
-

Florida
6 of 22

50%

2 of 22
33%

Georgia3 of 14

31%

3 of 14
67%

Guam0 of 5

-

0 of 5
-

Hawaii1 of 8

-

1 of 8
-

Idaho0 of 4

17%

2 of 4
79%

Illinois1 of 29

33%

18 of 29
65%

Indiana5 of 11

-

0 of 11
-

Iowa2 of 11

29%

2 of 11
38%

Kansas1 of 8

26%

3 of 8
74%

Kentucky0 of 8

-

0 of 8
-

Louisiana0 of 9

-

0 of 9
-

Maine2 of 9

-

0 of 9
-

Maryland4 of

-

3 of
-

Massachusetts7 of

56%

6 of
41%

Michigan
7 of 26

55%

1 of 26
N/A

Minnesota3 of 14

32%

6 of 14
67%

Mississippi0 of 6

-

2 of 6
-

Missouri4 of 14

48%

3 of 14
49%

Montana0 of 7

-

0 of 7
-

Nebraska0 of 6

-

1 of 6
-

Nevada2 of 7

51%

1 of 7
45%

New Hampshire
2 of 7

39%

3 of 7
37%

New Jersey
12 of 18

54%

1 of 18
44%

New Mexico
3 of 11

49%

1 of 11
48%

New York
38 of 45

57%

0 of 45
40%

North Carolina
1 of 17

-

2 of 17
-

North Dakota
0 of 7

37%

4 of 7
61%

Ohio2 of 18

-

0 of 18
-

Oklahoma1 of 8

55%

1 of 8
31%

Oregon2 of 12

-

1 of 12
-

Pennsylvania7 of 27

-

2 of 27
-

Puerto Rico
3 of 7

-

0 of 7
-

Rhode Island
5 of 10

-

1 of 10
-

South Carolina
2 of 8

27%

1 of 8
55%

South Dakota
0 of 7

-

2 of 7
-

Tennessee
2 of 15

54%

3 of 15
41%

Texas10 of 32

-

2 of 32
-

Utah2 of 5

39%

1 of 5
57%

Vermont0 of 7

-

2 of 7
-

Virginia5 of 16

-

3 of 16
-

Virgin Islands
1 of 6

-

1 of 6
-

Washington
5 of 17

-

2 of 17
-

West Virginia
0 of 10

-

0 of 10
-

Wisconsin
2 of 16

-

2 of 16
-

Wyoming
0 of 5

-

2 of 5
-










A few things to take into consideration with this list. We're showing results only by state and not breaking it down by congressional district or cities. Also, it's extremely important to remember that superdelegates (and delegates alike) can change their vote.

Update: David Sirota over at OpenLeft writes about Maine's DNC Chairman John Knutson who has pledged to endorse whoever wins the caucus on Sunday.
On Thursday, Knutson announced that he will support the candidate who wins the majority of the vote in Maine. "For all intents and purposes, Maine now has 25 delegates up for grabs since I will be embracing the candidate who wins Maine's caucuses," said Knutson. As a Super-Delegate, Knutson will represent this winning candidate at the Democratic National Convention.

120 comments:

Dave said...

Yeah, I've been thinking a lot about this here in Colorado. Hillary already has 4 supers here...if they listened to the voters, she would only be getting one more (of the 7 outstanding).

I'm curious -- is it likely that many of the undecided super's will just wait until the very end and fall in line with what the voters have decided (assuming there's some sort of majority eventually)?

Kevin M said...

As I look at the list of Supers who came out early for HRC, I see a lot of female names. I think many of them made their endorsement based on their own desire to see a woman finally become President.

Anonymous said...

Guys, Obama is not viable anymore. Clinton has won all the big states, and will likely win the remaining ones. Obama is going around picking up votes in secondary states and especially in states that are not likely to turn blue in November.

Romney is out. McCain is the front runner. Huckabee will drop out any second, and the republicans will unite and forge ahead in a national campaign. They will consolidate voters and will negatively use the democratic division.

Obama must realise that he cannot sacrifice the unity of the democrats just so he can go around picking up pointless states. His stubborness might cost the democrats the White House!

I hope the superdelegates realise this reality, and no matter what their costituents said, the country has spoken. Obama is not the big winner!!

ubuwalker31 said...

My feeling is that the elected representatives will vote in line with how the majority in their districts/States voted. Elected representatives have to decide whether they can snub either Clinton or Obama and get away with it. Non-elected superdelegates will vote with their political sponsors. I wish the site could crunch some speculative numbers based on real political science factors...

Dave said...

"Anonymous" -- it's not about the "big" states. There are only three of those left (485 delegates In Texas, Ohio and Pennsylvania). The "small" states make up 1378 remaining delegates.

To claim that Obama isn't viable is laughable.

Anonymous said...

Dave, who cares about the small heartland/mountain states...you think they will turn BLUE in November?

Do you think Utah will vote for Obama if he was running for President?

What people need to look at is states like Florida. What happened in Florida? Well, neither of the democrats could campaign there. Yet, Clinton HUGE there, even more votes than McCain who DID campaign in there.

That means that Clinton can not only win the big states for the democrats, but she will most likely win Florida! And not just Florida, but alot of those southern latino belt states. Hell, she could even turn Texas into a swing state!

You think that Obama will pick up any of those red states that he won during the primaries? FAT CHANCE!

He's not viable. He will cost us the White House. Superdelegates need to realise this and make the right choice!

Anonymous said...

Who ever said Obama is not a viable candidate clearly isn't looking at the numbers I am looking at...if Dems' WANT to win come November, we need to win those swing states; dedicated BLUE states are a given. Swing voters are what make elections and Obama come November can get 'er done.

Anonymous said...

You are missing for Obama;

Rep. Artur Davis(AL)

Dave said...

Do I think Obama can win Utah? No, I don't.

But I *do* think he can win states like Colorado, New Mexico, and Iowa. And yes, I think he can also win Ohio and Florida.

Anonymous said...

I meant missing 1 for obama.

The rest matches all you lists completely.

Good Job.

Jamie said...

Based on the table above, there are eight states in which Obama received the majority of the vote, but not a majority of the superdelegates so far (AL, AK, CO, GA, IA, MO, SC, UT) and three states for Clinton (NH, OK, TN). That means superdelegates have not expressed the will of the voters in their states in 11 of the 25 contests that could be analyzed. Ungood.

Anonymous said...

If Obama wins, it will be the latino war all over again.

Latinos love McCain more than Obama. They obviously have a huge problem with Obama.

With Obama in the race, and with McCain having the big name and also his record of being especially friendly towards latinos...they will swing in McCain's way.

In an Obama vs. McCain race, not only do I see Obama losing Florida, but I see him putting at risk states like California as well.

The latino vote swings either for Clinton or McCain, Obama will NEVER be able to get it. And he will also not be able to get MOST of those heartland/mountain states he's won in the primaries.

And let's not forget that for him, running against Clinton was easy compared to the republican machine that is coming up.

Obama would be the biggest mistake democrats could ever make.

Oreo said...

Thanks for the heads up on Davis and for checking my work.

Dipper said...

You're wrong, Anonymous. You're forgetting that Hillary Clinton is just below Satan and Osama bin Laden on the list of people Republicans desperately hate.

Any distaste Republicans feel for Obama is simply based on the fact that he's a Democrat. Without a true-red conservative running against Obama, I think many on the hardcore Right will just stay home. McCain does not have Reagan or Dubya appeal within the GOP.

On the other hand, if Hillary Clinton is nominated, conservatives will break out of the intensive care unit or brave ten miles of snow and wind (uphill both ways) just to vote against her. You have no idea how much Hillary is a unifying force among the GOP. There is absolutely no way to overstate the Republican (and right-leaning Independent) hatred of Hillary.

We made the mistake in 2004 of choosing the most unelectable candidate against Bush. Let's not make that same mistake again. We can win this by taking all of the 2004 Kerry states plus Colorado, Iowa, and New Mexico. Putting Hillary up as our candidate for President makes this achievable task difficult.

Anonymous said...

So you think that electing the guy who lost decisively in all the big states, lost decisively the latino vote, and lost the big democratic state battles towards a democrat who has been much nicer to him than what the big republican machine would be...you think he would be more electable, just because he won some low-electoral-ves states that will very likely not turn blue in November?

Obama is lagging, even though his competition is a democrat. I can only imagine how far he will be lagging once the republicans turn on him!

Obama will put at risk California. He will also not be able to win Florida.

Clinton will surely win California, and she has HUGE chances in Florida. In addition, she will likely pull a super-strong game in Texas. Obama would never be able to do all this, because he'd be running against McCain who will have the latinos.

In addition to that, Hillary voters are voters who are comfortable in her level of liberalism or are a little bit more conservative than her, but still on the democratic side.

If Hillary is out of the equation, McCain would be closer to many of those "conservative democrats"...and they would be more likely to vote McCain than vote Obama.

Plus you also have to calculate in the racist vote. Alot of people that are voting for Hillary is because they don't wanna vote for the black dude. So they will also likely switch to McCain if Hillary is out of the equation.

Obama has a series of problems that make him very very very problematic, and these are SERIOUS problems.

All the things that I have mentioned here are not "light issues that can be overlooked". These are pretty tough issues that would definitely make the democrats lose the White House in November.

You guys, and the superdelegates also, need to look out of the primary box. There's a presidential election that is coming up, and Obama's (lagging) hype against a fellow democrat will not be enough to beat the republicans.

Kevin M said...

This Anonymous (where's the courage to actually provide a name?) is completely mistaken about Obama's chances to win these so-called "red states". Personally, I think Obama can sweep the "Old South" of GA, AL, MS and LA... will almost certainly take MN, IA, IL, and NE in the General Election. Although AR is very pro-Clinton during the primary, don't think that democrats in that state won't rally behind Obama if he gets the nomination. And, with good campaigning, OH, FL, and NM can go Obama vs. McCain.

Galois said...

It gets really interesting if you look at it by congressional district. I made a spreadsheet for several states so that I could project the delegate count and I included information about whether the representative in a district had endorsed one of the candidates. As I was filling in the sheet I was shocked at how often the candidate whom was not endorsed got more delegates. Several times the endorsed candidate lost the district delegates 1 to 3 (which means even ignoring the votes for nonviable candidates the endorsee received at most 37.5% of the vote).

For example, in California Clinton won more pledged delegates than Obama in the districts of George Miller, Lofgren, Schiff, Becerra, and Linda Sanchez. In three of those (Sanchez, Becerra, and Lofgren) he lost it by a 3-1 delegate margin. On the other hand Obama won more pledged delegates than Clinton in the districts of Thompson, Matsui, Watson, Waters, and Richardson.

In Arizona the last I checked it seems clear that Obama will lose Grijalva's district (but I'm not sure yet whether the delegates will break 2-2 or 3-1). In Colorado Clinton was endorsed by DeGette, but it looks like Obama will win the district (around Denver) by a large margin (maybe even a 5-1 split).

Anonymous said...

Obama would only win states with low electoral vote counts where black people are and that's that.

The northeast doesn't exactly hate McCain so he will likely be able to pick up some stuff from the democrat territory, and then he'd win all the big latino states. That would make the democrats lose.

And I think you're being very generous on your estimate on Obama's success in the heartland and the mountain west. That's strong republican territory. And they will make sure it stays that way.

Obama won't be facing small "slum landlord" claims in his debates with the republicans. They will turn on the heat enough to paint red even traditional blue states.

Neal said...

"Annonymous guy"

You are a waste of breath.

Absurd really...

You see,

The People of the United States are smart... They see right- through these types of slighted comments. Which, this Annonymous character makes no sense at all.

Dave said...

Obama puts California into question? Have you seen the vote totals?

Hillary: 2,132,166
Obama: 1,735,105
McCain: 985,900
Romney: 801,568

Without a single Hillary supporter, Obama nearly beats McCain and Romney combined!

I think the dems will do OK in California with either candidate.

Chuck said...

It would be rather unfortunate for the superdelegates to override the primary/caucus results, no matter how slim the margin.

Being from Michigan, the dems are already on thin ice around here. I belive that Michigan really needed to be part of the early primaryies as the state is in dire straights. That is not to sat other states concerns are without merit, however MI has now a 7.5% unemployment. What is unfortunate though, it the Red voters decided to buy the BS that Romney shoveled that the jobs are coming back....but I digress.

To make a long story short, as an independent, if Hillary were to be nominated, I would vote McCain. On several polling sites (e.g. MSNBC) there are polls as to whom McCain would fair best against...~70% say he stands a better chance of election if he were going against Clinton.

Hopefully this influx of money in Jan & Feb will push Barrack over the top.

Anonymous said...

Yes it does have to do with it, because I make the point that since this will be close...seeing how Obama is picking up berries from pointless states, then the superdelegates will have to decide who to really back.

Will they back Obama, who would be very risky in November, or will they back Clinton, who has won confortably on the blue states and also did great in Florida, which we know all too often it is a decision making swing state in the presidential race.

Plus McCain has Schwartzeneger in Cali, Obama has Oprah...come on, Oprah? That's midwest queen, not Cali!

Ben said...

I'd like to see the states with significant discrepancies between superdelegate % and vote % highlighted in bold. Thanks for being a great source of data.

Anonymous said...

I would suggest to the person that made the chart to actually show the percentage of the superdelegates won by each, instead of 1 of 7...

Like 1/7 would be 14%. :)

This way it's easier to compare with the primaries.

cbsmith42 said...

awesome display. Thanks for all the work!

What is the case with Delaware? Do they not have supers?

denverdanny said...

Considering Hillary came out on top in the national popular vote count Tuesday, shouldn't then all the superdelegates choose her? Why is it being suggested that they go the way of their districts or states? This talk about superdelegates going whichever way their districts or the popular count goes is goofy. They can choose whomever they want. All the talk in 2000 about the national popular vote count, and suddenly people are looking back to the states and districts because it favors their candidate? Geez

Joseph Giannasio said...

I agree with and respect the Obama campaign request to not contact Super Delegates on behalf of either candidate, however I believe a campaign to contact them to politely request they consider the outcome of the election results before committing their vote would be in the benefit of the voters.

Is there a resource with their contact information?

Pete said...

The count I have for super delegates is states Clinton has won = 234; Obama 176. SD's left to pledge in state Clinton won = 117; Obama =83. Obama won a lot of deep Republican states that don't have as many SD's. It looks like he would be at a disadvantage if the SD's all pledged to their state.

CCRoselle said...

Question?

If Hilary is selected via the super delegates will the black voters stay home?
This could fracture the party.

Anonymous said...

Well, question...if Obama wins, will the latinos stay home?

This could REALLY fracture the party. Latinos are live in bigger states, and especially Florida which is a swing state that decides the outcomes.

And besides, that would be pretty hypocrite of the blacks, because they would truly radiate their racism at that point (as if they haven't already). But still, the Clintons have done alot for them, and boycotting them just because Obama wasn't good enough, that's just...they should stop considering themselves democrats.

ccroselle said...

In '04 we received approximately 60% of the Latino and over 90% of the Black vote.
This is a fault line that the Hilary organization is working to the detriment of the party. While Senator Obama is trying to include everyone.


Inside the Hispanic vote: Growing in numbers, growing in diversity - CNN.com
http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/09/28/hispanic.vote/index.html

Bush. Exit polls showed he carried 40 to 44 percent of the Hispanic vote, according to the Pew Hispanic Center.

JMG said...

As for Iowa, here's a link to update your list: http://learfield.typepad.com/radioiowa/

Including Sara Swisher here's the Iowa Count: Clinton-4 (Upstvedt, Swisher, Gronstal, Boswell), Obama-3 (Culver, Loebsack,Fitzgerald), Uncommitted-4 (Machacek, Braley, Brennan, Harkin)

Jamie said...

Denverdanny: We live in a republic, with proportional representation, not a democracy. The founder intentionally structured it this way so that States had some independence, rather than a monolithic federal state (like Britain, which forced the English church down all citizens throats based on the "popular vote"). We need to maintain state and district based voting to ensure the urban majorties can steamroll the rural minorities. And our elected officials should not check their representative service to the citizenry at the door when they where their DNC hats. I don't care what CO Rep. Diana DeGette thinks or believes in relation to the Democratic primaries - she's supposed to be my public servant! Lastly, there's no need to allocate superdelegates based on the popular or district vote - get rid of them altogether.

Jamie said...

oops - meant "cannot steamroll"

Jamie said...

Another way to look at the superdelegate data:

Clinton % of Total Pledged Delegates (3253) 27.0
Clinton % of Superdelegates (796) 26.8

Obama % of Total Pledged Delegates (3253) 28.1
Obama % of Total Pledged Delegates (796) 14.9

Great Dane said...

If the DNC doesn't do away with the Superdelegate votes soon, I will switch parties. Superdelegates should be illegal. Last time I checked, this was a democracy, right? Sure, letting Americans vote in primaries is relatively new in the course of American history, but this is the beautiful thing about democracy: when an outdated system does not reflect the will of the people, that system can be changed!

Anonymous said...

Superdelegates shouldn't have to express the "will of the people". That is what the proportional delegates are for It's supposed to be a weighted balance between party leaders (who used to be 100% of the decision) and the people. If they just mirror each other then it's pointless. You don't elect officials to represent you in the DNC but in the goverment. Saying they should represent you to the DNC is like saying they should represent you in their PTA meetings. Saying that they have an obligation to means you understand nothing about government or the history of primaries in this country (which didn't even exist prior to last century). If you don't like the way the DNC votes then become a party leader and get your own superdelegate vote. It's part of the perks of being a highly ranked member of a club. The DNC is not a government body.

Anonymous said...

great dane,

yes our government is a democracy (or rather a republic) but the DNC has no obligation to be. It really blows my mind that people think that political parties are part of our government and somehow operate under the constitution. As a citizen you have no right to vote for the Dem nominee. If the party wanted to, they could meet in a secret room and pick someone and then annouce to the nation their choice. But you have been allowed to voice some opinion on the matter because it's the smart thing for the DNC to do. Why not ask the public what they think? But that doesn't mean the public gets the whole say if they don't want it that way. You may not like it and I don't necessarily like it either, but there is not right or obligation for it to be otherwise.

denverdanny said...

Jamie: That's my point. Back in 2000, Gore won the popular vote and everybody whined that he should be president because of that. LETS CHANGE THE RULES! Now, Obama fans are insecure about the delegates awarded and about the superdelegates. LETS CHANGE THE RULES! All I can say is: stop whining. If Obama loses, that's his fault. Accept whatever outcome. I'm glad the superdelegates have more say than the little people. It's obvious by some of the comments on here that it's a good thing.

Alex Shiplett said...

Superdelegates allow the party elite to control the outcome of what should be a national popular vote.

The idea of superdelegates violates the idea of one person, one vote. Each superdelegate counts as more than one regular person off of the street, and that is not fair, nor is it in line, in my opinion, with the American spirit.

And that, I think is the point: Obama could run the best campaign in the world, earn significantly more pledged delegates than Clinton, and still lose - because the superdelegates are not obligated to vote for anyone but their own conscience. It would be a repeat of the 2000 election and Al Gore. I think it is ironic that a system that we decried in 2000, may cause a significant problem in our own internal vote.

Unfortunately, in both situations, we have to work within the system that exists. If it ends up hinging on the superdelegates, I guarantee that there will be a push to change the way the votes are run.

Alex Shiplett said...

If you read the history of the superdelegates, you realize that it has swung from complete elite control, to majority popular control, and now sits in the middle.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superdelegates

afk said...

DISCLOSURE: I voted for Obama on Tuesday because I think he (1) his domestic and foreign policy proposals are superior to Clinton's, (2) I believe his temperment and judgment are superior to Clinton's, (3) I believe he will be able to push through progressive legislation much more expeditiously than Clinton for a host of reasons, and (4) I believe he is more electible in the general.

I don't even want to get into an argument here on the first three points above. I will just say that people should take a look at Obama's 64-page Blueprint for America, The Audacity of Hope, and the list of bills that Obama has sponsored (available at thomas.loc.gov).

On the fourth point -- electibility -- I reviewed the results from the 2004 election. There were eleven states decided by less than 5%: Wisconsin (Kerry by .67%); Iowa (Bush by .67%); New Mexico (Bush by .79%); New Hampshire (Kerry by 1.37%); Ohio (Bush by 2.11%); Pennsylvania (Kerry by 2.50%); Nevada (Bush by 2.59%); Michigan (Kerry by 3.42%); Minnesota (Kerry by 3.48%); Oregon (Kerry by 4.16%); and Colorado (Bush by 4.67%). Bush actually won Florida by 5.01%, and the next closest state was New Jersey, which Kerry won by 6.68%.

The first question we must ask ourselves is what the outcome in the eleven sub-5% states might be in 2008. Let's assume what I think most people assume: (1) Democratic turnout will be higher than in 2004, (2) GOP turnout will be greater if Clinton is the nominee, and (3) McCain will be more attractive to so-called independent voters than Bush was in 2004, and (4) in a battle with McCain, Obama will be more likely to peel these so-called independent voters away from McCain.

On these assumptions, if Obama is the nominee, I think the following is the likely scenario: (1) Wisconsin stays blue (Obama's greater appeal among independents keeps it blue); (2) Iowa becomes a coin toss; (3) New Mexico becomes a coin toss (remember that Obama did very well with Hispanics in New Mexico); (4) New Hampshire becomes a coin toss (McCain is a favorite son); (5) Ohio becomes a coin toss; (6) Pennsylvania stays blue; (7) Nevada becomes a coin toss; (8) Michigan stays blue; (9) Minnesota stays blue; (10) Oregon stays blue; (11) Colorado becomes a coin toss.

If Clinton is the nominee, I think the following is the likely scenario: (1) Wisconsin becomes a coin toss (John McCain's far greater appeal to independents compared to Clinton makes this a coin toss); (2) Iowa stays red (Clinton finished third in the caucus, and there's no reason to believe she could turn this from red to blue); (3) New Mexico becomes a coin toss (all those independents that turned out for Obama will disproportionately favor McCain over Clinton); (4) New Hampshire becomes a toin coss (John McCain is a favorite son); (5) Ohio becomes a coin toss; (6) Pennsylvania stays blue; (7) Nevada becomes a coin toss(remember, same deal as New Mexico); (8) Michigan stays blue; (9) Minnesota stays blue; (10) Oregon stays blue; (11) Colorado stays red (she showed minimal appeal in the primary).

Now, let's assume that Florida stays red regardless whether Obama or Clinton is the nominee (I think this is a fair assumption, particularly because McCain seems likely to choose Charlie Crist as his running mate). Let's also assume that there is none of the other states will switch colors; this assumption is fair given the vote margins in the prior election. I find slightly delusional the thought that Clinton could win Arkansas, or that McCain could somehow win California or New York. Arkansas has trended sharply conservative since 2000, and neither California nor New York have given any indication that they are in play. If somebody disagrees with me on these assumptions, please explain your thinking.

That means that, considering her "coin toss states" (Wisconsin, Ohio, New Hampshire, New Mexico, and Nevada) there are only three realistic combinations that could give Clinton win in the general depends upon: (1) Win Wisconsin, Ohio and New Hampshire,(2) Win Wisconsin, Ohio and New Mexico; (3) Win Wisconsin, Ohio, and Nevada, (4) Win Ohio, New Mexico, and Nevada; (5) Win Ohio, New Mexico, and New Hampshire (this would result in an exact tie in the electoral college).

Obama, by contrast, has several combinations among his "coin toss states" (Ohio, New Hampshire, New Mexico, Nevada, Iowa, and Colorado) that could propel him to victory: (1, 2, 3, 4, and 5) Win Colorado AND any three states out of Iowa, New Mexico, New Hampshire, and Nevada. (6) Win Ohio and New Hampshire. (7) Win Ohio and New Mexico. (8) Win Ohio and Nevada. (9) Win Ohio and Colorado. (10) Win New Hampshire, Colorado, and Nevada (electoral college tie).

Under this analysis, a Clinton victory is significantly less likely than an Obama victory. But let's assume you think that both Obama and Clinton would prevail in *all* of their coin toss states. My analysis suggests a far more significant Obama mandate.

Moreover, the prevailing wisdom is that Obama helps the down-ticket Democrats more than Clinton because Clinton would result in a greater GOP turnout. If the difference is even a handful of representatives and one or two senators, this could be significant for the Democrats ability to pass significant legislation.

Anonymous said...

Great analysis afk. Also note the national polls. One of the latest had Obama 7 points ahead of McCain and Clinton tied with McCain. That is pretty much the concensus among polls. All of them show Obama ahead of Clinton against McCain even if there is variation in how the Democrats match up.

This thing will come down to superdelegates - no doubt. However, I can't see a scenario where the pleadged delegate winner, regardless of who won what states, is not the nominee. There will be enormous pressure for superdelegates to support the delegate winner and not have it go to the convention. Not all, of course, will follow suit, but you would suspect a majority would - enough to give the delegate winner the nomination.

Anonymous said...

Listen...it's real simple. The superdelegates know they are going to pledge their vote to someone who can walk into the oval office and start cleaning up the Bush mess. Obama just likes to hear himself talk...I, quite frankly, am tired of hearing the same old crap. I think the whole CHANGE thing is ridiculous. Hillary or Obama will be change so that difference doesn't add up. Additionally, Obama says that Clinton's supporters will vote for him but his won't vote for her. As I recall they had a choice and he didn't get it. Most of his voters are heavily African American voters. Are you telling me that after everything the Clinton's have done for the African American community, they won't come out to support her? If that is the case...the saying must be true...NO GOOD DEED GOES UNPUNISHED.

jmr said...

I believe the super delegates can switch their alliegence at any time, so if the trend continues toward Obama some may come over

Adriana said...

If we want any chance to win the White House, we cannot run Hillary. Because we have not hit the general election yet, there has been little discussion of the "anti-Hillary" vote. Look, the uber-conservatives that put Bush into office have no love for McCain, but are likely to rally behind him to keep another Clinton out of office.

However, that hatred does not pass to Obama. Even Rush Limbaugh--the uber-conservatives' mouth piece--says that if Obama takes the nomination, the Republicans will lose. The conservatives will just sit this one out...we as Democrats should encourage that.

For my part...my primary is on Tuesday and I'll be voting for a candidate who can actually win the White House.

synkopen said...

I Totally Agree with afk's assessment. Nearly all the comments on this blog are "serious," with one exception. People like mister annonymous, who sticks out like a sore thumb with his blind, tawdry rants and misinformation (your basic: the only people who vote for Obama are black) are either hopeless racists, stealth republicans trying to poison a legitimate debate and push Hillary forward so McCain can win the keys, or a not very bright Clinton enthusiast who thinks he can dominate the debate here if he repeats his propaganda often enough.
A vote for Hillary now is a vote for McCain in the fall. And, for all you racists out there, a awful lot of white folks are voting for Obama. Great website; I appreciate all the work behind it.

Anonymous said...

afk said...
DISCLOSURE: I voted for Obama on Tuesday because I think he (1) his domestic and foreign policy proposals are superior to Clinton's,.

Haha - what a Joke.
Does BO have a Domestic Policy. Regarding Forgein policy talking to Iran and bombing Pakistan is bad forgein policy

CalGirl said...

Barbara Boxer of California stated before the primary that she would back the popular vote result. Does anyone know the status of this?

Karry said...

Thursday, February 07, 2008
Do Superdelegates vote the same as their constituents?

YES AND NO!!

I see the love affair with BO is ever present.

I see the Hillary Haters are in full swing as usual.

Whats New?? Oh Hi Dave, how are the figures coming along, got them yet?

Yes I voted for the Best Candidate for the WH. Hillary R. Clinton

EXPERIENCE. YES, HILLARY HAS !!!

Ben said...

Anonymous said

Haha - what a Joke.
Does BO have a Domestic Policy. Regarding Forgein policy talking to Iran and bombing Pakistan is bad forgein policy


1) Obama does not want to bomb pakistan
2) Yes, I do believe that Mr. BO has a domestic policy, one that has been called 95% similar to Clinton's.
3) I don't take advice from clowns who forget to add question marks after a question and spell the word foreign "forgein".

karry said...

CalGirl said...
Barbara Boxer of California stated before the primary that she would back the popular vote result. Does anyone know the status of this?

Hi CalGirl, just got home from work, was wondering that myself? Any News Dave?

What is noteworthy is that BB does not care what her constituents think, she making her mind up on the Winner, that suggests that she has chosen the Winner in CA.

CalGirl, Btw did you see Whoopi Goldberg announced that she voted for Hill's in CA on Feb 5 on the View?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vFtRo3RHpq8

Obviously she has the experience to research before making her vote count.

EXPERIENCE. YES, HILLARY HAS !!!

Ben said...

Karry,

You fail to see that your incessant spamming of every article on this blog of "EXPERIENCE, YES HILLARY CAN" with little to no intelligent analysis is the same behavior that you are attacking and results in three times as much Obama garbage.

Take a breather, turn off your caps lock, and try to express yourself without

EXPERIENCE, YES HILLARY CAN

karry said...

Ben, the question in this thread is

"Do Superdelegates vote the same as their constituents?"

Yes and No!! If review a large number of blog sites and News Threads, you would see that delegates are changing their minds. They in the end will vote for ever they choose or are told to vote for.

I read recently that even pledged delegates can change their minds and that includes at the convention.

If you review all the delegates listed how many are voting opposite to their constituents?

Finally you have an entire block of undecided who have not endorsed either candidate.

Regarding your comment I have not debated or drawn opinions I suggest that you have not been around to view my threads.

In addition, spamming, I see it is ok for the rant, 'yes we can', however I think you find it offensive that when I chose to shout in a clearly Obama dominated forum, that 'experience. yes hillary has!!!' you find that offensive.

I find the phrase 'yes we can' equally offensive when you do not have policies to back up your debates.

where is obama during all of the public debates? he has been invited to attend several, where is he to be seen?

i love to listen to debates, and take in a great deal of what is said. however if he fails to debate then what is he going to be like when he and if he is nominated. he is doing himself and his supporters a great disservice in not debating hillary.

what is going to happen Ben, when he has to go up again McCain in the Great Debates, he is not going to have 15,000 screaming away to add momentum to his speech. He has to do it in a quiet setting. without his adoring crowds he does poorly.

when you take the debate to hillary, she is often in debate chambers with many who dislike her but she still debates and debates well.

She has knowledge and experience that Obama does not have.

As an older woman myself, drawing from past experience provides you with many opportunities from which you can learn from mistakes.

there is nothing wrong with the past so long as you learn from it.

when i listen to dribble about living in the past and those who range looking to the future, I find that equally offensive. Those sort of comments turn me right off. from the past ben we have learned many great things. the future is unseen, and it has many courses, with knowledge of the past you can learn to try and navigate a little better your way through life.

and yes ben,

experience. yes hillary has!! thank god, someone has the past to draw upon to guide us through the difficult future we have to walk.

Also Ben when the vote was taken to go to war in Iraq, Obama was not even a member of the US Senate. If he was would have been interesting to view his viewpoint in the chamber when it came to vote.

also, note the differences in the number of votes attended, and the differences in voting along party lines between clinton and obama.

hmmmm.......

Matt said...

We're holding off on Boxer until she makes an actual endorsement.

Ben said...

Karry,

What in my post suggested to you that my problem with your commentary was your support for Sen. Clinton? I clearly said that your behavior "results in three times as much Obama garbage". I don't want to see YES WE CAN anymore than EXPERIENCE. YES HILLARY HAS. Please just try and not assume that everyone else are raving Obama supporters and would like to see Clinton die a slow, painful death as you did with myself. Less insults and more thinking results in a better argument.

karry said...

Matt said...
We're holding off on Boxer until she makes an actual endorsement.

thanks for the update, any idea or rumours as to when she is going to make her endorsement?

Jamie said...

The DNC presidential nomination process is either elitist, or its not. In this case, the answer is obvious. What I don't care for is the pseudo-democratic nonsense the party puts us through for 18 months, knowing that in the end, its what the 21 superdelegates from DC wants that counts. Why bother with primaries at all? Collect up all the political favors and see who wins.

A positive by-product of the increased public interest in the nomination process this year is that people are scrutinizing it, and seeing how badly it needs reform. This superdelegate issue is getting play in the mainstream media now (e.g., tonight's CBS evening news). Defend it if you will, but I say change is coming.

togo said...

The question of who is the best candidate against the Republicans is interesting, but is superseded by the question of who as president will be able to get important things done. There is nothing that unites the opposition more than the Clinton name. With Hillary as president I see more of what we have now, namely, gridlock. Even McCain offers a better choice for solving our problems and getting things done. Obama has the fresh face, fresh solutions, a persuasive personality and a proven record of being able to work with the opposition. I think the choice is very clear!

Rob said...

"Yes Hillary can?" "Time for a Change?" Can this woman come up with her own slogan's once in awhile?

Me said...

You guys are not giving Obama enough credit, he knew the rules of the superdelegates when this thing started.
Now the superdelegates are people too, and if you can convice more to vote for you then you win.

a conservative said...

Odd, I agree completely with Togo.
Some of my friends are elected officials here in Illinois (low level, just above dog catcher) Republicans who have worked with Sen Obama. They say, 'if you meet him you like him'! That is not to say we are voting for him.
I could have crossed over and I would have voted for Hilary because Mc Cain will beat her. I voted for Mac. Not so sure of the outcome in Mac vs Obama.
I want what is best for the USA, as I see it.

May the best man win.

MODERATE said...

I really liked Obama. But he seems so arrogant now. I didn't like what he said about the fact that he did not buy into the notion that Black youth had been replaced in jobs by the Latino worker. The way he said it seemed like he was just saying the black youth were lazy and did not want to work and not that they did not want to work for what the Latino would work for. I also relized that I don't really know anything about him and what he wants to change. He says he didn't vote for the war and was against it but he wasn't even a Senator when the vote came, so how does he know what he would have done under fire. He has always voted to fund it since he has been in the Senate. I do know that he has the most liberal record in the Senate and I don't think we need in extremes any more. I guess I'll just vote for McCain and hope we have a viable Democratic congress that can offset the war deal. At this point I really wish Ron Paul would run as an independent.

Anonymous said...

So if you want everyone to vote what their states say... So I guess that means that Sen. Kennedy, Sen. Kerry, and Gov. Patrick need to drop Sen. Obama since the Massachusetts primary was so lopsided.

bardradical said...

Anonymous, people like you are the reason I left the democratic party. I want to see an honest convention. Not this "unity for the sake of unity" BS.

concerned said...

Responding to Anonymous and several replies--

I'm an Obama supporter here in Utah. Utah Republicans voted 90% for Romney and 5% McCain. People in Utah do not like the Clinton or McCain name. Obama took the Democratic vote in Utah by a significant amount. A large majority of those Republicans who voted for Romney (30%) will NOT vote for McCain. Polls in the state indicate that 25% of the Romney voters will go to Obama, and that there are 30% undecided who very well could go for Obama. It is very possible that Utah will go Democratic in November if Obama is the Democratic choice. If Clinton is on the ballot, McCain will win because voters who are on the fence and who would have voted for Romney will vote for McCain and against Clinton. There is a lot of anti-Clinton mania here. I hear it every day. So

Vote
OBAMA and pick up Utah as a Democratic state.

Sarah said...

you all have been so hard at work with this reporting. I deeply appreciate your commitment to the democratic party and keeping us up to date with this information

Matt said...

Sarah - you're welcome!

Anonymous said...

I think Obama can pick up at least a few of the red states he won in the primary.

Even though Hillary won the non primary Florida. why should it count ? They knew the rules. She agreed to the rules. Then she wins and wants it to count . This is exactly why I don't want the Clintons in the white House
again .
In Michigan Hillary is the ONLY one who left her name on the ballot. Duh I guess she won since "other" was the other option . C'mon people just do this fairly .

If they want to have a do over fine . But let someone win fairly. Duh ! FAIR ? The Clintons will do anything and say anything to win. The laws don't apply to them (hey it's ok to lie to the grand jury.

People forget that the Clintons were part of the reason BUSH won !! Clinton was so unpopular when he left office Gore had to distance himself from Clinton during the campaign.

Anonymous said...

No i don't think they will vote with their state or district.

There will be nearly 3 months between the last primary and the convention.

So basically the superdelegates will be "bought" off -- big surprise, during the 3 months before the convention. POLITICIANS LIE AND CHEAT ? hmmmm Grow up . This election will be hijacked by party insiders.

Ammbassador to France ? no problem
You get the idea. Basically first we gave away the election to the Surpreme Court and now the DNC will RUIN this one for us.

kat said...

Speaking as a Black woman who's family tree is filled with the names of slaves who built this country as well as relatives who laid their lives on the line to fight for civil rights and whose oldest brother was killed in the Korean War, I am enraged at the mere thought of a group of hispanics (who know nothing about the lynchings, water hoses,and rabid dogs,etc. my people encountered on a daily basis) voting to stop Sen.Obama from becoming this country's first Black president. If Latinos prove to be the reason for Sen.Obama failing to become the democratic nominee they are going to regret it. WHAT GOES AROUND COMES AROUND! There is already talk of boycotting their businesses. Why should we give our money to a group of people who discriminate against us? While they were laying up under their coconut trees my brother was being shot to death in a country half way around the world, figthing for this country that still had "for white only" signs all over the south. My other two brothers had to go to the back of the bus IN THEIR AIRFORCE UNIFORMS when they got to Florida back in 1955. Mind you, they had already lost their oldest brother in Korea. I cannot even begin to artculate the anger that is brewing in the black community. Just weeks age we watched Bill Clinton show his a-- in So.Carolina and now we have to deal with racist latinos? Give me a break! This country is in so much trouble, if I could I would relocate all of my people to the other side of the hemisphere until this country implodes. And to "Anonymous", Sen.Obama has to face death threats every day.He never complains about it and he darn sure doesn't cry about it. You,however, don't have the guts to even sign you name.How pathetic!

HUNTER S THOMPSON said...

Here is the choice that the "Supers" must make:

1) Make Hillary the Democratic Nominee. Hillary's political ceiling is too low, and through their own arrogance they will concede the general election to McCain. Hillary could run against any Republican and she would lose horribly. The only party she can unite is the Republican party.

2) Make Obama the Democratic Nominee. If the Dems want to win the general election, this is the only option that makes sense.

And one question:

If none of the delegates, super or otherwise, are bound to vote in line with their state's primaries or caucuses, why does CNN or MSNBC even bother with delegate counts? They may as well be reading tarot cards to predict this thing.

All I know is that Obama has won nearly TWICE as many states as Clinton. That is a fact that is not disputable.

Angie said...

I believe it's important for the superdelegates to follow the lead of the country. As for now:

Who's won the most states: Obama
Who's in the lead with pledged delegates: Obama
Who's in the lead for total votes through-out the nations so far: Obama
Who's in the lead in comparison polls against the likely Republican nominee, McCain: Obama

I think it's only right for the superdelegates to follow suit with the country. Now, the numbers above might change in Hillary's favor after the continuing primaries, and then it will become very tricky for the superdelegates. However, if they remain as they are stated above, I think it's unwise for the superdelegates to vote in someone who didn't lead the country's democratic vote. There very well may be an uproar (a la '68).

Lem_in_Japan said...

Has anyone noticed? Senator Clinton's last couple of speeches sounded like VP speeches on behalf of Senator Obama. Has some back room analysis all ready decided which way the super delegates are going to be ask to lean based on winning the general election? Only time will tell. But if it walks like a duck and talks like a duck, it is probably a duck.

Kyle J said...

Most of the superdelegates will back whoever ends up with the majority of the pledged delegates. If they don’t, a majority of Democrats will be irate.

Think about the following scenarios:

1) Barack wins a majority of the pledged delegates, but the superdelegates give the victory to Hillary. Anyone who voted for Barack will be infuriated. Many, if not most, of the new Democrats (former Independants and Republicans) - like me :) - will quit the party as quickly as they joined. African Americans will conclude that party leaders are racists. Any ties between the Clintons and African Americans will be permanently severed. Moderates Democrats will be angry and vote for McCain. With the party so fractured, McCain will easily win.

2) Hillary wins a majority of the pledged delegates, but the superdelegates give the victory to Barack. Anyone who voted for Hillary will be infuriated. Hillary’s voters include much of the Democratic base. It would be terrible for the Democratic Party to piss off their most loyal voters. Barack would go into the general election with a sizable chunk of disenfranchised Democrats. Many will be so shocked, that they won’t vote. Again, with the party fractured, McCain will win.

The GOP salivates while thinking of the scenarios above as either situation would significantly damage the party for a long time to come and hand the victory to the GOP in ’08.

On the contrary, if Barack or Hillary wins with majorities of both pledged delegates and superdelegates, supporters of the losing candidate will only be discouraged (it sucks, but it’s true … someone will lose a fairly close race). The winner will need to work hard to unify the party prior to the general election, but this should be achievable once Dem v. McCain campaigning really kicks in.

Shell said...

my vote here in Michigan doesn't count - for now- I would be happy for a do over, not happy with leaving the results the way they are. I'm white, I have been an independent voter since I was 18, and I'm a woman - but I'm not voting Hillary. If Hillary gets the nomination, I will vote Republican, even if it is Huckabee. There are many reasons to this, but mostly because she did not follow the others and remove her name from the ballot in Michigan, she chose to leave her name which gave us a choice between her and uncommitted. So for her to claim that she won Michigan and now the delegates should be counted is extremely unfair. If Obama had left his name on the ballot, the results would definately be different. As far as Mr. Anonymous goes, it's racists like you that make white people like me look so bad. I'm white, and I'm voting for Obama, because I'm voting for the person for the job, not because I'm a woman or the color of my skin - and many people feel this way. Finally, if Hillary wants all of these great things to happen and she has so much "experience" by being the first lady, then why didn't she make anything happen when she was the first lady? Her health care plan completely flopped then, what makes anyone think it's any better now?

Michael said...

Kat,

I appreciate your anger but wanted to let you know something about the experience of some of my family.

My wife is a Latina (I am Anglo). Her parents were born and grew up here in Texas. They were not allowed to speak Spanish in school under any circumstance, were not allowed to sit in the lower levels of a movie theater with whites or use the same bathrooms and subjected to all sorts of vile discrimination.

(For historical context on these matters, you might want to research the name Gregorio Cortez.)

Anyway, with that history, my in-laws raised their daughters without teaching them Spanish and there was no question the girls were going to attend college. Both are graduates and successful but both have always been derided as "coconuts" (brown on the outside and white on the inside) by some in "the community".

All of her adult life, my wife has voted Republican. She's a small business owner and has always bought into the stated (but not practiced) values of the right.

Not this time. She's sick of the Republican pandering on illegal immigration, sick of the war she does not want our boys to fight, sick of the financial mismanagement of our government and, most importantly, sick of identity politics and the division within the United States.

She wants to vote for someone who inspires her to a higher calling - to be a united American, regardless of race, economic background, education level or religion.

She will vote for Barack Obama.

tara said...

@ hunter s thompson...

"obama has won more states..."

so? that doesnt mean a thing... should rhode island carry as much weight as cali or florida or tx???

can you please put the kool aid down, take off the ose colored glasses and at least try to make sense.

hank said...

Tara,

Obama WON MORE VOTES. How can we as dems cry about Al gore getting the popular vote and still continue such a backwards and undemocratic tradition in our own party? The delegate idea is just plain silly. Time to give the power back to the people.

I realize the party elites think the average voter is a dummy, but then again they're probably the types who'd euthanize the handicapped.

hank said...

Kat,

I might add to your narrative that many of these Hispanic voters are relatively new to the USA. I am sure that many aren't even LEGAL citizens. Glad to see people motivated to participate, but you should at least have deep roots in your community and by that I mean at least be bilingual.

I lived in China for a couple of years and spoke broken Mandarin. Unfortunately, they don't have the vote, but even if they had I would never consider myself qualified to participate in such matters.

Kyle J said...

http://blogs.abcnews.com/matthewdowd/2008/02/opinion-obama-w.html

DaxDiamond said...

I note that there is a spacing problem for MD and MA that cuts off a digit.

If this is in a spreadsheet, you might consider adding a total line.

For the SD tracking in the left sidebar, a total would be useful, so we can see where we are relative to 720-796.

DaxDiamond said...

Matt, I am making a lot of suggestions. I know your resources are limited and you can not do everything. Just throwing out ideas.

Some SDs may be waiting to see how their state/district goes. Others are waiting to see how the nation goes. I think it would be useful to track the % that have committed, grouped by when their state's primary/caucus occurred.

Example - group states into 4 categories - pre-superT, superT, post superT results in, no results in. Then show % of SDs in each group that has committed.

This might shed some light on how many are waiting for their states results, and whether % increases if more time has elapsed since their primary.

mali said...

It is really Simple, Clinton has won almost all the states that Democrats need to win in November; CA, NY, MA TN, NM, FL, MI...(OK the last 2 we don't know will count or not). Obama has won small sates that he will never win against Republican candidate. Within these small states, small percentage of people have shown up in mostly caucuses and some primaries. Superdelegates have a real responsibility to look at the National Presidential election and cast their votes with their head following logic. We need a real leader to fix this country and at the time that people are losing homes, jobs and honor, they can't fall sleep, much less dream!

Kyle J said...

Mali,

With all due respect, we need to be able to dream especially when circumstances are tough. Should Martin Luther King, Jr. not have dreamed? His situation was far more perilous than ours today.

On your other point, I think Barack can win a lot of red states. I’m a white, 25-old, male from Kansas. I was Republican until 1 week ago when I registered as a Democrat to support Barack. My parents and my brother did the same and a LOT of people in Kansas and other red states have too. This sounds crazy, but he could actually win Kansas. I and many other Obama supporters will absolutely campaign our butts off for him in the Midwest.

The facts:
Obama vote in Kansas on Feb 5th - 27,172
All Republicans combined in Kansas on Feb 9th – 19,133

Further, Huckabee won Kansas due to the Evangelical vote. He will not will the GOP nomination and many Evangelicals will stay home in November.

Kyle J said...

Mali,

Sorry, one more thing. Who says dreams and results are mutually exclusive?

mali said...

Dear Matt and Oreo,
Thank you for providing this great website. I use it daily. I think it is fair to move the non superdelegate conversation to another link. I do find it interesting that until just recently, when some of Sen. Clinton's supporters added their comments to this website, you decide to move the conversation else where. Up until yesterday, Obama people were commenting heavily and it was not a problem. A quick read of the blog will support my point.
It is your website and you do what you wish with it. Thanks again for your good work.

Anonymous said...

one posted that Obama had about the same votes as McCain and Romney but what they did not include is when you do that you need to take approx 1/2 of Clinton's vote also as they will slide over to the other side.

Chris said...

I don't understand why everyone is making a big deal about Clinton winning Florida. Florida didn't count in the primary, ergo no one stumped there.

Obviously Clinton was going to win Florida. At the time, Obama was still and unknown and considered a non-threat. If the Primaries were held in Florida next week, after seeking Obama sweep the Potomac, the previous weekend caucuses, and win more states than Clinton on Super Tuesday, I'm pretty sure Obama would have won, or it would have been closer to 50/50.

Saying that Clinton won all the big states is irrelevant. Whoever the Dem candidate is will win California. End of argument. Whoever is Dem will also take most of the NE and NW. So Clinton's wins in NY, Cal, Mass, etc are irrelevant. What is relevant is the fact that Obama has done well in the South and the Mid-west, where Clinton did not. Dems will rally behind Obama when he wins, and he has already proven to inspire swing voters to back him, as the open primaries have shown.

So stop with the "Clinton is the only viable candidate" nonsense. That is a faulty assumption!

dwit said...

Mali,

I am an Obama supporter and I can tell you that Matt and Oreo have DELETED many of my posts because they were in the wrong thread. I don't see that as particularly helpful in promoting dialogue, but they get paid to keep it clean here.

Not to mention that most of the Clinton supporters are freaking out. If Clinton followers are any indication of her character, I am more sure than ever that Obama is the right candidate for President.

dwit said...

Anon said:

"one posted that Obama had about the same votes as McCain and Romney but what they did not include is when you do that you need to take approx 1/2 of Clinton's vote also as they will slide over to the other side."

Come on now. Obama has independents in his camp and when Edwards comes out in his favor he will have ALL of them.

Clinton plays to party insiders and those afraid of change, but never does she play to conservative independents. I think as one of them I have a pretty good vantage point on this one.

mali said...

dear dwit,
I support Sen. Clinton and I am not freaking out, but thank you for your concern.
Re your postings being taken off, I can neither prove or disprove that. What i do know is that many supporters of Sen. Clinton including myself have been harassed by NObama people, they have been putting trash next to my Hillary yard sign (and we live in a very nice part of the Bay Area), have been called names on BART, and even confronted for wearing a Hillary T-shirt. I am confident that Sen. Clinton will be the dem's candidate for president, but just in case she is not, after voting democratic all my life will not vote for a candidate that inspires anarchy. I assure you harassing Sen. Clinton's supporters will not make them want them to vote for your guy. This by the way is not an isolated incident and it has been covered in print media as well as TV.

dwit said...

Mali,

People are angry with career politicians right now. Unfortunately, Hillary fits that description. If Hillary wins we will have been ruled by a Bush or Clinton for 24 YEARS! That is more than half my life.

I live in Seattle (San Francisco North) and I have never seen the kind of behaviour you speak of. In fact this has been the most inspiring and uplifting race I have ever seen. Though on caucus day I did hear a news story about angry Hillary supporters ranting about how Obama has stole her thunder.

For the first time in 30 years Dems are raising more money than the Republicans. I'm just glad we have two solid candidates running.

History in the making; a black man and a woman. Wow! I never thought I'd see it. I am just stoked!

I just think Obama has a better chance against McCain and the polls (for what they're worth) agree with me. She and McCain are just too similar on foreign policy and illegal immigration. These are two hot button issues among independents right now.

It aint over though, so Obama supporters get out there and make your voice heard!

Anonymous said...

No way do the Superdelegates vote for Hill over Obama, no matter how close the tally is. All Obama needs to do is say definitively he will not serve as VP for her, and float a rumour McCain has inquired about him being VP. Then when he is questioned on it, instead of the definitive "I WON'T" that he gives to the Hillary ticket, he plays the typical coy I won't comment, or they haven't contacted me. They'll flock to him so quick they'll generate hurricane force winds making Katrina look like a gentle breeze.

dwit said...

Another reason I am voting for Obama over McClinton is that it will do wonders for our reputation abroad.

As a man who spent some of his childhood abroad, he is familiar with other cultures and their way of thinking. When it comes time to negotiate sensitive matters he will have the empathy to succeed where hardliners like Clinton and McCain will not.

He will do wonders for our reputation with regard to people of color in general.

Clinton has clearly posted herself in the Israel Camp, so she will have little credibility when it comes time to deal with the ME issue.

Obama will be seen as a chance for a new beginning by other leaders around the world and will be more willing to give the US the benefit of the doubt as a result.

GO OBAMA!

Tina said...

I find it disturbing that Sen. Obama continues to talk about "change".....However, never has he stated anything that describes what that change will be. In addition, his unrealistic approach in stating that if elected he will begin immediate troop removal is unrealistic. I would say that if he had more experience he would realize how unrealistic that is. Not to mention he is making promises that he cannot keep....which makes him no different than every other politician who makes promises and does not follow through.

I will say this. If Sen. Obama becomes the democratic nominee. I will vote for John McCain.

Chaz said...

I do not believe Barack Obama can win a general election against John McCane.

I am a registered republican, but support Hillary Clinton in this election because I firmly believe she has the experience, ability and determination to bring about the change our country so desperately needs at this time.

If Hillary becomes the Democratic Presidential Nominee, I will vote for her in the General Election. If Barack becomes the Demontratic Presidential Nominee, I will then vote for John McCane.

I believe what our country needs first and foremost is a leader with experience, not a nice man with ideas. Barack Obama is a nice man filled will great ideas for our future, but in his campaign I see/hear a great speaker, but one who seems to be more like a follower when it comes to having the likes of Ted Kennedy and Oprah Winfrey standing at HIS podium giving speeches.

He has become popular, but is he popular because of anything he has done, or is he popular because Oprah Winfrey and Ted Kennedy support him?

I'm convinced if Obama ever made it to the White House, what we'd really end up with is a Kennedy puppet, who will do exactly as the Old Boys (Democratic) Club dictates.

Hillary, on the other hand, would tell the Old Boys where they can stuff it!

A nice ticket would be Hillary with Obama as her running mate. That I could deal with. But Obama for President would be a BIG BIG mistake for our country!

Chaz said...

In reply to Tina -

It is refreshing to see others who can see past the rhetoric of Obama's campaign!

No one gave a hoot about Obama until Oprah Winfrey publicly announced her support for him. I'm convinced a big percentage of people who have voted for him so far were really only voting for Oprah, or supporting her candidate without paying much attention to the mans ability to actually be President.

I, as an American, would be very insecure if Sen Obama made it to the White House. I fear he'd make our nation's problems worse then they already are due to his inexperience.

Hillary has a track record to bringing about change, and for fighting the status-quo in Washington. In 1992, when Bill Clinton was elected, as I recall, Bill Clinton was the very first President in my lifetime who actually attempted to come through on his campaign promises to the people of this country.

The Clintons have a history of being true to the public, and I am convinced Hillary will come through for us if she makes it to the White House.

I don't see Hillary giving her podium up to her celebrity supporters, but I do see Obama doing it regularly. That does not sit well with me. If he's the one running for office, and it's his rally/campaign, why is he standing aside to let Oprah speak for him, or Ted Kenndy or Caroline Kennedy or Maria Shriver, while he stands in THEIR shadow at HIS rally?

When I see that I see of glimpse of our future should he become President. We don't need a "yes" man who will do the bidding of Ted Kennedy or other senior Senators in Washington. We need a Leader who will stand on their own two feet and take responsibility!

Of the three potential Presidents we now see John McCane, Hillary Clinton, and Barack Obama - There are only two who have the backbone to Lead - that being John and Hillary. Barack does not.

Rod said...

In response to Shell from Michigan:

Shell, I support Hillary for exactly the same reason you do not.

The fact that Hillary chose to leave her name on the ballet tells me she is fighting for ME to have MY voice heard.

Regardless of the reasons the DNC chose to not count the Michigan and Florida delegates is BS from a citizens point of view. Why shouldn't my vote count if I live in Florida or Michigan? I am an American, and I don't care about the political BS that caused these two states to NOT BE HEARD.

Hillary is clearly against that decision, and she was against it before she had any idea if she would do better or worse then Obama in those states.

That's a clear sign that Hillary, and NOT Obama, is the candidate who truly goes against the status-quo. Obama supported that decision and didn't care if our voices were heard or not. Hillary went against that decision and DOES CARE if we are heard or not.

Shell, you really need to learn to read between the lines on some of the nonsense going on in these campaigns.

CNN unfairly supports Obama over Clinton - Why? Because CNN is influenced by Washington, and the STATUS-QUO that Obama claims he is so much against, but it seems to me that all those STATUS-QUO old political figures are supporting Obama and NOT supporting Clinton.

That clearly tells me which candidate the status-quo fears, and which one they don't fear. They don't fear Obama because they know they can control him. They do fear Clinton because they know they can't control her, and she will go about attempting to bring about the changes the People desire!

So if you want change, the only change we are going to ever see will only occur if Hillary Clinton becomes President.

And, once again, opposite of what you say, if Hillary wins the nomination I will vote for Hillary in the General Election. If Obama gets the Demoncratic Nomination then I will vote for John McCane.

I am a black professional man. Unfortunately, as much as I hate to say this, from people I know and who I spoke to, Obama is getting the larger percentage of black voters simply because he is black, and not due to anything he is campaigning for. The average black who is voting for Obama has absolutely no idea, nor do they care where he stands on any issues. What they are voting for a to have the first black President, regardless if the man is qualified or not.

I know that sounds awlful, but Im afraid it's true in a big percentage of the black votes Obama is getting. Certainly not with all, but definitely with a large portion.

As an American that frightens me, and I can say that because I am black, and am simply pointing out a fact.

Anonymous said...

In response to previous posts by Mali ...

I too have experienced the bashing by Obama's people for being a Clinton supporter. It is in very bad taste!

Obama has always been the "first" to sling mud at Hillary. Anything the Clinton's have said negative of Obama has always been in retaliation for the mud slinging he himself started.

His wife Michele was the first of anyone to go to South Carolina to begin campaigns. She began at a rally saying (in reference to Hillary) - "If you can't control your own house, how are you going to control the White House?" - This was a direct attack on the Monica Lewinski issue of the mid-1990's.

I thought it was a pretty pathetic thing to say. First of all, if anything, it would appear to me that after that incident Hillary did a pretty damn good job cleaning up her house. The Clinton's are a shining example of a perfect American family today. And President Clinton is Hillary's strongest support and biggest defender. I think that proves she cleaned house, and made her family stronger in spite of the incident.

It was that speech that totally turned me off Obama ... And it was shortly after that that I began experiencing the same kind of bashing by Obama's people that has mentioned.

I pray for the sake of all Americans, that Hillary Clinton wins the democratic nomination. If she does not, we are guaranteed four more years of BS in Washington, whether Obama or McCane wins the General Election.

However, of those two choices, McCane would be the better of the two evils in my opinion.

Anonymous said...

If nothing else it is great to see so many people excited about this year's elections; however, I feel the need to address the African American gentleman who has decided to decry that "most" Blacks are voting for Obama because of the color of his skin.

Unlike some people, it made more sense to do some educational comparison of the two candidates that we have available. As each of you are noting the points for one or the other, no one seems to think that name recognition plays a part for one of them.

After spending time reading both of their platforms, I switched from supporting Hillary and moved to the Obama side. I had and still have a great respect for our past president, Clinton; however, I do not have that same admiration for his wife.

She continues to point out her level of experience. She initially spouted that she had 35 years of experience but after enough people asked how she was getting to that number, she has since changed that number to 15.

Although we are continuously mislead, lied to, manipulated by and connived by politicians; this was an important show of integrity for me.

Someone made note earlier that Obama speaks of change. The change he refers to is "we the people" holding ourselves and our government accountable for what happens to our part of the world. We have been followers for centuries. We have succumbed to the idea that our leaders (who we placed in the position) know what is best for us.

Well history continuously shows us that they don't. They continue to display acts of greed, lack of humility and little to no integrity. Obama is giving us the chance to say "Enough!"

We want to believe that if Hillary is placed in the White House, we will benefit like we did when Bill was there. How do we know? Bill Clinton had and still has the same time of charisma and personality that Obama displays. Hillary on the other hand does not show that.

During Bill's tenure, our country had to deal with deadlocked congress, proposed health plans that never came into fruition (Hillary's idea) and shortly after 9/11 we found out that Bill's administration knew before it happened that we had been threatened.

Hillary wants us to believe that she will step up and all the old guard will - what disappear? They aren't going anywhere because we will probably not change any of them. Yet at the same time, the bulk of the old guard would prefer her since she is a part of the status quo.

While everyone is busy mudslinging amongst the candidates and now the campaigners, we are losing focus of what we all as Americans say we want. Make up your minds, do you just want a Democrat in the White House for Democrat's sake, or do you want someone in there that will consider all of us as opposed to a select few?

dwit said...

Chaz/Rod,

I thought every one was savvy enough to know that both candidates will pretty much be choosing from the same pool of cabinet candidates.

The big difference will be in leadership. Hillary has made some pretty silly mistakes in judgment over her career and makes no apologies for them.

And frankly, its not like Obama hasn't spent time in Washington. I would also argue that he has more foreign policy experience than she, simply because he has lived abroad.

It wasn't until I lived in Asia that I understood what motivated them on a daily basis.

If you've ever seen the documentary "The Fog of War" You will recall the scene where McNamara is describing a post Vietnam meeting with his former North Vietnamese counterpart and he discovers that the Vietnamese were never interested in Communism as much as they were in self determination.

He also goes on to say that had Kennedy lived the Vietnam situation never would have progressed into a full blown war. And Kennedy was a relative greenhorn in politics.

It was the seasoned LBJ that expanded that war despite the advice of McNamara and others. Hell, he had nearly 30 years under his belt in Washington.

I'm just fine with Obama. And so what if people vote for him because he identifies as African American. Hillary supporters here have often mentioned how proud they are to see a WOMAN as a serious candidate.

hank said...

I've been sitting back for a while and looking at all of you make your arguments for and against one candidate or the other.

Pretty sure most of the posters here are staffers.

Bottom line, is that BOTH Clinton and Obama are fantastic candidates and either would make a wonderful president compared to what we have seen over the past 8 years.

I am more concerned about Congress. Without a progressive House and Senate the, Presidential race is a moot issue. That would simply mean more gridlock.

We have got to spend time getting to know the progressive candidates from our respective states this year and start working to get them in office!

We've already got two top notch people heading into the convention. Vote your conscience and let the chips fall where they may.

And for the love of all that is holy, VOTE DEMOCRAT IN NOVEMBER!

Anonymous said...

I Am A Democrat, Have Been For About 20 Years, I Have Loyally Voted Democrat, Even Fanatically Choosing Not To Vote For County Positions Like Clerks, Who Happen To Be An Unopposed Republican.

Now That I Got That Out Of The Way Here Is What I Think, I Will Vote For John McCain If This Delegation Elects Barack Obama The Nominee!

I Am Not Comfortable With Barack Obama On National Security, Or Commander In Cheif Issues!

I DO NOT WANT HIM TO HOLD THE NUCLEAR FOOTBALL!

Hillary Clinton Is Just Liberal Enough For Me Like Many In Rural Areas, Like Upstate New York Where I Live!

I Have Seen Earlier A Post Which Suggested McCain May Cut A Path Across BLUE STATES, Well My Feeling Is If Barack Is The Nominee He Will Have To Fight HARD To Hold Onto My State Of New York, And Along With Those It Is Legitimate To Assume Florida Will Fold To McCain When They Remember How Obama SHUTS OUT THE FLORIDA VOTERS AND THEIR RESPECTIVE DELEGATES!

I Personally Have 1 Vote But Mine Is An Opinion Which I Know Will Multiply Like A Back-lash If States Like freakin Idaho Decide The Democratic Nominee!

Superdelegates Should Be Wise To Head The Warning Of The BLUE STATE BASE!

In Any Event If Barack Wins By Shutting Out Florida And Michigan Voters I Will Register Independant And I Will Be Lost To The Reach Of Democrats For Votes This November!

dwit said...

Anon,

Who cares about New York? Your state's constituents along with those in California have been running our party for a long time now and look where it has gotten us. Just love your work in Iraq and Palestine.

I think its time to turn the machine on its head and it is states like Idaho, Washington, Nevada and Oregon that have done just that.

Finally! Our votes out West count for something. This is the way democracy works. ALL registered voters get to have their say.

Obama understood this from the outset of his campaign. Its time to break the oligarchy you guys have created over the last half century.

dwit said...

And have you seen Obamas neck? I have a feeling he'd have a hard time lifting a regular football, let alone one with a nuclear warhead in it.

olestuff said...

Which candidate has consistently demonstrated commitment, hard work, efficiency, and accountability. How can one be held accountable for rhetoric and not solutions? How can one be held accountable for generalities and not specifics?

Hillary Clinton is this candicate. She has repeatedly drawn to her the lower income, less privileged, least educated people in our country. Those are the ones who most need help. It is her message of specifics, not rhetoric that has given these voters hope.

In addition, it would be political suicide for the fall election not to count the votes in MI and FL. Those are two states democrats must carry to win!

Having a “do over” in the form of a caucus because it’s cheaper for the state party or a full fledged primary after all other states have voted would be both unwise and unfair. It would create havoc in the national party, not to mention the electorate at large.

From the outside, this appears to many like a power struggle within the DNC: “We told you not to do it, you did it anyway, so we’re going to punish you”!! Who is the “you” being punished? The decision makers in the state party structure or the people of the state and nation???

Prove to the nation that the Democratic Party IS the party of the people by seating the delegates of MI and FL and allowing them to cast their vote for their states’ preference. To do anything less would be “undemocratic”.

subodh said...

Superdelegates were created to give sanity to the primary process. Hillary is winning all the big states and that is where democrats always win. It should be a Hillary /Obama ticket and we can then beat the republicans hands down. Obama is not ready yet . After 8 years he will be ready. He needs to wait his turn. Like Reagon did, like Nixon did. He is still a trainee. Look at his web site . It looks like it was made by a graduate student. Compare it with Hillary Clinton's web site and you can tell who will do a better job of running the country.

jeffmcneill said...

Add one more to the Clinton column for Hawaii, as listed on the committed page, DNC Richard Port http://www.honoluluadvertiser.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080210/NEWS05/802100359/1001/NEWS05

olestuff said...

Subodh, I could not agree with you more!

luxie said...

The comments on this blog are interesting to say the least. Are you democrats or independents? If your guy/gal doesn't win you are voting for McCain or independent. Talk about disenfranchised. The republicans are counting on this type of non-unified mindset. The bottom line is the super delegates should vote for the candidate their constituents selected. Since the democrats split everything according to popular vote, the super delegates should split accordingly. I am from MI and the whole thing makes me sick. We couldn't even vote for Obama or Edwards. We had to vote "noncommitted" which is a lot of crap. Many committed voters didn't vote in the primary because 1. we couldn't even write our candidates name in it wouldn't count and 2. our votes weren't going to count in the long run anyway. Now Clinton wants them to count. Rules are rules and if you agreed to them at the onset, it speaks volume to your character when you change your mind with 3 seconds left in the game and in field goal position for the win, which is what will happen if MI and FL super delegates are sat.

If you're a democrat then be a democrat. Fight for your candidate to the end, but in the end accept what the majority chose. That is the democratic way.

Matt said...

Richard Port (HI) is already on the list for Clinton.

MommaKat said...

I find most of the comments on this blog baffling. I see many calls for bloggers / voters to do their research followed by claims of experience or lack there of by certain candidates. Likewise, there are many comments about rhetoric verses solution focused.

A couple things to think about when posting these remarks. State what you consider to equate or constitue experience, even have some specific examples. When you claim that your candidate has more detailed solutions, make sure you can back that up. Lastly, don't stereotype and box people in with over reaching statements such as low income people, women, or latinos. They don't fit, and those of us who fall into those arbitrarily constructed boxes don't appreciate it.

I spent a full year researching the candidates, their stances on issues that affect me, and looking up their voting records both as US Senators (Library of Congress online) and as State Senators if that shoe fits. I also looked into their education backgrounds, what they did after college with their legal careers and political careers.

I am a single mom with an annual income of less than $12K per year, I hold a Bachelor's degree in a field I can no longer work in due to an injury. I have volunteered my time as a bilingual tutor, a children's advocate and a women's advocate. I mention these because people like myself are being pigeonholed as women who vote for Sen. Clinton. I did not.

At the end of my research, after speaking with or listening to local politicians and national polticians, after reading the text of the resolution to authorize the use of force in Iraq and the full text of both Sen. Clinton's and Sen. Obama's speeches on the resoltuion and the ammendements to that resolution, after carefully reading both health care plans and the independent analysis of Sen. Obama's health plan, I made my own educated decision.

It is clear to me after reading the detailed plans (or not so detaied) on each of the candidate's web sites, and researching the implications both nationally and personally, that Sen. Obama will do more for our country as a whole, and to create a community where I can truly achieve my personal goal of self sufficiency and truly support my family.

My research led to my understanding of when the DNCC set the rules for delegate selection which includes allowable dates of primaries / caucuses for the states and the plan for how people become delegates (8/06), the deadline for states to submit their state rules for delegate selection (5/07), the penalty for states failing to follow the rules outlined, and when and how both Florida and Michigan violated those rules. It is VERY interesting to realize that all states were given the DNC rules in August of 06 and had until May of 07 to submit their Plan for Delegate selection, that Florida voted on a bill to move the date of its presidential preference primary AFTER that 5/07 deadline with full awareness of the fact that the minimum penalty to be imposed was clearly defined as loss of 50% of the delegates, and could be increased. Michigan didn't followed suit, but not until November of 07, knowing full well that Florida had already been penalized, and to what extent. The research reveals WHY states try to move up their primaries, the political and economic motivations behind doing so, and why the DNC is in a position of having to mitigate that temptation. The people of Michigan and Florida need to hold accountable their state legislators for this problem, not one of the candidates or the DNC.

For Hilary Clinton to try to have the delegates from these state reinstated without some sort of do over contest speaks loudly to many of us about the type of president she will be for our country. She, as a member of the DNC and as a candidate, agreed that the rules were valid, that the states should be penalized for their actions, and even verbally agreed to the sanctions the candidates were asked to follow. For her to then leave her name on the ballot in Michigan and then request those delegates be seated in her favor is unconscionable and shows us that Sen. Clinton feels she can decide when and if the rules apply to her.

Ellen K said...

Can you imagine the dismay of Obama's supporters if his lead in the popular vote is overturned by political fiat? Imagine how they would pass without voting in November due to lack of trust for a political party that is far more interested in the status quo. I don't have a dog in this hunt and I am not particularly partial to anyone running currently. But I would much rather see a liberal without the political baggage go against a conservative than have another series of Clintonesque self-serving policies put into play.

Jorge Daniel said...

Here is a question I can't seem to find an answer to, and along with it a comment.

Is the Superdelegate vote SECRET? Let remember, even though superdelegates have said they will vote one way or another, what holds them back from changing. If they commited long ago, they could now change their vote based on how the primary election has evolved.

My sense is that there will be A LOT of pressure for the SDs to vote for OBAMA, and that none will want to vote otherwise if the public knows there vote, BUT if they believe Hilary can beat MCCAIN, and the vote is secret, what's stopping them from switching sides in the darkness of the election booth??????? If it is secret, I wouldn't be surprized with an unanticipated Hilary Sweep. Why else is she hanging on? The CLINTONS are EXTREMELY SAVELY POLITICIANS and they know how this works, perhaps they have some thoughts on how a secret vote to win the whitehouse (and not theprimaries) really works out. Someone please shed some light for me!? jdtaillant@gmail.com

Jorge Daniel said...

Everyone keeps talking about the undecided Superdelegates. Well, what about the ones that HAVE decided, since in fact THEY HAVE NOT decided until they decide, which is when they vote. WHat's the chance of a switch vote at the end???? Many decided long ago, and many things have changed! See my next comment and question.

Jorge Daniel said...

So here is my call. Obama must understand that he will not beat MCCAIN. If he's a real politician, which I have no doubt he is (despite his rhetoric - how else do you write off the Reverend !?) then he will understand that it is far more important that he become the First Vice President of the United States under Hilary as pres, than loose the White to McCain. Let's be real, and policians usually are too real. Hilary is the only viable candidate to break the loosing streak!

Jorge Daniel said...

Sorry for the typos above, rushing. But my point above is simply, OBAMA stands a much greater chance to become the first Black Vice President, than he does President. If he is the democratic candidate, my call is that he loses to McCain. The superticket Hilary/Obama (not the other way around), is the sure shot bet to win back the White House. Wake up and smell the flowers! The media hype around OBAMA is just that, media hype, and Americans love media hype and are extremely gullible believing it, and then reality hits them smack in the face. How else does Bush get reelected if everyone hated him so much. Get real! What happened with Kerry, Gore. Let's face it, the Dems need a victory, and we need the warmongers out of the oval office. Halliburton have made enough money with the Bush Family, which let's not forger, is friends with the Binladens. The last thing we need is wishful thinking about a Cinderalla Kid like Obama, which frankly is not cut for too many white Americans. This wasn't a White/Black race until it became one, for whatever reason. The Obama speech on the racial devide, was perhaps the best public speech ever made about the issue, but it put the issue smack in the middle of the election, and the 42 point spread at West Virginia, shows exactly how white America feels about the possibility of a Black President. Choosing Obama is probably what's right, morally, but it will also mean for the Dems to sit it out another 4 years, god forbid, 8! Politics are not about moral ethics, feel good candidates, or media frenzies, policits are about political power, and savey statesmen (and maybe, women), but you can't sit in the head honcho seat if you don't win the elections. Democrats have traditionally been far too intelectual to win much. Dems think too much, talk to much, debate too much, and then fiz out. The Clinton's have shown that they can get past that, and govern, and White americans sitting on the Republican/Democrat divide, willing to fall on either side for the right person, will trust Hilary before they trust Obama, and that is simply a cold hard reality. If the dems want to sit and quabble about mathematics and the populat vote (Gore did), then Obama will take over Gore's powerpoint presentation about cliamte change and open with his now deflated line, "Hello, I was the next president of the United States". Get real, and get over it, and understand that it's Hilary/Obama to the White House or sit it out again!

TOCB said...

Can superdelegates vote before the convention?

Oreo said...

TOCB,
They will vote at the convention.

They can switch at any point up until then. There is nothing that forces them to vote. There will be supers that will stay home and not vote at all.