Click Here To See The Rest of the Blog
Here are the superdelegate endorsement numbers since mid-January. Our numbers are based on our Superdelegate Endorsement List. Tables and graphs updated 5/18/08.
| Obama | Clinton | Uncommitted | Obama Lead | Obama % | |
| 1/13 | 69 | 165 | 560 | -96 | 29% |
| 1/20 | 77 | 171 | 546 | -94 | 31% |
| 1/27 | 88 | 184 | 522 | -96 | 32% |
| 2/3 | 105 | 198 | 491 | -93 | 35% |
| 2/10 | 127 | 224 | 443 | -97 | 36% |
| 2/17 | 160.5 | 238 | 395.5 | -77.5 | 40% |
| 2/24 | 174 | 238 | 382 | -64 | 42% |
| 3/2 | 193 | 240 | 361 | -47 | 44.6% |
| 3/9 | 205 | 244 | 345 | -39 | 45.7% |
| 3/16 | 208 | 244 | 342 | -36 | 46.0% |
| 3/23 | 210 | 246 | 338 | -36 | 46.1% |
| 3/30 | 212 | 246 | 336 | -34 | 46.3% |
| 4/6 | 221 | 245 | 328 | -24 | 47.4% |
| 4/13 | 223 | 249 | 322 | -26 | 47.2% |
| 4/20 | 230 | 255 | 309 | -25 | 47.4% |
| 4/27 | 235 | 257 | 302 | -22 | 47.8% |
| 5/4 | 248 | 269 | 278 | -21 | 48.0% |
| 5/11 | 275 | 270.5 | 250 | 4.5 | 50.4% |
| 5/18 | 297.5 | 276.5 | 222 | 21 | 51.8% |
138 comments:
If the super delgates do not vote along the same lines and consensus of the popular vote I believe there will be a huge outrage in this country and it will destroy all inroads that the democrats have made in this country in the last two years. The cinfidence in the election process in this country will be destroyed not only for this election but for years to come.
It is my understanding that the 795 SuperDelegates have been named to help identify the best candidate to represent the Democratic Party in the general election. They should not be directed, intimidated or limited to endorse any candidate against their best judgment. Is it unreasonable to use a democratic process to allow them to do their job? I suggest that all 795 SuperDelegates be immediately released from any previous endorsements that they might have made and then be allowed to individually vote in a standard private ballot process to vote their conscious for the best candidate for the Democratic Party in November. The votes should then be allocated to each candidate as indicated by that vote.
Zeke is right that the superdelegate process was intended to give party leaders an independent voice in the nominating process. But that isn't to say that people can't - or shouldn't - seek to persuade them to vote in a certain way. That, in fact, is what our democratic process is founded on (intimidation is another matter, but dialogue and persuasion is part of the deal).
That said, realistically there is VERY LITTLE CHANCE that the superdelegates will contravene the will of a large majority of voters - for two reasons. One, superdelegates are not immune to swings of momentum and they want to support a winner. So if it is clear that someone is headed for a win, they'll go that way - it is in their long-term best interest to support the person who will be the leader of the party.
ALSO, many superdelegates are elected officials themselves with their own constituencies. And if they are perceived as undercutting the will of the voters, their own candidacies will be in jeopardy.
And FINALLY, lets be honest. These are not stupid people and THEY WANT TO WIN IN NOVEMEBER. They are not ignorant of the reality Patricia talks about, that a divisive fight will undercut public trust and the party's future.
Even most of Clinton's most ardent supporters will shift (and change their tune) at the end of the primary process if Obama has a clear lead. Guaranteed
SocialLiberalFiscalConservative,
All of our numbers come from our Superdelegate Endorsement List. I just linked to it on the post. You can also get to it by clicking on DCW Superdelegate Tracker in the top left.
1. At the bottom of our superdelegate list we leave notes as to which endorsements are added.
2. See #1
3. Superdelegates from Democrats Abroad only get .5 of a vote
I know this is knit picky, but I'd like to request that the scale of the two graphs be changed. I'd like to see the total SD trend line graph with a maximum of 800 to show the relative share each candidate has, and the Clinton edge graph with a minimum of 0 to depict the trendline in a more meaningful context.
Thanks for the awesome info.
Jaime thanks for the suggestions. But they both would just add empty space to the graphs, and have the effect of flattening out the graphs, making them harder to see the changes in time.
Jamie's suggestion of having the Clinton's Lead graph start at 0 would certainly "have the effect of flattening out the graph". I disagree with the implication that it would therefore be less useful. If the graph was flattened, it would be far less misleading. The recent drops in Clinton's lead look more drastic in your graph than they really are. As such, the graphs make this otherwise wonderful and objective site look a bit biased.
See http://www.robelle.com/smugbook/stats.html .
I'd like to remark that it seems terribly unsporting that pledged delegates are not required to vote for their pledge canidate, even on the first ballot. I realise that voting as a delegate on the first ballot against the popular vote or caucus result is very unlikely.
As Truman said, "if you wnat a loyal friend in Washington, get a dog."
Aaron - I understand your concern about the graph, but why stop at 0? In theory, the graph could go from -795 to +795. I just don't think the graph is misleading. The drop in Clinton's lead is exactly what we show. And a drop of 20 superdelegates is by itself significant when the race is close, especially when there was no movement for the first 4 weeks we charted it.
Zero is the zero point of this graph. If the bottom of the graph were zero, then the relative distances from the bottom would represent the relative numbers of delegates each candidate has. The apparent total delegates for each candidate would be displayed in the same units not only as those of the other candidate but also the same units as the difference between the two. There is nothing remotely comparable for -795 as the bottom.
Certainly, a large amount of blank space in a graph is undesirable and makes the graph harder to read. But there is a trade-off. Extending the lower boundary to zero would be reasonable, but so is cutting it off at 50. Extending the upper boundary to 795 would not be reasonable.
If the purpose of this graph were to illustrate Sen. Clinton's superdelegate lead, I would agree with Jamie and Dan; but the point of this graph is to illustrate the change in the super-delegate lead, which this graph makes perfectly clear. The graph is clearly labeled...there's no problem.
No news on any FL/MI revote. If the race ends soon, then there will be no need for a revote, as the delegations will be seated if the nomination is no longer contested.
This race is not over. Let's fill in the projections:
Assume the 2,025 needed to win (that is an assumption apparently based on DNC calculations of 50% of the total delagates, including super delegates, but not including Florida and Michigan).
The total currently reported here is: Obama's 1358 + Clinton's 1265 + Edwards 26 + undeclared supers 303 reported here (with similar but slightly different totals from other sources). There are a total of 803 delegates to be selected by the next states (excluding MI and FL). These total 3,755, which means there must be another 294 delegates somewhere (perhaps other super delegates?).
If these states fall in line conservatively according to the current polls, I show Hillary getting 397 to Obama's 406.
If the undecided super delegates follow their current percentages of support (57% for Hillary), Obama will end up with exactly 2025 delgates, with Clinton one vote shy at 2024.
These are relatively conservative projections for Obama as of now (before the 2-26 debate), but this nonetheless shows how precarious his lead is rather than how unsurmountable it is.
Brandon, you have some big 'ifs' in there, most notably your assumption that Sen. Clinton will receive 57% of the remaining Super Delegates. Since the trend in the past two weeks has her recieving closer to 5%, that's a hard assumption to swallow.
Well this is my second post, and i would like to ask a question.
Is there a list of 20 or 50 superdelgates who will hold off on ant endorsements till the convention or at lest remain uncommitted till May (or so)?
Like i said in my first post thank you for this site!
Math 101 - Welcome! - There are about 300 superdelegates that have not endorsed yet. Some have said they not endorsing until the convention, some are waiting for the results of their state primary/caucus, but most haven't set a timeframe on their decision. The full list is here:
http://demconwatch.blogspot.com/2008/01/superdelegates-who-havent-endorsed.html
Hey mat i don't want to be a jerk, and thank you for responding but i am just trying to limit the suspense. If it could be said with some (high 80% probability) certainty that few dozen will hold off from any endorsements then i might understand where this election is going with less of a gut feeling. Sorry if this post is in the wrong spot or if the ideas included therein are juvenile but this is the first time i have followed the primaries.
math101: I am sure there are some delegates who will not publicly endorse a candidate, just as there will probably be those who change their minds at the last minute. It seems to me, however, that non-endorsing delegates will probably have almost no effect on the nomination process; it is those who come out for one candidate or the other and tip the lead toward one candidate going into the convention who will determine who the nominee is.
This race is over. If the current trend in superdelegates continues, Obama will match Clinton in 2 weeks. March 4 will likely result in a draw regarding total TX and OH pledged delegates.
Clinton will and should call it quits on March 5, or change her first name to Huckabee.
Thanks for keeping track of these endorsements. I've added an animated Flash chart of these results that can be seen here.
I would like to offer a prediction: Sen. Clinton will do no better than an overall tie with Sen. Obama on Tuesday (winning Ohio and RI and losing Texas and Vermont, with the worst case scenario being 3 or more losses). Early that morning, she will receive calls from Howard Dean, Al Gore, Nancy Pelosi and others telling her it's time to concede. While she's thinking it over, the superdelegates (both pledged to her and unpledged) will break to Sen. Obama (instead of flowing to him as we see at present); and, no later than Thursday morning she will concede. Just my hypothesis.
Adding comments to hypothesis, Clinton, New York senator, wife of President Clinton, who claim to have 35 years experience and credential for the president of United States, national pollsters concluded that her campaign have abated to Obama. As seen, Obama movement and expatriate in social change, probable on Tuesday march 4, 2008, the posted results from Texas, Ohio, and Vermont probably gain at least ten delegates combined. Supporting the hypothesis that, Clinton, who claims to be champion of national security, for her benefit from exhausting her bank account, on Tuesday, at 3.00 am will receive a phone call from Howard Dean, prevalently advising her to drop out of the Democratic Party primary race because of costs, national security, and international image of United States of America
This is an amazing site. Everyione needs to write the DNC and tell them to count the votes of Michigan and Florida--Obama according to what I am reading here campaigned in both states (and this was indeed preorted on national cable media as to Florida). so he broke the rules. Therefore, the votes need to be given to Hillary and she will then be ahead by 22 votes according to your figures----Hello? This is fair.
When rules are made the are made for a reason..Fl and Mi wer told not to move the dates...those voters need to hold their officials responsible for this problem .. and let the voters fromthe other 50 staes make the decision for now and the can vote in the gen election..If the DNC dfoes anything to to sway the vote in Hillary's favor it will ruin the process for many years to come as patrica has said. It sickens me when party who say's it the party for the people do this..it looks like the party for thy-self. Sorry Mi and Fla don't blame the DNC vote your officials out. Keeping your seat would have given you a very important position in the process but cutting line is now going to keep you out of the concert. Shame on Hillary and Barack for not being firm on supporting this rules that were set and why is Mr Chris adding his two cents as a Red aprty member you have your nomineee focus on your past flubs.
First, Obama never campaigned in FL or MI rules are rules if this fight was were hillary was ahead and Obama trailling would we be talking about fl or mich. NO! and everybody in the world knows it! Rules should not be changed in the middle of the game! its not fair... Fl and MI should have checked the rules carefully before changing their primary dates... I'm i the only one that sees somthng fishy about this whole thing
Of the Superdelegates there are 76 add on delegates it would be worth a post explaining how they are elected. I understand it is at State conventions but is there any proportionality i.e. Ca. has 5 are they potentially all HRC supporters as the majority of the delegates going to the state convention will be HRC supporters??
I have seen an estimate that based on present results this group will be elected as 38 BHO to 23 HRC with Missouri too close to call. But am not sure the authors source.
Greetings and thanks for this wonderful site. I just want to add a little projection i made on the total delegate count.
I decided to assign the pledged delegates of the remaining primaries/caucuses at a 55%-45% share between the two candidates basing on the more recent pools in each state (i.e. Pennsylvania 55-45 to Clinton, North Carolina 55-45 to Obama and so on...)
This is the final result which takes into account also the superdelegates who have already endorsed a candidate:
Obama 1900
Clinton 1780
with 345 superdelegates to assign.
Just discovered your site. I used it to contact the uncommmited super delgates in my state.
I'm with the first comment, Patricia. Barring changing the rules, Obama will win the delgates by at least 100. If he is not selected by the convention, the voters will be disenfranchised. I, a life long Democrat, will not vote for Clinton, if she is nominated by super delgates, over ruling the electorate.
Let your local representatives know your opinion!
the CNN delegate counter game shouldn't have a single super-delegate assigned yet allow us the full 795 or however many there are at any time
even better break it up by category ie sen, rep, dpl, add-on's ect. more work for them but they have a staff. lets send some e-mails to help them change there minds. they should also give some acknowledgments to the unassigned delegates it is misleading.
Also posted to the open thread but its a propaganda war in there.
lol Math that is all the open thread is good for. Hate mongering.
However with FL, and Michigan. Flordia goverment said if they need to do a recount that need to know very soon. Technically the deadline has already passed, but the republicans want to make this as bloody as possible.
Howard Dean has said he can not count the delegates as is, but they can do a revote. Which even obamaites are ok with.
However Hillary only wants a revote because she will net super delegates!
They should have a revote, and punish the hierarchy. Such as not seating the super delegates.
It is not the people fault and they should be heard. However it is the DNC fault, and this is why the super delegates should be punished.
yea but to punish ppl like the
Nat'l Assoc. of Dem. Lieutenant Governor
Nat'l Dem. Cty. Officials
Nat'l Conf. Dem. Mayors
Nat'l Fed. of Dem. Women
College Dems of America (sorry i haven't joined)
these super-delegates do i assume a hard job and i don't think that they really could have stopped this train wreck from happening. lets all urge that the few ppl that can build a solution stand up soon and push with all there might. Possible job for Al Gore or John Edwards? i dont know i do math not this stuff. lets just urge a quick solution. *sigh* asking for moderation from the internet is like asking my cat to never lie on the newspaper. (stupid simile)
ohh real world question that i have been asking are there super-delegates from the dems abroad?
Dem Abroad superdelegates are listed on the superdelegate pages. Look foor the (DA).
There are cases when the superdelegates should not vote the same as the popular vote, and right now we have a good example. Now that the Republican candidate has been chosen, many republicans are crossing over and voting in the democratic primaries (in those states where that is allowed) in order to try to get the democrats to nominate the person they think McCain has the best chance of beating in the election. These people have no intention of voting for Clinton in the general election. Rush Limbaugh has been promoting this idea in order to get Clinton on the ballot, or at the very least to keep the democrats fighting against each other and bringing up dirt on each other.
See http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2008/03/10/wuspols310.xml
What is especially concerning is that Bill Clinton even appeared on Rush's show the day of the Ohio and Texas primaries. Are the Clintons deliberately trying to destroy the Democratic party?
The big problem is that there is little Obama can do about this. If he brings attention to it, he risks encouraging even more republicans to do it.
The answer is that this is exactly the kind of problem the Superdelegates should be watching for. By design, their job is to look out out for the Democratic party, and ensure that the candidate who is picked has the best chance of winning in November.
It is time for the Superdelegates to do their job, and start endorsing Barack Obama.
math "yea but to punish ppl like the
Nat'l Assoc. of Dem. Lieutenant Governor
Nat'l Dem. Cty. Officials
Nat'l Conf. Dem. Mayors
Nat'l Fed. of Dem. Women
College Dems of America (sorry i haven't joined)"
I meant the superdelegates of Flordia, and Michigan.
these are from MI AND FL look at the wiki page you can play around with the data presented.
WOW there are a lot of supers from abroad.
Took out my calculator for some quick math. Over the period of time represented here, Clinton's superdelegate lead is dropping by an AVERAGE of 1.8% a week. Even though it's a pretty narrow window of time, if the average drop in her lead continues, Obama should overtake her in the next 3 to 4 weeks.
I looking for a detailed superdelegate history tracker.
Gov.,Sen.,Rep.,DPL,DNC,Add-Ons
graph, what show how changed clinton superdelegate lead in different types of superdelegate.
Just a stupid question...can anyone tell me what GP is? Thanks
Rexx - GP = The Green Papers a great political reference site.
Anr- Here's the data for the dates: 2/3, 2/17, 3/2, 3/16:
Clinton:
Gov 10 10 10 10
Sen 11 12 12 13
Rep 74 72 72 72
DPL 9 11 10 10
DNC 94 130 136 139
Add-on 0 0 0 0
Total 198 235 240 244
Obama
Gov 8 11 11 11
Sen 9 9 15 15
Rep 52 61 69 71
DPL 2 4 4 4
DNC 35 73 92 105
Add-on 0 1 2 2
Total 106 159 193 208
To summarize, Obama has cut Clinton's lead in Reps from 22 to 1, and the DNC member lead from 59 to 34. Every thing else is noise.
(Clinton's lead was basically stable from 1/13 to 2/3, and our pre 1/13 data is not very accurate.
Hope this is the information you're looking for.
According to Democratic Convention Watch the super delegate count on Feb 17th just after Super Tuesday Clinton had 238, and Obama had 160. We keep hearing from Sen. Clinton is about the Super Delegates and how the Pledged Delegates don’t have to follow the voters wishes. Here we are now 1 ½ months later and Sen. Clinton has only picked up 8 Super Delegates while Sen. Obama has picked up 51. Sen. Clinton obviously is not listening to the voters and party leaders. Sen. Clinton is still pushing the Florida and Michigan delegate issue of being disenfranchised. However on the other hand does not want to count 14 States that held Caucasus. Tell me who will be disenfranchised in this selfish move be Sen. Clinton
Another request to change the Y axis so that it starts at 0. It is misleading to start it at 50, and the Clinton campaign would have a very legitimate reason to gripe about these graphs. I've replotted the data myself, and all the trends remain immediately evident.
As an Obama supported, nice to see these trends, though...!
Don't change the axes. No one is positing that Obama went from having 0 supers to being ~40 behind.
There would be too much non-information on the graph if you change the axes.
I'm hoping that someone can point me in the right direction in order to answer the following question ~
When the race started, how many superdelegates were already pledged to Clinton, before any votes were cast? In other words, did any superdelegates pledge before the primaries even started?
Thank you, in advance.
The "box score" and the graph both say "updated 3/30" but contain different data. Please update the graph to conform with the "box" of the same date.
Frstan - everything looks consistent to me. Can you be more specific about what you think doesn't match? Which of the two graphs, and which specific piece of data are you concerned about. thanks.
on the superdelegate history page the top summery box on the left showed Obama with 214 SD and was dated 3/30. The graph on the same page showed Obama with 212 SD and was also dated 3/30. That was the mis-match.
Now the box has been re-dated 3/31. shrug. The 214 was posted 3/30 and the endorsements involved were made on or before 3/30, but if you wish to say you (or whoever) have "fixed" the discrepancy "your way" who am I to say nay. You feel that is an honest way to fix the problem.
Frstan - We added the endorsements after midnight my time (Eastern), and since I had already updated the graphs, which takes a while, and the endorsements were added after midnight on Sunday, I felt justified in not spending the time updating the graphs again. Oreo, however, is a couple of timezones behind me, and he did the actual updating of the numbers in the sidebar, and it wasn't midnight where he was, so he didn't update the dates! We got caught in a little timezone twilight zone.
Note that our endorsement dates are always the date we add them, and have never been the date when the endorsement was made, whether it was made an hour ago or a month ago. We've always tracked them that way and we're going to stay that way for consistency.
I'll do a midweek update on the graphs. Thanks for keeping such a sharp eye out.