Wednesday, June 04, 2008

Superdelegate History Tracker

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








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 6/4/08.



Obama
Clinton
Uncommitted
Obama
Lead
Obama %
1/1369
165
560-9629%
1/2077
171546-9431%
1/2788
184522
-9632%
2/3
105198491
-9335%
2/10127224443
-9736%
2/17160.5238395.5
-77.540%
2/24174238382
-6442%
3/2
193240361
-4744.6%
3/9205244345
-3945.7%
3/16208244342
-3646.0%
3/23210246338
-36
46.1%
3/30212246
336
-34
46.3%
4/6221245328
-24
47.4%
4/13223249322
-26
47.2%
4/20230255309
-25
47.4%
4/27235257302
-22
47.8%
5/4248269278
-21
48.0%
5/11275270.5250
4.5
50.4%
5/18297.5276.5222
21
51.8%
5/25315.5279.5201
36
53.0%
6/1330.5*290*203*
40.5
53.3%
6/4424.5
281.5117.5
143
60.2%



















*6/1 numbers include Florida and Michigan superdelegates at 1/2 vote each.

Click Here To See The Rest of the Blog

177 comments:

Patricia said...

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.

zeke said...

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.

Ted said...

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

Oreo said...

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

Jamie said...

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.

Matt said...

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.

Aaron said...

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 .

ericaequites said...

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."

Matt said...

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.

Dan Wylie-Sears said...

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.

Richard said...

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.

Matt said...

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.

Brandon said...

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.

Richard said...

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.

math 101 said...

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!

Matt said...

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

math 101 said...

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.

Richard said...

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.

Dietrich said...

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.

Matt Parker said...

Thanks for keeping track of these endorsements. I've added an animated Flash chart of these results that can be seen here.

Therapy Cat said...

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.

Temba said...

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

Bellissima Publishing, LLC said...

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.

david said...

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.

Christopher said...

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

Dan said...

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.

marcomads said...

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.

rheafredjj said...

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!

math 101 said...

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.

protactinium said...

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.

math 101 said...

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?

Matt said...

Dem Abroad superdelegates are listed on the superdelegate pages. Look foor the (DA).

wm said...

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.

protactinium said...

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.

math 101 said...

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.

Elena Webb said...

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.

Anr said...

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.

Rexx said...

Just a stupid question...can anyone tell me what GP is? Thanks

Matt said...

Rexx - GP = The Green Papers a great political reference site.

Matt said...

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.

Ron said...

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

Harlan said...

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...!

Dave said...

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.

linberks said...

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.

frstan said...

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.

Matt said...

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.

frstan said...

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.

Matt said...

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.

Pat said...

patricia - what "confidence in the election process in this country?"

I have NEVER had confidence in it, nor any candidate.
This year is the first in my (more than I care to announce) years that I have something better... HOPE!!

Hippolytus said...

Matt, Oreo et al.,
This is probably an obvious point, but wouldn't make sense to flip the axes of this chart?

Matt said...

Hippo - which chart? The first table? The two graphs? It's certainly not obvious to me - all 3 have the dates on the horizontal axis, which seems pretty standard.

sortaSean said...

The graphs would be more meaningful if the y axis went all the way down to zero. As it is, it looks like Obama as almost completely overcome Clinton's superdelegate lead when that isn't quite the case.

Hippolytus said...

Matt said...

"Hippo - which chart? The first table? The two graphs?..."

Matt, the top chart. You're going to have many more weeks to report and your running out of space for columns.

billkapra said...

Really great site guys!

I look at this site frequently and very much appreciate the hard work you're doing.

One request -- would you consider a short post each time you update the super count? It would be helpful to be able to see quickly whom you had added (and/or subtracted) at each update.

Again, great work and thanks!

Matt said...

billkapra - we have notes at the bottom of the Endorse and No-Endorse pages which summarizes all changes. Posting each change would clutter up the blog.

frstan said...

from the AP

Obama did pick up the backing of Jeanne Lemire Dahlman, a national committeewoman. However, Dahlman says she may reconsider if Montana voters pick Clinton in the state's June 3rd primary.

Dietrich said...

Your super del count (as in lead of HRC over BO supporters) is now about 11 points away from the three other sources.

Therefore it would be very interesting to see an explanation for this gap.

Thanks!

Hippolytus said...

Dietrich said...

"Your super del count (as in lead of HRC over BO supporters) is now about 11 points away from the three other sources.

Therefore it would be very interesting to see an explanation for this gap."

I'm not sure I follow. Clinton lead is: DCW 26, CNN 28, CBS 29, AP 28. I'd be curious to understand the discrepancy, too, but it would take a super-sleuth (no pun intended) to figure it out.

Brad said...

Am I missing smething or does your table at the top end at 3/16. It looks as it was updated right along until that date however I have yet to see it continue. Please advise.

Oreo said...

Brad,
4/13 is the latest date. You may need to make your browser window bigger or raise your resolution.

Yousri said...

Brad,
The data is there, you have to reduce the text size in your browser.

Go to view, click on text-size and make it a little smaller than what you have now.

HTH

Heather said...

I see that others are talking about the graphics for the Superdelegate History Tracker. I love it and check it all the time, especially for the percentages and the graphics.

I would love it if it were reconfigured so that I don't have to reduce my text size in order to see recent updates.

Thanks for considering!
Heather

Brad said...

Oreo, Yousri.....thanks a bunch!!! I check this page daily but have had that question for some time. Worked like a charm. Big thanks!!!!!

Heather said...

WOW! That was fast! Thanks!

Matt said...

Table has been flipped. Hopefully I copied all the numbers correctly. Thanks for the suggestion! - Matt

Hippolytus said...

Matt said...

"Table has been flipped..."

Thanks for making the change, Matt. Much easier to digest. Keep up the great work.

Don said...

Love the graphs, but...

Ideally the second graph should have a baseline of 0 superdelegates, not 50. Chopping off the bottom of the graph makes Obama's catching-up look a little bit more dramatic than it has been. (Which is fine by me as a biased Obama person, but not as an honest statistician.) Also, the first graph should NOT necessarily have a baseline of 0. What are you going to do when Obama takes the superdelegate lead?

Matt said...

Don - The philosophy for both graphs has been to just have upper and lower baselines that cover the data I have.

The absolute data chart has always started at 50. To start it at 0, I should then bring both their numbers to 0 also, and I just don't have that data. I've started this one at 50 for 3 months now, so I'm unlikely to change it.

As for the difference graph, we've been lowering the bottom baseline as the difference gets lower - we only moved it to 0 when the difference got below 30 or so. As for what happens if Obama takes the lead in superdelegates? We'll cross that bridge if and when we come to it.

Orlando said...

I partially agree with Don. The second graph could show the 0-level baseline, despite of the data you have. It's just adding another layer below the current ones.

No problem with the first graph, if the bottom baseline has been lowered before, it could surely be lowered once again, if Clinton lead becomes negative, or just flipping upside down the graph, and changing the legend to "Obama lead".

Anyway, congratulations for a really good job. Greetings from the olde Europe (Spain) :P

Dr. Linda said...

Looks like Hilliary is down to 52% of the superdelegate who have declared this morning.

Peter from Oregon said...

Matt - Great Blog! I just found it and am turning my other primary obsessed friends onto it.

How often do you update your numbers? I keep looking to you for updates since the PA primary ended hoping to see the latest superdelegate count. I'll keep checking in.

Oreo said...

Thanks Peter
This page is updated bi-weekly or weekly.

The numbers in the sidebar are updated as soon as a change is made.

And you can also check the Superdelegate Endorsement post for the latest updates

Mali said...

Is is possible to find out the EXACT names of the Credentials Committee members and who they support? Since the DNC announced April 9th that Florida and Michigan would have representatives on all Standing Committees, it seems very likely that Clinton could get a majority report demanding the seating of the Florida and Michigan delegates based on the January elections. I have read blogs that say this isn't likely, but if the delegate race is so close, wouldn't the committee membership division between Obama and Clinton also be that close, and easy to tip in favor of seating Florida and Michigan AS IS?

tefta said...

I just wanted to say that your site is the absolute best! I was a true non-believer with regard to politics and this site has everything that I've been searching the net for! I'm absolutely obsessed with the Dem nomination this year and with who will be our next President. I'm 31 years old and this will be the very first time i will be voting - on anything political. Anyone who can inspire me is something special - I've always paid attention but never had an ounce of faith in this process. I believe that anyone who truly has the citizens of this country's interest at heart and has actually read the details of the "plans" each candidate proposes should clearly see that Obama is the only one proposing real solutions that can effect the changes that we desperately need. Thanks so much for the effort you're putting into getting us such current and complete information!

Heather said...

at this moment HRC has 260/504 superdelegates: 51.4%!

As the elevator operator said, "Going down?"

clyde said...

Mali, I found two posts that together seem to give all the information presently available on the make-up of the Credentials Committee. You need to read the first post with its updates because the understanding evolved.

The structure: http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/186374.php

The Dean selections: http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/03/kate_oconnor_former_cpos.php

clyde said...

Hey, the second url seems to have been clipped. In total - join the "/03" and "/kate"
: http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/03

/kate_oconnor_former_cpos.php

Bob said...

Re: superdelegate system: I used to not believe the system was appropriate, but slowly I am becoming a believer in it. Why? Well first let me say I am an Obama supporter. I hear more and more of the bulls**t about Wright, the "elitism", etc.; yet little of Hillary's lie about being shot at in (Bosnia?) or McCain's endorsement by Hagee. What's happening is the media is trying to control elections; making news of nonsense. If the media had properly vetted the Swift Boat Veterans lies, rather than make it an endless story we would only have had 4 years of Bush. So, we need SDs who will not be swayed with un-vetted lies, distractions, etc. and will pick the best candidate. Hillary would be dogmeat in the General election when they play her lies about being shot at, vs. a true American warrior (McCain). On the other hand Obama will continue to distance himself from the Wright controversy and be a more viable candidate. Another good thing about the SD system is that they are party leaders and will help bring the party together, as long as they generally reflect the popular vote. So far, that seems to be happening - Obama's fast closing in on Hillary's SD count.

Matt said...

Most members of the Credentials Committee have not been chosen. They are essentially picked the same days the add-ons are picked, state-by-state. The links above are just for 25 of the total (150?) or so.

More importantly, it doesn't really matter who has a majority of the Credentials Committee. It only takes 20% to bring a minority report to the floor of the convention, so whoever has a majority of the delegates on the floor of the convention will control the action. Also remember, it won't be the Clinton folks saying "seat Florida" and the Obama folks saying "don't seat Florida". The Clinton folks will say seat Florida "based on the primary", and the Obama folks will say "seat Florida based on what's fair, whether its 50/50 or something else. If Obama has a clear majority of the non MI/FL delegates (pledged and super), then MI/FL will only get seated on his campaign's terms, which are terms which will not affect him winning the nomination.

cloud9ine said...

I want an exact same kind of chart but with the total delegate lead instead of the superdelegate lead. It could have daily or weekly data points. I have been looking for the data everywhere. If you could suggest a source, I'd be very grateful.

Peter from Oregon said...

Does anyone know where Obama got his slew of Delegates from this evening? This morning he was ahead of clinton by approximately 136 delegates and now he is up by 143.

The major news networks report on Tom hanks supporting Obama, but they can't offer one line to who these new delegates are.

Someone please hook me up!

Orlando said...

cloud9ine, I was looking for something similar to what you've described, and I found some information that's not exactly what we were expecting, however, it could be useful.

http://edition.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results/scorecard/#D

Here you can see the democratic race depicted as a donkey race. If you rollover candidates' donkeys, you can see their pledged delegates related to primaries and caucuses dates, and it's easy to get when and how Obama overtook Clinton in this tally, and why this advantage seems to be unsurmountable.

Well, it's not the excellent Demconwatch Superdelegate History Tracker, but it's fine.

Peter from Oregon said...

I believe a number of those new supers from the 5th are add-ons from state conventions. It seems like the major news outlets won't give these delegates airtime unless they in the house, senate, or high office.

It's a pitty because a delegate is a delegate and their vote is important to us and the process.

Anyway, big day today, hopefully (but not likely) we can find some resolution today.

LisaK said...

On 05/05/08, Obama gained 6 SuperDelegates with the Original source from - http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/5/5/72816/86327

Here are the details:

1 - Obama picked up a superdelegate endorsement this morning from Native American activist Kalyn Free (an at-large member of the Democratic National Committee) - http://nativetimes.com/index.asp?action=displayarticle&article_id=9478

2 and 3 - Obama picked up endorsements from Maryland superdelegates Michael Cryor and Lauren Dugas Glover.- http://weblogs.baltimoresun.com/news/politics/blog/2008/05/obama_picks_up_maryland_superd.html and http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/05/05/obama_nets_maryland_superdeleg.html

4, 5, and 6 - Obama formally picked up 3 more superdelegates from Illinois around 2pm yesterday: Barbara Flynn Currie, Todd Stroger and Richard Daley. Technically, these are known as "unpledged add-on" delegates. They are chosen by the state Democratic chairman and can vote for any candidate. - http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/05/05/980587.aspx and http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/chi-ap-il-democrats-illinoi,0,3608172.story

On 05/05/08, Hillary picked up 1/2 of a SuperDelegate because Clinton has been endorsed by DNC Theresa Morelli of Democrats Abroad (and Dem Abroads only get 1/2 of a vote each). - http://www.topnews.in/usa/theresa-morelli-endorses-clinton-2324

Matt said...

pledged delegate history



http://abcnews.go.com/politics/elections/candidate?candidate=Clinton
http://abcnews.go.com/politics/elections/candidate?candidate=Obama

Peter from Oregon said...

LisaK
Thanks for the detailed reply! That was some impressive sluthing there. I'm looking forward to getting a final count one the last 16 NC delegates are alotted and the superdelegates start coming out of the woodwork today!

Hopefully we can wrap this thing up!

naturefreak said...

Here's a link for Inola Henry endorsing Obama:

http://donklephant.com/2008/05/07/obama-adds-3-more-superdelegates/

It also states that McGovern is a super and his endorsement of Obama today is a switch from Clinton.

rkw said...

It looks like there is a math error in the table above. For 5/7 it appears to say that the Clinton lead is 1.5 delegates. Looks like it ought to be 11.5.

Matt said...

fixed, thanks

rkw said...

thank you... you guys do a great job.

billyjay66 said...

matt - oreo

Thank you for one small thing. Posting the Clinton percentage of Superdelegates with one decimal precision is a great improvement. The networks never want to "bother" the viewer with one-tenth percentage precision ala 9.3% spread in Pennsylvania rounded to 10%. Appreciate the improvement!

LisaK said...

Thanks for the kind words, Peter from Oregon.

I have some good news - Obama received another Superdelegate from my home state of WA.

Rep. Rick Larsen endorses Barack Obama for president. Larsen, a four-term Democrat who represents Everett, Bellingham and other areas north of Seattle, said Obama was "the best candidate to turn our best hopes for a better future into reality."

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/6420ap_wa_washington_superdelegates.html

Matt said...

You want decimals? You got decimals!

edgeways said...

already covered? What happens to the nifty graph when Obama gains majority?

lperreault said...

Another committment for Obama:
http://blog.oregonlive.com/elections/2008/05/defazio_throw_his_support_to_o.html

Representative DeFazio from Oregon! I checked and you still have it on uncommitted list.

lperreault said...

More new superdelegates for Obama:

Ed Espinoza (CA) http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/post/samgrahamfelsen/gGB9ny

John Gage (DC)
http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/post/samgrahamfelsen/gGB9L8

Laurie Weahkee (NM)
http://www.newmexicoindependent.com/view/nmi-exclusive-count

Orlando said...

As of when I'm writing, Clinton is just half a super ahead. It seems you'll have to fix this "Clinton Superdelegate Endorsement Lead" chart soon... Anyway, hard to keep pace with this growing flow of superdelegates.

brad g. said...

Suggestion for Chart Fix:

You could change the header to read "Obama Superdelegate Endorsement Lead" and place a hack mark "--" for the values in which he did not hold the lead - then you could where he takes the lead and continue from there. Keep up the great work!!

brad g. said...

I'm sorry - was refering to the table at the top

Mike in Maryland said...

"Clinton Superdelegate Endorsement Lead" could be changed to:

"Clinton Superdelegate Endorsement Lead/Deficit" to save a lot of reworking the underlying spread sheet.

Alternatively, if you DO have to rework the spread sheet, the title could be:

"Obama Superdelegate Endorsement Deficit/Lead".

Either way, a footnote of the date the changeover from deficit/lead (or lead/deficit) should be made.

The only problem I see is if the lead fluctuates for a couple of days, which it may, since we are into the weekend right now.

Mike

Amot said...

Matt,Oreo,
did you intentionally added Friday May 9th at the end of the table as a breakpoint? As far as I know you only update Sunday :))

Irish Eyes said...

Hi guys

Not sure how often you update your superdelegate comparison table, but the numbers are quite a long way out at the moment following the recent flurry of activity.

Current figures, as per your links, are:

CNN 272-268
NBC 274-269
AP 272-271

The Obama campaign have it at 275.5-271, thereby crediting Clinton with the highest figure of all!

It might be worth updating them once today's other add-ons are announced.

Keep up the great work!

Yousri said...

Irish Eyes,

Superdelegate Comparison Table is updated.

Thanks

Irish Eyes said...

No problem Yousri

Latest update for you (and boy it's a struggle to keep on top of the figures at the moment) with Clinton listed first in each case:

CNN 272-271 (they are actually at 270 before Regan add-on)

NBC 276.5-273 (they are likewise at 272 before Regan add-on)

AP 271.5-275 (inc. Regan add-on)

Obama site is currently 276.5-274 but doesn't appear to have counted either the Utah (unless they already figured it into their numbers before today) or Ohio (Regan) add-ons.

Interestingly, NBC claim to have discovered three which they had inadvertently left off for Clinton, which brings them directly into line with the Obama site re her number at 276.5. So that clearly is Clinton's maximum figure at this stage.

Irish Eyes said...

Just to add the figures above pre-date Mitchell's endorsement, so add one for Obama to each tally.

Yousri said...

Irish Eyes,

Thanks.

I know CNN has said Clinton's lead in superdelegates is down to 2.

But they did not update their total number in the main politics page, which we use for our Ultimate Delegatee Tracker table.

That goes for all other news media. Unless they update their main site that we use for the numbers, we can't update ours.

frstan said...

To answer my own question about Lujan GU, a source on the island tells me via email that no endorsement as yet.

Irish Eyes said...

Hi Yousri

No problem - I understand.

NBC now have it at 276.5-274 in an article on firstread but the link is still showing 274-269!!

All somewhat academic anyway as your figures are the ones that count in most people's estimation.

All the best from Ireland

Matt said...

Fixed. Once things are stable, we'll switch the columns, and change the Clinton lead to Obama lead.

Amot said...

Matt, Oreo, Yousri,
I think 5/9 data in the table is actually 5/10 data. I suggest you wait one more day and update it to 5/11 data since it will corresponde with the policy to update every Sunday night.

softspoken22 said...

Thanks DCW for all your hard work. Like richard said, I don't think there's anything wrong with your graph.

Andy said...

You need to change the heading "Clinton %" to "Obama %"

Matt said...

Fixed, thanks.

Anand said...

It's not the popular vote, it's the delegate count. If they vote against the delegate count there will be riot. The popular vote was invented by the Clintons because they cannot win the delegate count. 4 Caucus states don't even count the popular vote so it isn't even a remotely valid metric.

archenemylover said...

Thanks for the insight Anand, I did not know that about the popular vote, and nobody on the news mentions that when they talk about it, so keep getting that info out there. I was afraid that come June 3, Clinton will have squeaked ahead in the pop vote(including Mich and Fl or course, which is BS in the first place) but know that those 4 Caucus states don't count the vote will add much validity to the huge delegate lead Obama has established. Peace

Janis007 said...

If you stood in line to cast you vote in FL or MI, I am sure you would want your vote counted. Politicians broke the rules, not the voters. COUNT ALL VOTES.

billyjay66 said...

janis007

Now that Edwards has endorsed Obama, and Edwards can recommend that any Florida delegates vote for Obama - how big of a majority do you think Clinton deserves out of Florida? I too believe a full seating for the voters is fair.

The best thread to switch to is Fla-Mich by the numbers. That is where this subject is discussed. Hope to hear from you here or there.

ken said...

The following in from a CNN analysis with my thoughts interjected throughout and at the end.
Four different scenarios of the total popular vote have been kicked around:
(1) Only counting primary contests without factoring in Florida and Michigan, (she trails by about 397,000 votes),
(2) Counting primary and caucus contests without Florida and Michigan, (she's trails by 699,000 votes),
(3) Counting primaries and contests and Florida but not Michigan, (she trails by 405,000 votes),and
(4) Counting all primaries and caucuses including Florida and Michigan, (she trails by 77,000 votes). This scenario does not give Obama any votes out of Michigan, where he did not appear on the ballot. 238,168 people rushed to the polls to vote uncommitted which was widely known to be votes for Obama. Because he was not on the ballot this was the only way solid supporters of Obama had a way of making their voices known in the Michigan primary. As these votes were clearly not for Senator Clinton, at least half, if not all would have to go to Obama in the interest of fairness. Half of the uncommitted votes, (119,084) plus the 77,000 shows she actually trails by a minimum of 196,084. Count all the uncommitted votes plus the 77,000 and she is down by 273,084.

The only scenario in which Clinton would appear to have the lead is a fifth scenario that only counts primary states – including both Florida and Michigan – and excludes any votes cast in the party’s caucuses. In that count, Clinton currently holds a "lead" of about 225,000 votes. Sweet! Hillary just picks which group she wants to disenfranchise and then runs around whining about "counting all the votes"! What an unbelievable hypocrite!! Would someone in the media please bring to light this bizarre altered reality thinking? It's worse than sniper fire! It's nothing more than random deletion of voters she selects to delete, until she gets the numbers she needs to show. What's amazing to me is, there are still Democrats out there who want this corrupt, delusional person as V.P.? As a former Republican support Senator Obama this is all extremely curious to me. Why when Hillary shows her real colors do people feel obligated to give her pass after pass to try to force her into the most powerful position in the world? Would we not be at least very concerned, even privately stunned at such bizarre behavior?

mumblin said...

Excellent Website DCW, I've been watching from across the pond for a few weeks now.

I just had to say, I can't believe how segregated american society really is. (eg: WV)
I also can't believe how Hillary can show her face in public after the bosnia lies were exposed... can someone help me here ?

I'm totally stunned by Obama's intelligence and maturity and think he's really too good for you, can we have him over here please ?

Wise White Guy said...

Mumblin, You are correct that Obama might be too good for us. Too many people in the US seem to be incapable of long term logical thinking and would rather be pandered to. I don't know if for many it is an inablility to comprehend or just apathy. Obama is not just what the US needs but would do a lot for the entire world. He is exactly what we need and so many here are too ignorant to realize it. I am hopeful that those of us who understand the higher level, logical, rational, long term thinking he provides are going to be enough to offset the fear mongering self preservationists efforts to stay in power. I have an alternative offer, can we trade about 50000 hicks from WV for YOU?

trudy said...

mumblin,

Just to be nitpicky, I think you meant to say US society is racist, not segregated.

Not all of it is, of course, but WV seems to have a particularly nasty pocket of it.

Why does Hillary get such a free pass when any other candidate would have been laughed out of the race by now? She's good at playing the poor little me victim card and seems to have fairly delusional supporters; who knew there was a substantial group of my own gender that was minus some of their brain cells.

However, having visited her web site yesterday to look for her delegate numbers (couldn't find them) to compare to DCW's, I found that it completely feeds this brainless idea that she can still win. So if people are only reading that and no real news sources...

Guelph said...

My family comes from southeastern Ohio near WV. Though I have lived in Canada for 25 years I often visit. I don't know what other people in US understand about this region but the racism here is deep and ugly. If a black family attempted to move into my family's town my cousins would burn them out, murder them, women and children, not only without one tinge of guilt but with a lot joy. It isn't shocking that Hillary won by such a margin in WV, especially because of her racist appeal to be the great poor white hope, the shock is that a quarter of the population voted for Obama.

My fear is not that obama will win. My fear is he will not live to november. And if he wins in november that he will not survive his term in office. That is what makes Hillary and Bill's subtle, and not so subtle use of racism and racist's fears as a campaign tactic so repugnant. And should I say makes it all they more necessary that the democratic party choose obama as a repudiation of such tactics. If Obama is killed by a racist bullet Hillary and Bill wouldn't be responsible but they sure did play a role in creating the climate for it to happen.

billyjay66 said...

guelph

Thanks for you international perspective - all the way to Canada!. With the potential for positive change in world view of the USA if we elect him - it is so sad how little we recognize the possibilities. Would our founding fathers tolerate today's system the has evolved? No way! They would be on "the list" in a heartbeat!

Obama is not my ultimate by any means. But he is the one that deserves a chance. Although you fear Hillary for the hate she has created - thank her for giving Obama the opening - he took it. Swished the long three pointer so to speak! Maybe he can't roll a strike aka "shock and awe" but who cares?

frstan said...

it appears the side bar needs updating re the edwards delegates == both the main one and the "with MI & FL" one. Also the two MI SD who endorsed Obama yesterday dont seems to be posted.

Deborah said...

I am amazed that some commenters are unaware of how the rules were set for the primary...ALL the candidates including Hillary agreed to the rules of the democratic primary. The delagations of FL & MI were not to be counted because they broke the rules of the democratic party by jumping ahead of the smaller states...I am sure they will be seated in some way to appease their voters but the point is ALL parties agreed at the beginning to the process. Popular vote was never the final goal because of the caucus states in which popular vote isn't counted. Once again ALL candidates agreed. ALL candidates agreed that it would be decided by delegate count both pledged and super and that the magic total is 2025! It is a disservce to the Democratic Party for Hillary and her supporters to continue trying to change the rules because she is behind. She agreed to the rules before the primaries began as did Senator Obama and the other candidates that have since left the race. If she didn't like the rules the time to speak up was at the beginning of the process but of course at the time she was ahead in money and superdelegates. I hope the party will come together behind Senator Obama because he played by the rules.

Brad said...

marc:

The suspense is killing me! LOL

dotcommodity said...

What a nutty situation.

Obama the winner of more delegates (mostly from red states we never win in the GE), consequently trailing FAR behind McCain in electoral college votes.

Clinton who won the swing states we DO need in the GE, (and therefor she massively clobbers McCain in electoral college votes), yet she is apparently the loser to the guy who loses to McCain!

Why the heck do we design our primaries to elect a GE loser!

http://www.electoral-vote.com
/evp2008/Obama/Maps/May17.html


Obama's 237 clobbered by McCAins 290!

Can't we sue the DNC for democratic malpractice?

This is beyond foolish. It was only a matter of time before some clever con would game the delegate/nomination system as Axelrod did here, but it is certain death for Democrats!

I sure hope Superdelegates will see reason and use their intelligence to select the actual more likely winner!

ERic said...

Is the GE tomorrow?

The supers are using their intelligence and picking the more likely winner.

Matt said...

dotcommodity - the primaries are not designed to pick the candidate who would be best in swing states in the GE. If you wanted to do that, you would give many more delegates to the swing states, and many less delegates to those states, both red and blue, that are not contested. Instead, the primaries are designed to pick the candidate that Democrats nationally want to represent them.

Sounds like you're saying that Obama hired better campaign managers than Clinton did. When the history of this nomination is written, a key issue is why did Clinton and her campaign staff treated the smaller Super Tuesday states as winner-take-all, and decide not to contest them, allowing Obama to run up huge net delegate gains in some of them. If she had run her campaign differently, she might be behind by 50-80 pledged delegates instead of 170, and things would be playing out very differently.

Robin said...

Where is a list of how super delegates are endorsing in respect of how their constiuents voted?

I think we deserve to know. Tired of payoffs and back room deals! I think they should have to answer to us!

Matt said...

Robin - Check out the Superdelegate Transparency Project. They maintain all the information you're looking for.

haley said...

"dotcommodity - the primaries are not designed to pick the candidate who would be best in swing states in the GE. If you wanted to do that, you would give many more delegates to the swing states, and many less delegates to those states, both red and blue, that are not contested. Instead, the primaries are designed to pick the candidate that Democrats nationally want to represent them.

matt, i agree with you here, but i think it needs to be pointed out, that the race is so close right now, that the swing states and who would be more electable in the ge HAVE to be considered. clinton leads in popular vote (yeah yeah yeah, i know fl and mi. whatever, you can't NOT count them in the whole scheme of things) and obama leads in delegates. however most of his came from caucuses. how does clinton win nevada but still not get more delegats? sounds fishy to me. and as hillary proved in texas, she wins the primaries, so those states that held caucuses don't speak for the whole state. i think that democrats nationally HAVE chosen who they want to represent them, and that's hillary clinton. you can't argue with the popular vote. if at the end of all of this, with michigan votes and florida votes included, obama is in the lead with the popular vote, then i think he should be the nominee. but if he's not, then the people have spoken, and the supers need to follow.

Bob P said...

It's time for the superdelegates to commit. Waiting will do nothing for the Democratic party's chance to reclaim the White House.

I predict an avalanche of commitments for Obama within the week.

Florida voter said...

There are thousands of lifelong Republican women who are disgusted with the sexist attitudes by Obama, and John McCain when his supporter called her a bitch and he laughted, and the media has given toward Hillary and they will be voting for her in November. Their votes count DOUBLE because once for Hillary, and once when they DONT vote for John McCain. If the Democratic party doesent want those votes, too bad.

mumblin said...

Florida Voter:
But Hillary is a bitch.... and a liar.. and has absolutely nothing but rhetoric in her speeches...but from where I'm sitting (UK), these women fit the stereo type of dumb yanks.. so go right ahead honey.

We, on this side of the pond, can see who your best HOPE is, and who can bring about genuine CHANGE... Its a pity you yanks are too stupid to see that.. then again you guys actually VOTED in Bush for a 2nd term....hey 5.7 billion people on earth agree with me..

This should not even be a CLOSE contest...

Timy said...

Haley, I've been watching both candidates speak, and Senator Clinton's claim to the popular vote is true if you don't count the caucus states and if you count Florida and Michigan. However, counting Michigan is just ridiculous because Obama's name wasn't even on the ballot; he along with most of the other candidates decided to abide by the DNC rules. Remember, uncommitted got 40% of the vote. As for Florida, neither campaigned there, and Obama always gains more support after campaigning in a state (PA, IN, NC). Even if the states' votes are counted in full, which won't happen, Obama will still reach 2026 in early June and become the Democratic nominee.

ahoff48 said...

Hi, I was trying to figure out some discrepancies between your list and the lists on the New York Times site, and Wikipedia. They have Ohio delegates Patricia Moss, and Ron Malone for Clinton. Here is the wikipedia reference:
http://www.recordpub.com/news/article/3351112

Not that I would want to help Clinton, but it does appear she may have two more delegates. Thanks.

Matt said...

Ahoff - Thanks. We don't accept lists of superdelegate endorsements from newspaper articles as sufficient evidence - we've seen too many errors. We need something individual on each super - a quote, or similar characterization of an endorsement, or something official from the campaign. Moss and Malone are not listed anywhere on a Clinton Press Release as endorsers, and they've never been quoted. So they'll remain where they are until we get sufficient evidence.

anandamide said...

haley:

ok, i'll put aside all the arguments which totally discredit hillary's bogus claim to be ahead in the popular vote. let's just assume she is ahead (which nobody believes, but just for argument).

yes, you CAN argue with the popular vote. why? because it was never the metric by which this contest was being judged. so counting it would be like halfway through a basketball game saying "the winner is the one with the most rebounds, not the most baskets". if popular vote were the metric, obama would've run a different campaign, trying to run up numbers in states like illinois. maybe he wouldn't have won, but that's all hypothetical. the measure was delegates, that's what he went for and that's what he won.

end of story.

mhigh said...

Anandamide -

While I disagree with all the "popular vote" nonsense being spewed by the Clinton supporters, I do understand the reasoning. It basically boils down to a "The End Justifies the Means" type of argument.

Clinton supporters say that the ultimate goal is to elect a Democrat in November. Okay - so far, so good. Then they say that the "most electable in November" candidate should be the nominee. Okay, I can agree with that as well. Then they say that Clinton is the most electable candidate BECAUSE she has more popular votes than Obama, and that popular votes are a better measure of electability than delegates. And this is where their argument falls apart.

It's a logical fallacy. Just because one candidate (Clinton) is "more popular" than another candidate (Obama) in one subset of voters (i.e. Democrats in primaries/caucuses) does not necessarily mean that the same candidate (Clinton or Obama) would be more popular than yet another candidate (McCain) in a larger subset (all voters). There's just no correlation.

Voters in the general election are a totally different beast than voters that are limited to the Democratic primary process -- therefore the opinion that Clinton gets more popular votes among Democrats has little bearing on the larger electorate as a whole. On its face, the statement "I've got more popular votes" certainly SOUNDS like a plausible argument to the uneducated listener/reader, but once you actually take a closer look at what the statement actually MEANS, it falls apart completely.

And, of course, the whole "Clinton has more popular votes" rigamarole is up to interpretation anyway -- it's only true if you exclude voters from Iowa, Washington, Nevada and Maine AND disenfrancise about 40% of Michigan's voters. It is possible, with an extremely strong turnout in Puerto Rico and a strong showing by Clinton in that territory, she could claim the popular vote total outright -- we'll only know for sure in about a week. But, as has been shown time and again, it's a totally meaningless measurement anyway. It's all about the delegates - even Clinton admitted as much in several interviews early in the campaign. Wonder why the Clinton dead-enders never bring that up, eh?

3investors said...

Hillary Clinton, lashing out at the primary version of the electoral college...

The reason popular vote on a national scale won't work in a fair system is simply that elections would turn into a tyranny of the large cities.

In 2000 Gore led the popular vote by 500k or so but won NYC alone by more than 1m! If all that mattered was popular vote, would any candidate bother to pander to voters of rural states like West Virginia, Nevada, Montana, etc? The Grain Belt, Bible Belt, Rust Belt etc. would be ignored, and candidates would spend all their resources trying to pander to the folks of NYC, Chicago, L.A., or Atlanta.

HRC herself knows, coming from Arkansas, that the electoral college system is the only reason states like Arkansas even get noticed, otherwise her husband never would have had the influence to become president in the first place. Talk about biting the hand that feeds it!

Thank you again, DCW for the great graph!

tmess2 said...

Part of the problem with the electability argument for support from the unpledged delegates is that it gives the most loosely affiliated "Democrats" a veto over the party loyalists. Admittedly, you need swing voters to get elected but, at the same time, I don't want to be told that I have to vote for candidate Y because he has an outside chance of getting some votes from a group that in all probability will vote for the Republcians regardless of who we nominate. I'd rather win the election if possible but I am not going to choose a Democratic nominee to make Limbaugh's ditto heads happy.

Mark said...

Great website, love it.

I also keep a very exact count at my blog, with percentages to 1/100th of a percent. My Blog is .

I am pretty sure that at least 100-120 of those undecided Supers have already decided for Obama, based on the states, and more importantly, the CDs that they come from or govern. Really thought the SD avalanche would begin now, but probably out of respect to Senator Clinton, it will happen starting June 4, the goal being to put Obama over 2,210 delegates total, and therefore also taking away the Clinton argument of seating both FL and MI at full strength, but not giving Obama any delegates from MI.

I currently have Obama at 1,976, or 50 away from the nomination. Also with FL, I have him at 2,043 (excluding any Supers from FL who are likely to go for him and also excluding the 13 Edwards delegates who are also sure to go for him), and when you add Fl and MI (with the Levin MI proposal: 69 Clinton / 59 Obama), then my calculations have him at 2,101.

His worst case scenario from June 1 to 3 would be to lose PR 70-30 to Clinton (I suspect it will be 52-48 or 53-47) and just break even in MT and SD, then he will pick up at least 32 PDs minimum. More likely is that he will pick-up 43 PDs out of the remaining 86 (26 PR, 8 SD, 9 MT), so taking the mean of those two estimates, let's say, for now, that he picks up 37 PDs.

50-37= 13

Obama only needs 13 SD endorsements to get the nomination.

Mark said...

sorry, forgot to close my html code. Next time I will get it right.

**Bonncaruso thrashes himself.**

Hollywood Mark said...

Mark, Obama has 100-120 of the undecided supers? What evidence is there of that? The avalanche as you call it hasn't happened? Why is that? If they are all for Obama as many of course hope, why haven't they moved? What do they care what Hillary thinks. They are individuals for Obama and obviously anyone who supports him so strongly would have endorsed him by now, except for these 210 or so superdelegates. It will rise to 250 when MI and Fl are seated I presume. Won't this erase all the progress Obama has made in picking up a trickle of supers? Where is the flood? I thought the media said it would happen after N.C. primary. Maybe they are waiting for ....the National Democratic Convention? Could it be? I doubt it but just a thought. I mean, on June 4th a couple of days after another Clinton blowout, this time apparently PR, if they swing to Obama doesn't that look terrible? I mean right after a huge loss? That would look like they were stealing the nomination from the woman with the popular vote victory. Yikes. Please advise anyone? How can this be?

frstan said...

Mark, please go to the page called Superdelegate History Tracker. Note the table. HRC was +96 on 1/13/08. Note the week by week changes. Obama gains, then gains again, followed by more gains for Obama. He is now +31 -- a swing of 127 to Obama.

Now look at the graph. Notice the slope of the line the last month. Can you spell "TREND"?

And according the Jimmy Carter (and others) many supers are just waiting for the Primaries to end before declaring.

The ONLY effect HRC's pop vote argument has had is to retard the defection of some of her own supers -- for the moment. It has gotten her nil, nada, nothing in the way of new super endorsements.

billyjay66 said...

hollywood mark

The current pool of Supers that can decide is less than 201. 30 are add-on's yet unnamed, 3 are vacancies unfilled, and 6 are Pelosi club uncommitteds- but stating they will vote for PD winner. That leaves 160 named uncommitted right now. In the the last three weeks there have been 78 net commitments. Probably the end of the primaries and the 5/31 meeting are causing some to wait.

With Florida-Michigan Obama's SD lead is reduced by 5 - 325.5 to 294.5.

The point is - if there another 80 commitments in the next 3 weeks, the pool will go to less than 100. a slow avalanche indeed. But 80 more trending the way they are would be enough to seal the deal.

Hollywood Mark said...

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/26/opinion/26krugman.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin

Amot said...

While I was searching for endorsements I found at least 20 supers saying they have made the mind but will endorse after June 3rd. Of course I found also another two who said they will not endorse untill the nominee is named, which I consider stupid and pathetic!

LindaS said...

hollywood mark-(a/k/a Clinton supporter/apologist):
Krugman doesn't follow the numbers either--Clinton will not become and is not "ahead" in the popular vote, since there is no such beast. See previous posts regarding caucuses and the anomalies on the ballot in FL/MI.

Hollywood Mark said...

LindaS: I am a strong Obama backer and will of course vote for him in the fall. I just wonder if Hillary gets the popular vote and neither candidate has reached the magic number of 2210, will Obama concede the nomination or take it to a floor fight and possibly tear the party apart.

billyjay66 said...

Hollywood mike

Here is another way to look at it. Think of two numbers to race to. 2024 and 2210. Obama is reaching 2024 with the following: 40 out of the remaining primaries, and 10 super endorsements. He is then at 2024 WITH A 200 DELEGATE LEAD! Even with the worst distribution from the 5/31 meeting, Obama should be 75% of the way toward making it from 2025 to 2210. The rest is momentum.

tmess2 said...

The only way it goes to a floor fight is if Clinton does not concede the nomination. Even then Obama gets the nomination. Which sort of explains what is frustrating so many of us who voted for Clinton. We voted for Clinton because we thought she was a better candidate than Obama not because we wanted to see the Democratic Party destroyed in a battle between two good candidates. The fight has been fought, the numbers are in, the voters have indicated their choice for the nominee by the only system that counts under the rules -- the delegates -- and it's time to move on to the real battle -- November.

April said...

tmess2--

I highly doubt you're a Hillary supporter, or you wouldn't say it's over... Obama fans used to say it wouldn't be fair for the supers to override the "will of the people," but now that's exactly what Obama fans want the supers to do... We all know who is more electable... It's because of money and strategy that BO is currently ahead in delegates, and that's different from the will of the people...

frstan said...

what a charade: pretending to argue with each other, while you both pretend to be Obama supporters.

btw HRCs money came from the lobbyists. Obama's from the people.

only delegate count for anything at all. next thing HRC will say its only states with an "R" in the name that count. :D hahahahahahahah

tmess2 said...

April, you may not believe it, but I did vote for Hillary. But I am a Democrat first, and a Hillary supporter second. By the rules that everyone agreed to prior to the start of the race (including Senator Clinton), Senator Obama is the winner. This current situation is a lot like the run-off situation we still have in a lot of southern states. One candidate has 49% and the other is several percentage back. Technically, the trailing candidate has the right to continue to fight during the run-off, but the odds of winning are slim and all the fight does is eat up resources for the general.

LindaS said...

hollywood mark:
yep, you're a real Obama supporter alright--nice try at attempting to push a "popular vote" idea that then paints Obama as the destroyer of the party.

Hollywood Mark said...

LindaS you got me wrong. I was just playing devil's advocate. Please don't shame me. Please don't be vindictive. I was just raising the question. Please don't call me names. I will vote for Obama over McCain in the fall. Please don' t put me on a list. All I did was raise a couple of questions which have been answered very well and with great style. Jeesh.

LwPhD said...

@Hollywood Mark's antagonists:

His comments seem to be only tangentially related to "Super Delegate History" and I wonder why he even persists in pursuing a conversation that isn't substantially tied to the topic of the post. Remember, if we engage him, we will be guilty of the same off-topic posting. In all likelihood, engaging him will successfully enlist us in his likely goal: trolling.

His "devil's advocate" position has little credibility. After admitting to being a devil's advocate, he clearly admits (implicitly) to attacking Obama's position, as he claims to simultaneously be a "strong Obama backer". O.K. Fair's fair. I'll try to take him at his word. His "attacks" then are merely devil's advocacy to test and improve the strength of Obama's position.

How then do we square his reaction to LindaS? He claims she called him names (the implication being that the names weren't nice) and shamed him and was vindictive to boot.

Well, LindaS may very well not have been terribly polite, but nor was she rude. I find no "shaming" nor any "vindictiveness". And the only name I see that might be remotely insulting is "apologist". In fact, an Obama-"devil's advocate" would very much be acting as an apologist for Clinton, by the definition of the term "devil's advocate". Moreover, such an advocate (as a consequence of their role) would in fact credibly imply that Obama is destroying the party (all in Obama's ultimate interests of course).

So, considering that every "accusation" that LindaS has made towards Hollywood Mark is completely consistent with his admission to being a devil's advocate, one wonder's why Hollywood Mark would at all feel the need to claim injury from LindaS. A simple clarification would have sufficed.

Of course this is an easy question to answer. In fact, Hollwood Mark is likely a troll, who is trying to bait the commenters here into rebutting his posts. As a result, I recommend that we not feed the troll.

LwPhD said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Mark said...

Hollywood Mark:

He probably has more than 100 of the remaining supers. Supers like Carter who have not yet announced, but whose sympathies are crystal clear.

Also, I have calculated over and over - Clinton must get a 500,000 to 513,000 vote MARGIN in PR in order to overtake Obama in the PV. He is still ahead by 435,000 and will pick up around 70,000 between MT and SD, which means she needs to win PR with 76% oF the PV, assuming that 1,000,000 Puerto Ricans vote.

So, the myth that she will pull ahead in the PV is just that: a myth.

Mark said...

I have done a detailed analysis as to whether HRC can pull ahead in the PV, here on my blog.

Only if you include MI, which is patently unfair, since not a vote was cast for Obama in MI since he played by the rules there and she did not- is she already slightly ahead.

But with FL in the mix, she is not ahead.

FACIT: to truly pull ahead, Clinton must win a 500,000+ vote MARGIN in Puerto Rico in order to clinch the PV. And she will not.

Go read my stats. I worked up three scenarios.

Tenzin Chime said...

I do not understand for the life of me why the democratic nomination process has to be so darned complicated. Whatever happened to 'one person, one vote'? Didn't the so-called 'super delegates' already get a chance to vote in their own state's primarys as citizens. Why should they get two votes. This makes no sense to me at all. It is almost as confusing as the Florida chad mess from before.

LindaS said...

tenzin chime:
This is a "nomination" process for a party, not a General Election. There is no "one person, one vote" right in this process. If someone doesn't like the party rules, they are free to join, or vote, in another party. Quite true that it makes no sense for superdelegates to vote in their state and as a superdelegate, but again, it's not a "one person, one vote" Constitutional process. It's a "party nomination" not a General Election. And folks are also free to run for the DNC in their state and try to change the rules.

Dan said...

http://news.aol.com/story/_a/obama-picks-up-nevada-superdelegate/n20080601034509990004

Annother Superdelegate pick up for Clinton in Nevada

McCain Election said...

John McCain wishes he was a superdelegate.

Alex said...

AP has just posted that Obama has won the Democratic nomination. On to the race!

Robert said...

In WA, Ron Simms has announced he's switching from Clinton to Obama: http://blog.seattlepi.nwsource.com/seattlepolitics/archives/140368.asp

Brad said...

Matt:

You may want to consider updated the delegate count daily now that we are at the end of the process - to wait for Sunday will make it less relevant. Just a thought.

Theresa said...

Hi, guys. Thanks so much for your great site. Now that the nominee has been decided, I have been reading ominous articles / posts about Senator Clinton's additional opportunity to hijack the nomination process by perhaps forcing herself, with help from President Clinton, as the Vice-Presidential pick. See this article from Bob Beckel at RealClearPolitics: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/05/if_clinton_wants_to_be_vp_obam.html

Is it possible to start keeping track of which delegates (super and pledged) do, or do not, want to see a Clinton/Obama ticket? Perhaps something along the lines of whether the delegate will adhere to what is requested of him by Obama given that Obama has the majority of super- and pledged delegates? Is this type of interloping by Clinton even possible at the convention, or am I just being paranoid? I am sorely afraid of the problems a Clinton/Obama ticket will create in the GE, to say nothing of the WH! Thanks again!

tmess2 said...

Theoretically, the delegates to the convention can nominate whomever they choose as Vice-President. However, for the most part, they have traditionally gone with the recommendation of the nominee.

Until Senator Obama makes a decision, I don't know how you would track the intention of the delegates. Right now, you haves some "respectfully" suggesting that Clinton be the pick. Most of those making the suggestions immediately make it clear that they are only offering a "suggestion." I don't think you will have many (at least of the unpledged delegates who have been there before and know the unwritten rules) who would state an intent to try to nominate Clinton for VP if she were not the pick as that would have a major negative impact on the possibility of her being picked.

Of course, if someone else is Obama's recommendation, then you might be able to measure support for the Clinton delegates trying to fight that decision at the convention.

Peter Zenger said...

Obama will pick the VP. Any talk of the convention choosing otherwise is just sillyness. Obama has the votes to be the nominee, and those same votes will confirm his choice for VP.

Theresa said...

Thanks, tmess2. I now note (according to this wonderful website) Obama has 421.5 Sd's which puts him well over the majority of what appears to be a total of 823.5 Sd's that will be in attendance in Denver. I feel better.

Frank Costanza said...

To all my friends in Camp Obama: I figured Hillary would find a classy way to make her “exit” from the active campaign. I hope there aren’t too many Obama supporters that take her suspension wrongly. I think the idea of allowing her “PLEDGED” delegates the opportunity to make an historic vote at the convention only shows how inclusive the Democratic Party is and how we can go forth and “Change the world.” With both campaigns working hard we can take control of all three legislative bodies and finally return to caring for America. I do believe that Obama will need Hillary’s strength and expertise when he wins the presidency. He has great credentials around the world as many people see him as a real force for change but he also needs deeper expertise in some arenas where Hillary and others will be great assets.“YES WE CAN”

retired Colorado teacher said...

Hillary will do what is right for the country. Those of you who feel you/we have "won", and need to villify her, I say "get over it." This has always been about winning the Presidency for Americans, NOT for blacks, whites, hispanics, white collars, blue collars, women, men, Christians or Muslims or Jews, the rich, the poor, the middle class, Michelle or Bill. Obama now has an incredible burden on his shoulders and we must all come together to help him. If he wants HRC as VP, so be it. Quit making things harder on him by telling him what to do or how hurt you are by the other candidate's actions. I have never seen such childish emotions in the 40 years I have been voting. Wake up Democrats, both old and new! I suported Hillary and will support Obama. Anything less for either BHO or HRC is downright ridiculous at this point. Enough said...I hope.

Mark said...

retired Colorado Teacher hits is right on the head.

I agree.

Frank Costanza said...

I agree with the school teacher also. As an Obama supporter from day one I get tired of the unnecessary drivel that seems to cover the internet. "Flag pins", "Pastors", "White", "Black", etc. All are distractions from the reality that this year Barack and Hillary have motivated more new (young and old) voters than ever before in history. We democrats have to come together and help ourselves regain the White House and "BOTH" sides of congress. And, by the way, if you check out McCain's web site and view his photo archives you won't find a flag pin on his lapel in any of the pictures.So where do all these Republican nay-sayers get this right to blast Barack about not wearing one?