Sunday, March 30, 2008

The Pelosi Club - Superdelegates who will support the pledged delegate winner

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

(See bottom of post for May 20 and May 22 updates)

This is a list of superdelegates who have specifically committed to vote for the leader in pledged delegates. It is named the "Pelosi Club", in honor of its first two members:

Nancy Pelosi:

And, the speaker said again in an interview Friday that was aired today, the decisions of the party’s “super-delegates’’ to the Democratic National Convention should “reflect’’ which candidate has claimed the most pledged delegates in a contest which she believes will end well before the convention in Denver. - Baltimore Sun
Christine Pelosi:
"Many of us are elected by the grassroots of the party," she said, "And I cannot imagine going home in November to those people and try to phone bank for someone who did not capture the [pledged delegate] vote" - Huffington Post
Roy Romer is also onboard with backing the delegate leader: (Removed on 5/13 - endorsed Obama)
Romer, while reiterating that he hasn't taken a side, said the key should be the delegate count -- a standard that is likely to favor Illinois Sen. Barack Obama. He didn't pick up on a reporter's suggestion that the overall popular vote should matter, too. That's probably a disappointment to New York Sen. Hillary Clinton's campaign. Romer was a national co-chairman of her husband's presidential re-election campaign in 1996 and became general chairman of the DNC in January 1997, while Bill Clinton was president and the nation's leading Democrat. -USA Today
Update 5/1: Former President Jimmy Carter joins the Pelosi Club:
"And I think that many super-delegates who have not yet declared their preference have the same feeling that I do, including the Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi. She’s said over and over that whoever gets the most [pledged] delegates by June 3rd ought to be the nominee. - UK Telegraph
Clinton endorsers:
Sen. Maria Cantwell (WA) - most pledged delegates, most states won

Uncommitted:
Rep. Nancy Pelosi (CA)
(added 3/30)
Christine Pelosi (CA) (added 3/30) (endorsed Obama 6/3)
Gov. Roy Romer (CO) (added 3/30) (removed 5/13 - endorsed Obama)
Former President Jimmy Carter (GA) (added 5/1) (endorsed Obama 6/3)
Betty Richie (TX) (added 3/30) (removed 5/29 - endorsed Obama)
Denise Johnson (TX) (added 4/6)
Chris Van Hollen (MD) (added 5/24) (endorsed 6/4)

Obama endorsers:
Rep. Zoe Lofgren (CA)
Sen. Tom Daschle (SD)
(added 3/30)

We also have 1 additional member from Florida:
Obama endorsers:
Rep. Robert Wexler (FL)
(added 4/8)


One person who won't be in the Pelosi Club: DNC Chair Howard Dean:
Citing Democratic rules, national committee Chairman Howard Dean on Tuesday said that the superdelegates who are poised to select the party's presidential nominee are free to back whomever they wish at the end of the primaries, regardless of who leads in the popular vote or pledged delegates. "They should use whatever yardstick they want," Dean said in an interview at party headquarters. "That's what the rules provide for."
A majority of the pledged delegates is 1627.

If Obama wins a majority of the pledged delegates, he will gain 7 supers and Clinton will lose 1.
If Clinton wins a majority of the pledged delegates (this is considered unlikely), she will gain 8 supers and Obama will lose 2.

Update: Any superdelegate who uses the leader in "popular vote" as a basis for their vote is not eligible for membership in the Pelosi Club. Counting the popular vote this year has turned out to be a subjective measure, not an objective measure, and is therefore worthless for definitively determining how a superdelegate will vote.

Update May 20: Please note that we will not be moving the Pelosi Club members to Obama's column should he clinch the pledged delegate majority today. It has always been our policy not to move superdelegates based on conditional endorsements when those endorsements come true. If these supers want to endorse Obama once he clinches the pledged delegate majority, they need to say so themselves.

Also note: Given that it is likely that the Florida and Michigan delegates will be seated in some fashion, 1,627 will probably not be the final number for a majority of the pledged delegates anyway, and it's therefore up to the members of the Pelosi Club, not us, to decide when Obama has reached that point.

Update May 22: We have removed all Obama endorsers (Lofgren, Daschle and Wexler) from the Pelosi Club. With Obama clinching the Pledged Delegate Majority (non MI/FL version), it's clear they will stay with Obama no matter what.

196 comments:

rob8 said...

From my point of view, the division of SD can be viewed as follows:
1) SD who have declared their support for
one of the candidates,
2) SD who declared they will not
endorse at all any candidate
3) SD who declared that support the winner of the popular vote in their district
4) state
5) nation (popular vote or pledged delegates?)
6) SD undecided or did not expressed their intention.
SD belonging to Groups 3, 4, 5 can be grouped in a single column (indicating at which group they belong), delegates Group 2 may be added to a new column.
Thanks Roberto
PS. great job with this site

MyFriends said...

DNC Christine Pelosi (CA)
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/03/11/MN17VH62V.DTL

Like mother, like daughter!

countjellybean said...

Excellent idea. For this page, I'd like to propose three categories:

1. Leaning towards Clinton
2. Leaning towards Obama
3. Will vote with winner

countjellybean said...

Micah posted this on the main page:

Sorry to post 3 times in a row but..Pat Maroney (WV-DNC)for Clinton http://sundaygazettemail.com/News/200803170632

The article lists Pat Maroney as a Clinton supporter, but does not quote Maroney. Thus it does not pass muster as a committed superdelegate. But we could track her on this side page as Leaning Clinton without messing up the regular count.

countjellybean said...

Micah posted this on the main page:

Joe Johnson (At-Large DNC- VA) for Clinton
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/tracie-mcmillan/superdelegate-sleaze-a-c_b_91943.html


The article reports Joe Johnson as "tilting towards Clinton".

So right now we have 2 for Clinton, 2 for the pledged delegate winner.

neil k. said...

"I'm not comfortable with the idea that we know better. I will vote as a superdelegate for Hillary Clinton, if she ends up with the most pledged delegates," says Sen. Claire McCaskill (D) of Missouri, who has endorsed Obama.

Via the Christian Science Monitor

Micah said...

Still think this list is too hard to define to be useful. As for the Clinton's i posted, either count them for their endorsement or don't, but a leaning column is going to be rediculous. Too many varying forms of indicating preference.

countjellybean said...

neil, Thanks for the post. DCW already has McCaskill as for Obama, so I won't change the count.

johncz said...

I am glad to see Superdelegates making it crystal clear to voters that they won't resort to back room deals.

Mark said...

Best to make a Wiki page. Then you can stream back the most up to date information

And Little Fishes said...

Donna Brazile and Joe Biden have come close, saying that they believe the SDs will certainly follow the pledged delegates' lead so as to avoid a rift. I think Biden said so on the Daily Show (I know, but he was being serious), and I think Brazile said so on Stephanopoulos, but she's omnipresent, so who knows?

hockeypuck said...

...a leaning column is going to be ridiculous.

Beyond ridiculous.

DCW already has McCaskill as for Obama, so I won't change the count.

Considering how many Superdelegates have stated that they will back the person with the most pledged delegates, why even zero in on only Senator McCaskill's comments?

Wow. Unreal.

Oreo said...

Just to be clear...
Countjellybean has no control over our count. I believe he's talking about his own count.

And we're not interested in leaners. We started our superdelegate list to show the supers that committed to a candidate. We didn't start it to show what people might do.

We will add a list of supers who have said they will endorse the winner of the delegate race. That's it.

countjellybean said...

lompe posted this link: http://www.wbbm780.com/pages/1838217.php. The article lists Lipinksi (IL) in the Obama camp.

Clinton 2, Obama 1, PDW 2.

iwuzsailor said...

Leaners are only counted in Horseshoes -- and close only counts with horseshoes, hand grenades & small thermo-nuclear weapons

countjellybean said...

Yah, I'm just doing this for my own interest. I don't want to see DCW change its method or its format.

Josh said...

Question to the gallery: Does anyone believe that a superdelegate is going to override the wishes of the Speaker of the House, who has very clearly said she expects the SDs to vote the way of the pledged delegate winner (which we all know now is Obama)? Isn't it political suicide to defy the Speaker? Pelosi is not known as a forgiving leader... when you cross her, you get screwed. So why are we still talking about a competitive race when the Speaker has already crowned a victor?

Matt said...

Claire McCaskill is a national co-chair of Obama's campaign and is an active surrogate for the campaign. There's no way we can move her based on one article from a month ago vs the multitude of recent references to her strong support for the Obama campaign. She will stay in the Obama column.

craig said...

If I were an elected representative I would represent the interests of my constituency. The wishes of the Speaker of the House would of course be of interest to me, but such interests would not be my primary objective. My primary objective would be to represent the interests of my constituency.

The ideal situation would be when both the interests of my constituency and that of the Speaker are tbe same. That would certainly make life easier, but unlikely. The bottom line is that an elected officials allegiance is to his/her constituency.zzzgyb

Matt said...

Come on folks, please don't misrepresent what's in the sources you cite. Here's what Mitchell says:

"Mitchell, on The Jay Lawrence Show, says he may decide by delegate count or popular vote.

"And I thought that was an interesting approach, whether should it be based on delegate counts or should it be based on popular vote. And that's something I'm going to be weighing."

Mitchell also says other factors in his decision: Barack Obama won in his district, but Hillary Clinton won statewide. "So it's something that I'm going to have to weigh."

So he's looking at delegates, popular vote, district results, state results. In other words, he's completely undecided.

Same thing with Worley:

""It should be up to the voters. I'm hoping the election process, as it's intended to be, will play out before the convention in August.

"It that doesn't happen, I'll cast my vote one way or the other. Some days I think one would be more electable in November than the other. Other days, I think the other way around. I am truly undecided."

Repeating - "I am truly undecided".

Matt said...

Alex, we're not looking for centerpieces, and we're not looking for "sounds like". The only names we're looking for are people who specifically say "I will vote for the candidate who has the majority of the pledged delegate vote". Thanks.

Yamaka said...

I thought the real utility of the SDs is that they vote according to their view of the candidate whether he or she is electable in the General Election. For example,

If SDs think that Jeremiah Wright issue will push the White votes away from Sen Obama, why should they vote for him? or

If they believe that Prosecutor Fitz will call Sen Obama to testify under oath on Tony Rezko's case, then they may consider it to be a liability to Sen Obama. They should not vote for him.

I think Speaker Pelosi should NOT dictate how SDs should vote.

They should vote their conscience, as any other voter. Otherwise, we defeat the very purpose of having SDs, I believe.

Donna Brazile and Pelosi are not helping the candidate win the General Election. Cheers.

Bill UK said...

Yamaka,

It is clear that Clinton will not win either the pledged delegate vote or the popular vote. Pelosi has clearly indicated, and as speaker she should indicate, how SD's should vote if the majority required is not reached.

Pelosi has at least made a stand, something perhaps other heavyweights in the party should do to prevent this kamikazi mission of Clintons. I have already posted elsewhere the maths for Clinton to win the pledged delegate count and the unlikeness that she will even come close to succeeding in winning it. I am sure Pelosi has even more accurate figures that clearly demonstrate the same outcome, therefore she will be speaking for the benefit of the party as a whole and not for a single candidate. I am sure Pelosi would have said exactly the same thing if Clinton was winning.

Oreo said...

Roy Romer is also onboard with backing the delegate leader

Romer, while reiterating that he hasn't taken a side, said the key should be the delegate count -- a standard that is likely to favor Illinois Sen. Barack Obama. He didn't pick up on a reporter's suggestion that the overall popular vote should matter, too. That's probably a disappointment to New York Sen. Hillary Clinton's campaign. Romer was a national co-chairman of her husband's presidential re-election campaign in 1996 and became general chairman of the DNC in January 1997, while Bill Clinton was president and the nation's leading Democrat. (Link in Post)

Annette M said...

Found something with lots of info about what uncommitted delegates have said about backing delegate winner, etc.

Have a look at this compilation of comments, etc.

The webpage's right column shows uncommitted, with comments from MANY of them as to why they're uncommitted, what they plan to use as the basis of their decision, etc.

Well, here it is.

http://politics.nytimes.com/election-guide/2008/results/superdelegates/index.html

Annette

Matt said...

Annettre - we've seen that, but forgot about the quotes. Thanks for the tip.

Annette M said...

Okay, Matt

I gotta admit my favorite comment from the 'preference unknown' column was from "Bob Filner", whose comment starts out with:

Bob Filner, Representative, Calif.
"It's my dream that each side will get 2,024 delegates, and I'll cast the deciding vote.

At least someone has a sense of humor.

(He WAS joking, right?)

Annette :)

math 101 said...

nice link Annette thanks
one question is GP using the super count from DCW (with a delay) if so they should let DCW know (and if they are good move)

Matt said...

Yes, GP is using our numbers, with our permission, and they credit us at:

http://www.thegreenpapers.com/
P08/D-Unpledged.phtml

Alex said...

Is "reflect the will of voters" blunt enough?

Donna L. Brazile, Party official, D.C.
"I don't want to superimpose my personal views; I want to reflect the will of the voters. Honestly, I don't want to decide this."

http://politics.nytimes.com/election-guide/2008/results/superdelegates/index.html

Matt said...

Alex- I looked at that quote yesterday also. The problem is, the definition of the "will of the voters" is open to interpretation, so we can't include her on the list. But we should all keep on eye on her future statements, as I think she is likely to be more specific in the future.

Alex said...

Found another Brazile quote from CNN dated 2/8/2008:

"If 795 of my colleagues decide this election, I will quit the Democratic Party. I feel very strongly about this," Brazile said.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/02/07/dem.delegates/index.html

Under no uncertain terms: Donna Brazile WILL NEVER vote for the candidate with the least amount of pledged delegates. She's going to vote for the nationally popular winner.

Also how many "Winner-Backers" do you need to list them with Clinton, Obama and Neither?

suzyq said...

To Yamaka-
Please take the discussion of what you consider to be a candidate's "unelectability" elsewhere. There are more than enough topics we could list that would make many view Mrs. Clinton "unelectable". The media has been focused on Mr. Obama but they will turn to other candidates in time.

Wolle said...

Larry Gates for Obama:

"Gates said he would consider who won the state caucuses, which indicates a lean toward Obama."

http://www.joplinglobe.com/local/local_story_065212459.html

Matt said...

Re: Gates - that's one measure, and the article mentions others. He's clearly uncommitted.

jpsedona said...

How about David Parker:

David Parker, an undecided superdelegate from North Carolina, said he has been pressured by both sides to endorse. He offered some insight on how the outcome of the primaries and caucuses would influence his vote.

"In a fairly tight race—35-50 votes—I think superdelegates have got a green light to vote how they want," Parker said. "If Obama's out there at 150, that's a red light, and I don't think the superdelegates have much business subverting the will of voters."

But, he added, "Every once in a while some people run red lights."

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8V86DDO0&show_article=1

====

Maria Cantwell:

But in an interview with The Columbian’s editorial board Monday, she said the candidate with the most pledged delegates at the end of the primary season in late June will have the strongest claim to the party’s presidential nomination.

“I definitely don’t want the superdelegates to be the deciding factor,” she said.

The Democratic party should come together around the candidate with the most popular votes, the most states won and the most delegates, Cantwell said. The pledged delegate count will be the most important factor, she said, because that is the basis of the nominating process.




http://www.columbian.com/news/localNews/2008/03/03252008_Cantwell-supporting-Clinton----for-now.cfm

Kieran said...

Maria Centell is in the club:

U.S. Sen. Maria Cantwell, one of Washington’s 17 Democratic superdelegates, isn’t ready to shift her allegiance from Sen. Hillary Clinton to Sen. Barack Obama — yet.





But in an interview with The Columbian’s editorial board Monday, she said the candidate with the most pledged delegates at the end of the primary season in late June will have the strongest claim to the party’s presidential nomination.

“I definitely don’t want the superdelegates to be the deciding factor,” she said.

http://www.columbian.com/news/localNews/2008/03/03252008_Cantwell-supporting-Clinton----for-now.cfm

MyFriends said...

DNC Betty Richie (TX)
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0802/21/ltm.03.html

But not her husband!

ed iglehart said...

Phil Bredesen, the two-term governor of Tennessee:

Bredesen also joined House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) in warning that superdelegates should not overturn the outcome from primaries and caucuses.

If Obama were denied the nomination by Democratic insiders after winning the party’s popular vote, Bredesen said, “There would be hell to pay in the party for a long time to come.”

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0308/9217.html

Matt said...

Richie's been added to the list. And then there were 4.

Alex said...

Did you take a look a this one:

'Found another Brazile quote from CNN dated 2/8/2008:

"If 795 of my colleagues decide this election, I will quit the Democratic Party. I feel very strongly about this," Brazile said.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/02/07/dem.delegates/index.html

Under no uncertain terms: Donna Brazile WILL NEVER vote for the candidate with the least amount of pledged delegates. She's going to vote for the nationally popular winner.

Also how many "Winner-Backers" do you need to list them with Clinton, Obama and Neither?'

Matt said...

Alex - You're putting words in Brazile's mouth, which we won't do. That's a very famous quote of Brazile's as she was one of the first to acknowledge the superdelegate situation. But until she specifically says she's voting for the pledged delegate leader, she doesn't get added to the list.

Francie said...

Hey guys!

This is an interesting article about Bruce Braley of Iowa.

http://www.qctimes.com/articles/2008/03/28/news/local/doc47ed2eb410164598884076.txt?sPos=2

Seems to be going Obama's way, but won't commit.

ed iglehart said...

From the
Wall Street Journal
, superdelegate analysis:

Current tally, according to AP
Clinton uncommitted Obama
250 327 217

If they voted according to the popular-vote winner of their state
320 126 348

If they voted according to the popular-vote winner in their district
305 126 351
(12 results not available)

FYI

Carthage said...

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/186196.php
Joe Andrew, Indiana DLC

Carthage said...

http://ruralvotes.com/thefield/?p=642
SCHUMER and RANGEL !!!

Peephole said...

“If we get to the end and Senator Obama has won more states, has more delegates and more popular vote,” said Representative Jason Altmire, Democrat of Pennsylvania, who is undecided, “I would need some sort of rationale for why at that point any superdelegate would go the other way, seeing that the people have spoken.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/16/us/politics/16delegates.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin

Rep. James Clyburn (D-S.C.) has joined an influential chorus on Capitol Hill that believes superdelegates will not play a decisive role in the nominating convention in August. This will be the case, Clyburn believes, so long as one of the two front-runners emerges from the regular voting process with a clearly defined lead, if not the outright magic number of delegates required to secure the nomination.

Clyburn told The Trail last week that it is "crazy" to think that a majority of superdelegates would side with a candidate who finished second and flip the nomination to that candidate.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/02/19/rep-james-clyburn-its-_n_87438.html

As head of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, Rep. Chris Van Hollen has chosen to stay neutral in the presidential contest. But, as a superdelegate, he may have tipped his hand as to which candidate he will end up supporting.

In an interview with Capitol News Connection, the Maryland Democrat echoed an argument of Sen. Barack Obama's presidential campaign that superdelegates -- the nearly 800 Democratic Party insiders who can tip the outcome of the primary -- should take their cues from the pledge delegate tally.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/02/19/rep-van-hollen-superdel_n_87400.html

Rep. Charles Rangel, D-N.Y., one of Hillary Clinton's most stalwart black defenders, is apparently questioning her reliance on unelected super delegates to stay competitive with Barack Obama, saying they may not reflect the "will" of Democratic voters.

"It's the people (who are) going to govern who selects our next candidate and not super delegates," Rangel said Sunday night at a dinner for the New York State Association of Black and Puerto Rican Legislators conference in Albany, N.Y.

http://dailymail.com/News/election08/200802180126

jpsedona said...

If Joe Andrew, Indiana DLC is a superdelegate, why isn't he listed under Indiana in DCW's superdelegate list?

grantcart said...

1) Thanks for great website

2) Need for a second standard for the Pelosi Club

a) You have a very clear standard for counting superdelegates. It is tough and clear.

b) In my opinion you should have a different standard for the 'Pelosie Club'.

It is analagous to "beyond a reasonable doubt" which is used for criminal cases, and "preponderonce of the facts" in a civil case.

The reason that it is needed is because when it comes to supporting a candidate it comes down saying explicitly "I support candidate x"

When it comes to supporting the candidate who has the pledged delegate lead it is more supporting a philosophical idea and it maybe expressed in slightly different ways but the idea is the same.

The key example is Donna Brazille. Her preference is not only clearly understood but she has gone the furthest to support it saying that if they don't support that candidate she will quite the party. In fact it should be called teh donna Brazile club.

But you do not count her because she hasn't expressed it in the exact words you are looking for. There are others that have made their intent clear but the way they expressed it will not get them in the club.

Following this group is going to be increasingly important day by day. I am not suggesting that you have a standard that would open up endless arguments but one that is more flexible on how the idea is expressed. These two statements are the same but only one will get you in the club "who has the most pledged delegates" = "not overturn the will of the people who have voted in primaries and caucuses".

The judicial system has two standards one for criminal one for civil - they both arrive at verdicts that people accept. For the "Pelosi Club" page to become 'the' base for the blogoshpere to refer to it needs its own strict standard but more flexible on how people express it.

Thank you

eyesopen said...

Hi: I like the idea of this category, exactly as stated:
"Superdelegates who will support the pledged delegate winner". This is NOT identical to saying one would "not overturn the will of the people who have voted in primaries and caucuses," because that could mean one's own state or popular vote, or weight caucuses differently, etc. I would keep the definition very strict. It is not clear to be the Donna Brazille has met that test.

So I think there are 4 categories of SD, "For Obama", "For Clinton", "For the winner of pledged delegates", "Undecided". In contrast to what I said in a comment on your other post (before I saw this thread), I agree you should put Lofgren and Cantrell in the "For Pledged Delegates" category. But then you should split the top totals on the SD endorsement list, "Without Michigan and Florida
(now includes add-ons)" into two lists, "Without Michigan and Florida (now includes add-ons) assuming Obama wins a majority of pledged delegates" (where all "For winner of pledged delegates" SD's are added to Obama) and "Without Michigan and Florida (now includes add-ons) assuming Clinton wins a majority of pledged delegates" where all "For winner of pledged delegates" SD's are added to Clinton).

The former should obviously go first. I think that is the most accurate assessment of how the SDs would vote if the vote were held today. And if Clinton somehow magically pulls ahead in pledged delegates, the second set of totals list would be the most accurate.

Thanks again for all you work.

Robert in MN said...

There should be three simple catagories for the Pelosi club delegates, all based upon where these SD's are shown in your other lists. 1) those in the Clinton column; 2) those in the Obama column; and 3) those still uncommitted. That way we can all do the math and arive at our own logical conclusions. You could even have a table showing what the effects of "current reality" upon the pledges.

This seems close to being sorted out. Good job taking all concerns into consideration as always.

Matt said...

We've added Daschle. Joe Andrew doesn't quite qualify for the list. He's certainly wavering a bit, but he doesn't come out and say he will vote for the pledged delegate leader.

And jpsedona, Joe Andrew is on the Clinton list.

We're working through the other suggestions for the list. Keep them coming.

Matt said...

Schumer/Rangel - neither specifically say they're voting for the pledged delegate winner. The reporters say it, but not the supers. Rangel says "
"The people's will is what's going to prevail at the convention and not people who decide what the people's will is." I would venture to say that if the race does somehow tighten up, there will be more than one definition of what the "people's will" is.

dngo8mybb said...

Here’s a suggestion to get to the information that I think people would find helpful. Add a single column to cover those that have committed to change affiliation.

Delegates Supers Switchers Total

The ‘switchers’ would be those that would switch from undeclared to the delegate leader (currently Obama) or would switch from Clinton to Obama (or Obama to Clinton if she takes the delegate lead.)

The (let’s say) five ‘Pelosi delegates’ would show up as switchers, as would Maria Cantwell for a total of +6 for Obama. Cantwell would simultaneously show up as a –1 in the Clinton column.

This gives us the information that is currently out there, but is not communicated very well. (How many neutral switchers? How many Clinton switchers? etc.)

jpsedona said...

On Feb 12, Rick Larsen from Washington stated ""If I need to exercise my vote as a superdelegate in order to have a nominee this fall, then I will. I believe the grass roots of the party should select the candidate. The grass-roots process is not done. We should let it finish."

This is from the The Everett Herald.

I would suggest grass root = pledged delegates.

Matt said...

Larsen's not saying anything close to that. All he's saying is that he hopes the nominee is determined by the grass roots - which I read as the caucuses and primaries, as he says "We should let it finish."

He then says "If I need to exercise my vote as a superdelegate in order to have a nominee this fall, then I will."

And he gives absolutely no indication how he will make that choice.

We're only putting people on this list who specifically say they will vote for the "leader in pledged delegates". If you don't see the words "pledged delegates" in the quote, its unlikely we'll put them on the list. (and "will of the people" won't do it either).

Matt said...

Altmire: "I would need some sort of rationale" - means he might be open to one.

Van Hollen "take into consideration". could be other factors also.

Rangel - nice words, but no specific statement on how he will vote.

Clyburn- he talks about "clearly defined lead" and crazy to "side with a candidate who finished second" but he doesn't say he himself will actually vote for the pledged delegate leader.

ed iglehart said...

Hanging in there

xx
ed

dngo8mybb said...

Wow. Maybe it's the wine I had with dinner, but I find that chart pretty incomprehensible relative to your other very fact based (not stat/probability based) charts.

Democratic Convention Watch has never been about projections, but more, where people stand. I would remove the 50/50 delegate stuff, and the "if Hillary takes the lead stuff" and just list where the candidates are now, plus where they would be if the 'Pelosi delgates' were counted. That's all fact based, not so speculative.

Matt said...

dngo - The problem is, if you give the Pelosi delegates to one side or the other, than you are already making an assumption about the status of all the pledged delegates. To then ignore that status is not providing all the information we can. We're not adding these tables to any of the other pages, as they do approach things somewhat differently. But we think they'll prove useful going forward.

dngo8mybb said...

Hi Matt. I guess my thinking is that to do it in such a theoretical and multi-scenario way is very far removed from reality.

There are a few ways to look at the Pelosi delegates. The first is that under current circumstances (Obama ahead by about 160 pledged) that they should count for Obama. The second is using a reasonable statistical projection, like election night projections. I'm not statistician, but some that I read talk about Obama maintaining his lead to a 90-95% certainty. Those are very strong stats, so even under a projection, they would count for Obama.

With all due respect (since you folks do a great job) your Pelosi chart is so equivocal that is provides no information whatsoever.

The whole thing that is interesting about the Pelosi delegates, which isn't captured anywhere else at the moment, is the effect they have on the delegate count as things stand now or if you prefer, (but I don't) based upon probabilities.

The Political Breeze said...

like dngo8mybb, i don't understand the value of having the 3 scenarios here.

For me, the Pelosi numbers serve to correct the current numbers (endorsements and uncommitted) so as to reflect the reality that only one candidate will be the pledged delegate winner.

While this approach yields two sets of "adjusted current numbers", one of them will be correct. The same cannot be said for the unadjusted numbers.

RowanH said...

Matt & Oreo

The morning you introduced the pledged delegate page, you removed a frightfully witty post, by an Aussie, supporting Fristan and others to start this very thread. I am that Aussie. And so I can’t help feeling a bit of ‘parenthood’ to this page.

Now, I think the next stage for our little baby lies in only one direction. That is to link everyone who has made a reference to ‘will of the people’, or ‘winner in my state.’ Then, we can all work it out for ourselves. And this is the really fun bit for the readers, isn’t it? How many of your readers like me, are keeping their own list? Should I be shamed to admit it?

When I first joined the Australian Labor Party at 14 (the Dems sister party), I learnt how to count. ‘1’ is someone who is going to turn up and vote for you. ‘2’ is someone who will vote for you if you don’t turn up. ‘3’ is unknown and ‘4’ is the other side. Actually, there is another one. ‘5’ is a ‘bodgey’, a person who has been ‘invented’ and whose membership ticket is available to be used by a friendly body. I am sorry to say.

So my list of ‘3’s is pretty heavily annotated…. but don’t we all crave to know more? Really, there would be 10 headings tops for a comprehensive list of those who have said something about how their vote will be influenced; pledged majority, winner in my state, winner of popular vote, a mixture. So, maybe only these four headings.

And then a link to the statement. If it is a strong statement, like Brazile’s, then I’m happy to put that on my list for Obama. If it is weak like Larsen, who I think said nothing, (if anything, I think he is leaning to Clinton… because I think he is saying that if there is no winner after the elections, then the supers can do whatever the GD they like,) if it is weak like Larsen then I would leave him in my undecided column.

You guys and your readers, are the only people on the planet who could do this.

PS Thanks for an incredible education in US history and politics.

Oreo said...

Rowan,
I'm very sorry we had to remove the post. Somehow Blogger managed to allow an open BOLD tag in your comment which made everything below your comment show up as bold also.

I do apologize and thank you for your visits. Next time something like this happens we'll be sure to copy the text and enter it as a new comment.

cbsmith42 said...

For what it's worth, Politic.com has Denise Johnson in the Pelosi Club leaning Obama.
"· Texas superdelegate Denise Johnson: Johnson is uncommitted, but only in the most formal sense of the word. She told the Dallas Morning News she voted for Obama in the primary and plans on voting for the delegate leader at the national convention."

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0308/9266.html

eyesopen said...

I think you should keep it simple. Here is how I would split your top table using your current numbers:

Without Michigan and Florida
including Pelosi Club (if Obama ends primaries with lead in pledged delegtates)

Obama 1406 214+5 1625
Clinton 1249 246-1 1494

Without Michigan and Florida
including Pelosi Club (if Clinton ends primaries with lead in pledged delegtates)

Obama 1406 214-2 1618
Clinton 1249 246+6 1501

btw, I have added a Pelosi Club sublist to my list of Obama endorsers:
http://sciencesense-eyesopen.blogspot.com/2008/02/running-list-of-obama-endorsements.html

Thanks again!
-Eyesopen

Heather said...

Daschle has said he will vote with the majority:

http://www.truveo.com/Daily-Show-Sen-Tom-Daschle/id/3231242663

Shannon said...

Let's take a look at scenario #3 under the pelosi club - HRC wins pledged delegate count with 1627. In order for HRC to achieve that number she would need to win the remaining primaries by the following margins (delegates that would result shown after percentages):
Pennsylvania 69%-31% (109-49)
Guam 64%-36% (3-1)
Indiana 68%-32% (49-23)
N.Carolina 65%-35% (75-40)
W.Virginia 69%-31% (19-9)
Kentucky 68%-32% (34-17)
Oregon 64%-36% (34-18)
Montana 55%-45% (9-7)
S.Dakota 55%-45% (9-6)
Puerto Rico 68%-32% (37-18)

This race for the democratic nomination is confusing enough people... please try to keep the reporting on this site at least in the realm of reality.

suzyq said...

I agree with all those who feel this 3 scenario chart is truly inconsistent with your website. It really has confused the whole standing of the delegate race and not actually clarified it as was probably your intent. Plus it means you have to deal with annoying comments like mine here!

Leah said...

Missouri
Rep. Emanuel Cleaver

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/04/01/clinton-backer-obama-will-win/

Matt said...

Cleaver doesn't ever say he'll vote the "pledged delegate leader". If you look at the link for "consider voting", it was very much a specific hypothetical if the vote was exactly tied, and it's the total vote that's being discussed, not the pledged delegate vote.

Peephole said...

Why is Denise Johnson still not added anywhere?

"While the Web site Politico.com lists Democratic national committeewoman Denise Johnson of Houston as a Clinton superdelegate, she said she voted for Mr. Obama on Tuesday and that she'll probably cast her convention vote for the candidate who wins more pledged delegates – very likely, Mr. Obama."

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/politics/state/stories/030708dnpolsuperdelegates.f1dec3.html

Matt said...

Peephole - because she says she'll probably probably cast her convention vote for the candidate who wins more pledged delegates. When she says she'll definitely cast her convention vote for the candidate who wins more pledged delegates, we'll add her to the Pelosi Club.

cbsmith42 said...

Governor Corzine - NJ backs Clinton but there are reports that he may switch on popular vote:
http://thepage.time.com/video-scarborough-on-corzines-comments/

Are we doing popular vote or delegates only?

Oreo said...

CBS
We're only doing pledged delegates.

Maybe we should start a Corzine Club? ;) j/k

jeepdad said...

I posted this at DKos yesterday, but I think Rep. Altmire might be a good candidate for the Pelosi club.

From WJAC-TV:

It's widely believed superdelegates will have the ability to determine the ultimate nominee. Obama is expected to finish the primary season with more pledged delegates, which makes the role of uncommitted superdelegates more important. Will Altmire be willing to formally side with Clinton, even if Obama wins more pledged delegates? Altmire said, "That's a question I've asked Senator Clinton directly. If Senator Obama is ahead on delegates, popular votes, and more states, why should a superdelegate switch sides at that point and go against the will of the people? She has an answer for it, but that's going to be a very difficult vote for me to make."

From: http://www.wjactv.com/news/15774152/detail.html

Leah said...

IMHO- Corzine and Murtha need to go green. Maybe it should be the "Pelosi/Corzine" Club. Because if a SD says they will switch they still should be counted no matter if it is based on pledged dels or pop.vote. Need to keep a running total of all of them since that all count.

You can always put in ( )'s the reason they will switch.

frstan said...

NYT
Rep. Lynn Woolsey (D-Petaluma), a leader of the influential House Out of Iraq Caucus, endorsed Clinton after hearing the New York senator explain her commitment to withdrawing U.S. forces from Iraq.

But last month, Woolsey began to adjust her position, committing herself to back the candidate with the bigger share of the popular vote.

"No one wants our party's nominee to be chosen by the votes of a handful of superdelegates," Woolsey said in a statement. "That's why, while I remain a strong Hillary Clinton supporter, I will cast my vote at the convention for the candidate that is chosen not through back-room deals, but by the votes of the American public."

New Jersey Gov. Jon Corzine, a superdelegate backing Clinton, gave a television interview Thursday in which he too said his support might hinge on the popular vote total.

Oreo said...

The Pelosi Club will only include supers that say they'll support the nominee with the most delegates.

We will not add anyone who only states they will go with the nominee who has the highest popular vote.

frstan said...

Another Clinton superdelegate, Gov. Martin O'Malley, D-Md., has his finger in the wind: "I heard Nancy Pelosi say the superdelegates should not reverse the popular vote[as expressed in having a majority of pledged delegates], and I think that's a very important consideration that will weigh heavily on all the superdelegates," O'Malley tells the Baltimore Sun.

Matt said...

All - After further consideration we have to decided to remove the scenario tables from this post. We agree they were a bit confusing and distracting.

Matt said...

Added Denise Johnson (TX) to the Pelosi Club. Link in the post.

alaric said...

There has been an awful lot of discussion of the "superdelegates" and whether they should exercise their independent judgment in the selection of the Democratic nominee. Superdelegates are a very important component of the primary process. By the time you finish reading this, I'm sure you will agree.

"Shouldn't superdelegates cast their vote the same way that the primary elections voted?"

The purpose of these delegates is as an insurance policy. They are there to help make sure that the primary process goes as it should. They are not there to simply "rubberstamp" the selections made in the primary elections. Sometimes there are very good reasons for the superdelegates to not vote the same way as in the primary election.

In some states, Non-Democrats can vote in the Democratic Primary. What can happen is that non-Democrats can negatively affect the outcome by voting for a candidate that is not in the best interest of the Democrats. Superdelegates have the experience to help offset this and other "dirty tricks" that Republicans and Conservatives come up with.

In a close primary where there is no clear leader (like in this one), or where there are abnormalities (like the disenfranchisement of Florida and Michigan Democrats), we need the wisdom and experience of the superdelegates to help do what is in the best interest of the Democratic Party, and ultimately of the entire United States itself.

"But doesn't that overrule the will of the people?"

No, and here's why. Many of the superdelegates already have the will of the people behind them because they have already been elected to significant positions in government. And all of the superdelegates are experienced Democrats who have nothing but the best interest of the Democratic Party in mind. Superdelegates are selected because we need their independent judgment based on their commitment and experience. It is all of these factors that make their input into the process extremely valuable.

Because they make up only about a fifth of the total delegates, the only time the superdelegates make any difference is when the primaries for the nomination are close. It is when the primary is close that irregularities (like the Michigan and Florida problem) and other factors (like conservative media bias) can negatively determine the outcome. And it is only then can the superdelegates exercise their good judgment and help select the best, most electable candidate. Remember, we are all on the same team!

Amot said...

HUH, why do you think supers act for the best of the party? Let’s say your district voted 80% for candidate X. Let’s assume you know that candidate Y will be the best for the party! Now if you vote for X at the convention you insure your reelection. But is that the best for the party? I don't think PLEOs act for Party's best - they act for his/her best at the first place. And there is clear contradiction!
Now assume you are DNC member and you are not elected but you get that position because you are member of union or something like that! You can choose the best candidate without second thoughts... except that you are probably friend of one candidate... or both... I don't think supers have to be less human than any of us and act for the good of the party above all!
My opinion is supers are needed to correct the outcome in case of last minute problem. Let’s say that the primaries are over, we have winner and suddenly he loses electability or is unable to run. Supers have to force the convention to choose other candidate even if the supporters of the winner want to vote for him! Let’s say supers are 20% of the delegates and the other candidates hold another 20%. The winner has 60% and you have to convince only 1 out of 6 to change his/her mind in order to stop that candidate being elected! People listen to PLs especially if they have the right to vote too. Those 20% unpledged supers plus the pledged PLEOs are big enough insurance to secure the party from unwanted outcome at the convention!

Now about our case:
If you are super, your district voted X, your state voted X, and X is leading in popular vote and delegates pledged, unless you think X is very bad choice you should obey the will of the people!

At 'The field' Deb Kozikowski asked bloggers to help her made decision about her super's vote! Her state voted Clinton, but she likes Obama and thinks he is better candidate plus he is the front-runner! Whatever choice she makes it is a good choice - she has her reasons for both sides!

Let’s take one of the last add-ons selected - DC add-on Thomas. His ward went 86% Obama, his state did the same and he backed Clinton! He has some good reason probably, but is that reason strong enough? I don't think so... Not surprisingly his constituents forced him to change his mind and he is now uncommitted with rumors saying he is leaning Obama!

Let's take Jimmy Carter - he gave hints who is he rooting for, but his noble position is to stay neutral till the end of the race just like Dean and Pelosi do. Maybe those are the only persons who can think for the best of the party at the first place since they are the past, the present and the future of the party!

If Obama wins the popular vote and the pledged delegates, if he doesn’t lose electability, if your district and state voted Obama, no reason is good enough to vote against him! It’s good neither for you nor for the party! If your district or state backed Clinton, it’s ok to vote either way!

‘Pelosi club’ are the people thinking wining the pledged delegates is reason good enough to choose between two good candidates! Maybe it is not enough! Corzine, Murtha and some others think winning the popular vote is good enough reason. I think that is also a good reason though I prefer the first one – after all this is a campaign to win the delegates not the vote. Maybe in such close race you need to win both. Obama won the pledged delegates. Even if FL and MI get seated as is, he will have 100 or so pledged delegates more than Hillary. If he wins the popular vote too or they are virtually tied, I don’t see a good reason to go her way unless your constituents voted for her. And by popular vote I mean FL included, MI not included.

eyesopen said...

Not sure what you want to do with this, but Wexler (FL) seems to be in the Pelosi club:

http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/superdelegates-give-themselves-wiggle-room-on-clinton-obama-2008-04-07.html

“The person who wins the most pledged delegates should be the nominee,” Wexler said. “I’ve set up the rule, I’ll abide by that.”

Perhaps he is in the if-FL-counted Pelosi club.

Also, if you count Pelosi club members for Obama (not including Wexler), Hillary's lead drops by 7, about 1/3 of her lead right now (24). So whether you include them will be important in determining when Obama passes Clinton. I would quote Clinton's lead with and without The Club on your Ultimate Delegate Summary.

Matt said...

Wexler added to the Club. Thanks.

Leah said...

Second paragraph from the bottom:

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=89474042

Matt said...

First, the quote in the NPR story is not in the audio. Just the reporter saying he'll vote for the candidate with most pledged delegates/popular votes/states. So we don't know exactly what Altmire said. But even so, that might be enough.

But also today:

"It's pretty clear to me that Sen. Clinton is likely to win my district," Altmire said. "Then I have a decision to make (when) the superdelegates are closing the loop: What's more important, who won my district, who won the state, or who won the national series of votes, once all 50 states and the territories have voted?"

He's too inconsistent in his statements, and since the words in the NPR story didn't actually come out of his mouth, we're not going to add Altmire at this time.

frstan said...

US Rep James Altmire PA
Altmire says he plans to support whoever winds up with the most pledged delegates and the greatest popular vote. He thinks that is likely to be Obama.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=89474042

frstan said...

@Matt
What's inconsistent? He asks the question "What's more important [this,that,the other, or etc]"? Then he answers the question.....[for himself]

So I don't see inconsistency

Matt said...

Frstan - In the PittsburghLive link, he never answers the question - he leaves it open, implying he's taking a number of issues into account.

Given that, we don't trust the NPR account, because there's no actual quote there. Both the audio and text are paraphrases by the reporter, so we have to give more importance to the actual quote we do have.

If you can find a quote where Altmire specifically says he'll vote for the pledged delegate leader to the exclusion of any other factors (except popular vote), we'll take it under consideration.

jcaesar91 said...

Last night I had a strange premonition that we will see an extremely bold statement from Bill Clinton before this is over to the effect that he will cast his superdelegate vote for Barack Obama should he win the popular vote....I am a diehard Obama supporter- but I suspect Bill will do this....the Clintons have the short stack right now- and it is time to go all-in, because HRC simply cannot win the nomination if she trails the popular vote by 1 vote....

Nathan said...

Looks like New Jersey Governor Corzine (who endorsed Clinton) should be on the Pelosi list:

"Per NBC’s Tom Winter, Gov. Jon Corzine, a Clinton superdelegate, just said on CNBC's Squawk Box that he reserves the right to change his vote from Hillary Clinton if she doesn't have the popular vote. He stopped short of saying that he definitely would change his vote if she lost the popular vote and he did strongly emphasize that Sen. Clinton would win the popular vote in the end."

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/04/03/854162.aspx

lompe said...

David Hardt (tx) has joined the Pelosi club: "If it comes down to Sen. Obama clearly having a delegate lead among pledged delegates ... then I'll cast my vote for him," Hardt said

http://www.star-telegram.com/news/story/565661.html

Matt said...

You should have read the next line:

"If it comes down to Sen. Obama clearly having a delegate lead among pledged delegates ... then I'll cast my vote for him," Hardt said. "There is such a thing as the will of the people.

"If it's really, really close, I honestly don't know how I'll vote," he said. "I'm still very, very torn."

Since he doesn't define what he means by a "clear delegate lead" - 10, 50, 100? - and is reserving the right to go against the delegate leader if the lead is close, we can't add him.

lompe said...

Now you are just being pedantic, Matt. If you had asked Pelosi: What if one candidate leads by 1, 5 or 10 pledged delegates, her answer would probably have been similar to that of Hardt's.

Matt said...

lompe - I disagree with you about Pelosi. Her standard is the "most pledged delegates" She doesn't qualify it with a "if its really close, well then, never mind", and I bet if you asked her, she would stay consistent with her previous answer. Hardt specifically qualifies his answer by giving himself wiggle-room if its "really close", and that's not what we're looking for right now.

Fulcanelli said...

Jimmy Carter "basically agrees" with Pelosi, save for some nonsense about the popular vote. Also hints strongly that he's behind Obama.See http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/04/13/carter-going-against-popular-vote-would-be-serious-mistake/

Francis L. Holland Blog said...

Claire McCaskill is saying that she is being fair and even-handed. She will support Obama if he has the most earned delegates (which he undoubtedly will) and she will support Clinton is SHE has the most earned delegates (which she undoubtedly won't).

Her method of choosing whom to support is even-handed because she is going to support the one who inevitably (obviously even at this point) will have the most earned delegates.

Nathan said...

Rep. Barney Frank (MA) said the trailing Democratic presidential candidate should drop out of the race by no later than June 3 -- the date of the two last Democratic primaries -- even if it is the candidate he supports, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton.
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/us/AP-Democrats-Frank.html

ed iglehart said...

Jimmy Carter, last night on BBC TV made it clear he stands shoulder to shoulder with Pelosi. Follow the
link
to watch the nearest thing to an honest man to have been anywhere near the White House in a century.

Salaam/Shalom/Shanthi/Dorood/Peace
Namaste -ed

bentmind said...

http://www.courierpress.com/news/2008/apr/23/mayor-announces-his-support-for-obamas-bid/

Another Pelosi Club SD from Indiana

billyjay66 said...

matt

I find the notes entries on the "endorsement list" and "those who haven't endorsed list" extremely useful to check at a glance when changes have occured (or if nothing has changed).

By reading you posts - so far the changes and dates for Pelosi Club updates look like:
03-26-08... added Betty Ritchie(TX)
03-30-08... added Tom Daschle(SD)
04-06-08... added Denise Johnson(TX)
04-08-08... added Rep Robert Wexler(FL)

Although this is a short list it shows useful info that the last change is now over two weeks. It still is nice to have the list even though it is moving slowly. Everyone asks you for more...more.. more but a notes update at the bottom or more simply in parentheses the date added like Denise Johnson entry has would be nice

Zach said...

Chris Van Hollen states there would be a meltdown if there was the perception that the superdelegates overturned the decision of the elected delegates,

(at about 2:19 in the video)
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video_log/2008/04/interview_with_dccc_chairman.html

Zach said...

the address is .html

Matt said...

We added some dates. We'll take another look at Carter.
Ellsworth does not qualify. "Ellsworth has said he probably will cast his superdelegate vote for the candidate who wins a majority in the 8th District in Indiana's May 6 primary." this rules him out. and "I don't believe the superdelegates should overturn the will of the voters". This also rules him out, as "will of the people" is too ambiguous.

Van Hollen does not qualify until he says that he will vote for the leader in pledged delegates. The rules need to be strict in order to keep the list valid.

Economy said...

There should be an openly televised debate between Hillary and Obama where superdelegates ask the questions with no time limit. It could be run in a similar fashion as a congressional hearing. This should happen as soon as possible. Hillary is ready. Will Obama accept the challenge? I will defer to Peloci and Dean to determine how many superdelegates can ask questions of the candidates. The entire group of superdelegates could come up with a list of questions and then trim it down to the most important questions that would determine how they vote. Hopefully the superdelegates will use their political savy to vote for the greater good of the general population.

Galois said...

I know you don't go with lists provided by papers especially when based primarily on lists provided by the candidates, but the NY Times also has some interesting quotes. Joe Andrews, Donna Brazile, and Cindy Spanyers all sound reluctant to overturn the "will of the voters" although I understand that phrase is too ambiguous to consider them members of the Pelosi club. Although Andrews and Brazile in particular sound awfully close. Brazile has written earlier that she would leave the party if the superdelegates decided the nomination. It doesn't sound like it would be too hard for a journalist to pin her down explicitly to a commitment to go with the pledged delegate winner. In addition to Andrews sounding like he is not necessarily committed to voting for Clinton there is also Karen Hale and Russ Feingold who seem to be wavering. (The Times actually lists Feingold in the uncommitted). Finally although I understand there is some debate as to whether to include Paul Kirk in the Obama column it seems there may be enough in his quote to include him in the Pelosi column. In any event, the quotes all around are interesting in the insights they give into superdelegates thinking.

Galois said...

With regards to Kirk it's actually better to read the open letter from him to other superdelegates from which the quote is taken. He also says, "When the primaries conclude, there will have been 22 face-to-face debates, the pledged delegate count will be final and that's when we must close ranks." That seems to be definitive for the Pelosi club. He also presents an interesting argument for why this situation is different than Kennedy's in 1980.

Galois said...

Andrew supports the winner of the popular vote.

Matt said...

Agree that Joe Andrew supports the popular vote winner, which then disqualifies him for the Pelosi Club. Only "pledged delegate leader" counts.

As for Kirk, I interpret his statement differently. I think he's just giving a timeline: "When the primaries conclude, there will have been 22 face-to-face debates, the pledged delegate count will be final and that's when we must close ranks."

My interpretation is that he is saying, after the primaries, after the pledged count is final, everyone quickly decide, and we then all support the winner. He doesn't say "close ranks around the pledged delegate leader", he says "close ranks after the pledged delegates are all picked". He never uses the words "pledged delegate leader".

Thanks for the research. It's a tough group for people to get into!

Matt said...

I've updated the post to reflect the discussion on Popular Vote. This has been a working rule for us, but I guess we never explicitly stated it in the post. Now its in there.

Amot said...

Matt, I suggest you update the number needed to win the most pledged delegates with our own and confirmed by everyone else 73/83 PA.

Matt said...

Galois - I removed the current count from the post, since it's present in the left sidebar.

Economy said...

The 2000 election with Al Gore winning the popular vote but not the election is the reality. It is apparent that the whole democratic primary system needs a major overhaul. Until one of the candidates get to 2025 or drops out a slight advantage one way or the other does not mean much.

Canadian4Obama said...

Carter should be added to the Pelosi Club:

"It would be undemocratic if the super-delegates blatantly went against the decision of Democratic voters across the nation.

"And I think that many super-delegates who have not yet declared their preference have the same feeling that I do, including the Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi. She’s said over and over that whoever gets the most [pledged] delegates by June 3rd ought to be the nominee."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/uselection2008/1907961/Hillary-Clinton-supporters-must-accept-outcome-of-popular-vote%2C-Jimmy-Carter-says.html

Dave said...

Linda Chavez-Thompson (TX - undecided):

"It's very important, who has the most delegates. The superdelegates should not be the ones making the decision." — Linda Chavez-Thompson of Texas.

Link: http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5isSHNTiyvVV0g-kWJoRWky5A8ytwD905QSJO0

Matt said...

Chavez-Thompson is not quite there. "Very important", could mean other things are important also, and she doesn't commit to voting for the "delegate leader" herself.

Raymond said...

Why hasn't carter been added. He said yesterday he would back the delegate leader.

Yannos said...

Carter now unambiguously in Pelosi Club. Excerpt of CNN interview:

BLITZER: [...] What, in your opinion, would be more important as a super-delegate -- who has the most pledged or elected delegates, or who has more of the popular vote in all of these 50-plus contests?

CARTER: The pledged delegates, because that's a whole rule. I mean, there's no rule at all that says the popular vote gets the nomination. The rules of the Democratic Party and the Republican Party only refer to the delegates.

BLITZER: So that -- someone argued, having heard what you just said, that's code for Barack Obama.

CARTER: Not necessarily. He hasn't got the majority of delegates.

BLITZER: But he's almost certainly going to get the most pledged delegates.

CARTER: Well, I don't know yet. They've got nine more states to go

Matt said...

Carter added to the Pelosi Club.

melloed said...

Just a reminder to our " Super-Delegates" Some of you will be up for re-election one day and alot of us will remember who you endorsed for President of this Great country in 2008. If any one would have known who and what Obama was he would NOT be where he is today. I know my friends will be voting for McCain if Clinton is not on the Dem ticket. No one knew anything when the early primaries took place and now people like Rev. Al Sharpton want to threaten with the race card if Obama does not get on the ticket.The Only chance the Dems have to win the White House back is thru Clinton on the ticket. Guarnteed !! Thank you for your time and please wake up and do the right thing for our country!

billyjay66 said...

melloed

re "superdelegates give us our country back"
You are saying that the superdelegates better undo the primary votes (a democratic process) or you will undo them (with a democratic process)????. Where are the throngs marching in the streets who already voted and want their vote back?

Maybe you don't care if Al Sharpton gets mad and "playing the race card" one guy getting mad is no big deal right? I think you say "playing the race card" like it its no big deal... one guy complaining for nothing....right?

Let's pretend there are a few more that get mad...like 10 or 20 million when an election is overturned. They should understand that democracy is only half the process. It is not complete until America blesses it ala Venezuela, Nicaragua, Chile, Palestine? France (when they get it right).

Go ahead and vote for John McCain. Four more years of war and another trillion dollars. You will get what you asked for.

melloed said...

I will and so will a whole bunch of others !!!! Our country is going to Hell in a basket thanks to people like you ! We may have a Civil War but even that may be better then to be run by the likes of Obama and his preacher and the likes of those !!! They are now teaching in Sunday scchool in Chicago in the Black churches the ways of Rev. Wright and Obama . Is that what you believe and want for your country and mine ???

Matt said...

Folks, take it to the Open Thread.

billyjay66 said...

melloed

Talk to me on the open thread!

baseballanalisis said...

If a life is worth a life no matter whose it is...than I don't see a difference between having a civil war in the usa or the usa making war around the world. Something has to end this madness.

Economy said...

Hillary is proposing change. Obama supports the status quo and probably wants to increase the gas tax by 40 cents per gallon. If An Increase in the Gas Tax Would Hurt Consumers and Slow the Economy then a decrease should help.
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Taxes/wm451.cfm

Macroeconomic analysis performed by the Center for Data Analysis at the Heritage Foundation, however, shows that increasing the gas tax would depress economic activity and the incomes of millions of Americans. It would also raise significantly less revenue than its proponents project. The President should be commended for his firm stand against raising the federal gasoline tax, and Congress would do well to abandon proposals to increase the gas tax and instead focus on spending highway dollars more efficiently, ideally by turning them back to the states.

Taxes add a significant amount to the price of motor fuel and vary widely by state. For the first quarter of 2008, the average state gasoline tax is 28.6 cents per gallon, plus 18.4 cents per gallon federal tax making the total 47 cents per gallon. For diesel, the average state tax is 29.2 cents per gallon plus an additional 24.4 cents per gallon federal tax making the total 53.6 cents per gallon.

Ronald Reagan cut federal taxes which lead to an increase of state taxes. Hillary has a plan to get huge corporate profits make up the difference so everyone is lifted in the economy.

billyjay66 said...

economy

Pump prices have "taxed" us to the tune of $1.40/gal since the start of '07!!!... Full comment is on open thread where we should talk.

billyjay66 said...

matt or oreo

If the delegate count for the Indiana - North Carolina are reasonably close to 50-50 and Obama has somewhere around 1590 pledged delegates he will be within 40 or less towards clinching the majority of pledged delegates (1627). Or is it now 1628 now?

With his needing less than 40 out of 200 remaining isn't it time to enumerate - ala a (separate) table of supers including the Pelosi club for Obama? At this point Clinton is 269-1=268 and Obama is 248+7=255. The Clinton lead is 13. Clinching is far closer to being a reality than some Michigan-Florida scenario 1-6.

Amot said...

2 more Pelosi?

Any ideas who they are?

http://www.411mania.com/politics/columns/74731/Superdelegate-Watch:-3-New-Ones-For-Obama,-2-Clinton-Superdelegates-Planning-To-Switch.htm

Yannos said...

I think we all forgot an important member of the Pelosi Club. Indeed, Sen. Barack Obama himself belongs to the Pelosi club. He has said that "If I end up with the most delegates, it would be a good idea to make me the nominee", or something like that. His campaign strongly advocates that the superdelegates should give it to the pledged delegate winner.

billyjay66 said...

PELOSI CLUB COUNT

Whenever the remaining two Illinois add-ons get counted, the count will be 269.5-254. The Clinton lead will be down to its lowest point of 15.5. Considering the Pelosi Club, Clinton's count goes down one - 268.5 and Obama's count goes up six - 260. The Pelosi Club lead is down to 8.5

Amot said...

Billyjay,
can you find out who the 2 CA rumored Pelosi's are?

Jamie said...

If you use the current polling data available and project delegates in the remaining contests based on that, Obama will clinch the pledged delegate contest on May 20:

Current lead: 169
WV: net (8)
OR: net 4
KY: net (15)
Projected lead after 5/20: 150
Remaining pledged delegates after 5/20: 86

John S said...

Looks like another one for the Pelosi Club:

Rep. Chris Van Hollen (Md.), chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, said Tuesday that superdelegates should choose against the delegate leader only if he or she commits a gaffe so extreme that it would seriously jeopardize the party’s chances in the fall . . . “We should not overturn the decision of pledged delegates unless something comes up before the convention that makes it clear the leading candidate is unelectable,” said Van Hollen. “There would have to be a clear consensus that person is unelectable.”

http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/superdelegates-say-we-will-decide-2008-05-06_2.html

John S said...

One in 10 says the biggest factor will be nominating the candidate with the most pledged delegates won in primaries and caucuses. "I would favor the people making the decision rather than insiders and party bosses," says Rep. Dan Boren of Oklahoma.

http://www.usnews.com/articles/news/campaign-2008/2008/05/02/the-superdelegate-showdown-might-be-key-to-the-democratic-nomination.html?PageNr=1

Yannos said...

Barack Obama himself should be put in the Pelosi Club. This was posted today on his campaign website (from :campaign manager David Plouffe)

"We want to be clear -- we believe that the winner of a majority of pledged delegates will be and should be the nominee of our party."

Please place Obama on the Pelosi Club, or remove all Obama supporters from the Club, if you agree that their inclusion has become meaningless.

billyjay66 said...

Christine Pelosi was on MSNBC and was asked all the usual questions "what was going to happen" (bla bla bla). Not that she was bad just all the usual useless questions. But she mentioned - and I've heard her repeat at least twice before in previous interviews - that her vote will be determined by who becomes the pledged delegate winner ala "Pelosi Club" member.

The point is that after 3-4 months of selling fear about the Supers may overturn all the results of the voters... a Super saying that she will not.... nothing is said. The MSM doesn't like to have their fun spoiled.

Also note that the "Pelosi lead" is down to 3.5. Obama goes plus 7 and Clinton loses 1. Tomorrow that lead could switch to positive for Barack but soon the lead could switch to Barack without the Pelosi Club.

Matt said...

Van Hollen doesn't get in. No caveats allowed for electability. It's too subjective, and therefore basically makes the commitment worthless.

John S said...

I still think Van Hollen wants in the club ;)

He claims the same position as Nancy Pelosi here:

Q: What did you think of the letter from Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton’s (D-N.Y.) fundraisers criticizing Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) for taking the position that superdelegates shouldn’t reverse the outcome of pledged delegates?

A:I think the letter was counterproductive; it was probably counterproductive from the point of view of the Clinton campaign. I think we’re beyond that. … I’ve taken that position, I think even before the Speaker articulated that position.


http://dccc.org/newsroom/entry/the_hill_van_hollen_using_fear_as_a_weapon/


Van Hollen also explains his view that the nod should go to the candidate with the most pledged delegates in minutes 48-49 of this pod cast interview:
http://www.askyourlawmaker.org/audio/play/1059

John S said...

Adam Smith in club:

Whichever candidate has the most pledged delegates is the candidate who should be supporter, that`s the choice of the people and I will say this, as a superdelegate, if Hillary Clinton has more pledged delegates, then I would be one of those people saying, superdelegates should support her as I would hope Senator Clinton supporters would do the same for Barack Obama.

http://www6.lexisnexis.com/publisher/EndUser?Action=UserDisplayFullDocument&orgId=574&topicId=100007220&docId=l:741582895&start=6

kanaga said...

I would like this very good site to post crossover SDs, clinton to obama and vice versa. This would be esecially helpful in the next few weeks.
kanaga

Matt said...

Search our complete list of supedelegate changes for the word "switched" and you will find all the supers who moved directly from Clinton to Obama. (There haven't been any to move the other direction). Note that this will not include supers who moved from Clinton to Uncommitted, and later moved to Obama.

Nora said...

This "club" is ridiculous. Yes, it is letting others know what their intentions are, but Pelosi should not dictate how superdelegates should vote. No one should.

Superdelegates should vote their conscience, as any other voter does. They should vote for the person they truly believe will be the better president, the person who they truly believe will beat McCain. Otherwise, we defeat the very purpose of having superdelegates.

By Pelosi's definition, superdelegates are expendable, not needed, not important, just there to rubberstamp delegate results. And that's ridiculous.

billyjay66 said...

Pelosi was only quoted on how her own personal choice would be determined. Want to give me a quote where she "dictated" anything? Why are you so upset when such a small group chooses to follow the results of the voters? Many more will follow the winner in some form but have slightly different definitions.

frstan said...

Yes, they are everything you said. and will I hope be gone next time.

frstan said...

by Robert Schwaneberg/The Star-Ledger

Friday May 09, 2008, 12:05 AM]

Congressman Payne, NJ superdelegate, switches from Clinton to Obama

Rep. Donald Payne (D-10th Dist.), a New Jersey superdelegate who had been supporting Hillary Clinton for president, has switched his allegiance to Barack Obama.

His endorsement bring the total number of superdelegates to endorse Senator Obama to 265.

Senator Obama is 166 delegates away from securing the Democratic nomination.

Link

frstan said...

I think you meant to write +7 not - 7 but I get your meaning. thanks for pointing this fact out.

billyjay66 said...

Obama takes the lead in supers!

With the two vote swing switching Rep Donald Payne from Clinton to Obama the Pelosi lead has switched to Obama.

Clinton 268.5-1 = 267.5 Obama 261+7 = 268.

eyesopen said...

I have announced on my blog that Obama has taken the SD lead using your numbers and including the Pelosi Club:

Obama takes the Lead in Superdelegates

Thanks as always for all the hard work.
-eyesopen

billyjay66 said...

eyesopen

Thank you for following my comment about about a "Pelosi Club" lead and making it your headline. May be my imagination but seems like networks within the hour were saying Obama was in the lead in Supers.

After this fast moving day, I may be stating the obvious but I think the "Pelosi club" is now FROZEN. There will be no more new "Pelosi Club" members. Who would make a half step at this point?

grantcart said...

Murray, 56, is committed now to Clinton, but told Obama he will support the candidate with the most elected delegates and the highest percentage of the popular vote at the convention.

"He said he couldn't ask for anything more than that -- that I would keep an open mind," Murray said.


http://www.goerie.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080222/NEWS02/802220386/-1/NEWS02

I believe that Murray is in the Pelosi club.

Matt said...

Grantcart - Murray mentioned Popular Vote, which disqualifies him from the Pelosi Club.

We're also thinking very strongly about freezing the Pelosi Club. With Obama guaranteed the pledged delegate majority, supers who say at this point they will support the "pledged delegate leader", without also saying that Obama will be that leader, seems rather weak at this point.

The other issue we're facing is that with some sort of deal on MI and FL possible, the point at which the lead is finally clinched may be a moving goalpost itself.

Finally, just to be clear on our philosophy here at DCW, when Obama clinches the Pledged Delegate Majority, we will NOT automatically be moving these supers onto Obama's side. We must hear the word "Obama" from their mouths, or an equivalent endorsement. We do not move supers based on conditional endorsements before an election.

Economy said...

Seat FL & MI based on the elections that have taken place.
(Obama does not get MI 55 uncommitted).

Hillary has the momentum to close this gap. The tide is turning in West Virgina even though she was probably outspent by a significant amount as was done in Texas, Ohio, Pennsylvania, etc. This contest is not over.

Economy said...

billyjay66

If a few more states go like WV then Obama may begin to lose superdelegates. No name calling please.

Amot said...

Economy,

Unfortunately for her there is only one more state she can win by double digit - KY and on the same day she will lose by double digit in OR, a bigger state. If there are no endorsements for her today outside WV it is over! Today is the only day she can claim some momentum!

jessie said...

Nora said...
"This "club" is ridiculous. Yes, it is letting others know what their intentions are, but Pelosi should not dictate how superdelegates should vote. No one should.

Superdelegates should vote their conscience, as any other voter does. They should vote for the person they truly believe will be the better president, the person who they truly believe will beat McCain. Otherwise, we defeat the very purpose of having superdelegates.

By Pelosi's definition, superdelegates are expendable, not needed, not important, just there to rubberstamp delegate results. And that's ridiculous."

Nora -
So far, your comment is the only sane one that I have read. I totally agree with you. What is the point? This whole thing sickens me. I believe that I may as well move to Canada following this election. Clinton is the only suitable candidate - and many americans have the same opinion, but it has been evident from the beginning that the media made their choice. Sadly, many people base their decisions on what they see or hear from the media. What's most frightening is that so many people can overlook the many questionable issues linked to Obama. What are they thinking? Well obviously they aren't!

frstan said...

how quaint!

So the candidate with the most delegates, who won the most primaries, who won the most caucuses, who raised the most money (90% from those wicked "little people" instead of Lobbyists like decent people), who won the most States, the most contests, who now has the most superdelegates, who recruited the most volunteers, this person is NOT the most electable, instead we should go with the LOSER who blew a 100 superdelegate lead, a 100 million dollar money lead, who started most contests with at least a 20% point lead in polls, who needed the Russ Limbaugh Republicans to win Ohio, IN, TX primary, etc etc.!

Oh yes, a Great Injustice if we refuse to go with this LOSER, and take the funny position that the winner wins.
hahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahah :D

TheBrain said...

Anyone who says that Hillary was the "establishment" candidate, doesn't know much about the internal workings of Washington. For much of the Washington establishment, ABC (Anybody But Clinton) was in play long before the first primary. Nancy Pelosi allowed Steny Hoyer to endorse Obama early in the campaign. As her official lapdog, everyone in Washington knew who she was going to silently support. As Chair of the Convention, she has to remain officially neutral, but noone who knows Washington believed for a moment that she didn't have a horse in the race. So take the concept of a "Pelosi Club" with that big grain of salt.

Economy said...

Drug abuse does lead to paranoia. Are Obama supporters sure of their choice? It is not too late for superdelegates to change their minds.

RobH said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
RobH said...

Economy,

Nor is it too late for you to change yours.

David Pearl said...

Is this reference from CBS News enough to get you guys to list Rep. James Clyburn (SC) among the Pelosi Club Superdelegates? . . . Clyburn also said he and other House leaders did not have plans to endorse either Obama or Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton as superdelegates. Clyburn did say that he, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) and other leaders would decide as a team when they would endorse. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/05/09/politics/politico/thecrypt/main4084679.shtml

Matt said...

Not enough for Clyburn, and more importantly, we're not going to be adding any more members to the Pelosi Club. After tomorrow, they can't hide behind a conditional endorsement anymore.

Matt said...

Please see updates in the post for DCW policy on moving the Pelosi Club members.

Liberal Jew said...

Pelosi Club is going Obama.

Andy said...

OK where is the Pelosi club now that Obama as the majority of the pledged delegates?

Leah said...

I know that the PELOSI CLUB member ARE NOT BEING MOVED UNTIL THEIR IS A QUOTE FROM EACH SUPER-DELEGATE...

but I found this article referring to the Pelosi Club interesting:

http://openleft.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=5913

Looks like the term 'Pelosi Club' has caught on ;)

Shirley Mae Beard said...

Nancy Pelosi is one person with one vote. Why is she soliciting a group of superdelegates to do anything but vote for the candidate best likely to WIN the general election? Sen. Hillary Clinton can do that. Sen. Barack Obama cannot.
Sen. Obama has too many question marks. People don't trust him. He is too contrived and prepped by the old guard who want to oust the Clintons from atop the Democratic party -- Sens. Ted Kennedy, John Kerry and perhaps representatives like Nancy Pelosi.
I am a 51-year-old black woman -- small business owner -- who desperately wants the Democratic party to get real. Admit that Hillary Clinton's campaign was poorly managed -- strategically and financially. But understand that she is the only QUALIFIED candidate for the presidency that the Democrats -- and this nation -- have. The superdelegates should be urged to be SUPER and vote for the most qualified candidate to represent our party.
You think that you have pressure from the black voters to pick Sen. Obama? I placed "Hillary" signs on the fronts of both of my establishments -- which are located in an urban area right across the street from an inner city housing project, Shepherd Square Projects, in Louisville, Kentucky. Every day these signs were torn down. And every day I put new "Hillary" signs back up. I have customers who patronized me, but who refuse to sit inside my buildings because of these "Hillary" signs. You don't know pressure like I know pressure. I'm on the front lines. With the Barack campaigners urging these uninformed inner city blacks to register and vote for Barack because he's black, it's hard to stomach how my people are being baited for their votes. The only decisions that I make based on color are my socks, shoes and underwear. If these black people's votes had been solicited for Barack based on his experience in representing the interests of black people and achievements to that affect, I would not be offended by their campaign efforts. But the fact is that Sen. Hillary Clinton has done more for black people -- even as a teenager and college student -- than Barack has done in his entire life. He's done absolutely nothing for black people when given the opportunity. And it's shameful that the black vote is being solicited on his behalf. He has used Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.'s words to further his presidential campaign, but he couldn't take time to commemorate King's Birthday in Memphis this year. Hillary did. Even Sen. John McCain did -- and he voted against the King holiday. Barack was shamefully absent.
The christian Bible says that by your fruit you will be known. Sen. Clinton's tree bears fruit -- evidence of her commitment to not only black people, but all people of all colors, creeds, religions, educational levels, financial standings, genders, ages, professions, etc. Sen. Obama's tree is bare. And don't confused a bare tree with a barren tree. Barren trees cannot bear fruit. A bare tree is capable of bearing fruit and simply -- for some unknown reason -- does not bear fruit. This is Sen. Obama in a nutshell -- a bare tree. No works. No accomplishments. You don't know what he stands for, because he has never stood up for anything. He wants to be president at what cost? Mine and yours!
Sen. Clinton said it best when I attended her rally on May 19, 2008. She said you can vote for people and not vote for people all types of reasons -- the way they wear their hair, the way they dress, how attractive they are, etc. But when you HIRE someone, you hire the best qualified person for the job. She then said I want you to consider who you would hire to be the president of the United States of America. I would hire Sen. Hillary Clinton. And so should the superdelegates. She's the most qualified person for the job.
Just think. If you were stranded on the side of the road with the engine of your car spewing smoke and fluids. Would you hire a mechanic who had no experience fixing engines to see if he can repair your car or would you seek out a more experience mechanic to ensure that your car is repaired properly? The choice is yours, superdelegates. Don't wimp out. Don't buckle under what you perceive to be pressure or the predicted adversarial fallout. Hire the best candidate for the job. Hire Sen. Hillary Clinton.
Thank you for the time it took for you to read my comment.

Christopher said...

Hi,

This is the first time I have posted on this excellent site. I am abroad and just wanted to point out that on a NewsHour interview with Judy Woodruff, Speaker Pelosi just said "I will endorse when we have a nominee." She followed that up by saying that if there is a nominee in June she will support that person but otherwise she will wait until the convention. This contradicts the idea that she will endorse once there is a pledged delegate winner. I am not sure why so many expected her to endorse Wednesday, when it seems pretty clear that some large number of pledged FL and MI delegates remain to be seated.

Christopher said...

Sorry--I should have noted that the May 22 interview with Nancy Pelosi I reference above can be found at http://www.pbs.org/newshour/ . Anyway, even if she and others are still planning on going as the pledged delegates go (meaning, not waiting until there is an actual nominee despite what she said in the interview), doesn't it make sense that they would wait at least until the Rules Committee has decided on FL and MI?

Doug said...

Seating MI and FL as is disenfranchises Obama voters that stayed away. Make Hillary follow the pledge she signed.

Leah said...

Rep. Robert Wexler (FL)

SHOULD NOT be on the Pelosi Club.

He is on stage now in Boca Raton, Florida at the Obama rally saying that his support for Obama is stronger than ever before and he said that Obama WILL BE our nominee because Obama has the most pledged delegates and that he WILL be our next president!

Nospam4me said...

Leah, it sounds like Robert Wexler IS following the Pelosi Club rules. Obama now has a majority of pledged delegates, this triggers the Pelosi Club endorsement.

Granted that the FL/MI issue hasn't been resolved, but according to the current DNC count, the Pelosi Club trigger condition has been met.

Andy said...

Does anybody doubt that Clinton is self serving and disingenious when she says:

"I am here today because I believe the decision our party faces is not just about the fate of these votes and outcome of these primaries, it's about whether we will uphold our most fundamental values as Democrats and Americans."

Said Clinton in Boca Raton yesterday.

Christopher said...

Wexler is co-chairman of the Obama campaign in Florida. Isn't that a bit of a hint? He is prominently mentioned in Thursday's NYTimes article on the Jewish vote in that state.

Christopher said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Matt said...

We've removed the three Obama endorsers from the Pelosi Club. See the post for a little more detail.

lompe said...

Chris Van Hollen joins the Pelosi Club:

"For months I have shared the view of Speaker Pelosi and publicly stated that it would be a big mistake for the superdelegates to veto or overturn the judgment of the elected delegates. I think such a veto would cause a huge rupture in the party and make it hard for us to elect a Democratic president in November."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2008/05/20/DI2008052001531.html

He will endorse shortly after July 4th.

Andy said...

JULY 4th Are you sure Chris Van Hollen didn't say JUNE 4th?

Andy said...

Rep. Chris Van Hollen: Because of my responsibilities with the DCCC I have not made an endorsement in the presidential contest to date. That is because I have worked with both campaigns to try to expand the Democratic majority in the Congress. However, once all the caucuses and primaries are completed on June 3 I do intend to take a position shortly thereafter.

Matt said...

Added Van Hollen to the Pelosi Club. Thanks for the tip.

JessinWis said...

Shirley Mae Beard: I admire you for standing up for what you believe, especially when you're taking on biased "news" media, the people who believe the media, the blogs, the money machine that is propping up Obama. I personally believe hard work, perseverence and substance beat style. Hillary has made some mistakes, but only people who actually DO anything make mistakes (it's a fact of life). Hillary is able to admit mistakes (refreshing), and I have never seen someone work so hard, so actively for her votes--she is literally investing her heart in making her case to the public. Hillary has proven herself to be able to think on her feet (why won't Obama agree to more one-on-one debates with Hillary), she is sensitive to a broad range of constituencies and can address issues in depth. Hillary has asked for the job, and to be held accountable. We can't blow this chance for Change that will Work! Superdelegates need to use their judgement to pick a nominee who can win in November and bring us effective change FOR THE BETTER. Jessica in Wisconsin

Tamara said...

To JessinWis: How can you say that Hillary admits to mistakes...take the Misspoken Bosnia fiasco...how about the Assasination blunder...how about not managing her campaign, and the money .....She did not use very good judgement when she choose her advisors and you expect that she will once she gets into office??? She and Bill feel like the office of the Presidency is "owed" to THEM....WHY??????? She has been less than truthful throughout this whole campaign. Just typical "Clinton" politics. I am a white female that is 55 years old and have absolutely no respect for her since she let her husband humiliate both her and her daughter in front of the world and stood by his side for her own political gain...didn't seem to do her much good did it??????? I hope it was worth the humiliation......

Str8talk said...

I Cannot believe my eyes!

April said...
tmess2--

"I highly doubt you're a Hillary supporter, or you wouldn't say it's over..."

[Why can't a HRC supporter see the handwriting and 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..."

[OBAMA "fans," as you term us, are NOT saying that--OBAMA is AHEAD in PLEDGED DELEGATES, not HRC (and she can't overtake him because he ALREADY has a majority of the PLEDGED delegates), which IS "THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE". That's how he got the delegates in the first place...and DELEGATES are the end-all and be-all in this nomination process.]

We all know who is more electable...

[Yes, that's why we have primaries and caucases--and the results so far say OBAMA.]

"It's because of money and strategy that BO is currently ahead in delegates, and that's different from the will of the people..."

[Forgive me if I say you sound EXACTLY like HRC, but you can't have it BOTH WAYS. You're combining four things here and muddling the issues a little (just like HRC so often does). Let's take them in order:

1. Money - Are you saying it's Obama's FAULT that he raised more money, that he SHOULDN'T have, that he should be penalized for being savvy enough and organized enough to beat her in fundraising? She had the same opportunities that he had. In fact, she had tremendous UNEARNED and built-in ADVANTAGES because as the spouse of a two-term ex-President who was leader of the Democratic Party for 16 years, she started out as the frontrunner with name recognition, "good will," and all major assets, machinery and resources of the Party, including, but not limited to the donor lists, all the toadys and "friends of Bill" developed during his 16-year reign and all of the "IOUs" collected by her husband - and none of this even includes ANY of her own personal attributes, skills or abilities. Besides, it was not just money that has catapaulted him into the lead. In fact, in Pennsylvania (and especially in West Virginia and Kentucky, where he may have outspent her 2-to1 or 3-to-1..depending upon what HRC says... in each of these states, he suffered some of his largest defeats, so it clearly wasn't ALL about money. In fact, it is arguable that his losses in these states and also in a few others were--at least in part--attributable to her not-so-subtle, but OVERT appeals to race, you know, to those, "..uh, white, uh, hard-working white people," ad nauseum. So, if you want me to cry for HRC you are REALLY wasting your breath.

2. Strategy - I will only say that if HRC were a general, she would have been replaced and demoted for squandering an overabandance of personnel and resources and for failing to realize a lackluster "plan A" and for failing to have a "Plan B". If she were a general she would be court-martialed and drummed out.

3. Delegates - Yes, Obama has and INSURMOUNTABLE LEAD in PLEDGED DELEGATES, which according to DNC rules, is the object of the nomination campaign process.

4. "Will of the People" - You say: ""It's because of money and strategy that BO is currently ahead in delegates, and that's different from the will of the people..." [Are you SURE you're not HRC's CLONE? As I see it, the "will of the people" is expressed via the nomination process by accumulating DELEGATES, proportionally according to the dictates of the people. Doesn't HRC follow the same procedure as Obama? Didn't they BOTH agree to ALL of the rules of the DNC BEFORE ANY PRIMARIES OR CAUCUSES WERE HELD, including the agreement that the votes from Michigan and Florida WOULD NOT COUNT? Now, the DNC may (according to the rules) reinstate some, all, or none of the members of these state delegations - and they may assign each delegate a full vote, a partial vote or no vote at all. That's up to the rules committee, but it would be foolish to expect that either the superdelegates or the rules committee will make a decision that would change the outcome of the "will of the people" as expressed in the delegates totals of the candidates. It is not impossible, but neither is it probable.

On a final note, I understand the Clintons are arguing that HRC has won or will win the popular vote. If so, so what? Re the rules, it's only DELEGATES that count. As for the argument that the polls faver HRC, there's nothing in the rules about deciding the nominee based on polls. They change back and forth throughout the campaign. Obama leads in the national polls, anyway.

Finally, the threats being hurled by Mr. Clinton only serve to minimize Mrs. Clinton's chances. How would you feel if someone told you that either you marry them or they'll ruin you? As for the conspiracy theories against the press and UN-NAMED "others," just tell us who it is so we can handle it. As to disrespect, HRC has tried to emasculate Obama: "Your words mean nothing. They are just words". She praised the other party's candidate while disrespecting senator Obama: "While Senator McCain and I were...{BO} was out giving speeches." She tried to humiliate and parody him: "The celestial skies will open and a voice will come down" (a lot of the stuff McCain is using now). She invoked race with Hispanics, too: "I understand that Hispanic voters will not vote for him". She tried to bait Obama into racial confrontations with comments that SEEMED "out of the blue," but that were CALCULATED to provoke racial sentiment: "MLK didn't sign the Civil Rights Act; it took a President, Lyndon Johnson, to do that". And now The EX-PRESIDENT is saying to the WHOLE WORLD that there is a "conspiracy" and the election is being "stolen"?

And SHIRLEY MAE BEARD has the gall to say that "...she [HRC] is the ONLY QUALIFIED candidate..." -- what GALL! Looks like we've all been wasting our time while the TRUTH (HRC) was right in front of us. Others talk like this is a "black" thing, dismissing the fact that only 1/8 of voters are black and that the VAST MAJORITY of Senator Obama's votes are from (to quote someone) "...uh, you know, hard-working "WHITE voters". It is also ironic that the MAJORITY of black voters were initially for Senator Clinton--but they, alone, could not put her over the top, so she turned on them--so she could blatantly and overtly appeal to "hard-working white voters".

I could go on, but it would require too much detail, I think you get the point. (And if you (and the SUPERDELEGATES) do, I'm sure Barack Obama will be our next President.) GOD BLESS AMERICA--and God bless YOU!

info said...

Speaking from the other side of the Atlantic and as a non American, it seems clear that that Mr. Obama must be nominated.
Having said that, it is reasonable to wait until the last State has voted on June 2 in order that all the votes are acccounted for, but beyond that it is not possible to see a reason for a super delegate to delay making their position clear: no new information will emerge, and waiting for Mr. Obama to be assasinated is, to say the least,in poor taste.
If life were fair, Mrs. Clinton would have been opposed by a more middling oponent and would have sailed through. As it is, she is faced with someone who has raised more money, raised more delegates, raised more votes and, most importantly, raised the hopes of the American people.
She is a sorry sight. She has no hope, and the world has no hope if she somehow wins.

melloed said...

This is to praise Shirley Mae Beard I think she is a very-very brave lady and I wish I could meet her and shake her hand. She tells it like it really is!! This should NOT be a race card affair to much is at stake ! And also for the INFO comment from across the ocean you bet he wants to see Obama win ! Tells you what they are all waiting for to trample on the USA some more. I still say the SD'S better wake up before its to late to save what we do have left. As far as I can see and hope if Obama is on the ticket I pray as a life long Dem he does NOT win ! I for sure will not vote for him and I know so many-many more who feel the very same way.He is putting on such a phoney front all of a sudden with a lapel Flag pin and actually said " God Bless you and God bless America at a rally !! He hopes we will all forget who & what he really is . Which I am still not sure but I do know he has showed enough disrepect for our country and our people! Had all this came out before the Iowa Caucus he would NEVER be where he is now. No one knew him and wanted change so bad and that was what he kept promising so they went his way . Alot have changed their minds since then. So once again I plead with the SD'S to think real hard before going thru with your pledges. Alot of you have re-elections to also consider at some time and alot of us will NOT forget. Thank you and again Thank you Shirley Mae !!!

smoothie said...

Melloed,

I get it, youre supporting Clinton. Cool, I repsect yours, Shirley Maes, Jess, et al.

My question for all of you though is this, why wont you support THE DEMOCRAT when its all said and done?

Look, its a campaign. Mistakes were made from both camps.

The Clinton Camp has played the sexist card, the elitist card, the pastor card, the 9/11 CARD at a DEBATE, and the Ayers card wich backfired. Hillary got on staqge and reduced Barack to nothing more then a speechgiver, while praising McCain as Ready on DAY one. (wanader who she plans to endorse??)

The Obama Camp (to be fair)
has played th erace card, the hillary bad wife card (michelle, comments) played up assasination, and dropped Edwards and Richardson while Hillary was still glowing from wins. Not to mention Him stepping on her stomp speech by starting his 5 minutes into hers..


Bad Blood was spilled on both sides. Look , in the end I have to assume that you guys blogging here are democrats.

I pledge to you that as an Obama Supporter if Hillary can somehow take the nomination from Barack, I will vote for Hillary, because its whats best for the party. Will any of you say the same?

Remember as your canidate always says, never has the stakes been this high. Please, do whats right, even if it means you have to hold your nose, close your eyes, or cross your fingers. If its Barack vote Democrat, and be done with it....

lobo said...

I agree with melloed. The shape of our Democratic Party is as sad as the state of the nation. Today the DNC Rules Committee did not unify the party. They did not respect the voters. All they did was cause more people to become disengaged in the voting process. Tina Flournoy stated that these results saddened her because the Democratic Party is supposed to be the "party of inclusion". Many Democratic leaders seem to be trying to oust Hillary Clinton. She has the right to campaign just as voters have the right to be heard. Meanwhile, all of these questions continue to surround Obama and he doesn't seem to be in a hurry to answer them just like he wasn't in a hurry to get the Florida and Michigan delegates seated. To me it seems quite transparent that many of these leaders were hoping that Obama would get the necessary votes earlier so they wouldn't have to address the delegate issue. And today, the members of the Rules Committee clearly demonstrated their desire for "politics as usual". So Smoothie, that is why we won't support any old Democrat. We demand equity. We want a leader who hears our voices, someone who hears us over his advisors. We want someone who will be honest with us, someone who knows our plights and will fight for our needs. We don't want just any old Democrat. We want a fighter. We want someone who has proven leadership and who has legitimate plans to put this country on the right track. Why would we settle? If we settle, then we are defeated. And if the super-delegates do not come on board with Clinton and the popular vote, then indeed we are defeated. But it isn't just Clinton supporters who are defeated. No the losers of that scenario are the American people, Republicans and Democrats alike. We have three nominees in the battle for the White House. Obama is too far to the left and cannot win the votes of mainstream America. McCain is too far to the right but I believe he will defeat Obama should Obama be our nominee. Clinton is not too far to the left or too far to the right. She is the only candidate for America. She is an intelligent person who can win in November. I believe she can get some of those Republican voters and we will need them in states such as Florida. It is most important that we have a winner in our Democratic nominee, and settling isn’t going to cut it.

David Pearl said...

Please correct me if my logic is in some way flawed, but with the events today in DC, I think that BHO is now the leader in pledged delegates even if HRC gets every remaining pledged delegate. Is that correct? And if so, then should we expect this Pelosi Club to follow through soon? Or do you suspect this Pelosi Club will wait until June 3 or 4?

Matt said...

Yes, he's clinched the pledge delegate lead. He needed 1705 and he has 1723.

The Pelosi Club has proved to be all bark and no bite. If they were waiting for MI/FL to be resolved, they should announce on Sunday.

Otherwise, they're no different than any other superdelegate.

debjimfla said...

Hillary should run in the general election as an Independent. Obama has been in public life for a short time. Please someone tell what he has done for America or it's people? Don't tell me what he has done for the inner cities, tell what he has done for people of all walks of like, poor, middle class, any race not just the black community. Has he ever done anything that made a difference?

If Hillary had Obama's views and Obama had Hillary's views would you still vote for Obama or would you now vote for Hillary? IF you are still voting for Obama you are only voting for him because of his skin color. Is that fair to all of us or are voting on the issues? NO!! We are about to hand over the country to McCain if Obama wins the primary. He should be Hillary's vp and then he will be ready in 8 years. In 8 years with VP experince he will get my vote 100%. We need Hillary in the White House. If we don't do it now we will in 4 years. Hillary for PRESIDENT!!

debjimfla said...

This election has made us feel as we have no say in who will run for President. We have never felt so helpless. 1st our vote will not count 100%,2nd votes will be given to a candidate that was not even on the ballot but no other candidate received votes, 3rd Robert Wexler said he speaks for those who are in his district but he backs Obama when his district votes for Clinton, 5th we are being told who will be our choice without our voice being heard. If they dont need our vote 100% now they will not need us in the general election. If Hillary is not on the ballot, we need to stay home. She will be our President in 2012. Nobody should be pushing us around. At the meeting on Saturday protestors were told to let someone speak, why no one will let us speak. why are they more important then us?

jallen_007 said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Matt said...

Post has been updated with Carter and C. Pelosi endorsements.