Thursday, May 22, 2008

Memorial Day Weekend Preview: 7 new superdelegates

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

As we head into the first big weekend of the summer, the contest for the Democratic nomination continues in all corners of the country. Obama will be in Florida, Puerto Rico, Connecticut and New Mexico. Clinton will be in South Dakota and Puerto Rico. And we have new superdelegates being named in 4 states, Alaska, Georgia, Wyoming and Hawaii:

  • Saturday, May 24, Alaska names its add-on, Georgia names two add-ons and Wyoming names one add-on. Obama won all three states.
  • Sunday. May 25, Hawaii Democrats hold their State Convention, followed by a meeting of the State Central Committee, at the Hilton Hawaiian Village Resort in Waikiki, and name their add-on, and also select a new state party chair and vice-chair, both of whom immediately become superdelegates. Obama won the Hawaii Caucuses. Candidates for the Chair position are Annelle Amaral and Brian Schatz. Schatz is a former member of Obama's campaign in Hawaii, and has been endorsed by Obama. Amaral is a Clinton supporter but has committed to voting for Obama at the convention. In addition, Obama has endorsed James Burns, former chief judge of the state Intermediate Court of Appeals, for the add-on position. Update: Obama supporters are also backing Maui teacher Kari Luna for vice chair.
We'll have the add-on information here at DCW as soon as it's available.

25 comments:

Chris said...

**both of whom immediately become superdelegates....

Galois said...

From what I can tell (and I'd be grateful for better information from anyone who knows) in Hawaii the number of pledged delegates for each candidate is determined solely be the results of the initial February caucuses. In Alaska and Wyoming, however, it seems it's up to the delegates who show up to the state convention. So we could see some changes (either due to no-shows or switches). This would be particularly relevant in Alaska where Obama was just shy of getting both PLEO's (instead of the current 1-1 split). Based on February's results Obama should have 306 state delegates, Clinton 104, and 1 uncommitted. 75% of the vote would give Obama both PLEO's so if Obama got the uncommitted and 2 Clinton delegates didn't show (and all Obama's delegates did show) he would get the other PLEO. The PLEO's (and the add-on) are scheduled to be elected on Saturday at 4:00pm (AKDT).

chuck said...

OK - you guys appear to be the best on this can you tell me if my numbers are right for delegates elected in primary states and delegates elected in caucus states (before Edwards' switches)

Primaries
Clinton 1329
Obama 1327

Caucuses
Obama 318
Clinton 174

Thanks for the help

Matt said...

We actually don't keep a breakdown of Primary vs. caucus, so we can't confirm your numbers. But post this comment on the Ultimate Delegate Tracker comment thread, and you should get some confirmation from other readers.

Mike in Maryland said...

Chuck,

Try TheGreenPapers.com - they explain if a state held a caucus or primary, and give the delegate breakdown.

Mike

Yousri said...

Chuck,

Primaries
Clinton 1353.5
Obama 1360.5

Caucuses
Obama 288
Clinton 147

(Edwards' switch delegates are not included from SC, NH and IA, but IA updated with many delegates moved to Obama as a result of new percentage at the counties convention), and up-to-date.

tmess2 said...

Based on what is posted on the Green Papers, the rules in each of the three convention states are different.

In Hawaii, all of the delegates are allocated based on the preference votes at the precinct caucuses.

In Alaska, all of the delegates are allocated based on the preference votes at the state convention.

In Wyoming, the "district" delegates are allocated based on the preference votes at the county conventions but the "at-large" and PLEO delegates are allocated based on the preference votes at the state convention. (Since that is 3 and 2 delegates respectively, the odds of any change in Wyoming are slim.)

Leah said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Evelyn said...

Please add Sen. Sherrod Brown of Ohio to your list as I cannot find any record of his endorsement. Please check it out. Thanks

Susan said...

Two Edwards delegates from NH just announced they are backing Obama.

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/D/DEMOCRATS_DELEGATES?SITE=TXDAM&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT

Kennyb said...

Two more Edwards-to-Obama switches in New Hampshire, btw.

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/washington/AP-Democrats-Delegates.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

(Nelson and Burling)

s.b. said...

So why in states that Obama won, do super delegates feel compelled to vote for him, but in states that Clinton won, no one expects the same?

This is the disgusting double standard that will make many, many, women vote for McCain in Nov or not at all.

Go to electoralvote.com and see how Clinton trounces McCain and Obama loses. The Dems are going to pay the price for this at the polls in Nov.

There is no reason other than being bought that supers should be supporting Obama. he is the less electable candidate by every measure and supers were put in place to ensure that a less electable candidate was not nominated.

They have abandonned their responsibility to the party and made a farce of this nominating process. The Dems will lose in Nov. and that becomes clearer every day.

KCinDC said...

S.B., there are plenty of superdelegates who represent Obama-voting areas but are supporting Clinton, as well as vice versa. There's no double standard, and if they all were switched to support their constituents' favorite Obama wouldstill be winning.

Obama is still beating McCain, and McCain can only go down from here. It's true that some polls show Clinton doing better in the last week or so (after months when Obama was better), but that's largely because of understandable disappointment among Clinton supporters who are taking it out on Obama. They'll get over it, and his numbers will improve to widen his lead over McCain.

Guelph said...

Looking at this campaign from a distant (american living in Canada)I am not getting this post from s.b. can someone explain it to me. Why would you vote for someone who is oppose to your candidate's policy when the other candidate is closer in policy and endorsed by the person you campaigned for?

Susan said...

s.b. is posting spurious claims about how Obama is obtaining delegates in unethical ways where ever he/she can.

Every time the claim is proven false he/she picks a new thread to start up in.

If he/she is not a paid McCain troll trying to keep Democrats bickering then he/she is doing a dead on imitation.

Clement Nthambazale Nyirenda. said...

Though staying far away from USA, I am enjoying Obama's rise.The Clintons never expected things to turn out this way.There is time for everything.The Clintons must accept with dignity that Obama is the man.He has risen up against all odds.Thats the spirit!The pundits never gave him a chance at all

Guelph said...

thanks susan, I hadn't even thought of that. A "troll" as in something that hides under a bridge and eats unsuspecting travelers. That's an interesting image. It's been 25 years since I moved up here. Politics are much more civil in Canada. (and seemingly more honest)

Mark Joseph said...

Spurious is a nice word. I would call it flat out stupid.

Sure, all these women are going to protest vote pro-woman/anti-Obama and vote McCain.... and then watch him stack the Supreme Court with Roberts/Scalia clones who will overturn Roe v. Wade.

Sounds plausible.

Zipora said...

Can anyone tell me how voting for McCain is better than voting for Obama just because you are pro-woman? You are still voting for a man. So if a man is going to be the next president of the US why not vote democratic so that we can get things done. I am a democrate and will vote democratic regardless of who the nominee is. I support democrates not an individual. Do you really believe the individual alone will make the changes needed here? It will take the government as a whole and it will only be done if the democratics are in power.

tmess2 said...

Looking at the timing of things, the Georgia State Committee meets at 10AM EDT. I am not sure what other business they have besides delegate selection, but the add-ons are at the top of delegate selection so you would hope to have that done by 1 PM EDT.

In both Wyoming and Alaska, they have to choose district delegates first before moving to the add-ons.

Looking at Alaska's list for district delegates, the district delegate selection could take a good while. I would not be shocked to not get the add-on from Wyoming before 5 PM EDT and the add-on from Alaska might not be known until 8 PM EDT.

Barb said...

Zipora - you made a great point! Obama and McCain are both men! (And we have more important issues at stake that getting a woman as president.)

ahoff48 said...

Georgia delegates selected: one for Obama, and one for Clinton.

http://www.ledger-enquirer.com/251/story/330431.html

misterioso said...

While waiting for Alaska's choice, how about fixing the typo in the heading of this blog entry?

Note the missing "e" in "superdelgates."

misterioso said...

Thanks for fixing the typo, DCW folks.

Can anyone make an educated guess as to what time(s) today HI will make its three choices?

Hawaii Guy said...

News from Hawaii!

Brian Schatz is the new party chair. He's definitely for Obama. Kari Luna is the vice chair. She's also for Obama. And the add-on is Jim Burns, also for Obama. In fact, Obama recently endorsed him to be a superdelegate.

So there you go, 3 more superdelegates for Obama.