Thursday, May 29, 2008

Superdelegate endorsements for Thursday 5/29

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

Obama leads the day with 4 superdelegates to Clinton's 1.

Oregon DNC member Gail Rasmussen has endorsed Obama.

Obama beat Hillary Rodham Clinton by 18 percentage points in last week's Oregon primary, and the Democratic National Committee member cited that win in explaining why she will vote for the Illinois senator at the party's national convention in Denver this summer.
...
Rasmussen, the vice president of the Oregon Education Association, said she will cast her vote for Obama "in honor of the support" he won from the state's voters. - AP

Washington Democratic Party vice-chair Eileen Macoll has endorsed Clinton
"I’m taking this step today because I have been inspired by Hillary’s bold commitment to solving our nation’s toughest challenges," Macoll said. "On the issues that matter most-from establishing universal health care to improving our schools to ending the war in Iraq-she has never backed down and never wavered. Hillary has what it takes to beat John McCain this Fall and win back the White House.

"Hillary has a plan to bring an honorable end to the war in Iraq, and I know that Senator she and Senator Murray will ensure that our troops receive the care we should be proud to provide as they return home."
West Virginia Representative Alan Mollohan has endorsed Obama
Congressman Mollohan said, “I believe Senator Obama will bring America a new era of trust, principled leadership and positive results. He has the intelligence, capacity and values that assure me he will confront the real issues that Americans face every day - health care, pension reform, energy prices, the struggling economy, and, of course, the issue of Iraq. “
And finally, Obama pulls off a Texas Two-Step:

Texas Democratic Chairman Boyd Richie endorses Obama:
"Today, I am proud to announce my support for Senator Barack Obama for President of the United States. I believe Senator Obama is the candidate who can best provide the leadership and change Texans desire. Too many Texas families find themselves unable to make ends meet, much less save and invest in the future, due to Republican policies that burden the middle class and divide Americans. Senator Obama has the skill and ability to unite Americans from all walks of life and put our country back on the right track."
And his wife, DNC member Betty Richie, also endorses Obama:
"Today, I am proud to announce my support for Senator Barack Obama for President of the United States. As a member of the DNC representing the Non-Urban/Ag Caucus, I strongly believe Senator Obama can provide the leadership rural Texas needs and deserves.
...
"Because I have such great respect for Senator Clinton and her historic campaign, this endorsement was not easy to make. But I believe in my heart it is the right decision for rural Texas and the Texas Democratic Party. It is time for our Party to unite and move forward to victory in November. Only by working together can we accomplish this goal."

Betty Richie was a member of the Pelosi Club.

104 comments:

Aaron said...

While I appreciate the supers following the will of their constituents, these endorsements that basically say "The voters have spoken and I will follow their choice" leave me with an odd feeling. Can't they think of a positive reason about the candidate that causes them to support them?

This is part of what made Wayne Kinney's response from yesterday so refreshing.

craig said...

The endorsement of another 2-3 SDs will make it possible for the results of the PR, MT, and SD primaries to put Sen. Obama over the top. The people's vote will secure the nomination. Symbolically, this is important--at least to me it is.

Of course, the outcome of the RBC meeting will weigh heavily on this. It is likely that they will rule for the inclusion of the MI and FL delegates at half strength, so the goal post may move once again.

kennick said...

It's 3AM, and the phone is ringing, who do you want answering the call? Better get it DCW ! It's another dead of the night SD.

Allyn said...

As I understand it, the goal posts will be moved, and Hillary won't like and most likely appeal to drag this into August and the Convention. Hopefully, the "undeclared" SD's will declare soon after 6/3 in lartge numbers. This demands major support from Pelosi, Reid, Gore, Carter, etc. It also means unofficial groups like the Cardoza 40 (CA) need to hop on the train. Hillary needs to get shut down soon. This woman has turned into a bad joke.

p smith said...

It's now becoming pretty clear what is happening. The Obama campaign have several SDs in their pocket but they are quite intentionally releasing just a few each day so that they pass 2026 on June 3 when the Montana and South Dakota results come in. That way, they can say the voters decided it.

Of course by then we may know what the RBC have said and we will know the revised number if one has been agreed. The worst case scenario is that Obama will need another 30 to 40 SDs who will declare for him shortly after June 3. If Clinton rejects the ruling of the RBC adn threatens to take it to the convention, the SDs will still close the race down but she will have destroyed what is left of her reputation. I happen to think she will test the water privately and stand down without making it ugly.

If you're a Democrat who puts the party first, just sit back and enjoy the next few days. There is no need for anxiety or unnecessary baiting of Clinton supporters. It's time to move on and focus on the true enemies of progress, the GOP.

Eve said...

As a white (whatever that means) women well over sixty, I trust my intuitiuon. I don,t , however, trust Hillory's intention in this battle for nomination. I do not think even she knows why she is running---give it up lady--and yes I am a feminist par non---eve

p smith said...

Incidentally, is it just me or does anyone else find the statement of the Virgin Islands SD who turned coat twice in a week, just a little bit curious. He said:

"I decided to switch because that's my right," he told The Associated Press on Wednesday. "I don't want to say why I decided. It's not about me ... It's about America and what's best for America."

He actually says that he doesn't want to say why he changed his mind twice or why only two weeks ago he changed his mind and resolved that Obama was the best choice for America. Here is his May 10 statement:

"While I have great respect for Senator Clinton, today I am announcing my support for Barack Obama. Senator Obama has brought a new generation and energy into the democratic process and the Democratic Party. He has shown he can connect with Democrats, Republicans and Independents across this country, whether we live on the mainland or an island. Senator Obama’s judgment to lead, courage to tell the truth and commitment to working men and women make him the best candidate to lead this country forward."

Is it even possible to reconcile these statements? The guy is an absolute disgrace.

TheShackPack said...

I learn so much from you all on these posts. It's amazing the research you do. Questions: how do you know the Obama campaign has more SD's & are slowly releasing them? Do not the SD's determine when they step out to support one of the nominees? Also, the behavior of SD Rodriguez... can we expect to see more of this from more SD's? Thanks all, love the education I get here!

dd42 said...

I wouldn't worry, the VI guy sounds like he just wants a bit of attention, or is otherwise somewhat quirky. I mean, do we really expect every single one of the SDs to behave in a straightforward manner? They are people too, and people do things like that all the time.

Don said...

"How do you know the Obama campaign has more SD's & are slowly releasing them?"

I don't know it. I think it's a credible rumor, though. On the other hand, I no longer believe the "Cardoza 40" rumor, even though I'd like to.

Fidelus21 said...

ShackPack,

First of all, there is no way for anyone to know if Obama has more SD's then he is claiming except that most of the people here are doing a ton of research to find out about these endorsements. A lot of them are found in news articles and not the Barack Obama official website. As far as Rodriguez (The VI SD) goes, I wouldn't expect a floodgate of SD's running from Obama's camp to Clinton's. I think his change of opinion is an oddity.

And for my own two cents, I think after Tuesday, we are going to see a pretty large number of the remaining SD's finally throw their support one way or the other. Most of them do not want this fight being taken all the way to the convention because it just gives McCain more time to put his word out and get more of the independent voters.

Rambling Johnny said...

TheShackPack that because the flow of SD slowed down and their no reason for it. Lets me tell you how I see the Super call to inform the Obama campaign that he or she would endorse him shortly. I would not be surprise if they tell him to wait half an hours before doing anything. They call him back but now it no longer a staff member on the phone. It Sen Obama who is calling to say thank! They chat for a while than Obama ask. "Would you mind if I pass you my campaign manager to coordinate things with you?" Would you say no to that kind of request?

p smith said...

My comment about Obama having SDs in his pocket is obviously not a proven fact. I think it is almost certain however that SDs declare their support to candidates who then decide with the SD when it should be made public. Some SDs (Kerry and Richardson spring to mind) have all but admitted that the specific timing of their endorsements was managed. That is why, there has barely been a single day in the last two months without at least one Obama endorsement which is a statistical improbability.

Both camps will have spoken to each SD on numerous occasions and will have a pretty good idea as to which ones they can count on so I don't think it will be any great surprise when there is an orchestrated flood on June 4 in favour of Obama.

TheShackPack said...

ahhh it all makes more sense. thank you all. I have to say that seeing updates daily on new endorsements has become an obsession for me this political season. Thank you for the insight.

craig said...

It is highly unlikely that all of the remaining uncommitted superdelegates are still undecided about who s/he will support. These supers simply have not made public their decision.

This rather simple and basic truism is precisely what is at play here with the statement that some of the SDs are already in the pocket of one or the other candidate. Other factors are the determinants of when, where, and how the supers will publicly declare their endorsement.

Dennis said...

The phone started ringing at 3:00AM several months Hillary. No answer. What't the matter Hillary? You and Bill trying to decide who's going to answer.

SarahLawrenceScott said...

The big question to me is whether Obama has enough SDs secretly on his side to compensate for, e.g., an RBC decision which gives 0.5 vote to each delegate from MI and FL. If so, it's going to take really careful orchestration June 1 - 3 to get the right number out so that the 20 or so pledged delegates he'll get from Montana and South Dakota to put him over the top. In other words, orchestrating the 2026 for June 3 is easy; orchestrating some unknown number between 2026 and 2209 is much trickier.

If he could do that, I think it would be quite a statement. To those not paying close attention, they'll see that Obama won with the votes from the last two states. For political junkies and the Clinton campaign, they'll see that he has managed to inspire remarkable coordination and discipline among Democratic insiders.

Much as I'd like to see that scenario, I think it's a long shot. Much more likely is that the RBC sets the new parameters, June 3 passes without Obama reaching 2026 but not the new magic number, and then an avalanche of supers on June 4 puts him way over the top. Not quite as good as "winning" with Montana and South Dakota, but much easier to orchestrate.

Dean said...

I find it interesting that 3 of the last 4 SD are women.

Is Obama holding back most of the men until after June 3rd so it doesn't appear that the men are ganging up to push HRC out of the race, which would alienate her supporters?

Dennis said...

The phone started ringing months ago at 3:00 AM and Hillay hadn't pick up. What's the matter Hillay ? You and Bill trying to decide who's Commander in Chief ?

SarahLawrenceScott said...

dean--I wouldn't read to much into 3 out of the last 4 being women. I just tried to do a gender breakdown on the remaining undeclared DNC supers, and before these last four I count 42 out of 86 women. That's very close to 50%, so 3 out of 4 is likely nothing more than statistical chance. (I didn't do the count very carefully, so I might be off by a few, but it doesn't change the basic point.)

It's more notable--and not surprising--that 3 of 4 are from Oregon. That's the most recent Obama state, so there's a reason that they are coming out now rather than, say, a month ago.

That Obama has shown any degree of control at all over the supers is quite remarkable. He doesn't have a long history to build up favors he can redeem, and these are all politically powerful people with their own agendas.

Oreo said...

Apparently David Plouffe said yesterday during his conference call that they were not banking supers.

Would have gotten this to you sooner but I wasn't able to listen in on the call.

craig said...

The goal post will likely move to somewhere in the numeric vicinity of 2117.5. This is based on the RBC deciding to seat both MI and FL at 1/2 strength (either by reducing the number of delegates by half or by reducing the voting strength of each delegate by half--the latter is more likely).

This number may change based on what the RBC decides to do about the SDs. Will they retain full strength? Will they also be reduced to 1/2 vote? Will they be allowed to be seated at all?

SarahLawrenceScott said...

If Plouffe's statement is technically accurate, it doesn't mean that there isn't some degree of "management" going on. From what I've read in the media, a lot of the calls from the Obama campaign to undecided supers have been in the form of a "soft sell"--not asking them to make a decision immediately if they're not ready. If one day they then get a call that says "it would really help us a lot if you could make your decision soon" that might prod that person into an announcement. My completely uninformed guess is that something like that is going on. It means the process is hard to control in detail, because sometimes the answer might be "I'm not ready yet."

PeterPete said...

Someone should go interview Kevin Rodriquez. I sounds like signs of foul play. Like a boxer throwing a fight but can't comment on why he lost. I wonder what the Clintons gave/threatened him with.

reddwarf2956 said...

To add to the pre-endorsement idea - if Clinton had any at this stage of the game do you think she would hold them? No. That is what is hurting her just as much as the lack of delegates.

Oreo said...

In case anybody cares or is a huge fan, the Clinton Campaign just sent out a press release that singer Ricky Martin has endorsed her.

Just wanted to make sure you got all the latest news.

Bear said...

Well even though he is not a super delegate or even American Rupert Murdoch has predicted Obama will win. Even says he wants to meet Obama and Obama will be good for the country.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/hilary-rosen/rupert-murdoch-says-obama_b_104018.html

Could have knocked me over with a feather after reading this.

Bear said...

Just as an add on. He is not willing to endorse Obama yet. He wants to meet him first.

http://www.alleyinsider.com/2008/5/murdoch_u_s_economy_in_for_a_very_hard_time_

TheShackPack said...

I don't have any 'inside' info, but I just read Pelosi's statement regarding Hillary taking this fight to the convention, and Pelosi said she wouldn't allow it! Good to know. This meeting on Saturday: supposed to be a fight? would 'they' allow it to be such a fest? I would hope for more structure, but sounds like Clinton campaign is counting on chaos.

Kennyb said...

Even if Obama is not "banking" supers, it stands to reason that many will come out and declare after the primaries are done, and most will be for Obama. Why? Becuase if they were going to go for Hillary, they should done so already, when it would have helped her more; because it gives them cover, having let HRC finish it out, but now making the decision that the party must coalesce; and because he will have the clear pledged delegate majority (that's the "Pelosi" group. While the Obama campaign tried to make the argument that they had the pledged majority after Kentucky/Oregon, that argument was a bit premature, since we still do not know what the final target will be.

I think the reason that we've seen the flow of supers move to a trickle is that (1) we are close to the end of the primaries, so why not wait it out and (2) there are fewer undecided left, so there are fewer who will decide day by day. Some, like Governor Lynch of NH, have openly said they will NOT be endorsing anyone and will not declare before the convention. BTW, how does Lynch and Kathy Sullivan (NH Dem. Party chair and Clinton supporter) feel about HRC and her trumpeting of Michigan and Florida now, hmmm? Odd that no one has asked them...

Oreo said...

DNC Eileen Macoll (WA) added for Clinton

Oreo said...

SC Rep James Clyburn will announce his endorsement on Tuesday at 11am.

p smith said...

Interesting that Clyburn would endorse before the June 3 primaries are complete.

Reading his previous comments, it is blindingly obvious that he will endorse Obama in the same way that is clear who Pelosi, Carter and Biden will endorse.

SarahLawrenceScott said...

The Clyburn announcement is fascinating. I think it supports the notion that Obama is trying to have pledged delegates put him over the top, and that he has influence with some of the supers on their timing. Let's suppose for a moment that there are more ready to follow Clyburn's lead. If they endorsed now, there's a small risk that Obama could reach 2026 before the RBC decision, which would increase tensions and generally make things messy. If they endorse on June 3, they run the risk of not being "noticed" by the media until June 4, muddling the question of what put Obama over the top. But by announcing that he will announce, he makes sure the media is primed to include his endorsement before the primary results come in.

Hope said...

What concerns me is the (very few) SDs who are still coming out and endorsing Hillary - when it is mathematically and statistically impossible for Hillary to win the nomination. It is now time for the SDs to put the interests of their party ahead of everything else. So, why on earth are some SDs still coming out and endorsing Hillary? What's up with that??

kennick said...

Well, let's test this "banked SD" theory. If Obama does control the flow of endorsements, my guess is he will answer the Clinton SD with 1 of his own before 6PM PST. Last 2 days endorsements have been released quietly in the middle of the night.
This won't prove anything of course, but might add a little fuel to the fire.

Barry Scott said...

I understand the trickle, let the people vote. I agree that most must have made up their minds and that HRC supers would likely be coming sooner if indeed any remain undeclared.

Question to DCW: "electoral vote.com" seems partisan, as do other such sites. I like 538 for electoral projections and pollster for tracking.

Any thoughts or recommendations?

tmess2 said...

The person running electoral-vote.com is partisan, but if you look at the FAQ portion of the site (and further look under polling) you will see the rules that he uses for the maps.

Personally, I find those rules sufficiently neutral to consider the site reliable on polling data -- taking into account all the cautions on the reliability of polling data (snapshot in time, things can change between now and November, any result within margin of error is considered accurate).

SarahLawrenceScott said...

I find frontloading.com to be relatively balanced in its portrayal of electoral maps. But it only updates the maps about once per week (usually Wednesdays, although a bit later this week).The maps use a weighted average of polls over a long time period, with more emphasis on recent polls. That takes out a lot of the silliness that sometimes pops up on the electoral-vote.com maps.

Dean said...

SarahLawrenceScot,

Regarding James Clyburn endorsement at 11 a.m. Tuesday.

I think your theory makes a lot of sense. By having them come out on Tuesday morning before the polls close, but not days in advance, gives them alot of cover.

Hopefully we can party Tuesday night and sing the song from the Wizard of Oz (ding dong the ...)

Me said...

Vote Eileen out of office!

KRK said...

Note that Macoll's endorsement of Clinton refers approvingly to Hillary and Sen. (Patty) Murray but doesn't mention Sen. Maria Cantwell (who is for now also a Clinton endorser).
I interpret that snub as a sign that, while Murray is going to remain a Clinton loyalist, Cantwell has resisted Clinton pressure and is going to stick with her Pelosi-club stance from March.

ray said...

I support an Obama-Richardson ticket.

sageblue said...

It is disappointing a superdelegate did not honor the voters of WA state and endorsed Clinton instead. I am so tired of the Clinton "ol boy" standard. It is more frustrating that a women has allowed herself to be pulled down and placed in disrespect by her own actions the last several weeks as Clinton has.

Allyn said...

I am from Washington, Cantwell is trying to play both ends; Murray, Inslee, Foley, Dicks, & Macol have decided to support Clinton in spite of a greater than 2:1 caucus support of Obama. It kind of figures, because if one was to look at their congressional & senate power polling.... they are near bottom of the barrel, but high in receiving pork barrel money. I suspect, that Murray, Cantwell, and Inslee's political future is limited anyway. Thank god.

TheShackPack said...

Kennick! too much. It's 3:30 PST, and I pull up this site, and there you have it! another, maybe, 'banked' SD for Obama? Interesting... You can see how much I'm enjoying this.

Rambling Johnny said...

Yeah I check every hour now I know that when the floodgate open it going to be epic!

ahoff48 said...

Yea! I get thrilled whenever I see another Obama Superdelegate. Keep them coming. In the end, none of the spin, drama, or rules committee matters. Only the delegates matter!

tunesmith said...

What happened with the Florida and Michigan superdelegates? It used to say 10 collectively for Obama... now it looks like 9.

sleepy9112 said...

There are still a number of Clinton SD's undeclared. I know the Maryland contingent and I believe they are waiting for the primaries to end. Even with her SD support, I don't see how HRC could come close to winning the nomination. I believe her run at this point is mainly about ego. She will be able to say that she had a surge at the end of the campaign and that she was the stronger candidate at the end.

Personally, I believe Obama should have continued to fight for votes in the final primaries as the news media will make a big deal out of any strength that Hillary shows at the end.

My opinion of Hillary has changed from one of admiration, to one of great disappointment. I believe she has single-handedly damaged the Democratic party and its chances to win in November. She called into question the decisions made by her own party relative to Florida and Michigan, and made Howard Dean look like a bumbling idiot, she stood on National TV and informed the general public that John McCain was more qualified than her own stablemate, Barack Obama, she made a fool of herself with sniper-gate and basically made all the right-wing attack machine pundits appear credible in their assessment of her over the past years as a most polarizing figure.

The Democratic party has a great deal of work to do to repair the damage done by this one woman wrecking crew. I hope its not too little, too late.

kennick said...

Shackpack, I should have stuck with my original 6:00 PM EST, as I thought they would try to make the evening news, but most delegates have been from the west coast lately, so I changed my guess to 6:oo PM PST, even though I live in the Boston Area. The original Obama endorsement posted at 5:59 PM.
Gotta go play the lottery.

Mike in Maryland said...

Regarding the appearance of a 'slowdown' in SDs endorsing Senator Obama, I think it is mostly a matter of perception and anticipation.

I just did a run of endorsements since the PA primary. Starting on April 23, there have been an average of 2.72 SD endorsements for Senator Obama per day, 1.6 endorsements for Senator Clinton.

In the past two weeks (May 15-29), there have been an average of 2.5 SD endorsements for Senator Obama per day, 1.4 endorsements for Senator Clinton. And remember, this two-week period included the Memorial Day weekend, but did include several add-ons selected that weekend.

In the 37 days since PA, five days have gone by without an endorsement for Senator Obama (April 24 & 27, May 2, 22 & 26), 17 days (too many to list - VBG) have come and gone without an endorsement for Senator Clinton.

I included the add-ons, which cannot be timed very well for an individual candidate. If the add-ons are not included, it probably would decrease Senator Obama's average per day by a couple of tenths, and decrease Senator Clinton's on the same order.

I did not include 3 Michigan SDs for Senator Obama, nor the switch from one candidate to the other (4 from Senator Clinton to Senator Obama, and did not include the double switch by the clown from the Virgin Islands).

On perception, it is easier for the mind to perceive a closing of the gap when you are behind, not as easy for the mind to perceive a widening of the gap, especially when it is your team or candidate.

Mike

Jim said...

As a Republican I find it interesting to follow all the "back room" politics that seem to be determining the Democratic nominee. If there is such divisiveness and questionable dealings in just determining a candidate why should Americans trust either of these two to lead our country? Further, if the Democratic party as a whole can't foster a consensus amongst itself what hope will there be for bi-partisan inititives for the good of our country should either of these two get elected in the General Election in November? This kind of dysfunction at the highest level of the Democratic party scares me to death if they should win based on a "disgruntled" vote come November.

cloud9ine said...

i am reminded of the seinfeld episode where he says, "Where's the depravity?"

Likewise, I'm sure we all want a President with at least a little depravity. (w.r.t. banking delegates)

I'm heartened to learn that Obama plays tactics well too, and is not going to be a sheep thrown to wolves.

edgeways said...

jim, I think a large part of the Democrat in-fighting is due to the historic nature of both candidates, as well as their similarity policy wise. Such similarities tend to force supporters to find some way to differentiate the candidates.
To an extent most voting is disgruntled voting. In 2000 the majority of McCain supporters where still saying they would never vote for Bush going into the last month of the campaign, Dean supporters said the same thing...
Democrats see this as a chance to take a crack at fixing what they see is wrong with how the last 8 years have played out, and so their emotions are running high. I don't think it really says anything about candidate suitability.

Jim from Indiana said...

edgeways, time will tell and we shall see. I will say this - Clinton, in my opinion, is doing your party a particular disgrace and I wouldn't be suprised to see her sue her own party to continue her desperate claims that somehow she "deserves" the nomination but has been cheated out of her "right to office". And even though early on, when she seemed more likely to win, she smugly suggested she would consider Obama as her VP I'll bet she won't consider herself as his VP. This so called champion of the "blue-collar" bunch is a flaming elitist exposed. Good luck friend...

TheShackPack said...

Kennick, Rambling Johnny, ahoff48,

sentiment shared! I have to avoid the computer so I'm not checking less than hourly! Kennick, very impressed with your prediction. Will be watching for another...
This has been some political season so far, and it's great to have found such a well-informed forum...plays well into my OCD..;)

Mark Randall said...

It is absolutely amazing what Barack Obama has been able to do while up against the Clinton “machine”. The excitement is definitely building up for him! Check out this picture to bring along to the convention or to have at home if you’re not able to attend.

http://shop.ebay.com/?_from=R40&_npmv=3&_trksid=m38&_nkw=the+audacity+of+hope&_sacat=550

jak said...

By endorsing Obama, West Virginia's entire Democratic delegation to Congress - Byrd, Rockefeller, Rahall, and Mollohan (another self-styled champion of ethics reform in the Obama tradition...) - has shamelessly flouted the will of their constituents, who overwhelmingly supported Hillary Clinton long after the media and Democratic Party elites told them that the race was over and that their votes didn't matter. What an absolute travesty of justice. Is it any wonder that Americans are so distrustful of government?

THROW ALL THE BUMS OUT - DEMOCRAT OR REPUBLICAN.

Me said...

jak, their constituents are largely uneducated racists who voted for Hillary primarily because she is white. They deserve to be flouted. In fact, the WV delegates should be praised for their example of leadership, and for standing up to the racist voters in their state.

Bear said...

Unfortunately I have to agree with ME. I teach at a 2-year college in Appalachia. I have had black students tell me of being threatened by whites when doing internships. The whites accusing them of stealing jobs.

One student told me about what happened when he doing an internship for the forest service. The forest service, put him and his friend who was also an intern in the cabin farthest from town for their own protection. The supervisor had been warned by more than one individual that there were some hot heads in town that wanted to harm the interns.

I hate to say it that many in Appalachia are blatant racists.

Paul Bradford said...

jak,

It's important to put your concern about delegates flouting (or reflecting) the will of their constituents into context.

Democrats believe (and they're right in this) that the most representative delegation is the one that is most closely apportioned to the vote in the state. Take Missouri, for example. On Feb 5, 50.73% of the voters supported Obama and 49.27% supported Clinton. That's a difference of only 1.46%. Currently their delegation is split 41-41 with 6 delegates undeclared. That, of course, is a difference of 0.00%. The delegation split is only skewed from the voting split by 1.46%. That's pretty good. The Missouri delegation does a pretty good job of reflecting the will of the Missouri voter.

In the bad old days, before the McGovern-Fraser Commission of 1968, we used to have a thing called the "unit rule". If the unit rule were in effect, all 88 of Missouri's delegates would go to Denver with the intention of voting for Obama (with the idea that they were reflecting the will of the voters). Instead of a 0.00% difference in the split, we'd have a 100.00% difference in the split. That would be skewed from reality by a 98.54% margin.

For my money, the closer a delegation is to having a split that's the same as the voter's split, the better job it does of representing the will of the voters. People complained that the leaders of my state, Massachusetts, all supported Obama even though the state itself went for Clintion. Did Kennedy, Kerry and Patrick flout the will of the people who voted them into office? Well, to determine that let's see how the MA delegation splits up. On Feb 5, Clinton got 57.95% of the vote and Obama got 42.05% of the vote. That's a difference of 15.90%. Currently, the delegation split is 66 for Clinton and 49 for Obama. That's a difference of 14.78%. The MA delegation is 'skewed from reality' by only 1.12%. That's pretty good.

Let's say that Kennedy, Kerry and Patrick decided to override their own preferences and vote for Clinton out of "respect" for the will of their constituents. Then the delegation split would be 69-46, a difference of 20.00%. The delegation would be 'skewed from reality' by 4.10%. That's worse than it is now! Good thing those delegates are 'bucking the trend' and supporting Obama.

Some of the most skewed states are the states where almost all the superdelegates support the winner of the state's primary or caucus. AR, RI and NY are all skewed by about 15-20% in Clinton's favor. She won all those states, but not by nearly as much as she's winning their delegations. ND, WY and CT are examples on the other side. All those states voted for Obama but not by nearly the margins as their delegations will be voting for him.

Proportional allocation is reasonable and democratic -- and the policy of letting superdelegates vote their own preferences is reasonable and democratic.

I say we should appreciate a good thing when we have it.

Mia said...

TxDP Chair Boyd Richie has released his statement endorsing Obama.

Matt said...

link, please?

Ian said...

Matt, here's the link for Boyd Richie:
http://www.burntorangereport.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=5867

tmess2 said...

Before anyone posts that Boyd Ritchie is ignoring the will of his constituents since Clinton got a narrow majority in the primary, Mr. Ritchie is the State Chair of the Democratic Party (at least through next week's convention). The State Chair is elected by the State Conveniton. In other words, his constituents are the delegates to that Convention. The majority of those delegates are pledged to support Obama.

edgeways said...

Jim from Indiana: I tend to share your view of Clinton to a certain extent, but have to temper it until the end of the primary and see what she will do at that point. A graceful concession will go a long ways towards the Dems holding it together (eg. see the Edward's MI appearance), a fight to the convention would just polarize many more people who have tried to remain objective.

Rambling Johnny said...

I make a prediction. Obama get another three in the middle of the night to get it under 40 for the morning news!

reddwarf2956 said...

If anyone has any thing to say about TX, it should be that we allow Republicans to vote in the Democratic Race. This was the first state in this race that that had a big R cut for Clinton. IN followed.

If you don't believe it just look at the caucus. I talked to a lot of R which crossed over. If she can not have the voters to vote twice there is something wrong.

Matt said...

Both Richies have been added for Obama.

ChagoFuentes said...

Finally. Boyd and Betty Richie, Texas Democratic Party Chair and wife, both super delegates, have endorsed Barack Obama. The announcement comes exactly one week before the Texas Democratic Convention opens. Boyd Richie is campaigning for re-election and knows that the overwhelming majority of delegates in attendance will be Obama supporters. That's alright. We will take super delegates for Obama no matter how delayed or what the reason. Hopefully, Boyd at least bargained for an appearance and speech by Senator Obama at the convention.

Mike said...

BO will get at least 37 pledged delegates from PR, SD & MT. ?I believe he has the delegates (pledged and unpledged) for FL/MI options 2, 3&4 and will end the race early next week.
Option 5 is never going to happen because it encourages rule breaking without repercaution and will be seen as a backdoor scheme to favor HRC. Mind you, MI/FL official could have abide with DNC rules, just as the other 48 states had done. HRC's argument shows how selfish and how much regard she has for rules, law and order- not a good example for someone aspiring to be US president, may be Zimbabwe president.

Actually, com to think of it, BO is simply magnanimous to cooperate with changing rules in the middle of the nomination process, whereas Hillary will rather agree to rule change that will turn her from a loser to a winner. Surely, she will like each pledged and unpledged delegate vote for her be counted as two, only then can she
win.

It has been a fascinating process, open and fair, irrespective of what the clintons will like to believe. The Democratic party wins big a party of principle, fairness and less of personalty.

Let's all gear up for the GE. It is a must win!

Mike in Maryland said...

To all those complaining about states like Massachusetts, where the vote was for Senator Clinton, but a lot of the SDs went for Senator Obama, why don't you ALSO state that some states had the opposite happen?

Pick and choose you statistics, but be fair.

Example - Maryland
Senator Obama received 61.43%, Senator Clinton 38.57%, of the primary vote. Maryland has 29 SDs, 20 of which have announced their endorsement. Of those 20, 12 should be for Senator Obama and 8 for Senator Clinton if they endorsed as the voters voted. But so far they haven't. As of today, 9 have endorsed Senator Obama, 11 have endorsed Senator Clinton.

Example - Virginia
Senator Obama received 65.06%, Senator Clinton 34.94%, of the primary vote. Virginia has 18 SDs, 11 of which have announced their endorsement. Of those 11, 7 should be for Senator Obama and 4 for Senator Clinton if they endorsed as the voters voted. But so far they haven't. As of today, 6 have endorsed Senator Obama, 5 have endorsed Senator Clinton.

Example - The District of Columbia
Senator Obama received 86.67%, Senator Clinton 13.33%, of the primary vote. DC has 24 SDs, 22 of which have announced their endorsement. Of those 22, 19 should be for Senator Obama and 3 for Senator Clinton if they endorsed as the voters voted. But so far they haven't. As of today, 12 have endorsed Senator Obama, 10 have endorsed Senator Clinton.

Now for those complaining about how the endorsements have gone in Massachusetts, go sing an old song, entitled Cry Me a River. If you can't sing, then I've got the world's smallest violin on which I'm playing My Heart Weeps for You.

Mike

Mike said...

I have to agree with the Clintons and their supporters here that the supers are free to vote for who they like. But I also agree with Chairman Dean here that the supers are free to use whatever factor they cosider to be important as to who they vote for- pledge delegatge majority, constituency voters, state voters, district voters, leadership quality, candidate's message, and what have you.

All that matters is the endorsement, since the reasons for endorsement can be whatever the super wants it to be. How else can you explain the action of Kelvin of VI. Clinton endorser, turns Obama endorse and now back to Clinton.

Keith said...

Mike, you're point is a good one, but I don't know where you got your DC numbers. It wasn't quite that lopsided. The vote was 76%-24%, not 87%-13%.

tmess2 said...

I would also not that many of the "DC" unpledged delegates are actually at-large members representing a broader constituency than just the voters of D.C.

Mike in Maryland said...

Keith,

You're right. I got the info from The Green Papers, but was looking a the wrong column.

The figures I should have quoted for DC are 75.31% for Senator Obama, and 23.77% for Senator Clinton.

I also misquoted figures for Maryland and Virginia, but not to the same extent as DC (MD - 60.66% for Senator Obama, 35.78% for Senator Clinton; and VA - 63.66% for Senator Obama and 35.47% for Senator Clinton).

My apologies for the incorrect info. But my previous statement holds - if you want to complain about some how some SDs in some states endorsed without acknowledging that the opposite happened in other states, you can 'Cry Me a River' or I'll play 'My Heart Weeps for You'.

Mike

Mike in Maryland said...

tmess2 said...
I would also not that many of the "DC" unpledged delegates are actually at-large members representing a broader constituency than just the voters of D.C.

And the same goes for many other SDs also. It depends on where the SD lives for those cases. Many of the SDs in this class live in Maryland or Virginia, so those states are 'overrepresented' compared to other states of comparable population and voting patterns.

Mike

ahoff48 said...

Two new endorsements. Great news to wake up to. Let the deluge begin!

craig said...

As of this morning (Friday), Sen. Obama needs 41 delegates to secure the nomination, if and only if the required number of delegates remains 2026. Admittedly, this is unlikely. The likely number will be closer to 2117.

However, it is important to note that Sen. Obama is now within the range of securing the nomination by 'pledged' delegates. He will probably secure no less than 25 of the 55 PR delegates, 9 of the 16 MT delegates, and 8 of the 15 SD delegates. This will give him a total gain of 42 delegates--one more than is needed to secure the nomination.

Dean said...

Why aren't the 2 TX delegates on Obama's website?

Allyn said...

In Friday's (5/30/2008) Seattle PI, it gace the reasons that Macoll is backing Clinton as "her style and grace", "role model for young firls", & her concern for the Iraq war. Also mentioned was the stance of the other Washington State delegates. DCW has Former Speaker Tom Foley was a supporter of Clinton (based on a 12/2007 Hillary.com list), HOWEVER, the Seattle PI and Seattle Times has Foley listed as UNDECLARED.

Lost Bob said...

Craig

Assume for the minute that Hillary does much better than you predict in PR, MT and SD.
Assume that Obama picks up only 36 of the remaining 86 delegates leaving him 5 votes short of the current target.

There is still no foreseeable way Hillary to take the nomination from him. Even if she gets full seating of the FL and MI delegations as voted, which is not likely. Obama would need to win less than 1/3 of the remaining delegates (unpledged supers and pledged delegates not committed to either Clinton or Obama) while Hillary would need more than 2/3 of those. Not going to happen.

All other scenarios (1/2 vote, with and without supers etc.) for MI and FL are even better for Obama. The nomination is in the bag.

Anything short of a gracious acceptance by Hillary Clinton of whatever the outcome of the RBC meeting turns out to be will be a clear indication that her agenda has nothing at all to do with party unity or a Democratic victory in November. We will know by Sunday where she really stands.

Amot said...

Houston, we have a problem!

If Obama is not banking superdelegates (he said he is not);
If he is a position to win at least 24 or 25 delegates in PR (polls show he is);
If he continues getting 4 endorsements per day;
If RBC doesn't announce decision before 3rd of June or stick with the 100% penalty;

Then Obama has a problem - he has Friday (today), Saturday, Monday and Tuesday to receive endorsements and there is a good chance he will receive 16 or more. It may turn out that he will pass the 2025 line on Tuesday before the results in SD and MT are announced. I would say at the moment there is 30-40% chance of such event if he is not controlling the endorsements...

On the other hand if RBC rules to seat FL and MI with 50% penalty and gives Obama direct or indirect control of the uncommitted slate, such a scenario will result in Obama sitting less than 30 delegates away from nomination on Tusday evening and he will be able to clinch it Wednesday.

TheShackPack said...

o.k. Rambling Johnny,

I'm way into all the predictions here....waiting for the Friday endorsements!!! Any of you going to the meeting Saturday?

01MR said...

The Democratic Party would be nothing without the Clintons. If you look up, "US Presidents" and read President Clinton's biography, you will see what a foolish mistake you've made in supporting an inexperienced, unqualified, and deceitful candidate like Sen. Obama. President Clinton brought this country the kind of peace and prosperity unseen for 30 years prior to his presidency.

Oh, and don't be too quick to count out Sen. Clinton, she can always run as an Independent and wipe out any chance of Obama winning, because ALL the polls show that Obama cannot retain the typically red states he won in the primary against McCain in the general election. So what will he be left with? Nada.

Here are the results in November:

Sen. Clinton (Clinched the Presidency)
Sen. McCain (First Runner Up)
Sen. Obama (Last or Second Runner Up)

We'll have the last laugh!!!

Rambling Johnny said...

Look like I was wrong TheShackPack Obama just got one more since I sign off. I think if Obama was banking SD he would not admit it publicly.

TheShackPack said...

didn't realize this was about laughs. i don't appreciate the unethical banter. For some of us, making the decision on who to vote for comes down to what sort of life we want for our children, their civil liberties, their freedom. Based on that, either dem candidate will suffice. However, voting history on issues has swayed us, in regards to those liberties. Please be nice. You can Love your candidate, as can anyone else, eliminating bashing words like 'foolish', etc. Enough is enough already.

TheShackPack said...

rambling Johnny, that's still not bad! maybe by 3pm today?? PST???

Jim from Indiana said...

01MR - That would be ironic if Clinton did run as an independent because that would certainly give the Republican party the win in November just as Ross Perot gave B Clinton his 1st victory by splitting the Republican vote then. It would be the finest example of her self-serving interest.

craig said...

Lost Bob,

I have no argument with what you say; an Obama win is for all practical purposes a foregone conclusion!

Ian said...

01mr,
I recommend you read "Dereliction of Duty" The Eyewitness Account of How Bill Clinton Compromised America's National Security" by Robert Patterson, who was a military aide under Clinton. Please read this and truly consider whether you would want Clinton back in the White House.

jfagan said...

Hoping for a few supers today. Keeps me going.

SarahLawrenceScott said...

amot--if all your assumptions turn out to be correct, it still won't lead to a superdelegate clinch on Tuesday. I doubt there are very many uncommitted supers who want to be famous for "deciding the election." If the RBC doesn't move the goalposts this weekend then supers will hold off until after Tuesday.

TheShackPack said...

The day before the dreaded meeting-- would be GREAT if some supers stepped out today. Need my fix.

Rambling Johnny said...

Shack I think nobody want to add oils to Hillary fake indignation and victim game before the meeting. Anybody know how long this thing going to last and would they rule immediately?

kennick said...

Rambling Johnny and Shack,
The agenda calls for a fairly tight schedule, with arguments being heard in the morning, and decision rendered in the afternoon. I personally think that has zero chance of happening, and have even heard it could go into Sunday. I do know that I'll be watching it as if it were the Superbowl, and I were a Patriots fan. Oh, wait. I am a Patriots fan.
Go Tom Brady, Go Obama. Any cheerleaders out there?

TheShackPack said...

alright all, Kennick and Rambling Johnny, thanks for all the good info., I'm on the west coast so I'm setting my alarm for 6 a.m. as to not miss a beat. No SD fix today, so here's to tomorrow & a successful, communicative, logical resolution!!

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

When are these Maine delegates going to be posted?

http://www.politickerme.com/jessicaalaimo/1670/maine-democratic-convention-update-645-pm

Obama +1
Hillary -1 (to Kucinich...he has MO...gonna take it to the conventionl

Bear said...

Well I think whether to seat will go fast. They will all say yes to that.

The next part will be a fight but likely all delegates but with a half vote each. In a way this may be the biggest fight, with this decision Clinton's hopes will come crashing down. She needs them to all count as full for her to have a chance.

I see no chance that the delegations will be seated in full. They have to be penalized or the DNC will loose total control over the primary process. That will be totally unacceptable for the majority of the people there.

Once that part is done, think the rest has a chance of going pretty quickly. Obama could give everything else Clinton wants and still easily win.

Will depend on how much Obama wants to fight at that point. But then Clinton side may have the fight taken out of them. But for some reason I do not think so.

Depends how they do things, but think they have a good chance of finishing Saturday.

Most will realize that building party unity is the most important thing starting this June.

edgeways said...

01MR: Not sure if you are one of those McCain bloggers-for-hire or not, but Clinton would absolutely kill her career under that scenario, she would get, at absolute maximum 25% of the vote (and I think that would be closer to 10%, McCain would get from 45% to 52% of the vote, and Obama the remainder. She would be kicked out of the Dem party, stripped of her Senate committee seats and primaried out next time she runs for Senate, her name would be completely ruined in politics. I don't think she will do this, I don't think she is going to go all the way to a floor fight either. She might go to the end of June for the next appeal, but that would be maximum, as far as I can tell.

Jim: I use to think that about the Perot vote, but have since read and looked at the numbers closer and think Clinton would have won even without Perot in the game. It looks like Perot pulled even votes from both parties, and perhaps a little more from the Dems, as counterintuitive as it sounds.

Independent voter said...

01mr wrote: "If you look up, "US Presidents" and read President Clinton's biography, you will see what a foolish mistake you've made in supporting an inexperienced, unqualified, and deceitful candidate like Sen. Obama. President Clinton brought this country the kind of peace and prosperity unseen for 30 years prior to his presidency."

And - "she can always run as an Independent and wipe out any chance of Obama winning"

-------

To address the first statement above - actually if you would recall history (not too long ago) correctly, Bill and Hill were the CAUSE of the Dems losing control of the House and Senate. It took the Dems another 12 years regain both chambers. And the retaking of Congress had NOTHING to do with the Clinton in 2006, it was because the Republicans were totally screwing up!

As to the second statement above - At this point it depends on when she decides if she is going to run as a third party candidate. MOST states require that an individual register by the end of August - Click here to view the deadlines for each state

If she decides to drag this out to the convention (August 25-28), there would NOT be enough states for her to even have a legitimate shot at winning in the general election. If she drops out completely before timing once again is crucial. Arizona and New Mexico's deadline is June 4th and shortly thereafter deadlines come up extremely fast.

So I guess technically she could if she wanted to, but the odds are that she won't just because of the timing issues.

Amot said...

Well, Clinton has one final hope - to get MI seated with the uncommitted not given to Obama. Her problem in this situation will be Obama already won probably 30 of those uncommitted (DCW have proof for 22 so far). In Scenario 5 - the left down sidebar, he needs 124 for the nomination. Add 6-8 more for him from MI CDs, 8-10 FL Edwards amd all 19 statewide uncommited in MI - no matter what RBC decides, MI State Central Committee will give them all Obama. So in her best scenario he is de facto 124 away of the nomination with reserv of 40 PD in teh next three contests, 35 more from FL and MI, 10 or more add-ons. He needs merely 40 supers to endorse him and it will be over. Sorry folks, unless you somehow make a rule that 2/3 of the convention delegates must endorse the winner, Obama is the winner before the end of the next week!