Thursday, March 20, 2008

Superdelegates who haven't committed to a candidate

WE'VE MOVED! Democratic Convention Watch is now at

Click Here To See The Rest of the Blog

This page has been frozen as of June 6, 2008.

We have a list of superdelegates to the 2008 Democratic Convention who have officially endorsed a candidate but who is left? Who hasn't made an official endorsement?

Let's take a look at which Democratic superdelegates haven't committed to a candidate yet. Along with our superdelegate list we will be updating this list as new endorsements are made.
This will be an ongoing work in progress so check back often for updates.

Note: As superdelegates have gained the spotlight quite a few of them have started to rethink their previous endorsements. More and more superdelegates are starting to announce that they will not commit to a candidate until they see how either their constituents vote or what the results of the primaries are.

Superdelegates highlighted in red are from Michigan or Florida and do not count toward the nomination at this time.

Superdelegates highlighted in green have committed to voting for the delegate leader at the end of the primaries.

Bud Cramer (AL)
Nancy Pelosi (CA)
Mike Honda (CA)
Allen Boyd (FL)*
Tim Mahoney (FL)*

Jim Marshall (GA)
Nancy Boyda (KS)
Charlie Melancon (LA)
Don Cazayoux (LA)

Steny Hoyer (MD)
John Tierney (MA)
Edward Markey (MA)

Collin Peterson (MN)
Gene Taylor (MS)
Rep. Travis Childers (MS)
Charlie Wilson (OH)
Marcia Kaptur (OH)

Rep. Dennis Kucinich (OH)
Rep. Dan Boren (OK)
Tim Holden (PA)
Lincoln Davis (TN)
Bart Gordon (TN)
Nick Lampson (TX)

Distinguished Party
Leaders (DPLs)

Al Gore (TN)
Fmr. Senator and Majority Leader
George Mitchell (NY)
Fmr. DNC Chair Bob Strauss (TX)

Joe Biden (DE)
Carl Levin (MI)*

John Lynch (NH)

Alex Sink (FL)#*
Steve Geller (FL)#*

Rusty McAllister (NV)#
Jerry Lee (TN)#
31 Unnamed Add-Ons

DNC Members
Joe Turnham (AL)
Nancy Worley (AL)

Lottie Shackleford (AR)
Art Torres (CA)
Hon. Carole Migden (CA)
Bob Mulholland (CA)
Steve Ybarra (CA)
Donna Brazile (DC)
Christine Warnke (DC)

Karen Thurman (FL)*
Rudolph Parker (FL)*
Terrie Brady (FL)*
Andrew Tobias (FL)*

Edward Smith (IL)
Vacant (IL)

Jennifer Moore (KY)
Nathan Smith (KY)

Elsie Burkhalter (LA)

Susan Turnbull (MD)
John Sweeney (MD)

James Roosevelt Jr (MA)

Elizabeth Bunn (MI)*
Jeffrey Radjewski (MI)*
Mark Brewer (MI)*
Richard Shoemaker (MI)*
Leila Medley (MO)

Philip D. Murphy (NJ)
Ralph Dawson (NY)
Carol Peterson (NC)
Ronald Malone (OH)
Patricia Moss (OH)

Jim Frasier (OK)
Eliseo Roques-Arroyo (PR)
Hon. Gilda Cobb-Hunter (SC)

David Hardt (TX)
Denise Johnson (TX)
Linda Chavez -Thompson (TX)
Hon. Alexis Herman (VA)
Howard Dean (VT)
Alice Germond (WV)
Marylyn Stapleton (VI)
Vacant - 1 (At-large)
Vacant - 2

* Superdelegates from Florida, Michigan and Democrats Abroad count as 1/2 of a vote.
# Add-on Superdelegates

2/7/08 - Removed Hon. Joan Fitz-Gerald (CO) from the list as she is no longer a member of the DLCC
2/19/08 - Donna Branch Gilby resigned as vice-chair of the Arizona Democratic Party. Her spot is now Vacant.
2/20/08 -
Teresa Benitez-Thompson replaced Jill Derby as a Nevada superdelegate
2/29/08 - Changed PA DNC member from "Richard Donatucci" to "Ronald Donatucci"
3/6/08 - Added Mark Wilcox as Arkansas' add-on superdelegate. He's officially uncommitted.
3/11/08 - Added Cheryl Chapman as the SD Vice Chair (previously vacant). She was elected on February 16th. Added Andre Carson (IN). Total number of supers is 796.
3/16/08 - Added
Vicky Harwell and Jerry Lee as Tennessee's 2 add-on superdelegates.
3/17/08 - Added DNC John Melcher (MT) who was seated on the National Democratic Seniors Coordinating Council and Mayor Brenda Lawrence (MI)* who was seated on the National Conference of Democratic Mayors. Both seats were previously vacant.
Replaced Rita Moran of Maine with Jennifer Dechant.
4/3/08 - Added DC add-on superdelegates
Yvette Alexander(DC)# and Harry Thomas Jr.(DC)#
4/5/08 - Added MO add-on superdelegate Jay Nixon (MO)#, and Florida add-on superdelegates Alex Sink (FL)#*, Steve Geller (FL)#*, Dan Gelber (FL)#*. MO add-on Susan Montee, and DE add-on Rob Carver have been added to the Obama list.
4/6/08 Replaced Mary Lou Winters (Clinton) with Elsie Burkhalter as DNC member from LA. Burkhalter is being placed on the uncommitted list as of now.
4/9/08 - Added Rep. Jackie Speier (CA), new congresswoman from California.
4/27/08 - Added
addon Terry Goddard (AZ)# and addon Laurie Weahkee (NM)#. Addon Kathy Sullivan(NH)# was added to the Clinton list.
4/28/08 - Removed Guam's Robert Underwood, Chair (Antonio Charfauros) and vice-chair (Cecilia Mafnas). Positions are now vacant.
5/5/08 - Previously added
party chair Pilar Lujan (GU), and adding new DNC member Ben Pangelinan (GU). New Guam vice-chair Jaime Paulino previously added to Obama list.
5/10/08 - Added OH add-on
William Bashein (OH)#. Added MA add-on Martha Coakley (MA)#.
5/13/08 - Added Rep. Travis Childers (MS) who won a special election run-off in a heavily Republican district.
5/17/08 - Added NV add-on
Rusty McAllister (NV)#.

Click Here To See The Rest of the Blog


«Oldest   ‹Older   1 – 200 of 230   Newer›   Newest»
Cris said...

This is great. You guys are doing a great job. The traditional media is so interested in declaring "winners," we get too little coverage of actual delegate counts. And the superdelegates are rarely mentioned at all.

I wonder if somebody has compiled a list like this for the unpledged Republican delegates?

Anonymous said...

Yes - thanks so much for this great resource and keeping us all informed! This kind of information is what makes this election cycle so different from the past.

Bayano said...

Your site should be rquired reading for high school civic and government classes. Too many citizens are uniformed about the way we choose our president. As a former member of the Electoral College, I was amazed to see pundits in the media urging the dismissal of the College, while not saying anything about the Super Delegates, and really believing that caucases and primaries were the final say on the outcome of the democratic presidential nomination.

nic said...

I just discovered this site, and wanted to take a second to complement the folks who started/run this are very good for doing this - it's a valuable resource for all Americans. THANK YOU for your time & effort & willingness to do something meaningful...

Matt said...

Nic - you're very welcome. Thanks for the kind words. - Matt & Oreo

Anonymous said...

Matt give me a call at my home phone # for confirmation of my Obama endorsement. I'm in the phone book in Highmore SD.

Anonymous said...

I appreciate this site because before this I didn't understand how the delegate system worked. I am sure most other ordinary people don't know either. I don't think that super delegate votes should be any different than a vote at the polling booth. And that is where it should be made. The super delegates shouldn't have any more say in who becomes the party nominee than you or I. Endorsements are fine, but votes are something else. A vote is a sacred democratic right and should not be not be used in anything other than a strictly democratic process. And super delegate votes are not democratic.

Anonymous said...

Thank you so much for this site. Today at our Democrats Abroad meeting in Avignon, France, the entire group was taken aback by the statistics that appeared in the London Times today that showed the number of superdelegates. Most of out members were unaware that this even existed. And we all found it very UN democratic!

Many thanks for this most welcomed service and keep up the good work.

Anonymous said...

Thank you so much for this site!

I wish the national media channels gave such information! I got your link through WIKIPEDIA, believe it or not, while researching 'superdelgates'.


Anonymous said...

Thank you for your helpful website.

I would like to know why so many superdelegates has not endorsed any of the candidates and if there is a particular time during the race when endorsements are more likely than others.

Unknown said...

This is a fabulous site for those of us who had no idea who superdels are or how they count. I do agree with the comments about the supers being conscious to reflect the populace vote within their home territory. This year's process is so fluid that I'm glad to see there are over 400 still not committed. Obama may end up garnering the support of the "popular vote" of Democrats (absent many Latino/Hispanic votes apparently because of possible ethnic/racial divides, too bad). I agree with those who say it would be devastating for the nomination to be procured by: (1) pledged delegates from Michigan & Florida where the less known candidates took the same pledge as all not to compaign (this would be cheating on a monumental level regardless of numbers); and (2) if supers somehow swung the nomination the OPPOSITE direction of the popular delegate selections. That would tear the Party apart. I think that if HRC is nominated, the Party is going to suffer anyway b/c the youth & many African Americans (male & female), and many white males (and some females) will stay home - having nothing to do with a gender or race issue, but having to do with the divisivenss of the Clinton "machine" - which could also spell the loss of the general election. I hope the supers keep all of these events in mind.

Matt said...


Unfortunately keeping this blog going takes a lot of time, and we just don't have the bandwidth to start collecting, posting and correcting names and addresses for all the supers.

Anonymous said...

Great Job on this site..I found it in hopes of finding a way to contact the uncommitted super-delegates and blasting those who did not vote the will of their constituency. I heard that there is an actual link and form letter in place..I will keep searching and provide more detail if I find it.

Matt said...

Christel asked: Is it legal to contact super delegates and ask them to endorse your candidate? Is it legal to ask them to switch their endorsement if they've already chosen?

Answer: Unless there's a restraining order against you, it is legal to contact any person in this country about anything. But they are not required to read your letter or email or pick up the phone to talk to you.

Re: numbers of superdelegates by state. The numbers are not set in stone and can and will change. Many states have certainvsuperdelegates only because they happen to reside in that state. If they move, or are replaced in that position by another person from another state, the new state gets the superdelegate the old state loses.

Matt said...

Countjellybean, one of my new favorite commenters, cause he sets me up so well, writes:

The list includes 8 superdelegates from Nevada. Other websites state that Nevada will have 7 superdelegates plus one add-on. I have found similiar small differences with CA, CO, CT, IL, DC, MD, VA, PA, NC, and MT.

OK, folks, pay attention, here's why you should only trust 2008 DCW for your superdelegate information. Don't trust media organizations, don't trust Wikipedia, and certainly don't trust copycat web sites which steal their information from us!

In January, Catherine Cortez Masto, AG of Nevada, became co-chair of the Democratic Attorneys General Association, and as such, became a superdelegate. Therefore Nevada's superdelegate number goes up by 1. The DNC has told me via email that this will happen, Nevada will go to 8. But they haven't updated their documentation yet, and their website, and therefore any other website that doesn't bother to do any research on this, still reports Nevada as having 7. We're OK being out there by ourselves.

Now that's not to say we're 100% positive about all our names and states. We do have some discrepancies between our numbers and the DNC numbers (yes, we have our own spreadsheets also!), and we're working to resolve them. (Some of it may be trivial - at-large superdelegates moving from 1 state to another). Not to mention the fact that we have 721 names (really 725 with the Dems abroad), so 1 of the 721 will not get a seat at the convention! (How about a massive game of musical chairs at the Pepsi Center?)

We really appreciate all the suggestions and corrections from everybody. Please keep them coming. Remember, you can also email us directly with any questions. Thanks!

countjellybean said...

Thanks, Matt. I will absolutely look to you all as THE source of superdelegate info.

My list of names is 719, which I guess is short by two. I sent you an email to that effect to see if you can clue me in.

Jay said...

To correct what Anonymous said: "Just so you all know, the Republican party has the same format, only they call them 'unpledged delegates'."

Republicans do not have the same format. Their delegates are determined by the popular vote in the primaries.

Also, Republican delegates in some states are unpledged but in other states they are pledged.

Fran Cee said...

Where did you hear Braley endorsed Clinton? I think you are wrong. He's our congressman and no announcement has been made.He had backed Edwards but never endorsed either Clinton or Obama.

Matt said...

Francie - My mistake. He is on the no-endorse list. Look under representatives, and remember we sort by full state name, IA (Iowa) comes after IN (Indiana).

bmore said...

I really like this site. I am able to track the results of the ongoing race.
I think everyone one should be reminded that the rules go for everyone. I voted and I want my vote to count. As a citizen if someone was doing something to prevent that I would have done something when the rules were laid out not after the fact.

TheBrain said...

One of the things I enjoy about this site is the willingness of the bloggers to stick to factual comments and reasoned opinions. Nobody needs any more personal insults and snide remarks. There are plenty of those on other websites. Thanks for playing.

Matt said...

Folks, please keep your comments on this thread focused on superdelegate endorsement issues. Please post your pro- and anti-candidate comments on our Open Thread. All non-relevant comments will be deleted from this thread to allow it to stay focused.

lompe said...

Denise Johnson (tx) for Obama:

Matt said...

Denise Johnson does not say in that article she will vote for Obama. What it says is "she'll probably cast her convention vote for the candidate who wins more pledged delegates – very likely, Mr. Obama.". We don't allow endorsements based on future conditional events. When Johnson is quoted as saying "I'm supporting Obama", without the dependency on the pledged delegate count, we'll move her. For now, she stays in the no-endorse column.

Matt said...

Please limit comments in this thread to discussion of superdelegates. Comments in favor of a candidate should be put in the Open Thread, and will be deleted here.

Oreo said...

Added DNC John Melcher (MT) who was seated on the National Democratic Seniors Coordinating Council and Mayor Brenda Lawrence (MI) who was seated on the National Conference of Democratic Mayors. Both seats were previously vacant.

partyloyalty said...

Superdelegates exist precisely to respond to considerations other than the vote count for pledged delegates. While the pledged delegate count is relevant, saying that it is dispositive is the same as saying superdelegages should not exist.

The additional considerations that should influence should include at least 1) developments subsequent to the binding of pledged delegates, 2) an emphasis on the preferences of Democrats in states where the general election will be a close contest, and 3) independent judgment as to the candidates' electability.

Based on those concerns, the recent developments related to Reverend Wright are strong grounds for superdelegates to shift to Clinton. While I do not believe that Obama endorses the longstanding views of his church, he is caught in a fight between a black base and the reaction of incredulity by most Americans to statements such as "America deserved 9/11" and "America developed AIDS as a tool of genocide against blacks." His decision to continue his membership without fighting to change the church (at least since 9/11) raises a real question of judgment, and seems indistinguishable (or worse) than continued membership in a segregated club. To white America, this looks like a mirror image of David Duke.

I personally know one lifelong Democrat (85 years old, consistent voter, never voted for a Republican) who says if Obama is nominated he will vote for McCain (a two vote swing in the totals), and two more lifelong Democrats who say they will sit out an Obaman v. McCain contest (1 vote shift each). Superdelegates will need to take these reactions into account, rather than mechanically following the pledged delegates.

countjellybean said...

Since Brenda Lawrence is from Michigan, does that reduce the number to 794?

Matt said...

CJB - Yes, count is down to 794. See post on main page.

Matt said...

We've moved the add-ons into their own category on this page.

Jack said...

Just wanted to point out that the Montana senator spells his name Jon Tester, not John, as you have it.

Great site!

Oreo said...

Good catch.
Thanks Jack!

Unknown said...


I'm trying to reconcile a delegate count and think I may have figured it out.

Are you counting Gov. Paterson's at-large DNC seat as vacant, or does he still hold that plus the NY Gov seat?

Thanks in advance,

Oreo said...

Paterson still holds his at-large DNC seat. We are not counting it as vacant

Unknown said...

Thanks for some incredible work here!

As for democracy and delgates, the "rules" often cited are actually that the nominee must reach 2025 or so.

Until then, they haven't won the necessary amount to be the nominee.
The vote at the end of the campaign can be a strong indicator but if neither has reached the number, there is a mechanism to decide on the final nominee, hopefully based on electability as well as other positives relative to how effective the nominee would be as President.

If all race cars (or horses) break down before the finish line, no 'win' is automatically awarded the car that was ahead, since everyone knows that some start slow and finish fast, etc. But more important than anything are electability and effectiveness.

For either candidate.

Thanks again for the truly fantastic work.

InvestmentMAGE said...

Great job!

It would be interesting to know the ethnic breakdown of the uncommitted super delegates.

Unknown said...

First you removed John Melcher from the list, then you added him back on -- to the same position you all claimed he had lost.

What gives?

Anonymous said...

We don't agree with a Super Delegate changing the vote of the people they are representing. Vote the people's convection. We haven't heard of Super Delegates before. Who thought up this idea?

Matt said...

InvestmentMAGE - we don't have access to an ethnic breakdown of the superdelegates.

Touchstone - the DNC removed Melcher in January or so and then added him back in March. We don't know why this happened.

Old City Jim - your math is pretty similar to a number of other delegate calculations. But never forget, this is politics, not physics. Underlying assumptions can and do change. That's why this race is so fascinating to watch.

Subvertigo said...

Matt/Oreo... I need your help! :-)

The "Call to the Convetion" PDF from DNC has 2 tables (in Appendix B)with the pledged and super delegates numbers, one of them dated June 26 2007 (and the last currently March 17 2008).

Well in that table, we total superdelegates is 849. Subtracting FL/MI the result is 796 and not 797 as I expected (to begin then the changes as your history thread).
So in the meanwhile (after June 26 2007 and prior Julia Carson death) the number should raise by one to 850. Relevant facts are +1 for KY new Dem Governor and -1 for LA Gop New Governor, but the sum is zero! And the last fact (LA governor Dem->GOP) is not highlighted in your history.

Matt said...

subvertigo - I'd like to take this discussion to email while we figure this out, and not clutter up the thread. If you send us an email at the email address in the right sidebar, we can get started. (We'll summarize back here when we're done).

Matt said...

Please keep this thread limited to superdelegate endorsement news. Unrelated comments haven been and will continue to be deleted. Take the delegate math comments to our Ultimate Delegate Summary or Tracker, and keep them focused on the numbers, not on the candidates. Comments clearly in support of one candidate should be posted on the Open Thread.

Leon said...

Don't know if you guys will hate to hear this, but I am a registered Republican and I hear a lot of resentment for the superdelegate concept. We do need change in this country and change for your party can be accomplished the same way that we can bring change to this country: Get the people organized and get rid of the country club elite politicians. I think we need it on both sides. Get enough Democrats together organized and you can get rid of the supers.

Good luck at the convention.

Anonymous said...

I was watching MSNBC this morning and Andrea Immer was reporting on the Kwame Kilpatrick Indictment. She claims that Kilpatrick has been endorsing Obama for a while and that's why Obama "doesn't want to campaign in Michigan." I have found nothing on the internet except a doctored YouTube video. Does have anything on this?

Yellow Dog Democrat said...

Andrea Immer better have something better than talking points from Howard Wolfson to claim that Kilpatrick is an Obama supporter.

Kilpatrick's mother, Congresswoman Kilpatrick, is officially neutral, as is her son.

In fact, there's an online petition to try to pressure Detroit's mayor to endorse Obama. Currently, it has 23 signatures.

Contrary to Immer's claims, most polling I've seen shows Obama beating Clinton head-to-head in MI, and it shows him winning against McCain and her losing.

Obama's reason for not campaigning in Michigan is simple. It would take him away from states that have ACTUAL primaries ahead, and lend credence to Clinton's argument for a revote.

Which, is funny in so many ways. One, because the only tangible benefit of a re-vote for Clinton is that it would allow Michigan and Florida's superdelegates to be seated. As of right now, they won't be, and Clinton holds a big superdelegate lead in those states.

Two: Clinton doesn't hope to catch up in pledged delegates or the pledged delegate count or the total states won, but hopes to use the "I've won the popular vote" argument and "I've won more big states" argument and "I've won more electoralvote states" argument to overturn the delegate count using superdelegates.

Matt said...

Alex, YDDem - I've spent a lot of time looking at Kilpatrick/Obama, and I haven't seen any support for an official endorsement, or for an official statement of "No endorsement". My feeling is that he supports Obama, but has not endorsed for whatever reason (his choice, Obama's choice, it doesn't really matter). Trust me, if Michgan does have a primary, Kipatrick is not going to keep Obama from campaining there.

Oreo said...

By popular demand I have placed a link to our Open Thread in the top left.

We are trying to limit the number of comments on this page to under 200 so it's easier for everybody to see news of new endorsements or rumors of new endorsements.

Thanks everybody

eja11950 said...

Don Williams (DNC) has been named as an add-on super from Connecticut.

Unknown said...

I hope the delegates honor our democracy and the soldiers who fought and died for our right to vote and be heard.

The people of Florida and Michigan are lawful citizens who voted to be heard. They should not be treated as second-class citizens.

Their votes should count and their full delegates should be seated. They should be treated the same as every other American.

Leon said...

GAIL said...

"The people of Florida and Michigan are lawful citizens who voted to be heard. They should not be treated as second-class citizens.

Their votes should count and their full delegates should be seated. They should be treated the same as every other American."

Gail, were the contests in Michigan and Florida fair contests? Were the voters in those states told before the contest that their delegates would not be seated? .... Yes! They were told beforehand and if their delegates are seated, then that would be horribly unfair to the voters who would have voted if there had been a good reason to show up at the polls. I worry when people sound so patriotic and invoke dead soldiers to make a point without thinking through the whole concept. What would be fair would be to either follow what was promised before the primaries or to hold another primary before the convention. Since those states have decided not to hold another contest, then those voters who showed up to the polls did so for their own exercise, not to seat a delegate. If you don't like the decisions that the Dem party has made, then fight it or leave it.

PJ said...

Great site...keep up the good work.

Tracy said...

Has anyone considered the question of the agreement that was reached by DNC and the States where States were told that their votes would not be counted if they decide to move up their primary dates?

Who was responsible for refusing to folllow the rule as laid down by the DNC?

Is Clinton and Obama responsible for this?


When Clinton and Obama agreed that the votes from Michigan and Florida woud not count, who went behind to campaign there contrary to their AGREEMENTS?

Let us call a spade a spade and put the blame where it belongs.

Must we have a video recording of the agreements before we face up to the truth and deal with this matter fairly?

Grandma Linda said...

I noticed that there are a few lines that state "vacant" for those delegates who have not declared. Was an adjustment made for this in the 2024 needed to win the nomination? Will some of these be filled in time for them to declare?

Matt said...

Dr. Linda - It is assumed that the vacant spots will be filled before the convention so the 2024 number includes them. We're following the DNC procedure on this. If they don't get filled, then the number will go down. (We expect the state vacances to filled at the respective state conventions this spring). This is different than the open Congressional seats. There is no assumption of a Democratic win here, so the numbers will increase if we win any of the upcoming elections.

David said...

Cory, Sounds like you have lost your sight. See the primaries for what they are. The so called mud slinging is a part of the game, always has been, always will be. Obama made a "Freudian Slip" in his comments about blue collar workers and religion. His true colour shines through. His former pastor has helped his cause along too, ha, ha.
Not voting for Clinton because of something you have absolutely no control over is ludicrous and anal retentive.
Not voting at all is just casting a vote for the other candidate. You should know that. Every vote counts.

DLAR said...

I think we need to start asking another question of these delegates that haven't committed, "Will you vote for a candidate on the first ballot?" I'd really love/hate to see this go to multiple ballots. The color yellow would look correct for those chicken delegates that won't promise to vote on the first ballot.

Matt said...

Ellsworth does not qualify for the Pelosi Club. First he says he will likely follow his district. Second, any super who uses the words "will of the people" without defining those words is automatically disqualified from the Pelosi Club, as there is plenty of room for disagreement on what the "will of the people" means.

Once again, membership in the Pelosi Club is limited to those supers who specifically say they will vote for the "pledged delegate leader" (They can add in "most states"). Any other qualification on that decision, or use of any other measure, disqualifies them from membership.

Matt said...

Added Terry Goddard, new add-on from Arizona. New supers have also been added to the endorse list.

countjellybean said...

Should the vacancy for Arizona DNC be removed? My count is one higher than yours.

Matt said...

Added Laurie Weahkee, new add-on from New Mexico. Also removed AZ vacancy, filled by Charlene Fernandez, who is supporting Obama.

ES said...

Hey, great job on the site, just wanted to point out an error...

On the list of uncommitted senators, you incorrectly have former senator George Mitchell being from NY. According to Wikipedia, he actually represented Maine:

Matt said...

ES- Wikipedia is wrong. Mitchell is now registered to vote in NY, so he is part of the NY delegation. Check out the official list - there's a link to it on the Endorse page.

Matt said...

To clarify, yes, Mitchell was Senator from Maine - so Wikipedia is correct there. But, as I said, he is now part of the NY delegation.

youarenotmytypewriter said...

Hi everyone, I'm working on compiling a list of all the undecided superdelegates contact information. However, there is very little information anywhere about the DNC members that are superdelegates,let alone their contact information. Has anyone found a list, or have any ideas as to how to somewhat efficiently get this information? Thanks!

Andy said...

According to this article Robert Underwood of Guam resigned his seat as "committee man" and they are going to appoint a replacement. This means he won't be a Superdelegate to the convention. The article says that both of the candidates who are up for the appointment are Obama supporters.

Also, curiously, the seat is up for election after the convention and there is a Clinton supporter (David Shimizu) who is running unopposed. So I'd say its pretty odd for Antonio Charfauros (the Democratic Party Chair) to bother appointing someone else for only a few months to fill a seat that someone is running unopposed for.
This is just speculation, but two likely scenarios are that Charfauros is an Obama supporter and wants to get that extra Obama delegate in there or that he really doesn't like Mr. Shimizu. But I'm sure there are other reasons someone could come up with.

Matt said...

We now have 3 vacancies in Guam. DNC member Robert Underwood has resigned. The Chair (Antonio Charfauros) and vice-chair (Cecilia Mafnas) will be replaced in elections this Saturday, and the new officials will have the superdelegate vote. More details here.

Thanks to Andrew above for the tip.

Haiti% said...

Eric Melancon said...

Louisiana has a special election for the 6th Congressional District. The Democrat, Don Cazayoux is favored to win by the Cook Political Report. May 3rd is the election, and it would be adding a new superdelegate, as the district once belonged to the Republican, Richard Baker. He is uncommitted.

tina said...

I'm confused. Why are so many people against superdelegates, yet supportive of the state delegates. Either way, the American vote is not truly - democratically - recognized. One person, one vote is how I would like to see this process completed. A candidate can win the popular vote in a state, yet more state delegate votes can be granted to the losing candidate. How does this differ, really, from the superdelegate voting for a candidate with fewer popular votes? And while I'm undecided which way I'll vote, I'm very concerned that Obama and his supporters are seemingly so righteous about the popular vote (the voice of the people) being the hand that leads the delegate vote - yet, yet, yet - I don't see a single Obama supporter standing up for the rights of the American voters in Florida and Michigan. It would be very interesting to know just how his supporters would be spending their energy today if in fact Obama had won the popular vote in those two states. Go figure. People at their best - when it's in your favor - you're for it....when not....forget about it. Oh yea, I read, but don't know it's validity, that Obama was willing to split the delegates that Clinton won outright in those two that's realizing the people and their votes - not. If Obama would step up and let those votes count as he so religously preaches for the delegate numbers to rule the day, I'd be first to stand in line to vote for him.

The Artison said...

Tina - Before posting a comment, please research the facts first....

All canidates signed papers and spoke publicly stating that they agreed that the votes in Florida and Michigan would not count if they moved up their primaries.

All the people of both states knew that if their states moved up their primaries their votes would not count.

A person cannot and should not be able to win something that was not to be won in the first place. Especially when they put it in writing that they agreed with that decision to begin with and then change their mind because it no longer favors them.

billyjay66 said...

jms and tina

jms: re "tina get your facts straight"

Take it easy on tina. I am an Obama supporter (former Clinton) and I want something to be settled that CONSIDERS the VOTERS even if it favors Clinton to some extent.

We know from our great leader Howard Dean that "rules are rules" but some compromise is needed to make the process somewhat fair. However you look at Tina I look at her as someone very important because she is still deciding who to pick!

billyjay66 said...

Tina said
1)"People are against Superdelegates"
2)"People are supportive of state delegates"
3)"either way it is not democratic"

re: Superdelegates I think you mean Superdelegates totally changing the election. I don't think that will happen. Hillary started with 100 supers advantage (everyone thought she would win) and that is virtually all gone. For ten weeks she has been losing it to supers.

re: State delegates & democratic - If you mean primary voters % and % of delegates awarded not being equal. My spreadsheet of primaries has the percent of both (voters for candidates and delegates awarded) and overall the differences are not large. Of course when there are exceptions the MSM loves to have fun!

tina said...

Oh wow - thanks for such great responses to my comment. I am very much aware that the 'candidates' approved that the votes of these 2 states would not count. I don't, however, for a second believe that "All the people of both states knew that if their states moved up their primaries their votes would not count." If that were fact, then why are we hearing of these voters asking that their votes be counted. Back to one person, one vote.

As for the comment on % vs % of votes for the candidates vs delegate votes - you've made my point more clearly than I did: "My spreadsheet of primaries has the percent of both (voters for candidates and delegates awarded) and overall the differences are not large. " The operative phrase here is "overall the differences are not large". But you see, there is still a difference. Back to one person, one vote. With the delegate system, not to mention the superdelegate system - we don't get one person, one vote. It's just, in my opinion, not democratic.

I'll be the first to admit that my understanding of this whole process is limited. Does a primary voting precinct have to have a certain % of voters actually vote for those delegates to be awarded to a candidate? How are the number of delegates for a precinct determined in the first place? Is it based on population of said precinct? I think I understand that back in the days of limited communication and travel tools, it was important for one 'rider' to ride forth with voting results from some such area. But do we really need that now?

I've struggled so much on where I need to place my loyalty for this election - literally I waffle everyday. I'm Hillary, I'm Obama - help. I get sucked into Hillary because I believe I do know her - we all do. Then I get lulled by Obama who speaks out for change, but I still don't know him. Sure we all want change of one thing or another. He says he wants to stand for change...change for what? I guess since I don't know him, I'm wanting to see what he's capable of changing now - and if change is his platform - then start the change by ensuring all votes are counted. He still comes out ahead on votes - so I don't see it being a negative or risky thing for him to do - but for me it would prove that he's ready to 'enact change' not just talk about it. And I don't think it would speak of arrogance if he did agree to those votes being counted, but rather confidence in himself and those who are supporting him and I would think win some major respect from those - like me - who are currently wafflers....just my 2c and certainly not wanting to offend or aggravate anyone.

billyjay66 said...


re: "close % is not exact % of vote% vs delegate %"

Right! You got me. Close is not exact. Guess I should go play horseshoes! Thanks for listing so closely.

But remember when voting for a President it is winner take all and the loser gets nothing in a state (like 527 votes short of a a majority in Florida in 2000). The winner of the national popular vote does lose the election about every dozen times. Imperfect democracy without a doubt.

However the most important thing is to decide and vote and not get discouraged. If you are torn about deciding does that mean your state has not had its primary yet? I won't lobby you, but make sure you vote against the last eight years. I would vote for Hillary or Barack in a heartbeat over more of what Bush has brought.

hopehillary said...

I have heard conflicting stories on the subject of what the candidates previously agreed to in the case of moving primaries in FL and MI. Did they sign a paper agreeing not to campaign there (which Obama did) or did they agree not to count the votes?

Kayess said...

Fmr Senator George Mitchell is listed with the other Senators, but he should be listed as a DPL instead (Former Senate Majority Leader).

Matt said...

Kevin - We renamed our Prez/VP section to DPL, and it now contains Gore, Carter, Mitchell, Romer and Strauss. Thanks.

Matt said...

Jimmy Carter added to the Pelosi Club.

Peter said...

I just noticed that if all the unpledged superdelegates endorsed Obama, I'm pretty sure he'd have about enough to win the nomination. So definitely after NC and IN, regardless of how it goes, he would definitely be able to win the nomination with a majority of the unpledged superdelegates endorsing him.

billreef said...

Add Brian Colon from NM for Obama.


SCS said...

John Olsen (CT) still on the uncommitted list despite endorsement.

Oreo said...

Olsen removed thanks.

We will have the lists updated shortly.

Currently all of today's events are listed on the front page.

Matt said...

Added new LA Add-on Ray Nagin. Added new Guam Chair Pilar Lujan. She says she will vote for the winner of the Guam vote. The Guam vote is still unofficial, and even when its official, we will need her to subsequently say who she supports before we can more her to the endorse list,

We have temporarily added Parris Glendining to this list. None of the references so far meet our requirements for putting him on the Obama list. We hope to have a good reference tomorrow.

Matt said...

Added Congessman Don Cazayoux (LA). Number of superdelegates is 795.

tmess2 said...

I don't know if this meets your standards, but Burnt Orange Report ( has a post that DNC member Robert Martinez (TX) has committed to Clinton.

Dan Werner said...

Nagin (LA) and Cazayoux (LA) need to be added to the uncommitted list...

Also, shouldn't there be two DNC vacancies listed for Guam, not one?

Matt said...

Nagin and Cazayoux were both added to the list last night, Cazayoux under the Reps, Nagin under the add-ons.

There is now only 1 vacancy in Guam, a DNC position formerly held by Robert Underwood. The Chair and Vice-Chair spots were filled yesterday.

Matt said...

tmess2 - thanks for the tip. Martinez has now been added for Clinton.

Dan Werner said...

Oh, right, thanks.

Brian Colon (NM) should be removed from the uncommitted list.

Also, by my count, there are 53 add-ons left (if one includes MI), not 56...

Matt said...

Colon removed, count corrected to 53. thanks.

priya said...

is there a list of email addresses for the uncommitted delegates somewhere? thanks-

cs said...

MD's chair and vice chair (Glover and Cyror) have endorsed Obama.

Matt said...

Previously added party chair Pilar Lujan (GU), and adding new DNC member Ben Pangelinan (GU). New Guam vice-chair Jaime Paulino previously added to Obama list.

Dr. in Ann Arbor said...

Great site!

Quick question - if Kwame Kilpatrick (mayor, Detroit) is convicted on felony perjury charges he now faces, he will likely be forced out of mayorship - safe to assume he's stripped of 'super' status?

Matt said...

The only issue for Kilpatrick is if he resigns (or is forced out ) as Mayor. If he does, then, yes, he loses his super status as a member of the Nat. Conference of Dem. Mayors. But he has to leave office. The Governor of PR is also in legal trouble, but as long as he's Governor, he keeps his super status. Same with Kilpatrick.

MKSinSA said...

New sort of "uncommitted" - Ybarra

Ybarra, though, said he might remain uncommitted through the convention and not vote for either candidate. Chairman of the voting rights committee of the national Democratic Party's Hispanic Caucus, he is angry that neither the party nor the two candidates have put together plans and a budget for recruiting and retaining Latino voters -- particularly Mexican Americans.

blog - LA Times

Robert in MN said...

If not listed on the endorsement page, Illinois add-ons Todd Stroger and Barbara Flynn Currie should be listed here.

Sorry to keep dogging you on these two, but I haven't heard any direct response as to how the information submitted to date is not sufficient. Thanks again for all of your hard work.

Unknown said...

The Heather Mizeur link is dead

ajm said...

We need some clear-headed thinking if we democrats are going to win the general election. Barack Obama has little to no experience to qualify him for the presidency. Realistically, with his limited experience, would he have much of a chance of being selected as a CEO of a major American corporation? Why then, with this limited experience, do some think he is qualified to be President of the nation? Do we demand less experience of the President of the nation than a CEO of one of the nation's business entities? Or do we think that on-the-job training will somehow prepare him for the position within a few months of taking office?

By attempting to make this major leap from a first term senator to the presidency, Barack is stretching the political envelope too strenuously and too fast. Failure will set the clock back on the political aspirations of black Americans for generations. It is a big big gamble! Barack should settle this time around for the vice presidency or some major position in a democratic administration, and when he has demonstrated his skills and grown in political wisdom and stature, he will be better prepared to serve his country as President and Commander in Chief.

As of now, it seems to me that most voters, when the chips are on the table in the November elections, will not select Barack Obama. Most voters will see it as too big a gamble, too great a risk. They will opt for the lesser of two evils and cast their lot with a grey-haired known entity rather than an untried and unknown entity no matter how well spoken. Democrats and super-delegates must take a long hard look at this probability and act in the best interest of all Americans.

Novice Oregonian said...


You raise some very good points about qualification. Unfortunately, the other alternative is not much better and she lost, fair and square. The qualified group (Biden, Richardson, etc.) never made any headway.

jam1 said...

I have been very interested in the last few elections. I guess as you get older you get more interested in the issues. I have always voted and feel it is my privelige and right.But I have a few thought on this election that I would like to vent.
I just cannot vote for a man who sits in a church for 20 yrs with a preacher like Mr Wright or a man whose wife says this is the first time she is proud to be an American or someone who studders and stammers like Mr Bush when he doesn't have a speech in front of him. He didn't vote for the war because he didn't vote at all. He would have done just like the others becuase the whole country was lied to.

I hope that if any super delegates should read any of this they will think of experience first. We all make mistakes and Mrs Clinton is no different. But I believe she will try to straighten some of those mistakes if elected.

Go Mrs. Clinton Go.

Galois said...

I thought Bashein was Ohio's other add-on and we were still waiting on word for the other Massachusetts add-on.

Matt said...

Attorney General Martha Coakley is Massachusetts's other add-on superdelegate. She is uncommitted.

kis said...


There are plenty of companies that have CEOs with little or no experience. Take the following examples:

Jerry Yang founded Yahoo at age 25

Larry Page founded Google at age 22

Bill Gates founded Microsoft at age 20

A common assertion is the assumption that with age comes wisdom. Though very often that is true, there is no corollary between age and wisdom. Wisdom is derived from having sound judgment and the drive to stick by your judgments.

There is a reason why the constitution of the United States places the age requirement at 35 for presidency. If they felt that wasn't "experienced" enough, the terms would have had requirements of length of time in office and made that age older. If we keep opting for older presidents, there will come a time when there won't be any. The average age of a House member is 57 and for a Senate member is 61.5. What happens when these people retire/die? If you examine our younger generation, most aren't even interested in politics. They strive for jobs where they have more assurance of acquiring a position (i.e. engineer, lawyer, doctor, etc.). Perhaps a small percentage of these individuals will aim for politics, but given the current lack of interest, it doesn't seem likely. A younger politician with good judgment could attract younger people into politics and effectively close the generational gap between our current politicians and our potential future politicians.

Given the nature of how things currently look, it seems very likely Obama will be the nominee. Even if he were to lose in November, it would still be a win for politics in America. Stripping him of the nomination would leave the younger people just getting interested to get turned off and proclaim, "Politics are stupid, I shouldn't have wasted my time."

Just my thoughts.

Norm! said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Norm! said...

Oregon superdelegate and Vice Chair of the Democratic Party of Oregon Frank Dixon told the Portland Mercury that he will probably follow the results of next Tuesday's Oregon primary:

“I can’t speak in absolutes, both candidates have done a remarkable job in this state. You never know what will happen. I’ll probably go with whomever the Oregon voters vote for.”

hopehillary said...


Obama's inexperience is not based on his age. Certainly you can't compare launching an internet site with running the free world anyway.
I also think it is biased and unrealistic of you to assume young people are only interested because of Obama. I would argue there is an increase in voter registration because the tight race allows the votes of all states to finally become relevant.
The fact that mere percantages in numbers between the two candidates means there is no clear winner and either side will have the nomination stripped from them.
And the goal is to win in November, that's the point, otherwise there is no need to have a primary at all.
Obama will not beat McCain.
Obama-McCain, 89.9% probability of McCain win:

Clinton-McCain, 74.7% probability of Clinton win:

kis said...

Hope Hillary,

If it's not because of his age, then how is he inexperienced? Obama has been a state senator from 1997 - 2004 and then a US Senator from 2004 to Present. Clinton has been a US senator from 2000 to Present. I don't agree that being the first lady (US and Arkansas) constitutes experience. She may very well have advocated for great things during her time then, but so has Obama as a community organizer

Regarding your blog source, where is the source code for the simulations? What poll data is being used? And what evidence is there that the polls will dictate what will actually happen? The current polls are based on McCain vs. Clinton vs. Obama. Even when you ask people what they think of a Clinton vs. McCain or Clinton vs. Obama matchup, personal biases are in play because the polled person has 2 options for a democrat in mind. Even the polls that say Obama voters will not vote for Hillary and vice versa if their choice isn't the nominee are worthless right now because it's base on irrational people afraid of not getting their choice for a nominee. Clinton and Obama are so similar in policies when compared to McCain. Only an idiot for Clinton or an idiot for Obama would vote McCain out of spite.

And I don't see myself as biased in assuming young people are interested because of Obama. Facts are facts, more young people and new voters are voting for Obama. Why? Because he made it his message that he is for change (whether that is true or not is up for debate, which I care not to get into) and his "youth" is a physical symbol of that to young people. Think of it this way. If woman would be happy to see the first female president and if blacks would be happy to see the first black president why wouldn't young people be happy to see a younger president? All of this falls into common social constructs created by societal norms that are in play today.

hopehillary said...

If you choose to use the fact that he was in the Senate as a basis for experience, I would ask what accomplishments you would allude to during his service? And more specifically, what accomplishments has he made that would support the claims of what he intends to do in the future? He talks about bipartisanship. How has he worked for it? He talks about giving America the truth about tough issues, does he prove that by not voting or voting present?
How about this Change he speaks of so eloquently? What does he mean, and what has he done previously to provide it for Illinois? It's his resume, it needs to support what he claims he can do. If you were seeking any job in the classified ads, you'd likely see help wanted:
experience required.
As for the polls used here:
Obama will not beat McCain.
Obama-McCain, 89.9% probability of McCain win:

Clinton-McCain, 74.7% probability of Clinton win:
check the FAQ's for sources.
"The most common polling firms to release head-to-head polls are SurveyUSA, Rassmussen, Research 2000, and Quinnipiac."
As always, polls are just that polls.They are a potential indicator of results.
And finally, I would ask you to think of it this way,
A person should not be chosen as president based on gender, race, or an affinity for the color green. The choice should be based on who holds the values that are best for America, and who can deliver results aligned with those values.

kis said...

Hope Hillary,

You completely missed my point. I'm not trying to say Obama is right and Clinton is wrong or vice versa. I'm only presenting an argument to the long winded claim that Obama is too young to be president. You may not think that, but many suggest he wait and get his feet wet. If he is so utterly unelectable, that implies that most democratic primary voters lack the intelligence or understanding to see that. Also, I wasn't implying that people voting along racial, age, or gender lines are right. My point was that is what people tend to do. We all have our own preferences and it's not surprising to see young people vote for Obama because he is young/inexperienced or whatever you want to call it. Exit polls (for whatever they are worth) show Clinton leading in women voters and Obama with black voters. Do you really think their decision was based on the issues?

Also, when I asked for sources, I wasn't getting at the specific sources, but what the specific polls used were asking. It's very likely that the algorithm took into account that many voters polled said they wouldn't vote democratic if their democrat wasn't the nominee. And what variability does the algorithm use in how accurate the polls are? I'm asking that question because common sense dictates that the percentages your source cites are way too skewed when compared to how people have voted in the primaries. I could easily turn around and make my own simulation and use whatever algorithm I like and then post on a blog site that Obama can't lose. People can use polls to spin whatever story they want. Frankly, I'm voting democratic regardless of the nominee – it's certainly better than McCain.

You appear to be taking offense to my original comment which was only pointing out a flaw in AJM's logic and are now dragging it out. AJM used CEO's in his example so I pointed that out that inexperience had no bearing on the success of Yahoo, Google, etc. (The fact that they are young isn't the driving point for their inexperience either – my examples were either college grads or dropouts. No accomplishment in college is worthy of being a CEO) Also, I was trying to point out that for the sake of politics in America I'd rather lose to McCain in November and maintain all the new and young voters as a means to safeguard future interests in politics by the new generation that will grow up to be the new politicians rather than just win in November and ensure 4-8 years of a future followed by a Congress where the average ages begin to push 70 years old. Frankly, I could survive 4 years of McCain, but I certainly couldn’t last a generation of problems. I'd move to Canada :)

Anyway, this blog is really about superdelegates so I don't want to further detract from the topic. Thanks for your responses.

Mike Ruth said...

Why isn't John Edwards himself a superdelegate? He doesn't appear in your lists of SD's, but this seems very odd.

billyjay66 said...


John Edwards is an ex-senator not a current senator and that doesn't get it. Tom Foley, Tom Daschle and George Mitchell are ex's but were party leaders so they are permanent supers. Ex-Presidents and Vice-Presidents qualify but V-P candidates don't. Too bad!

ALG said...

I am very disturbed how this election is playing out. You Super Delegates are not listening to the voters. Let this election play out. Obama is a week canidate
John Edwards, took away Hillary's win last night in West VA. He did not want Obama to look bad and show the voters how weak he is. Shame on all of you. I may end up switches parties.

saf said...

ALG I agree! I am a democrat but will not vote Obama. Unfortunately if Hillary is not the nominee, I'm voting McCain. Obama is inexperienced, arrogant and full of baloney. He's not changing anything. It is naive for anyone to buy his "change" baloney. He's just playin the same game as a BS talker. Hillary has substance and experience. It is sad, but we are doomed to have another 4 years of republican reign unless Clinton is the dem nominee. saf

saf said...

Uncommitted Superdelegates, Save the democratic party & the United States. Vote Clinton. SAF

MKSinSA said...

saf, ALG

Get a head start here:

Wishing you all the best

saf said...

MKSINSA, I'll wait until the rest of the superdeligates commit and then switch over if Obama is selected. Thank you for the info. saf

Dan said...

saf, ALG, I beg of you to think about what you are saying. I realize that when your candidate is losing it is tempting to say you will vote against the person who beat her. I have said it myself at times when I thought that the supers would go for Hillary. But the only way Obama can lose to McCain is if Hillary supporters make it happen. Even if you are skeptical of Obama's ability to achieve the change he speaks so eloquently of, you support Hillary which means you are in favor of universal health care, repealing the Bush tax cuts, allowing the Patriot Act to die, and pulling out of Iraq. Do you honestly think McCain will give you any of those things? He will take away your healthcare (or at least healthcare provided by your employer forcing you to find your own), renew the Bush tax cuts, renew the Patriot Act, and we can expect to be arguing about how to get out of Iraq in 2012. Even if you don't believe in Obama's ability to do these things, isn't it better to vote for the guy who will try, rather than for the guy who has told you outright that he will fight against the very things you believe in. Please, please, please don't vote for spite or the emotion of the moment. Think about what is best for our country, and that is to have all democrats united for the good of the country. We will have a filibuster proof margin in the House after November and a huge majority in the Senate. Under those conditions, even the most naive of Democratic presidents can get universal health care passed in their first 100 days. Don't throw away our first real shot at achieving Hillary's dream.

Dan said...

I just realized I drafted a lengthy response to a previous post on a blog about super-delegates that had nothing to do with super-delegates. I hope everyone can forgive me and thank you for running such a wonderful site. I check it several times a day. You are more reliable that any of the MSM.

MKSinSA said...


You are most welcome. FYI, it's superdelegates, not "superdeligates."

Enjoy the election.

saf said...

Dan, Your argument reinforces the point. People are loyal to people and not parties. I could not bear to see Obama as pres. He has only used the buzz word "change" without any substance behind it. It feels phony. McCain, brings experience, & I can live with his policies. I'm not happy with our world, but I believe McCain will better serve our nation than Obama.

saf said...

Dan, Your argument reinforces the point. People are loyal to people and not parties. I could not bear to see Obama as pres. He has only used the buzz word "change" without any substance behind it. It feels phony. McCain, brings experience, & I can live with his policies. I'm not happy with our world, but I believe McCain will better serve our nation than Obama.

saf said...

Slip of the letter! It's late! Thanks for the editorial comment! Lighten up! Read my preceeding post-spelled correctly. Thank you!

saf said...

mksinsa, Thanks for the editorial comment. Read my preceeding post. It's late! Slip of a letter-lighten up.

MKSinSA said...


"Read my preceeding post"

Thanks. I'll pass.

Enjoy the election.

golfman8042 said...

The chart of remaining superdelegates shows 16 remaining senators; the superdelegate list names 17 remaining senators.

billyjay66 said...


Carl Levin is a Michigan Senator and will not count as #17 until Michigan supers are seated.

tomanderson8000 said...

I've heard a lot of pundits say it would be wrong for the superdelegates to overturn the will of the voters by supporting Hillary. However if the superdelegates from states won by Hillary (ie Ca, NY, PA etc.) vote for Obama, wouldn't that be against their constituates. I would like to know what the delegate count would be if all the superdelegates voted for the candidate that won their state. After all, in November its the electoral college that chooses our next president.

billyjay66 said...


I already have the numbers added up on my spreadsheet! Thanks for asking.

I took the Hillary challenge when she said "Use the Republican rules (winner take all) and I would already be the nominee" She MUST be ahead - getting 100% of California, New York right? Give Hillary 100% of the delegates in states she won so far. In states counted so far guess what? She is BEHIND 132 delegates at this point!! when she lost those 12 primaries little as they were in her eyes - do add up!!!

I know politicians don't expect voters to check the numbers to see if they are telling the truth. When voters check and vote on the basis of truth we will all be better off.

Now, where should the super score be based on a lead of 132? Supers are about 20% of pledged delegates so Obama's lead in supers should be about 26. But his lead in pledged delegates BY THE CURRENT RULES IS 191 (Obama-Edwards) and when his super lead is 35-40 that would be proportional. I'm glad you agree supers should give him his due and stretch the lead up 20-30 more. Thanks.

hopehillary said...

Here's a link regarding the subject you asked about.

billyjay66 said...


That site is the usual Hill-math!

First - What is the guy saying????? He is saying that superdelegates are THE WHOLE ELECTION!!!!! If Hillary wins there she get the election!? Supposedly according to Obama's words. He when he said "If I have the most pledged delegates...." somehow the author interprets as supers must vote per the winner of the state AND the ENTIRE election is superdelegates only. What!! Anybody gullible enough to swallow that... be bold enough to state your name and say "I believe" You believe that all pledged delegates=0 and Hillary wins the whole game on supers alone.

Further, notice that Texas= all Hillary. Typical Hillary math if she wins half and loses half she gets all. Back at ya - she lost pledged delegates there and gets nothing for supers in that state.

So bottom line - even if she could take (grab) all Michigan and Florida on that math she loses....again. 383-407.

Tell me you don't swallow that bs.

TheBrain said...


You might want to recheck your spreadsheet, or take a second grade math class. Using Republican rules, Hillary would lead Obama 1688 to 1376 today, not counting either FL or MI, which, if counted, would bring her total to 2036 to Obama's 1376. In case you want to check your numbers, she won the popular vote (which is how those un-Democratic Republicans decide their winner-take-all primaries) in all of the following elections: AR, AS, AZ, CA, IN, MA, NH, NJ, NM, NV, NY, OH, OK, PA, RI, TN, TX & WV. (1688 delegates) And no, Obama doesn't get partial credit under the Republican rules for gaming the system by districts and caucuses in TX and NV.

What required a response was not your ignorance, but the fact that you make disparaging remarks about Hillary, when in fact it is you who are misleading the reader, not telling the truth, and bending the facts to fit your opinion. Hillary told the truth when she made that comment. Just because you don't like the results doesn't give you the right to slander her.

lompe said...

Howard Berman (CA) and Henry Waxman (CA) who endorsed Obama are still listed here.

Oreo said...

Fixed... thanks!

TheBrain said...

Henry Waxman is my congressman, and I have also supported Howard Berman. I am obviously not happy with either of them. Both of them represent districts that selected Hillary in February, as did the overall State of California. Just like the Senators of Massachusetts, John Kerry and Ted Kennedy, they ignored their constituents, and may wish in November, or in two years, they had not.

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 delegate" with that big grain of salt.

MyFriends said...

DPL Bob Strauss (TX)

"I have not been engaged with any candidate, nor will I be."

billyjay66 said...


Check the republican delegate count on only 11 states were winner take all!!

For Clinton AZ(+25), NJ(+48), NY(+93) = +166

For Obama DE(+6), UT(+9), CT(+22), MO(+36),DC(+3), VA(+29), VT(+6) = +111 NET 55 for Clinton.

Obama 1901-55=1846 Clinton 1717+55 = 1772 Remaining Obama lead = 74

Florida was winner take all BUT delegates were cut by 1/2 AND to be by the Rebublican rules.... voters were told their votes would count by 1/2. I'm sure that wouldn't stop you from taking 1/2 of Florida to give Clinton the lead.

BUT you need to prove Clintons quote "by Republican rules I would already be the nominee" where's the 2210 RIGHT NOW??

Thanks - I learned something checking into the actual rules.

TheBrain said...


As long as you learned something then all is not lost. I have neither the time nor the energy to give you a complete lesson in Primary math, but I'll give you enough illustrations to make my point, and then if you want to really do your homework, you can finish the details of the assignment.

The Republican Party does use a winner-take-all form of Primary in virtually all states. It varies by state where some, (let's say 11 so we don't argue about inconsequential details) do it on a state-wide basis. The others award delegates by some form of district division, with a winner take all within the district. (Dem's aren't allowed by the DNC to do that.) I used the state winner take all calculations as a form of short-hand to make my point. You are right that a state-by-state calculation should be done if you want to accurately calculate the numbers. Even then, you will find that it is impossible to exactly calculate the equivalent vote and delegate count because of anomalies in the individual states.

I assure you, before Hillary made that statement, her team had gone through every election in every district in every state to calculate the Republican equivalent, so that someone with better knowledge and a better calculator would not be able to legitimately make the claim you erroneously made.

I'll give you one illustration of why your numbers are incomplete and just plain wrong. California split with 42% for McCain, 34% for Romney, 12% for Huckabee, etc. McCain got 96% of the delegates awarded. That's because he won almost all of the individual districts and got all of their delegates. Hillary beat Obama in California 52% to 43%, yet wound up with only about 8% more delegates than Barrack. More importantly for this calculation, she won all but a half dozen of the 53 Congressional districts in California. That would have given her all the delegates from about 47 of the 53 CDs. Just as an approximation, if you apply that 87% to the 370 pledged CA delegates, that would give Hillary 322, or 118 more than she will have under the Dem system. Take 118 from Obama and give Hillary the same 118 and your numbers become 1728 for Obama and 1890 for Hillary. Now add just an even split on the automatic delegates (say 398) and you are at 2288 without even going back and recalculating the remaining 38+/- states. So you see, BillyJo, it's not at all hard for Hillary to get to the 2210 and beyond, even without FL and MI. By the way, Repubs have far fewer automatic delegates than we do, so really, the total number of delegates awarded and their winner-take-all splits should include the "SDs", making the margins even greater for her.

I'm not trying to put too fine a touch on the exact numbers. I was just trying to show you that Hillary is neither stupid, nor a liar, but gets called one by people like you a thousand times a day with no more justification than the ignorant distortions that you created. What she said was a fact. What you said was disinformation, and such abuse has been rampant this election, both from Obamaphiles and the MSM.

You're welcome.

billyjay66 said...


Your words "Those ignorant distortions (we) create" Those silly ignorant distortions are called the rules we live by IF you are a winner or a gracious loser.

Tying your assertion that "a second grade math class" would help me and that "her team had gone through every election in every district in every state" to "calculate the Republican equivalent". Are you talking about Mark Penn's successor? He ACTUALLY thought CA was winner-take-all and they only paid him $5 million. I should be so lucky that my math falls to that level.

...(i'm) "calling her a liar - stupid", that such disinformation was "abusive" and "rampant" . I'm not a Hillary hater I'm a former supporter. If she had gone down with dignity I would have been a gracious loser along with her. And with her hard fight at the end - doing it with dignity could have put her on the ticket.

Name calling is a waste of time on this end. If you have to vent...whatever.

TheBrain said...


Fascinating. You post a vent (rant), take it back off the site, then re-post it identically five minutes later. Second thoughts about its appropriateness, and then your lesser self won out? At least we agree that name calling is ALWAYS a waste of time.

Since you have abandoned your math approach in favor of ranting, I assume you now understand that using the Republican rules in fact would have Hillary well ahead of Obama today, and at the finish line, which was all this discussion was supposedly about. She spoke the truth and you took distorted numbers to call her a liar. I am tired of that constant pattern among Obama supporters and mischievious Republicans, so you caught the brunt of my accumulated angst. Sorry if you felt it was over the top.

You think that you can call a two-term US Senator with an outstanding record of activism and support for Democratic programs and principles a liar and having no dignity and have a credible claim that you are NOT a Hillary-hater? With friends like you, she certainly needs no enemies.

Over 17 million people have voted for Hillary to become President. We don't support her because she's a woman; we support her because we firmly believe that she is the far better candidate to beat John McCain in Nov. and the vastly more informed, better seasoned, and ultimately more capable President and Commander-in-chief. I understand that you disagree.

She has done nothing to damage her dignity. Quite the opposite. She is listening to her supporters who say stay in and fight for us to the end. We believe in her, and she will stay in the fight with every ounce of strength until the bell rings at the 15th round. When all the votes are counted, from all Democrats, one candidate will have the required number of delegates to win. Hillary will enthusiastically suppport whoever that is, her or Obama. But up until that moment she will fight the good fight, and we expect nothing less from her.

As for the VP slot, Obama wouldn't offer it, and she wouldn't accept it. He can't because it would destroy his theme of kicking out the old guard in Washington. Even if he loved her, his campaign couldn't withstand the damage of shifting message. She wouldn't accept it if offered. She becomes the unbeatable Senator from New York and future king or queen maker. She now has a national fund-raising database that she will out-raise any opponent, with lots of money left over to help other Democrats. She is the likely successor to Harry Reid in the new Democratically-controlled Senate, making her the most powerful woman in US politics in history. (Sorry, Nancy - NOT) And, God forbid, Obama loses to McCain in November (which I beleive is very possible), Hillary will be the Party's nominee in 2012.

MKSinSA said...


Not to get involved in the fray but to make a single point. What makes Nancy Pelosi the most powerful woman in politics is that she is third in line to the presidency with Rice fifth.

The Vice President
*Speaker of the House* - Pelosi
President pro tempore of the Senate (not Majority Leader)
*Secretary of State - Rice*
Secretary of the Treasury
Secretary of Defense
Attorney General
the rest of the Cabinet

Having said that, I now leave the building.

TheBrain said...


Welcome to the fray. In the event we have two dead bodies I will give to you that Nancy would become the most powerful woman in American government. Barring that dismal scenario, and I don't think even Nancy wants the job that badly, the President pro-tem of the Senate on a day-to-day basis is arguably the more powerful position, because of its control over the appointment process, its role as the brake on the wheels of government through the 60% rule, and its historic image as the more senior and wiser body. (That is why the founding fathers gave them 6 year terms instead of two.)

Having said that, they are both extremely important positions, and we should be thrilled if we have two capable Democrats (who happen to be women) holding those positions next year.

TheBrain said...


My bad. I typed Pres. pro-tem above when I meant Majority Leader. Brain fuzz from last night.

Using your logic of the importance of position being relative to the succession table, that would make Robert Byrd's role more important than Sect'y Rice, and I'm not sure I'd buy that.

Matt said...

Please take this discussion to the Open Thread. thanks.

rowdydawg_aci1 said...

No American has the right to vote twice in a primary or election. Super Delegates are illegal and unconsitutional !!! What gives them the right to vote twice ???? 1 person 1 vote !! 1 person 1 vote !!! The super delegates have already cast a vote in their respected primaries !!! What this does is take the power out of the power of the people. The average American's vote no longer counts !!

William Richardson, NC Democrat

tmess2 said...

Actually, if we are using Republican Rules as an argument for unpledged delegates committing to superdelegates, you have to take most of the caucus states out of the calculation. In many states (including Iowa and Nevada -- which is why they aren't public), there is no connection in the rules between presidential preference and delegate selection. Instead the rules say that the delegates to the state convention are free to give it whatever weight they desire in voting for delegates.

You might also be interested in a little twist in the Republican rules for my home state Missouri. While the delegates are supposed to support the winner of the state and are "pledged" to support that candidate, they are bound to vote as a unit -- so if the majority decide to defect, the minority has to go with them.

Matt said...

Added new NV add-on Rusty McAllister (NV)#. He is uncommitted.

Unknown said...

In Nevada, Dina Titus had to give up her state party seat because she is running for Congress. She was a superdelegate declared for Hillary. Replaced by Erin Bilbray-Kohn. No indication which candidate she prefers. (The undeclared add-on, McAllister, caucused for Obama and so perhaps can be seen as "leaning".)

Matt said...

LoE - DNC member terms run through the end of the convention. We have confirmation that Titus remains a DNC member and superdelegate for the 2008 convention.

Unknown said...

I am disgusted by supposed democrats saying they will switch to a republican vote in the fall if Obama is the candidate. Have you been living under a rock for the last eight years? Look at George W. Bush's supposed "experience" going into his presidency and what he has done with it. Education is in the toilet, our precious tax money is being spent on a war that we cannot win, gas prices are through the roof, most of the world considers the USA a renegade bully now after we plunged into the war without NATO support... I could go on and on... how could you possibly live with yourselves knowing that you voted for the Republican machine in the fall?

All it would accomplish by voting for McCain is creating more stalemates as he vetoes all the decent legislation that a democratic-majority house and senate would accomplish, and elects conservative judges to the Supreme Court... and now he's flip-flopping on issues to "distance" himself from the Bush-Cheney camp, so who knows where he'll really stand if he ever gets power... and if he dies in office, what moron is he going to leave in the Vice Presidency to take over the country!?!?

I was a Hillary supporter until the tide started swinging in Obama's favor, and now I have decided to do what's best for the country. We NEED a democrat in office to start moving things in the right direction in this country. You may see all the negativity in the press for Obama right now, but that is because of the intense contest between the two candidates. Give it a few months, when Obama has been sealed up as the nominee, and let's see what skeletons come out of McCain's closet. His "experience" should speak for itself. And not in a positive way. Please please please keep an open mind. We need all democrats and all independents to keep an open mind during the fall campaign.

Unknown said...

I forgot to mention... Hillary and Bill have alienated many supposed independents and switch-republican voters with their campaign tactics, personal problems and some of the blatantly misleading statements made (such as being under fire getting off the plane). Both my father and my husband's father have voted republican in the past, and are tired of the party. However they CANNOT STAND Hillary and would not vote democrat if she is the candidate. I've heard this comment time and time again from many independent voters that Hillary turns them off. I think you'll find that many more liberal republican voters would switch to an Obama vote than democrats would defect to the Republican party if Hillary is not the nominee.

Rose Szymanski said...

You don't have to vote for a republican or a democrat. You can always write in your candidate of your own choosing,thats what i plan to do. I will not vote for Mc cain because he has a score to settle with Vietnam. Iwon't vote for Obama because he still is wet behind the ears, has no platform he can call his own, doesn't like the flag or the national anthem, and has a wife that thrives on hatred. And For all you Hillary haters maybe you should take the time and really really listen to her when she speaks, because she speaks from the heart. She knows what it is like to be poor because she was poor once herself. And of all of them she is the only one with a functioning brain!!!!

MyFriends said...

DNC Alice Germond (WV)

Cached only.

MyFriends said...

DNC Alice Germond (WV)
[The link is too long; so Google the quote.]

"If it is still contested I will be abstaining because I don't want either side to feel that I am in anyway playing any games,"

MyFriends said...

DNC Steve Ybarra (CA),2933,354716,00.html

"He is Steve Ybarra. He's a superdelegate in California and he, now, says he's willing to take either Clinton or Obama's side but for a big price. How big, you say, huh? We're talking $20 million."

David Pearl said...

I apologize in advance if this is a stupid question, but I hear over and over that DNC Chair Howard Dean (VT) must remain neutral. On the other hand, Howard Dean is a SD who (by definition) will endorse one candidate or the other eventually. Right? At which point can Howard Dean actually make his endorsement? Does he have to wait until the convention in August? If so, then at which stage of the convention would he endorse? August 25? August 28?

Matt said...

David - Dean never has to publicly endorse. He votes for President on Wed night. If the vote was contested he might abstain, or he might vote. More likely, the vote won't be contested, and he'll just vote for Obama as part of the VT delegation.

Unknown said...

Scott Brennan(IA) endorses Obama.

bohasha said...,0,196912.story
Rep Courtney endorses Obama

mickywi said...

Obama's wife thrives on hatred?
Because she said she hasn't been proud of this country in the past? That is thriving on hatred? While perhaps a little hyperbolic, it's not hatred, it's criticism. I am a 42 year old white man who has been so disappointed with this country so often. Does that mean I thrive on hate? And Obama not wearing a lapel pin doesn't mean he doesn't like the flag. Wearing a piece of jewelry doesn't define what or how you feel, it is about pandering to those watching. He wouldn't be running for President of the United States if he had a problem with this country. It is the hardest job in the world.

I hope that the Democrats can come together after this contention, and unite. I will be voting for whomever is the Democratic candidate.

kis said...

To Mickey's point, how many of all of you posting here actually wear a flag pin? Or even own one? Other than politicians, I've never seen someone wearing one.

jeff said...

Anyone have any thoughts/insights into why more supers haven't come out for Obama today? I thought after hitting the majority of pledged delegates milestone (based on current rules) would mean he'd surely have several come out today.

On much less significant days, he's always announced 3 or 4.


TheBrain said...


Last night was hardly the cause for moving an automatic delegate if they have not yet declared. Hillary trounced Obama in KY by more than 35 points (10 points more than expected)and he won in OR by about six points less than expected. Hardly the reason to change anyone's mind at this stage. Likely facts are that most of the remaining automatic delegates are going to sit and wait for resolution of FL and MI on the 31st and the results of the final three primaries. Most of the remaining ADs think that the prolonged race is good for the Party and helps attract excitement among Democrats and generates more registrations. They are not going to cut it off early. They will let it play out until June 3.

jeff said...


Makes sense. Agree it's good for the party as long as the realistic pending outcome doesn't change. Any realistic seating option for Florida/Michigan will not net Clinton enough to catch Obama.

Realistically, only a handful of superdelegates need to move his way. Sure, various Florida/Michigan scenarios would certainly increase the number of superdelegates he would need, but not by enough where it would ever be realistic for Clinton to catch him.

Admittedly, part of this is that I don't trust that Hillary will continue to play nice as she makes her pitch. If she in fact doesn't, then the whole party argument you make falls apart.

Still find it curious that on a day where he did reach a milestone - you can debate about how significant it is but it's still something - that only 2 superdel's came out for him.

jeff said...

Brain - Also, not sure which polls you were looking at but Obama won Oregon 59-41 (98% reporting). All polls I saw recently had Hillary supposedly closing to < 10 points.

Obviously hard to tell in a state that's all mail-in ballots, but an 18-point win is higher than most any poll I saw in the last month. Maybe 1 poll I saw at one point had 20 point differential.

bullwinkle said...

Why do dome think the magic number is 2026 since the sppecial congresional election, no longer 2025?

Matt said...

Bullwinkle - The DNC has recently released documentation that shows 4,050 delegates. Why? They're still including Al Wynn, and that's fine, since he's still in Congress. Then, the DNC has said that the number of delegates needed to win is 2,026 (rounded up). So they're really at 2025.5, but have given the media "permission" to use 2026.

But once Al Wynn resigns next week, they'll have to come down to 2025.0. Then, when Edwards wils the Special, the DNC and SCW will go back up to 2,025.5, and some will round up to 2,026 again.

TheBrain said...


I was actually off a couple of % points on OR; sorry. Last time I had looked he was only winning by about 14% and the surveys of early voters had him up about 21-22%. We were actually quite pleased that late voting kept his margin under 20%.

My point was just that with the blowout in KY (Obama only won 2 of 120 counties, 1/3 of the popular vote and 1/3 of the delegates.), Hillary netted 13 more delegates than Obama and 142,000 more votes for the night than he did. If the automatic delegates weren't convinced to come off the fence for him before last night, there really wasn't much of anything encouraging for them to change their minds about waiting until all the voting is done.

Cresting the 50% of pledged delegate count was really only significant to those who are already on the Obama bandwagon. Each of the rest of the automatic delegates has his or her own reasons for holding out until the end, and scratching off that marker obviously didn't change their reasons for waiting.

jeff said...


Fair enough.

What is your take (and anyone else's who wants to comment) on Hillary coming out to the AP yesterday referencing potentially taking this to the convention?

I would hope that for party's sake that Michigan/Florida get resolved on 5/31, we have PR on 6/1 and SD/MT on 6/3, and the superdelegates should all come out after that and we see where we are.

How can we consider an option where this things drags out to Denver?

I wouldn't bring it up, but she said it.

TheBrain said...

Of course going to the convention has to be considered an option. The convention is where the nominee is selected, contrary to what the pundits would have you believe. Noone votes until the convention. Noone. And almost noone, since the 1982 rule changes, is obligated to vote for any specific candidate when the role call vote is taken, no matter how they were chosen or whom they have indicated support for in the past. Two of Hillary's PLEDGED delgates have already reneged on the people who chose them and gone to Obama.

It's a long time to the convention in politics time. The world changes. Teddy Kennedy discovers a brain tumor in the one week between the W. Virginia and Kentucky primaries. Noone knows what will happen between now and August.

Obama has a job to do, and he has yet to accomplish it. He has to get one more than 50% of the total delegates, including whatever resolution the DNC comes up with to correct their collosal stupidity in violating their own guidelines for FL and MI (we have a 50% loss of delegates in our by-laws as the punishment for moving their primaries, just like the Repubs do, but Dean decided to take away 100% and mess everything up.) Talk about sticking to the rules!

When they settle what to do about FL and MI, probably on 5/31, if Obama gets to the 50%+1 level of total delegates, Hillary will drop out and throw her full support behind Obama. That could happen as early as June 4 after the last popular vote is cast.

But, it might not. Some of the automatic delegates cannot endorse a candidate, and that's not just Howard Dean and Nancy Pelosi, as chairman of the DNC and chairwoman of the convention. Some state delegate chairs are also not allowed to endorse. Each delegate has his or her own rules she has to live by. If he can't close the gap enough to force her to acknowledge defeat, you don't declare someone a winner who is leading by a nose two furlongs from the tape.

I like a fighter who doesn't give up, just because she's behind in points in the 15th round. On August 27, she gets my vote, unless and until, she personally tells me she doesn't want it any more.

TheBrain said...

If you want a single reason why so many automatic delegates are still on the fence, look no further than Quinnipiac University's report out today on the three vital swing states, FL, OH and PA. (Since 1960, no candidate has won the Presidency without winning at least two of those three states. If the race were held today, Hillary wins all three by significant margins, and Barack loses two of them while the third one is tight.

Here's the report:

ARTY said...

Hey, Why hasn't this site reported on addon superdelegate Laurie Weahkee (NM) and her endorsement of Obama this afternoon!!!

Oreo said...

It's because we added her on May 9th when she first endorsed.

You can see when each was added here

EZ2B1 said...

Dear Superdeleates,

I thought I a problem with committment.

Thank goodness none of these elected officals represent me. A bunch of do nothing members of Congress doing what they do best nothing.

Shame on you.

Laura said...

It would be great to hyperlink all of these names to email addresses; unfortunately my actual life precludes me from taking the time. Do you know of a site where the email addresses are all collected???

davefinnigan said...

So around June 4th, after another 90 Super Delegates have come out in support of Obama, doesn't it make sense for all of the contenders who ran for the Democratic nomination to appear with Senator Obama on stage to make the following announcement together?

Mrs. Clinton opens the presentation - "Eighteen months ago, when this contest started, we stood on the stage as contenders for the same single position. Now that the process is over we have come together again to announce that we are working together to support the will of all the people. Senator Obama will be our candidate for President and I congratulate him for the battle he has fought and pledge to support him in any way I can, and I hope those who have supported me so generously and ardently will join me in my support for Senator Obama."

Then after the applause dies down Senator Obama says - "And Mrs Clinton has graciously accepted my request that she be my running mate and that we now work together to unify our party and to win in November. We are proud to announce that our cabinet will include Bill Richardson as Secretary of State, Dennis Kucinich as Attorney General, Chris Dodd as Director of the Office of Management and Budget, John Edwards as Secretary of Housing and Urban Development, Joe Biden as the Secretary of Defense, Tom Vilsack as Secretary of Commerce, Mike Gravel as Special Project officer for the reform of the Electoral system of the US, and President William Jefferson Clinton has accepted our appointment as Ambassador to the United Nations."

John Edwards says, "Each of us brings to this team a different perspective and a unique point of view. We each represent a group of constituents and colleagues who we now offer to the larger good of the entire United States of America."

Then in Spanish Bill Richardson says, "We are one team working for one goal, to bring democratic values to government and true equality to the people of the United States."

Then Senator Obama simply opens the floor to questions and for two hours or more our nominees talk with us about our future and how we can work together to get out of Iraq, improve our relationships all over the world, revive our economy, remain safe without sacrificing freedom, educate our children for the 21st Century, provide health care for all Americans, mend our crumbling physical infrastructure, bring impartiality back to our Federal Courts, reform our immigration system with an enforceable guest worker program and re-introduction of immigration for those who can help us, like nurses, doctors, scientists, and business owners from around the world.

Call me naive, but this is a scenario that I think makes sense not only for the Executive branch, but to help win overwhelming progressive majorities in both houses of Congress. Then we have four or eight years to roll back the conservative take-over of the judiciary and return us to rule of law, not rule by elites.

Matt said...

Rep. Chris Van Hollen has been added to the Pelosi Club.

We're not aware of a site that is gathering superdelegate email addresses.

tmess2 said...


Having dealt with a lot of electeds in my time, my hunch says that most of the unpledged who haven't committed who are elected officials are hoping that they can wait it out until after the race is over. By waiting it out, they can just fall in line behind the winner without ever having to explain to their voters why they chose Obama over Clinton or Clinton over Obama. That way they, especially the ones in close races, don't have to worry about possibly losing votes that they might need to win.

I also have a hunch that when this race is done the members of Congress may want to go back to one of the old formulas for the superdelegates in which only some of them were automatically delegates to the convention.

Please Heed the Call said...

What's the deal with Jimmy Carter? I thought he had endorsed Obama. Or is it not "official" yet?

Unknown said...

Quick question. I want to e-mail the remaining uncommitted SD's in my state and ask them to come out for Obama. They aren't elected officials so I don't know how to get their addresses. Any ideas? Thanks!

Matt said...

Tyler - Carter has not endorsed Obama. He's hinted, but he clearly not endorsed or committed to voting for him.

Dleventhal - A number of state party websites have email addresses for their officials.

Leah Texas4Obama said...

Chair - Vacant (HI)
Vice-Chair - Vacant (HI)

Is still listed on the list above. I think that they should be removed since they are now filled, right? :)

Oreo said...

Thanks Leah

MyFriends said...

DNC Marylyn Stapleton (VI)
“I know who I want to support, but I don't want to tell anybody yet," Stapleton said Saturday. "Because I don't think it's anybody's business except my own. I think it's based specifically on how I feel. Because it's my vote and it's supposed to be a private and personal thing ... it's not something I have to push out to the world. It's my business."

MyFriends said...

Matt/Oreo - would you please hotlink this article for Marylyn Stapleton, as well as those ones for Alice Germond and Steve Ybarra above?

Matt said...

This thread is for comments about superdelegates who haven't endorsed. Other comments, especially comments about the good and bad for Obama and Clinton, should be taken to the Open Thread. A number of non-pertinent comments have been or will be deleted.

ginger said...

oops. I forgot to include the link to the NY Times story:

Leah Texas4Obama said...

The RED on the FL and MI supers should probably be taken off of this page and an asterisk (*) should be added to denote the 1/2 vote.

Oreo said...

Red removed from all FL and MI superdelegates and an * added to denote their 1/2 vote

SeekerofTruth said...

Yvonne Gates (DNC Super) just came out for Obama.

Bull Schmitt said...

I'm counting 12 Michigan and 8 Florida uncommitted DNC members on the list - where does the half delegate come in on the 94.5 DNC Supers remaining figure?

Bull Schmitt said...

Think I figured it out on my own.. I show the Supers that have not declared breakdown as follows:

Gov. 6
Sen. 15.5
Rep. 49.5 (+1.5 from your chart)
DNC 93 (-1.5 from your chart)
Add-Ons 35
Total 203


Matt said...

As a famous sidekick once said, "you are correct, sir!"

The table has been updated. Thanks for catching it.

cimperman said...

Jerome Wiley Segovia, a superdelegate from Virginia, announced today he is supporting Illinois Sen. Barack Obama's bid for the Democratic nomination for president, per

Aimer said...

I believe you need to remove Rep. Jim Clyburn from the lists of supers who have not yet endorsed. Thanks for the great work here! It's the website I check most next to that of my candidate's!!

Matt said...

Clyburn removed. thanks.

Cat said...

A caucus is like a child playing dress up. Have real primaries. The DNC is so eager to win they have stars in their eyes when it comes to Obama. Maybe they'll realize the stars are from all of the Democrats who have tried to get their attention, short of using a baseball bat. He is not the best candidate and I will NOT vote for him and have initiated contact with many others who feel the same. Lose again, I think the DNC likes being the bridesmaid and never the bride.

Unknown said...

The Democrat Party is disenfranchising voters by counting them as .5 instead of a whole person and there should be national outrage. This is disgraceful. They have just lost my vote to McCain. They have demonstrated that their “democracy” is as corrupt as any other third world election process. What hypocrites, especially after saying every vote should be counted in the 2000 election.

The public needs to demand a re-vote and take the power of this nomination decision away from facist party officials who were never even elected to their positions. Who are these people and why are they allowed to steal this election from the public, and especially from women? If they tried to do this to “black voters” voting for Obama, there would be national outrage. Women didn't have the right to vote for longer than black men, and apparently still don't have the right to cast a “whole” vote if it actually means a female candidate will be nominated. This is not America anymore, as the past eight years have proved.

Obama will lose in November because he is a radical liberal who belonged to a very radical and political church for 20 years and now is trying to disassociate from. He will NEVER win because of this fact, and that has nothing to do with the fact he is black. He comes across just like Bush does, but on the other side of the radical camp. He is arrogant and condescending to anyone who might question his credentials and will be another “dictator”.

Obama has no track record or history of public service to merit this nomination. The only reason Barrack Obama even got to this point is because he went on the Oprah show before anyone even knew who he even was. Oprah decided to promote him by marketing Audacity of Hope (just like she promotes her other book club authors). Most Americans are such a bunch of sheep they don't even realize they are following a trend that Oprah started and not an experienced politician who has earned the Democrat nomination for President of the United States. He is a fraud and we all know the race card will be played and riots will break out if he doesn't win--even though he is clearly not the best candidate.

Barack Obama is also an elitist who has nothing in common with the average black person in the US except he kind of has dark skin. He went to Punahou High school in Hawaii, a private prep school for rich kids that is for the very privileged. He downplays his upbringing in Hawaii, but believe me, Hawaii does not produce people you want running the most powerful country in the world. Hawaii is run more like a welfare state or a third-world country and the expectations are very, very low for children who grow up in that environment (I grew up there so I can say this).

Finally, and sadly, the Democrat Party just threw away the most important election in our country's history. Black people make up 12.8% of the population. Well, women make up more like 50% of the population and they will not forget this travesty of justice. Obama supporters and the media are laughing about it now, still disparaging the Clintons (Vanity Fair), but this marks the beginning of McCain's victory and another four years of Iraq.

Obama will come across like a lame duck when the Republicans get a hold of him. The Republicans are laughing all the way to the White House and the Democrat Party just pulled the most asinine move in the history of politics. Thanks for nothing super-dumb delegates, I am registering as an Independent tomorrow.

Shannon said...

MSNBC just announced that John Perez (CA) is endorsing Obama.

Andy said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
«Oldest ‹Older   1 – 200 of 230   Newer› Newest»