can't win for losing. [rquoter] Super Delegates To Determine Nominee by: Chris Bowers Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 15:23 It can no longer be avoided: super delegates will determine the Democratic Presidential nominee this year. Here is the current situation: * With Michigan and Florida removed from the equation, 2,025 delegates are required to win the nomination, and there are 3,253 pledged delegates. * To date, four states with a combined 137 pledged delegates have held nominating contests. * Currently, Barack Obama is projected with 63 pledged delegates, and Hillary Clinton is projected with 48 (source). * On Super Tuesday, 22 states and a couple territories with a combined 1,688 pledged delegates will hold nominating contests. From this point, quick math shows that after Super Tuesday, only 1,428 pledged delegates will still be available. Now, here is where the problem shows up. According to current polling averages, the largest possible victory for either candidate on Super Tuesday will be Clinton 889 pledged delegates, to 799 pledged delegates for Obama. (In all likelihood, the winning margin will be lower than this, but using these numbers helps emphasize the seriousness of the situation.) As such, the largest possible pledged delegate margin Clinton can have after Super Tuesday is 937 to 862. (While it is possible Obama will lead in pledged delegates after Super Tuesday, it does not currently seem possible for Obama to have a larger lead than 75). That leaves Clinton 1,088 pledged delegates from clinching the nomination, with only 1,428 pledged delegates remaining. Thus, in order to win the nomination without the aid of super delegates, in her best-case scenario after Super Tuesday, Clinton would need to win 76.2% of all remaining pledged delegates. Given our proportional delegate system, there is simply no way that is going to happen unless Obama drops out. So, there you have it. Unless either Obama or Clinton drops out before the convention, there is simply no way that the nominee can be determined without the super delegates. In the broadest definition of the term, "a brokered convention" is a convention that is determined by super delegates instead of nominating contests. Through a deadly combination of a primary calendar race to the bottom and an anachronistic method of delegate selection, we Democrats seem to have already arrived at that point. Short of one candidate dropping out, there is simply no easy way that this situation can be resolved. Given that Michigan and Florida combine for 313 pledged delegates, it is likely that this situation won't be resolved without severe bureaucratic fighting on the DNC rules and by-laws committee, or even a credential fight at the convention itself. And why should either candidate drop out? Clinton has a large lead in super delegates, and can make a real argument over the Michigan and Florida delegations. Obama, by contrast, will probably lead in pledged delegates at the end of February, and will be able to raise significantly more money than Clinton. And so, we are at an impasse. My instincts tell me this is a complete disaster, since it will shine light on complicated bylaws and the questionable democratic nature of the delegate selection process instead of on voters. As fascinating as it might be for political junkies, it is not the kind of image Democrats need. We need to figure a way out of this situation in a hurry. Update: After some thought, the best solution I can come up with is to get a majority of super delegates to pledge to support whoever wins the majority of pledged delegates following the final primaries and caucuses in early June. To resolve the Michigan and Florida situations, simply allocate Florida's delegates as they would have been allocated according to the primary vote there. In the case of Michigan, do the same thing, except allocate according to the exit poll results that show how people would have voted if Obama had been on the ballot. Our options are not pretty, but that would be better than letting bylaws and super delegates determine the nominee instead of voters. Hopefully, either Clinton or Obama will run up a long list of wins, and the other candidate will drop out. Failing that, hopefully the super delegates will line-up behind whoever has the most popular support and pledged delegates. Failing both, we could be facing a crisis in the party where the nominee lacks legitimacy in the opinion of the rank and file.[/rquoter]
I agree with his idea that the super delegates need to support whoever gets the majority of pledged delegates.
Florida's and ESPECIALLY Michigan's delegates should be tossed. PERIOD. The DNC needs to stick to the sanction they set out and all the candidates except for Hill lived up to.
I suspect by March and April (Tx/Ohio/Penn), someone will have gained a clear momentum advantage. Who it will be, I'm not really sure, but I don't think this will be nearly the problem it seems right now. It will be determined by superdelegates, but enough will hop on the frontrunner's train that it would just seal the deal rather than overturn the popular voting. At least, that's how I suspect it would play out - but nothing has really fit what you'd expect thus far.
It's amazing at how even it's running. Do you remember anything like this? I don't in my lifetime between two for a partie's nominee...
I've never seen anything like this. I think it's great though - it really lets, for the first time in my adult lifetime, the entire country participate in picking the nominee. When is the last time Texas actually mattered in the primary process (or general election for that matter)?
I think I might get some flack for saying we have two excellent candidates, but I think it's true. Anyone who watched the debate between Mr. Obama and Ms. Clinton had to be impressed with both of them, unless they had their head in the sand (IMO). I'm having a gas with the race. I just wish it was closer on the GOP side. It'd be more fun. Impeach Bush before it is Too Late.
True...I really like Obama's command presence and temperment (which I didn't realize was that strong)
Yeah - if only Romney (or Guiliani) could have pulled out Florida, the GOP race would be a total tossup today as well. That would have been utter chaos, especially with the number of winner-take-all races there.
I won't vote for them, but seriously you got two excellent candidates, but I heard the debate wasn't that good (although I did not watch admittantly)...No truth to that?
Especially since Edwards and Obama took their names off the ticket. How can you possibly let her keep delegates from a primary where the other parties lived up to their agreement and took their names off?? You'd be rewarding Hillary for lying about it.
My wife and I thought the debate was excellent, ROX. You should have watched it. Towards the end of it, right after my significant other had said it would be nice if they were on the same ticket, someone asked that question. The thousands in the crowd (the same theatre they have the Oscars in) burst into cheers. It was a nice moment. Impeach Bush before it is Too Late.
This is not all bad. 1) it will kept media frenzy. This will be good so long as there is a remotely positive resolve (see #2). 2) it may force Clinton and Obama on the same ticket to close ranks. Particulary if Hillary wins. The most analogous situation was Kennedy-Johnson. None would have thought they would have worked together or agreed to me on the same ticket, but the situation (bigger fish to fry and a nations directin at stake) forced them, and well, it worked.
I absolutely and totally agree. While I'd still vote for Hillary if it comes down to it, I'd feel like our country is being let down once again. SSDD. I really, really hope that Obama pulls it off. Fresh blood and a sense of change is sorely needed. I'd feel like we have hope for the first time in a long, long time.
