Complicating Michigan now is that the courts in MI ruled that primary unconsistitutional earlier this week. So the results hold no weight and can't be counted under any circumstance, if I understand correctly. (Something about 3rd parties not having fair access or something due to the early date - I don't understand the details)
Pelosi is staying neutral based on her position, but her bias is off the charts... and I think you'll agree on that. It's hard to take her arguments as representative of a true uncommitted delegate. The Cantwell comment greatly surprises me, but the polls I've seen consistently show 60-65 percent of voters saying that the popular vote trumps the pledged delegate count, and out of hundreds of super delegates, I've now seen two (Cantwell and Richardson) claim the opposite. I'm not saying it necessarily can't be representative of the overall attitude, but it's hard for me to believe with a sample that small.
Here's another article on the topic: http://www.brendan-nyhan.com/blog/2008/03/the-economics-o.html The most important part: Democrats have never been known for Spock-like rationality, but even they see the logic of avoiding a convention fiasco. "It's in nobody's interest in the Democratic Party for that to happen," says Mike Feldman, another former Gore aide. "There is a mechanism in place--built into the process--to avoid that." That mechanism, such as it is, involves an en masse movement of uncommitted superdelegates to the perceived winner of the primaries. Almost everything you hear from such people suggests this will happen in time. "I think once we have the elected delegate count, things will move fairly quickly, " says Representative Chris Van Hollen, who oversees the party's House campaign committee. Increasingly, there is even agreement on the metric by which a winner would be named. Just about every superdelegate and party operative I spoke with endorsed Nancy Pelosi's recent suggestion that pledged delegates should matter most. Assuming Feldman and Van Hollen are right, that means Democrats won't wait much past June 3--currently the last day on the primary calendar--before crowning a nominee. At the same time, it means there's very little chance of ending the contest sooner. Undecided superdelegates on Capitol Hill, along with party elders like Pelosi, Gore, and Harry Reid, "don't want to be seen as elites coming in and overturning the will of the people," says one senior House aide. A Senate staffer says his boss "thinks this give and take is natural, it will be helpful in the end." "That's a view held by a majority of these guys who have been through the cut and thrust of politics," he adds. Which means early June it is.
Not at all. While finances weren't involved, there are plenty of times I've wanted someone to do something my way, and I've attempted to appeal to them based on my friendship or prior support on any given subject. In most of those circumstances, I didn't give any kind of consideration to dropping my support. It's simply a logical appeal to try and make them listen to your argument, especially if you strongly believe your argument. In no way is it necessarily a threat to change your support if the ultimate result isn't in your favor.
Note that it doesn't specify whether these superdelegates he spoke with were uncommitted. It should also be pointed out that Van Hollen isn't a superdelegate and represents a state that went overwhelmingly for Obama.
Certainly. But there are quotes everywhere indicating superdelegates are going with the pledged delegate winner. If you look over blog archives over the last month, you'll find dozens of these, many from uncommitteds. Are there any uncommitteds suggesting that the popular vote winner is more important? To compound Hillary's problems, the remaining supers strongly are predicted to favor Obama. CCPS has a constantly updated projection model of who superdelegates are likely to support based on various factors (demographics, their states, etc). Every time more superdelegates commit, they update the model. Here is the latest: http://ccpsblog.blogspot.com/2008/03/new-unpledged-democratic-superdelegate.html A few weeks ago, it was a bit more even. Their projections tend to be about 70% accurate, and when wrong, it is almost always someone who they projected to support Clinton but actually ends up supporting Obama. My guess is that Obama did have his 50 superdelegates ready to jump on board after Texas, but they didn't want to shortcircuit the process and will now just wait. But they are still there. And I suspect, in mass, a bunch of supers are going to commit to Obama in the week of June 4th-10th and end this - barring scandal, of course.
I haven't seen those -- I'll look and see what I can find. I also think a problem now with superdelegates suggesting the popular vote winner is more important is that it almost inherently shows bias. Given Obama leads the popular vote now, to speak openly about the popular vote taking priority is at best somewhat pointless and at worst leaves you open to suggestions that you're trying to find a way for Clinton to win. Personally, I think the popular vote message is one that would only truly resonate and pick up steam if there comes a point where the leader is different. But, that's purely speculation on my part. That's pretty damning evidence. I remember that site from a few weeks ago when you linked to it, but hadn't checked back. I still won't agree that scandal is the only way to flip that, but I think it would take a pretty dramatic victory (30 plus points, most likely) in PA. Certainly very doubtful.
He's pledged to remain neutral, from what I've read. Sorry -- poor choice of words on my part. Obviously he is one, but he's not in the superdelegate field that will ultimately decide this.
At the end of the day it's the Electoral College that matters. All this popular vote, delegates, superdelegates don't mean SQUASH in the General election. I don't think Obama has proven the he will get the necessary electoral votes based on the big states he lost (NY, CA, OH, FL, NJ, TX) to beat McCain. He hasn't proven that he can outright beat the Republican nomination SO FAR. All he has proven is that he CAN'T get the necessary delegates to secure his own nomination. Hillary, even though she's trailing, is proving she can carry those Electoral college rich states but lose in the popular vote. However, even she can't say she has the best shot at beating McCain in the General either. In the end, the Democratic party is getting GORE Part 2 this year. Obama/Clinton may win the popular vote in the general(that remains to be seen)but won't secure the Electoral college. Great job!
Lol, when I saw the Kilpatrick scandal, I wondered to myself how long it would be before someone tried to associate Kilpatrick with Obama even though I don't think there is any link between the two besides the fact that their elected black democrats. We'll make Obama look like the scary black devil somehow! (Thanks Major, for quoting the post.)
That's a tremendous argument. Clearly, all the voters that chose Clinton over Obama would choose McCain over Obama in the same circumstance. After all, it's not as though two of these candidates are very similar in policy while another is very different... oh wait!
Your point can be an argument against counting the MI popular votes. Ultimately, it is up to the superdelegates to see whichever argument has merit. I think Obama should let the process runs its cause. Otherwise, he will be the guy who destroys the Democratic Party
Except recent polls show that 28% of Clinton supporters would vote for McCain if she doesn't win the nomination while the same 19% of Obama supporters would vote for McCain if he doesn't win. update: http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/...e-mccain-if-their-candidate-isnt-the-nominee/ “A sizable proportion of Democrats would vote for John McCain next November if he is matched against the candidate they do not support for the Democratic nomination. This is particularly true for Hillary Clinton supporters, more than a quarter of whom currently say they would vote for McCain if Barack Obama is the Democratic nominee.” From Gallup.com It looks as if some Clinton supporters are so opposed to Mr. Obama, and some Obama supporters so opposed to Mrs. Clinton, that those supporters say now that they would flee to the Republican before they voted for the Democratic rival. Here’s more from Gallup, which surveyed more than 6,600 Democratic voters between March 7 and March 22, with a margin of sampling error of 2 percentage points: “… it may be equally likely that they fall back into line by the time of the general election. It is worth noting that in Gallup’s historical final pre-election polls from 1992 to 2004, 10 percent or less of Republicans and Democrats typically vote for the other party’s presidential candidate. “Still, when almost 3 out of 10 Clinton supporters say they would vote for McCain over Obama, it suggests that divisions are running deep within the Democratic Party. If the fight for the party’s nomination were to continue until the Denver convention in late August, the Democratic Party could suffer some damage as it tries to regroup for the November general election.”
March 26, 2008 Some Context on the Democratic Defectors Brian Schaffner provides some helpful context for the Gallup "Democratic defector" results that we linked to earlier today. He notes a Pew Research Center survey from March 2000 that suggested similar fallout for George W. Bush as a result of his primary against John McCain. Here are the key passages from the Pew report, starting with the lead paragraph: The presidential primary season may prove to be a decisive factor in Campaign 2000, not only for who won, but for the way the winners emerged from the process in the eyes of the voters. Al Gore was clearly helped, and George W. Bush was just as clearly hurt. The vice president has improved his personal image, while making gains among two key groups whose support had eluded him last year, independents and men. In contrast, many people have come to dislike Bush personally, especially former supporters of John McCain. As a consequence, the Texas governor now trails Gore for the first time in a nationwide Pew Research Center survey, by 49%-43%.... Later, the report turned to the impact of the primaries: Primaries Costly for Bush Moreover, Gore leads Bush by a 51%-44% margin among voters who say they backed McCain during the primary process.(1) These McCain supporters are especially vocal critics of Bush as a person -- nearly half (48%) of those who support Gore point to Bush's personality as the thing they like least about him.[NOTE 1: Unless otherwise noted, former McCain and Bradley backers/supporters are those who say they strongly supported McCain/Bradley for their parties' nomination.] But Gore's most important gains from supporters of McCain and Bradley come among independents who now disproportionately favor the vice president. In contrast, the party regulars have largely returned to the fold, with Republicans supporting Bush and Democrats supporting Gore. Needless to say, that early Gore advantage did not persist. I'll let Schaffner blog the rest: Eventually, many of those McCain backers likely returned to vote for Bush and most of the Bradley backers likely returned to vote for Gore. The hard feelings that existed shortly after the end of the primary eventually subsided as the party unified for the general election. It is likely the case that Obama and Clinton supporters would eventually return to the fold and support the Democratic nominee in the Fall as well. However, the key difference between 2000 and 2008 will be the timing. When McCain lost the nomination, Bush had between 7-8 months to court McCain's old supporters. The Democratic nominee will have less time to do the courting this year. The critical question is how much time will he or she have? In the Gallup analysis, Frank Newport makes a similar point: t may be normal for some voters to claim early on in the process -- perhaps out of frustration -- that they will desert their party if certain things do not happen to their liking. And it may be equally likely that they fall back into line by the time of the general election. It is worth noting that in Gallup's historical final pre-election polls from 1992 to 2004, 10% or less of Republicans and Democrats typically vote for the other party's presidential candidate. Incidentally, for those looking to test electability with these early snapshots, keep in mind that the Gallup analysis focuses solely on self-identified Democrats that say they vote in primaries. It does not cover to the ability of the two Democrats to attract independent or cross-over support from those who say they do not vote in Democratic primaries. On their late February survey, Pew observed that "Obama has much greater personal appeal to independent voters than does either McCain or Clinton," and Pew's Scott Keeter reported that roughly equal numbers of voters are Obama-not-Clinton or Clinton-not-Obama in matchups against John McCain. It would be interesting to replicate those calculations using the Gallup Daily data, although the fact that Obama gets 44% and Clinton 45% against McCain suggests that the rough parity in these defector/cross-over groups persists. Of course, the larger point of the eight year old Pew numbers is that snapshots from March have a short half-life, so speculate with caution. -- Mark Blumenthal http://www.pollster.com/blogs/some_context_on_the_democratic.php
First of all, it's very doubtful that those numbers hold. This is nothing new. Every primary season, the loser's supporters claim in large numbers that they feel unimportant, but by October, the parties will rally around the candidates. I guarantee you Clinton will give speeches supporting Obama if he is the candidate, and I guarantee the reverse is true as well. Second, even if you believe those numbers, let's take a look at the math. 28 percent isn't 28 percent in the grand scheme of things. It's 28 percent of one candidate's vote, which is only half of the total Democratic vote, roughly. So you can slice it down to around 15 percent, worst case scenario for the Dems. And as I said, that kind of number is extraordinarily unlikely -- again, this is standard sore loser posturing by both sides. In time, most of it goes away and the same policies that led them to Clinton will lead them to Obama. Reverse would be true as well. Furthermore, there are definitely many conservatives (I talk to many on a daily basis) who voted for Romney or Huckabee in states like CA but claim they would never vote for McCain based on some of his more moderate history. They're not the majority, no, but neither are the 19 percent or 28 percent you're citing, either. In the grand scheme of things, the most reliable predictor for a party's potential performance in November is turnout -- and that's why McCain has a very uphill mountain to climb.
Maybe I need to take a close look at the list, but aren't these people non-elected wealthy individuals who have a longstanding relationship with Hillary and want to influence her administration to further their own economic interests? I'm scared of people like that. This is another reason I could never vote for her. She has too many favors to pay off. In this regard, Obama is much more fresh than either Hillary or McCain, though he obviously too has some favors to answer. Political dynasties are a dangerous thing. This "group of 20" threat is outrageous IMO.
I haven't read this thread, but it seems to me that Hillary has a bigger problem than convincing people that pledged delegates, popular vote and/or states won shouldn't matter. Her biggest problem is that, while she continues to insist superdelegates (her last hope) should decide this, the superdelegates don't even favor her. Her advantage in supers has steadily shrunk ever since Iowa. There hasn't been a single week since then in which she's picked up more supers than Obama -- in fact he's added tons since then, she's added barely any. Further, superdelegates are increasingly frustrated with her scorched earth, Tonya Harding strategy. They seem, as a bloc, to feel like she deserves to stay in if she chooses but that she ought not to continue with a strategy designed to make Obama completely unacceptable. Unfortunately for her, that's the ONLY way she retains any tiny chance at winning the nomination. And the supers aren't going to stand for it. The Wright controversy was her last chance and it didn't take. He weathered the storm and now she's suffering backlash for continuing to push it. When the remaining superdelegates favor Obama and are growing tired of Hillary's negative campaign, when he wins pledged delegates, popular vote and states won, what in the name of Yahweh does she have left? Even if pledged delegates agreed with her suggestion that they should be free to change allegiance, the small anecdotal evidence we have so far (Iowa) suggests more would change from Clinton to Obama than vice versa. She has nothing left. She is doing everything she can to damage our eventual nominee and she is embarassing herself.
