Slog News & Arts

Line Out

Music & Nightlife

« The Morning News | What Has Happened to Honeycris... »

Monday, January 28, 2008

The Democratic Nomination: “A Hoot.”

posted by on January 28 at 8:27 AM

There are 4,049 Democratic delegates. A candidate needs 2,025 of them to get the nomination. Obama currently has 63. Clinton 48. And Edwards 26.

The super showdown on Super Tuesday (1 week from tomorrow) where 2,064 delegates are up for grabs, isn’t likely to settle the contest. Nor is Washington state, where the Democrats are holding caucuses the following Saturday, February 9 to ultimately send 97 delegates to the Democratic National Convention in Denver in August.

Indeed, the whole thing could come down to a wild floor fight in Denver where superdelegates (kind of like reserved seats for elected politicians, party officials, Al Gore, Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton) might play a key role.

There are 796 superdelegates, including Sen. Maria Cantwell. (She’s supporting Clinton.) So far, about 25% support Clinton and about 10% support Obama.

In an article about the superdelegates in today’s NYT, Cantwell was one of two superdelegates they quoted (the other was Connecticut Democratic Sen. Chris Dodd.)

She’s getting a kick out the whole thing:

“It would be fun,” said Senator Maria Cantwell of Washington, who is supporting Mrs. Clinton. “Just like the old days. It would be a hoot to see it, just the floor politics.”

RSS icon Comments

1

And we get Gore/Obama with WA brokering the deal with our 97 uncommitted delegates.

Repubos thrown a curve and no current negative campaign history for Gore.

Posted by whatever | January 28, 2008 8:37 AM
2

I'm not laughing

Posted by Jaymes | January 28, 2008 8:37 AM
3

A floor fight just like 1948 when Truman and the Dixicrats had it out. I think I will pass on that.

Posted by Cato the Younger Younger | January 28, 2008 8:38 AM
4

Why can't we be like the cool kids and have our say on Super Tuesday? Why do we have such a backwards primary-that-doesn't-count/caucus-that-does system in this state?

Posted by crk on bellevue ave | January 28, 2008 8:47 AM
5
Posted by Big Sven | January 28, 2008 8:48 AM
6

That link confirms what Josh's post, Sven. Maybe you missed the part about the superdelegates.

Posted by Fnarf | January 28, 2008 8:51 AM
7

Hmmm. This prospect does increase the motivation to go "uncommitted" through the caucus cycle.

For unknown reasons, this is not a popular option at WA caucuses ... and some Dem's in high dudgeon even call it "improper".

Posted by RonK, Seattle | January 28, 2008 8:52 AM
8

@1:

Wouldn't that scenario have to start in our caucuses, on 2/9, by "uncommitted" beating Edwards, Obama or Clinton ?

Posted by Cleve | January 28, 2008 8:53 AM
9

Fnarf- you mean the part where Jost quotes percentages for superdelegates so he wouldn't have to show actual totals? That was the best high school journalism I've seen in a long time.

Also, Josh's math sucks. It's only 1681 delegates up for grabs on Super Tuesday, so there is no way that it can be decided before Washington in the 9th. But we already know you Obama guys are about "ideas" not "facts."

Posted by Big Sven | January 28, 2008 9:02 AM
10

A lot of politicians yearn for the good-old days when nominees were picked in the back-rooms by power brokers instead of by the voters.

Posted by mrobvious | January 28, 2008 9:07 AM
11

Krugman weighs in:
http://tinyurl.com/2jy85g

Posted by tomasyalba | January 28, 2008 9:08 AM
12

Also, this was an interesting line in the NY Times article on Ted Kennedy supporting Obama -

"Mr. Kennedy called Mr. Clinton Sunday to tell him of his decision."

Now, granted, it talked about previous discussions between the two and how Kennedy didn't like Bill Clinton's remarks in SC, but really, he called the candidate's husband rather than the candidate?!

Posted by mrobvious | January 28, 2008 9:09 AM
13

@6:
wrong.
Big Sven has a point.

Josh says the whole thing could become a floor fight. All the rest of his piece make it seem like the NYT is saying this is fairly likely. NOT: the NYT directly says "As dramatic as that [a floor fight] might be, it seems unlikely to happen." The NYT also says the floor fight scenario is something that is merely "conceivable" and is something some folks are starting to "dream about."

Josh's piece selectively leaves out all such cautionary quotes and facts, overemphasizing the likelihood of a floor fight.

Maybe you missed those parts?

The basic fact is that the deck is stacked for the earlier front runner, she's way ahead in superdelegates, and a floor fight is conceivable but not likely even if at the end of the primaries one of them is only narrowly ahead. Implying otherwise was wrong, unsupported by the NYT and shows bias. But it does stir the pot, help create site hits and increase circulation.

Posted by Obamadidn'tpayme | January 28, 2008 9:12 AM
14

Sven, the superdelegates aren't committed. They can, and will, switch if a frontrunner appears. The current totals represent people's best guesses as to who was going to win the nomination six months ago, which was Clinton. She's the party machine candidate. The other thing to realize about the superdelegates is that they're over; they look significant now because so few of the ordinary delegates are chosen yet, but will look less so in a few days.

Your "no way that it can be decided" looks awfully similar to what Josh said to me. I don't get what you're complaining about.

You know, it's traditional for sore losers to wait until they've actually lost before the pouting begins. But Clinton supporters don't like to wait, do they?

Posted by Fnarf | January 28, 2008 9:16 AM
15

Yes Cleve it would start in the caucuses. In the old days many states would nominate their "favorite son" or the most powerful member of the party in the state. They would stand up and cast their vote in the first round and then the dealing would begin.

Edwards or Uncommitted would accomplish about the same thing, but Un would make the delegation even more powerful.

Two out of three people in history that won the popular vote in an earlier election but didn't win the electoral votes, won in their next race.

Posted by whatever | January 28, 2008 9:22 AM
16

For Ted Kennedy to endorse Obama is bad enough, but for him to let it me known that the first person he called was Bill, not Hillary, is harsh.

Posted by elenchos | January 28, 2008 9:25 AM
17

@14

Fnarf--can you cite one example in history of how delegates changed and reneged their verbal commitments to candidates prior to the first 1 or 2 ballots at the convention?
Just one example of the scenario you describe?

Those politicians' word and name would forever be mud if they did that. Just like the Stranger didn't pull its endorsement of VV even though she was known to have zero chance, because when yo give yoru word then renege you look like an idiot. You're a traitor, no one really wants to deal with you.

Just one example of significant nos. of folks switching before the candidate they supported released them or before 1st or 2d ballot. And if you can't then apologize for throwing shit at people who challenge you when you're wrong.

You're also wrong that the totals reflect people's guesses. The totals are based on reports by the superdelegates that they have given their word to Obama or Clinton.
Another fairy tale.

When they make it public like that, they know they can't renege without long term damage to their rep/careers.

Posted by Obamadidn'tpayme | January 28, 2008 9:27 AM
18

Sigh. You're right, Sven. Josh specifically danced around Hillary's current theoretical lead in superdelegates in his post because he's a Clinton-hater and part of the grand conspiracy to deny your candidate the nomination she's entitled to.

Happy now?

Posted by tsm | January 28, 2008 9:28 AM
19

"many Obama supporters also seem far too ready to demonize their opponents."

Posted by KrugmanNYTpiecetoday | January 28, 2008 9:34 AM
20

"You're also wrong that the totals reflect people's guesses. The totals are based on reports by the superdelegates that they have given their word to Obama or Clinton.
Another fairy tale."

Oh, for Chrissakes. The people who were doing the best-guessing six months ago WERE THE SUPERDELEGATES.

And you want an example. Hmm. Let me think. I'll have to go all the way back to...2004, when John Dean had the vast majority of the superdelegates sewn up long before this point in the cycle. Until, one day, he didn't. I know this may come as a surprise to you, being so freaking long ago.

The only demonizing going on in the Democratic Party right now is with Clinton's Big Mouth Husband, who needs to shut the fuck up and pronto. He's not the candidate; she is. On Saturday I turned the TV on to see HIM giving her concession speech. Kennedy calls HIM to announce his endorsement. The cameras are following HIM around, and HE'S talking about what THEY'RE going to do in the White House. And that little "Jesse Jackson" jab of HIS hasn't gone unnoticed. The one thing you used to be able to count on with Bill was racial sensitivity, but now he's a race-baiter like the rest of them. Nice, real nice. He's putting votes in Obama's column, you know.

Posted by Fnarf | January 28, 2008 9:45 AM
21

"A lot of politicians yearn for the good-old days when nominees were picked in the back-rooms by power brokers instead of by the voters."

...and a lot of voters yearn for the good-old days when candidates were picked by the voters instead of the voting machines or the supreme court

Posted by touche | January 28, 2008 9:47 AM
22

tms@18: blissfully so. Thanks.

Fnarf@20: John Dean, Nixon Watergate cronie, ran for the Democratic nomination in 2004? Man, we're a big tent indeed.

Posted by Big Sven | January 28, 2008 9:49 AM
23

Howard Dean. Howard Dean. Howard Dean.

My apologies.

Posted by Fnarf | January 28, 2008 9:59 AM
24

Fnarf:
you're very nasty but you don't answer the question. At best you found 1 example out of 200 years of history. Big fucking deal. Obviously you couldn't find or cite any other example because they don't exist.

Now as to your example. John Dean--? 2004? If you mean Howard Dean, give us the facts. If you cna't remember the name, why should we believe you about anything else? What date are you talking about? What verbally committed delegates switched BEFORE Dean dropped out or released them or became nonviable?

And as to who's guessing, you again ignore the point. Politicians who give their verbal word generally keep it. The ones who verbally pledged to Clinton or Obama ARE NOT likely to start switching until a 1st or 2d ballot, until they are released or until their candidate totally tanks. They generally will keep their word as long as their candidate is in the running.

Suggesting otherwise like you did is wrong and at this point a continuing deception.

Nice try with the classic change the subject/bullying/be more nasty move. You go back to Bill the race baiter. Whatever that's about, it is a distraction to the point you were challenged on, showing you know you are in trobule and you got caught telling a big fib.

What's up with that?

And who does this pattern remind you of: cherry pick facts/exagerate/distort/when challenged distort again/distract/assault?

You're like George Bush in this thread.

If you have a list of examples of pre-convention switching and reneging by verbally pledged delegates, by all means, let's have it.

But if you don't, stop throwing shit on people who merely challenge you on the facts.

Posted by Obamadidn'tpayme | January 28, 2008 10:02 AM
25

I GAVE you an example. If you're not interested in it, that's your problem. Beyond that, there's no point in arguing with you, because you can't write English.

Posted by Fnarf | January 28, 2008 10:13 AM
26

Please take your meds if you're going to post on the slog.

And pick one handle and stick to it, please.

Posted by elenchos | January 28, 2008 10:14 AM
27

@1 - Gore/Obama 08 for the win!

Gonna be sweet!

(I was part of the krewe that sent our first massive uncommitted delegation to the national convention, it's not that hard to do)

Posted by Will in Seattle | January 28, 2008 10:31 AM
28

to be fair, i think they want to see a supporter from hillary or obama switching to the other, not from edwards, who is pretty unviable at this point (which butterfield stated), coming in a distant third even in his "native son" state of south carolina.

ps: i seriously doubt that josh is slanting anti-hillary...

Posted by Cook | January 28, 2008 10:33 AM
29

do the SuperDelegates live in a Fortress of Solitude?

Posted by michael strangeways | January 28, 2008 11:16 AM
30

By "a hoot," does she mean, "It'll be interesting to see the price people will charge for their support?"

Posted by Gitai | January 28, 2008 11:21 AM

Comments Closed

In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 14 days old).