Slog: News & Arts

RSS icon Comments on About Those Super Delegates

1

Now THAT's the AMERICAN WAY!

Posted by Andy Niable | February 14, 2008 8:46 PM
2

Wow, and the Obama camp has been outbidding Hillary by more than three to one.

"Obama's political action committee has doled out more than $694,000 to superdelegates since 2005, the study found, and of the 81 who had announced their support for Obama, 34 had received donations totaling $228,000.

"Clinton's political action committee has distributed about $195,000 to superdelegates, and only 13 of the 109 who had announced for her have received money, totaling about $95,000. "

Posted by johnnie | February 14, 2008 9:04 PM
3

That's also just under 42% of O superdelegates getting chash from the Obama campaign (averaging $6,700 for each pledged delegate) compared to under 12% of Hillary delegates (at $7,300). Not saying that favors aren't traded in any circumstance, but this is a pretty glaring disparity between the two.

Posted by johnnie | February 14, 2008 9:09 PM
4

From the link:

"Obama's political action committee has doled out more than $694,000 to superdelegates since 2005, the study found, and of the 81 who had announced their support for Obama, 34 had received donations totaling $228,000.
Clinton's political action committee has distributed about $195,000 to superdelegates, and only 13 of the 109 who had announced for her have received money, totaling about $95,000."

Obama's bought 41% of his superdelegates, and Clinton just 12% of hers.

That powerful & flush Obama machine -- he knows all the tricks. Gotta admire an old pol when you see one.

And he's paying about $6,705.88 per superdelegate while for Clinton it's about $7,308. Seems Obama's market power gives him a volume discount.

How will Clinton match Obama's $$$$$ strength, which may allow him to buy his way to the nomination if she doesn't play the game harder?

Stay tuned.....

Posted by unPC | February 14, 2008 9:12 PM
5

Just tell me whom to make out the check to...

Posted by Andy Niable | February 14, 2008 9:14 PM
6

Hot damn--I need to buy me a SuperDelegate!

Posted by NapoleonXIV | February 14, 2008 9:27 PM
7

Come on -- That article was incredibly lame and thin. They didn't give the money to those folks in their superdelegate role but as fellow Dems to fund their election campaigns. Sure it's "you scratch my back I'll scratch yours" -- it's called politics, people. But don't make flip judgements until you know exactly WHY they gave those folks money. It's irresponsible to tie the two together, but what can you expect from unvetted blog "journalism."

Posted by MM | February 14, 2008 9:27 PM
8

Hahah awesome. Gotta love the dems tearing eachother apart -- and this is only going to get better and better, and it's going to last AAAALLLL the way to Denver. You guys shoulda had this pres election sewn up, and instead? A giant gift to us! When the "dem vs repub" polls started, even Clinton had a decent lead on the Republicans she was matched to, and that has been steadily decaying, and for all democrats, not just her. Thanks for spending your own money attacking eachother dems! Don't play 2012 any smarter than this one!

Posted by Republican | February 14, 2008 9:39 PM
9

Shoot, I blew it. I should have put my caucus vote up for sale to the highest bidder.

Posted by Fifty-Two-Eighty | February 14, 2008 9:43 PM
10

So, how quickly before a superdelegate puts up his/her vote on eBay?

Posted by Andy Niable | February 14, 2008 10:00 PM
11

Thanks Matt Drudge!

Posted by Thanks! | February 14, 2008 10:01 PM
12

@7
ha ha ha ha ha

I didn't take the money in my role as judge. I took it in my role as a person selling his office!!

I didn't take the money in my role as a police officer. why, when I stopped his car and he paid me money and I didn't give him a ticket, I took the money in my role as ...... um, Boy Scout Master!

I didn't take money in my role as confessor...I took Mr. Gambino's donation to the church in my role as ....spiritual leader! And so what if he needs a letter of character reference to get a lighter sentence?

hahahahahahahahahahahah

I didn't give BHO $300,000 in my role as a corrupt politician. I gave it to him in my role as a ...friend and neighbor -- um..er...concerned about hope and unity!!!!

Posted by hohohhahahahohoohahahah | February 14, 2008 10:01 PM
13


We demand that all purchased superdelegates step down, now.

This is an outright corrupt practice.

Posted by Hope Change & Unity | February 14, 2008 10:06 PM
14

Hopefully, this election will bring about the long overdue revamping of the Democratic Party's delegate process. It's such a sad, dismal, anti-democratic system. Even if someone gets screwed (as Obama very certainly might) at least that will shake things up.

Posted by Matthew | February 14, 2008 10:07 PM
15

Come on Dan - and fellow Sloggers. These articles that are popping up are pretty ludicrous. They barely cover the story and they don't put it into context. Context, that for Dems at least, is actually pretty important about which person is likely to be better for the party.

The numbers that they are giving cover the last 3 years worth of giving. That, conveniently, also includes the last mid-term election. Ultimately, it means that Obama has been using his abilities to raise money for other Democrats - money that went into the Democratic effort to win back both houses of Congress. A lot of that money was given before he was running for president and way way before he had any reason to think that he would need the support of superdelegates to win a nomination that was realistically very far away.

Obama has helped the party grow, has helped candidates in tight races, and helped take back Congress. As Democrats, this is the type of intra-party loyalty that we usually go gaga over. It's also worth adding that during this same period Clinton was raising a massive amount of money for her reelection bid in New York against a relative unknown who never had any chance against her - money that she ultimately blew through mismanagement that was well documented and much less that was given to fellow Dems during a historic election.

The stories about this have been incredibly bad in terms of giving full information and covering the circumstances of the money being given. It's actually pretty bad journalism. Talkingpointsmemo.com has a pretty good discussion going on about the issue in the comments section of their story.

Posted by Ed | February 14, 2008 10:36 PM
16

Confidential to Ed, @15:

I'm not laughing WITH the article, I'm laughing AT IT.

Posted by Andy Niable | February 14, 2008 10:57 PM
17

*sigh* $7,308 is about 10 months of my Social Security payments for last year.

I'm now officially putting myself up for sale as a superdelegate.

Posted by Colton | February 14, 2008 11:17 PM
18

In other news, fire is hot, sky blue, and early returns suggest that kittens may be in fact adorable.

Posted by Fnarf | February 14, 2008 11:21 PM
19

Did it occur to all of you about to set up the gallows--especially unPC @4, who has of course used this as an opportunity to spinmeisterize for Clinton--that maybe these were just um... you know, campaign contributions?

Look, I realize people get bought. I am not naive--and I realize IHBT HAND--but making conclusions like this:

"Obama's bought 41% of his superdelegates, and Clinton just 12% of hers"

is just plain ludicrous. What a supremely irrelevant measurement. Even if all of that money went to buying their votes, did it ever occur to you unPC that those on the receiving end are just as ethically responsible to acknowledge a conflict of interest as are the candidates and that perhaps that might be reflected in these percentages? Did it ever occur to you that maybe some people took contributions from Clinton and didn't vote for her, making the $/vote numbers also meaningless? Did it ever occur to you that some of these superdelegates aren't even elected officials? Probably not, you were too busy spinmeisterizationalizing.


That said, this "non partisan" "study" is a joke. The tone is... interesting.

Both contenders will be calling in favors.

Really? Was that a conclusion of this "study" or was that just an editorial comment slipped into the first paragraph?

pledged, "non-super" delegates

Technical term, I guess.

the Center for Responsive Politics has found that campaign contributions have been a generally reliable predictor of whose side a superdelegate will take

True, in the same way the color of someone's skin is a reliable predictor of how likely they are to end up in jail. That doesn't mean you can deduce causation. I think in this case the observed phenomenon should be attributed to the fact that people who are politically compatible both give each other campaign contributions and vote for each other. Whoopdydoo. Big surprise. Some dude even TOLD them this in an interview for the article!

And why draw no conclusions from this?

Four superdelegates who have already pledged received the same amount of contributions from both Clinton and Obama—and all committed to Clinton.

Are they suddenly concerned with proper random sampling?

Posted by w7ngman | February 14, 2008 11:51 PM
20

They're totally campaign contributions, y'all. Do you NOT know how these things work? Really? What a lame-ass article. And I'd be saying that if Clinton had given more, too.

Posted by Michigan Matt | February 15, 2008 3:01 AM
21

I gotta second everybody saying this is no news. I worked on a campaign in 2006, and when our race was perceived as close, we received contributions from other campaigns, e.g. a house race in Missouri. It's partybuilding.

Posted by Gigi | February 15, 2008 5:41 AM
22

@19:

You recall to us the SNL tobacco company lawyer. "There's no PROOF smoking causes cancer! You haven't proven causation!" [pulls on ciggy, sits in tight defensive posture, holds elbows into chest; exhales smoke; stubs butt out angrily]

The facts are massive amounts of cash flowing out for superdelegate purchases ($685,000) and large numbers of superdelegates flowing back their support. that's all the proof you need in politics. There is no law that says you have to do multiple regression analysis and get peer reviewed, dude!

It's not facts for me to use, I'll be working for OBama is he gets the top of the ticket.

They're facts for John McCain and GOP 527's to use as follows:

TV ads with caption, "Change -- What does He Take Us For?" showing Obama on TV. Then zoom out to a "Thelma and Lousise" couple (imagine Roseann Barr and her largish hubby in a plaid shirt with that dumb flowered shawl thing over the sofa) in the middle of Ohio somewhere. They have a disgusted, sceptical look on their faces. ARms crossed, heads tilted.

The ad mentions #XXX,XXX from Exelon the nuclear corporation...Senator OBama "softened the regulations int he bill" [quoting some reputable news print media sourse].

"Senator Obama also received a $300,000 gift to buy the Obama mansion [show a shot -- have you seen it? It's far larger than the average USA house and is worth about 1.2 million] in Chicago, Cook County, Illinois....from an indicted fixer who's now been sent to jail" [shot of Rezko in handcuffs being or in courtroom] [red letter words: GUILTY Sentenced to 1 year and $5000 fine for POLITICAL CORRUPTION]

Then:
"Obama says he's for change, but he got his nomination the old fashioned way. He fought in his party's convention to keep 2.3 million voters from being heard. [highlight Florida and Michigan on a USA map; bir red letter stamp letter descend on both states saying EXCLUDED].

"He gave $695,000.00 [the nubmer flashes oncscreen in big red letters] in donations to get the votes of 34 superdelegates to win...They say there was 'no connection' and the money was 'irrelevant' and 'this happens all the time' [images of opulent conference room, mena nd women in suits shut the door and interior window blinds; they sit down and slide metal briefcase across the table; the recipients look inside, wink and give a thumbs up sign, they all sit back and light cigars looking smug. They sit their puffing for the rest of the ad]

"Change? Looks liek the same old same old politics as usual [names and positions of purchased superdelegates flash by with dollar amounts for each one, then the list accelerates and zips by in the last 2 seconds]

" [new voice] I'm John McCain [picure of him in his Navy uniform]. I spent 5 years in the Hanoi Hilton because I wouldn't let the Communist Viet Cong buy me off. [shot of youngish McCain in gaunt POW mode.]

"As President, I will pass a law making purchasing of superdelegates at nominating conventions illegal. WE need to change Washington DC for the better, instead of importing chicago style corruption [flash agains to Rezko in handcuffs] to our nation's capital.

"I'm John McCain [photo in Navy dress shites again] and I approved this ad."

This type of attack will harm Obama's Nirvana/change/purity/messiah thing.
John McCain will do it. You know it.

The rest of your post, dude is name acallign or hurts yoru position. Yes, the recipients are guilty too and the fact there are 34 of them only means there are probably about 1 or 2 dozen local tTV news stations who noww have a local angle and someone they put on TV denying there was any causation, and saying the charges are ludicrous, all the things you say, which just don't fucking work.

"Did it ever occur to you that maybe some people took contributions from Clinton and didn't vote for her,"
Yes it did. Your point is?


"Did it ever occur to you that some of these superdelegates aren't even elected officials?"

Wo.. the $$ went into their personal pockets, is that the point?

In fact except for past prez's and VPs all of them are elected officials or elected party leaders.

"Probably not, you were too busy spinmeisterizationalizing."

Boo hoo you called me names.

Obama's only 4 points up against McCain nationally and he's behind in key states and he has negatives we as Democrats better think about or else we are gonna lose. Being in denial or attacking the messenger is not helpful.


Posted by unPC | February 15, 2008 6:10 AM
23

Two Points worth considering.


First, in the 2006 elections all of the liberal blogs were screaming that all dems who had extra funds available needed to give it to candidates in closer races because we had the potential to pick up the house and senate. Chris Bowers even posted a listing of all candidates in safe races along with their on-hand funds and phone numbers. Those candidates that didn't give were ridiculed as hurting the dem party. The campaign to get dems to do this, meanwhile, was relatively successful in funding some under funded candidates and we picked up the house and senate.


Second, Obama's given to folks whether they supported him or not. For example, in Iowa Obama's leadership pack gave Leonard Boswell, who was supporting Hillary, as much as he gave to the other dems running for the House of representatives.


He did give out more money than Hillary, and to more people. She tended to hoard her funds.


So you can pretend this is vote buying, but its really just helping other candidates with less ability to raise funds, and regardless of who they were supporting.

Power to the people baby. Our time has come.

Posted by Mike in Iowa | February 15, 2008 6:18 AM
24

They want to run the country, but they can't even run their own party. I'm a democrat but I've never been more discouraged.

Posted by Suz | February 15, 2008 8:12 AM
25

Obama is so innocent and trancends politics! He never thinks about politics! only how to unify the country!

He only contributed to the campaigns of entrenched incumbents to be nice! not because would be superdelegates! A few of them even had progressive challengers threatening their safe seats! Good thing he helped keep hope mongers like Lieberman, in the Senate!

HOPE AND CHANGE!*tm

Posted by Obama SuperFan | February 15, 2008 8:18 AM
26

Remember when Obama voted "present" as a strategy to help narrowly elected Dems keep their seats? The boy knows how to play politics; giving money to Dem campaigns in tight districts is just one of the many things one can do to help their party.

#23 makes a good point and leads me to ask- how much have C&O given to the campaigns of superdelegates who haven't endorsed anyone? what about those who have endorsed the opposite candidate?

Everybody just breathe, actually read the articles, and stop jumping all over everything that looks like it *might* help your candidate. More often than not, revelation of all the facts hurts those who tried to exploit the half-truths for their own gains.

Posted by nb | February 15, 2008 8:35 AM
27

#22 -

Here's a reliable news source specifically de-bunking the Exelon "story."

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker/2008/02/obamas_backroom_deal.html?hpid=topnews


Some pretty good stuff in there. And yet more misrepresentations from the Clinton "campaign."

Posted by Ed | February 15, 2008 8:49 AM
28

Payola - it's not just for superelegates.

A few canny political reporters ntoe very early on -- even back when Obama's candidacy was just a gleam in Daschle's eye -- that Obama was spreading largesse to sub-super party influentials (state legislators, county officials, etc) in the caucus states.

And of course these are "just campaign contributions". So are the lobbyist contributions St. Obama is up in arms about.

The salient question is whether these were contributions to Democrats in competitive races (where the contribution might make a difference between winning and losing), or contributions to Democrats in safe seats, where the contributions are grease (just like Enron used to deliver in its uner-the-radar programs of influence).

Cutting to the chase: grease.

Posted by RonK, Seattle | February 15, 2008 9:03 AM
29

how are the funds raised by clinton to help maria cantwell retire her campaign debt factored in here? are they included?

aren't these only PAC and campaign committee donations, i.e., not personal (and don't include any contributions made by bill, which it is safe to say would be equally influential)?

Posted by mks | February 15, 2008 9:07 AM
30

whatever it takes to put a 46 year old in the white house.

all generations older than mine have FUCKED UP ROYALLY. its time for the slackers to get a turn at the wheel.

Posted by max solomon | February 15, 2008 9:19 AM
31

Bummer. I don't like the way this sounds.

Posted by Deacon Seattle | February 15, 2008 9:27 AM
32

Wait, if I donate $100 to Obama, I OWN him? That doesn't seem right.

Posted by Fnarf | February 15, 2008 9:41 AM
33

22, I don't support either Obama or Clinton so I don't know where stuff like

Obama's only 4 points up against McCain nationally and he's behind in key states and he has negatives we as Democrats better think about or else we are gonna lose. Being in denial or attacking the messenger is not helpful.

is coming from.

You must feel like everyone is out to get you, being one of the lone, albeit rabid, Hillary supporters on Slog, but I wasn't attacking your pro Hillary stance or defending Obama. I was doing an analysis of this stupid article and debunking the conclusions you drew from it.

The facts are massive amounts of cash flowing out for superdelegate purchases ($685,000) and large numbers of superdelegates flowing back their support.

Did you bother to find out if these superdelegate contributions make up even a signficant portion of the total money given away by the respective PACs? Did the authors of the original article? No.

"Did it ever occur to you that maybe some people took contributions from Clinton and didn't vote for her," Yes it did. Your point is?

The only point is that this makes the percentages and $/vote numbers you posted meaningless, because it doesn't take into account superdelegates that, by your "logic", Obama tried to buy but wasn't successful.

"Did it ever occur to you that some of these superdelegates aren't even elected officials?"

Wo.. the $$ went into their personal pockets, is that the point?

They aren't in elections, how could they recieve campaign contributions? Seriously, you're reaching. Do you have any proof money was given to non-elected superdelegates? Didn't think so.

Unelected superdelegates make up well over half of the total superdelegate count. This calls into question the idea that wooing these superdelegates with campaign contributions is even a viable strategy.

And who exactly is an "elected party official"?

"Probably not, you were too busy spinmeisterizationalizing."

Boo hoo you called me names.

It's plain to see you're a spinmeister for Clinton. To characterize this as namecalling is part of your job description.

Posted by w7ngman | February 15, 2008 10:09 AM
34

unPC gets more and more rabid the more hillary loses

Posted by Bellevue Ave | February 15, 2008 11:07 AM
35

Fnarf @ 32 -- Not only can you own OBAMA for $100 ... If you give $1500 to L.A. Mayor Villagerosa's campaign fund, you'll own HILLARY.

At least that's how Obama's campaign finance puritans figure it, given that Rezko gave $1500 to Mayor V., and he endorsed HRC in the California state primary).

We should note that Obama's contributions to superD's and caucus influentials apparently exceed the total of lobbyist contributions to Clinton's campaign (all of which are miniscule relative to either campaign budget ... and positively microscule relative to K Street budgets ... which makes one wonder how a little tweak in the applicable regulations can possibly bring about this great Change we're promised in the evil ways of D.C.).

Posted by RonK, Seattle | February 15, 2008 1:13 PM

Comments Closed

In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 45 days old).