2008 Superdelegates
posted by on February 6 at 16:20 PM
They’re in my column this week, they’re vexing Ezra Klein, and with talk swirling of a nomination fight that lasts all the way to the convention, they’re becoming more important by the day.
You can find out more about Washington’s superdelegates here, but in terms of local superdelegates to watch, here’s what I wrote in my column:
As we head into the Washington caucuses, two fence-sitting superdelegates are of particular interest: Gov. Christine Gregoire, who has promised to make her decision before the caucuses, and Rep. Jim McDermott, who has not. Not only do these two have the potential to tilt the superdelegate tally, but they may have the ability to sway the decisions of caucus-goers. Which way will they go? Stay tuned—or, if you’re really fired up, give their offices a call and bend their ears. They’re elected officials, after all.
Behold the power of two sentences at the end of a short column in The Stranger. In my voice mail just now:
Hi, Eli, my name’s Donnie Dill and I just wanted to give you a quick tidbit. I called in to Rep. Jim McDermott’s office to voice my opinion on his decision on the superdelegates, and they just told me he’s not endorsing anyone even though he does have a superdelegate vote, which I thought was kind of interesting. She wouldn’t give me any more info, but I’m surprised that he’s not going to endorse anyone.
Really? Jim McDermott, local lefty lion, is going to completely sit this one out? I have an email in to his spokesman requesting clarification.
UPDATE: And, a very short time later, comes the reply from McDermott’s spokesman:
This is the people’s time to speak. The time will come when Jim casts his vote. For now he is concerned about young people participating passionately for whomever their candidate is, whichever party.
The whole superdelegate process is elitist. So, in large part, is the caucus system. If the Democratic Party were true to its name, we wouldn't have superdelegates, and its caucus system wouldn't be so convoluted and underfunded as to actively discourage participation.
Hillary needs your help. Please donate.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/02/06/politics/main3799059.shtml
http://thepage.time.com/2008/02/06/page-exclusive-some-clinton-senior-staff-working-without-pay/
Agree #1. It shows the selfishness and arrogance of the entrenched party leaders. I've lived in many states that are seen as less progressive. However, their process is far better and democratic. I'll sit this one out. They've already chosen their candidate anyway.
Yup caucuses are terrible. See how that entrenched party leader Obama is using them to wrap it up.
And McDermott? What an asshole. He got help from the Clintons when he was down and out, and he believes in some kind of concept called loyalty.
Same with Cantwell and Murray.
What a bunch of jerks. Believing in loyalty.
I wouldn't want any of them for a pal.
He ought to vote the way the Democrats in Washington State go in the caucuses.
But oh -- that Barbara Boxer and all the other hundreds of superdelegates from all the big states -- CA MI FL NJ MA NY TN --they ought to vote the opposite way their own voters voted, if they follow what their own voters say, they're bunch of elitist jerks.
In THOSE states the superdelegates have to vote for Obama -- not Clinton, whom their voters went for.
Buncha elitist jerks.
They're all just picking and choosing what rules to follow, aren't they?
Aravosis said it in his blog earlier, but if we go to the convention with Clinton OR Obama in the PLEDGED delegate lead, and then that leader is moved to second because of superdelegates (or some bullshit reinstatement of delegates from Florida or Michigan), it's over. NOBODY from the camp that got screwed will agree to it, it'll be a huge mess, and the legitimacy of the new frontrunner will be in shambles going into the general. In which case, Old Man McCain and Creationist Simpleton Huckabee (as VP) will get easily elected.
We can only hope that the mucky-mucks of the Democratic party come to their senses ASAP--like RIGHT NOW--and do the following:
* Allocate the superdelegates 50-50
* Reiterate that Florida and Michigan results will not be allowed
It's the right thing to do, for the sake of fairness, the Democratic party and fucking life on Earth as we know it.
Well, I agree FL and MI need to live with the bed they made.
But superdelegates are literal people - and their vote is up to them.
They usually end up voting for the same candidate the party voted for. I can't remember when that hasn't happened.
Is it elitist? Yup.
Is the Electoral College elitist? Yup.
@5-
If the difference between the two going into the convention is less than the margin of superdelegates, they'll have to run as a ticket. It's going to take a fade by one candidate or the other prior to the convention to avoid that.
Option 1: Obama has the money to keep edging out Clinton in delegates, and she doesn't. Once she's out of money, she can't get her message out and Obama's wins get bigger and bigger.
Option 2: Obama edges Clinton in small and medium-size states, but she targets her money in big states with establishment machines. It's a game of numbers and she comes out ahead.
I think both scenarios are more likely than a conflict between pledged delegates and superdelegates.
As we've seen, small states that go overwhelmingly for one candidate, like Idaho for Obama, can result in a bigger delegate advantage than a large state that's evenly divided. But there certainly is the potential for big gains in some of the states. Big states (70+) left:
Washington, 78 delegates, Feb. 9
Maryland, 70 delegates, Feb. 12
Virginia, 83 delegates, Feb. 12
Wisconsin, 74 delegates, Feb. 19
Ohio, 141 delegates, Mar. 4
Texas, 193 delegates, Mar. 4
Pennsylvania, 158 delegates, Apr. 22
Indiana, 72 delegates, May 6
North Carolina, 155 delegates, May 6
I don't see either candidate coming away with a clearcut advantage from these. Clinton could take most of these states, but by small margins. Obama can counter with a couple of these states, and big wins in places like MT, VT, DC, and SD -- maybe 8-10 delegate advantage each.
Where's the knockout blow going to come from? I don't know. I'm so excited to find out I'm pissing myself, though.
The word "whomever" is archaic; not even well-educated speakers can use it correctly with any reliability. Therefore, I urge that only grammar technicians even try to use the word and that everyone else stick with "whoever" in all contexts, which is correct in English by any modern style guide's assessment. Even when used correctly, the "m" just draws attention to itself, anyhow, away from the content.
Bullshit. Whom and whomever are still standard English. Using who and whoever in their place in writing is illiterate.
@8 - Fnarf, you also know that Obama does better in caucus states, so he has a good shot at picking up the ones this week - Maine, Washington, Louisiana.
Nine contests this month, five of them caucuses, four of them primaries in places with large black populations, and therefore, nine contests that all favor Obama. If he takes all nine, look for him to do well in March, and to finally take the nomination.
I agree with Gitai, the schedule for the next month favors Obama greatly. Clinton is scrambling for headlines right now, cause starting tommorow, Obama will dominate them. Cant wait to hand Washington delegates to Obama!
True blue Washington with its highly educated voting populace proving once again that the discerning educated voters prefer Obama 3-1.
It's taken how many years to find a woman with a REAL chance to win the Presidency, and what happens? The press starts attacking her, making her look like (oh lets say it) a "bitch," Meanwhile, this year's kid with the shiny smile gets a pass.
Funny how this always happens.
Is anyone else here willing to take a stand? "If not now, WHEN?"
Comments Closed
In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 14 days old).