home

The Current State of Superdelegates

By Jeralyn, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 09:22:30 AM EST
Tags: superdelegates (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

The Wall St. Journal today (free link) examines the current preferences of the 795 superdelegates:

Obama leads among those who are elected officals (governors and senators) while Hillary leads among the non-elected state and party officials. 300 or so superdelegates remain uncommitted.

The superdelegates in these two groups have different predominant concerns. For those who are elected officials, the dominant concern is their own political future. For those who are non-elected, the key factor is electability of the Democratic candidate in November.

By the numbers:

Elected superdelegates include 28 governors, 234 House members, 49 senators, mayors of big cities and state officeholders

Non-elected superdelegates: More than 400.

A graphic showing the current status of superdelegates is here.

< Obama Supporter Conspiracy Theory: Clinton Forced Wright To Talk | N.C. Governor Mike Easley Endorses Hillary Clinton >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    The Current State of Superdelegates | 56 comments (56 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    Heh (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by Steve M on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 09:36:16 AM EST
    It was interesting a few weeks back when the blogosphere suddenly began trumpeting the fact that Obama had taken the lead among "elected-official superdelegates," a metric previously unheard of.  The idea is, I guess, that only pledged delegates are legitimate, but just in case it's good to have a backup argument that only "elected-official superdelegates" are legitimate.

    Jeralyn paints with a little bit of a broad brush in this post, but in general it's true that no elected official is going to endorse without considering what effect the endorsement will have on his or her own fortunes.  Some of them endorse because they fear the wrath of their constituents if they go against the consensus; some endorse based upon who they would rather have at the top of the ticket to bolster their own reelection chances.

    There's a number of Democrats, particularly in red states, who feel like Hillary would be toxic to them and that they don't want to spend the whole campaign season being called a "Hillary Clinton Democrat."  The ads that we've seen in North Carolina over the past week - where the GOP attacks local Dems for endorsing Obama and his "radical pastor" - are evidence that the Republicans will be able to run this playbook against either candidate.  One thing that's good about the extended primary is that it forces people to look past the illusion that Obama can somehow skate to victory without being seriously tarnished.  Would that it were true.

    I Think We Should Watch To See Which SD's (none / 0) (#55)
    by PssttCmere08 on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 04:39:44 PM EST
    change their votes down the road.  

    Parent
    Since PA (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by magster on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 09:53:44 AM EST
    Clinton has scored 3 superdelegates, and Obama 7 (counting the Ben Chandler endorsement for Obama to be announced today).  

    "the math" says that after PA, assuming Obama reaches estimate of 241 pledged delegates (per Open Left), Hillary needed 79.55% of remaining superdelegates.  After this week, she needs 82.2% of the remaining superdelegates.

    Now if you multiply 82.2% by a factor of Jeremiah Wright, who the hell knows?

    I think 2024 still matters.... (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by mike in dc on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 10:12:18 AM EST
    ...because 1) FL/MI are still up in the air, it's not certain what will happen with that; 2) the media, at least some of it, will anoint the first person to reach 2024 the presumptive nominee, which will put enormous pressure on any remaining superdelegates to move toward that candidate; 3) If Clinton does not have enough remaining uncommitted superdelegates to reach 2024 while FL/MI are still undetermined, some of the media will declare her the loser and that she can't win, which again puts pressure on the superDs.
    4) the major players both inside and outside the Clinton campaign are likely to tell her to give up if she can't win(or de facto tie, at least) without FL/MI.
    what do you think? (5.00 / 0) (#24)
    by Josey on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 10:21:09 AM EST
    if superdelegates from states Hillary has won continue endorsing Obama - overruling their working class voters - doesn't this emphasize a CLASS WAR inside the party?

    Labels like class war are overly simplistic (none / 0) (#40)
    by cymro on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 11:02:53 AM EST
    They do not help us to understand people's individual motivations.

    That's what I think. (Since you asked :-)

    Parent

    I don't think it's close to this simple (4.00 / 0) (#45)
    by PSoTD on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 11:37:53 AM EST
    For those who are elected officials, the dominant concern is their own political future. For those who are non-elected, the key factor is electability of the Democratic candidate in November.

    Just because they are non-elected doesn't mean their  dominant concern couldn't be their own political future.  There's a little thing called appointments that goes with the job of President.

    McCain Clinton 08 (1.00 / 1) (#1)
    by beyondalldoubt on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 09:33:51 AM EST
    I just cannot imagine what Hillary Clinton is thinking. The only way she can "win" this nomination is if the "super" use their powers to give it to her.

    Its a democratic principal that we don't like our elections being stolen from us by the supremes or super.

    The American people have ruled in this primary. Hillary is just further dividing and hurting us.

    If I were Hillary Clinton, saving the lives of the troops who will die in Iraq over the 4 McCain years would be more important to me than my political carrear.

    Unless of course, Hillary is vying for a spot on McCain's VP ticket.

    Hey look it works both ways (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by Step Beyond on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 09:53:09 AM EST
    I just cannot imagine what Barack Obama is thinking. The only way he can "win" this nomination is if the "super" use their powers to give it to him.

    Its a democratic principal that we don't like our elections being stolen from us by the supremes or supers.

    The American people have ruled in this primary. Obama is just further dividing and hurting us.

    If I were Barack Obama, saving the lives of the troops who will die in Iraq over the 4 McCain years would be more important to me than my political career.

    Unless of course, Barack is vying for a spot on McCain's VP ticket.

    Neither candidate can win without supers. And although the people have spoken, half of them have spoken for Obama and half for Clinton.

    Neither candidate is dividing or hurting us. Their are plenty of supporters who can't say the same, especially the Obama supporters. I'm not sure if its because there are more of them, but without a doubt in my I-don't-care-which-one-gets-the-nomination mind the online Obama supporters have been more divisive and more vitriolic than the Clinton supporters.

    Your post is a prime example. You think that if Clinton, who is in a basic tie for a nomination that no one has won yet, doesn't step aside she is someone thinking more of herself than the troops or the party. You ignore half the voters and the fact that Obama also needs the supers to win. So does his not stepping aside mean he cares more about himself than the troops or the party?

    Of course the fact is that either candidate could win and that neither candidate should drop out. Especially just because some anonymous online supporter has become so overly invested in their candidate they have become divisive and hurtful to the party.

    Parent

    I agree the supes will decide (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by TruthMatters on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 10:00:42 AM EST
    what both sides are doing is trying to convince the super to use their metric.

    Obama since Feb 5th knew he would win the pledged delegate count, their strategy was around this, so they argue the delegates are the will of the people.

    Hillary wants Pop vote, or electability because those are the only 2 arguments she feels she can win. Electability is a toss up, both have pros and cons, and no one can know for sure whose negatives are worse, we all have opinions but they are just opinions.

    what will really happen is supers are going to decide based on everything,
    who won their state
    who won their district
    who has more delegates
    whats the popular vote
    what are polls saying
    whats their fav/unfav
    who do they believe has a better chance of winning
    what will each sides supporters do if they don't get their candidate.
    who is better for down ticket
    who can help raise more money

    no one can look at this list of things and agree, thus supers will all reach different conclusion hence why a Governor in a state Obama is heavily favored comes out and endorses Hillary, but a super in KY today ( a hillary state) comes out for Obama. there isn't 1 metric that will decide the nominee, the supers will each look at EVERYTHING and they will have different weights of importance for each and they will decide from there.

    but arguing that there is 1 true metric for supers is a waste of time, they are independent and will use whatever metric they damn well please.

    Parent

    Here is an interesting metric (4.00 / 0) (#41)
    by Leisa on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 11:08:14 AM EST
    for SD's.  $$ given by PACS from each campaign has predicted, 80% of the time, which candidate gets the endorsement.

    This was as of February 25th...  It would be interesting to see how it has gone since then.

    Notice that Obama outspent Hillary here as well.

    Clinton = $236,080
    Obama = $710,926

    Parent

    you know you are (2.00 / 0) (#51)
    by TruthMatters on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 12:18:18 PM EST
    trying to attack Obama for donating to other Democrats during re-elections since 2005

    so basically what you are saying is Obama helps out fellow democrats who need cash for re-elections more then Hillary does.

    Parent

    But as Pennsylvania (5.00 / 0) (#52)
    by misspeach2008 on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 12:41:20 PM EST
    clearly showed us, the candidate with the most money doesn't necessarily win.  So if Obama can give you a bigger war chest, but his baggage hurts you more than Hillary's does, will more money be enough?

    Parent
    That was not an attack (none / 0) (#57)
    by Leisa on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 08:06:58 PM EST
    of Democrats, this was a matter of fact.

    I also pointed out that this was as of Feb 25th of this year and needed to be updated.

    Truth matters,  do not twist my intentions or words please.  I think this is a fair topic that should be considered.  

    I did not write this report, I did find it interesting and worthy of consideration when it has shown to be a predictor of 80% of endorsements as of Feb 25th.

    Parent

    I agree (none / 0) (#42)
    by Step Beyond on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 11:24:33 AM EST
    Absolutely. Which imho is why either could still win. The supers will decide, whether we like the supers or not.

    Parent
    Super power (none / 0) (#11)
    by beyondalldoubt on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 09:57:24 AM EST
    Its true that Barack will also need the super to win the nomination but I feel the super should reflect the will of the American people.

    And if were gonna go by the "super rules," we also need to go by the rules of the way the delegates were set up...

    Obama will have more delates in the end and the "super" should absolutely reflect that.

    Parent

    LOL. (none / 0) (#15)
    by madamab on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 10:01:59 AM EST
    The entire reason the SD's were put into being is to help break the deadlock when the will of the people is unclear.

    If the will of the people were clear, we'd have a nominee. We don't.

    Thus, we need the superdelegates.

    Do I like this system? No. But it's what we've got for now.

    Parent

    real reason (1.00 / 0) (#21)
    by beyondalldoubt on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 10:15:33 AM EST
    The reason we don't have a nominee is because Hillary is putting politics above the will of the American people.

    It didn't happen for her this time... she needs to accept that and maybe run again in 8 years.

    Parent

    We Are Selecting The Democratic Nominee (5.00 / 1) (#39)
    by MO Blue on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 10:59:34 AM EST
    not the Democrats For A Day Nominee.

    Hillary consistently has won the majority of Democratic voters in primary elections. Current polls are showing that crossover Democratic voters,  women and seniors to McCain if Obama is the nominee far outweigh the small advantage he has over Clinton in Indies and small Republican crossover vote.

    Parent

    Many people here do not appear (none / 0) (#50)
    by independent voter on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 12:13:23 PM EST
    to be at all interested in expanding the Democratic party. They "cling" to the fact that they have been the poor underdogs supporting the losing party all these many years. If you are a new convert, you don't have cred.

    Parent
    When A Candidate Loses 25 - 30% Of Democratic (none / 0) (#53)
    by MO Blue on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 12:43:55 PM EST
    voters, he is not expanding the party. Simple math.

    Parent
    That number ignores the new people coming into (none / 0) (#54)
    by independent voter on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 12:59:20 PM EST
    the party.

    Parent
    I think the people (none / 0) (#36)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 10:43:24 AM EST
    exercised their will in Penn, don't you?  Half the voters want Hillary.  Get used to it.

    Parent
    look again (none / 0) (#38)
    by Leisa on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 10:56:05 AM EST
    I think you are misguided when you say the "will of the people".  I think you mean the will of Obama followers.

    If we went to a straight primary like they have in AZ in all states, what would these numbers look like???

    Oh, and by your reasoning,  two state's votes don't count?

    I hope that you think before repeating such  smears in defense of your position. How can you defend that claim?  

    Politics before people??  Look to Obama's past, you will find that poor AA's living in his Chicago district suffered in substandard housing (no heat and squalid conditions)that was owned by his pal.  THAT is politics (and $$) before people.

    Please learn more about the man before you make comments like that.  

    Parent

    That assumes (and we know we shouldn't) (none / 0) (#43)
    by Step Beyond on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 11:27:06 AM EST
    ...that the will of the people is reflected in the pledged delegates. I think people make a better argument for the will of the people being reflected in the popular vote which Obama is not currently winning (although its so close either could win).

    Parent
    Richardson & Bingaman will have to change (none / 0) (#56)
    by PssttCmere08 on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 04:57:05 PM EST
    their votes, based on that.

    Parent
    Great comment (none / 0) (#29)
    by standingup on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 10:29:02 AM EST
    I agree with you.  Don't expect your response or any other will work with "beyondalldoubt" who is April 29th's daily iteration of the Obama troll registering to agitate and inflame Clinton supporters.  

    Parent
    True (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by Step Beyond on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 11:28:41 AM EST
    I posted it knowing it probably would fail. But I was feeling feisty this morning after cleaning the kitchen. Hey if I can make the kitchen sparkle, maybe anything is possible. :D

    Parent
    True of both (5.00 / 3) (#10)
    by Nadai on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 09:57:17 AM EST
    Both Obama and Clinton need the superdelegates' votes to win.  Those votes aren't somehow owed to Obama, and they aren't stolen if Clinton gets them.

    Parent
    Uh actually (5.00 / 3) (#20)
    by cawaltz on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 10:13:07 AM EST
    the American people haven't ruled. No one has the magical 2025 number and there are still states that should have the opportuniy to weigh in. Obama isn't entitled to anything and Clinton has every right to remain in until he is able to get to 2025. I'm tired of hearing Obama supporters whine because Hillary is not gift wrapping the primary for him. Get over it.

    Parent
    Obama, Clinton 08 (none / 0) (#3)
    by delacarpa on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 09:38:28 AM EST
    Well lets see she is thinking what Obama would be thinking if he had won MI/FLA. Obama  would would be way behind then.

    Parent
    there are alot of (none / 0) (#5)
    by TruthMatters on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 09:45:49 AM EST
    IFs, man that daily show opening is going to be a classic, but basically you don't get to go well IF.

    you deal with the realties before you. EVERYONE doesn't agree on MI, Hillary keeps acting like there is universal consenus on it, there isn't the DNC are the ones who stripped those states, sure she can shame em all she wants to get em seated, but then she needs to turn around and get them to endorse her.

    once again the Supers are not idiots, they were there when Terry helped write the rules, they were there when Ickes voted with them to strip the delegates, and they were there when Hillary agreed to go with their decision, and they were there when months later she magically out of no where started calling for them to be seated. they see EXACTLY what she is doing.

    these people are just as much politicians as she is they are not morons who were boron on Feb 5th and have no clue exactly what has been going on. MI won't be seated as is, and she only hurts herself by keeping a compromise from being made.

    but hey I like the lower delegate numbers Obama can reach it by june.

    Parent

    Your first comment ever (none / 0) (#46)
    by waldenpond on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 12:03:59 PM EST
    and you come up with.... [Hillary is just further dividing and hurting us.]

    Hillary is destroying the party?

    [Hillary is vying for a spot on McCain's VP ticket.]

    Bored over at Kos?

    Parent

    So how many times will this chatter be posted? N/T (none / 0) (#49)
    by Marvin42 on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 12:09:07 PM EST


    Parent
    AWhat's missing (none / 0) (#4)
    by digdugboy on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 09:39:41 AM EST
    from the article's analysis is the mathematical fact that Obama needs only about 42 or so more superdelegates to pledge to vote for him and his nomination will be assured.  With his pledged delegate lead, once he received these endorsements, there will be no way for Clinton to reach 50% plus one of the delegates and get the nomination, based on all reasonable predictions for the remaining primary contests.

    I think it ignores that (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by TruthMatters on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 09:48:28 AM EST
    because though true we have seen supers switch (sure from Hillary to Obama) but technically they could switch, so its hard to say after 42 more she couldn't because technically they could flip.

    I think it is an argument and a fact that Obama points out to other supes especially those who want it over. but its only a convincing argument to those who want it over. just like Obama only need 60+ more to hit 2,024 after PR votes, only works for those supes that think the pledged delegate count matters.

    Parent

    Still the fact remains (none / 0) (#9)
    by digdugboy on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 09:56:42 AM EST
    that with some 300 or so unpledged PLEOs remaning, Obama needs only 40 to prevent Hillary from getting to 2024. So a few switch sides, even though it hasn't happened yet that Obama PLEOs switch to Clinton. If a handful so switch, it won't matter, because it is a virtual certainty that Obama willget more than 40 of the remaining unpledged PLEOs. It's over, for all practical purposes, and once 40 more PLEOs come out for Obama even the most ardent Clinton supporters should see the writing on the wall.

    Parent
    thats assuming (none / 0) (#23)
    by TruthMatters on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 10:18:00 AM EST
    all delegates pledged or otherwise never switch from here on out.

    and thats just not a logical assumption to make, supers have switched and I expect it will happen, so this 42 number is more of a footnote its just unlikely we won't see anymore delegates flip flop

    espeically with a month to go in voting, a month is a lONG LONG LONG time in politics.

    Parent

    ROFL (5.00 / 3) (#13)
    by Steve M on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 09:58:49 AM EST
    I just love it how you started off claiming to be stating a "mathematical fact" and then, at the very end, slipped in the caveat of "reasonable predictions for the remaining primary contests."

    "Mathematical fact" has an actual meaning.  Please do not torture that meaning.

    Parent

    He left out the part (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by standingup on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 10:32:39 AM EST
    that superdelegates can change their vote at anytime up to the vote at the convention which could change his mathematical fact too.

    Parent
    Laugh, funny guy (none / 0) (#18)
    by digdugboy on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 10:08:28 AM EST
    Yeah, just keep laughing, if it helps you ignore the logic of the argument. It is mathematical fact. The remaining contests cannot under even the most favorable circumstances bring Senator Clinton anywhere close to Obama's number of pledged delegates. The outcomes have already been modeled in several posts throughout the blogosphere. Will all assumptions most favorable to Clinton, Obama needs only 40 more supers to deny Clinton the nomination. At that point, it should be over for her. Will she see it? Will you?

    Parent
    It is also a fact that no supers have yet voted (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by cymro on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 10:47:32 AM EST
    All we know is their pledges, which can change based on any factor they judge important.  Also, no state caucus results are final until they complete their caucus process. Those are facts, based on the party's rules.

    Another fact is that the only reason for SDs to exist is for the party as a whole to vote in such a way that the Democratic ticket wins in November. Make any argument you like about any other criteria being important to them individually, but -- as a delegate class -- their role is to ensure electability if the voters could not make a clear choice.  The fact is, they were created for that purpose.

    So all these claims about mathematical "inevitability" are complete nonsense. Electability is the only criterion that matters to the party, as Dean himself explained just a few days ago.

    Parent

    No, I don't think so (none / 0) (#12)
    by eric on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 09:57:51 AM EST
    Depending on whether MI/FL count, a candidate needs either 2024 or 2208 delegates to be "assured" of the nomination.

    Parent
    I found a site has a good (none / 0) (#16)
    by eric on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 10:07:15 AM EST
    comprensive list of Superdelegate endorsements, in case you guys are interested.  LINK

    I am extremely disappointed to learn that the entire Minnesota Congressional Delegation is with Obama.  Clinton only has 2 DNC members from MN and Walter Mondale.  I certainly don't think that this represents the state of preferrence here.

    Thanks, and PBS (none / 0) (#30)
    by Jeralyn on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 10:31:34 AM EST
    has this really good list, updated daily.

    Parent
    Good if they throw the race we can hold at least (none / 0) (#17)
    by Salt on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 10:08:02 AM EST
    Half the elected SD's accountable for their decision.  I'm waiting for one US Senator to announce in my State, the State went overwhelmingly for Clinton while he is not up for election this round it will make a difference to me if he chooses Obama who in my opinion can not make it to the White House and who will hurt my districts candidate running for an open seat.

    Question (none / 0) (#22)
    by beyondalldoubt on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 10:16:24 AM EST
    I have a question for everybody here. I am new here although I have watched Jerayln for years and love her.

    Anyway, are most or virtually all the people here Hillary supporters?

    all points of view are welcome (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by Jeralyn on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 10:28:15 AM EST
    the problem is when commenters insult each other or engage in name-calling or personal attacks on each other, BTD or me or public figures. Then they get suspended or banned.

    Welcome, and whoever you support, you will find allies in the comments. The Hillary supporters do outnumber the Obama supporters here, but in large part it's because more Obama supporters treat the site as a drive-by where they can hurl insults and attacks and then get banned.

    BTD prefers Obama, I prefer Hillary. We will both support whoever becomes the nominee and encourage readers to do the same.

    Thanks also for the personal compliment!

    Parent

    You bet! (none / 0) (#32)
    by beyondalldoubt on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 10:36:25 AM EST
    I first noticed you during the JonBenet Ramsey case and I knew the Ramseys were innocent. You were the ONLY ONE! And I thankyou so much for telling us the truth.

    In 2000, 80% of America thought they did it

    In 2006, 80% of America thought they did NOT do it

    Its amazing with the truth and evidence can do.

    Parent

    Most to virtually all, (1.00 / 0) (#48)
    by independent voter on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 12:09:02 PM EST
    but not all are Hillary supporters. You will find out quite soon as you comment. I think they are holding back right now because you are new:-)

    Parent
    Many commentors are (none / 0) (#25)
    by eric on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 10:23:04 AM EST
    but, of course, BTD likes Obama.  This isn't a fan club, though.

    Parent
    what? (none / 0) (#26)
    by TruthMatters on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 10:24:55 AM EST
    I see it as BTD is a Hillary supporter but thinks its clear Obama will win the nomination.

    hmmmm maybe its time for BTD to come out and officially  endorse a candidate. (though I still say his diaries put him in the Hillary camp)

    Parent

    He has (none / 0) (#28)
    by Jeralyn on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 10:28:43 AM EST
    several times said he's a "tepid" supporter of Obama.

    Parent
    Unelected politicians are politicians too. (none / 0) (#33)
    by Addison on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 10:36:29 AM EST
    For those who are elected officials, the dominant concern is their own political future. For those who are non-elected, the key factor is electability of the Democratic candidate in November.

    Just because they're unelected doesn't mean they don't have jobs in politics that need protecting. And since many of them likely do have jobs to protect, I don't really feel that "electibility" is the key factor with them (it's almost always your job whether you're a waitress or a CEO), and in any case it's not correct to ascribe to them the status you give them. They have connections, favors, and pressure that transcend thei opinions on electability, just the same as any elected official.

    Also (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by Addison on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 10:39:41 AM EST
    For those who are elected officials, the dominant concern is their own political future

    The wording here indicates a sort of backhand swipe at Democratic politicians, it sort of implies a selfishness.

    But let's all keep in mind that their "own political future" is as a Democratic representative for us, and if THEY win then we have more Democrats in government, so we should be as concerned about their political future as they are. More. They can just lobby or advise somewhere. We'll be down a vote.

    So, their own political future is a great reason for elected superdelegates to make a decision. Probably the best.

    Parent

    Electability? (none / 0) (#35)
    by muffie on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 10:40:22 AM EST
    Or perhaps Hillary's lead among nonelected superdelegates also has to do with this:

    Sen. Clinton still leads in endorsements from nonelected officials. Many have known her and former President Clinton since the couple's White House years, or worked for them then.

    I'm sure for most of the unelected superdelegates their vote is a mixture of different factors, and sure, electability is one of them.  But it's easy to imagine their are others as well.

    Also, I certainly don't buy that the unelected supers would be any more concerned about electability.  If the elected superdelegates think that having one candidate or the other at the top of the ticket is more likely to help their own political fortunes, doesn't it follow that they would believe that candidate is more electable?

    The Current State of Superdelegates | 56 comments (56 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment