I can see that maybe Watts would be in Obama's camp (0.00 / 0)

Not certain who the others would be.  I thought maybe Meeks might be in Obama's camp, but he's not in the House.

There may be some who will continue to stand with John Edwards (or be uncommitted until the convention) in order to get his agenda on the DNC Platform, but the question remains about the importance of the platform.  Non-activists and lunchbucket Dems may not care.

The one I will be watching for is Brad Miller.

---

by: Benny @ Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 16:57:16 PM UTC

Just curiousity (0.00 / 0)

What threshold does 1627 represent?  50%+1 of pledged delegates not including Michigan and Florida?

Conduct your own interview of Sarah Palin!

---

by: fwiffo @ Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 16:57:35 PM UTC

Add Klobuchar for Obama (0.00 / 0)

Minnesota Senator Amy Klobuchar endorsed Obama last night.  

---

by: bcb @ Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 17:24:56 PM UTC

That's nice (0.00 / 0)

I read most of the MN sd's are going with Obama, including Oberstar, who was an Edwards supporter.

NC Superdelegates will matter for the first time in a long time.   Chris is on to something here, especially as Edwards is also a superdelegate.  He's not listed on that DNC Convention Watch of superdelegates, but neither is Rahm Emmanuel from IL.

---

by: Benny @ Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 17:50:51 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Are you sure Edwards is a Superdelegate? (0.00 / 0)

He no longer holds elected office.

---

by: ArkansasLiberal @ Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 20:13:21 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Edwards (4.00 / 1)

Edwards isn't an elected official or a DNC member or a "distinguished party leader", so he's not a superdelegate (unless he gets chosen as an add-on, I suppose).

Rahm Emmanuel is on the list of superdelegates who haven't endorsed.

---

by: KCinDC @ Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 20:25:16 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Big Time Activists are considered SDs (0.00 / 0)

And if one thinks for one NYM that JRE isn't one of them, all of you who dispute my comment are surely mistaken.  He is considered a party elder at this point along with Gore.

---

by: Benny @ Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 21:06:12 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

"Considered"? (0.00 / 0)

You and any number of other people may consider Edwards a superdelegate, but that doesn't make him one. According to the DNC rules, the superdelegates are DNC members, governors, members of Congress, distinguished party leaders, and add-ons. Distinguished party leaders are

the Democratic President, the Democratic Vice President, and all former Democratic Presidents, all former Democratic Vice Presidents, all former Democratic Leaders of the United States Senate, all former Democratic Speakers of the United States House of Representatives and Democratic Minority Leaders, as applicable, and all former Chairpersons of the Democratic National Committee

That's it. Edwards doesn't fit into any of those categories, unless he gets chosen as an add-on delegate (NC gets 2 of those).

Gore is a superdelegate because he's a Democratic former vice president.

---

by: KCinDC @ Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 21:25:57 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Can he assign himself as one of his pledged delegates? (0.00 / 0)

Edwards was a major candidate and actually won pledged delegates.  So you are saying the he can bring his pledged delegates to the convention, which may prove very important, but doesnt get a vote himself.  

I would still have to say that even if Edwards is not a superdelegate, his support is more important because of the number of pledged delegates that he won.  

---

by: winston smith @ Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 21:52:21 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I don't see how (0.00 / 0)

The pledged delegates have to come from the states that chose them. Isn't Edwards an NC resident? The pledged delegates from NC will all be for either Obama or Clinton, so theoretically he might be able to be one if he pledged to one or the other. Also, while the candidates do vet the pledged delegates to some extent, they can't actually assign them.

I agree that despite not being any kind of delegate, Edwards has more influence than a single delegate's vote does, but his influence is evaporating as time goes on. Most of his supporters have moved on and made up their own minds. They're not waiting for his guidance. His pledged delegates probably have ideas of their own as well.

---

by: KCinDC @ Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 22:18:05 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

A very good point is (0.00 / 0)

made when you say: "Edwards has more influence than a single delegate's vote does, but his influence is evaporating as time goes on."

Unfortunately, his influence is evaporating more quickly than I think he had anticipated.  His reluctance to speak publicly about his support for either the ideas of each candidates position or for either of the candidates diminishes his relevance.  He really does need to take a public stand on his position and to give the power of his remaining pledged delegates to one of the two remaining candidates.

---

by: cabresch @ Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 13:01:45 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Hillary effectively out in May (4.00 / 3)

As I've been saying, the most likely scenario to me is a slow drift of supers to Obama until after PA.  If Hillary wins PA by 5% or less, then Obama will gain in net delegates after IN/NC to the point where she can't overcome him in primaries.  This will signal a cascade of superdelegates to Obama.

One factor mentioned by Josh Marshall is that Hillary is essentially trying to keep this drift from happening by saying she is in it to Denver.  She is short of cash and will be blown out when Obama releases his numbers for March.  Most of her money can't be used to get the nomination.  So she is just trying to stay in the game until IN/NC.  But regardless of what she says, it is going to be over unless she wins PA by 15-20%, and revitalizes her donors and confounds the supers.  If she is under 10% and he looks like he will make up the difference, it is effectively over whether she wants it to be or not.  Then the money stops and the coverage slows to a trickle and the calls for her to quit become deafening.  It is certainly over after Oregon, but I'd guess May 7.

John McCain--He's not who you think he is.

---

by: Mimikatz @ Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 18:01:45 PM UTC

From all that I have seen... (4.00 / 1)

I predict a.... a blaze of self-destructive sour grapes

We won the Battle. Now the Real Fight for Change Begins. Join MoveOn.org and fight for progressive change.  

---

by: bluethunder @ Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 18:16:35 PM UTC

What I want to know is (0.00 / 0)

What color do sour grapes burn when they spontaneously combust?

Tim Wolfe

---

by: bruorton @ Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 14:03:48 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I wonder... (0.00 / 0)

if the leaking of all six NC reps endorsing Obama en-masse was some political jujitsu by the Clinton campaign.

Think about it.  If they knew two endorsements were coming, what better way to nullify their impact than to float that Obama will get the whole kit n' caboodle at once.  Now, if those two do endorse, the questions will arise on what happened to the other four, no matter now much Obama denies they were even on the table to begin with.    

---

by: telephasic @ Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 18:36:00 PM UTC

Chris, could you explain about add-on delegates? (0.00 / 0)

If you have already, could you link there?  

All I can tell is that the add-ons are (a) a kind of superdelegate, but (b) not chosen in advance on the basis of elected office or DNC membership/position like most superdelegates, and (c) chosen recently or in the upcoming weeks by state party conventions or executive committees or some such.

What I'm curious about is how it's possible to make projections of how many add-ons might support which candidate.  Are the national convention delegates chosen by the primaries and caucuses also the state convention delegates, perhaps?

I know this is getting a bit deep into the weeds, but hey, I like it down here. ;^)

---

by: low-tech cyclist @ Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 18:40:27 PM UTC

this link may be helpful (0.00 / 0)

unpledged add-on delegates.

What I'd add to your summary is:

A.  These Unpledged Add-On Delegates are chosen by different ways in different states, but in most caucus states it happens at the State Convention, so Obama will get a decent fraction for sure.  We can't say they will always go to the winner of the state, but it seems that will happen in most states.

B. Once chosen, they are not likely to flip.  For example, in CT they chose someone who is a chair of Obama's campaign.

C.  Because Obama will get a decent fraction [and I don't pretend to know if it is 40%, 50%, or 60%], it makes a Clinton comeback even less likely, since her victory scenario involves getting an amazing percentage of the undecided super-delegates.

New Jersey politics at Blue Jersey.

---

by: Hopeful in NJ @ Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 20:57:52 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Thanks for the update (0.00 / 0)

Very useful info.

Not all good news for Obama -- it would have been a huge blow to HRC to get the NC 6.

But the flow of supers has ramped up over the last few days. Casey + Klobuchar + (possibly) 2 NC reps would be a nice haul in less than one week's time.

---

by: Matt H @ Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 19:10:26 PM UTC

This is pretty much the way I've figured it for a while now... (0.00 / 0)

not that I'm smarter than you or anything, I didn't have much actual "math" to back it up. Was more of a gut instinct. I don't see how she can take this to the convention if she continues to lose states.

End this war. Stop John McCain. Cindy McCain is filthy rich.

---

by: wiretapp @ Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 19:18:54 PM UTC

This won't get to June (4.00 / 2)

After North Carolina and Indiana, there will be 217 delegates left to be chosen.  If you assume Clinton wins 55% of the delegates in Pennsylvania (which would mean winning PA by 20 points), 55% of the delegates in Indiana and they split North Carolina here is what the pledged delegates will look like (using at my starting point Chris's most recent delegate numbers)

Obama 1619, Clinton 1,464

Obama will have a 155 delegate lead.  If you assume that 50% the Florida delegates are seated (which is, in my view,  the likely outcome) Clinton nets 19 delegates, leaving Obama with a lead of 136 delegate lead.  

After Oregon and Kentucky vote there are are 86 delegates left.  If you assume Clinton gets 60% of the delegates in Kentucky and West Virginia and they split Oregon, here is what the  pledged delegates will look like:

Obama 1676, Clinton 1536

There is no way Clinton will be able to get within 100 delegates of Obama in the remaining contests.  

---

by: fladem @ Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 19:48:56 PM UTC

Obama Needs 100 Supers (0.00 / 0)

If Hillary  and Obama split the remaining pledged delegates 50/50 which would include a double digit win for her in Pa, a healthy win for him in NC and a split of IN (all very likely) then Obama would only need approx 100 supers (33% of the undecideds) to get to 2024. It is not only doable, it is going to be hard for him not to do.

I think there should be a countdown to 100 started to see how long it takes and to let people know how few he really needs to put an end to this thing.  

---

by: C.B. Todd @ Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 20:49:27 PM UTC

Actually the more important countdown is much closer (0.00 / 0)

and that's the point at which Obama pulls ahead in super delegates. I've called it Super D-Day. It doesn't clinch anything for Obama but it would be symbolically huge for Obama to be ahead in both the pledged and super counts. At that point she'd need a miracle.

Right now he's down by about 30. He would need about 1.5/day to get there by PA and about 0.83/day to make it by NC/IN.

---

by: Matt H @ Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 01:08:04 AM UTC

[ Parent ]