Obama wants super delegates to support who their constituents supported.

[boston bean]

Well, I wonder if Ted Kennedy, John Kerry and Deval Patrick are gonna switch over?

I am sure that many will have to make the switch, but these three have been especially vocal and influential in their support. Obama built the last 2 weeks of the election on these endorsements.

So what say ye, Kennedy, Kerry and Patrick, are you going to do what Obama says or not.

Here is a link of all pledged super delegates...


http://demconwatch.blogspot.com/2008/01/superdelegate-list.html

[bigtree]

1. Great point, although, is Kennedy pledged to stand as a super delegate?

at all? Patrick, as governor?

[Uncle Sinister]

4. Any current or former Gov, Sen., Congressman, or state party chair is an SD automatically

[bigtree]

7. but, not all of them pledge to support a candidate as a delegate do they?

Are these two pledged to Obama?

[Uncle Sinister]

14. whoever they "pledge" a SD is free to vote for any candidate they choose to.

[boston bean]

16. Yes they pledged to support Obama, here is a link of all SD who pledged.

http://demconwatch.blogspot.com/2008/01/superdelegate-list.html

[robbedvoter]

2. So, will the popular vote will be the criteria for this?

[cali]

3. link please

not that I don't take your word for it. but without a quote and link, it's pretty useless.

[Donnachaidh]

5. heheheh -- Ted will be grumbling about THAT little irony. n/t

[thesubstanceofdreams]

6. If Hillary's SDs do it, why not?

What is wrong about wanting to have the dem nominee selected democratically and not by the SDs?
Representatives may want to vote for whoever won their district, rather than their state, but other than this I agree with Obama and yes, of course it applies to the Kennedies as well.

[adabfree]

8. agreed

[Tarc]

10. That isn't how it works, and if you don't like it, too bad.

Calling for changes to the rules halfway through the contest smacks of being a poor sport. Obama knew how superdelegates worked before he got into this race.

[Dawgs]

17. He's not asking to change the rules.

He just thinks that super delegates should make the "decision" to vote how their constituents did.

Unless you have a specific quote you're full of shit.

[Tarc]

20. The only shit here is coming from you

He's trying to pressure them to vote in a way that is more advantageous to him, rather than letting the process runs its natural course and letting them vote for whomever they like, where he is at a disadvantage.

Suck it up and zip it already.

[Dawgs]

23. So you admit that he's not trying to change the rules.

Try reading the actual quote before posting next time. You look like a fool.

And, why are you against the voters getting to pick our next candidate? You really think it's fair that super delegates get such a big say in the so-called democracy?

[LiberalFighter]

31. Have you checked the numbers?

The eligible voters and some that probably shouldn't because they aren't Democrat voted and their votes were allotted based on outcome proportionately.

As for the super delegates the average say they have in the convention is 10.9%. It is that high because of states with smaller Democratic voting population have more super delegates. American Samoa has 6 SD with their 3 elected (66.7). South Dakota has 8 SD with their 15 elected (34.8). Rhode Island has 11 SD with their 21 elected (34.4). DC has 23 SD with their 15 elected (60.5).

In addition to the super delegates having a bigger say argument why is it as of a few days ago there isn't one state delegation with all super delegates pledging to only OB or HC? At best at this time there are about 3 state delegations where only HC or OB have the only super delegates but the remaining have not pledged.


Below is super delegate percentage for each state.
AL - - 13.3
AK - - 27.8
AZ - - 16.4
AR - - 25.5
CA - - 16.1
CO - - 22.5
CT - - 20.0
DE - - 34.8
DC - - 60.5
FL - - #DIV/0!
GA - - 15.5
HI - - 31.0
ID - - 21.7
IL - - 17.3
IN - - 14.3
IA - - 21.1
KS - - 22.0
KY - - 15.0
LA - - 15.2
ME - - 29.4
MD - - 29.3
MA - - 23.1
MI - - #DIV/0!
MN - - 18.2
MS - - 17.5
MO - - 18.2
MT - - 33.3
NE - - 22.6
NV - - 24.2
NH - - 26.7
NJ - - 15.7
NM - - 31.6
NY - - 17.4
NC - - 14.2
ND - - 38.1
OH - - 12.4
OK - - 19.1
OR - - 20.0
PA - - 16.0
RI - - 34.4
SC - - 16.7
SD - - 34.8
TN - - 20.0
TX - - 15.4
UT - - 20.7
VT - - 34.8
VA - - 17.8
WA - - 19.6
WV - - 28.2
WI - - 19.6
WY - - 33.3
AS - - 66.7
Dabroad - - 36.4
Guam - - 55.6
PR - - 12.7
VI - - 66.7
TAvg - - 10.9

[LiberalFighter]

33. Number of delegates per state are based on average of...

those voting for the Democratic candidate in last 2 Presidential elections. There might be different elections used but they only consider votes for a Democratic candidate. Not Republican, Democratic and Independent candidates. Not Democratic and Independent candidates. Just votes for Democratic candidate.

[Tarc]

34. Yes, he is trying to change them with this "this is what they SHOULD do"

strong-arming.

It is a two-part process; the public votes, the party votes. If you don't like it, go Green.

[Windy]

30. If they vote with their constituency and then the winning candidate should win the election

and as the Mass vote wasn't a blow out for Clinton, Kennedy, kerry, the govenor, congressman etc and proporition their vote accordingly.

[Araxen]

32. Sort of like

Hillary putting pressure to make FL and MI count?

[pampango]

22. You're right, th superdelegates can do whatever they want. I think they SHOULD

ratify whichever candidate is leading coming into the convention. To do otherwise, which they have the power to do, would alientate the supporters of the leading candidate.

You're right about the rules. Obama knew how the superdelegates work, before this. Just like Hillary agreed that Michigan and Florida would have no delegates selected by their primaries.

I'm sure they both recognize the effect of different "rules" on their prospects for the nomination. We will see how each prioritize following the "rules" and the health of the party as opposed to what's best for themselves.

[TornadoTN]

29. Accusing Obama of wanting to change the rules?

That's rich - considering he's not asking anything of the sort. The only candidate I see that is eager to bend the rules is Hillary - who wants to seat delegates in FL and MI even after they were legally declared ineligible and everyone notified as such.

[Dogmudgeon]

12. Every Vote Must Count! (Except in Florida and Michigan)

--p!

[Tarc]

9. Interesting little catch-22 Obama has stepped into here

I'd love to get the numbers crunched on this and see how many would have to flip.

[mmonk]

11. Good reverse projection.

[Mass]

13. Ok, I found the source, though I do not read it this way, I have no issues with that at the

Convention, but probably Obama would win this one, as Hillary has a lot of super delegates in states Obama won (and remember, at this point, he won more states).

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/02/06/obama-calls-out-super-del_n_85339.html

The point Obama makes is that the race should not be decided by the VOTES of super delegates, and I agree totally with that.

[Benhurst]

15. On its surface, Obama's suggestion sounds democratic; but since

members of congress are all super delegates, I assume their numbers are similar to the Electoral College and rural, conservative states -- most of which Obama has been winning-- are over-represented. Ironically, those are also the states the Democrats are least likely to win.

So we are back to a red state/blue state situation when it comes to what his suggestion would do to the nominating process. Maybe the Republicans were right in 2000, cows should be entitled to votes. Obama seems to think so, assuming this is his position.

I've always thought the super delegates were a bad idea; but it's too late to do anything about them now.

[Eric J in MN]

18. Where does Obama say that? NT

NT

[Mass]

19. Here is what he said - As you can see, it is totally different from what the OP says.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/02/06/obama-calls-out-super-del_n_85339.html

Obama, at his Chicago press conference just now, lays out his path to the nomination, which depends first on having a majority of pledged delegates.


"If this contest comes down to superdelegates, we are going to be able to say we have more pledged delegates, which means the Democratic voters have spoken. Those superdelegates, those party insiders would have to think long and hard how they would approach the nomination," he said.

"The argument we would be making to superdelegates is, if we come into the convention with more pledged delegates then i think we can make a very strong argument that our constituencies have spoken and I think that's going to be pretty improtant when it comes to the general election," he says.

]

(Which is not a surprise as the OP point is that she is mad that Kennedy did not endorse her candidate).

[Tarc]

21. Obama is pretty clear in word and intent; he is making veiled threats

that if he manages to win more delegates from the primaries, then the supers better go his way.

[Dawgs]

24. Are you really that dumb?

[Dawgs]

25. Are you really that dumb?

[Apollo11]

28. That ain't no veiled threat. It is a reasonable case to make.

Obama is saying that he would make the following case to superdelegates:

"The primaries are over. I won the most delegates. I should be the nominee. Please give me your support."

I don't see any threats in there. Veiled or otherwise.

[Tarc]

35. You don't see because you choose not to

not because it isn't there. There is no "please" at all implied in Obamas' message. He is sensing that he's going to come up short in the superdelegate vote, decides to issue strongly-worded statements to affect the process, and people like you are lapping it up like rabid dogs on red meat.

If the supers were trending Obama's way, he wouldn't be making a peep.

[Apollo11]

26. Most superdelegates are from Blue States (Clinton Country!)

My guess is that some of the States Obama won on Tuesday won't be sending many superdelegates to the Democratic National Convention. I would be interested to see the numbers.

Surely the whole point of being a superdelegate is you get to exercise your own judgement?

If some voters decide to turn against an otherwise decent Senator or Congressmember because she or he is supporting a different Presidential candidate - then it shows how little respect they have for our elected officials and legislators.

[onenote]

27. how much would this really change things?

On a statewide level, how many superdelegates are there? Forty-plus Senators (exluding HRC and BO), 30(?) some governors and some number of Lt. Govs and state AGs. Not sure what the net effect of a statewide "popular vote" basis for these SDs to pledge. Yes, Kerry, Kennedy and Patrick would shift to Clinton. But, for example, Delaware's governor would flip from Clinton to Obama. And there are a number of Clinton endorsements that could be at risk: statewide officials in Maine, Maryland Washington, etc. depending on the outcome of those primaries.

A large number of superdelegates are members of the House -- two hundred plus. Should they be allocated by how their districts vote? I wonder how much switching that really would produce. My guess is that it wouldn't be much.

That leaves DNC members, former office holders like former speaker Jim Wright etc. What should be the popular criteria to dictate their vote?

In the end, its just changing the rules in the middle of the game, for little effect.