The idea that Super Delegates will vote en masse is naive at best

[featherman]

Clearly my Party is going to the convention with a leader but not a "presumptive nominee". Who will be the nominee will depend on the floor vote. I'm old enough (63) to remember several conventions when the floor vote actually held a little drama.

This year it will be the Super Delegates that provide the most drama. It's become pretty clear that Sen. Obama will come into the convention with a lead in pledged delegates that have been selected by the states via the approved methods of primary election, caucus, convention or some combination of these. What this lead will be is the subject of some debate but let's say it stays around 150.

During the floor vote, each state is called alphabetically and will either vote at that time or defer to a later time. For example, State A may be the first to cast it's votes. The pledged delegates may be something like 17 for candidate A and 12 for candidate B. At this time the super delegates from that state will also cast their votes. Perhaps 5 will vote for A and 3 will vote for B. The state chair then announces: "State A, the home of giant cumquats, proudly casts it's votes: 22 votes for candidate A and 15 for candidate B."

And the convention moves on to the next state delegation. The Super Delegates are all tied to a state delegations and vote with their delegations. I believe this is the case even for the DNC SD's. Howard Dean votes with the Vermont delegation, etc.

At the end of this process we have a nominee. Democracy in action. Whoever gets the most votes wins.

It's my contention that the Super Delegates will continue to split in their support for the candidates and by the time the vote comes to the floor their influence will be diffused as each votes according to their state's inclination, political allies and political judgment with about an even split. Each candidate has a bunch of heavy hitters lined up in their camp that will fight for their choice. I see no advantage to either candidate regarding the SD's.

Whoever gets the most floor votes wins.

[leftrightwingnut]

1. Thanks for the clear and concise explanation.

:kick:Kicked and recommended.

[XemaSab]

2. Concise analysis

:thumbsup:

"Home of the giant cumquats?" :shrug: :P

[BearSquirrel2]

3. Whoever gets the most floor votes ???

I though that the "majority" was required to get the nomination.

[NMMatt]

5. True

But with only two viable candidates Obama will get a majority. They go to a second ballot if no one gets a majority. I agree with the sentiment of the OP. However, I believe most SD's will make their intentions known long before the convention and Obama will be the presumptive nominee in May or June at the latest.

[BearSquirrel2]

7. I also know ...

I also know that after the first ballot, pledged delegates are no longer bound. That is, Hillary and Bill can twist arms and payoff people to get the votes they need. It is for this reason that I believe they are objecting to caucuses in Florida and Michigan. If such contests were held, Obama could actually lose one or both contests and still receive a sufficient number of pledged delegates (plus his committed super delegates) to win on the first ballot.

I believe this would be a great help to the party. The nomination could be sewn up and Obama could turn his attention to McCain rather than fighting off BitchMonster all the way to the convention.

At this point there is not enough space next to Obama for "Clinton" to appear.

[featherman]

8. Sorry... I made the presumption that the "most' would be a majority

Between two candidates since all delegates would vote on the first floor vote between the two candidates. But if it were really close then the few Edwards delegates could prevent a
majority.

There is some interesting stuff about the caucuses in the link below. For example, the estimates from Nevada are 13-12 Obama over Clinton but these are not yet pledged delegates per se. The actual delegates will be selected at the state convention and could change depending on actual participation within the state convention.

Trying to influence these yet to be decided outcomes probably accounts for Clinton's recent distinction between primaries (already selected delegates) and caucuses (yet to be selected delegates) rather than a demeaning of caucuses as the MSM misinterpreted

Josh Marshall has more on the intricacies of this process.

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/182722.php

[emilyg]

4. k

[insanity]

6. If that happens who will win the majority?

Brokered convention?

I'm at the point where I think this whole thing will be the party's downfall... we can't keep up the animosity until July.