Word in NH has it that the Clintons are calling in favors from Super Delegates and this fight will

[in_cog_ni_to]

go to Colorado to the Convention. If Barack wins Iowa, NH, SC and most of the Super Tuesday states....how on earth can Clinton continue until the Convention on August 25? Ed Schultz talked to Sydney Blumenthal (works for the Clinton Campaign) and Sydney didn't deny the rumor. What do you think? The Clintons know a lot of people. Could they pull this off? Obama has 10 Senate Super Delegates and Hillary has 2...so far. The Clintons are calling all the Senators who haven't endorsed yet, asking them to hold off on endorsing anyone. What's going to happen? Any thoughts?

[Vinca]

1. The Clintons need to play fair. If she loses the primaries and

becomes the candidate anyway, there will be a sharp reduction in the number of Democrats in this country (and I'll be one of them).

[JerseygirlCT]

39. Maybe she's taking lessons from Lieberman on that

But boy, I hope not!

[rug]

2. If the apparatus can't buy Obama they'll sink him.

[damntexdem]

12. They could be planning to McGovern him.

Forget winning, forget the good of the country, of the Party for that matter -- all out to sink the frontrunner. If he actually took the major primaries, they probably couldn't block him from winning the nomination; but they could sabotage his run.

I was a McGovernite in 1972 and I remember what "Democratic leaders" did then.

[Blue_In_AK]

16. Me, too.

[Dhalgren]

19. Me too...

[rug]

46. And after they did it they set up the superdelegate system.

[EFerrari]

34. I don't think I understand what that means. n/t

[rug]

44. If Obama and the party leadership do not reach an accord

and they feel they can trust him, they'll use the leverage of the party apparatus and the superdelegates to defeat and neutralize him.

[Windy]

3. If true, this must be BLASTED far and wide. This is election tampering

and it will disenfranchise the voters! Dirty!

[maddiejoan]

5. Please

if Obama did this --you would be saying what a great man he is for organizing strong support and it would prove what a great leader he would be.

[Windy]

6. I don't believe that Obama or edwards would do this.... She is a political player and plays dirty.

Its win at all costs to Hillary and the Clintons.

And if Edwards or Obama did this, I would be LIVID and wouldn't support them!!!

We've had enough election tampering in the last decade!

[Dhalgren]

9. It isn't "tampering", it is the rules of the Party. That is how the Democratic

Party has things set-up.

[maddiejoan]

11. it's not tampering

it's called being an actual leader.

[Demeter]

14. Like Hell We Would!

[maddiejoan]

20. I see

so you are naive about how things work.

I assure you Obama isn't.

[OzarkDem]

47. No it isn't

its how the primary & convention processes work in nominating party candidates.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

4. I was looking at the chart of superdelegates for each state

I wonder?

[Stephanie]

33. Do you have a link to the chart?

The Clinton machine does not hesitate to strong-arm people. They will lean hard on them, do not doubt it.

[Oreo]

40. There's a map on the convention website

That shows each state's unpledged (superdelegate) votes. http://www.demconvention.com/faq.html (at the bottom)

Go to http://demconwatch.blogspot.com for lists of supers that have (and haven't) endorsed yet

[Rosa Luxemburg]

55. CNN

I think I had it bookmarked but here is a CNN site which has some info

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results/scorecard/#val=D

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=12692822

[Dhalgren]

7. The Democratic Party has set up its nominating procedure so

that if someone where to get all of the "Super Delegates" They would damn near have half the number needed to be elected at the convention. If Clinton came in second in enough primaries and had the bulk of the SDs, she could get the election. That's the way your party has it set-up. It isn't "tampering", it isn't "underhanded", it is playing by the rules of the Party.

Makes you feel all warm and democracy-ish, don't it?

[BattyDem]

10. But average Americans don't care (or know) about "Super Delegates"

They'll watch the primary results across the country and if the person who wins the most states doesn't get the nomination - if the choice of the voters is ignored and Washington insiders end up choosing the candidate - why would ANYONE ever bother to vote again? :shrug:

[Dhalgren]

17. The number of "Super Delegates" equals nearly 40% of the number

needed to be nominated. If Clinton can secure enough SDs she won't have to out-and-out win very many primaries, at all. It is legal and within the rules of the Party. Why did the Party set-up this anti-democratic system? To keep the grassroots from having so much power, that's why. Makes you feel good about the "progressive" Democratic Party, doesn't it?

[BattyDem]

23. I understand what you're saying ...

and you're right - and it really sucks! But think about it ... most Americans don't know about all the ins and outs of the system. To them, they will see one person get the most votes and another person get the nomination. That's not going to be good for the party or the country. It will be viewed as just another Washington insider using the system to subvert the will of the people.

[Dhalgren]

26. It may look bad (because it is bad), but it is the way the system works.

It isn't fair to tell Clinton that she can't play by the rules, just because the public doesn't understand them. I just don't see it...

[onenote]

49. but no one candidate is going to get all of the superdelegates

Indeed, even when the conventional wisdom was that HRC was unbeatable, she had only picked up 160 of the superdelegates (representing around 8 percent of the number of delegates needed for the nomination). Obama had 59 and Edwards had 32. If Obama continues to do well and HRC continues to slip, her lead in superdelegates also will slip.

[BattyDem]

8. So if they can't win legitimately, they'll win by other means?

How very Republican of them. :eyes:

I have no idea if this is true, but if the Clintons do this - if people across this country choose the candidate and their choice is ignored - the Democratic party is done. Why would ANY American EVER trust them to do the "right" thing again?

[in_cog_ni_to]

15. "So if they can't win legitimately, they'll win by other means?" That's what it sounds like.

I'll be waiting to see if anyone from the Clinton campaign comes out to deny this. I wonder where Schultz got his info? He said it was from a VERY GOOD SOURCE.

[BattyDem]

18. I truly hope it's just a rumor, because if it happens ...

I honestly think it will be a disaster for the party and the country. :-(

[Dhalgren]

21. Look, these Super delegates are out there. They will be voting

for someone at the convention. Why should Clinton say she doesn't want them voting for her? If they don't vote for her, they will vote for someone else - again, why not her? I am not for Clinton, but you guys don't seem to "get it", that these Super Delegates are part of the Party apparatus and if they choose Clinton, there is nothing "underhanded" about it. It is the way the party has things set-up.

[in_cog_ni_to]

It's the "calling in favors" thing? n/t

[Dhalgren]

36. That's what the SD deal is all about. These SDs are party

aparatchiks. They only work as deal makers. That is what they are there for...

[The Stranger]

13. The Clintons need to dispel this rumor immediately.

It is bad for the party and bad for them.

Dirty pool.

[BooScout]

22. I don't expect.....

...Obama to do so well in the South. I expect Edwards to do better in the South as well as Hillary.

As I have said before, it's not always who wins the early primaries who wins the later ones. Bill Clinton didn't win a primary in 1992 until he got to Georgia. He lost the first 5 or 6.

I also imagine there's wheeling and dealing and calling in favors everywhere right now in all the campaigns. None of them are Saints and none of them are above not fighting as 'dirty' as the rules allow or don't allow.

What's going to happen? Who the hell knows. It's going to be a bumpy ride.

[loudsue]

52. I think Obama is going to do better in the South than many people think.

I only wish it would be Edwards getting those votes.

:kick:

[Emit]

24. My first thought is, YOU LEFT OUT NEVADA.

My second thought, Clinton has a heck of a lot more than 2, and granted, many are likely to change their support, but, still:

Clinton
Gov. Jon Corzine of New Jersey
Gov. Eliot Spitzer of New York
Gov. Martin O'Malley of Maryland
Sen. Daniel Inouye of Hawaii
Sen. Barbara Mikulski of Maryland
Sen. Chuck Schumer of New York
Rep. Gary Ackerman of New York
Rep. Michael Arcuri of New York
Rep. Robert Andrews of New Jersey
Rep. Timothy Bishop of New York
Rep. Joseph Crowley of New York
Rep. Eliot Engel of New York
Rep. Kirsten Gillibrand of New York
Rep. John Hall of New York
Rep. Alcee Hastings of Florida
Rep. Brian Higgins of New York
Rep. Maurice Hinchey of New York
Rep. Steve Israel of New York
Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee of Texas
Rep. Nita Lowey of New York
Rep. Carolyn Maloney of New York
Rep. Doris Matsui of California
Rep. Carolyn McCarthy of New York
Rep. Jim McGovern of Massachusetts
Rep. Michael McNulty of New York
Rep. Gregory Meeks of New York
Rep. Jerrold Nadler of New York
Rep. Richard Neal of Massachusetts
Rep. Frank Pallone of New Jersey
Rep. Charles Rangel of New York
Rep. Jose Serrano of New York
Rep. Louise Slaughter of New York
Rep. Edolphus Towns of New York
Rep. Stephanie Tubbs Jones of Ohio
Rep. Nydia Velazquez of New York
Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz of FL
Rep. Anthony Weiner of New York
Don Fowler (SC)
Thurbert Baker (GA)
Michael Thurmond (GA)
Rep. John Lewis (GA)
Tommy Irvin (GA)
Robert Menendez (NJ)
Michael Mauro (IA)
Gov. Ted Kulongoski (OR)
Rep. Lynn Woolsey (CA)
Sen. Diane Feinstein (CA)
Rep. Dennis Cardoza (CA)
Rep. Jane Harman (CA)
Rep. Tom Lantos (CA)
Rep. Janet Napolitano (CA)
Rep. Laura Richardson (CA)
Lucille Roybal-Allard (CA)
Rep. Brad Sherman (CA)
Rep. Hilda Solis (CA)
Rep. Ellen Tauscher (CA)
Rep. Diane Watson (CA)
Manny Rodriguez (CO)
Maria Handley (CO)
Gov. John Balducci (ME)
Rep. CA Dutch Ruppersberger (MD)
Rep. Barney Frank (MA)
Gov. Ted Strickland (OH)
Rep. Diane DeGette (CO)
VP Walter Mondale (MN)
Rep. David Scott (GA)
Rep. Emanuel Cleaver II (MO)
Gov. Mike Beebe (AR)
Rep. Corrine Brown (FL)
Rep. Kendrick Meek (FL)
Sen. Evan Bayh (IN)
Rep. Tammy Baldwin (WI)
Rep. Yvette D. Clarke (NY)
Rep. Darlene Hooley (OR)
Rep. Bill Pascrell (NJ)
Rep. Albio Sires (NJ)
Sen. Debbie Stabenow (MI)
Rep. Jay Inslee (WA)
Rep. Henry Cuellar (TX)
Rep. Ruben Hinojosa (TX)
Rep. Stephen Lynch (MA)
Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (RI)
Rep. Jim Langevin (RI)
Rep. Leonard Boswell (IA)
Rep. Marion Berry (AR)
Rep. Mike Ross (AR)
Rep. Vic Snyder (AR)
Sen. Mark Pryor (AR)
Rep. Joe Sestak (PA)
Rep. Allyson Schwartz (PA)
Gov. Jennifer Granholm (MI)
DNC Dina Titus (NV)
DNC Tim Sullivan (WI)
Rep. Donald Payne (NJ)
Sen. Maria Cantwell (WA)
Del. Donna M Christensen (VI)
DNC Terri McAuliffe
Sen. Hillary Clinton (NY)
President Bill Clinton

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

[in_cog_ni_to]

30. I just quoted Ed Schultz. n/t

[Hidden Stillness]

25. This Election may be Beyond Even the "Clinton Network"

I don't know what the Clinton campaign will do, of course, but I have come to believe now, that Barack Obama will win the nomination. The mood of the country, the rising wave of support and calls for change, etc., all these things that have been benefitting Obama, have put the control of the opinions of the voters far beyond "framing" and "spinning," "working the system," etc., and widered it to a general, historical social change now. Obama calls for "change," "hope," a return to our true, great history as a Nation, etc., and does not sound like a phony doing it--and, people are inspired and brought back to the political arena as a way of change for the good. This is maybe impossible to beat, for anyone else. You have to criticize "hope and inspiration"--and sound weird and anti-social doing it! I only hope it is authentic. This may just be an election where the anger of voters against corporate corruption, recession, etc., are stronger than anything else. I don't know what will happen strategically, but maybe the stranglehold of the Edwards/Clinton "D"LC club itself is at an end.

[book_worm]

27. don't worry the super delegates are elected officials and they will want somebody who demonstrates

that he can win. If Hillary loses most of the primaries and Obama wins them and brings in a lot of new people they will tell the Clinton's that their train has passed.

[Emit]

28. I'm not convinced of that yet.

I see the logic, and want to believe that, but I'm just not convinced.

[Emit]

29. This Time article posted yesterday confirms the rumor

~snip~

The scope of Barack Obama's victory in Iowa has shaken the Clinton machine down to its bolts. Donors are panicking. The campaign has been making a round of calls to reassure notoriously fickle "superdelegates" — elected officials and party regulars who are awarded convention spots by virtue of their titles and positions — who might be reconsidering their decisions to back the candidate who formerly looked like a sure winner. And internally, a round of recriminations is being aimed at her chief strategist, Mark Penn, as the representative of everything about her pseudo-incumbent campaign that has been too cautious, too arrogant, too conventional and too clueless as to how much the political landscape has shifted since the last Clinton reign. One adviser summed up the biggest challenge that faces the campaign in two words: "Fresh thinking."

~snip~

http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1700705,00.html

[helderheid]

31. need to get this on the greatest page

[Oreo]

32. I'm working on a list of superdelegates that haven't endorsed yet

You can find the list at my blog http://demconwatch.blogspot.com/2008/01/superdelegates-who-havent-endorsed.html">2008 Democratic Convention Watch

There are still a lot of superdelegates left. Clinton actually has 11 Senate superdelegates (including herself) and Obama has 3 (including himself)

And there's no way it will be a http://demconwatch.blogspot.com/2008/01/brokered-convention-madness.html">brokered convention. Not gonna happen.

[Emit]

37. In the ABC This Week interview, Edwards said he's in it all the way to the Convention.

Just saying.

But, others have discussed the unlikeliness of a brokered convention: http://www.mydd.com/story/2007/4/5/142652/1481

The Near-Impossibility Of A Brokered Convention
by Chris Bowers, Thu Apr 05, 2007 at 02:26:52 PM EST

Before I became a political activist, I was simply a political junkie who followed politics much in the same way I followed sports: studying stats, watching the returns on game night, and cheering for the team I liked, but otherwise not doing much. Like any political junkie, just like any sports junkie, it is easy to yearn for the highly unusual moment, for the unexpected situation, for the nail-biter, for the big upset, for the result no one else saw coming and for the simply extraordinary. In politics, a brokered convention--where the nominee is determined at the convention and not beforehand in the state primaries and caucuses--would be the equivalent of an extraordinary event like someone breaking the single-season home run record, or of a mid-major Cinderella winning the NCAA tournament. Now, I would love for this happen. In fact, my dream would be for both the Democratic and Republican parties to hold "brokered" conventions. This way, Democrats are not "hurt" by a brokered convention, the political drama could not be any higher, and both parties would probably agree to some sort of major primary reform as a result of the predicament in which they found themselves. Truly, it would be a political junkie's dream come true.

However, as much as I would like for a brokered convention to take place, I just don't think that it will happen. The basic reason is that unless two candidates are virtually even in delegates, there will be a lot of insider, super delegate pressure on the candidate trailing in delegates to drop out and endorse the leader. Further, it will be extremely difficult for any two candidates to really be all that close in terms of delegates, for several reasons which I explain in the extended entry:

The winner of a state caucus / primary receives delegates in a disproportional amount relative to his or her vote percentage. For example, in 2004, the winner of 29 of 30 states to hold events on or before March 2nd received a higher percentage of delegates than he received at the ballot box. Overall, Kerry received 75.9% of elected delegates, despite only receiving 50.2% of the caucus vote, and 61.0% of the primary vote. Every other candidate received a lower percentage of delegates than s/he received at the ballot box. Even small victories can allow a candidate to rack up large delegate advantages.


Over one-quarter of delegates are not elected. Even as the delegate system allows a candidate a larger lead among elected delegates than s/he received in terms of votes at the ballot box / caucus location, with nearly one-third of all delegates not elected (the super delegates), party insiders can easily apply enough pressure on a second-place candidate to force him or her to drop out long before the convention (or, at least remove any chance s/he might have at winning the convention). Insiders would be scared to death of the nominee being decided at the convention, as they fear it would seriously damage the chances of the party to win back the White House. As such, a leading candidate does not need to win 50% of delegates in the states: s/he will only require a minimum lead of, say 150 or 200 delegates, and support of the super delegates, in order to warp things up early on.


Intra-party voting blocks dissipating. In past nomination processes, the election has dragged out because some candidates were exceptionally strong among some regions and demographics within the primary electorate. For example, in 1988 Al Gore had tremendous strength among southern whites, allowing him to win many primaries, and Jesse Jackson was dominant among African-Americans, allowing him to win many primaries. Further, neither candidate ever did very well in a state without a large concentration of their best-performing demographic. As a result, the primary electoral was fragmented into voting blocks, and it was extremely difficult for any one candidate to sweep several states in a row. However, the Democratic Party just is not as fragmented as it once was, and don't expect wide, regional and demographic swings in favor of one candidate or another. In other words, if someone has a national lead, even if small, that candidate will probably lead in every single state as well. For example, despite a lead of only around 11% nationwide, Clinton leads in every single state in the nation, with the exception of Iowa and the home states of most other candidates. Among the Democratic primary electorate, regional and demographic differences are just not as meaningful to voting tendencies as they once were. Pew has more data on this here, and I have written about this in the past.


No candidate has "hard" support. Simply put, no candidate's base of supporters is so strong and unyielding that s/he won't suffer major defections in s/he does poorly in early states. A recent Pew poll put the percentage of true undecideds in the Democratic electorate at 71%, and I actually think it might be a little higher than that. Factor in that many candidates will drop out before February 5th, and that the supporters of the candidates who drop out will flock disproportionately to the candidate in the lead, and the possibility of a virtually tied campaign going into February 5th becomes even more remote.

~snip~

[Alexander]

35. In 1984 it should've been Hart, not Mondale. Superdelegates changed that.

The "superdelegates" were created to avoid another McGovern. Can't have any upstarts threatening the establishment now, can we?

[tritsofme]

53. That's not true.

Mondale had a thousand more delegates than Hart.

[Bad Thoughts]

38. Superdelegates aren't committed

They are not locked into a vote going into a convention. I think that if anyone gets too aggressive, superdelegates will walk away to preserve their own influence.

[gasperc]

41. superdelegates are 14%, 314 of 2184 to win

sure, anything will help, better to lean on them now should a brokered convention arise and then lean on Edwards to be the king/queen maker.

Plus there are 852 unpledged delegates not "locked in" by the primary or caucuses

[madinmaryland]

42. We'll see what happens on Feb. 5.

If Obama takes most of the primaries, Clinton will probably fade away. I don't think she would continue to fight on, but no one is going to say that now.

[Vinca]

43. If Clinton managed to get the nomination despite Obama winning

the primaries, I think Bloomberg will get in the race and then we'll have President (insert name of nutjob Republican warmonger).

[Horse with no Name]

45. The DLC is serving notice to the grassroots with this move

They want our money (if it goes to the right pockets), but they don't NEED our money. The corporations cover the costs.
In the grand scheme of things, if this works for her, we don't really matter--do we?
They EXPECT that no matter HOW she gets the nomination, we will give our grassroots support to her.
Talk about an abusive boyfriend!:mad:

[jgraz]

48. bleh -- I can't believe they'll try this if she continues to lose

Talk about damaged goods going into the convention... :crazy:

[rateyes]

50. If such a scenario happens, then I pledge

NOT to support the nominee. No.damned.way.

[rateyes]

51. Something else: If that happens, I predict...

fist fights on the convention floor!

[Mr_Monday]

54. The Clintons are expert politicians

They have all the experience and, most importantly, the connections. Obama is going to have to fight hard for this one.