The heckling of even Clinton supporters on the Rules and Bylaws Committee by audience members upset with the results is an embarrassement, but we now have a clear picture of how many delegates Obama needs to clinch the nomination. Not the best day in the history of the Democratic party, but the committee made the best of a bad situation.
Al Giordano does the math, makes a few conservative predictions about the results in Puerto Rico and on Tuesday, and offers that Obama now only needs 25 superdelegates. The Obama campaign almost certainly has that number of superdelegates willing to step in and end this. So after today, the end is finally in sight.
A few careless and destructive people might still be chanting "Denver," but few in the party will see the need for this to go on any longer after Tuesday --- and with their actions today, those protesters have only hastened the end.
As a continuation of jlarson's 'Drip, drip, drip...' post of May 9th, where it was suggested SD's, votes, support, etc., would slowly make their way toward the Obama camp . . . there's been a very distinctive change from 'drip, drip, drip' to . . . "Splash! Splash! Splash!"
As has been stated many times, organizations calculate differently, which is why there are so many different numbers floating around.
I have chosen SuperDelegates.Org as my source to keep track of endorsements . . . not because I feel they're any better than the others . . . but mainly because if I listened to everyone there would be mass confusion and chaos!!! So, I closed my eyes and picked a number out of a hat . . . and they won. And please, don't point me to someone you feel is a better source. This site is no better nor any worse than another.
When we began the 'drip, drip, drip' phase . . . the count was 273, on the morning of the 9th. At this moment we stand at . . . 288 . . . and counting. It was at 285 most of the day yesterday and when I got up this morning. So this is three SD's just today.
Not only this, but a huge topic of conversation over the weekend was regarding who Obama would pick as VP.
So I contend that the 'drip,drip,drip' has evolved. We're now into a "Splash! Splash! Splash!" phase!!!
We all know that this play looks increasingly like a Greek tragedy. I've already suggested the worst-case scenario. That's the "Train Wreck in the Station" that turns the Denver Democratic Convention into a modern-day "Chicago '68". There is also the more insipid, but similarly destructive possibility for which there is already evidence in the tone of the campaign and polls of Democratic voter attitudes. That is, the nominee is selected "free and fair", but fails to win a significant share of the other contender's support, allowing McCain to slide through in November. The chances for this outcome could improve the longer this race drags on.
No wonder the pundits are now wringing their hands in search of an elder statesman to save the day. Albert Hunt sees the need for someone to sort out the Michigan/Florida mess. After all, if George Mitchell can hammer out a plan for Northern Ireland and the Middle East, as well as professional baseball, he can certainly work out something for the DNC. I concede that these renegade states are important to the Democrats’ electoral total in November. But solving the problem created by the queue-jumpers may not solve the Clinton-Obama stalemate, only prolong it.
I was surprised to learn that Obama has nearly as much support in the Senate as Clinton does. This is surprising, because the Senate, where Clinton served somewhat longer and where many have a longstanding relationship with the Clintons, was long one of her strongholds of support.
Indeed, aside from fellow Illinois senator Dick Durbin, Obama didn't receive another Senate endorsement until December 27th, 2007, from Kent Conrad of North Dakota --- only two months ago. In those two months, eight senators endorsed Obama. A sharp turnabout.
Interestingly, Obama has now almost entirely evened the score in Congressional superdelegate endorsements, leading 13-12 among senators (if you include the two District of Columbia shadow-senators) and trailing 67-72 among House representatives.
Instead Clinton's announced superdelegate lead now mainly comes from DNC members, where she leads 134-83. News organizations polling DNC members off the record have found Obama somewhat closer in the count.
Still, it's easy to forget that almost half of the Democratic senators in Congress remain undecided: 23. In the House, 81 have yet to state a public preference.
According to the Washington Post, the Obama campaign is particularly focused on wooing five senators:
Prime targets include: Sens. Tom Harkin of Iowa; Byron Dorgan of North Dakota; Daniel Akaka of Hawaii; Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota; and Jack Reed of Rhode Island.
Obama won the home states of the first four decisively. In Reed's case, Rhode Island is a small but significant March 4 prize, and given its large population of working-class Democrats, a possible Clinton pick-up. Its senior senator, a low-key expert on the military, is also enormously popular.
The nomination isn't likely to come down to superdelegate votes, but the Obama campaign's consolidation of support in Congress ensures that Clinton won't be able to hold out with the hope of overcoming Obama's pledged delegate lead with superdelegates. It just might shorten the primary season.
I just received an email from the Obama campaign with instructions on how we can help to win the hearts and minds of the superdelegates! Here's how the email put it:
Our work so far has taught us one important lesson: that your personal story about why you support Barack Obama is often the most powerful persuasion tool for someone who's undecided. That's true whether that undecided voter is your neighbor or a superdelegate.
The story of where you're from, what brought you into the political process, the issues that matter to you, and why you became part of this movement has the potential to inspire someone who could cast a deciding vote in this contest.
Our staff will compile stories from supporters like you and make them a key part of the conversation with superdelegates as Barack asks for their support.
They are asking for you to submit your story via their form, which they will compile and relay to the superdelegates. Here is the story I just submitted:
To whom it may concern,
In my short 31 years of life, I have never been much involved in the political process and have never been particularly enthused about any presidential campaign.
This year is different. Profoundly so.
Over the past eight years, we have suffered through an otherwise unthinkably horrific debacle brought upon our country by an arrogant man who currently holds the office of President of the United States.
This election brings with it the hope of not only a new President, but a new hope for our country -- a new way in which we can look upon ourselves as a nation.
The current democratic nomination process carries with it the chance to ruin all of that. If, by some stretch of the imagination, the candidate without a majority of the popular vote or a majority of the elected pledged delegates somehow steals the nomination by arm-twisting enough superdelegates to vote for him or her -- I will no longer consider the Democratic Party worthy of my vote.
I am a moderate, right of center, sometimes libertarian, sometimes independent who is now so disillusioned with anyone claiming to be a "conservative" that I will be voting with the Democrats this year.
That is, of course, unless the nomination is wrested from the rightful winner via either (a) a vote by the superdelegates or (b) seating the delegates from Michigan and Florida, where fair elections were not held.
I hope the Democrats understand the potential that exists to ruin this election by having the process appear to be unfair. I beg you to consider our pleas.
The Chicago Sun-Times' Lynn Sweet (not really my favorite columnist) sheds a little light on the Obama campaign's effort to build support on Capitol Hill.
Sometime tonight, after the House and Senate finish voting, members of Congress who are backing Barack Obama’s presidential bid will huddle in the Capitol Hill living room of Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-Conn.) to map strategy to capture more superdelegates for the Illinois senator.
Obama’s top congressional superdelegate wranglers will aim to be there: On the House side, Rep. George Miller (D-Calif.) and Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-Ill.) and Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), who is handling the Senate portfolio. [...]
They will go over lists of possible recruits broken down by state, region and by particular interests. [...]
Obama superdelegate calls are being made by former Sen. Tom Daschle (D-S.D.); Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr. (D-Ill.); Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-Mass.); Iowa Gov. Chet Culver; Virginia Gov. Tom Kaine and Michelle Obama. Obama himself phones when needed.
Just in the last week, we've seen five superdelegates switch from Clinton to Obama, and there's considerable pressure to back the leader in the pledged delegate count instead of overturning the choice of voters across the country.
It's also easy to forget, with the steady stream of endorsements recently, just how many uncommitted members of Congress there still are. There are still at least 10 governors, 26 senators, 92 House members who have yet to make an endorsement in the Democratic primary. Total, based on 2008 DemConWatch's count, there are as many as 336 superdelegates that have yet to make an endorsement, compared to 383 who have already publicly endorsed.
Of those who remain neutral, many might still convinced that they should use their power as superdelegates to ratify the choice of Democratic voters.
I've been watching and reading with interest the national conversation regarding superdelegates and don't have an easy feeling . . .
Let's all stop where we are . . . take a big, cleansing breath . . . and ask ourselves the following question . . .
Who represents whom here?
Does the person who occupies the office of President of the United States represent the party that swept them into power? Last time I checked, there are federal laws on the books that specifically prohibit such a position! Granted, partisan politics is allowed leading up to taking office, but once sworn in, that person represents "the people" and must move beyond the narrow confines of political party.
I'm somewhat torn here.
How many across our nation, including myself, are uncomfortable allowing our party elite to choose our presidential candidate should they not reach the requisite number of delegates before the convention? This will be a party vote . . . not a vote from "the people".
Will these superdelegates follow the will of their constituents, whom they represent, or the Democratic Party leadership . . . who may or may not have the same priorities as we do?
Did I say I was torn about this?
Should superdelegates announce, as one in Maine did, that they will follow the will of the people and will endorse the candidate chosen by the people?
How many superdelegates do we already have endorsing the opposite candidate chosen via popular vote? The numbers are already skewed. Senator Obama has the endorsement of approximately one-third of the delegates to Senator Clinton's approximately two-thirds.
I'm a member of a list serve in my state for Obama supporters and have been receiving e-mail after e-mail after e-mail from people who are just livid because both Senators in my state have already endorsed Clinton . . . when Obama won the popular vote by an overwhelming majority.
Wizinit's post "Train Wreck in the Station" is very true! If we allow this to take place . . . a whole lot of people will be a whole lot angry. We're already smarting from the disenfranchisement of the 2000 election. The country doesn't need this a second time, in such a relatively short period.
I don't have the answer. What I do have is a very uneasy feeling. I don't like it.
Yesterday's vote in Maine was wonderful and does give me hope. We weren't expected to do that well in Maine. What happened? Over 46,000 Mainers traveled and stood in long lines in freezing temperatures and a snow storm . . . to vote for Obama. You have to be either stupid or very, very motivated to do this. The voting precincts, just as I found on Saturday in my state . . . were quite literally overwhelmed . . . even though they thought they had planned accordingly for a huge turnout of people. They were still overwhelmed . . .
If this kind of momentum continues . . . "the people" will have raised the bar even further. Clinton's campaign has already blinked . . . quite noticeably.
We're not "there" yet and I realize we still have a lot to do. But we can see some light. We've worked very hard already.
A brokered convention would be a disaster, especially if the superdelegates do not choose the candidate with the most popular votes.
Should we voice our concerns to the DNC? Does anyone think that would make a difference?
If we continue the momentum and win Texas, Ohio and Pennsylvania, as well as the other states remaining, should a separate campaign be lodged to urge Hillary Clinton to concede, for the good of the party and the people?
There are two important diaries on DailyKos that I wanted to point out. First, wmtriallawyer makes clear why it is essentially no longer possible for either Obama or Clinton to win the nomination before the convention.
You heard that right. It is no longer plausible that either Obama or Clinton can win the necessary delegates from the state primaries and caucuses to win the nomination. Why?
As wmtriallawyer points out, both Obama and Clinton already have about a thousand delegates each, and to get the nomination a candidate needs a majority of delegates: 2025.
Of the remaining delegates up for grabs in primaries and/or caucuses, that means that one of the candidates needs to win two-thirds of all the remaining delegates up for grabs to win it outright.
It simply isn't that plausible that either Clinton or Obama would suddenly begin to win two-thirds of the remaining delegates from here on out. So what does this mean?
It means that the contest will be decided by the so-called superdelegates. Of the 722 superdelegates, about 311 have endorsed, leaving 411 who have not yet committed to a candidate. (These numbers change rapidly, but those are the basics.) There are two possibilities then as to how someone gets the nomination:
