Mass Defections from Clinton to Obama

Not so Super Delegates (0.00 / 0)

The reason for supporting Obama is that "The people have spoken"?  Which candidate won New Jersey, the state in which "the people" these representatives are supposed to represent live?  (Hillary Clinton by 54% to Obama's 44%).  Obama now has a total of 143 more pledged delegates, out of 2165, than Clinton, so exactly how loudly have the people spoken?  According to polls taken around a week ago, Clinton had a very large lead in Ohio among Democratic voters.  So is it over today because of Wisconsin?

If Senator Clinton wins Ohio and it's close in Texas, will the super delegates and others switch again?  Will they switch to undecided?

Ever read something and the mere words caused something to smell bad to you?  My stink-dar is making loud pinging noises.

DBK

---

by: DBK @ Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 11:25:32 AM CST

Re: (4.00 / 1)

There are 18 NJ superdelegates. Before today, 12 had endorsed Clinton and 2 Obama. New Jersey went 54%-44% for Clinton, but 12-2 is not even close to that same ratio. So unless you're saying NJ superdelegates should go 18-0 for Clinton, that argument doesn't make much sense.

In the end, it doesn't matter what individual superdelegates do. They're mostly all going to fall in line and support whoever has the most popular support.

---

by: Juan Melli @ Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 11:38:11 AM CST

[ Parent ]

What I'm saying... (0.00 / 0)

...is that something smells fishy about that explanation.  Hey, it was a politician talking.  You want me to take politicians at their word?

Are you saying that super delegate support should be representational based on percentage of votes?  Then why have super delegates?

What I'm saying is that the explanation sounded like a "feel good" justification and that I think we haven't heard the real reason.  Kinda like when someone resigns so they can "pursue other interests/spend more time with their families/enjoy their yacht".  It triggered a "doesn't sound quite right" bell.

In the end, if their votes don't matter, why have them?  Is being a super delegate just a status thing then?

DBK

---

by: DBK @ Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 12:42:03 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Re: (4.00 / 1)

I don't think superdelegates should even exist or play a role in the nominee selection process. They're undemocratic and counter-productive.

In the end I think they will go along with the "will of the people", however you choose to define that (popular vote, pledged delegates, etc). But if for some reason they don't - and according to the rules it is their right to do so - then the nominee will be seen as illegitimate by a large portion of the party.

So not only do I not think it will happen, but if it did happen, it would be a disastrous mistake.

---

by: Juan Melli @ Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 12:55:35 PM CST

[ Parent ]

No argument (0.00 / 0)

You won't get an argument from me on that.

DBK

---

by: DBK @ Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 13:17:39 PM CST

[ Parent ]

On the other hand (4.00 / 3)

I'm working on something that is pretty important right now and don't have time to really get into this, but I have to apologize for my second set of remarks in this thread, which were glib.  I was avoiding saying what I really mean.

I don't think all politicians are outright liars and it's a disservice to imply that.  I have enormous respect for a lot of people I've met in politics, some who might consider themselves as politicians and some who would resent the word.   But I owe it to them and the BlueJersey community to be clear.

I meant exactly what I said in my original comments:  I found that statement about "the people" to be fishy (and not a little self-serving) and in my ear, it rang untrue.  I could be off the mark with that, but it didn't sound right, in particular because here you have someone who should be casting a vote for the best candidate, the person whose political views and policy proposals best reflect the interests of those they represent, and instead of doing that or saying that is the reason they are supporting Obama, we get a glib, statement about "the people have spoken", which flies in the face of the fact that the people in this state did speak, and they spoke the name "Clinton" a lot louder than they spoke the name "Obama".  Again, not one word about one issue that Obama represents better than Clinton or that represents the best interests of New Jersey, which could at least be a reason for going one way or the other.  So that's why it stunk to me.

Rush Holt, Frank Pallone, Tom Wycka, and you, too Juan, are all people involved, to a lesser or greater degree, in politics who have given me enhanced respect for the process, and you all deserve better than what I said about "taking politicians at their word".  When that sort of negative opinion becomes the conventional wisdom on political participation, and I think it is, then it poisons politics and sends good people away from participation.  If all politicians are liars, then only liars will want to be in government.

There.  Now I can go back to what I was doing with a clear conscience.

DBK

---

by: DBK @ Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 13:44:02 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Wow!!! An honest man with a clear conscience!!! You should run for office!!! ;-) n/t (0.00 / 0)

---

by: Nick Lento @ Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 15:15:09 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Superdelegates (0.00 / 0)

So what you are saying is that the elected Congresspeople should not have a vote as a delegate? The Chairs and Vice chairs of each state party should not have votes as delegates? ... and the folks that represent their states and constituencies on the DNC should not have votes?

Are caucuses more democratic than primaries? Should not the primaries be closed only to Democrats? Why should independents vote in a Democratic  primary?

There are so many inconsistencies in the process which varies from state to state.

I thnk that the 20% superdelegates is less a concern than the statewide inconsistencies in determining delegates.

Caucuses are fun, but not very Democratic.

I'm not going to make a blanket statement, but I have worked with several dedicated folks who, as members of the DNC, volunteer a lot of their time and energy day in and day out to make the DNC stronger and more "democratic" and have "earned" their superdelegate vote in my opinion.

Only the loser will complain.

 "don't compare me to the Almighty, compare me to the alternatives." ---Mayor Kevin White

---

by: Babs NJSD @ Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 22:05:52 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Re: (0.00 / 0)

So what you are saying is that the elected Congresspeople should not have a vote as a delegate? The Chairs and Vice chairs of each state party should not have votes as delegates? ... and the folks that represent their states and constituencies on the DNC should not have votes?

That's exactly what I'm saying. I value the work that many of these people do, but If I were developing the rules, I don't think any elected official or party official's vote should count more than anyone else's. I don't think that's a very radical idea.

I think primaries are more democratic than caucuses, and if it were up to me we would have primaries in every state that allowed same-day registration as well as vote by mail. If it were up to me, the order in which states would vote would be determined by the voter participation rate from the previous election. Hopefully this would encourage state parties to compete against each other and improve voter participation.

But these are all hypotheticals for how I think the rules should be in the future so it doesn't matter. The rules are the rules and I accept them as they are. They were designed (Superdelegates and caucuses) to give the establishment candidate a leg up, so it's funny to hear Clinton talk about how undemocratic some of the rules are.

---

by: Juan Melli @ Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 23:17:58 PM CST

[ Parent ]

caucuses (0.00 / 0)

I think that Babs has a point here, but it doesn't defend the superdelegate concept as much as it does the concept of caucuses vs primaries.

As "antidemocratic" as caucuses might be, I think that for the sole purpose of electing a party's nominee for President of the United States, I think that they are actually better than primaries.

It is possible that my dim view of primaries could be clouded by the fact that I live in NJ, where both primary and general elections are driven by an impersonal, machine-precise GOTV process that dedicates far more resources on identifying voters and shoveling as many as possible into their respective polling places than it does on educating voters about the issues and candidates positions on these issues.

While it is possible that other states are less autocratic than NJ, I would guess that the distinctions would not be significant enough to represent a true difference.

Conversely, as the Obama campaign has proven, caucuses require a far more personal approach to community outreach and organizing.  Even though the percentage of caucusgoers is usually a far lower percentage of the total voter universe than what primaries produce, caucusgoers are usually far more educated, engaged, and passionate about issues, candidate's positions, and the process as a whole.

It is pathetic that such a small percentage of potential voters actually cast votes in primary and general elections.  But what is even more pathetic is how uneducated and uninformed so many of the people who actually do vote in primary and general elections are, which is why we have the political leadership that we have, whose skill sets lean more towards gamesmanship and away from issue advocacy and good governance.

And while Babs could argue that caucusers are as much of an insider's game as superdelegates, although obviously not to the same degree, I don't believe that there are nearly as many people in caucus states who feel that because they were unable to participate in a caucus, the outcome doesn't reflect the will of the people as those who feel that way about superdelegates.

And that is the biggest problem.  Whether superdelegates have earned their status or not, their ability to rig the process one way or another exacerbates an already serious problem whereby people do not feel that their vote matters.  And because the universe of caucusgoers is much smaller than that of primary voters, the importance of individual votes increases exponentially.

Going forward, I believe that every state should select their delegates through caucuses rather than primaries and I believe that all state caucuses should be held on the same day; two months before the national convention.

This would provide even the poorest candidate with enough time to travel the entire country and connect with as many potential caucusgoers as possible.  I would also place caps on how much campaigns can spend on paid media.

I think that there is a legal argument to be made that the Supreme Court decision that prohibits federal, state, and local governments from regulating intraparty activities would enable the DNC to establish its own spending rules for a primary election even in the face of the Supreme Court decision that prohibits those same federal, state, and local governments from regulating campaign spending based on the belief that money equals speech.

In fact, I believe that the DNC could go so far as to require future Presidential campaigns to purchase their paid media through the DNC so that they can have more control over how much campaigns spend on paid media.

---

by: rachael'sdad @ Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 07:24:22 AM CST

[ Parent ]

You're right (0.00 / 0)

I agree with Babs about superdelegates.  There should be automatic seats.  However, I do believe they should not be 20% of the total.  They used to be 10-15%.  We could increase the overall delegate pool for that.  Also, there probably shouldn't be 75 at-large members of the DNC elected by the original 350, maybe 25-50 to provide some labor presence, etc.

There are many inconsistencies between states.  I agree with Juan that primaries are preferable.  Perhaps a provision that says that if you get 60% of the statewide vote in a primary, it becomes winner-take-all would help more states have primaries instead of caucuses which cost less money.  Of course, Obama would already clinch or be very close.  :-)

Seriously though, the Clinton attacks on caucuses are simply bizarre.  Caucuses, traditionally, have attracted only the most involved party people (aka the establishment) which should have benefited Clinton.  However, the turnout at these caucuses has been setting records because of the harder work and more effort that Obama put in.  The story of how Hillary wasted $100 million is going to be interesting.  This was foreshadowed by the 2006 Senate race which only had $10 million left over.

I also agree with Babs that "only the loser will complain."  That is why Hillary's people have done all the complaining and are trying to change the rules again and again.  :-)

---

by: Creed Pogue @ Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 07:27:25 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Democrats have a history of hiring (0.00 / 0)

 overpriced consultants. Republicans seem to pay less.

Perhaps this is something that Hillary bought?

I don't know, but the observation that some of the support among some of the establishment was shallow has validity. Especially those will little grassroots connections here in Jersey.

I worked with a lot of dedicated volunteers for Hillary, but observed some prominent "supporters" who seemed to be "stealth".

Texas and Ohio are critical for Hillary. There are a couple of great grassroots  organizations that are working for her in the Dallas-Ft Worth and San Antonio areas ... we shall see... She may have her Alamo, and maybe she will win!

For my constituency, her actions have outweighed Obama's words, and that is why I continue to support her. I'm from NJ, "show me!"

Hey, this primary season is not boring!

Babs


 "don't compare me to the Almighty, compare me to the alternatives." ---Mayor Kevin White

---

by: Babs NJSD @ Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 23:17:30 PM CST

[ Parent ]

actions outweigh words (0.00 / 0)

Her actions of opposing DOMA repeal and being an influential player (at a minimum) in the administration that signed DOMA into law???  Those are actions all right.  I don't know if those are very helpful to your constituency though.

While prejudice might have done her some damage in a general election, Hillary's problems in this nomination contest have been largely self-inflicted.  Spending, "it'll all be over on Feb. 5," "those states don't matter," flip-flopping on FL and MI, stupid remarks from Sheehan, Johnson and Penn (but Penn stayed), keeping Penn around in the first place, etc. are all things where the candidate sets the tone and direction.

But, I think it sells her supporters short to allege that some of them were "stealth."  There were a bunch of people who joined up because they thought they were joining the bandwagon of a winner.  But, Hillary's problems with many in the party didn't just go away.  They have remained and to some extent, have gotten worse with SC.  I predict that unless Hillary wins both TX and OH by large margins that a substantial segment of her superdelegates are going to use their right to decide and move to Obama.

Even her best moment from last night was plagiarized.  Of course, no one would have cared if not for the fact that in their desperation to muddy Obama, the Clinton campaign is trying to make an issue of it.

The difference with the Alamo is that the battle was the high point for the Mexicans.  They won the battle and lost the war.  Hillary needs to win both states and rather decisively in order to have a real chance to change this race.  That is highly unlikely to happen.

Looking at today's Times article and accompanying graphic really tell the tale.  For a Senator from New York and former First Lady married to a still very active ex-President to have been outraised by anybody would be astounding.  For the person who outraised her to be a first-term Senator says a lot about her operation.  She and her people thought this was a coronation.  Obama and his people knew this would be a long series of contests.  We can see who was right.

---

by: Creed Pogue @ Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 08:07:58 AM CST

[ Parent ]

not a matter of who was right (0.00 / 0)

It's a matter of plan and execution.

That being said, the Bush campaign executed well, but what does that say about him being President?

Babs

 "don't compare me to the Almighty, compare me to the alternatives." ---Mayor Kevin White

---

by: Babs NJSD @ Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 12:11:03 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Hillary's plan was bad and it was executed badly. (4.00 / 1)

Neither of those says anything good about her prospects either of campaigning or governing.

Hillary has tried to make Obama sound like another Dubya, but her campaigning style has resembled Dubya's even more with the premium on loyalty over competence, the inability to change course when reality has intervened, the willingness to demonize opponents no matter what, etc.

We'll see how things go in the debate.

---

by: Creed Pogue @ Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 14:33:12 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Yup. n/t (0.00 / 0)

---

by: Nick Lento @ Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 14:38:03 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Popular Will (0.00 / 0)

Of the 22 primaries for delegates held so far, Obama has won 13 of them.  He has won all five since Super Tuesday when he split the 15 primaries that night, 7-8.  He is ahead in the popular vote of those primaries by 736,000 votes, having netted 52% of the vote between himself and Senator Clinton.  Five of his 13 primary victories were with 60% of the vote or more compared to only one of Hillary's (AR).

Of the caucuses, Obama is 11-2, only having lost Nevada and New Mexico.  Eight of those 11 caucuses were won with 60% or more of the vote.

Obama is ahead in the popular vote.  Obama is ahead in the number of states won (24-11).  Obama is ahead in delegates.  In fact of pledged delegates, Obama is ahead by 1,154 to 1,011 (53%-47%).

As far as resources, Hillary's email today saying that Obama had four times the number of ads she did in Wisconsin is a testament to the grassroots fundraising of the Obama campaign.  So, it is certain that Obama will have the resources for a strong campaign in Texas and Ohio.  Polling is showing a tie with two weeks to go.

As far as the superdelegates from Camden County, one has switched from Clinton to Obama and another has simply now committed to Obama.  So, the ratio is now 11-4 (with 3 uncommitted) which is still way shy of a 54-44 split.

In 1984, the last time superdelegates "mattered," Mondale was ahead in pledged delegates and the superdelegates simply put him over the top.

---

by: Creed Pogue @ Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 12:51:06 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Missing Info on Dana Redd (0.00 / 0)

Wow, I can't believe this was missed, but Dana Redd is the vice chair of the state Democratic party in addition to her other gigs.  

That means the state chair is with Clinton and the vice Chair is with Obama.

Must make for fun meetings!

---

by: huntsu @ Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 11:35:26 AM CST

This BJ Post is Front Page on Dkos Right Now (0.00 / 0)

http://www.dailykos.com/story/...

Go to kos and recommend it and
the reciprocal traffic will probably cause a rift in the space/time continuum ...

---

by: denniscmcgrath @ Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 11:37:26 AM CST

I dunno (0.00 / 0)

They blockquoted text from PoliticsNJ but makes it look like it was our original work.  They should change that.

---

by: huntsu @ Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 11:46:48 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Funny (0.00 / 0)

How these "leaders" tend to move as a flock.  

---

by: nsodano @ Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 19:39:44 PM CST

Caucus or primary? (0.00 / 0)

I prefer a secret ballot, thank you.  There's lots of noise and excitement in a caucus, but open voting just ain't the democratic way.


"Do what you can, with what you have, where you are."  (Teddy Roosevelt)

---

by: DottieG @ Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 16:54:22 PM CST

I strongly agree. n/t (0.00 / 0)

---

by: Creed Pogue @ Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 17:22:44 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Pressure and counter-pressure (0.00 / 0)

There have been all kinds of stories about the Clinton people pressuring superdelegates already committed to her to hang in there.  

Unfortunately the media seem to have missed the stories about the pressure that the Obama people have been putting on  those same "supers" to switch.

Could there possibly be a cause-and-effect relationship here?  


"Do what you can, with what you have, where you are."  (Teddy Roosevelt)

---

by: DottieG @ Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 14:36:56 PM CST

Do you actually have any??? n/t (0.00 / 0)

---

by: Creed Pogue @ Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 14:34:01 PM CST

[ Parent ]