RECENT POSTS
- VP Biden's Thanksgiving Dinner for the Troops
- Life and Debt
- Obama To Cabinet: “We Cannot Sit Back and Be Satisfied” With Some Progress Amid High Unemployment Rate
- Today’s Qs for O’s WH – 11/23/2009
- Obama Calls for Annual Science Fair: Achievement Should be Recognized like NCAA Championship Win
- Obama Decision on Copenhagen Summit Attendance “In the Coming Days”
- Gitmo Detainees Intend to Plead Not Guilty in U.S. Court
- President Obama Calls 9th War Council Meeting for Tonight
- Health Care Hurdles
- The Presidential Planner
MONTHLY ARCHIVES
« Previous | Main | Next »
What Happens After Obama Claims a Majority of Pledged Delegates Tonight?
May 20, 2008 11:30 AM
Tonight, assuming he wins the Oregon primary, Sen. Barack Obama, D-Illinois, will claim that he's won a majority of pledged delegates.
By ABC News' count, Obama right now has a total of 1,915 delegates -- 1,609 pledged delegates and 306 superdelegates. He needs 18 pledged delegates to reach a majority of pledged delegates, and 111 total delegates to win the nomination.
Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-NY, will push back on this.
She will correctly point out that such an achievement does not constitute winning the Democratic nomination, which will require Obama (or Clinton) to win 2,026 total delegates. She will also suggest that the actual number of delegates needed to win is 2,210 -- a computation that includes the contests in Michigan and Florida, which as of now the Democratic National Committee does not count.
Either way, of course, the Obama achievement in reality offers Obama bragging rights and not much else tangible.
Except for the fact that there have been public statements by many Democratic officials -- super-delegates -- suggesting that whoever wins the most pledged delegates should be the nominee.
This is not the rule -- superdelegates can vote for whomever they choose, for whatever reasons they desire. They can ultimately look at Karl Rove's charts or Obama's weakness with white working-class voters and conclude that Clinton would mount a stronger challenge to Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., and vote for her accordingly. In fact, pledged delegates can vote however they want as well. And in such individual empowerment, Clinton's hopes lie.
That said, it seems quite likely that super-delegates en masse are likely to follow the will of the majority of pledged delegates.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., has certainly expressed such a sentiment, telling George Stephanopoulos in March, "if the votes of the superdelegates overturn what's happened in the elections, it would be harmful to the Democratic Party."
The Speaker's daughter, superdelegate Christine Pelosi has expressed similar views.
As has former President Jimmy Carter.
Not to mention Clinton-backing Sen. Maria Cantwell, D-Wash, who told the Columbian newspaper, "'I definitely don't want the superdelegates to be the deciding factor...If we have a candidate who has the most delegates and the most states,' the Democratic party should come together around that candidate, Cantwell said. The pledged delegate count will be the most important factor, she said, because that is the basis of the nominating process."
Clinton-backing superdelegate Elaine Kamarck told the Indianapolis Star in February that "the superdelegates are not interested in overturning the will of the people and they never have been, and there's no indication they ever would…Now if the will of the people is a complete dead tie, then I think we're in new territory and perhaps the super delegates will play a role at that point.”
Clinton-backing CNN pundit Paul Begala said in January, "these superdelegates are super-ratifiers. That’s all they're going to be, that’s all they should be, by the way, because I think they are an abomination against democracy. Because most of them are either elected officials like Congressman Bacerra or they're, you know, party leaders. They ought to respect the will of the people, because otherwise what do you do? "
In February at a New York State Association of Black and Puerto Rican Legislators conference in Albany,Clinton-backing Rep. Charlie Rangel, D-NY, said, "It's the people [who are] going to govern who selects our next candidate and not super-delegates . "The people's will is what's going to prevail at the convention and not people who decide what the people's will is ."
And Clinton-backing New Jersey Gov. Jon Corzine said, "I feel the superdelegates will end up trailing along with the conclusions that I think the voters express.”
Well? Senator Cantwell? Professor Kamarck? Mr. Begala? Chairman Rangel? Governor Corzine?
- jpt
May 20, 2008 | Permalink | Share | User Comments (120)
You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.
I would rather take our chances on another four years with McCain than guess what will happen with Obama! When life long dems are ready to vote republican people should pay attention!
All of you are gambling on these being idle threats. What a mistake. This country is equally divided between Hillary and Obama according to voters. The supers have to find a way to solve this situation and appease both sides or McCain will be president! The votes are so close that no one at this point should be arrogant or bully enough to claim victory because it will only fuel the fire. If the dem party is to win in the fall people need to put their heads together and find a solution. Of course Hillary will say to help Obama and vise versa, but that does not mean it will happen! People I have talked with are very serious on this issue. 27 people alone in one family will vote McCain that I am aware of. Wake up DNC!!
Posted by: drjune | May 21, 2008 4:50:39 PM
Im a republican and Im voting for Obama. To say that a democrat will vote for McCain, just because Hillary was unable to seal a victory is ridiculious. The democratic party as a whole has proven to me that they can change our economy and foreign politics. Although Clinton may have the experience, she is applying old rules to new changes. We need change, and just like JFK was also considered a young and inexperience candidate for the presidency, he made a strong influence. OBAMA 08 & 012...
Posted by: Spy-Aviator | May 21, 2008 4:05:16 AM
There sure are a bunch of children here in these trolls for sure. You women get your hankies out because you will need them pretty soon when hillery tells you all to join with the Obama team on winning the White House. Are you voting for McCain when Hillery is out there helping Obama which she will be doing? Wake Up.
Posted by: phyllis | May 21, 2008 1:56:40 AM
The Democratic establishment is putting Obama over the top...not the people. It is the elite of the party, and they (DNC) will be screwed in Nov. What total idiots. Super d's will put BO over on June 3, and they want her to give up on June 4. The super d's will not change their minds this far into it. Why don't they revote MI, since he was off the ballot. She will still beat him.
Posted by: Debra | May 20, 2008 10:48:14 PM
Oh my God...Obama blathers on and on and on in his speech tonight, which for the life of me I can't understand why he is speaking in Iowa. The votes from Oregon haven't even been counted yet. Don't care if he's expected to win there...he could have held off until tomorrow when it would be more relevant.
He can talk all about unity and coming together...but it ain't going to happen. Hillary supporters are not bluffing about voting McCain...I will be one of them.
Posted by: Debra | May 20, 2008 10:37:48 PM
Susan,
I have the same feeling, it makes me worry.
Hopefully Obama team will not do similar like in IN because this is very close primary.
The number keeps changing.
The local tv station said they are waiting for closing at 8 pm.
Just pray...
Posted by: catleya | May 20, 2008 10:01:58 PM
How does the democratic party make a mockery of democracy:
Comparison of Texas primary and caucas results
Texa Primary
Candidate Votes Vote % P.Deleg
Clinton 1,459,814 51% 65
Obama 1,358,785 47% 61
4 points win to Clinton
Texa Caucus
Candidate Votes Vote % P.Deleg
Obama 23,918 56% 38
Clinton 18,620 44% 29
12 points loss to Clinton
Comparison of Washington Caucus and Primary:
Washington Caucus
Candidate Votes Vote % P.Deleg
Obama 21,629 68% 59
Clinton 9,992 31% 31
37 points win of Obama
Washington Primary
Candidate Votes Vote % P.Deleg
Obama 339,166 51%
Clinton 303,151 46%
6 points win of Obama
Comparison of Alaska and Virginia
Alaska
Candidate Votes Vote % P.Deleg
Obama 6,674 75% 9
Clinton 2,194 25% 4
A win of
A win of 5 pledged delegates
West Virginia
Candidate Votes Vote % P.Deleg
Clinton 239,298 67% 20
Obama 91,747 26% 8
A win of 147551 votes
A win of 12 pledged delegates
America is just like the animal farm in George Orwell.
All voters are equal: just some voters are more equal than the others.
Posted by: John_Lai | May 20, 2008 8:57:00 PM
How many pledged delegates was Ted Kennedy down by in 1980 when he took it to the convention? And why Hillary should drop out?
Posted by: HoosierSue | May 20, 2008 6:51:40 PM
Obama can declare himself the nominee, but that won't make it true. We won't have a nominee until the convention.
Posted by: Karen | May 20, 2008 6:40:11 PM
Bravo Yavo. Your posts today are excellent. It appears that Hillary lives
till at least August unless she chooses to bow out. Given Obama's gaffe-a-day pace time is probably on her side.
Posted by: Rob | May 20, 2008 5:56:35 PM
Florida baby,
You said: Obama worked tirelessly to obtain the goal of 2026.
He did not work so hard, every time he lose the Super Ds shower him with lots of endorsement.
That's why he is almost get to the goal now.
Posted by: catleya | May 20, 2008 5:30:33 PM
Omentum,
You said ,57 states including Hillary's states of denial.
Those states which Hillary won are real and big states. Obama will desperately need to win those States in the GE in order to beat McCain.
If you think he doesn't need those (Denial???)states, the people of those states will be happy to give their
votes to McCain.
Posted by: catleya | May 20, 2008 5:22:59 PM
Remember that winner take all gave us Bush, and when he did't get them all he took them anyway.
Posted by: power2people | May 20, 2008 4:53:35 PM
More evidence of the Democrats incompetence. They devise a silly system to prevent the stampeding of the party into nominating another McGovern and as soon as a similar stampede occurs they decide their system's no good. Such party geniuses as Pelosi, Cantwell, Jimmuh Cahtuh, Rangel seem to think the SD's should reflect the popular vote. So why have SDs?
Posted by: Rob | May 20, 2008 4:31:38 PM
When Obama takes back the White House, there will be huge change. College Students will never have to pay for student loans again and they can spend all their money on clothes and shoes like they do now and not worry about debt ever. Obama is giving us promises we can believe in. There will be plenty of sacrifices. Taking from the rich and giving to the poor. ANd legalizing cocaine so 16 year olds can get high and still run for president. And women will have to stand by their men. Behind them, actually. Some of the most innocent victims of all this will be the dignified AA voters who are getting a president they did not know they were voting for. Yeah that Obama has the Wright Stuff.
Posted by: MoveOnGuys | May 20, 2008 3:41:47 PM
the obama supporters and their snide and sarcastic comments are starting to get to me... just too much of it lately. i guess most of them are in the early-20's crowd.
ugh
Posted by: ugh | May 20, 2008 2:58:51 PM
hoosier sue
you mean like how they have gone back in almost every state Obama has gotten more and more delegates because the initial counts were swayed incorrectly toward Hillary?
or that the MSM has not asked a single question about a single one of the lists of scandals with the Clintons in this whole primary?
is that what you mean.
the same scandals that the republicans were saving up to release in the general...you know the ones that everyone said were going to be her biggest challenge when she ran...yet..silence...not a peep...
and all America knows is there was something called whitewater and Monica lewinsky... oh and the republicans tried and couldn't find anything (which is false)
You are blinded by this whacked demagoguery.
If this had been any other candidate...they would have been forced out a long time ago.
can you imagine if Joe Biden...or Chris Dodd did this... event thoguh the math was insurmountable and they kept saying nasty things and encouraged their supporters to do the same... at the candidate lets say Hillary was the one with insurmountable numbers... saying she can't win working class men won't vote for her.
they woudl have been drubbed to France.
but you all don't see that from the little worlds you are living in.
Posted by: dl | May 20, 2008 2:56:10 PM
Hoosier sue
they were created so funny stuff that would divide the country and bring it to a place like we are would not happen...
unfortunately that has not been read.
go read the directive for the hunt commision ...out of which the supers were created.
It isn't to rubberstamp the vote... it is to assure that it was not thrown by underhanded spin or tactics.
It is there to interpret that...yes as individuals but barring any threat of so called funny business... or spin or behind the scenes throwing of the campaigns...
they are to assure the democratic process and make the party leaders more accountable to that goal.
go look it up... seems I am the only one reading these materials.
although the Hunt Commision did not list in their creation a specific format for them to choose...the Hunt Commisions own directive signals and identifies what their purpose was that they were directed to do when they created these positions.
So yes it is to rubber stamp the voters choice as long as their was no oddity in the primary that would throw the truw democratic voice of the party.
Posted by: dl | May 20, 2008 2:37:10 PM
dl, the party members are not the voters. I'm a voter, but I'll never be a member of the Democratic party. The SuperD's purpose is to get a Dem elected in the GE, thus their loyalty is only to the party. The pledged delegates reflect the voters - not the party.
Posted by: HoosierSue | May 20, 2008 2:33:29 PM
To dl:
With regard to the "Super Delegates", let's just wait to see what happens in Denver in August. But, please do remember what Axelrod said, "I think they and all the superdelegates should vote according to what they think is best for the party and the country. And I think that we need the strongest possible candidate against John McCain…"
Even he understands.
Posted by: Yavo Lem | May 20, 2008 2:32:19 PM
Post a comment
