RECENT POSTS
- Oprah, Health Care Lobbyists, Among Recent Visitors to White House
- An Obama Thanksgiving Menu, with an Extra Serving of Pie
- White House Thanksgiving Traditions: Broken and Observed
- Obama, GOP Air Differences Over Jobs, Economy In Thanksgiving Addresses
- White House State Dinner Party Crashers
- Obama to Lay Out Emissions Goals in Copenhagen
- Free Bird
- The "Good" War
- The Presidential Planner
- Under the Stars, Obama Toasts India’s Prime Minister
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 can't decide if some of these biards are populated mostly by Limbaugh losers or sore loser Hillary fans.In either event,it is extremely likely that Obama will win both the Democratic nomination & the presidential election.Then all you bitter females/repressed Republicans can moan and groan for 8 more years.
Posted by: bill | May 20, 2008 2:30:51 PM
dl, if the SuperDs are only in place to rubber stamp the pledged delegate count, then they never would have been created in the first place. They are in place to put forth the candidate who has the best chance of winning the GE - if they fail to do so, then they're derelict in their duties.
Posted by: HoosierSue | May 20, 2008 2:29:55 PM
"Sweetie" Bo wants to change America - he will give away all your stuff and all the jobs to his revolutionary friends - they have planned all along to overthrow the US Government. If you own any property, it will be divied up among the 3rd world countries. It's only fair. Have fun with your new country!
Posted by: Matt | May 20, 2008 2:28:14 PM
Yavo Lem
that's great and all that Axelrod said that but the Hunt Commision was given a declaration before they created the superdelegates and it was to make the party "more democratic" not less and it's leaders more "accountable" to the party members (yes the voters) themselves.
That is in papers from the Library of Congress to the dictionary of Politics to various notes from the years where the commision was formed.
The supers are to ehlp assure the vote and selection priocess was more democratic to the party not less.
Posted by: dl | May 20, 2008 2:26:37 PM
Any claim about the majority of pledged delegates is nothing more than a veiled threat to put the black vote cow on the line if SDs dare to vote against him in the convention. This man is an artist when it comes to playing the race card softly.
Posted by: esvida | May 20, 2008 2:22:29 PM
Hoosier sue
"Kennedy, Kerry, Byrd, and Richardson went against their states' voters who gave Hillary the majority. If they don't have to follow "the will of the people" then why should Obamabots think any Super D has to?"
----
The supers are responsible to follow the will of the people ...they are to make the party more democratic...
that does not mean their constituencies outside the democratic party as a whole. They are to help their parties democratic voice first ... it is not about reflecting the state or constituency first... they were not appointed a superdelegate vote for anything besides making the PARTY more democratic...and making sure that the will and spirit of the people of the party ...the national vote and delegates...was upheld...and no twisting happened in the run up to throw that off...like for example an election counting where the states never met the candidate (and statistically proven that every state had a major switch to another candidate where they actually met that candidate) or a candidates name wasn't on the ballot.
supers are there to make sure funny business like that doesn't happen.
Posted by: dl | May 20, 2008 2:18:47 PM
Well, for the last eight years we've seen our military, our economy, and our world esteem ruined by the failed Bush policies.
What a sad end of the Bush Regime to see this argueing within the Democratic Party.
It's so true that this generation is all about "ME" and not about our country and what needs to be done to restore it. Shame on all of you.
Posted by: dennis | May 20, 2008 2:16:28 PM
Yavo Lem - Since when does success or wins during the primary season automatically translate to the same success/wins in the general election? THEY ARE TWO DIFFERENT THINGS! Thank God the superdelegates are smart enough to realize that.
And secondly, the Democratic nomination process is not determined on electoral votes for the exact same reason I just mentioned. Stop trying to bend the rules to compensate for your LOSING candidate. It's immature. It's unfair and I dare to say it's UNAMERICAN!
Posted by: Jimmy | May 20, 2008 2:10:54 PM
"will of the people" can also mean who wins the popular vote. What more will is that??
Posted by: Rachel | May 20, 2008 2:10:45 PM
Kennedy, Kerry, Byrd, and Richardson went against their states' voters who gave Hillary the majority. If they don't have to follow "the will of the people" then why should Obamabots think any Super D has to?
Posted by: HoosierSue | May 20, 2008 2:08:08 PM
Sucking up guys. Clinton is defeated.
Demacrate will take another lesson.
Posted by: jy2008 | May 20, 2008 2:02:23 PM
Mangog
who would like people to listen to his exclamation point statement that Obama will lose by a landslide...
considering the head to head match ups betweenObama and McCain have to inherently include the highest possible numbers from the height of the primaries for defections (a number that every reasonable person has said is beyond ridiculousness to think it would be a third of that)
even with those heat of the moment defections tallied into those head to heads... Obama almost always ties or wins.
and that is with McCain not getting any scrutiny...
between that and just the numbers voting dem instead of republican in the primaries...
There is a very good statistical chance ...the odds are far better ...that not only will the dem candidate win...
it is actually most likely a blow out.
but I know that doesn't soothe any of the angry Hillary supporters' anger so I am sure those numbers will also be ignored in favor of their own creative math.
Posted by: dl | May 20, 2008 2:02:12 PM
al: According to Obama though, he needs to study the 57 states that he thinks we live in.
Also, please someone inform Obama that they do not speak Arabic in Afghanistan.
Heh! Question to Obama! Does Canada have a president or a prime minister?
Obama....I DON"T KNOW!!!!! HELLLLLLO!!!!
Posted by: DARLENE | May 20, 2008 2:00:47 PM
The Democratic Party is being taken over by its left wing.
Although I've been a life-long Democrat, there is no way on God's green earth that I'm voting for Obama.
Obama is too far left, and he has too many red flags surrounding him.
I can only hope that the super delegates will rescue the Democratic Party from Far Left Obama and his ultra-liberal supporters.
If not, My family and I wil be voting for John McCain in November.
It is a shame
Posted by: USmarine0331 | May 20, 2008 1:59:19 PM
The Demacrate SO FAR LEFT (and dump media)
has only promoted "The Emperor''s New Clothes"
One see the clothes.
One see the color.
One see the body.
Posted by: jy2008 | May 20, 2008 1:59:09 PM
What's disturbing about Obama on Hansford is that he's in the pocket of Exelon which wants to build 16 nuclear power plants across the USA. Exelon is one of the reasons Obama voted for Cheney's Oil Bill.
This man is clueless, thus dangerous.
Posted by: HoosierSue | May 20, 2008 1:58:29 PM
After tonight Barack will be within 50 delegates of having the 2025 majority required for nomination. There are eleven days until the May 31 DNC Committee meeting. My bet is that Barack gets 50 additional superdelegates by May 31st and this is all over.
Posted by: Radmanaustin | May 20, 2008 1:55:30 PM
and for those of you saying that the supers were put to send the most electably candidate forward...that is absolutely not true...
it was (and I quote the purpose of the commision that created them) to make the party more democratic and more responsible to the party members themselves.
The supers are there to ensure the will of the party members...and make the selection process more democratic not less.
It is to make sure no "funny business" goes on with the delegate math.
That was the purpose of the supers...besides what that professional spinner Ferraro says...it is in the recorded declaration of purpose for the Hunt Commission which created their purpose.
They can act on their own but it is to ensure the spirit of deomcratic process and the will of the party in the face of manipulation with things like Michigan for example where a candidate's name was not on the ballot.
Posted by: dl | May 20, 2008 1:55:28 PM
ATTENTION: LOIS, CALIFORNIA
IF YOU CAN RECALL CORRECTLY THE SNAKES TOOK THE VOTE BECAUSE 1) KERRY CONCEDED, 2) THE REPUBS (BUSH PARTY) MANIPULATED THE SYSTEM AND THE VOTES, AND 3) REGISTERED VOTERS WHERE TURNED AWAY AFTER WAITING IN LINE FOR SEVERAL HOURS. SO TOO BAD FOR MCCAIN THAT THE PEOPLE OF AMERICA ARE AWAKE TO THAT TYPE OF UNDERHANDED SCHEME. GO OBAMA/CLINTON! TO VOTE FOR THE PEOPLE VOTE DEMOCRAT
Posted by: CHANGE | May 20, 2008 1:54:32 PM
obama is not electable
he is stepping in it more every day
dems are fools
Posted by: al | May 20, 2008 1:53:02 PM
Post a comment
