Skip to main content

View Diary: A Brief History of Superdelegates (57 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  She wouldn't be wrong to try (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Land of Enchantment, shunpike

    But how is she going to convince more SDs to vote for her when the other candidate raises twice as much money, organizes better, does significantly better versus McCain, wins by wide margins in nearly all the senate-race states we need to win in Nov, and has "won" the pledged delegate race?

    I think pretty much all the SDs that are gung ho for Clinton have already declared for her, she's not going to win many more friends at this point.

    •  simple (0+ / 0-)

      the will of the people. which is supposed to be what the obama supporters are now so concerned about.

      and given the new head-to-head polls, from fl, oh, and pa, don't be so sure that obama matches up better against mccain.

      •  Many caucus states only count delegates (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Land of Enchantment

        So we'll never have an accurate number for popular vote in those states.  The best we could do is guess at how many votes the caucus delegates represent.  Doing this gives us Obama: 9,560,675 Clinton: 8,761,747 according to Bowers' Best Possible Obama Count.

        That's a 8% difference.  The chances of Clinton making that up in remaining states is just about nil.  So even if she overtakes him in some version of the popular vote that includes/excludes different states, she'll probably still lag in at least one reasonable calculation of popular vote.  There is extremely little chance she can get anything resembling a popular mandate here.

        •  i'm not sure about bowers's numbers (0+ / 0-)

          but there must be some fair way to figure it out.

          •  There's about a 2% gap (0+ / 0-)

            Between Obama's lead in the Bowers popular vote count (50.2% to 46.1%, +4.1%) and his lead in the pledged delegate count (52.5% to 46.3%, +6.2%).

            To the extent this gap exists, it has to do with the lower participation in caucus states.  

            However, one thing that's not clear is how well Obama's margins would have held up if caucus states held primaries instead. For example, Colorado would likely have been a good state for him no matter what -- so if you had primary turnout instead of caucus turnout, he might have won by a larger margin of votes (even if a smaller percentage share of votes).

            Barack Obama. Because we can do better.

            by poblano on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 02:55:41 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  and that's one of many reasons (0+ / 0-)

              why i hate caucuses. if we really want maximum voter participation, and as much clarity as is possible, as to the will of the people, caucuses are not the way to do it. but we have to make do with the mess of a system we currently have, try to figure out what's most fair, and then try to fix the system for next time.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site