Start Counting the Delegates

There are lots of metrics we use to define the contours of the race for president: the content of the candidates' speeches, the impact of those speeches, miles traveled, sizes of crowds, political donations, and of course, polls.  But the most meaningful metric is the delegate count.  In the race for the Democratic nomination, the first Iowan caucus goer has yet to raise her voice, but the all-important delegate totals for the Democratic nomination already are beginning to mount.  The New York Times has a story up about a poll of the super delegates who will attend the Democratic National Convention in Denver next August.

The Times has conducted a survey.  It reports that more than a third of these 850 delegates are undecided, but among the decided, a trend toward Hillary Clinton is apparent.  

The current findings among the 588 delegates The Times contacted are these:

Undecided  291
Clinton  159
Obama  59
Edwards  29
Richardson  25
Dodd  11
Biden  8
Kucinich  2
Gore  1

Various trends in the data, according to the paper, show that women are more likely to support Hillary than men are.  A caveat:  The article suggests that before the Iowa caucuses in January 2004, a survey of the super delegates showed them trending toward Dean.

•  I was unsure of the tags.

  I hope I was right.

  by DCDemocrat on Thu Nov 08, 2007 at 09:35:56 AM PDT

•  this place will love this

  lets give a scroeboard update before before people actually VOTE. More of Hillary's inevitable strategy I guess.

  by nevadadem on Thu Nov 08, 2007 at 09:36:12 AM PDT

  •  I feel your pain.

    by DCDemocrat on Thu Nov 08, 2007 at 09:40:02 AM PDT

    •  Howard Dean

      used superdelegates to sew up the 2004 primary, too.  How'd that work out?

      by zenbowl on Thu Nov 08, 2007 at 09:58:14 AM PDT

      •  Not as well as it's working

        out for Hillary.

        by DCDemocrat on Thu Nov 08, 2007 at 10:03:58 AM PDT

        •  She's going to lose. BIG.

          People don't want to live with, defend, stand by, any more of the Clinton baggage. They are weary from fighting battles and wars.

          by cosbo on Thu Nov 08, 2007 at 10:21:24 AM PDT

          •  What people are you talking about, cosbo?

            Certainly not the ones who have responded to pollsters for the last four years and consistently said they were for Hillary.  It must be those other people you're talking about (whoever they are.)

            by DCDemocrat on Thu Nov 08, 2007 at 10:23:31 AM PDT

          •  And what evidence...

            ...supports your "BIG" assertion?  Other than your personal hopes and dreams, of course.

            by Caldonia on Thu Nov 08, 2007 at 10:48:23 AM PDT

          •  Wow, only five comments

            until the first anti-Hillary slam.  You guys are Johnny on the spot today...

            by jarhead5536 on Thu Nov 08, 2007 at 10:56:02 AM PDT

            •  Actually,

              it was the first response, but since it hasn't received enough recommends, it appears lower on the list.

              by DCDemocrat on Thu Nov 08, 2007 at 11:09:30 AM PDT

  •  Yeah, especially since the point of ...

    ... superdelegates is that they are not committed to voting for any candidate on the first ballot, so the "event" for them is the convention itself. This makes much of this "delegate count" equivalent to a primary poll almost a year before the primary.

    by BruceMcF on Thu Nov 08, 2007 at 09:43:56 AM PDT

    •  That's true,

      but given the direct influence of the persons polled, it's more indicative of what is happening in this population that the polls we see of specific populations (such as "likely" Iowa caucus goer.)

      by DCDemocrat on Thu Nov 08, 2007 at 09:45:49 AM PDT

      •  Yes, its a good poll of the population a year ...

        ... out ... but still, if the nomination is sealed up, they will vote for the winner, and if not, they can change their vote from one ballot to the next.

        by BruceMcF on Thu Nov 08, 2007 at 09:53:14 AM PDT

        •  Of course,

          I don't contest what you say at all.  

          by DCDemocrat on Thu Nov 08, 2007 at 09:55:29 AM PDT

•  Wow, Go Hillary!

  by masslib on Thu Nov 08, 2007 at 09:44:47 AM PDT

•  That looks like. . .

  About half undecided.  Or can't I do math?

  by LarryInNYC on Thu Nov 08, 2007 at 09:46:03 AM PDT

  •  I was quoting the Times.

    291 is about a third of 850.  I don't know why they used the percentages they used, but I kept their language to avoid the usual dkos quibbling.

    by DCDemocrat on Thu Nov 08, 2007 at 09:48:05 AM PDT

  •  Because superdelegates

    can change their mind (witness Dean 2004) and give tentative yeses, the numbers can be fuzzy.

    by zenbowl on Thu Nov 08, 2007 at 09:59:23 AM PDT

    •  But always warm. n/t

      by Caldonia on Thu Nov 08, 2007 at 10:00:25 AM PDT

•  Holy fuckin', jeezus-christ a-crappin' shit!

  Wow! Go Hillary!

  by Bob Johnson on Thu Nov 08, 2007 at 09:46:56 AM PDT

  •  I knew you would come around, Bob.

    You're a reasonable fellow who knows a winner when he see one: Go Hillary!

    by DCDemocrat on Thu Nov 08, 2007 at 09:48:49 AM PDT

    •  I'm just trying to garner a rec from

      ... Gabriele Droz.

      by Bob Johnson on Thu Nov 08, 2007 at 09:49:36 AM PDT

      •  People tell me I'm a lot easier

        than she is.

        by DCDemocrat on Thu Nov 08, 2007 at 09:54:27 AM PDT

        •  We'll have to go out for driinks.

          by Bob Johnson on Thu Nov 08, 2007 at 09:55:04 AM PDT

•  whoopee

  by bumblebums on Thu Nov 08, 2007 at 10:04:01 AM PDT

•  This is hilarious

  So the claim is Hillary has the fix in, sound familiar?

  by LaEscapee on Thu Nov 08, 2007 at 10:09:10 AM PDT

  •  Not as familiar as it will

    sound on February 6, but it's as good as it gets on November 8.

    by DCDemocrat on Thu Nov 08, 2007 at 10:12:58 AM PDT

  •  HRC winning the Insider Primary!

    Except she isn't, since there too no votes have been cast.  

    It's basically a weaker varient of the Hillary is Inevitable Poll Diary after weaker polls came out.

    by Inland on Thu Nov 08, 2007 at 10:51:05 AM PDT

    •  LOL

      Not really the type of thing one would want to put out there.

      But hey I'm no penn you know.

      by LaEscapee on Thu Nov 08, 2007 at 12:27:16 PM PDT

      •  She's going to win everything.

        Outside.  Inside.  Upside down.  Rightside up.  Get used to it.

        by DCDemocrat on Thu Nov 08, 2007 at 01:30:59 PM PDT

•  Go, Mike!

  Gravel is inevitable, you weaklings.

  by chumley on Thu Nov 08, 2007 at 10:16:39 AM PDT

  •  My name in real life is Mike.

    I had sort of a start when I read, "Go, Mike!"

    by DCDemocrat on Thu Nov 08, 2007 at 10:24:23 AM PDT

•  A caveat indeed

  This basically doesn't tell us anything.  So the front-runner, establishment candidate with the intimate connection to that last Democratic administration holds an early lead among super delegates?  No kidding.  

  We keep seeing all these facts thrown out there to suggest that we just shouldn't have a nomination process at all.  This says absolutely nothing about the race other than the candidate who anyone would expect to hold an early lead holds an early lead.  How would the junior senator have taken a lead in super delegates at this point?  That's why we have campaigns.  

  There are actually some facts on the ground now that do suggest who the better choice for the nomination might be.  Look to where the candidates are actually running and see the effect they are having.  Hillary starts in Iowa with all the name recognition and the sense that it's Her Turn in 08.  Edwards has been running here so long people have taken to calling him Governor.  And Obama is somehow running in a dead heat now with Hillary and consistently surpassing Edwards.  And he's doing it with a lot of people who are registering Democrat for the first time.  These are both independants who want to caucus for him and Republicans who are switching party affiliations specifically for him.  They will be Republicans again in 08 if Hillary is the nominee.

  The fact that one of the candidates is showing an abiltiy to grow the Democratic electoral base beyond the 50-50 line we've been living with for a decade is a far more telling fact than where the super delegates are sitting right now.

   

  by Sun dog on Thu Nov 08, 2007 at 10:32:56 AM PDT

  •  Which junior senator are you talking about?

    Clinton, Obama, or Edwards?

    As for Clinton, a picture is worth a thousand words, and this one is from yesterday:

    

    by DCDemocrat on Thu Nov 08, 2007 at 10:42:38 AM PDT

    •  The one who can beat her

      Why do people keep putting information in front of us that shows how far Hillary is ahead seemingly as an argument for why she should be so far ahead?  That's not an argument, that's a catch-22.  

      There are plenty of reasons she would start out ahead but there are also very strong reasons she is just about the worst choice we could make for nominee.

      by Sun dog on Thu Nov 08, 2007 at 10:47:44 AM PDT

      •  Well,

        the question of whether or not she is the worst choice we could make for the nominee is a moot point if she is the nominee.  I, for one, believe there is lots of reason to believe that the other candidates' race for the White House would be less convincing than you would like to believe.  For instance, their hurkey-jerk, not ready for prime time campaigns to date.

        by DCDemocrat on Thu Nov 08, 2007 at 10:51:19 AM PDT

        •  hurkey-jerk what?

          Where are you getting that?  The national campaign at this point is essentially about branding; very superficial, based on familiarity and very tilted towards the establishment candidate Hillary Clinton.  I am around the actual campaigns all the time right here in Iowa, the people who work for them and the candidates themselves.   As a matter of fact, Obama has run a much more professional and intelligent campaign than Hillary.  Her entire schtick is to run as 'inevitable' and take advantage of the fact that the GOP argues with her all the time.  

          "Hillary, maybe the reason they pay so much attention to you is because that's an argument they are comfortable having."   Obama says more intelligent things every day than she has said throughout the entire campaign.  Her supporters are sleep-walking us to the top of the basement stairs mumbling about polls that have consistently reversed themselves in just about every campaign.  

          by Sun dog on Thu Nov 08, 2007 at 10:59:25 AM PDT

          •  Your assessment

            of what Hillary's supporters are doing is pure conjecture on your part.  You assume there are no good reasons to support Hillary, so no one could rationally be for her.  It simply is not the case.  You are blinded by your prejudice against her.

            by DCDemocrat on Thu Nov 08, 2007 at 11:12:02 AM PDT

            •  I'm not blind

              I'm not basing my opinions on conjecture.  I talk to Hillary supporters all the time.  I canvass in Iowa and focus on people who are leaning towards Hillary.  It's ironic that you would make this conjecture about what I base my opinions on.  

              I never assumed there were no good reasons to support Hillary, I supported her myself before the campaigns got going.  

              You didn't take into account or refute any of the points I made and then told me I am blinded by my support.  And then there is your Hillary non-sequitor right after it.  All these years arguing with Bushies I had the impression they were the ones so predisposed to acting ironically.  Hillary supporters are now dissuading me of that idea.

              by Sun dog on Thu Nov 08, 2007 at 11:52:52 AM PDT

              •  When you make statements like,

                "Her supporters are sleep-walking us to the top of the basement stairs," it's hard to react to any other points you make.

                by DCDemocrat on Thu Nov 08, 2007 at 12:17:21 PM PDT

                •  That wasn't intended to insult you.

                  I was making a point, not a jab.  The sleep walking part to me is that there is just this assumption she should be the nominee.  When other Democrats right now in our own nomination process try to discuss the question of who the nominee should be, Clinton supporters tend to hold up polls that show how much she is leading.  That is sleep walking in that it's not an argument for why she would be the best candidate, it's an argument for not asking the question.  

                  It's the basement stairs because there is very compelling evidence and logic that tells me she would probably lose in 2008.  The GOP noise about how it's all over is so obvious to me.  They act like they don't have a chance in '08 because they want us to fall right down those stairs.  We've been running 50-50 with them for a decade now and you're proposing a nominee who doesn't grow our base and has the most passionate opposition out there of anyone in our party.  THAT is worth discussing.

                  If you can discuss the pros and cons of a Hillary or Obama nomination that would be one thing.  All you've done is hold up evidence that she is favored for the nomination.  And then when I put a couple of ideas there as to why it might not be a good idea, you didn't refute them. You showed me a graph about how far ahead she is.  It's all a catch-22.  You're saying Democrats should support her for the nomination because Democrats are supporting her for the nomination.  And you're ignoring lots of history.  That's why I focused on your 'caveat' in the first place.  

                  If one campaign seems primarily bent on preventing discussion of who the best nominee is, that is a red flag to me, not a checkered flag as you are seeing.  

                  by Sun dog on Thu Nov 08, 2007 at 12:43:59 PM PDT

•  For 2012 or 2016?

  As long as we're counting unhatched chickens in an attempt to avoid any actual contest, I'm hereby declaring my victory in the 2020 race.

  by Inland on Thu Nov 08, 2007 at 10:48:46 AM PDT

  •  let me be the first

    Congratulations!  

    by Sun dog on Thu Nov 08, 2007 at 10:51:06 AM PDT

    •  Too late. Things move fast once we decide

      that voting is actually unnecesary to declare a winner of an election.  You're going to have to congratulate me on my re-election in 2024, now.

      by Inland on Thu Nov 08, 2007 at 10:52:54 AM PDT

      •  Damn

        So I'm too late for a cabinet position?  

        Are you sure that after Jeb's second term what's left of the country won't be ready for change in the form of Chelsea Clinton by then?  

        by Sun dog on Thu Nov 08, 2007 at 11:01:02 AM PDT

  •  Needless to say,

    I'll have to see who else is in the race before I commit to anyone.

    by DCDemocrat on Thu Nov 08, 2007 at 10:52:03 AM PDT

    •  Nope. Time to rally around thel president. Me.

      Sorry, you're just plain irrelevant already.  Time for you to rally around the eventual president.  Remember, it only helps the republicans unless you shut your pie hole about me.

      by Inland on Thu Nov 08, 2007 at 10:54:58 AM PDT

  •  I didn't vote for you. n/t

    by Caldonia on Thu Nov 08, 2007 at 10:52:07 AM PDT

    •  I see signs of great wisdom in you, Caldonia!

      by DCDemocrat on Thu Nov 08, 2007 at 10:53:57 AM PDT

      •  Stay tuned. ;) n/t

        by Caldonia on Thu Nov 08, 2007 at 11:02:05 AM PDT

    •  "Vote"? "Vote"? As if.

      We don't do that anymore.  Come on, time to rally around the eventual president.

      by Inland on Thu Nov 08, 2007 at 10:55:56 AM PDT

      •  Finally,

        I thought you would never get it.

        by DCDemocrat on Thu Nov 08, 2007 at 11:12:39 AM PDT