Let's start with the standard caveat. Superdelegates are free to change their minds, as several already have. We all know this. This is within the rules. Obama supporters know this, Clinton supporters know this. Anyone who has been remotely paying attention knows this. These superdelegates can change their minds all the way up til the convention.
Having said that, we can still discuss several mathematical aspects of the superdelegate breakdown, particularly in light of what is an increasingly clear picture of where the pledged delegates will stand.
There are 794 superdelegates. There were 796 originally, but Joe Lieberman was stripped under the Zell Miller rule and Tom Lantos sadly died. As pontificator points out, if Bill Foster is elected in Illinois to fill Hastert's seat, then that would be 1 more, for 795.
Question: What are a good couple of sites to learn more about superdelegates?
Democratic Convention Watch is very good, in part because they also show how other news organizations (CNN, CBS and AP) list the superdelegates.
Politico actually has a good site too. That'll get you started.
Question: How do these superdelegates break down by category?
There are six kinds of superdelegates, three in each of two categories. One category is what I call "Voter-Elected" Democratic officeholders, with Governors, U.S. Senators, and members of the U.S. House of Representatives. Another category is what I will call "Other" Democratic Party officials. These consist mostly of DNC members, with distinguished party leaders and add-on superdelegates (we'll come to that) in the mix as well.
Before anyone gets picky about "Voter Elected" and "Other," I get that Howard Dean was elected by real people to be DNC chair. I get that some of these state party chairs and vice chairs were "elected" at state party conventions and the like. One group appears on the ballot to general election voters and the other (mostly, not all, eg. mayors etc.) attained their status by some mechanism within the Democratic Party. I think it's a fair distinction, as I will discuss in a bit.
Question: What are the numerical breakdowns within these categories?
There are 31 Governors, 48 Senators, and 220 House members, for a total of 299 "Voter-Elected" superdelegates. There are 19 distinguished party leaders (DPLs), 400 DNC members, and 76 add-ons, for a total of 495 "Other" superdelegates.
Question: Is there any discrepancy with the DNC in those numbers?
Yes, the DNC lists Ed Rendell as a distinguished party leader, as they similarly list Senators Dodd and Byrd. Here, in this diary, they are treated as Gov/Sen respectively.
Question: Do those numbers include Michigan and Florida?
No. The number 794 does not include Michigan or Florida's superdelegates, as you can see most immediately from the Senator total (Levin, Stabenow, Bill Nelson).
Question: If Michigan and Florida come to accord with Dean and re-vote rather than play credentials committee brinksmanship, what would the updated numbers be?
There are a total of 49 superdelegates in Florida and Michigan. 19 are "Voter Elected" and 30 are "Other." Overall, 1 Governor (Michigan), 3 Senators (2 MI, 1 FL), 15 Representatives (9 FL, 6 MI).
As for Voter Elected supers in Florida, Clinton leads 1-0 in Senators with 0 uncommitted, 4-2 in Reps with 3 uncommitted. In Michigan, Clinton leads 1-0 in Governors, 1-0 in Senators with 1 uncommitted, and 3-1 in Reps with 2 uncommitted. That's 10-3 total for Clinton with 6 uncommitted.
Clinton leads 3-2 in Florida's "Other" with 8 uncommitted, and in Michigan Clinton leads 2-0 with 15 uncommitted. That's Clinton 5-2 with 23 uncommitted "Other."
Question: OK, staying with 794, and citing the various news organizations, how many have endorsed Clinton or Obama, and how many have yet to endorse?
Democratic Convention Watch: Clinton 240-199, +41, 355 undeclared
Politico: Clinton 243-199.5, +43.5, 351.5 undeclared
CNN: Clinton 238-199, +39, 357 undeclared
AP: Clinton 242-207, +35, 345 undeclared
CBS: Clinton 232-198, +34, 364 undeclared
NBC/MSNBC: Clinton 254-215, +39, 325 undeclared
One breakdown, Democratic Convention Watch:
"Voter Elected" Total: Obama 95-94, 110 undeclared
Governors: Obama 11-10, 10 undeclared
US Senators: Obama 15-12, 21 undeclared
US House: Clinton 72-69, 79 undeclared
"Other" Total: Clinton 146-104, 245 undeclared
Distinguished Leaders: Clinton 10-4, 5 undeclared
DNC: Clinton 136-98, 166 undeclared
Add-ons: Obama 2-0, 74 undetermined
Question: Politico... half a superdelegate. What the hell?
The 8 Democrats Abroad superdelegates get half a vote.
Question: Like you did with Dem Convention Watch, will you break down each category of each news organization to figure out exactly who the inconsistencies are?
No.
Question: OK then, what on earth are "add-ons?"
Add-ons are a group of 76 superdelegates not all of whom have been chosen at this time. Tad Devine came up with them at 2:30 am one morning back in the 80s, and you can read about that story which you can probably google if you are truly interested. In the future the party may revisit the issue but for this year the rules are what the rules are. For our purposes, they are NOT 76 delegates above and beyond the 794 number. They are part of that number. They get chosen typically during the state conventions that occur following the state's primary or caucus. They are wild-cards. They are chosen by many different mechanisms which is more of a technicality than anything, apparently. If you want a sense of how they work, click here.
Here's a snippet:
Here's how it works. Every state is eligible to receive one UAD for every four DNC members it possesses (except for DC, which is stuck with just 2). Since the party chair and vice-chair of every state serve on the DNC, and the rules stipulate that the total be rounded up to the nearest integer, that means every state gets at least one UAD. Some get more. Illinois gets three, for example, and California has five....
States have adopted a wide range of methods for selecting UADs. ...
Although these delegates are formally unpledged, I can guarantee that any candidate who controls a majority of the body which awards them will ensure that the slots are reserved for their own supporters. That's right - there's nothing proportional about it. For UADs, the system is winner take all.
From looking at the initial tally of the first 26 states that the TPM poster began a few weeks ago, it looks like Obama is favored slightly in this process, because he has won more states which in turn seems to mean better representation at these state conventions, which selects these add-ons. But it's not all that clear cut, apparently, since Obama has institutional support in MA and Clinton has institutional support in SC, as the TPM poster points out. I will not pretend to be an expert. So we will have to wait and see as these conventions start to meet in the coming weeks and months, assuming Clinton stays in. At first blush it feels like mostly a wash, the key seems to be they are loosely an extension of the actual voting in the states in a way that a random DNC person is not.
[updated] As CheapSeats points out in comments below, there is an update post over at TPM now that we are about 40 contests in. It shows Obama with a clear egde and argues that when all is said and done Obama looks to have approximately +14 (38-24) out of the first 62 in the contests that have already gone. 14 would be tied to the remaining contests. I'm not going to change the other numbers around this, let's just call it a nice comfort blanket and again recognize that these are as sure not to change allegiances as superdelegates get.
Question: You made this distinction between "Voter Elected" and "Other" superdelegates, when their votes are clearly equal. What was the point of that?
Good question. Since either category of superdelegate gets an equal vote, and since they can both switch sides, on first appraisal it seems like this is a fabricated distinction. However, consider the political cost of switching a previously announced endorsement in what we can call the Non-Scandal Climate. (The Scandal Climate sort of speaks for itself, where a scandal that is so bad hurts a potential nominee deep into the process, and the choice to switch to the other potential nominee comes with almost no political cost as a common sense move).
In the Non-Scandal Climate, a superdelegate is saying, "Hey, I've changed my mind. In my judgment, X would be a better candidate than Y." Certainly this happens. But what are the repercussions? For a voter-elected candidate, that person is answerable by ballot to the regular voters of a state or district. Their endorsement tends to be a much higher profile situation. Often they appear with the candidate in public during campaigning. Their voters tend to know who their Representative or Senator or Governor is endorsing because it gets lots of press coverage. And if that individual should switch, well that will also get lots of press coverage locally. Switching, particularly in the Non-Scandal Climate, is generally the kind of unforced error that politicians seek to avoid because it makes them look even worse - now they've aggravated both sides at one point and to those that don't have a preference they look indecisive and calculating. Often better to pick an unpopular side and stick with it. Now, if you are like John Lewis and 80% of your district voted for Obama, switching to Obama is probably a positive with your constituents. Better had you been consistent all along, but far, far better than had Lewis switched from Obama to Clinton after his district had voted 80% Obama.
The Voter-Elected types also may have to appear on the ballot with that nominee. Certainly all the House members running for re-election. For some, this is not an issue because they are in safe districts/states. But for many, particularly those in close red states/red districts, who appears with you at the top of the ticket tends to focus your attention on endorsing the right person in a different, far more urgent way than it does for, say, Jason Rae (the 21 year old Wisconsin superdelegate). I can speak from personal experience knocking on doors in such states, having to defend my candidates to independents (who liked my candidate personally) from the notion that they would be "controlled by Hillary Clinton" once in DC. When you find yourself doing this over and over (because Hillary Clinton is Demon #1 on direct mail pieces against downticket House/Sen candidates in purple/red states), the candidate him or herself tends to also be highly aware of whether he or she can embrace or keep a distance from the nominee at the top. Seeing red state voter-elected superdelegate endorsements pile up for Obama could not possibly surprise me less.
For Senators and Governors who won't be on the ballot this year, it's the same issue. When they run in 2 or 4 years, the president elected in 2008 will matter (either re-election time or mid-term).
Sure, there are plenty of exceptions. The bottom line, though, is these voter-elected folks have a significant barrier to switching that Jason Rae does not. People Jason Rae knows might yell at him and give him grief. He might damage his own inside baseball chances within local party politics, but it is not the same consequence for switching.
And another bit of evidence that there's a real difference in these categories. Obama and Clinton are essentially tied in voter-elected supers, and generally have been very close for a few weeks now.
The whole margin of Clinton's lead is the DNC types, the lower radar state party vice chairs and whatnot. This group bears watching. Since he was very close in voter-elected endorsements by Feb 5, for the most part, Obama's endorsement steady trickle has been from the DNC group the past 4 weeks. DNC supers are closing the gap. But if in the end the voter-elected supers stay on an even pace, and if it is DNC superdelegates that take this away from Obama, oh boy, oh boy, oh boy.
But I believe we Obama supporters should take some solace in the essential tie among voter-elected supers. These people have more power in real-world politics than the DNCers, and it will take more power and a stronger will to justify flipping the large pledged delegate lead if that is what happens. Put another way, Gov. Jim Doyle is more influential than Jason Rae, both of whom are part of Wisconsin's delegation. If the voter-elected group stays tied (ie, approximately 55-55 of the remaining endorsers), it strikes me as far less plausible that Clinton convinces a whole bunch of Jason Raes and state party chairs and vice-chairs to rise up in powerful defiance of Obama's nomination, which is what it will take.
Question: OK, back to math. I was promised math, dammit! Based on the foregoing, I think I understand most of the state of play with superdelegates as we sit here today in early March. There's roughly 355 undeclared superdelegates, about 74 of whom are a loose extension of state results (the add-ons) and about 281 totaled in other divisions. Of those 281, about 110 (or 39%) are "Voter Elected" and about 171 (or 61%) "Other" (166 DNC, 5 DPLs). Given that Obama leads by an insurmountable 156 pledged delegates according to Camp Obama's nearly always-precise counting, and given that he trails by about 41 superdelegates, can we talk about the superdelegates mathematically in terms of how many would have to break for Clinton to swing her the nomination?
Let's make a couple of reasonable assumptions.
First, Obama leads by 156 pledged delegates after the March 4 states are fully counted.
Second, let us assume that no Obama or Clinton scandal crops up that renders all of this moot and the decision becomes a no-brainer.
Third, let us assume that the add-ons break roughly 50-50, which seems like a conservatively fair rough assumption (since Obama may be slightly favored) and the add-ons are directly related to state voting outcomes. Obama currently leads 2-0, let's give the remaining 74 out 38-36 for Clinton to get an even split. We'll use Dem Convention Watch's numbers (+41 becomes +43 with that add-on bump).
Fourth, until we see real evidence of this, we assume Obama's endorsers will not defect to Clinton (if we start seeing this, we can come back another day and revisit the math).
Fifth, given the direct denials by Camp Obama, we'll assume the Brokaw/Lacy Clay assertion that Obama has 50 superdelegates waiting to be released is false. I'll throw one scenario in at the end for kicks.
Sixth, with Obama up 156 in pledged (assumption #1) and down 43 supers (assumption #3), Obama leads by 113 in the very early morning of March 6.
Scenario 1, "Status Quo Scenario": Obama finishes the next 12 contests at exactly where he sits today, up 156 pledged.
To close to a tie, Clinton needs to win 197-84 among remaining supers, or 70.1% of them.
Scenario 2, "Obama Leaked Spreadsheet Scenario": Obama gains 9 pledged delegates over the remaining stretch for a 165 pledged delegate lead.
Clinton needs roughly 201-80 to tie, or 71.5% of the undeclared supers.
Scenario 3 "Obama's Leaked Spreadsheet Has Proven Too Conservative Scenario": Obama extends his pledged delegate lead to 180.
To tie, Clinton needs to win 187-48, or 79.6% of the remaining supers.
Scenario 4 "Rosiest Outlook Scenario": Obama extends his pledged delegate lead to a full 200.
To tie, Clinton needs 197-38, or 83.8%.
Scenario 5 "Worst-Case Scenario": Obama fades back to about 130 pledged delegates.
To tie, Clinton still needs 162-73, or 68.9% of the supers.
Significantly, all of the percentages of remaining supers breaking for Clinton have a common element. They all look like a clear party decision to hand the nomination to Clinton. And in terms of keeping the Party from major meltdown, none of those scenarios can avoid the public perception of a stolen nomination. These last 24 hours and certainly in the days and weeks to come, the Clinton camp will be aggressively trying to move the goalposts down the road, but lest we forget, this is delusional. I updated the video clip into my last diary, but consider again Howard Fineman discussing this very topic only a few weeks ago:
Since our now-worst-case scenario is Obama by about 130 pledged delegates, Fineman using Camp Obama's number of 125 pledged delegates in that video is remarkably relevant here. Goalposts don't get to move just because Dan Abrams throws a preposterously fake fit about "Oh Noes! Teh Inside DC Medias!" and the media gets bored with the story and wants something new.
Wildcard Scenario, "Brokaw/Clay are right and 46 more supers are breaking in the next 3-4 days Scenario": After the 4 that declared on March 5, 46 more Obama superdelegates are set to endorse.
If the scenario is true, then Obama has fully erased Clinton's superdelegate lead by all news organization measures, and in fact leads by 5-11 or so superdelegates in addition to the 156 pledged delegates. Moreover, only 235 supers will remain to be claimed, with Obama holding an overall lead of 161 by Dem Convention Watch's standard. Clinton would need to win 198-37 of the remaining unpledged supers to tie, or 84.3%.
Plotting a little ways out into the near future with this scenario, if Obama gains 4 pledged in Wyoming and 9 pledged in Mississippi by Tuesday, he would be up 174 (5 super, 169 pledged). To tie, Clinton would need to win 205-30 in the remaining supers, or 87.2%.
And by the way, if Obama wins the 3253 pledged delegates by 165, that is 1709-1544. Despite speculative blathering such as Joe Scarborough's "2%" just now on Morning Joe, that is a full clear 5% spread, 52.53% to 47.47%.
And now after all that math, I need this:
This was the moment when we tore down barriers that have divided us for too long; when we rallied people of all parties and ages to a common cause; when we finally gave Americans who have never participated in politics a reason to stand up and to do so.
This was the moment when we finally beat back the policies of fear and doubts and cynicism, the politics where we tear each other down instead of lifting this country up.
This was the moment.
Years from now, you'll look back and you'll say that this was the moment, this was the place where America remembered what it means to hope. For many months, we've been teased, even derided for talking about hope. But we always knew that hope is not blind optimism. It's not ignoring the enormity of the tasks ahead or the roadblocks that stand in our path.
It's not sitting on the sidelines or shirking from a fight. Hope is that thing inside us that insists, despite all the evidence to the contrary, that something better awaits us if we have the courage to reach for it and to work for it and to fight for it.