Web Search powered by YAHOO! SEARCH
share
email
font size
options
 
Friday, May 9, 2008

 

We have reached a milestone in the Democratic presidential race. Two numbers tell the story:

217 and 257.

There are only 217 delegates left to be chosen in all the remaining primaries. Their number is now vastly exceeded by the 257 superdelegates who have yet to choose on their own.

Here are two more numbers to consider:

178 and 329.

Barack Obama needs only 178 more delegates to clinch the nomination. Hillary Clinton needs 329.

In other words, the 257 fence-sitting superdelegates could end this race right now if only 70 percent of them announced for Obama. That might sound like a daunting share, but it's actually smaller than the percentage that Obama has posted since Tsunami Tuesday on Feb. 5. Between that date and the middle of April, Obama won the allegience of 93 superdelegates; Clinton, only five.

This week alone, Obama has netted at least eight new ones, Clinton only one. Her once-daunting advantage among superdelegates - attributable to her longstanding insider status, and that of her husband's - has been whittled away nearly to nothing. She once lead by several hundred; according to CNN, that lead now stands at eight, and NBC puts her lead at nine. (Saturday update: ABC and The New York Times now report that Obama, for the first time, is tallying more superdelegates than his near-vanquished rival.)

So, Obama fans may well be asking, what's the holdup? Why don't the superdelegates stick a fork in this race and call it over?

The answer requires one more number: 90. That's the share of unpledged superdelegates who make their living in Washington, as elected politicians - almost half of the superdelegate pool. And they're basically holding out for the simple reason that, if they jumped now for Obama, a lot of their Hillary-friendly constituents would be seriously ticked off, perhaps enough to retaliate against those politicians when they run for re-election this fall. And many represent conservative and/or rural constituencies.

One example: Senator Mary Landrieu of red-state Louisiana. She faces a tough re-election this fall, and doesn't want to alienate any Democratic voters, given the fact that she needs them all. She told MSNBC on Wednesday that she intends to stay neutral, "out of respect for my supporters, half of whom are for Senator Clinton and half of whom are for Senator Obama."

All this suggests that grassroots Clinton followers - taking their cues from the candidate - are not yet willing to concede this race, to countenance any surrender. The period of reconciliation has yet to begin, and it won't happen until Hillary Clinton gives the signal. Presumably, at some point, she will - when the math becomes inescapable.

-------

My conversation with Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, which took place earlier today at Philadelphia's Free Library, is available in a podcast, on the library website. He voiced disappointment that the Senate Democrats haven't been able to do more to stop the war. He also said that the Clinton-Obama battle has been great for the party. I tried to pin him down on a few pressing political matters, but he deftly bobbed and weaved like the amateur boxer he once was.

Posted by Dick Polman @ 8:55 AM  Permalink | 14 comments
Comments   
Posted 09:57 AM, 05/09/2008
tom - wilmington, de
The superdelegates have a problem. I believe many of them deem Obama unelectable, yet they are afraid of taking the nomination away from him for fear of a backlash from African Americans (who seem to vote Democrat regardless). Wouldn't it be easier just to have the superdelegates vote for whatever candidate won their individual state? For example, Obama would get all superdelegates from North Carolina, Illinois, etc....while HRC would get those from NY, PA, California, etc. That seems fair, allow the superdelegates to vote based on the popular vote in their individual states.
Posted 10:02 AM, 05/09/2008
yobill626
The reason the SD's haven't ended this for Obama is because his biggest plus (a decent man) is his biggest weakness (he's not a vindictive SOB). Even after she loses, the SD's know Hillary's not going anywhere. One thing that Hillary has shown beyond a doubt, that in the Democrat's world, she's the "baddest *ss in the valley". Who wants to be looking over their shoulder for the next four years waiting for the time when she gives them the shiv? As far as Mary Landrieu goes, the LA voters are p*ssed at EVERYBODY connected to the government. She needs to close her eyes & pick Obama, since he'll be the nominee & should have more $$$, resources & pull to help her. Saying a prayer that Hillary's retribution comes further down the road after she regains some footing wouldn't hurt...
Posted 10:09 AM, 05/09/2008
yobill626
Dick --- Although I'd like to see a post this afternoon, interesting comments are like kryponite to Harry Reid. See you Monday!
Posted 10:21 AM, 05/09/2008
JeffA
Perhaps these Washingtonian Democrats should exhibit some backbone for the first time in their lives. It's a pretty simple exercise. "It's been a well-fought race, blah blah blah...I am pledging my support for Barack Obama because he has emerged as our Party's leader in 2008, despite the Clinton's strong grassroots and long history. White House 2008 is the only thing any of us should care about. The time has come to get behind Obama and take on McCain..blah blah." I mean seriously, using Dick's logic, does it get any easier if they go against the popular vote and support Hillary? Do the Obama constituents fall in line any easier than the Clinton? This is exactly why conservatives say liberals have no backbone.
Posted 10:45 AM, 05/09/2008
JeffA
Lest we think only the Democrats utilize Machiavellian tactics within the Party, the Republicans of Nevada managed to shut down their state convention rather than allow Ron Paul's delegates win the day. To wit: "GOP officials abruptly canceled the Nevada state convention when it became clear that Paul's backers outnumbered those for McCain and stood ready to take control of the delegate process." - Washington Post http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/05/05/AR2008050502314_pf.html "Outmaneuvered by raucous Ron Paul supporters, Nevada Republican Party leaders abruptly shut down their state convention and now must resume the event to complete a list of 31 delegates to the GOP national convention." - Fox News http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/04/27/ron-paul-supporters-buck-nevada-state-gop-convention/ "“I’ve seen factions walk out. I’ve never seen a party walk out,” said Jeff Greenspan, regional coordinator for the Paul campaign. And the best local detailed account is here: http://www.rgj.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080427/NEWS/804270360/1321
Posted 11:31 AM, 05/09/2008
vc bear
What really stuns me is the group think by the press. Obama is the nominee! Long live Obama.............go to Real Clear Politics and validate Dick's point. HRC is well ahead in super delegates. What does it mean? It means it isn't over. The journalists that have jumped to the Obama is nominee are sheep. Sadly they are all doing a horid job of pointing out what Dick has done. But it does sell alot of ad space.....................sad.
Posted 11:38 AM, 05/09/2008
p-diddy
Obama isn't unelectable. Not with all that money you donated to his campaign.
Posted 11:41 AM, 05/09/2008
p-diddy
By the way, Obama overtook Hillary in the Party Boss count today.
Posted 12:20 PM, 05/09/2008
SteveMG
Given the choice between somebody who might not win against somebody I don't want to win, I'll take my chances. Besides of the two camps who insist he can't win, one is firmly entranced with a President with 28% approval rating, the other is backing the candidate who is in second place in all measures.
Posted 06:16 PM, 05/09/2008
Dada
This why politics in the USA stinks. Everybody is worried about what their constituents will think at election time. They should vote the way their intelligence tells them to. Provided their have any.
Posted 02:14 AM, 05/10/2008
yobill626
Dada --- I totally agree with your point, yet I'm stunned that with all the polling that goes on, politicians are still afraid to follow simple logic. Even those that want to "lead by being one step behind popular opinion", are often 3 or 4 steps behind --- if that close. Bush & Cheney have banked on the Dems being so afraid of being labeled as "cut & runners", that they allow themselves to get bullied by two creeps who 70-80% of the citizens believe are doing the wrong things.
Posted 09:56 AM, 05/10/2008
Ed L.
I'm finished trying to comment on your blog. You posted a comment by a reader who trounced out finger waving anger and numerous expletives ("SOB, *ss, p*ssed"), and other posts with off the cuff one-liners, and you ignore my fair minded and informative comment (for a second time). It was recommended I read your blog by a Hillary supporter, I've appreciated your comments on Charlie Rose, but no more. You obviously like and welcome this jocular locker room talk, I'm placing my effort elsewhere. Good-by, Ed L.
Posted 02:22 PM, 05/10/2008
frankg962
Yobill626, I agree with you. The D's are more concerned with "not losing" than with winning. They allow the R's to drive the debate and spend more time responding to R talking points than leading as they should.
Posted 10:16 AM, 05/12/2008
SteveMG
It wasn't the Dems that got bullied. It was the so called courageous conservatives who fell for the fear mongering from the administration. If the Democrats were so terrified by the Republicans, Kerry would never have even come close to Bush. It was the soccer moms and right wingers who are the ones that you can scare.
14 comments
About Dick Polman

Cited by the Columbia Journalism Review as one of the nation's top political reporters, and lauded by the ABC News political website as "one of the finest political journalists of his generation," Dick Polman is a national political columnist at the Philadelphia Inquirer. He is on the full-time faculty at the University of Pennsylvania, as "writer in residence." Dick has been a frequent guest on C-Span, MSNBC, CNN, NPR and the BBC. He covered the 1992, 1996, 2000, and 2004 presidential campaigns.

ARCHIVES

All commentaries posted before April 18, 2008, can be accessed at www.dickpolman.blogspot.com.