So basically, superdelegates are big chickens and the race is decided by whoever wins the most delegates during the primaries.

Remind me again why we have superdelegates?

this whole nominating process needs some work... what a joke? first two states are told their primaries don't count and now a full third of the delegates don't count. who is running this show? It sure makes the RNC look good by comparison.

Noam-

The NY Times website tonight (Feb. 11, at about 8pm) is reporting that: "Several Clinton superdelegates, whose votes could help decide the nomination, also said Monday that they were wavering in the face of Mr. Obama’s momentum after victories in Washington, Nebraska, Louisiana and Maine last weekend. Some of them said that they, like the hundreds of uncommitted superdelegates still at stake, may ultimately 'go with the flow,' in the words of one, and support the candidate who appears to show the most strength in the primaries to come."

And regarding "those primaries to come" (according to the Times): ". . .[Clinton] advisers, donors and superdelegates said they were resigned to a possible Obama sweep of the rest of February’s contests."

All of which sets the stage for HRC's own superdelegates to just ship, and support Obama.

_______________________________________________________________________________

There's also this from that same NYT piece:

Aides to Hillary are saying, ". . .she has begun reassuring anxious donors and superdelegates that the nomination is not slipping away from her. . ."

And: "Mrs. Clinton held a buck-up-the-troops conference call on Monday with donors, superdelegates and other supporters; several of them said afterward that she sounded tired and a little down. . . And these donors and superdelegates said that they were not especially soothed, saying they believed she could be on a losing streak that could jeopardize her competitiveness in Ohio and Texas."

Wow.

_____________________________________________________________________________

More bad news for Hillary from the NYT:

"'She [HRC] has to win both Ohio and Texas comfortably, or she’s out,' said one Democratic superdelegate who has endorsed Mrs. Clinton, and who spoke on condition of anonymity to share a candid assessment. 'The campaign is starting to come to terms with that.' Campaign advisers, also speaking privately in order to speak plainly, confirmed this view."

The above cited Times piece suggests that maybe Hillary is starting to feel a bit desperate, and perhaps Penn's crazy conference call, and HRC going Rezco on BHO is yet a further sign of that flailing desperation.

_______________________________________________________________________________

Not clear that super-delegates was ever really thought out, but the one place where it might be useful is in a three-way race.  In a two-way race, it really would be ridiculous for the super-delegates to over-rule the rank and file.  If they do, it could only be for Hillary as she is the establishment candidate and they define the establishment.  Hence, Hillary is stumping for the super-delegates to "make up their own minds."  

The interesting case is a virtual tie.  If Obama wins more delegates and more votes and clearly looks like he has a better chance to beat McCain, it is a non-issue.  The supers will desert Hillary en masse.  If Hillary wins more delegates but Obama is very, very  close, has more votes,  and seems the stronger candidate in the general, it will be a mess, but the supers might desert Hillary in order to win the general.  I discount the possibility that Hillary will appear to be the stronger candidate in the general.

However, I don't put it past Hillary to try to wreck the joint if Obama wins more delegates and votes.   I don't think she has any loyalty to the party.  She is loyal to Hillary.  Conversely, if Hillary wins more delegates and votes, Obama wouldn't dream of challenging her nomination.

On the big picture, I think the analysis is astute.  The superdelegates would not steal this from the pledged delegate winner.  Think this year of another reason they especially might not do so.  The rest of the world learns that, as of June 7, when the primaries are over that Obama holds a 250 vote lead in pledged delegates and has won more popular votes.  They then learn that the white spouse of a white former president is handed the nomination by mostly white insiders, and the guy with a real shot at being the first black president loses despite getting more votes.  Not exactly the best sign to the rest of the world that "America is back" as HIllary likes to say.

I think Noam is partly right but missing an important part of the rationale for superdelegates.  In an election where there are three or more serious contestants -- suppose Edwards had done better in Nevada and S. Carolina -- the superdelegates could probably pick the second place finisher if they had some powerful rationale and the split was, say, 42, 41, 16.  

I think you're forgetting the popular vote.  Clinton could easily win that while losing the pledged delegate count.  And sure there are arguments (even correct arguments) for choosing pledged over popular, but they're complicated, and the popular vote won't seem complicated (Yes, I know, it's unfair to mix caucuses and primaries.  I said "seem".)

In any case, there may well be pressure on superdelegates each way, and we'll be back to the train wreck.

Did anyone else see the 21-year-old superdelegate on TV? He was just on Dan Abrams (along with Peter Beinert & Michelle Cottle, incidentally). He essentially said he would not commit to voting as the state goes. He also admitted to having a banana and apple juice with Chelsea Clinton.

Clifton's worry is mine. What about that, Noam? Todd and others never address that scenario.

Anyone else who has been monitoring Demcon Watch closely has probably noticed a trend among superdelegates.

demconwatch.blogspot.com/.../superdelegate-list.html

Hillary had, and still does have, a significant majority of pledged delegates. But as Obama has gained momentum more and more of them un-pledge from her quite regularly. To be sure, plenty of the superdelegates have their convictions - but I agree the very idea of superdelegates is looking increasingly like a formality, rather than the insidious subversion of democracy that I appraised them as in my initial knee-jerk reaction.

Clifton is right.  The train wreck could happen if *both* candidates have a legitimate claim to popular will, i.e., where one wins the pledged delegates and the other wins the popular vote.  This seems unlikely because of proportionality in allocation, but, delegate counts are based on population and some measure of Democratic strength -- not participation in primaries or caucuses -- and states that hold caucuses, where Obama has outperformed Clinton substantially, have, I'm assuming, lower participation relative to population than primary states.  Thus, if the delegate edge that Obama gets as a result of caucuses enables him to take the delegate count but not the popular vote, Hillary would have a pretty strong claim that her candidacy represents the popular will, not Obama's.  It's an argument that would resonate with anyone who thinks that the winner of the popular vote in the general election should become president, the electoral college notwithstanding.  As Clifton says, you can make the argument the other way, but it's less intuitive and probably in the end not that convincing.  After all, if you're in that position, you're simultaneously making an argument for the technicality (delegate allocation) that helps you and against the technicality (superdelegates) that hurts you.  It probably wouldn't ring true.  After all, why *should* caucus-goers' votes count for more than primary votes?

However, this scenario, although it involves going to the superdelegates, probably shouldn't be considered a real train wreck, because the superdelegates would basically be breaking a tie.  This is probably the only legitimate use for superdelegates.  The 3-or-more-way race is interesting, but I gather that you could (and would) just go to second-choices on multiple balloting among the pledged delegates.  Besides, the only way superdelegates could solve the problem (assuming they could mathematically) would be to break strongly for either a loser in the totals (what happened to legitimacy?) or the pluarlity winner, in which case, why not just give it to the plurality winner anyway, as we do with the general election?

So, if the winner of the pledged delegate count and the winner of the popular vote are the same person, the superdelegates should simply vote for that person with near unanimity.  If they are not the same person, they should go with the most electable candidate in their judgment, all things considered.  The possible train wreck is if Hillary loses both the popular and delegate count, but tries to count Florida or Michigan and/or relies on loyal superdelegates to lead her to a narrow victory.  If that comes to pass, there will be big damage, as she will have stolen the election.  This will not only leave a lot of Democratic voters bitter and disaffected but will reflect negatively on her character going into the general.

Re "pledged delegates," just to be clear, after reading ackyri's post, I'm using that term to refer to delegates allocated according to primary and caucus voting, excluding all superdelegates, who, as I understand it, are not technically pledged to any candidate.  They merely endorse informally and are free, in the universe of the party rules, to vote for whomever they want at the convention regardless of prior endorsements.

I wonder if there is another reason the superdelegates might end up behind Obama. Besides going with momentum, or with the voters, or who has the best chance against McCain; what if the superdelegates vote their own interests?

I have to think Hillary expects the superdelegates to vote for her; Bill is still the King of the party, after all. Voting for Hillary is what all good little superdelegates are supposed to do.  

If they vote for Obama, however, they do so against pressure from the most powerful family in the Democratic Party. The idea the next President of the United States (Obama) might feel he owes you would be a powerful incentive to vote for Obama. A vote for Hillary is expected; a vote for Obama is not.

I don’t know if Hillary expects their votes; I don’t know if Obama would be overwhelmed with gratitude for a vote. But if I was a superdelegate, I might think that way.

I'd hope the popular vote totals (esp. if the MI and FL "beauty contest" primaries are included) wouldn't play any role in selecting the candidate. It's a delegate race, not a popular vote race. You may argue that it's less democratic, but the Electoral College is still in place.

Per NBC, Obama's current pledged delegate lead is 54.  The higher the margin, the more likely the super-delegates will go with him as the candidate.  That's why the "inadvertently attached" spreadsheet may help set expectations well. If he can make a case for winning based on an 8 delegate lead, the case grows stronger in sync with the pledged delegate margin.

There can be a superdelegate train wreck if the elected delegate count is close. Or if it's close enough for Michigan and Florida to matter.

But in that case, it's an all around mess.

The commentators above have done a nice job outlining the possible scenarios, but I think there are a few that are missing.  First, how close does it have to be to be considered a tie?  If the margin is within, say, 100, there might be room for the 2nd place candidate to say it's a tie and push for the superdels to give them the win.  Also, what about the primary vs. caucus distinction?  Delegates from both contests are officially equal, but is there a chance the Hillary might claim that primary delegates are more equal than caucus delegates?  Lastly, Edwards still has 12-26 delegates (depending on how you count) - what happens to them?

And if it looks like Obama leads in delegates but Hillary has the popular vote, does she really have the class to not push for the MI and FL delegates to be seated?

jjridge:  Why shouldn't the popular vote matter?  You say it's a delegate race.  Okay, but, if I'm Hillary, why can't I just say, "Yes, it's a delegate race, and superdelegates count, and they're under no formal obligation to vote for the pledged delegate leader, and if I win because they decide to vote for me regardless of the pledged delegate leader, then I win, fair and square."

To be clear, when I talk about the pledged delegate leader or popular vote winner, I'm totally excluding Michigan and Florida.  If Hillary needs either state to be ahead by either measure, forget it.  I'm only looking at the states where the votes counted going in.  Counting Florida or Michigan would be patently unfair to Obama, who may well have gotten victories -- and certainly have done better -- in those states if he had campaigned there or, in the case of Michigan, had his name on the ballot.  So, absent do-overs, the votes in both states are nullities, and any attempt to claim otherwise is nothing less than an attempt to steal the election, as TNR so aptly put it in its editorial.

I'm making the point that the popular vote matters when it comes to how superdelegates decide to vote -- or, more precisely, how they decide whether and how they decide to influence the outcome.  I'm totally on board with the view that even if they think Hillary, say, would make the better candidate or the better president, they should defer to the delegate leader and popular vote winner if that's Obama and vote for him.  But if Obama is the delegate leader but not the popular vote winner, the argument for casting aside your judgment in the service of unifying the party behind the clear choice of the voters becomes a lot less persuasive.  The voters, in that scenario, after all, will have chosen Hillary by a straight head count.  What makes the technicality favoring Obama clearly more legitimate than the technicality favoring Hillary?

I caucused in Washington, where Obama won overwhelmingly, and yes, fewer people came to this than they would a primary, since you had to show up in a half-hour time period and stay longer than you would in a primary. So yeah, fewer votes. But is that our fault?

Our delegate count is based on our population, and distributed proportionally to the votes. If you just count the popular votes nationwide, then we're punished for having a caucus because so many fewer people voted here. And whether or not you think caucuses are bad, well, when we decided [we as in they; I just moved here last year] to have a caucus, it was with the understanding that delegates are delegates, and how we pick them is our affair, within the rules, and we obeyed those rules.

To swich "what counts" now, after the caucus, would be an attempt to change the terms of a contract after the parties have signed it AND acted in reliance on it, to the detriment of the party that acted in reliance. Anyone with the nerve to even try that lacks the ethical qualifications to be president and should be barred from consideration.

Today’s Potomac Primary ( Chesapeake Primary ?) in Virginia, Washington D.C., and Maryland is expected to deliver another sweep to Obama and add to the woes of the Clinton campaign. Since the draw that was Super Tuesday she’s been hit by a

jhildner, I understand your concerns, but how will it sound coming out of Hillary's mouth as anything other than self-serving? If she can't win the pledged delegate count, then how can it be said she can win the electoral college? If she is going to say all of the caucus states don't matter then aren't the people in those states going to feel slighted?

The rules are the rules, just because she is in a tight race doesn't mean they should be changed after the game is over to give her the win. It is like saying the team that has more yards should win and not the team that has more points. (and to be clear, the points = delegates and yards = votes) Since going in each candidate understands they have to win the delegate race this seems the only way to go.

And you are discounting that Hillary might have more pledged delegates in the end and Obama possibly more votes. In that case I would side with Hillary.

"The rules are the rules, just because she is in a tight race doesn't mean they should be changed after the game is over to give her the win."

Nobody is proposing to change the rules in the middle of the game.  Fact is, the rules leave this up to the superdelegates if it's close enough.  The question on the table is how they should choose to exercise their discretion.  The choices are (a) vote for whomever they want and let the chips (delegates) fall where they may, (b) vote uniformly for the pledged delegate leader, (c) vote uniformly for the popular vote winner if different from (b).  I'm starting out with the view that (b) will almost always be the right choice, and that the superdelegates should voluntarily make their vote moot.  The argument for doing that is that the outcome should rest on popular will, and not on the choice of establishment officials.  If the establishment thwarts popular will, it would do a lot of damage to the party.  But that argument, seems to me, just about goes out the window if the other person won the popular vote.  In that case, superdelegates making up their own minds as they see fit is not thwwarting popular will, no matter how they vote, because both candidates will have a plausible claim on popular will -- claims that cancel each other out.  So, in that event, I think the superdelegates should choose (a), and just go with who they think is the most electable.  You can't say that that's changing the rules, because the rules allow superdelegates to do whatever they want.  Indeed, making an effort to go uniformly with the pledged delegate leader -- thus effectively abolishing superdelegates most of the time -- is, if anything, *more* of an affront to the rules.

To those who say, it's not my fault we vote in a caucus state -- why should my vote be discounted? -- it's not being discounted.  If we went with straight popular vote, it would be counted *equally*.  As it stands now, the vote of each individual caucus-goer counts for a lot more than the vote of each primary voter.  I'm not wild about that system, even though I understand that caucus-goers are theoretically choosing the nominee on behalf of the state.  But that's weak, especially when there's proportional allocation.  Why should anyone's vote count for more than anyone else's?  Because they live in a state that makes it harder for *other* people to vote?  Eh.  None of this is to say that we should abolish the whole delegate-selection process mid-stream.  It's just that, if one candidate won the pledged delegates and the other the popular vote, both would have pretty good arguments to make to superdelegates about how they represent the will of the voters -- the popular vote winner more so in my book.

p.s.  This is outcome neutral.  My bet is that my view doesn't help my guy.

ok jhildner, but one of the problems with that line of reasoning is that superdelegates are primarily politicians, representing the entire country. Obama is winning in far more states. Hillary running up votes in some states does not equal more superdelegates in that state, those are a finite number. Essentially do you believe these Obama state superdelegates are going to risk going back to their state after handing Hillary the nod? I tend to believe they will use their discretion in ways best to advance their own career. Even though this supports Obama, I don't think this is good. This is why I rely on pledged delegates to be the determiner, no matter if it be Hillary or Obama.