Prediction - Superdelegates
I am seeing some serious indicators that this thing will be all but wrapped up by this weekend.
More and more neutral parties and pundits are analyzing the electability arguments (big states, states that matter, demographics, weakness to GOP atttack) and are finding little to no basis for them.
The lack of endorsements for Hillary following her win in PA is telling.
There seems to be acceptance all around that FL and MI will not be seated according to their original invalid results. Nobody is buying the popular vote count with them included.
Now that we are past PA and heading into NC the pledged delegate lead is no longer in question by anyone.
MSM continues to give the surrogates voice, but by this weekend it will no longer go unchallenged as it has for the most part. The narrative has changed and it signals the end for Hillary.
But, more importantly you will see the undeclared superdelegates responding to Dean's request and either endorsing the clear winner Obama or at least stating support for the eventual pledged delegate winner (Obama). One undeclared super has advised us to watch for an important announcement. I'll post it here when it comes.





Thanks. Aside from morning Joe and evening Pat, the MSM may not be as quick to rubber-stamp the Clinton talking points anymore. I'm hearing a lot of is-she-serious? behind a lot of the "More people have voted for me than any other..."
April 24, 2008 9:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
Add Chris Matthews and David Gregory to the list.
April 24, 2008 11:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
And NPR. This mornings web headline: Pennsylvania Defeat Shows Obama's Weaknesses.
I hope you're right, but I've seen the exact opposite in the media I've consumed this week. I think the horse race narrative got a huge bump with the PA results. Hell, Larry King even let Carville go unchallenged calling Indiana the "Tie breaker." (WTF? How are they tied?)
April 25, 2008 12:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
On the other hand, Thomas Edsall at the Huffington Post has just put up a piece that talks about how the MSM has turned against Obama. AND he was on Lou Dobbs this evening to tell the same story. Think someone has an agenda?
I guess the Clintons are calling in all their favors...
April 25, 2008 4:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
Alas, Bill Moyers will rip open the festering wound of the Jeremiah Wright controversy this evening, and we will again be talking about Wright until North Carolina.
April 25, 2008 5:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
I am so glad Bill Moyers has a show again. One of the best out there. Yes, it will probably give some more sound bytes for the GOP attack. But, I don't see it increasing the damage at all. In fact, I prefer they beat that horse now and with as much gusto as they can. It will be good and dead by October / November.
April 25, 2008 11:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
Call me pessimistic, but I think that if this were the case, we'd already be seeing it. What's being described might happen after the IN/NC primaries, but it won't happen before them.
April 24, 2008 9:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
Agreed. The superdels need a rationale, for reasons of perception. They're not going to do it after a big Obama lost. But look for a lot of superdels to come off the fence after May 6.
April 25, 2008 12:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
The below article supports your thinking. Maybe I am playing the Cheney turning point game, but I really think the shift is taking place. After this weekend the general public will better understand that Obama has already won the race even if he hasn't yet crossed the finish line.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0408/9862.html
Notwithstanding the plentiful commentary to the effect that the Pennsylvania primary must have shaken superdelegates planning to support Barack Obama, causing them to rethink their position, key Democrats on Capitol Hill are unbudged.
“I don’t think anyone’s shaken,” a leading House Democrat told me. The critical mass of Democratic congressmen that has been prepared to endorse Obama when the timing seemed right remains prepared to do so. Their reasons, ones they have held for months, have not changed – and by their very nature are unlikely to.
April 25, 2008 10:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
I second Ben here. The problem is that a lot of the remeaining superdelegates are weasels.
Either they are too spineless to offend either candidate and hope it somehow gets resolved on its own (meanwhile possibly hurting the party for November) or they want to be courted (Edwards?)
The whole system of supers should be scrapped. It's undemocratic, clearly these people do not have the character for this role, and mathematically, we are left with them deciding it.
April 24, 2008 9:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
We need the super delegates because a candidate (even Obama) could have something happen between the end of the primary season and the convention that is a game changer. We need them for that situation and that one alone. If Obama goes on to win this fall you can bet nothing about the process will be changed. If after the long primary he loses there will be a major overhaul of the rules and next time will be very different.
April 24, 2008 10:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
You don't think the pledged delegates could handle that? If not, then if a candidate gets a majority without the supers and something drastic happens, then we're just screwed.
April 24, 2008 3:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
What you are saying only makes sense if you have two candidates splitting the delegates such that superdelegates are needed to put one of them over the top.
That's only happened one time before.
Don't kid yourself. The only reason the Democratic party still has superdelegates is so the pols and party hacks can get their credentials and hotel rooms and hang with pledged delegates during the big party without all that tedious business of having to pledge and qualify and such. And, just this once, it turns out that that is not such a great idea.
April 24, 2008 10:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
I strongly feel that there are reasons we have checks and balances on voter power in the government, and I really like that the Democratic Party follows that model. I do, however, think that the number should be severely reduced .
April 24, 2008 2:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Agreed. For the concept to work, supers have to be people of character. Since most of them are Dem. elected officals, we already know the answer to that question.
April 24, 2008 10:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
If Obama wins both NC and Indiana I think there will be a wave of SD endorsements quick to follow. If he splits, I think the SD's will continue to sit on the sidelines, if Hillary wins both I think she'll start to gain real momentum with the SD's.
April 24, 2008 10:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
If Hillary wins both NC and IN, she would deserve to have supers float her way. Obama will win NC, just a question of the margin. The idea that a split would leave them paralyzed is pisses me off. These people have NO courage. But then, we new that by their unwillingness to curtail Bush since they took control of congress.
April 24, 2008 11:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
No, you mean since your party has control of the Senate. Remember congress low approval ratings factor in your party's negatives.
April 24, 2008 12:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Until you break it out by party, those "ratings" are meaningless.
The Republicans in Congress have incredibly low ratings. The Dems, significantly less so.
Also, most people rate Congress as an entity significantly lower than their own personal representation. It's always "those other Congresscritters" being downrated.
April 24, 2008 1:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
A lot of the dissatisfaction with the Democrats in Congress is that they haven't stood up more to Bush.
April 24, 2008 3:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
What a coincidence! Your prediction just happens to coincide with your most fervent hopes.
April 24, 2008 1:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
You should know. You're one of the world's leading authorities on the subject.
April 24, 2008 10:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Over by this weekend? I'm just hoping it will be over on June 3rd, and not go all the way to Denver.
April 24, 2008 2:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yep. I'll happily take June 3rd.
April 24, 2008 3:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
What year?
April 24, 2008 6:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
2007
April 25, 2008 12:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
make that 2000
April 25, 2008 12:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
Obama has won. Hillary is done. But like Ralph Nader in 2000 it doesn't matter whatsoever to her. Those superdelegates who endorsed her early need to wake up to the fact that unless they switch to Obama, Hillary will continue her attempt to destroy him through the dem convention.
April 24, 2008 3:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
http://www.mrsuper.org/2008/04/superdelegate-p.html
An undeclared superdelegate estimates how many of his undeclared colleagues are in the Pelosi Club (committed to voting for the leader in pledged delegates).
It looks to be about 80 right now.
Mr Super also links to some predictions at CCPS that estimate the great majority who are not in the Pelosi Club will break for Obama. From comments in previous posts he does not seem to be disputing this.
Not very solid evidence at this point, but I fully expect this story line will pick up steam.
Clinton is meeting with the supers the last two days to try and get them to hold off. You also hear this plea from her surrogates. Could be she convinces them to wait for NC and IN.
April 24, 2008 3:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
The superd's don't want to alienate Hillary people - we're all at her mercy it seems.
April 24, 2008 3:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Watch out for Barry-O on Fox News Sunday. This could be the big one.
They probably had to give him a list of ???? in advance to get him to agree to appear. With enough study time he may be able to come up with some semi-acceptable answers, if not, he will just try to change the subject. and uh, uh and.
But, Chris just might slip him a mickey.
April 24, 2008 5:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Can we relax with the ridiculous attacking already. Oh, for an intelligent and fair political conversation, even amongst adversaries.
You see, the world will not end if Barack is the nominee. Nor will the world end were Hillary to grab the crown.
Can we just, "move on," from stupid intra-partisan hatred already?
April 24, 2008 8:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, that would be nice, but those superdels aren't all gonna decide this weekend. Most will hold out until June to at least allow all the voting to happen. Some will continue to trickle in as they have, and my guess is that most have already made up their minds but are timing their announcements so as to help maintain their candidate's momentum, without making it appear that they're calling the game before all the last votes have been counted. But, we'll see.
April 24, 2008 7:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Mr. Super from mrsuper.org, says this will be "resolved in June." I take his word for it. Check out his site, and you'll see why. (undeclared democratic super-delegate that has been vetted by certain elements of the MSM)
Make sure to check out his site. I'm not going to hyperventilate anymore. Instead, I'm prepared to wait this out and enjoy the show for what its worth.
April 24, 2008 8:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
What's happening this weekend, other than Obama going on Fox News Sunday?
Taking on Chris W. is not one of his better decisions.
Can anybody say gaffe time.
April 24, 2008 8:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, I have two poems in a gallery exhibition that opens tomorrow, a contract to fill on Saturday filming kids having a ball at a science fair, and a big soccer game to coach Sunday.
Oh, and I get to play a ton of kick ass new music with friends who love for it.
So I'm pretty busy. Glad I tossed the TV.
From the tone of your posts, it sounds like you'll spend the weekend indoors getting intimate with Fox anchors and a Tivo, looking for something to blow out of proportion.
To me, that sounds like hell. Enjoy.
If that's not really what you're doing, you might think about the way you communicate here.
April 25, 2008 12:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'd say Clinton is just pushing for a VP slot. Nothing else makes sense to me. I really don't think the Democratic Party will take the nomination away from a Black man with the most pledged delegates, popular vote and states won. The party would be crippled for a generation. She has to know this and merely wants to push her supporters to the brink where nothing less than a VP slot is acceptable. It just makes more sense that way to me. The reason to call for the SDs to wait is to drive up the percentage of her supporters who say they wouldn't vote for Obama in the Fall. It's a cynical game, but I wouldn't put it past the Clintons.
April 25, 2008 7:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
Is that a quote? If so, who is it from?
April 25, 2008 8:38 AM | Reply | Permalink