Clinton Banks On Superdelegates

HemlockGrey · Post by **HemlockGrey** » 2008-02-14 12:52pm

The Clintons, always the pragmatic winners.

WASHINGTON -- Hillary Clinton will take the Democratic nomination even if she does not win the popular vote, but persuades enough superdelegates to vote for her at the convention, her campaign advisers say.

The New York senator, who lost three primaries Tuesday night, now lags slightly behind her rival, Illinois Senator Barack Obama, in the delegate count. She is even further behind in "pledged'' delegates, those assigned by virtue of primaries and caucuses.

But Clinton will not concede the race to Obama if he wins a greater number of pledged delegates by the end of the primary season, and will count on the 796 elected officials and party bigwigs to put her over the top, if necessary, said Clinton's communications director, Howard Wolfson.

"I want to be clear about the fact that neither campaign is in a position to win this nomination without the support of the votes of the superdelegates,'' Wolfson told reporters in a conference call.

"We don't make distinctions between delegates chosen by million of voters in a primary and those chosen between tens of thousands in caucuses,'' Wolfson said. "And we don't make distinctions when it comes to elected officials'' who vote as superdelegates at the convention.

"We are interested in acquiring delegates, period,'' he added.

Clinton advisers rejected the notion that the candidate -- and the party -- would be badly wounded in the general election if the nominee were essentially selected by a group of party insiders.

"This is a nomination system that exists of caucuses, primaries, superdelegates and also the issue of voters in Florida and Michigan,'' states whose delegates currently will not be seated at the convention because they broke party rules by moving up their primaries to January, said Mark Penn, senior strategist for the Clinton campaign. But "whoever the nominee is, the party will come together behind that nominee,'' he said.

With the battle for the Democratic nomination excruciatingly close, supporters of both campaigns are questioning the nominating process. The Clinton camp has suggested that the caucuses -- where Obama has bested Clinton in all but one state -- are inherently undemocratic, since only a small percentage of eligible voters are able to make it to a caucus site and commit the time to vote at a particular hour.

Clinton -- who initially joined other Democrats in opposing Michigan and Florida's decisions to go ahead with early primaries -- now wants the votes of those primaries counted. The Obama camp thinks that idea is unfair, since candidates were not allowed to campaign in those states, and Clinton alone kept her name on the Michigan ballot, meaning Obama did not have a chance at getting even provisional delegates.

Superdelegates should "vote their conscience,'' despite how their states voted, Wolfson said. Penn noted that the Obama campaign, for example, has not asked Massachusetts Senators Edward M. Kennedy and John F. Kerry to cast superdelegate votes for Clinton, although the Bay State voted overwhelmingly for her in the primary.

The two candidates head into contests next week in Hawaii and Wisconsin; Obama is leading in the polls in both states. The Clinton campaign is pinning its hopes on the March 4 states of Ohio, Texas, and Rhode Island, but Wolfson said yesterday the campaign is opening offices in every remaining primary and caucus state, including Puerto Rico.

As someone who is a registered Democrat but not a particularly big fan of the Democratic Party, if this scenario comes to pass - Obama wins in pledged delegates but Clinton is nominated by party bosses anyway - I'll leave the party and write-in Obama in protest. Or vote for Bloomberg if he makes a run. I'll vote for Hillary in the general election if she wins the primary fairly, but if this sort of back-door manuevering is how she clinches the nomination I'll never vote for her.

General Zod · Post by **General Zod** » 2008-02-14 12:56pm

Maybe if we're lucky some of Hillary's super-delegates will start leaving her and putting their support with Obama over this. (I realize this is hopelessly optimistic.)

Invictus ChiKen · Post by **Invictus ChiKen** » 2008-02-14 12:58pm

There is also the Chance of Edwards supporting Obama.

Big Orange · Post by **Big Orange** » 2008-02-14 12:59pm

She looks like a startled cat in a wind tunnel.

Brother-Captain Gaius · Post by **Brother-Captain Gaius** » 2008-02-14 01:00pm

WASHINGTON -- Hillary Clinton will take the Democratic nomination even if she does not win the popular vote, but persuades enough superdelegates to vote for her at the convention, her campaign advisers say.

I love the phrasing of this. Ignoring the practical aspects of the situation for a moment, it fills me with sheer, abject revulsion to think that this race could be decided in such a nauseatingly anti-democratic fashion. "Oh, the people made their voices heard (via regular delegates), but we don't like what they said so we'll just do what we want instead."

Fuck our political system. Die in a fire.

CaptainChewbacca · Post by **CaptainChewbacca** » 2008-02-14 01:01pm

If Clinton pulls that, I think Obama should consider going 3rd party with Edwards or Mit Romney as a running-mate.

Kodiak · Post by **Kodiak** » 2008-02-14 01:03pm

CaptainChewbacca wrote:If Clinton pulls that, I think Obama should consider going 3rd party with Edwards or Mit Romney as a running-mate.

The reprocussions of an Obama-Romney candidacy would quite possibly make everyone's brain explode.

brianeyci · Post by **brianeyci** » 2008-02-14 01:06pm

She's made another blunder. She should have painted herself as honorable, saying if she lost the popular vote she would never rely on the supers.

That way, her base goes "oh shit she's going to lose!" and come out and vote for her in record numbers. It's what the Liberals did to the Conservatives in Canada in a general election a few years ago. Nothing energizes your base than saying, it's possible I'll lose to this demon, come out and support me.

I can't believe she's making so many apparent political blunders. Either that or politics in the US is nuts.

Teebs · Post by **Teebs** » 2008-02-14 01:07pm

It wouldn't happen though. The super-delegates all want the Democrats to win and they know that if they change a victory for Obama into a Clinton one then they'll lose the next election.

SirNitram · Post by **SirNitram** » 2008-02-14 01:07pm

Superdels are a bad idea, but frankly, I think Clinton's halllucinating. There are two types of Superdel.

1) Elected Democrat. Senate, Congress, Ex-Pres, Governer, etc. These people will be up for election. If they go fiercely against the people, they can lose their jobs. They know this.

2) DNC personnel. While there's alot of Rahm's old guard there, the 'We must never make people choose between GOP and Democrat' contingent is being replaced by Dean's folks, and he doesn't want it being a superdel fight.

I'd put my money on the Supers not seating, or going by their states. Or not counting as much as Mrs. Clinton desperately hopes.

brianeyci · Post by **brianeyci** » 2008-02-14 01:20pm

If the place is packed with Dean's people, she should've said she would've resigned if she lost the popular vote anyway. It's starting to look like a denial of reality. She could have rallied her people around, this far and no further, Obama is stopped here or never, long live the Alamo, last stand of democracy and freedom, etc.

Of course I'm assuming a "silent majority." That is, a whole shitload of people who support Clinton, presumably because she was the front runner, who would come up and support her if they thought she was in danger of losing. If she doesn't even have that then she's finished.

Post by **Mr Bean** » 2008-02-14 01:22pm

Remember what I said? Hell I even had a nightmare scenario I posted some weeks ago Here where Hillary breaks the Democratic Party via just this method.

If she does this, McCain can win and win easily. He simply has to stand up and say I refuse to debate Hillary, you stole the nomination and break the party.

Stravo · Post by **Stravo** » 2008-02-14 01:33pm

Al Sharpton has promised that if Hillary pulls something like this he will march on Washington in numbers you cannot believe. I can't believe I'm about to say this, but I wholeheartedly agree with Al Sharpton.

Someone needs to tell Clinton that if she does this she will fracture the Democratic party and guarantee another Republican in the White House. Thing is...I don't think she would truly care.

Big Phil · Post by **Big Phil** » 2008-02-14 01:44pm

My wife and I were talking about this exact scenario a couple of days ago. Among other things, we decided that if Hillary actually pulls this crap and steals the nomination from Obama (assuming he leads in the popular vote and non-super-delegate count), we might just have to vote for John McCain. After all, anyone who riles up Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity that much can't be all that bad.

If Hillary steals the nomination, I wouldn't expect to see her win in November - it would piss off huge numbers of Obama voters, many of whom are independents, and I wouldn't be surprised if they swung for McCain as well.

Kodiak · Post by **Kodiak** » 2008-02-14 01:47pm

Stravo wrote:I can't believe I'm about to say this, but I wholeheartedly agree with Al Sharpton.

Might be sigged

Imperial Overlord · Post by **Imperial Overlord** » 2008-02-14 01:51pm

I can easily see Hilary trying to push through based on supers, but I don't see it working. Kennedy and Kerry, the old guard personified and the last party's last presidential nominee, have already endorsed Obama. Hilary had good support among the supers, but that was before she was beaten like a drum in the popular vote and a strong alternative contender emerged to challenge "the inevitable candidate". If the popular vote was closer it would matter, but after defeat after defeat they aren't going to back a loser who could drag them down with her.

Anguirus · Post by **Anguirus** » 2008-02-14 02:17pm

Maybe if we're lucky some of Hillary's super-delegates will start leaving her and putting their support with Obama over this. (I realize this is hopelessly optimistic.)

This isn't far-fetched at all IMO. A lot of commentators are predicting that hers might start jumping ship over her behavior and failure to win states. In addition, last I heard most supers remain uncommitted.

Glocksman · Post by **Glocksman** » 2008-02-14 02:41pm

My understanding is that even the ones who commit to her are free to change their minds at any time.
Randi Rhodes was discussing the subject of superdelegates the other day, and her spin on it was that they were intended to prevent close primaries from dividing the party by 'padding' the winner's totals beyond that of 'super close tie'.

If so, then if Obama wins in pledged delegates but loses because the 'supers' put HRC over the top, look for a very divided party.

And as pissed as some conservatives are over 'Maverick' McVain, the Republicans will be united as one in comparison the shitstorm the Democrats will have if HRC pulls such a stunt.

Look for President McCain if this scenario comes to pass.

RedImperator · Post by **RedImperator** » 2008-02-14 03:39pm

Metatwaddle and I have talked about this scenario, and the conclusion was that if it happened, she'd stay home and I'd vote McCain. I'll gladly hold my nose and vote Hillary if she wins fair and square, or in a deal that Obama was a party to, but if she steals the election, she's not getting my vote.

You just have to hope Howard Dean and the superdelegates have enough sense to realize this would be an unmitigated disaster and tell Hillary to fuck off if she loses the popular vote/pledged delegate count. Then again, these are the Democrats. Snatching defeat from the jaws of victory is what these people do.

On the sunny side, the fact that Clinton's people are talking about winning with the superdelegates carries more than a whiff of desperation.

Einhander Sn0m4n · Post by **Einhander Sn0m4n** » 2008-02-14 04:11pm

Stravo wrote:Someone needs to tell Clinton that if she does this she will fracture the Democratic party and guarantee another Republican in the White House. Thing is...I don't think she would truly care.

She cares about two things only: corporate money and the status quo. If that means destruction of the party, she'll happily jump on it with gusto.

SirNitram · Post by **SirNitram** » 2008-02-14 04:29pm

This is increasingly sounding like tinfoil hat territory. Yea, she's a cold calculating bitch with her own interests at heart, but this is getting frankly silly. A bit of math for people to chew on.

Present pledged delegates:

Obama: 1099
Clinton: 982

Present Supers:

Obama: 157
Clinton: 234

Totals:

Obama: 1,255
Clinton: 1,216

Total needed to be nominee: 2,497

Superdelegates left: 405

Gap left if Clinton miraculously takes every non-committed Superdelegate: 876

Pledged Delegates Left: 1,146

So, absolute worst case, Clinton seizes all 405 Superdels and none waver, she still needs 876 of the 1,146 delegates left. Or over 70% of those delegates still availiable in primaries and caucuses. I could be wrong. Someone check my math; I've been running a fever.

NeoGoomba · Post by **NeoGoomba** » 2008-02-14 04:35pm

How idiotic is she to say this crap? If she doesn't get the popular vote WITHIN HER OWN PARTY, how can she even hope to win in a nationwide election? Especially since this would jade all the young, and first-time voters who, for once, got off their asses to vote (in a Primary no less!) for Obama.

Dahak · Post by **Dahak** » 2008-02-14 04:48pm

If you have this freaky concept of a "Superdelegate" I cannot fault Clinton by trying to get as much of those as possible. She's correctly acting within the bounds of this crazy process. Might not be the best thing, but this is like crying over spilt milk. Someone should have thought about this before they were inventing this concept...

MKSheppard · Post by **MKSheppard** » 2008-02-14 04:54pm

NeoGoomba wrote:How idiotic is she to say this crap? If she doesn't get the popular vote WITHIN HER OWN PARTY, how can she even hope to win in a nationwide election?

Also defeats the democrat's cry since 2000 of "Selected, not elected."

brianeyci · Post by **brianeyci** » 2008-02-14 04:59pm

SirNitram wrote:Someone check my math; I've been running a fever.

I've only been looking at CNN and it says 2025 needed to win. So if Clinton takes the same proportion of supers as she has now, 60% of the supers, and there's only 405 supers left, then she has 977 + 234 + 243 = 1454 delegates, plus whatever she wins later. Then she needs less than 700 delegates, and there's 1559 delegates left not including the supers.

I didn't really need to check your math though, because Clinton has 1200ish and Obama has 1250 so it doesn't make any sense at all that if Clinton snares all the supers, that she doesn't have a chance of winning. Every source I've seen besides CNN too has Obama and Clinton both neck and neck at around 1200. Get well soon, being sick bites (no sarcasm.)

StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Clinton Banks On Superdelegates

Clinton Banks On Superdelegates

Re: Clinton Banks On Superdelegates