Home » Analysis

Super Delegates


I'm amazed at how much of the media coverage of the Democratic New Hampshire Primary focuses on Hillary Clinton's "victory".

As Darren Abrecht of MacClatchy Interactive points out, "Clinton's popular-vote margin over Obama was razor-thin - fewer than 8,000 votes, or 3%, with 96% of precincts reporting. As a result, each will come away from New Hampshire with 9 delegates."
Source: http://www.kansascity.com/445/v-print/story/437288.html

It seems to me the more important story is not who "wins" a given primary but instead what is the overall delegate score. The last I counted, counting super-delegates, Clinton leads with 183 to Obama's 78 delegates. While this is a long way from the 2,025 delegates each candidate would need to sew up the nomination, watching the delegate count is what we should be concentrating on, not whether Hillary's "emotional moment" was sincere or not.


T.G.Vincent January 10, 2008 - 2:02am
T.G.Vincent's diary | printer friendly version | digg
( categories: Analysis | USA: Campaign 2008 )

Delegate Count Links

Green Papers: 2008 Primary Phase
Green Papers: Democrat
Green Papers: Republican

CNN Delegate Scorecard:Democrat
CNN Delegate Scorecard:Republican

"Vanity, Vanity, all is Vanity."

Raja January 10, 2008 - 9:15am
login or register to post comments
Super delegates

are notoriously fickle. While pledged to Clinton, if Obama had the lead many people believe they wouldn't throw it to Clinton, because they aren't elected.

To argue the other side, otoh, the Clintons are owed, bigtime, by a lot of these people. So while they might not normally, they may this time.

"and if the time comes that I need a favor, and that time may never come..."

-promoted to front page.

Ian Welsh January 10, 2008 - 9:17am
login or register to post comments
Super delegates...

...were institutionalized after McGovern embarrassed party central by winning the primary. I'm not sure they ever thought through the consequences of using them (and it's probably why they tend to be fickle).

Gordon January 10, 2008 - 12:24pm
login or register to post comments
All this stuff, keeps

All this stuff, keeps reminding me of Arrow's Impossibility Theorem.

NateTG January 10, 2008 - 12:24pm
login or register to post comments
Current Delegate Counts

Wikipedia has an interesting graphic on super delegates here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Results_of_the_2008_Democratic_presidential_primaries

While super delegates may be "notoriously fickle", (amazing how a phrase like that is repeated everywhere), it is important to note that the whole super delegate system was created to ensure that only candidates approved by the Democratic establishment get nominated. If Obama or Edwards keep pounding the populist message of change, it may win them popular votes(delegates). But it is sure to lose them super delegates who are more likely to be interested in maintaining the status quo.

T.G.Vincent January 10, 2008 - 2:58pm
login or register to post comments
No. What we should be concentrating on is...

...what these guys stand for, not the horserace.
Which one will put a stop to our imperial adventures? Clinton voted for the war, continued supporting it too long, and voted to escalate the situation with Iran. Obama voted to continue funding the war. They both want to keep some troops there indefinitely. McCain, anyone?

Which one will give us a single-payer healthcare system? Neither. They are to beholden to their donor base to mess with the bottom lines of insurance companies.

Which one will stop overfunding the military-industrial complex? Neither.

Keep your eyes on the shiny horserace. Never mind that the race is between two republican-lite candidates who essentially stand for the same things.

zyryab January 10, 2008 - 9:23pm
login or register to post comments

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.