The superdelegate dam is breaking

So far this week, Barack Obama has been endorsed by 13 previously uncommitted superdelegates and picked up two switchers who had previously endorsed Hillary Rodham Clinton. Clinton picked up two new commitments, but that only offsets the two defectors. Her lead among superdelegates, which was just under 100 in early February, is down to a new low of 6.5 (yes, there are superdelegates who get half a vote). These numbers are according to the count maintained by the excellent demconwatch. There are other counts, but they are close to one another.

The story in this morning’s Strib by my esteemed former colleague Bob Von Sternberg quotes Clinton supporters who resent the way she is being pushed out of the contest. The sentiment is understandable, but doesn’t bear much scrutiny. No one can force Clinton to leave the race. All they can do is endorse Obama, complain about how the continuation of the contest is hurting the party, and perhaps develop a grudge over it. And that’s been going on for a couple of months without forcing Clinton out.

Clinton is surely calculating, on an almost daily basis, whether the shrinking chance that she can become the nominee is worth the growing damage to her standing in the Democratic Party, and how that damage might affect her future political ambitions, whether to be Obama’s running mate, to make a future presidential bid, or to rise within the party leadership in the Senate.

Obama’s overall delegate lead is up to a new high of 157.5 (1853.5 to 1696). (This morning I had misstated that as 275.5. My thanks to reader D.H., who alerted me to the error.)

From here, Clinton would have to win two-thirds of the remaining uncommitted delegates (super and mortal combined, counting the 19 who are committed to John Edwards). This is not unthinkable, but highly unlikely and growing more so with every new superdelegate commitment she loses.

And one last note. We should pay little attention to the statements that some reporter wrings out of Clinton almost daily to the effect that she’s staying in the race until it’s over. Like Edwards — who campaigned hard and swore he was staying in until the convention until moments before he dropped out — it is not reasonable to expect Clinton to candidly discuss how close she is to dropping out. She’ll tell us when she does.

Afternoon update:
The above was written this morning. Obama has rolled out two more superdel endorsements, giving him a net (counting the switchers) of 17-1 for the week. By DemConWatch’s count, that reduces the Clinton superdel lead to 4.5. (Based on those latest endorsements, ABC, which has a different scorecard, is now the first of the many media organizations that are tracking superdelegates to claim that Obama has pulled ahead in superdelegates).

You can also learn about all our free newsletter options.

Comments (3)

  1. Submitted by Justin Adams on 05/09/2008 - 02:56 pm.

    It is about time.

    Senator Obama should have been running against Senator McCain for two months now. Hopefully the media (present company excluded, of course) will start reporting on the actual race for the white house.

    McCain keeps saying he’ll play nice and elevate the discourse, but he also said he’d take Dwight Shroot as his VP. I personally think everyone should acquaint themselves with McCain’s Wilsonian (Brian, hehe) views about bombing Iran, and that Obama should play nice right up to the point where he can advantage himself, as presidential stakes are the highest kind of stakes.

  2. Submitted by Beryl John-Knudson on 05/11/2008 - 01:16 pm.

    Which will come sooner for Hillary…a final, or primal scream?

    Initially, I had no strong positive or negative thoughts about Hillary Clinton; although my support has always been for Barak Obama. However I saw another side of Hillary evolving during the campaign that scared the heck out of this voter if Hillary were ever to inhabit the White House as president, vice-president or cleaning lady.

    What has been called “gutsy”, soon became a driven woman, intent on winning no matter what(for whose sake?). Mud and slinging of same was often the prime ingredient of her campaign rhetoric. And any messages of policy, or policy changes, were more and more rarely, consistant…differant strokes for differant folks? It was not a good message for change that any wise voter could support?

    Michelle Norris on “Face the Nation” attempted to explain Hillary’s psyche; her failure to step down honorably; with some degree of grace… and help to rescue what’s left of the Democratic Party’s ‘hope for change’. Norris suggested that the Clintons have risen “out of the ashes” so many times in the past, it’s hard to concede defeat. All I can say is…listen to the ‘Phoenix bird’ above your study door, Hillary…it’s saying “Never more…”

  3. Submitted by John E Iacono on 05/11/2008 - 04:09 pm.

    As the tide seems inexorably to swing toware Obama, I reflect again on the statement of a dem friend last fall: “If Clinton gets it, I’ll have to vote for McCain; if Obama gets it, I’ll have a problem.”

    Once the primaries are over and the choice is made, I will begin counting the days — until the campaigns turn back to the ugliness of yesteryear.

    If the two last standing can manage to keep it civil and on the issues, I’ll have to vote for whoever I see as having done the most to promote that.

    It seems to me that going at it about the economy should be a great context for selecting a candidate. All other topics, not so much.

Leave a Reply