It's all about the superdelegates

It may be premature to say that the 2008 presidential nominee of the Democratic Party won't be determined until the national convention in August. But it is definitely not premature to say this: unless somebody drops out or cuts a deal between now and August, the nominee will be chosen by superdelegates.

Whatever the media might tell you about the potential decisiveness of the primaries on March 4 (Texas and Ohio) or April 22 (Pennsylvania), it is now essentially impossible for either Clinton or Obama to "clinch" the threshold 2,025 delegates needed to nominate during the primary and caucus season. Neither can win the nomination with pledged delegates alone. In fact, they can't even come close.

Before yesterday's contests, the pledged delegate count stood at Obama 63, Clinton 48, according to The Green Papers. Now, if NBC's estimate of the Super Tuesday pledged-delegate breakdown is correct, the tally -- again, counting pledged delegates only, not superdelegates, who are by definition free to change their minds at any time -- looks something like Obama 908, Clinton 883 (give or take 10 delegates), with 1,428 pledged delegates still outstanding.

The math is pretty straightforward. In order to reach 2,025 without depending on superdelegates, either Obama or Clinton would need to win something like 80% of the remaining pledged delegates. Obviously, in a tight race governed by proportional allocation rules, there is no way on God's green earth that's going to happen. In fact, I'd say any ratio more lopsided than, say, 60-40, seems totally outlandish under the circumstances.

So... where does that leave us? Assuming that neither candidate collects more than 60% of the remaining 1,428 pledged delegates, nobody will have more than 1,765, or thereabouts, of the 3,253 pledged delegates when all is said and done. The leader will thus finish somewhere between 250 and 400 delegates short of the magical "needed to nominate" finish line (2,025), with the trailing candidate no more than ~550 delegates away. It'll be up to the 800 superdelegates to decide whom to push over the finish line.

Actually, to be more precise, there are 796 superdelegates. Right now, 190 of them have stated they'll support Clinton; 104 are backing Obama. That leaves 502 of 'em undeclared. And, as I mentioned earlier, even the ones who've "declared" their "loyalty" are perfectly free to change their minds. Such is the life of a superdelegate.

Because of proportional allocation and the closeness of the race, the upcoming caucuses and primaries can only nudge the tally of pledged delegates ever-so-slightly in Obama's or Clinton's direction; they can't realistically be expected to give either candidate a huge boost. But they could alter perceptions and create momentum, something which has been a virtual nonentity thus far, but which is incredibly important now because of its potential impact on the superdelegates.

Hillary needs to be very careful of this, methinks. If Obama starts racking up wins in the friendly landscape of the next few weeks, his momentum could become a very powerful thing indeed, not with voters but with superdelegates. If Obama does very well throughout the rest of March, the supers might be ready to jump on the bandwagon en masse, and effectively anoint Obama the winner, if Hillary doesn't really impress in her March 4 "firewall" states, Texas and Ohio.

Keep in mind that "superdelegates" are party big-shots, elders and officeholders; they are loyal to the Democratic Party above any specific candidate or cause. As such, they will do what it takes to avoid the spectacle of a protracted, summer-long nomination battle that would give the Republicans many months to regroup behind McCain while the Dems squabble amongst themselves.

(In fact, come to think of it, a crucial factor in the evolution of the Democratic race is what happens with Mike Huckabee. I say that on the assumption that Romney is toast and will drop out soon, but Huck will stay in. The longer the Huckster can maintain a quasi-plausible challenge to McCain, the less antsy the Dem superdelegates will be. Once the GOP has a true nominee presumptive, however, the pressure will really start to build among Democrats to get on with it already.)

Party chairman Howard Dean is already talking about "get[ting] the candidates together and mak[ing] some kind of an arrangement" if -- i.e., when -- there's no clear winner by the end of the primary season in early June. The thing is, neither candidate will have much independent motivation to compromise if both have a real shot at winning the nomination outright. But the superdelegates can giveth or taketh away that shot, and that gives them real power.

I'm not sure how the candidates game-plan this, but it's a fascinating situation the Democrats find themselves in. One way or another, whether before or during the convention, the nomination is going to be effectively decided by party power-brokers and back-room deals. The voters' role now is chiefly advisory.

P.S. The above-quoted numbers assume that the Michigan and Florida delegates stay out. If they come in -- which would itself be a pitched battle, and potentially a decisive one, sort of like a court deciding what standard of review to apply when that threshold decision is effectively determinative of the case's outcome -- it changes the numbers around, boosting Hillary.

However, the basic premise of this post remains true, even if the Florida and Michigan delegates are seated. They aren't numerous enough to give Hillary a chance of winning an outright majority based  purely on pledged delegates. No matter what, superdelegates will be the Democratic kingmakers in 2008.

P.P.S. Incidentally, I think an intriguing possible compromise to the Florida and Michigan controversy, one which would allow the Dems to avoid the "disenfranchisement" debacle while preventing those states' uncontested primaries from unfairly determining the nominee, would be to let them in but arbitrarily raise the "needed to nominate" threshold to, say, 55%, so Hillary doesn't get a decisive edge from their presence.

She might agree to it -- especially if she doesn't have the votes to get a better deal -- on the theory that she could then use the moral pressure of a 51% majority to drag some more superdelegates over to her side on the second ballot. And for Obama, it would be a way to save face (he can't be seen as self-interestedly disenfranchising two key swing states' voters en route to the nomination) while still giving himself a fighting chance on the convention floor.

If this happens, or something like it, I want credit for thinking of it first. :)

Comments

[B. Minich]

See, I think that chances are very good we're going to get to the convention without a consensus. In which case, it becomes the first brokered convention in the live media age. Dude, if this happens, I am SO watching.

The big problem here is, as the Politico article said, that Hillary has an edge on the superdelegate count, and it will be very hard for Obama to pry some of them loose.

[Brendan Loy]

it will be very hard for Obama to pry some of them loose

That depends on a lot of things. I can envision scenarios where it will be very easy for him to pry them loose, and other scenarios where it will be completely impossible.

The way things appear now, is not necessarily how they will appear in a month, or a week, or a day...

[Derek]

Also, the "Credentials Committee," i.e., the committee that determines the eligibility of delegates (i.e., FL and MI), consists of three members. One is a former Clinton cabinet member.

*cues plot-thickening music*

[Joe Loy]

That's Good. / However, I'd be Surprised (albeit not Shocked :) if scholarly researchers found that a major-party national convention has Ever instituted a Supermajority rule for presidential Nomination. / Obviously the Language of the Irishtrojan Compromise :) would need to specify that it's a One-time Thing, not applicable to future conventions, else it Sinks immediately upon Launch :>. But I think the Dems would still Stew about the lurking Precedental value. Each Convention is (very unadvertisedly :) a Law unto itself and future incoming 48-percenters will Yell to Hell about getting ruled Defeated by a Mere Mister 52 on the Rollcall. :>

In any case, I think that for Barack any Negotiations leading to the Two-States Solution :} must be predicated on the Precondition that the entire large bloc of Michigan phantom-delegates won (yes, per the regular rules, Won) by Candidate Uncommitted :} constitutes the minimum number of Michigan seats to be filled by pledged Obama Supporters ~ subject of course to whatever Upward revision might be then negotiated :>. If Hillary won't accept said Precondition then she obviously wants license to subvert the clear Intent of the Voters in Michigan and you just Can't negotiate with the deadly enemies of Democracy. ;}

Note: I believe the Dem rules Bind [well ~ supposedly :] the Pledged delegates to their Loyalty oaths :} for a Specified number (only) of Rollcalls, which I THINK is Two. / After that (or Howevermany it is) it's Katie bar th' Door. ;]

[Condor]

Good analysis.

[David K.]

If the Democractic Party leadership has any clue, they will realize that Obama is the real shot at winning this election especially if the opponent is McCain, and thus place some preasure or atleast argue towards the supers that very thing.

[Mad Max, Esquire]

Hillary admits to loaning her campaign $5 million. The Drudge Report is reporting that some of her senior staffers are working for free. Hillary raised about 1/3 the money Obama did in January. If trends continue, the nominee may be decided well before the convention.

[yea]

does edwards have enough delegates to be any sort of factor?

[CD]

"If the Democractic Party leadership has any clue..."

Um, the super delegates are the democratic party leadership.

[Derek]

FYI, Clinton is now leading in NM....

[Derek]

Oh, AND this.

[yea]

obama has raised over $5,000,000 since super tuesday. the hillary loan has been beaten.

[Andrew]

Amazing. A few weeks ago, we thought it was the GOP convention that would deadlock and be brokered; now it will probably be the Democratic convention. Romney is just about dead, the Republican candidate will surely be McCain.

[Derek]

I saw that Obama thing. It's incredible on two grounds: first, that Clinton having so little money that she had to take out a loan was ingeniously twisted to make Obama, flush with cash, to appear the underdog; and second, that so many bought it.

[Joe Loy]

"does edwards have enough delegates to be any sort of factor?"

Excellent question, yea ~ since pledged Dem delegates are not manumitted released from their Pledge until they are Formally so liberated, Explicitly, by their liege lord Candidate. Per CNN, ol' Johnboy "Suspending My Campaign" Edwards has 26 of 'em. Which, yeah, Could end up being enough to be Any sort of factor. At the coming Cataclysm in Colorado , Anything could :>.

[Brian Foster]

The West Wing Parallel Theory continues to hold up!

[Brian Foster]

Crap, wrong URL -- let's try that again.

The West Wing Parallel Theory continues to hold up!

[Joe Loy]

Indeed, Brian Foster! That theory was & remains, Brilliant :).

[CD]

Super Tuesday results indicate race card may be a joker in primaries
By Joel Schwarz
News and Information

The Bradley effect may be alive and multiplying after Super Tuesday.

Sifting through overnight results, UW researchers have found that race still plays a role in American politics and it showed up Tuesday in surprising ways in the tallies from four states holding Democratic primary elections. Early analysis of primary counts and polling data from the final week of the campaign indicated that pre-election polls exaggerated support for Sen. Barack Obama in two states with relatively low black populations -- California and Massachusetts. But he benefited from a newly discovered "reverse" Bradley effect in Alabama and Georgia where blacks make up a larger bloc of voters.

The Bradley effect was first noticed by researchers in 1982 when black Los Angeles Mayor Tom Bradley had a solid lead in the pre-election gubernatorial polls, but lost a close election in California to his Republican opponent. Results from that and other races involving black candidates indicated that polling tended to overstate support for black candidates compared to their actual vote percentages.

Last December, Bethany Albertson, a UW assistant political science professor, and Anthony Greenwald, a UW psychology professor, analyzed data from an online test that measures unconscious or automatic preferences and surmised that the Bradley effect could well repeat itself in 2008.

The UW researchers had good late-polling data from 11 Super Tuesday states, as well as earlier data from New Hampshire and South Carolina. New Hampshire was another state that showed the Bradley effect, while South Carolina showed the reverse Bradley effect.

Greenwald said actual results of the Democratic primaries in California, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, South Carolina, Georgia and Alabama compared against late polling numbers all substantially exceeded the polls' expected margin of error, being off between 8 and 18 percent. By contrast, they found Republican vote totals and poll numbers were only substantially off in Massachusetts where Mitt Romney's winning margin was less than predicted.

The UW researchers plan to further investigate the Bradley and reverse Bradley effects as the 2008 election season plays out.

A graph illustrating how the Bradley and reverse Bradley effects have played out in 2008 primaries is available at: http://faculty.washington.edu/agg/Bradley_&_Reverse_Bradley.6Feb08.pdf