Wikimocracy

With the Democrats deadlocked—Obama's campaign is spinning that they'll be less than 20 votes ahead by the convention—political activists are becoming insta-experts on "superdelegates," the elected officials and "party leaders" who get to cast free votes in Denver. Thus, Superdelegates.org. Naturally, it's a Wiki.

This site is designed to help you learn more about the 796 DNC Super Delegates who will vote in the 2008 Democratic National Convention…

We want this site to be comprehensive, and you can help us by adding biographical data to a delegate's page, linking to a press release announcing the delegate's endorsement, and including the general location of the delegate so that we can view the info on Google Maps and Google Earth. If you would like to contribute to this wiki (what's a wiki?), find a page where you have additional information, click "edit" and enter in your info. That's it!

The conventional wisdom seems to be that a primary tie will benefit Hillary Clinton. I'm not convinced. Superdelegates are mostly people who appear on ballots, and by August they'll have a good idea of who they'd rather have at the top of the ticket. Right now, that looks like Obama. A big event like Clinton winning Virginia or Obama winning Texas could move that CW forward or back.

Here's Katherine Mangu-Ward on our Wiki world.

Comments

[ChrisO]

Jeez, and since they're a bunch of clean-living nanny Democrats, there won't even be any smoke filling the back room in Denver. How much fun can that be? At least tell me they'll be pouring each other glasses of scotch.

[GILMORE]

The conventional wisdom seems to be that a primary tie will benefit Hillary Clinton

Then the conventional wisdom is bullshit. Obama does far better with independents than Hilary, and if it's McCain v Obama, he's directly taking votes from McCain, whereas Hilary would lose many (including me) who would rather vote for McCain than her. She polarizes, where Obama tends to cross boundardies. In a delagate tie, calculating Dem party managers would in my view go to obama.

Unless there's something im missing.

[Warren]

Superdelegates are mostly people who appear on ballots

Which they were allowed to do because they mortgaged their immortal souls to Hillary Clinton.
******************************************************************************
SHE CAN NOT LOOSE THE NOMINATION. SHE HAS CONTROLING SHARES IN THE PARTY!
******************************************************************************

[John]

Yeah Gilmore,

You are missing the fact that electibility and popularity doesn't always translate into party control. I wouldn't count out Hillary on this. She has a ton of money, a former President with a million friends in the party and she utterly ruthless. If it comes down to the Super Delegates, it will just be a bare knuckled mud fight. Any person that would bet against that woman in that kind of fight, has more balls than I do.

[joe]

I remember when "She cannot lose, she controls the party" was used to explain why she was going to win Iowa. And why she was going to win South Carolina. And why she was going to have vastly more money than her opponents. And why she was guaranteed to win Super Tuesday.

I think there must be something about this idea that makes it just too good to think about in a critical manner. My theory is that it is a way of both descreditting the Democratic Party's history of having genuinely competetive campaigns rather than Republican-style coronations; while also allowing any victory by Hillary Clinton to be dismissed as the result of political hackery, rather than her actual appeal as a candidate.

[Rick Barton]

Off Topic- Romney drops out! Got sick of spending his own money-doesn't have thousands of supporters who are willing to contribute like Ron Paul does!

[matt]

Coronation?

http://data.intrade.com/graphing/jsp/closingPricesForm.jsp?tradeURL=https://www.intrade.com&contractId=175729

[Taktix?]

I remember when "She cannot lose, she controls the party" was used to explain why she was going to win Iowa. And why she was going to win South Carolina. And why she was going to have vastly more money than her opponents. And why she was guaranteed to win Super Tuesday.

joe,

I agree that her nomination/anointment wasn't fitting for primaries, but when it comes to party regulars like these Super-delegates, the Clintons have them by the balls.

[joe]

While we're talking about delegates, let's not forget: Edwards, Richardson, and Kucinich have delegates, and they're going to go somewhere.

[joe]

Taktix,

Ted Kennedy, John Kerry, and Deval Patrick are super-delegates. Noticed anything about the direction of the endorsements lately?

matt,

Oops, bye, Mitt. Anyway, this year's election, in the midst of a Republican crack-up, is the exception to the rule.

[John]

Yeah,

Hillary and Obama are about to kill each other in the closest primary election since I don't know when with Hillary playing the race card and killing Obama among Hispanics, but it is a Republican crack up. I think I will take Howard Dean's word for it over Joe's that this is not a good thing for Democrats.

[joe]

Yep, a Republican crackup.

Seen the turnout numbers from Super Tuesday, btw? How DO you get more Democrats than Republicans voting in Georgia, anyway?

I'd say the difference between the knife-fighting between the Republicans and the knife-fighting between the Democrats is that the latter has stopped. The last Democratic debate had everyone talking about how the top-two candidates looked like they were running mates already. Pretty much the same as McCain accusing Romney of surrendering to terrorists, and Romney calling McCain a liberal.

[joe]

On the super-delegates: Obama has won just about every caucus - as opposed to primary - that has been held. This suggests to me that involved party insiders will go for Obama.

[GILMORE]

Any person that would bet against that woman in that kind of fight, has more balls than I do.

eh jefe. You want to put a gentleman's $20 on it? 🙂 If they are within, say, 50 before the superdelagation? If not, all is moot.

this is not an indication of the size of my testes, but the pragmatic assumption that all 'power' changes when political momentum is moving away from the establishment. The clinton days are numbered. No one is the boss forever. If they see the future, they may know that their jobs will rely on picking a winner, not the most simply the most influnential-insider.

[GILMORE]

arg. "not simply the most"

[Taktix?]

You know, if there were any year for a decent 3rd party run, this would be it.

Fractured primaries.

No incumbent (a first since 1928).

Homogeneity of the frontrunners' opinions.

[Taktix?]

P.S. That assumes the sitting VP is the fiat incumbent, a commonly held belief...

[The Democratic Republican]

I love this: "Obama tends to cross boundaries". Only because he spouts vague, meaningless rhetoric to hapless youths who want to believe in something.

[joe]

Bill and Hillary Clinton couldn't even put their preferred candidate in the DNC Chairmanship after McAuliff retired.

[Jammer]

Political power is often a matter of perception. A person is powerful because others believe they have power, a sort of self-fulfilling prophecy. But if something happens to alter that perception, things can change in a hurry. Especially if a lot of elbows were thrown to get that power perception the first time.

[Change]

Don't forget: It's all about Me.

[R C Dean]

I have a really hard time imagining Hillary pulling out until it is really, truly over.

If so, I don't see a strategy for her that isn't compounded of (a) the most savage backroom arm-twisting and (b) trying to bring Obama down by any means necessary.

Maybe she'll surprise me; I tend to think the worst of her. But if she performs as expected, its going to get very ugly, and leave some scars.

[GILMORE]

The Democratic Republican | February 7, 2008, 1:13pm | #
I love this: "Obama tends to cross boundaries". Only because he spouts vague, meaningless rhetoric to hapless youths who want to believe in something.

Uh. yeah? Duh. And what are the rest of the politicians doing, aside from doing it less successfully to old folks, bible beaters, xenophobic populists, et al?

I mean come on. knocking the guy for his vagueness is fair, but even the straight talk express is full of shit. So what?

The main difference is that he's not a *dick*. Kids these days love that

[GILMORE]

Jammer | February 7, 2008, 1:41pm | #
Political power is often a matter of perception

Jammer, I think you mean PoliticalPower

[GILMORE]

and change "perception" to "MexicanGovernment"

[J sub D]

The main difference is that he's not a *dick*. Kids these days love that

What a great billboard.

Vote Obama!
He's not a dick!

And it's not just the kids. Some of us wise and weary folks seem to think Obama is just a better person than the other credible candidates.

[joe]

I'm picturing a billboard with a shot of Obama and the words superimposed: Not A Dick.

Or, Barack on one side, Cheney on the other, the word "Dick" up top, and an arrow pointing at Cheney.

[Geotpf]

"joe | February 7, 2008, 12:42pm | #

While we're talking about delegates, let's not forget: Edwards, Richardson, and Kucinich have delegates, and they're going to go somewhere."

Edwards has 28 delegates. Richardson and Kucinich each have zero (although each is also a superdelegate, so you could say they have one each). If Edwards' 28 delegates decide things, it will be very close indeed.

[bigbigslacker]

What is most important is how the super duper ali-uper delagates vote. This democracy business looks simple on paper.