Comments on: Should Superdelegates Be Counted Yet?

By: Grewgills

Grewgills — Mon, 11 Feb 2008 04:32:23 +0000

yaj, beldar, etc.

That is already what is being done by CNN and the AP. Both breakdown the numbers by delegates, super delegates, and by state.

If you want the numbers without the caucus delegates that are not yet entirely firm the NYT has that number along with the AP totals.

I think Alex is speaking more to whether the super delegate totals should be included when framing the horse race stories.

Depending which of the numbers you choose the story comes out quite diffently. NYT method looks best for Clinton (up 171). CNN or AP with SDs have it quite close, with a slight edge for Clinton (~30). Take away the SDs and CNN and AP have Obama up by about 60. Pick your number based on what you want the race to look like.

By: Beldar

Beldar — Mon, 11 Feb 2008 01:23:05 +0000

Yetanotherjohn is exactly right. The cure for this is more thorough disclosure — not a rule that either does or doesn't include them. Sometimes a complicated situation takes more words to explain because it's, well, complicated.

By: yetanotherjohn

yetanotherjohn — Sun, 10 Feb 2008 22:19:15 +0000

I would chart a middle course. I would count the delegates won and the super delegates pledged, but break them out separately. To not track the super delegates pledged would not give the whole story. But to report them with the same "firmness" as the delegates won in the primary is also not reasonable.

Of course it is all much more complicated than this. Delegates for some of the caucuses are yet to be actually awarded. Further, delegates awarded to people no linger in the race generally become unpledged, though some may be allocated by the state committees. The bottom line is that if the nomination fight gets down to the point of really needing to count every vote, it will get tricky indeed.

By: Alex Knapp

Alex Knapp — Sun, 10 Feb 2008 22:00:20 +0000

Dave, Let's not forget, though, that over 3/4 of Clinton's superdelegates pledged before Iowa. If Obama starts pulling away (and I think he will--Texas's half-primary, half-caucus will be really helpful for Obama), I wouldn't be surprised to see some of Clinton's superdelegates fade away.

By: Dave Schuler

Dave Schuler — Sun, 10 Feb 2008 19:40:48 +0000

I don't think that's quite right. I'm not sure whether to think of superdelegates as sheep or snakes but they do like to back winners. Not just primary winners but winners in the general election. As of my last check the superdelegates were breaking 2:1 for Hillary Clinton. Yes, that could change if the prevailing wind does. But I think it's going to take more than Obama securing some delegates in a few small states before they'll break en masse. Texas, Ohio, and Pennsylvania have more delegates (if I count correctly) than all the other remaining Democratic caucuses and primaries put together. Obama will need to pick up a sizeable proportion of the delegates in at least one of those states for the superdelegates to bolt.