Thursday, February 14, 2008
It’s 795 superdelegates!
WE’VE MOVED! Democratic Convention Watch is now at http://www.DemocraticConventionWatch.com
With the passing of Rep. Tom Lantos 3 days ago, the number of superdelegates to the 2008 Democratic Convention decreased one to 795, and this has been confirmed by the DNC. So let’s go see how some of the national, political and Denver media are doing with this clear fact:
- NY Times, Thursday, 9 PM: “the 796 elected Democrats and party leaders”
- Time Magazine, Thursday: “some of the 796 party insiders”
- Rocky Mountain News, Thursday (and they should know better): “There are 796 superdelegates scattered”
- MSNBC, Thursday, 9 AM, in the headline: “Meet the superdelegates: Democratic convention may make all 796 of them famous”
- The Hill, Wednesday, 4 PM: “Of the 796 such delegates”
- Hotline On Call, Wednesday, 12 PM: “intentions of the 796 superdelegates”
And who got it right: US News and World Report, MSNBC on Tuesday!, The Chicago Daily Observer, and that’s really about it.
And by the time they finally figure it out, a Democrat will have won the open seat on March 11 in Indiana, and then we’ll be back up to 796…
Update, 2/16: Top story in today’s printed New York Times: “decided by a group of 796 party insiders”. But in the on-line version: “decided by a group of 795 party insiders”. Glad to see the web editors are paying attention.
Posted by Matt at 11:50 PM 
Bet they’ll be plenty more to soon follow. 😉
There is no reason to have superdelegates in the future if you make them vote with the majority in their state or, absent state representation, bind them to vote for the person who has the majority of the poplular vote or delegates at the time of the convention! Let’s abolish them all together.
if we’ll be back up to 796 delegates when the convention comes, isn’t that the number that really matters?
You guys are pretty great and all, but you’re making a mountain out of a molehill with the 795/796 thing.
Hey, we’re just having fun. But why should the media be continually printing the wrong number? And to the previous comment that it will just be at 796 at the convention, that assumes the Dems will win only 1 open seat election. There are, I think, 6 open seats in Congress, and all will be filled before the convention. The Dems could win 0, they could win all 6. (They’re favored in 2 of 6, which would put the number at 797). But the point is, right now the DNC says the number is 795.
Axelrod, Obama strategy advisor, says that the SuperDelegates should vote for the person that will be best for the Democratic Party. Some SuperDelegates think that is Hillary Clinton!
fyi… john lewis’ spokeswoman has said that he has NOT endorsed bho.
This site says:
“And by the time they finally figure it out, a Democrat will have won the open seat on March 11 in Indiana, and then we’ll be back up to 796…”
But CNN.com says:
If a superdelegate dies or is unable to participate at the convention, alternates do not replace that delegate, which would reduce the total delegates number and the “magic number” needed to clinch the nomination.
Which is the correct information?
godheval, I think that CNN is referring to a situation in which, for example, a congressman dies and his seat is not filled prior to the convention. The state Democrats can’t just nominate an alternate to take his place at the convention if the congressional seat is empty. However, if the congressional seat is filled prior to the convention then the new congressman is a superdelegate in his own right – not an “alternate”.
Jayzed has it right.