Friday, May 16, 2008
Superdelegate endorsements for Friday 5/16
WE’VE MOVED! Democratic Convention Watch is now at http://www.DemocraticConventionWatch.com
Not counting Michigan, Clinton has picked up 2 supers today, Obama has picked up 1.
Obama has also picked up 2 superdelegates from Michigan.
California Representative Pete Stark has endorsed Barack Obama
“Senator Barack Obama has captured the imagination of Americans in a way we’ve not seen for decades. He’s inspired millions of young people to register to vote and join the ranks of our Democratic Party, he’s consistently opposed the war, he advocates universal health care, and he delivers a message that transcends party politics at the same time.
“I have the greatest respect for Senator Clinton and for her many years of service, but I believe the time has come to unify our party. The outcome we need in November is a Democratic President. To achieve that, we must turn our focus squarely on Senator McCain and his quest to continue another four years of the failed Bush agenda.
“Barack Obama is the person we need as the next President of the United States of America. I’m excited to help him achieve that goal.”
Clinton gets an endorsement from California DNC member Keith Umemoto
Clinton lost a delegate based on the updated results, but she picked up a California superdelegate who made his choice public Friday after privately endorsing Clinton months ago.
Keith Umemoto of Sacramento told the AP Friday that he has endorsed Clinton.
And we’ve now added Rep. Brad Ellsworth of Indiana for Clinton. When his support for Clinton was first announced a week ago, we, and others, hesitated to put him on Clinton’s list:
But Ellsworth’s support is quite qualified. So much so that ABC News is not counting him as a Clinton superdelegate, per his office’s instructions.
…
Ellsworth spokeswoman Liz Farrar tells ABC News’ Karen Travers that “this should not be taken as an endorsement. The Congressman is not endorsing either candidate.
However, today, Ellsworth has clarified how he would like to be listed:
Some groups are still putting Ellsworth down as undecided when it comes to his super delegate vote. He doesn’t see it that way. He said he’s been clear all along.
If the Congressman from Indiana wants to be listed under Clinton for voting purposes, who are we to deny him.
Finally, Obama picks up two supers from Michigan, as the supers from Florida and Michigan, quiet for months, start to make their decisions known. First, DNC member Virgie Rollins:
“His supporters have worked so hard to organize in Michigan,” said Virgie Rollins, a Democratic superdelegate and Obama support from Detroit. “We feel really good that he’s coming. It’s almost a reward for them.” – The Detroit News
And second, from the National Democratic County Officials organization, DNC member Eric Coleman:
Likewise, Oakland County Commissioner Eric Coleman, president of the National Association of Counties, said he’s been a solid Obama supporter for about a month. “Number one, we need a fresh approach,” he said. – Detroit Free Press
Posted by Matt at 11:08 AM 
24 Superdelegate endorsements until Obama shuts-out Clinton from nomination ….
http://www.thedeadguy.com/
Not 24. Obama needs 124 more delegates, pledged or super (it doesn’t matter which), to get to the current magic number of 2025.
The magic number will go up very slightly on Monday, May 20, when newly elected Rep. Childers (MS) is sworn in; it would increase significantly if delegations from FL and/or MI are recognized.
Actually, Don, cogito is referring to the number Obama needs to reach to mathematically eliminate the possibility of CLINTON reaching 2025. Even if she runs the table on all delegates of any type from here on out.
MSNBC just announced that the North Carolina delegate result has changed. Obama gets 67 Clinton gets 48 for a net pickup of 19 for Obama.
“MSNBC just announced that the North Carolina delegate result has changed. ” The delegates that supported Edwards were “released” after he endorsed Obama and predictably followed his lead. That’s different then saying the result from NC changed. And with respect to the number 24, I like the way you are thinking Cognito, but we have to remember that superdelegate votes are not “officially” cast until the convention. Let’s keep our fingers crossed.
ny ip, I think that xyxox is referring to the fact that North Carolina updated its primary vote tally; Obama picked up an extra pledged delegate of his own as a result.
The delegates released by Edwards that have endorsed Obama are from *South* Carolina, Edwards’ home state.
Responding to cogito’s original point: in fact, we may have already reached “the point of no return”. There are 29 add-ons that will be selected on or after June 7. Realistically, this nomination is going to be decided on or before June 4 (the day after the final primaries). So, if Clinton is to have any chance of winning, she would need to do so on the basis of the undeclared supers that are going to be available in the next two weeks: the 188 named supers, plus the 15 add-ons that will be named between now and June 4. In other words, she has 203 supers to work with. But if you make a reasonable calculation of how the remaining five primaries will end up, you immediately see that she will need more than 203 delegates to reach the magic number of 2025.
Of course the numbers will change if the RBC agrees to seat some of the FL & MI delegates. Still, you can see how bleak the picture is for Clinton.
For those interested in speculation on future super-delegate endorsements, here’s a rundown of the leanings of the five undeclared West Virginia superdelegates.
Don-
The 2025 number already includes Childers. It will go up to 2025.5 when Donna Edwards wins her Special Election in mid-June. See Moving the Goalposts.
OK — then until Childers is sworn in, technically the magic number is 2024.5. Whenever an additional superdelegate is minted by winning a congressional seat in a special election, the magic number goes up by 1/2. Right?
Cogito initially said that Obama needed 24 more superdelegate endorsements until he would “shut out Clinton from nomination.” la photographer repeats the claim that if he picks up 24 delegates (pledged or super? He doesn’t say, but I don’t see how it matters), that would “mathematically eliminate the possibility of CLINTON reaching 2025, even if she runs the table on all delegates of any type from here on out.”
I think they’re both wrong. If it takes 50%+1 of all delegates to get nominated, then the number Obama needs to deny Clinton the nomination is just 1 less than the number he needs to guarantee the nomination for himself. That assumes that all delegates vote for either one or the other — Clinton or Obama — which seems likely now that Edwards has formally withdrawn. (I suppose the supers and the released Edwards delegates could theoretically vote for anyone — Al Gore, George McGovern, Carole Mosley Braun.)
Dan, I agree that any reasonable projection of the upcoming primaries would predict that Obama is bound to pick up some positive number of pledged delegates. But cogito’s initial post specified “24 Superdelegate endorsements” to achieve … something or other.
Theoretically, though, Clinton could win all the remaining primaries by 86%-14% margins, thus running the table, winning 100% of the remaining pledged delegates. She could also get all the remaining uncommitted supers, including the as-yet unnamed add-ons. I believe that would be more than enough for her to get to 2025. Yes, of course she needs more than the 203 currently uncommitted supers, but there are a lot more than 203 delegates still on the table.
“Theoretically” is by no means the same thing as “realistically”. Realistically, this race has been over for 2-1/2 months now, since March 4, when Obama won most of the delegates in Texas.
Obama needs about 24 more pledged delegates (or 17, if you count the delelgates pledged to Edwards who have now committed to Obama) to guarantee the pledged delegate lead. I don’t see how 24 additional superdelegates guarantees Obama anything special.
If you follow the link in cogito’s post, you will see an assumption of a minimum 89 more pledged delegates from the remaining primaries, and an effective assumption that all the Edwards delegates (11) move to Obama. 89+11+24=124. Not unreasonable assumptions, but assumptions that are not made by this site.
Could you update the sidebar chart for the newer ones?