It really ticked me off that the national corporate media, including my beloved AAR/Arianna Huffington, called California for Clinton when the polls were still open in Alameda and several other counties.

http://www.insidebayarea.com/oaklandtribune/ci_8183950

I'm still irritated by the whole concept of superdelegates, who are unaccountable and in many cases voting for their own self-interest (e.g., a position with the Administration, support from the WH when they run for higher office, desire to be an ambassador, etc.). Superdelegates also create a situation where conceivably Obama could win more pledged delegates but Clinton gets the nomination by securing the votes of people like Ted Kulongoski. Or vice versa, with Obama winning because of Earl Blumenauer. That's just plain undemocratic.

In the "delegate math" thread, Kari asks what the alternative is, which is a good question. In almost all cases, one person is going to get a majority of pledged delegates. In the rare situation where two candidates are close but a third (e.g., Edwards) holds the balance, then I think it's fine for pledged delegates to be freed up after the initial vote. I'm okay with delegates making the ultimate decision on the party nominee. I'm not okay with superdelegates overriding the decisions of actual Democratic voters.

Kari, MSNBC and CNN appear to have no West Coast reporters at all. Remember the LA fires? They ignored them for hours until their big east coast stars could fly out. Sure wish we had a West Coast major cable news station.

I'm still burning from 1980 when I was driving like a maniac to get home to my rural red Oregon town to vote....only to have them announce that evil Ronnie won. It hurt us in the Senate/Congressional races as well as local school and other measures.

I hear CNN is now removing delegates from the Clinton count. They are clueless.

By the way, has anyone compiled a list of all the Oregon superdelegates? I would love to start a campaign demanding that they only support the nominee who actually wins the Oregon primary. If we do this now, there can be no complaint that it's unfair to either candidate -- and it would increase Oregon's importance. Of course we can't force them to do it, but our Democratic officials aren't going to take lightly the demands of Democratic party members.

Here's a pretty good delegate counter from Time.com Mark Halperin's page

Apparently Obama got 9 more delegates than Clinton yesterday (845-836). He leads overall 908-884 in Pledged Delegates. This does not include party-boss delegates.

http://thepage.time.com/obama-delegate-count/

Widely varying and constantly fluctuating results from the different news outlets don't exactly boost my confidence in this system. The words "banana" and "republic" come to mind.

Maybe it's time for some simplification of the "delegate math."

This idea of having the party bosses determine the nominee in spite of who the voters choose is a national scandal. And the fact that it could become a reality needs to be stopped now... it would absolutely destroy the party, guarantee a convention walk-out and the nominee chosen under those rules would be a joke, an embarrassment. I agree we need to start with Kulongoski and Darlene Hooley and all the rest and tell them to with draw from their so-called super delegate status until the candidate with the most elected delegates has been determined.

Is everyone else at Blue Oregon getting excited that, unlike every year since God knows when, the Oregon Presidential Primary for the Democrats, and possibly for the Republicans, will actually be a hotly contested race?

Pundits are predicting that Pennsylvania will be decisive on April 22. I'm betting that the race will still be up in the air on May 20, and Oregon will share the national spotlight with Kentucky's primary on that day (including having lots of candidate visits beforehand).

Oooooh sorcery! fun ...

I like this more already.

I also like the idea that a May 20 primary might actually play a role in the final outcome.

I guess we'll all just stay tuned.

Anyone know generally how many "average" voters it takes to earn one delegate vote?

Yet the "super" delegates are put in the hands of single individuals.

These super-delegate votes given to individuals are weighted the same as the cumulative votes of thousands of citizens?

So much for the concept of one person, one vote.

It's an unnecessary opportunity for abuse.

does anyone know what happens to the delegates that were alloted to john edwards?

So much for the concept of one person, one vote.

Plus - they get to vote twice! Once in the primary and again as a super delegate.

Well Hillary disclosed today that her campaign had to borrow $5 million from her personal finances. Very interesting.

And now it is being reported that some top level staff are working without pay to get through the month, including their campaign manager.

In summary, superdelegates act less like players in the nomination game and more like refs.

The problem with that theory, Steve, is that over 300 of the "refs" have already decided which team they want to win. Sure, they could change if someone stakes a big lead, but if the nomination remains close they won't. I don't have much faith in Kulongoski or Blumenauer's ability to objectively arbitrate a brokered convention given that they've already told me who they want to win. If Clinton wants to seat the Florida delegates -- and she said she does the night of the FL primary -- are you suggesting that Gov. K will switch to Obama in protest? Doubtful.

There are almost 800 superdelegates -- about 20% of the total needed to win the nomination. It is very possible that we'll get to the convention and Obama will have more pledged (i.e., real) delegates than Clinton, but Clinton will get the nomination on the strength of her lead in superdelegates. That would cause millions of Democrats such as myself to lose faith in the party.

Steve says: "In summary, superdelegates act less like players in the nomination game and more like refs. Their real job isn't to protect the nominees - it's to protect the party. And in that function, I think they're fine."

If "super-delegates" are there to protect the party, why do they commit to the candidate before the convention? I have trouble understanding that.

Along those lines here's a quote from Howard Dean about a brokered convention: "Then we’re going to have to get the candidates together and make some kind of an arrangement. Because I don’t think we can afford to have a brokered convention, that would not be good news for either party.”

-- DNC Chairman Howard Dean, in an interview on NY1, on what happens if the Democrats have not settled their nomination fight by "sometime in the middle of March or April."

From: Matthew Sutton | "And now it is being reported that some top level staff are working without pay to get through the month, including their campaign manager."

Bill R.- Obama is transforming and democratizing campaign finance with his base of nearly half a million contributors and growing. On the financial state of the race:

<hr/>

Obama on Pace to Raise $30 Million in February Sen. Barack Obama’s campaign "is on track to raise another $30 million in February," according to The Politico.

He's raised $2.2 million in just the last 24 hours.

"Insiders in both campaigns say the growing financial disparity virtually ensures that Obama will be able to significantly outspend Clinton in the critical primaries to come. Even before all the Super Tuesday votes were counted, Obama began airing advertisements in Nebraska, Virginia, the District of Columbia, Maryland and Maine -- the next round of primary and caucus states -- before Clinton did." Taegan Goddard- Political Wire

By the way, Democratic Convention Watch has a list of superdelegates pledged and unpledged. So far, they have Hooley and Kulongoski for Clinton, and Blumenauer for Obama.

Wu and DeFazio are unpledged, as is Wyden.

Oregon's other superdelegates appear to be Meredith Woods-Smith, Frank Dixon, Jenny Greenleaf, Wayne Kinney, Gail Rasmussen, and Bill Bradbury.

I'm serious about putting pressure on all of them to pledge their support to the ultimate winner of the Oregon primary. Kari, Jeff, and Charlie, can we get your support for that idea?

My mom, back in San Diego, CA, an independent who voted for Obama - reported to me last week that she was so sick and tired of seeing Hillary Clinton ads every time she turned on the TV. It could be that $5million went towards those commercials to hold on to CA. Probablly a wiser strategy than Mitt's $35 million to lose big.

I don't think this bodes well for the General if Hillary is our candidate, though. She spent what, about $110 million to win in the bluest of states, her original hometown, and she likes to claim the two non-contested states, too? How is this a winning strategy?

For me the most fascinating statistics from last night are the margins of victory. If you average them out for all of their wins, Hillary won mostly in blue states with an average margin of victory of 15.6%. Obama won last night in red, blue and purple states with an average margin of victory of 28.4%.

Since we know we can win the blue states, I am far more excited over these huge margins in actual swing and potential swing states. It's clear that people love Obama in those states. I hope we don't have to spend hundreds of millions of dollars to win a General just in the blue states - as we know, that would really not be a winning strategy.

miles, and anyone else thinking about pressuring superdelegates,

please go to dailykos.com and see the link off to the right about the message from the obama campaign asking people not to begin pressuring superdelegates on their own, as the obama campaign already has plans laid for winning over the supers. of course, we're all free to do as we please, but it makes sense to let the obama campaign employ its own strategy in this matter.

looks like i jumped the gun a bit on that last post. after re-reading, it is now clear that pressuring for one specific candidate over another at this point in the game was not what miles' post was about. my apologies.

[Editor's note: Violent and potentially libelous comment removed.]

The first candidate who offers me Secretary of Baseball, and I'm off the undecided list.

Ha ha. But seriously, Wayne, why not let us know right now that you'll support the candidate who wins the Oregon primary? Or at least make an argument that voting against the will of Oreogn Democrats is somehow justifiable.

Kari wrote:

Yeah, that shouldn't happen. Of course, given that polls were supposed to close at 8 p.m. - did the national media folks even know that a few precincts in Oakland were unexpectedly still open? And would people standing in line at the polling places have even heard the news reports?

Kinda like Florida in 2000, when they called the state for Gore even though thousands of Floridians hadn't voted yet in the conservative panhandle?

Just sayin...

In 1984 McGovern publicly released his delegates at the convention and said he supported Mondale. Some of them said "I came here to vote for McGovern and that is what I will do". They have that right if they choose to do so.

I hate to keep going back to the fundraising, but something interesting is happening on barackobama.com that you might want to check out.

Since it was disclosed that Bill & Hillary loaned their campaign $5,000,000, and they announced a fundraising goal of another $3,000,000 (confirmed by an email to HRC supporters posted on barackobama.com), Barack's campaign manager issued a challenge to his supporters to match or exceed that. So far, Barack has raised another $6,000,000 and its not eve 10:00 p.m. yet on 2/6. That figure is measured since the polls closed on Super Tuesday.

This sets up an interesting dynamic. For every new fundraising goal that Hillary will make, the Obama campaign will that to challenge its 650,000+ online small amount donors to match or exceed. So far, it looks this is turning into a net positive for Barack's campaign. Its a bit counter-intuitive, but the more Hillary will donate to her campaign and challenge her own campaign, the more it helps Barack.

The fundraising numbers have been incredible. I wonder at some point whether they will have too much money. But since they have to campaign in so many states, buy airtime,etc., I'm sure they will find a way to use it. For example, the Obama campaign announced today that they are opening ten new offices in Texas. More offices are opening in Ohio as well. This will only help Barack in the general election which is now starting to creep up on us it seems.

Slate had an "Explainer" on Clark's delegates in 2004 (the link is to when they republished the article after Edwards dropped out). Nobody is bound to vote a certain way, so Edwards delegates can do whatever they want. If Edwards endorses somebody, they could follow him but, as LT's article illustrates, nobody can force them to change their minds.

"...they get to vote twice! Once in the primary and again as a super delegate."

Actually, they vote once when they fill in their ballots like the rest of us peons, then they vote what is the equivalent of thousands of times when they cast their individual "super" delegate vote.

File this under "you have got to be kidding me!"

<hr/>

Uncounted, Unreported New Mexico Ballots Spent Night in Homes of Polling Place Managers Hmmm… New Mexico Politics reports:

The New Mexico Democratic Party caucus may be tainted by three ballot boxes that spent the night in the home of the Rio Arriba County party chair or the homes of other local election officials instead of being reported to the state party.

Those ballots still haven’t been counted, but they have been retrieved by the state party.

Several sources told me the ballot boxes spent the night at the home of Rio Arriba County Democratic Party Chair Theresa Martinez, whose state-lawmaker husband, Sen. Richard Martinez, endorsed Hillary Clinton. But Richard Martinez told Santa Fe New Mexican reporter Kate Nash that the boxes actually spent the night in the homes of three polling-place managers. He gave Nash no explanation for why the results from those ballots weren’t reported to the state party last night and why they were instead kept overnight in officials’ homes.

“The site managers locked them and they kept them and they took them to my wife this morning,” Nash quoted Richard Martinez as saying.

Any delegate can actually do that. The difference is that super delegates are not named by the candidates, and probably have their own power base, so they are perceived as more likely to change horses. Regular delegates are perceived as less likely to switch because the candidates select them for their loyalty.

Steve M. said: "Why would they do this? Remember that for superdelegates, who are major democratic office holders and party functionaries, party loyalty trumps personal fealty to candidates. For instance, if we get to a point where Hillary tries to win by cheating, I think she'll lose most of her superdelegates. They just won't stand for it."

<hr/>

As an undergraduate student of Pol. Sci (my major) one of my professors made the statement that political parties only exist as a party at the time of national presidential elections. Your belief in their loyalty to the integrity of this entity called party is edifying but ill-founded in my view and history would suggest otherwise. I am inclined to see party officials, elected and not, in large part as viewing the party as an instrument of their ambitions rather than a greater instrument of the public good to be supported. And in times past, as well as times present party officials are inclined to do what they see as being good for themselves in the short term, rather than long term good of their constituent citizens.

I think it is inherently corrupting to be giving them the power to overrule the choice of Democratic voters if it is their whim to do so. The concept of "super-delegates" is an anachronism of the party bossism of the past, and the mere existence of this power erodes the legitimacy of the party and those candidates to whom they have committed themselves. At present the only check on this power is the outrage of Democratic constituents who resent the whole idea of "super-delegates."

This is the narrative about the super-delegates today. Underscores the need for to rid ourselves of the "super-delegate" scourge. A new rule change could simply say that the candidate, short of the the required number of delegates, with the most delegates wins the nomination. A party boss nominee is a sure recipe for destruction of the party and victory for the other side.

<hr/>

From Political Wire:

"Back to Smoke-Filled Rooms The Wall Street Journal points to a wonderful scenario for political junkies but a "nightmare" for Democrats: "The party's bigwigs, rather than its voters, may end up choosing the presidential nominee."

If neither Sen. Barack Obama nor Sen. Hillary Clinton "manages to pull decisively ahead in the next few weeks, the nomination could depend on the convention votes of 796 party leaders, or superdelegates, who are free to ignore the preferences of Democratic voters."

A new site has already been set up to track the superdelegates in the case of a brokered convention."

First, Steve, the way we constitutionally elect a president has little bearing on how a private political party selects its nominee. But even if you draw the parallel, we've come a long way since the Constitution was written on how we view the popular vote. People didn't used to directly elect their Senators, either, but I assume you don't want to go back to that system.

Second, you're making a strawman argument when it comes to a "tie" in the party. I'm not arguing that superdelegates shouldn't play a role, I'm arguing that they shouldn't play a role on the first few ballots at the convention. All delegates should be pledged for the first few votes (whatever the party rules currently say with regard to pledged delegates) based on the popular vote in their state. If after those ballots there is no clear nominee, then ALL delegates should be released.

The situation that I want to avoid is one where the superdelegates decide the nomination on their own. Chris is right, there are reasonable scenarios where superdelegates could push Clinton or Obama over the top, even though they may be behind in actual "real" delegates.

Remember that for superdelegates, who are major democratic office holders and party functionaries, party loyalty trumps personal fealty to candidates.

You do know that both Bill Clinton and Terry McAuliffe are superdelegates, right? That fact makes your above statement untenable.

Please, come up with a scenario where one candidate has a majority of votes, but the superdelegates "on their own" choose someone else.

Okay. There are 4,049 total Democratic delegates -- 3,253 regular delegates and 796 superdelegates. A candidate needs 2,025 to win the nomination.

Imagine that Obama comes to the convention with 1,800 regular delegates, and Clinton comes with 1,453. But Clinton gets 572 superdelegates to vote for her, while Obama gets the remaining 224. Clinton gets the nomination with 2,025 delegates to Obama's 2,024.

In that scenario, Obama got 55% of the pledged delegates -- the ones apportioned by actual Democratic voters -- but lost because party bosses supported Clinton. There are endless scenarios where this could happen given the closeness of the race. It is very unlikely at this point that either candidate will achieve 2,025 pledged delegates, so the decision is almost certainly going to be made by the superdelegates.

Here's how the NY Times describes superdelegates: Superdelegates were created by the Democratic Party following the 1980 presidential election as a means of ensuring that party officials were given a substantial voice in the nominating process.

So they were actually created to control the Democratic party masses. Frankly, the whole system is appalling, and it's being exposed now that we're in a tight race. So we need to put pressure on Oregon superdelegates to support the candidate that we, Oregon Democratic party members, support.

Steve M. said: When push comes to shove, the people who get the final vote on who is President is Congress. So if that's the way we select the President, why is is so unconscionable for a party to give a vote to those same Congressmen for the party nominee? And please, don't go into any sophistry about "the will of the people". Their votes only count when the party itself is so divided that there really isn't any true will of the people. Besides, what else do you want to do when things come up a tie? Flip a coin?"

<hr/>

Bad analogies, Steve. But if you want to defend the undemocratic electoral college, a plutocratic anachronism from the days of oligarchy, and with it the monstrosity of the 2000 election, where the loser of the popular vote, George W.Bush won the electoral college by vote of the Supreme Court, go to it!

Tie vote of delegates.. how many times has that happened, Steve? If need be, flip a coin, yes, much better than a bunch of party bosses rigging the nomination. But surely the party can be inventive for an absolute tie,for an unlikely event which will never happen.

you are still making another completely unreasonable assumption - that a huge number of superdelegates would vote contrary to the wishes of the people of their own districts.

Over 300 of the 796 superdelegates have already committed to Clinton or Obama, including 25% of Oregon's superdelegates (Hooley, Blumenauer, and Kulongoski). Since my assumption reflects reality, I don't see how it can be unreasonable.

I think you should think about who our superdelegates are. . . . Do you honestly see them as people united for the subversion of Democracy?

In your list you forgot Meredith Woods-Smith, Frank Dixon, and Gail Rasmussen. My point is not that they are bad people (although I can only speak personally about a few of them), it is that the system is set up to limit the power of party members and put it in the hands of party leaders. Whether they ultimately act in good faith or not is irrelevant; the key question is why such a system is better than the alternative.

What do you see as the drawback to binding the superdelegates in the same way we bind regular delegates? We can even split them proportionally by state, just as regular delegates are split. In a two-person race, this would always result in a winner on the first ballot. In a three-person race, the delegates could all be released after the first vote. Again, I'm fine with the delegates making the ultimate decision -- so long as they all have equal say.

By the way, you keep suggesting that the superdelegates would abandon Clinton if she tried to seat the Florida delegation. She has repeatedly stated that her intention is to do just that, yet Kulongoski and Hooley have yet to renounce their support for Clinton. On what do you base your assertion?

If the WaPo article today proves true, then the Dem. party is facing the dilemma we are discussing today. Howard Dean apparently wants to meet sometime in Mar or April with the candidates to work out a "fix." He must realize the danger and disaster that awaits a convention "brokered" by party bosses. I suspect the only fix is to get the candidates to agree that the one with the least elected delegates by convention time cede the nomination to the other.

I don't think you're paying close enough attention to what Hillary Clinton is saying, Steve. She wants to seat the Florida delegates because she thinks they deserve to vote -- for her. She's betting that the national party won't snub them given the importance of Florida in the general, and that could be enough to put her over the top. In spite of that, Hooley and Kulongoski are still committed to her.

But that issue aside, do you have any objections to binding superdelegates the same way we bind regular delegates?

If you want to get rid of superdelegates, I think you should just say so.

Wait, haven't I been saying that all along!?! Maybe I need to recalibrate my "directness" meter.

<h2>I think the party should get rid of superdelegates. Given that we're already in the middle of this race, and that's impossible, I think individual state party members should pressure their own state superdelegates to vote with the majority of the state on the first ballot. I'm an Obama supporter, but if Clinton wins Oregon then all 12 of our supers should vote for Clinton.</h2>