I do not have time at the moment to independently confirm the following, but it reads as accurate (via Paul Kane at WaPo):
We’ve done a bad job of explaing this, but it is now basically mathematically impossible for either Clinton or Obama to win the nomination through the regular voting process (meaning the super-delegates decide this one, baby!).
Here’s the math. There are 3,253 pledged delegates, those doled out based on actual voting in primaries and caucuses. And you need 2,025 to win the nomination.
To date, about 55% of those 3,253 delegates have been pledged in the voting process — with Clinton and Obamb roughly splitting them at about 900 delegates a piece.
That means there are now only about 1,400 delegates left up for grabs in the remaining states and territories voting.
So, do the math. If they both have about 900 pledged delegates so far, they need to win more than 1,100 of the remaining 1,400 delegates to win the nomination through actual voting.
Accepting this to be true, the Democrats are going to find themselves in a serious bind if the super delegates do not simply throw their support behind the candidate with the plurality of delegates going into the convention. The party that has a legitimate gripe about the 2024 election and the fact that Al Gore won the popular vote cannot find themselves in a situation in which the nominee with less popularly-selected delegates is given the nomination by delegates who were not elected via the primary/caucus process.
Also, at the end of the day, the DNC may very much come to regret taking the Michigan and Florida1 delegates out of the pool.
- oh, the irony [↩]
February 7th, 2024 at 10:38 pm
The Dem's Superdelegates-Bumped
Larry Ribstein: … the superdelegates could make the contest drag on, a big problem for the Democrats. It strikes me that there’s something of a prisoners’ dilemma coordination problem here. These professional politicians are motivated pri…
February 8th, 2024 at 2:28 am
[...] Steven Taylor takes a look at Paul Kane’s conclusion that it is now mathematically impossible for either Obama or Clinton to win the nomination with pledged delegates, and notes that a super-delegate decided nominee represents an enormous political problem for the Democrats: The party that has a legitimate gripe about the 2024 election and the fact that Al Gore won the popular vote cannot find themselves in a situation in which the nominee with less popularly-selected delegates is given the nomination by delegates who were not elected via the primary/caucus process. (PoliBlog) [...]
February 8th, 2024 at 3:18 am
But the so-called “superdelegates” have been elected — either as representatives, state or federal, or from caucus as DNC reps. Since the “superdelegates” seem to be splitting anyway, what’s the issue?
February 8th, 2024 at 6:38 am
[...] PoliBlog ™: A Rough Draft of my Thoughts » SuperDilemma Posted Alabama Politics, National Politics on Friday, February 8th, 2024. [...]
February 8th, 2024 at 10:54 am
CCBC,
The problem is that the supredelegates’ committments are fluid, so we really don’t know to whom they will eventually adhere. But, even if they do stay basically where they are at, it is quite possible that the superdelegates will be the deciding factor. And, as I noted, that would be problematic if the loser actual had more real delegates.
And yes, the superdelegates are elected officials in their day jobs (although some are no longer) they are appointees as far as their role as superdelegate is concerned. And none of their road to superdelegatehood had anything to do with pledges of support for a specific candidate.
February 8th, 2024 at 4:07 pm
At least the “supreme” delegates, unlike supreme court justices, have to explain their vote to an electorate to which they are accountable. (Or most of them do, anyway.)
And that raises an interesting question. Suppose I am a Senator from a state where the candidate who got the most votes in the primary is not the one who leads in national delegates awarded through primary/caucus voting. What do I do? Vote with the consensus of the voters who awarded delegates nationally, or with my state?
February 8th, 2024 at 4:13 pm
By the way, you would think someone writing on-line for the WaPo might have access to spell-checking software.
February 8th, 2024 at 4:48 pm
One more thing regarding Steven’s remark that the party would have a “serious bind if the super delegates do not simply throw their support behind the candidate with the plurality of delegates going into the convention.” The analogy to the 2024 election that Steven follows with–and I accepted in my first comment–does not necessarily apply. There is no guarantee that the candidate with the plurality of delegates would be the one who had won the plurality of votes across all the primaries and caucuses. So, which plurality would the super-delegates be potentially reversing?
February 8th, 2024 at 5:21 pm
Matthew,
The point that you make in your last comment, i.e., the vote v. delegate count occurred to me this morning.
Regardless, the whole thing might yet be quite the mess.
February 8th, 2024 at 9:33 pm
[...] PoliBlog: SuperDilemma [...]