March 7th, 2008
02:04 PM ET

Will pledged delegates decide the Democratic nominee?

 Click the play button to see what Jack and our viewers had to say.

Click the play button to see what Jack and our viewers had to say.

FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:

It's looking like Barack Obama will almost certainly finish up the primary season with more pledged delegates than Hillary Clinton, although it won't be enough to clinch the nomination.

In a Newsweek piece called "Hillary's New Math Problem," Jonathan Alter writes how despite Clinton's three wins this week, the delegate math is working against her. He suggests Clinton needs very large margins in the 12 remaining primaries, an average of about 23 points, which is more than double the margin of her Ohio win.

If Clinton is not leading in pledged delegates come June, a lead in the popular vote might help her convince superdelegates that she is the stronger candidate. But right now, Clinton trails Obama there as well, by about 600,000 votes.

It all boils down to a pretty messy scenario for the Democrats where the nearly 800 superdelegates could be left to decide on the nominee. Clinton still leads Obama when it comes to the votes of these party insiders by 238-to-199. But, keep in mind, if Obama maintains a pledged delegate lead, he'll ultimately need fewer of these superdelegates to commit to him in order to become the nominee.

Alter adds that several prominent uncommitted superdelegates tell him there's no way they would reverse the will of Democratic voters... that it would shatter young people and destroy the party.

Here’s my question to you: How confident are you that the winner of the most pledged delegates in the primary season will become the Democratic nominee?

Interested to know which ones made it on air?

Chris from Fort Myers, Florida writes:
I have no confidence that the nomination will go to the candidate with the most pledged delegates. In fact, after watching this debacle, I have no confidence that the Democrats even know how to run their own party. Guess how much confidence I have that a Democratic president and a mostly Democratic Congress can effectively run this country?

Charlotte writes:
Jack, Superdelegates may very well decide this race. Their job is to figure out what states were won by which candidate. Will these states most likely vote Democratic or are they states that go to Republicans in November? Since Obama has failed to carry important states in the primary, they have no choice but to consider that in making their decision.

Janice from Whitwell, Tennessee writes:
I don't feel very confident. This is the first time a black man has had a snowball’s chance of winning the highest office. I don't think many people are ready for that including the superdelegates and the media. Example: when HRC cried media bias, the media tucked their tails and jumped on the Clinton wagon. The superdelegates will do the same if the situation arises.

Marie from California writes:
I am not confident at all. The truth is: while Obama's supporters are talking math, the Clinton's are claiming momentum. The old Washington machine is going to support Clinton whatever the numbers are, so watch out. The Democratic Party may be heading for self-destruction rather than an invigorated spurt of growth and a working majority in the Congress.

Mary writes:
I am so confident that the candidate with the most pledged delegates will be the nominee that I am willing to bet money that Hillary Clinton will switch parties mid-primary and join McCain's ticket as V.P. The Democratic voters will be satisfied and Hillary will not have to go stark raving mad from having to actually concede.

Filed under: 2008 Election
soundoff (290 Responses)
  1. Aditi

    Yes, I am sure they will consider electability.
    What is your thought on reverse racism?

    March 7, 2008 at 2:06 pm |
  2. Bev H.

    If this is NOT the way the democratic candidate is decided, I think you're going to see pure mayhem. I also think the same is true if votes are counted from Michigan and Florida where the rules were not adhered to and where one of the candidates did not campaign. I understand that Florida is planning to seek legal action. How SHOCKING! Florida to be involved in a law suit concerning an election? Can't we just vote them off of the island and be done with it?

    March 7, 2008 at 2:09 pm |
  3. John from Carlsbad, CA


    I am not very confident at all. I put nothing out of reach of Hillary's desire for power. She will do anything to get what she wants including telling the voters that they don't count, she and her quest for power is the only thing that matters.

    She has shown her true colors with all of this negative campaigning and "fighting" as she calls it. The sad fact is she is not fighting for the American people, she is fighting for her own desire for power. Nothing is below her to get what she wants.

    March 7, 2008 at 2:13 pm |
  4. Celia Ann

    That is how it is supposed to work. I can see alot of voters being really angry at the democratic party if it doesn't go that way. I hope you guys aren't asking this questions becasue there is something fishy going on. I guess the Super delegates, they can go the way they want to go, but they might have to go looking for another job too when its time for reelection. I thought the Dems were about playing fair and changing washington this time round.

    Hey you guys, The Archivists have blocked the release of the Clinton Papers!!! There is an this executive order that Pres Bush and Pres Clinton can agree to in order to get them released. Bill Bradley just did a story on JIm Leher's show saying that he doubted that they wanted anyone to see those pardons and who they were for.

    March 7, 2008 at 2:17 pm |
  5. kb from Iowa

    It only becomes a messy scenerio if the DNC shreds the rule book and scatters all those new participants in the democratic process they keep bragging about, into worthless scraps of paper across the country.

    March 7, 2008 at 2:17 pm |
  6. Brian From Fort Mill, S.C.

    If it's a do-over, then Obama has the chance to catch up, assuming he's behind.

    If he keeps it close in both Florida and Michigan, then it won't make much of a difference – he'll still be ahead by, say, 50 or 60 delegates.

    Another wrinkle is that, if the superdelegates conclude that neither state is likely to be a blowout, then they may start committing more of their support to Obama.

    If I were him, I would stay mostly positive, with a few negative jabs, just to show that he's not a wuss.

    March 7, 2008 at 2:17 pm |
  7. James D (Cary, NC)

    I think the worst thing Democrats can do is eat their young. If all the young activists feel like their efforts were squashed by super-delegates this voter tornout will evaporate.

    March 7, 2008 at 2:19 pm |
  8. Patricia

    Jack, I thought the rules said 2024 delegates were needed, not a simple majority. And I don't see why we have superdelegates if their only purpose is either to ratify their home districts' votes or ceritfy the one who has the majority of delegates. i thought they were supposed to evaluate the various factors to determine their preferences. I am tired of hearing about the Obama vote abandoning the party if they don;t get their way. If he were 'destined' to win, he'd end up with the 2024; otherwise, the superdelegates make a reasoned judgment. Myself, I think it's about time someone noticed that women are just as significant to the party's success in November as the young and the wealthy and the black votes; and they know how to feel'shattered' in their quest for history, too..If one candidate receives a majority in delegates and the other in popular votes, superdelegates had better do it right.

    Manchester, Massachusetts

    March 7, 2008 at 2:19 pm |
  9. Deb in San Antonio, TX

    Ths issue goes back to Gore in 2000, where he lost the populous vote over the delegat, which is an idiotic system. We want our next Commander in Chief to be "experienced" not full of mesmerized dreams that are just that, Hillary is the one winning the big states that will be able to defeat McCain in November, and the totals of voters having voted for her are a landslide in comparision to what McCain received in these same states. Obama needs to wait another few years to get better prepared, he's just not ready yet!
    Sadly, the pressures are on for the Superdelegates to endorse him, but this is "wrong", we need a strong candidate not a great speech maker". It's a shameful system. Let the voice of the people be heard.

    March 7, 2008 at 2:20 pm |
  10. charlie

    Hillary call the vice president Darth Vader who also voted for the war that is still killing innocent people including many American lives (including my nephew last April).

    So what is Hilary calling herself........

    So I guess BO aid was correct.

    What should Hillary call herself?

    And, why are the delagates picking her to be President?

    I have one word for hillary (.....).

    March 7, 2008 at 2:20 pm |
  11. Marilyn

    The only thing I'm convinced of is that the DNC is part of the Clinton machine. Democrats are going to have a tough time getting a real liberal as the nominee. The party is conditioned to give the American people mealy-mouthed centrists like Clinton and it's tough to break old habits. And if the Democrats give us Clinton, I'm voting for Nader.

    March 7, 2008 at 2:21 pm |
  12. Ray Kinserlow

    The best solution I've heard for the problem is from Representative John Conyers to split the Michigan and Florida delegations evenly between Clinton and Obama. I doubt Clinton will go for it but it seems the only fair thing to do short of holding new elections for which no wants to pay.

    Ray Kinserlow
    Lubbock, Texas

    March 7, 2008 at 2:22 pm |
  13. j mooree

    it seems very likely the delegates will be the deciding factor in the election. but, if the negative campaining continues the delegate could have an easier decision; if obama is another ken starr would that make hillary carl rove jr.?

    March 7, 2008 at 2:24 pm |
  14. Rosemary fr. Syracuse, NY

    I'm cinfused. If the delagates are all sewn up now, we do we even bother to vote in November? And I repeat from my comment yesterday, Hillary should not give up until the scheduled Democratic convention. What is the hurry, George Bush isn't going anywhere until NEXT January.

    March 7, 2008 at 2:24 pm |
  15. chuck cornett

    Jack,Iam pretty confident that the pledged delegates will make the difference that is unless the Clintons try some under handed tactics like they did with Florida and Michigan where did they learn this from the republican party and what they did to Al Gore?????

    March 7, 2008 at 2:24 pm |
  16. Bert, Iowa City, IA

    I'm not very confident at all. I have a feeling it will be politics as usual. The American Heritage Dictionary defines politics in the third definition as Crafty; unscrupulous; cunning. For some reason those words bring to mind-- Clintons.

    March 7, 2008 at 2:25 pm |
  17. Debbie

    Since all this talk is going on about playing "by the rules" with regard to Michigan and Florida, then we should "play by the rules" with regard to superdelegates, and the rules state "there are a total of 794 unpledged delegates (known as superdelegates) who are free to vote for any Democratic presidential candidate at the convention." Those who scream that superdelegates should vote for the candidate with the most pledged delegates aren't playing by the rules. And, everyone knows, we all about the rules, right? Or are we all about the rules only when the rules favor our particular candidate? With that said, I don't think anyone can be confident about anything regarding the selection of the democratic nominee.

    March 7, 2008 at 2:26 pm |
  18. gideon

    Jack ,
    FYI, you don't have the Obama superdelegate count right.

    Its 215 for Obama

    March 7, 2008 at 2:26 pm |
  19. Ellie silvis

    I think Hillary will scratch, claw, berate, beg, borrow and steal to get the nomination even if Obama has won the most states, the popular vote and the most earned delegates.

    March 7, 2008 at 2:26 pm |
  20. Raphael Houston Texas

    I am not confident that the leader of the pledged delegates will be the nominee. The rules of the game are the first candidate to 2025 wins, not who is leading the race. If Michigan and Florida have a redo vote we will have a clear winner. Let the voters decide who is the best candidate and not who has a lead in the third quarter.
    Its clear the Obama campaign wants to call the race now without letting the voters of every state have a voice. Thats why its called the United States of America and not the United States of America except for Florida and Michigan.

    March 7, 2008 at 2:26 pm |
  21. Eric Platt

    I am getting really tired of the discussion about Super Delegates.

    Nobody answers the basic question: If Clinton wins California, and a majority of the votes cast over all the primaries go to Obama, why should the California super delegates have to vote for Obama? Shouldn't they vote they way their state voted?

    The Super Delegates were invented to provide a chance for second thought in case a charismatic candidate appeared that attracted attention, but was unelectable. The Democratic party set up a mechanism to counter a mania, and in order to get an electable nominee.

    This year is what the system was invented for. The Super Delegates can vote anyway they want.

    This goes to the convention, and maybe when the deadlock arises, everyone can turn to Al Gore, and get a nominee that is unbeatable.

    Toronto, Ontario

    March 7, 2008 at 2:27 pm |
  22. melvin

    Mr. Dean says play by the rules, okay fine, what does the rules say about the Super Delegates, they vote too.
    Everybody is so afraid to say Obama might not get the nomination.
    Remember the Super Bowl were Leon Lett got the ball and was fixing to score a touchdown, except here comes a Buffalo player and he knocks the ball out of Leon's hand just before he scores.
    If Obama does not have the required votes, he has not crossed the finish line.
    Let Jessie and Al scream all they want. Rules are Rules.
    I said it, you will not.
    La Junta,Co

    March 7, 2008 at 2:27 pm |
  23. Michele

    Not very confident at all. Hillary has already said, "To hell with the pledged delegates. I won the big states." We already know that something is getting ready to take place in that back room. As an African-American Obama supporter, if Hillary doesn't win this thing fairly, I'm not voting at all in November.

    Houston, TX

    March 7, 2008 at 2:27 pm |
  24. JoAnn in Iowa

    There are not options. If the super delegates don't follow the will of the people, the party divides and the show is over. The voters have to come away feeling that the process is fair.
    The numbers do not support Hillary winning this. She now is a spoiler. The longer she stays in, the more divided the party becomes and the less the chances are that the democrats win in the fall. The honorable thing is to throw her support to Obama and gracefully step away now.

    March 7, 2008 at 2:28 pm |
  25. Mary

    I am not confident that the most pledged delegates will become the Democratic nominee.

    See, IMO, Hillary needs to win because she is the best person for the job at this time when our country faces many difficult issues. Besides, the women, and seniors will be teed off if she doesn't win, and they are the ones who will stick in there with Hillary when it comes time to vote in November against McCain.

    Alter, and you just don't get it at all. Barack will be the cause of the shattering of the party because instead of working as a Senator for awhile longer he had to try to jump ahead of Hillary, and that does not sit well with a lot of women who were all ready primed to see that glass ceiling break!

    Mary from Florida

    March 7, 2008 at 2:28 pm |
  26. tco in Virginia

    I am hopeful, at best, that the delegates will follow the will of the people. I don't really understand this "super delegate" stuff except it reeks of the electoral college. Both should be eliminated and our country should become a true democracy. Americans no longer need these "paternal" institutions which do nothing to enhance voter participation but instead work to silence it.

    March 7, 2008 at 2:28 pm |
  27. R.Smith

    Not very at all. Looks like the superdelegates will decide who is the nominee.That is the way the democrats have it set up and it just might come back to bite them come NOV.

    March 7, 2008 at 2:29 pm |
  28. Sandra from Texas

    I would say that I am not confident, because I put absolutely nothing past the Clintons. At this point, I don't think anyone else does either. If you do the math, there is no way she can get more pledged delegates going into the convention. Yet, she continues to stay in this race to smear Obama and elevate the Republican. The Clintons are only concerned about the Clintons. End of story.

    March 7, 2008 at 2:30 pm |
  29. Harry

    I would like to say very confident, however we democrats have shown a remarkable propensity to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.

    If Hillary wins, she presumes that she will lead the ticket and Obama will obediently fall in line as V.P. That would discourage a lot of people that are current Obama supporters. If he has future political aspirations, it would be strongly recommended that he NOT be a V.P. contender.

    Likewise, if Obama wins the nomination and has Clinton as V.P. (highly unlikely), he will most likely lose the election. Part of his appeal is that he is NOT a Clinton. Whether it is sexism or not is debatable, but a fairly large minority in this country absolutely do not like Hillary Clinton.

    The same feeling is for Bill Clinton as well. People want the good times of the 90's back, but not the scandals, that the Clintons are so richly blessed with experience.

    Carlisle, Ky.

    March 7, 2008 at 2:31 pm |
  30. Marie

    It appears it will come down to the supergelegates...and the Democratic party will be more divided than it is now....if that is possible. When you listen to any of the Superdelegates speak about their choice, it is clear they do not all plan to cast their vote to any kind of standard. Some say if they are from a certain state, which has voted a certain way, they must vote with their state. Others say that they will vote the popular vote, others say they will choose the most likely to win in November....and some, like Bill Richardson, say that it was so close in his state, it is ok for him to choose either candidate. They will each play by their own rules. So it will come down to backroom politics. I think it is a losing situation for the Dems. While reading all of the blogs etc., it is so apparent that people are in extreme mode when it comes to their own candidate of choice....they love their own, and see only bad in the other. The supporters of whoever is slighted may very wll throw in the towel, as it is a clearly divided party...and no end in sight.

    March 7, 2008 at 2:31 pm |
  31. roger dowdle

    Given the penchant of the Clintons to go negative and dirty up the campaign, I am sure they will do the best they can to bribe superdelegates with promises of higher office, ambassadorships, etc. in order to win. The worst thing about this would be the number of young voters they would turn off (including those who already voted in primaries), and who may not bother to vote in the general election. Another problem for democrats if Clinton wins is the number of independants who would switch over to McCain! When you include the number of blacks who would justifiably feel "robbed", and who may not participate, it may become impossible for the dems. to defeat McCain! When you win the battle but lose the war, it becomes a phyrric victory and worthless.

    March 7, 2008 at 2:32 pm |
  32. Shaun Francis

    The superdelegate issue should be moot. In a normal year, there are 4,049 delegates to be had. A majority of those (half plus one) would be 2,025. When the DNC stripped FL and MI of their delegates no one reduced the number from 2,025 as the target these candidates were shooting for. If the 313 delegates from FL and MI are removed, that leaves 3,736 and makes 1,869 the number needed to reach a majority of available delegates. That is a number that both candidates can reach from this point forward, and what the DNC should announce as the target. If they do that the party can avoid a brokered convention, avoid having superdelegates decide this thing, and be a fair, reasonable soultion to this problem. If the party wants to seat FL and MI delegations after that, they can do so with the stipulation that they delegates cast their votes for whoever won the majority of the 3,736.

    March 7, 2008 at 2:32 pm |
  33. melvin

    Ever heard of the electoral college.
    Super delegates are there as a safe guard against
    total disaster.
    La Junta,co

    March 7, 2008 at 2:32 pm |
  34. Nuwan Samaranayake

    The notion that pledge deligates have to decide the candidate is wrong itself. The reason you have superdelegates is to observe the conditions and make the right choice for the party. If only pledge delegates representing the voice of the people matters, then Democrats would have deviced the same method Republicans use. There is a purpose why there are superdelegates. Sometimes people don't see the big picture. 2000 and 2004 elections are good examples. If people voted right in 2000 and 2004 this country would not have been in this mess now.

    Nuwan from Houston, Texas

    March 7, 2008 at 2:32 pm |
  35. Angela

    All I hear is how Senator Clinton is changing the rules, moving the goal posts etc. But when it works in Obama's favor, lets change 'em!!!

    Jackie – You can't have it both ways.

    Florida and Michigan broke the rules – end of story.
    Well, pledged delegates matter – thats the rule. End of story.

    The rule of pledged delegates is they have to exercise their best judgement. Rules are rules. So if they want to go against their state voters' preference, then they can do so.

    If you really want to argue that point, then ALL pledged delegates have to follow the will of the voters of their state. So everyone who is pledged to Obama will have to switch to their states' candidate of choice. EG – Sens Kerry and Kennedy will have to go to Sen. Clinton.
    I would be curious to the see the breakdown – since Senator Clinton won the most 'big' states.

    Those pesky DNC rules!!!

    March 7, 2008 at 2:32 pm |
  36. kevin in peoria

    Jack come on! Politicians are not exactly known as risk takers. Isn't this the exact arguement Hillary Clinton attempts to advance each time there is a challenge to her voting record.I did what everyone else did,I voted the way everyone else voted. It is different when you have the pressure of being responsible to the people who elected you. Yet we are here because she is asking her polictical counterparts to do something she has as much as said she would not do. Be brave overturn the will of the people. I have no doubt that when the time comes the superdelegates will confirm Obama as the party nominee. Even if the party leadership does not have the balls to do what they should have.

    March 7, 2008 at 2:32 pm |
  37. Kevin in Clearwater

    It is my belief that the count in pledged delegates as well as projections that we are looking at a brokered convention emphasizes the need for the DNC to provide some method of seating delegates from Florida and Michigan.

    Both candidates make valid points. Obama has won more states, while Clinton has won more states viewed as swing states and must-win states needed to carry a Democratic candidate in November. The super-delegates are going to be hearing these arguments and must decide who is the best candidate to challenge McCain in November; therefore, I am not certain at this time that the winner of the most pledged delegates will be the nominee. I do, however, feel that the DNC will choose the best candidate and not fragment the party, as has been discussed widely in the media.

    March 7, 2008 at 2:33 pm |
  38. SC voter

    Since we cannot end the campaign short of a winner... it looks like something will have to happen to get a nominee .
    1. Either the delegates will have to decide it, or
    2. There'd be a revote, or
    3. Hillary and Obama could make a deal agreeing to split the ticket!

    Hillary would take the Presidency since she won Florida fairly and squarely ... and Obama would have VP.
    By 2012, he could run for Pres having experience in his currently meager resume.

    March 7, 2008 at 2:33 pm |
  39. Mark - Asheville, NC

    With the Supreme Court balance at stake, I hope the pledged AND the super delegates will realize that we MUST beat McCain. With Clinton and especially Obama having little hope of doing this, I really hope that at Denver enough delegates will come to their senses, and nominate either John Edwards, or Joe Biden – two excellent candidates who could fairly easily beat McCain.

    Republicans nominate to WIN, why can't we do that, for a change???

    March 7, 2008 at 2:33 pm |
  40. Janet - Houston, TX

    A week ago I would have said that the winner of the pledged delegates would be the nominee. Now, I'm not sure. Hllary will hold her breath and throw a tantrum until the Michigan and Florida delegates are given to her. She will force a good and honest man to compromise his ideals in order to defend himself against lies and attacks. She will hand over the election to the other party in order to keep it away from someone she sees as an upstart. How can you compete against someone who has so little regard for our democratic values? For the first time in my 57 years, I finally had hope that our government was getting nobler but now I find it may all be too late. Just how monsterous is that?

    By the way, why isn't more being said on the news about the report from Canada that says it was the Clinton campaign and not the Obama campaign that gave the old "wink-wink" regarding NAFTA?

    March 7, 2008 at 2:34 pm |
  41. W B in Las Vegas

    I am not confident about these so called "super delegates" at all. from what I have seen so far they are all political hacks that will vote for whoever will benefit them personally.

    IF they overrule the "pledged delegates", then there will be a backlash that probably will give the election to John McCain.

    once again the Democrates will have "snatched defeat from the jaws of victory" just like in 2000 and 2004.

    March 7, 2008 at 2:34 pm |
  42. Dylan from Davenport, IA.

    Extraordinarily confident. The Democratic Party isn't exactly the best at handling touchy situations, but they aren't stupid enough to commit political suicide. The math is alot simpler than they pretend it is: More Votes = The Majority, The Majority = Democracy.

    March 7, 2008 at 2:35 pm |
  43. Susannah, Arlington, TX

    Unfortunately, not that confident. Although the Democratic Party would be smart to have that be the case – when was the Democratic Party known for being smart? Instead, they will allow Clinton to use Rovian tactics to secure the nomination, the press will continue to take all its notes from the Clinton campaign conference calls and press releases, and young people will feel alienated from a party which has already done nothing to secure their loyalty.

    March 7, 2008 at 2:36 pm |
  44. Randy Porter Mo.

    I`m not confident at all. The whole system needs an overhaul. What the Democratic Party is telling people is that they don`t think the American voter is smart enough to pick a nominee. They put the super delegate system in place to insure that the big wigs in the party could still override the people if we don`t pick who they want. The current system leaves the door wide open for corruption at it`s best. It`s an isult to the voters, and will only turn more people away from the party. I personally don`t want Obama to get the nomination, but if he wins the popular vote, and has the most pledged delegates, then he should get the nomination. The whole super delegate thing is a way to inflate egoes, and keep anyone outside of the upper crust circle in their insignificte place. We as a country should be asamed of this non-democratic process.

    March 7, 2008 at 2:36 pm |
  45. Anne, Detroit

    I have little confidence, nor do I want confidence. I thought the purpose of the super delegates is to consider many, many facets of the situation, of which number of pledged delegates and popular vote are only two, and vote accordingly. If the super delegates consider only the number of pledged delegates, nothing changes and what would be the purpose in having super delegates? Hillary won handily in Mass., but can you see Kennedy and Kerry voting for Hillary? The same can be said for other states in which Obama won. Let the super delegates do their jobs without interference from the media and political hacks.

    March 7, 2008 at 2:36 pm |
  46. rbrannan

    Superdelegates needn't decide the nomination. Florida's Primary should be recognized, as is, and those votes/delegates should be awarded as is because both candidates were on the ballot and neither campaigned there. Both were on the playing field/both were in the game. Howard Dean (an Obama supporter) says this wouldn't be fair/ a disadvantage to Obama because Clinton had name recognition there. Floridians aren't that inept to not know what's going on in the rest of the U.S. At the time of Florida's Primary, there had already been many democratic debates and Obama had already won prior states. To appease Dean's mind set, Michigan should redo their Primary as a caucus so that Clinton has the disadvantage there–as proven by the Texas 2-step because Clintons working class and senior base are limited by a 2hour caucus framework. All would be fair, taxpayers wouldn't be paying millions to redo a Florida Primary that both candidates were equally in, and by the time Puerto Rico votes, Superdelegates wouldn't be necessary! 50 state Democracy! RB in PA

    March 7, 2008 at 2:37 pm |
  47. Linda in Florida

    Jack, that's easy - not at all. Nowadays, the popular vote doesn't mean a thing. We saw it in 2000 and we are going to see it again!

    March 7, 2008 at 2:38 pm |
  48. Tammie

    They won't matter.
    Here in Michigan the wealthy republicans are donating to the Clintons & offering to help pay for a re do. The Republicans will be the ones who decide who our Democratic canidiate is.

    Tammie, MI

    March 7, 2008 at 2:40 pm |
  49. Michael


    I am about as confident in the pledged delegates selecting our nominee as I am in Hillary's post February 5th Super Tuesday campaign strategy. Which is to say we might as well hang a "Mission Accomplished" sign above her head and brace for another four years of McBush.

    Michael, New York

    March 7, 2008 at 2:40 pm |
  50. Dave from Mission Viejo,California

    I have no confidence that the Democrats will respect the views of the voters. They didn't after the 2006 Congressional elections, when they were returned to power in the House and Senate to end the war in Iraq. You have to understand Jack that the leaders of the two parties are much, much smarter than the rest of us. Plus, we all have very short attention spans and memories. By the time November rolls around we'll just be proud and happy to cast our votes for whoever the party leaders decide is best for us.

    March 7, 2008 at 2:41 pm |
  51. L. Curry

    It's a fact that Senator Clinton does not have enough popular votes to catch up to or lead against Senator Obama. Polls show that when Senator Clinton is matched against John McCain, she loses but in those same polls, Obama wins. But as she has said, she's a fighter.

    Unfortunately Senator Clinton has her sights focused on the wrong foe, a democratic candidate instead of the real one, John McCain. By continuing to fight Obama, she will allow John McCain to campaign freely and unhindered until well into the fall. During this time he plans to solidfy his party's base and travel abroad. This will help him to appear presidential and further bolster his "foreign policy experience" image. To allow this to occur is to underestimate the Republican party machine which may turn out to be a fatal mistake.

    Senator Clinton is also pushing for the votes (or another primary) in Florida and Michigan. The governors of those two states unfortunately chose to flout the rules and there are consequences to those kinds of actions. There is also a lot of concern about the disenfranchised voters in those states however the majority of voters in those primaries were republican because the democrats knew the vote wouldn't count. The vote in those states leaned toward Clinton but those republican voters also knew that people will choose McCain over Clinton, coincidence? I think not! How do you think all those supposedly disenfranchised voters will feel when John McCain gets in the White house with Hillary's help?

    Senator Clinton is also leaning on the superdelegates to abandon the will of the people and the popular vote and defect to her camp. We all know that having a president who is willing to push their agenda at the expense of all others is a dangerous thing. We are living with the results of having a president who is willing to lie, cheat, and steal an election and that result is the war in Iraq!

    Democratic party leaders need to wake up before it's too late. They need to pull Senator Clinto aside, thank her for her valiant effort and ask her to graciously step down for the greater good. We all know that Senator Obama can unite the democrats and this nation and should be afforded the opportunity and necessary time to do it. 4 months after the seemingly endless primaries is not long enough. If this circus isn't stopped, we are all at risk of having another 4-8 years of the same old leadership and failing policies in Washington.

    March 7, 2008 at 2:42 pm |
  52. Les Young Oklahoma

    I am not confident at all if the Clintons can steal the Democratic nomination they will and will go to any ,means to do so. I saw a story last night that stated that the Clintons were the one who contacted Canadia on NAFTA. I have been a faith full Clinton supporter but will no longer believe anything they say. If they can"t win on the issues they need to get the H out.

    March 7, 2008 at 2:42 pm |

    I don't get it. If Obama think that what Clinton is throwing at him is the kitchen sink what chance does he have against McCain. The Rezko and NAFTA issues are things the media should have been bring up on their own and just proves Clinton theory that the media are soft on Obama. The only other story is the 3a.m. commercial and if Obama thinks that is the kitchen sink he's in big trouble come Nov. Since the Texas primary Obama's playing nice has consisted of calling Clinton a monster and accusing her of calling the people of Mississippi second class citizens. Way to play nice Obama.

    March 7, 2008 at 2:42 pm |
  54. Rosemarie Stone

    I am confident that the Democratic National Committee will listen to the will of the people and nominate the candidate who has the most pledged delegates. That is how democracy was formed by our forefathers. To delineate from this criteria would put the party in grave jeopardy. This would cause turmoil and strife among the democratic population and would weaken the party if they go against the will of the people. If this does not happen, I would picket the Convention until my voice is heard.

    Rosemarie Stone
    Vero Beach, FL

    March 7, 2008 at 2:43 pm |
  55. Chris, Olean, NY

    Jack, I'm not at all confident that super delegates will choose the nominee based on who has the most pledged delegates. I realize several supers have said that's how it should be, but the Clintons, and I say that deliberately, are involved and they will do whatever they can to get Hillary the nomination. Unfortunately, they are so self-absorbed that I don't believe either has considered the potential effect on the Democratic Party. I think they are willing to lose the election to win the nomination.

    March 7, 2008 at 2:43 pm |
  56. Terrance

    If the candidate with the most pledged delegates does not win the democratic nomination the Democratic Party will have a revolt on it hands from the party's base. Unless Hillary runs the table with landslide victories in every remaining state she can not catch Obama in pledged delegates. If you think Florida and Michigan are upset image how African Americans will feel if they are disenfranchised by the so called super delegates who cast their vote for Hillary in spite of the votes cast by the districts they represent. Those super delegates will have hell to pay when election time come around. By the way despite what your experts say if Hillary wins this nomination by throwing temper tantrums and using disingenuous innuendo the base of the Democratic Party by and large will not vote for her.

    March 7, 2008 at 2:43 pm |
  57. Sharon, Langley, British Columbia

    I'm reasonably confident that's the way it'll work.

    Hillary Clinton is so annoyed that she wasn't annointed like she thought she would be. If she can't get along with a fellow Democrat, what are the chances of her getting along with Republicans enough to get the damned job done? That is what's going to be required and this, I'm not reasonably confident about.

    I hope every delegate considers this when the time comes to make a choice.

    March 7, 2008 at 2:44 pm |
  58. Yolande R. Banres

    At the risk of destroying the american faith in the democratic process, the right to vote, that voice of the people... the pledge delegates should decided the Democratic nominee...keeping the process fair not to suggest that it is simple and be careful with Michigan and Florida, anything other than holding their feet to the fire would suggest that it is o.k. to make and break rules to get what we want

    March 7, 2008 at 2:44 pm |
  59. Damian

    Jack, you forgot to mention Florida and Michigan. It is inevitable that both those states will be put in play before the convention. The Superdelegates will have to play a role, but it will greatly be diminished when the DNC finally gets over it and give Florida and Michigan what they deserve.

    The fact is both candidates will be strong against a third Bush term. They will be strongest together though.

    March 7, 2008 at 2:44 pm |
  60. Frederick of Killeen Texas

    Pledged delegates should decide the nominee. Super delegates should stay out of it since they play by the loyalty rule instead of the will of the people. If Clinton or Obama cheat to win, or win by super delegates instead of pledged delegates my vote will go to McCain or Nader. Since Hillary wants the delegates seated for Michigan and Florida she should feel comfortable with splitting Michigan and Florida's delegates evenly between her and Obama. I hope she dosen't want them seated so that her pledged delegates are increased, I have that suspicion since she is claiming victory for Michigan and Florida,....oh how unfair that is. I hate cheaters. My vote equates to many family member votes.....Play the game fair if the democrats want my votes..

    March 7, 2008 at 2:45 pm |
  61. Kevin- Webster, MA

    Where the Clintons are involved nothing would surprize me. If the pledeged delegates can nominate Hillary then yes, otherwise She will use super delegates,, the point spread of the Giants, or whatever formula will let her win.

    March 7, 2008 at 2:46 pm |
  62. Martin Law


    We all know the Democratic nominee is going to be picked by in a dark back room and a cheque book full of high level positions for the supporters. Who ever writes the biggest cheque will win.

    Toronto, Canada

    March 7, 2008 at 2:46 pm |
  63. Josh

    I rather it be the people that decide than the delegates. I am pretty confident that we will have a nominee for the party. Because Jack, we haven't finished all the primaries yet. By summer, we will be an better idea of who is the nominee. So we Democrats can focus on beating the tar out of the Republicans this election year.

    March 7, 2008 at 2:47 pm |
  64. John from Chicago

    I dont care wins the democratic nomination because I will vote for whomever is chosen. I will NEVER vote for John McCain because he is pure evil.

    March 7, 2008 at 2:48 pm |
  65. Jed from Chico, CA

    I'm fairly confident that whomever is ahead in both pledged delegates and popular vote, as long as it is by a comfortable margin (let's say 5%, for the sake of argument). But then there is that glaring footnote: Florida and Michigan.

    Let's say Hillary's dreams come true and Howard Dean throws the rulebook out and FL & MI get their delegates seated in full and as they voted in January.

    Nothing Much Changes!

    The 'Magic Number' then grows from 2024 to 2207. If Obama and Clinton split the remaining delegates 50/50 and Florida & Michigan are seated as they voted Obama is STILL AHEAD in pledged delegates 1750 to 1710. Keep in mind that Michigan will send 55 'uncommitted' delegates that could very well go to Obama. Even given this very Clinton-friendly scenario, all either one of them needs is 50% of the Superdelegates to get to the new 'magic number' of 2207.

    No matter how you slice it unless one of them drops out it all comes down to Colorado in August.

    March 7, 2008 at 2:49 pm |
  66. Al Hilton Palmdale, California

    When they quit fighting over who has the bigger cookie, they should simplify their system (after the election is over by the way) so that they can focus more on their issues. The rest of the delegates will somehow 'surprise' us again, and complicate the matter. Then we will revote, and recount, and when the smoke clears, one of them will make it, the other won't. I doubt we will hear anymore about the 'dream team'.

    March 7, 2008 at 2:50 pm |
  67. Sylvester

    Only Democrats know how to mess an election cycle that could have put them in the White House with little effort. Why in the world do you need almost 800 corrupt superdelegates? It should be all about pledged delegates (that is, those decided by the voters) and if a tie breaker was ever required, then 3 superdelegates can break the tie: say the DNC Chair, Democratic House Leader and Democratic Senate Leader (at present, Howard Dean, Nancy Pelosi, and Harry Reid). What is the purpose of all these 800 do-nothing loud mouths?

    March 7, 2008 at 2:50 pm |
  68. Joy-Morrisville, NC

    Not at all! Hillary and Bill will pull out all the stops, that we know for sure! There's not a chance she will bow out without a fight. She and Bill want their term in the whitehouse, they aren't concerned about the party, that's for sure. Jack's book, It's getting ugly out there" is a fairy tale compared what Hillary and Bill will try to pull off!!

    March 7, 2008 at 2:50 pm |
  69. A.Brawley/Roanoke, VA

    If it is Obama who has the most pledged delegates Clinton will yell foul and call on her old Washington establishment to hand her the nomination. Why is it taking so long to count the votes for the caucus held in Texas? My guess is that it a political strategy to give Clinton the edge. It would not look good for Obama to win and have an even bigger jump. It looks like it smells – Rotten to the core! Clinton and the old establishment are crooked. I would not put anything past the Clintons. Their campagain seens to get away with all the negative attacks. Guess it pays to be a Clinton. The media does not call for Clintons to apologize or to even release your tax returns. How about that!

    March 7, 2008 at 2:50 pm |
  70. Joe in DE

    It does not appear that anyone will get enough pledged degelates to claim the nomination. There seems to be some rationale that unpledge and superdelegate don't get a viote. Remember, the rules are the rules – what good for MI & FL is good for counting delegates.

    March 7, 2008 at 2:50 pm |
  71. Dan Dallas, TX

    The Democratic Party has a lot of things going for it. It has strong support among young voters (signifying a strong future). It has two strong, popular candidates in a very tight and interesting race for the nominantion. It has the advantage of possible voter backlash against the party of an extremely unpopular President. I can't see them risking all of that by going against the will of the vote.

    March 7, 2008 at 2:51 pm |
  72. Chuck in Eugene Oregon

    Hopefully the DNC superdelegates will follow the will of the pledged delegates and if they are equal then the popular vote. Either way the DNC has a problem. Some how the Florida and Michigan thing needs to be settled. There are only three ways it can go.. a complete New Vote, or Cacus or an even across the board split of the pledged delegates. They can not go on the actual votes because Obama was not on the Michigan ballot. Secondly contrary to Florida's Govenor calling for the votes to stand as is, this is insane. Reports from both states are that hundreds of thousands did not bother to vote because they were told their vote would not count. It stand that there are only three solutions there, and no matter the cost, if the candidates want a fair election then they should split the cost with the DNC and the states, or the DNC should suck it up and foot the bill. It seems to me that with the candidates and the DNC's ability to raise money they should be able to replace these funds quick enough.

    March 7, 2008 at 2:51 pm |
  73. John from Tennessee

    It will probably have to be decided at the convention. No one will have
    enough delegates to put them over the top. Since Obama continues to
    stay and smear Hillary and the good deeds she has peformed for the country she has ALWAYS loved, and been PROUD of, It will be a tight finish, but I am confident the delegates will choose the best one
    HILLARY 08.

    March 7, 2008 at 2:52 pm |
  74. William

    Minutia seems to acceptable in this political contest. With that allowance, I ask: "With respect to the competition for delegates in Wyoming and Mississippi, and considering the importance of momentum, do you think that the delay in counting the Texas caucas vote is helping Clinton, or Obama."

    March 7, 2008 at 2:52 pm |
  75. Larry from Georgetown, Tx

    Unfortuantely the pledged delegates, that's us, will not decide the nomination. The devil with the red dress and her finger pointing husband had this all planned in the 90's and appointed many of these people that owe them. I really don't know how they sleep without taking drugs, good idea have a drug test for politicians, just like athletes. "Just think about it."

    March 7, 2008 at 2:52 pm |
  76. Haddrosaurus Fulki , Haddonfield, NJ

    The Pledged Delegates will not be the factor in selecting the Democratic Nominee... that honor is for the SUPER DELEGATES... see ELECTION 2000 FOR DETAILS...

    Haddrosaurus Fukli , Haddonfield , NJ

    March 7, 2008 at 2:53 pm |
  77. Mary

    Hi jack,
    I remeber the Kerry, Bush, and I think we are coming up to that again. Remeber th Clinton will do everything in there power to gain the set that think is rightfully their but Obama is change and pople don't like change, There is something about change that puts fear in every one. Ido hope that the people stop leting these candidate {the Clinton} put fear in there hearts.

    March 7, 2008 at 2:53 pm |
  78. JoAnne

    About as confident as I am that pigs fly.

    If Clinton and Obama continue to eat away at each other, it's a moot question. McCain will fill the void and be our next president

    March 7, 2008 at 2:53 pm |
  79. Claudia Rose Aguilar

    I hope the super delegates will determine the candidate. State caucases are not representative of the citizen "voters" of a state, especially the one I attended here in Texas. Instead of the free option to vote ones belief, many people are subject to manipulation and intimidation. In addition, many people cannot make it to "caucases"
    so it is only a few who determine state delegates. This is not the democratic way we should be electing the most inportant leader of our country and, in some cases, the world.

    March 7, 2008 at 2:54 pm |
  80. Amy in Woodstock, NY

    Let's just say this if Barack Obama, who has the most pledged delegates, does not make it as the democratic nominee then get ready for a Republican president. And no elected politician superdelegate should consider any backroom deals that are counter to the leader of pledged delegates. If so, they seriously need to remember their constituents are voters too come re-election time.

    Barack Obama has the most popular votes and the most delegates. The people have spoken higher than the special interests with their donations, involvement and votes for change. But if Obama is not the nominee for President, I will not vote to put Hillary Clinton, the most secretive politician in America today, back in the White House. All of my friends and family have sworn the same. American's are demanding transparency and change.

    March 7, 2008 at 2:55 pm |
  81. Walter Harris Gavin

    Hopefully after this year's primary debacle the Dems will scrap this whole "super" delegate idea. In a democracy it should be the voters who decide elections. Let these so called super delegates vote in their own districts or caucus like other citizens. Remember they get to vote TWICE if they chose to vote in their respective primaries. Why should their vote count any more than any other citizen?

    It's just another example of how un-democratic Washington politicians can be. They don't really trust the voter's judgment so they try to game the system. Enough already. It's like that dumb Electoral College. The founders for all their platitudes didn't really trust the citizenry that's why we ended up with Bush in 2000 and you see how great a decision that was, DUH.

    Since you are not obliged to follow the will of the people, the pledged delegates, why wait until the end of the process. Declare. Show some "leadership" and backbone. Don't wimp out. Tell the voters who YOU think will make the best president NOW. The voters can then have the benefit of your "wise" council as they make up their own minds.

    Message to all uncommitted SUPER DELGATES show us your S. Declare Now!

    March 7, 2008 at 2:55 pm |
  82. Joyce

    I hope Hillary is happy....the republican conservatist are happy throwing her their vote to Hillary...McCain doesn't need it and they would rather go up against Hillary then Barack. They don't like McCain but Republican is their main goal. Joyce, VT

    March 7, 2008 at 2:55 pm |
  83. Mark - Gilbert, AZ

    No – Hillary is going to throw a temper tantrum and the Clinton's will buyout any supers they can starting now and on to the convention until she's the nominee.

    March 7, 2008 at 2:55 pm |
  84. Dave in NH

    As confident as the waiter will bring me my food or not get paid.

    March 7, 2008 at 2:56 pm |
  85. Jennifer WA

    I think the super-delegates will end up loosely mirroring the popular vote anyway. As for FL and MI, why not just count the FL delegates as half the value like what the republicans did there? MI needs to either re-do their vote or else accept the party's rules. I think that even if Clinton included the delegates from MI and FL, she'd still be behind Obama.

    Obama will come out of this as the democratic nominee but Hillary will have bloodied him up quite a bit. The more I think about it though, the more I think that the old saying, "what doesn't kill you makes you stronger" will fit well with Obama.

    Jennifer, Washington

    March 7, 2008 at 2:57 pm |
  86. Bob

    Jack, Hillary will get the nomination, period. In the end the Clinton machine will get its way regardless of how many pledged delegates she has at the time. She and her surrogates will whine and cajole and play dirty tricks...and the press will continue to be afraid to call them on it. As a result, young people will become discouraged by the election process and America will continue to be seen as no better than a third world country when it comes to the so-called democratic process.

    March 7, 2008 at 2:57 pm |
  87. Kirk (Apple Valley, MN)

    It doesn't matter. Obama doesn't stand a snow balls chance in hell of beating John McCain and getting elected if he is the Democratic nominee for POTUS. Obama's inexperience will be the key item that McCain and the Republican machine will hammer on and it will sink into the voters. Hillary is the one that can actually beat McCain. She has taken all of the "big" states with the most electoral votes while Obama has taken most of the smaller states with the fewest electoral votes. If Obama is nominated, the people that voted for him in the primary season will be sorely disappointed come the morning of November 4th.

    March 7, 2008 at 2:57 pm |
  88. L.M.,Arizona

    There are two great candidates if the super delegates have to decide I think they should pick the candidate they think will win in November. There will be no disenchantment except in the news media.

    March 7, 2008 at 2:57 pm |
  89. Richard Sternagel

    Jack, if Obama continues his primary wins,there would no way for Clinton to catch him! Obama will continue to increase his pledged delegates! The Super delegates would become a non issue under this scenario! The Will of the People will be the deciding factor! Go Obama!

    March 7, 2008 at 2:58 pm |
  90. Kevin L

    It appears that Hillary will do whatever she needs to to get the pledged delegates to help her win the election. Obama is to week to win. Whatever happens, this county is going down. We only have ourselves to blame. How in the world do you elect someone to office who is riddled with scandle.
    I am not saying tha Obama is any better, but we keep doing this to ourselves. America needs to grow up. If I applied for a job and my personal history shows I had problems then I probably would not get that job.

    So, why are so many people voting for hillary? This is just plain stupid. If she wins and the country goes futher down the black hole, who do you think Americans are going to blame? Hint: Look in the mirror.

    March 7, 2008 at 2:58 pm |
  91. Adele Lewis

    I would like to be confident in the pledged delegate process to carry Obama to his rightful position as the Democratic Party nominee, but, being almost as cynical as Jack Cafferty, I am also confident that the Clintons will pull every dirty trick in the book to undermine this process. I have had utter disgust for the politics of the last 12 years, especially the Clintons' last four years in the white House. What has happened to the collective memory of our people? This 55 years old, white female plans to vote for Obama because his words have inspired me to have hope again in the political process. He is a man who epitomizes truth and integrity. He, unlike the ever-changing Mrs. Clinton, does not always tell what we want to hear, but what we need to hear. If the Clintons undermine this process, then the Democrats will lose.

    March 7, 2008 at 3:00 pm |
  92. Ruby Coria, CA.

    Jack, why not just ask "do we think Obama will be the Democratic nominee?" If the Obama wins by 100 more pledged the remaining 200 super need to count, 100 for The Hill (tide) 100 for Obama (winner) or the other way around. Like any game till everyone plays their last card.

    March 7, 2008 at 3:01 pm |
  93. Chanel from Boston

    I am concerned for the Democratic Party. If our votes were gonna determine who our nominee would be, the Clinton Campaign would have acknowledged that it is mathematically impossible for them to catch up and suspended the campaign. Obviously there will be some back room politics as usual going on and that is why she feels she still has a chance to win this thing...its very discouraging to a young voter..very discouraging.

    March 7, 2008 at 3:01 pm |
  94. James in Cape Coral, FL

    If your asking how much I trust the people in Washington to listen to the will of the majority the answer is none. Show me how this government has earned my trust. But I do think as long as the media and the people remain focused on this issue into Denver, there will be little chance these super delegates would spit in our faces to advance their own agenda.

    March 7, 2008 at 3:01 pm |
  95. Frederick

    Jack, This is going to the convention. Obama will have to prove his claim of better judgement to make a deal with the Clinton camp. They must unite the party to succeed. If FL and MI re-vote or are counted in any way, then the delegates needed to nominate becomes 2162 not 2025. Right. 50-50 delegate splits comming down the home stretch and neither candidate reaches the mark. Do they? Superdelegates will make or break the strength of the party. Common sense and compromise. Who will show real leadership?

    March 7, 2008 at 3:01 pm |
  96. All the states should vote first!

    Will pledged delegates decide the Democratic nominee?

    Yes, if the citizens in ALL the states are denied the right to cast their vote with fear messages to stop the voting process now!

    Everyone should be allowed to vote first. After that the "super delegates" should do what they are supposed to do: make their selection as well.

    March 7, 2008 at 3:01 pm |
  97. Cathy C.

    To SC Voter – Wow you really did make an interesting comment. You wrote that Clinton should be on top of a split ticket because she won Florida?

    Don't you realize that Obama has won 27 states and Hillary has only won 14?

    Don't you realize that Obama has almost 100 MORE pledged delegate votes than Hillary.

    I would mean on a split ticket OBAMA is on top

    March 7, 2008 at 3:02 pm |
  98. MIchael "C" in Lorton

    Very confident. Obama has the lead in pledge delegates and the with remaining states holding their primaries, it apparent that he will hold on to that advantage. The super delegates will not support or vote the candidate that is contrary to the will of the voters......that would be political suicide for all of them. I believe that the political bosses will make an offer to Hillary that she cannot refuse...their jobs are also on the line. The American voters may forgive the super delegates if they vote to support Hillary, but believe me, they will not forget their names.

    March 7, 2008 at 3:03 pm |
  99. Carlos Torrado

    To be completely honest, I'm as confident that the superdelagetes will vote in favor of the candidate with the most pledged delegate as I am confident in the Clinton's lack of ambition for power. The Clinton's will stop at nothing short of explaining what "is" is, in order to 'school" Barack Obama in how the real world works in DC. However, something tells me Obama is destined to lead our great nation into a new era of decency, transperancy in government and the restoration of our collective pride as a nation.

    March 7, 2008 at 3:03 pm |
  100. Elease

    It is apparent that Hillary Clinton will do anything and I mean anything to try and win the Democratic nomination. As a voter in a state who's nominee has been made I am willing to be patient and wait for the rest of the States to let their voices be heard.
    I am quite sure that the "Super Delegates" will follow the will of the people. Remember most of them are elected officials themselves and Democrats are notorious for taking names on those who betray them. So as long as their votes are publicized we should be okay. If they do not have to publicize their votes than it will be back-room politics as usual and Bill will call in every favor he ever made so Hillary wins this way.
    The name of the game for the Clinton's is not what is best for America but win at all costs.

    March 7, 2008 at 3:03 pm |
  101. Keith

    How confident are you that the winner of the most pledged delegates in the primary season will become the Democratic nominee?

    I'm not confident at all, Jack.

    After seeing the "real" Hillary Clinton for the past few weeks now, I wouldn't put anything past her, Bill, and their cronies to win the nomination.

    And to think... At one time, I liked this lady and supported... I'll say it:

    She IS a monster.

    Hillary is a a nauseating jerk. I've grown tired of her. Now make me resign!

    March 7, 2008 at 3:05 pm |
  102. Beth, Alabama

    I am confident that if Clinton leads in pledged delegates at the end of primary season, she will easily become the nominee with the help of superdelegates and the blessing of Obama. The problem is that Obama will likely have the lead in pledged delegates. With this scenerio Clinton conjures fuzzy logic to make us all think that big states and swing states are more important than simple democratic majority. If she gets the nomination with this or somehow seating FL/MI current delegates...or any other underhanded tactic, I don't see Obama as VP on that ticket and you can bet Obama supporters will stay home, give McCain 4 years and hope Obama runs again in 2012.

    March 7, 2008 at 3:05 pm |
  103. Greg in Leavenworth Kansas

    It's simple math: super delegates will determine the democratic nomination. It's unlikely that either candidate will win enough delegates needed for the nomination prior to the Convention.

    Just compare the current numbers and percentages of delegates awarded against the future number of delegates available in upcoming state primaries/caucauses. The delegate percentages for Barack and Hillary will remain relatively the same (Obama with 52%; Clinton with 48%) now that 75% of the states have completed their primaries/caucauses.

    Barack would have to win approximately 70% of the future delegates to win the nomination or Hillary would have to win approximately 80% of the future delegates to win the nomination. Neither is likely at all.

    The real question is: will the super delegates vote according to the popular vote?

    Greg in Leavenworth Kansas

    March 7, 2008 at 3:05 pm |
  104. lee Marietta

    Well i am not very confident. We are talking about politics here nothing is definate. Just like the weather changes so do politicians.

    March 7, 2008 at 3:05 pm |
  105. Bill Vorbec

    Jack: March 7, 2008

    Rules are rules. Neither candidate will reach the required number of delegates, “both” fall short. True, one may have more delegates then the other — but that is of little consequence.

    Super delegates are free to exercise their politically savvy judgment and cast their support for whomever they choose, THAT’S THE RULES. State delegates are bound, Super delegates aren’t, and THAT’S THE RULL. The U.S. is not a DEMOCARY, IT’S A REPUBLIC. That’s in the pledge of allegiance to the flag. Frankly I’m suppressed people have forgotten that.


    March 7, 2008 at 3:06 pm |
  106. Michael

    I'm entirely confident that the delegate leader will become the nominee. Superdelegates aren't dummies. This election has revealed faces in a rather unknown part of the process. There are a lot of political futures at stake – they won't go against the leader in the process, but they might go against the popular vote, if those two aren't the same.

    March 7, 2008 at 3:07 pm |
  107. April in texas

    I hope the Superdelegates do their homework and make the right decision on their selection. I would say go with the people / the majority rather than who may fund their pockets.

    The FL MI goof should be just that and don't let them get their way in the final decision which is what they were after to begin with.

    Austin Texas

    March 7, 2008 at 3:08 pm |
  108. Jamie, Ohio

    I wouldn't necessarily say I am confident the pledged delegates will select the nominee, but I certaintly hope the nominee will represent the consituents votes. Barack Obama has won more states, and has more delegates, if the superdelegates decide on a nominee and go against the constituents, I think that will hurt the democratic party.

    March 7, 2008 at 3:09 pm |
  109. Rachel - Lexington, KY

    There is NO way the delegates can be seated as is. Obama's name wasn't even on the ballot in MI. How on earth would that be "fair". Its not. The funny thing is even without his name on the ballot, Hillary only got 55%....The other largest vote: UNCOMMITTED...meaning they are not for her. She only got 50% in FLA with Edwards getting 2nd. If Obama had campaigned in either state, she would have much fewer votes. So I say, let's have a do-over – bring it on because I believe Obama will walk away with at least 50% of the delegates...lots of money down the drain for both states to make a point.

    March 7, 2008 at 3:10 pm |
  110. Betty

    The Republicans are the ones who messed up the voting in Florida and Mich. It should be done again at their expense. Hillary will beat the sox off Obama. Give har a break, Jack. You media have given Obama a free ride. Gooooooooo Hillary!!!

    March 7, 2008 at 3:10 pm |
  111. Brian, Tamla, Fl

    Please, confident !!, this is politics, with Bill & Hilary Clinton in this election. We all know the HILLARYTRICKERY that will play on WE THE PEOPLE.

    Your question is for the wishfull thinkers, you know the "puff the magic dragon", kind.

    March 7, 2008 at 3:10 pm |
  112. Greg from Minneapolis

    Alter's column is a great piece for Obama backers, Jack! The only way Hillary can win is to scare up votes that overturn the will of the people and cause a civil war in the democratic party. Perhaps her campaign song should be Monster Math, er Mash!

    March 7, 2008 at 3:11 pm |
  113. Sabrina, Las Vegas, NV

    Yes, the superdelegates will decide the who the next democratic nominee will be....

    And, all I can state is, "let the back room dealings begin." After all the pledge delegates, don't matter, right?

    March 7, 2008 at 3:11 pm |
  114. sandy in Ohio

    Jack, I would hope that the pledged delgates and the will of the people will prevail and we have Barack Obama as our Democratic nominee. However, since a lot of the people in the party think the rules should not apply, especially the Clintons, the maybe the super delgates will put Hillary in the drivers seat. If that happens,then I think a lot of democrats will vote for John McCain, because he calls himself a Republican while Hillary just acts like one.Enough is enough! Why do we insist of letting the Clintons make fools of us to the rest of the world? If super delegates snatch away this election along with lies and dirty tricks, then I am done with all the parties

    March 7, 2008 at 3:12 pm |
  115. Chidi

    One would expect the candidate with the most delegates to clinch the nomination unless a few people at the helm decides to subvert the wish of the people thereby redefining the word democracy.
    Atlanta, GA

    March 7, 2008 at 3:12 pm |
  116. Grant

    Well I am very confident that the one with the most delegates will win this election. Hilary Clinton is a republican turn democrat through matrimonial alliance .... of course her last name is Bill Clinton and this is why she is still in this race. Super delegates should understand that a vote for HRC is a vote to stall the country as a whole. She compare her experience to John McCain experience. Clearly the same old same old ball gamer. Like Obama put it you cannot take the same old crew and expect a different result. We need change and the super delegates should consider the future of the party. If they want a 65+ majority they should gravitate toward Obama but if they want the same old fight of the nineties, well they better go with the same old characters but the reality is that we are watching.

    March 7, 2008 at 3:12 pm |
  117. F Johnson

    Jack- Florida and Mich. are key to this issue. With a shorter field per say (2025 delegates required) Obama will need smaller percentage of remaining uncommitted Super Delegates as he runs out the clock nursing his lead as he and Hillary trade wins in these remaining primaries. I suspect Hillary would need a 250 – 150 split of remaining unpledged Supers. Unlikley since the political fallout from this obvious a robbery would resinate.
    Now include Florida and Mich. you need over 2200 delegates to win. Assuming Hillary wins both and closes gap and the required split of remaining unpledged Supers is much more managable.
    Under this scenerio the Supers could swing her way without taking tremendous heat.
    Conclusion- The credentials commitee at Democratic Convention could end up as the REAL SUPER DELEGATES

    March 7, 2008 at 3:13 pm |
  118. Mike S., New Orleans, Louisiana

    The pledged delegates will determine the nominee, but only after delegates from Michigan and Florida are recognized as the result of either new primaries or caucuses.

    A nominee chosen chiefly by superdelegates will viewed as illegitimate will be dead on arrival in the November election.

    March 7, 2008 at 3:13 pm |
  119. Amy in Woodstock, NY

    Hillary Clinton in her endorsement of John McCain over Barack Obama has shown how much she cares for democratic party unity in comparison to her own political ambitions. She is not "entitled" to be the nominee. She has not earned it.

    The DNC needs to put a stop to this now and go ahead and stand behind the candidate with the most delegates. The voters are getting turned off by this. End it now so we can unite, Clinton and Obama supporters together as democrats, behind our true democratic Presidential nominee, Senator Barack Obama.

    March 7, 2008 at 3:13 pm |
  120. Paul, Michigan

    If the superdelegates override the votes of the people the Democratic Party better start building some bunkers to hide in. There will be an outrage and it won't be pretty.

    March 7, 2008 at 3:13 pm |
  121. Rex in Portland, Ore.

    I'm thinking that Clinton will stop at nothing to get the nomination. She does have a lot of power, what with being a Washingnton insider lo these many many years, and she will not hesitate to call in all favors. Nor will she hesitate to spend additional millions on time consuming law suits, recounts, and whatever delaying tactics her well trained, well heeled lawyers can produce. That could very well cause a nominee candidate with fewer elective delegates to be named the Democrati party nominee – al long as it is Hillary.

    The shame is the blindness of all of us. Shame on us for even thinking Clinton = change! People believe that, too. If she is annointed by the party the only thing that will changed will be the name on the letterheads.

    March 7, 2008 at 3:13 pm |
  122. mattT

    If we look at all the states each candidate has won so far based on electorial votes, Hillary won all the big states and she is way ahead of electorial votes of 220+ to Obama's 160+. This primary is all about who is more electable and the numbers clearly show Hillary is the one. If either candidates reaches the goal line and it's a close race, Superdelegates should vote for the candidate who is more electable, and that's Hillary.

    March 7, 2008 at 3:13 pm |
  123. Jerry


    It doesn't matter who has the most delegates the next President
    will be chosen by 538 people we've never heard of, known as the l
    Electoral College.
    Just remember in the 2000 race Gore got 50,992,335 Votes
    Bush got 50,445,156 Votes

    Please America do the right thing this time.

    Jerry (aka Jon Stewart of the Cafferty File)
    Roselle, Illinois

    March 7, 2008 at 3:13 pm |
  124. Barb Canada

    With all the embarrassing headlines for Obama on CNN.Com today I think it is possible for Mrs Clinton to gain the needed delegates depending on if Florida and Michigan is allowed! And to all those people who say it's unfair to let those 2 States vote, is it anymore unfair than allowing Superdelegates to decide?

    March 7, 2008 at 3:14 pm |
  125. Susan from Twentynine Palms, CA

    The Democratic Party has to base its Presidential nomination on the pledged delegates as determined by the legal primaries held across the country. After all, if our votes don't count within our own party, how can the party expect us to cast them in the general election? (We learned in 2000 that they don't necessarily count there.)

    March 7, 2008 at 3:14 pm |
  126. C. Farrell, Houston, Tx

    A question of whether pledged delegates or superdelegates to determine the nominee leaves me with one opinion only, Hillary is running the show. It's politics as usual and leaves me with zero confidence in either one.

    March 7, 2008 at 3:14 pm |
  127. Dan, NY

    I am very confident. It would have to be a very large differential in the super delegate count to really make a difference and I don't think that will happen. The count in that special group will remain as tight as it is the larger segment of the party and will likely be reflective of it. Even if the popular vote is close enough to make it possible for the supers to tilt the balance, that would only mean neither candidate would have had enough support for the election to be called anything close to a mandate. Should such a senario occur, how could anyone claim the Supers, by an equally close voting among their numbers, stole the election? Haven't these leaders earned the right to be heard?

    March 7, 2008 at 3:14 pm |
  128. Carl Aabye

    I will say yes only because it is a good possibility that it could well happen.

    March 7, 2008 at 3:15 pm |
  129. Grant

    We are watching those super delegates. If they overturn the voice of the people then the sour feeling that it will have around the world and America will backlash pretty hard. I am a hardcore democrat and a supporter of Barack Obama. If he end up with the most delegates and somehow those leaders overturn the voice of the people, i will start campaigning for John McCain.

    March 7, 2008 at 3:15 pm |
  130. David in Raleigh, NC

    Hillary's ego and ambitions are bigger than the Democrat Party. She will destroy the Democrat Party and the United States to get the Democrat Party nomination and ultimately the Presidency.

    March 7, 2008 at 3:15 pm |
  131. Tawana -IL

    This democratic party needs a major overhaul. Our process this time around seem really messed up. Here is how I see it.... The person with the most pledged delegates in June wins! The superdelegate cramp should be eliminated as they could alter what the people want. I think we should unite the party now, before we self destruct!!!!!! Hillary going negative... Obama playing too nice...
    Only other option will be to have a joint ticket as silly as this sound but the President will have to be the one with the most pledged delegates.
    Also, please update Obama's superdelegate totals.
    Thank you.

    March 7, 2008 at 3:16 pm |
  132. Deb in San Antonio, TX

    Melvin, you said it right on the money. I am disgusted to see all the rheotic about the Clintons, as if the Clinton years were bad for us. Either those condemming are children or adolescents who have never had to pay taxes or dealt with the working people issues. This election is not about electing a cool guy who can mesmerize people with great speeches, but about what is best for our country. Hllary is in the ticket NOT Bill, so STOP, associating both and for Gods sake let the MOST electable and experience candidate be the one the Superdelegates should be looking at. Obama, is great, but he's just not ready right now, maybe later, but NOT right now. If anybody would be like Bush it would be him, "a newcomer", inexperienced, and having to be taught all the ropes of running a country. Theese are credentials Hillary is already familiarized with and she has proven that she has the know how and toughness we need to face all the issues including foreign country issues. Stop the childish Rheotics, and see the facts, once and for all. God help us!

    March 7, 2008 at 3:16 pm |
  133. Alfreda S. Wallace

    I am not convinced at all that the winner of the most delegates will win the nomination. I have seen recently that the Clintons will do anything to win. I am sick of it all. At one time I said I could support either Hillary or Barack as standard bearer for the Democratic Party. Now, i feel there is no way I can support Hillary. If she wins the nomination, I will sit this election out. I won't vote for McCain, but I won't vote for Hillary either. Powers was right, she is a monster.

    March 7, 2008 at 3:16 pm |
  134. Patches

    It is getting very ugly on the trail!! I do believe that the candidate with the most delegates will get the nomination!! However, looking at the math, it does look like Obama will lead in pledged delegates and as it looks to be heading.. She will be making backroom deals till the end.
    If she lands the nomination with Obama having miore pledged delegates, we will be watching Bush giving dance lessons to McCain on the steps of the White House.


    March 7, 2008 at 3:17 pm |
  135. Jayne

    I put nothing past the Clinton campaign. Heaven only knows what she must be offering the superdelegates for their vote. It's a good day for aspiring ambassadors. That said, if the superdelegates override the vote of the elected delegates, there will be a significant decrease in membership in the Democratic Party and I'll be among them.

    March 7, 2008 at 3:17 pm |
  136. Grant

    The 50 + 1 strategy just won't do this time. We were promised Health Care in 1993 and it felt miserably. We were promised 20000 more jobs in New York and we lost 50000. Power doesn't manufacture judgment and change. A guy named Barack Obama is changing the electoral map and giving us a reason to get involved in public service. If our voices are overturned by those fat cats so called super delegates, we will as well get energized to against them the years to come.

    March 7, 2008 at 3:18 pm |
  137. Tim Elms

    I have no confidence the candidate with the most pledged delegates will win the nomination unless that candidate is Hillary Clinton.

    As you reported, after all is said and done Obama will have the most pledged delegates and the majority of the popular vote. Those facts are indisputable and ignored by Clinton and the media at large. The media because readers and viewers love a fight and Clinton because she hopes to steal the nomination at the convention.

    Will all Super delegates please wake up and smell the coffee! Please move in mass and end this now!

    I'd enjoy seeing a "Buyer's Remorse" poll to see if the mud slung since their primaries have altered opinions of who would get their vote.

    March 7, 2008 at 3:18 pm |
  138. Russ Kent, WA

    I'm not confident at all, Jack.

    Hillary is running as a republican. She has the support of the big money corporate types as well as the party establishment types. She is employing the slime and attack tactics as well as the fear card. She is whining about media bias to curry undeserved favor. She concentrates the efforts of her campaign in "rural" areas to win the "uneducated" vote. She and her husband seem to make a lot of money from countries that benefit from the outsourcing of American jobs.

    And just where did she get the five million dollars she loaned to her campaign? Does being First Lady for eight years and then becoming a Senator really pay that well?

    March 7, 2008 at 3:18 pm |
  139. Bruce


    I don't believe the superdelegates will go against the majority of pledged delegates. The bigger danger at this point in time is Clinton out on the campaign trail saying only her and McCain have Camander in Chief credentials. I've never heard anybody in democratic party say the other parties candidate is more qualified until she did. How can she claim that she's doing this for the good of the American people and the democratic party when she goes this low?

    Bruce (Las Vegas)

    March 7, 2008 at 3:19 pm |
  140. Chris from Fort Myers FL

    I have no confidence that the nomination will go to the candidate with the most pledged delegates. In fact, after watching this debacle, I have no confidence that the Democrats even know how to run their own party. Guess how much confidence I have that a Democratic president and a mostly Democratic Congress can effectively run this country.

    March 7, 2008 at 3:19 pm |
  141. Greg, Athens

    Does it matter Jack? The dems choices are Tweedle Dum and Tweedle Do. Worst yet the Tweedle Bush hater voters are going to elect one of these bozos to run our country. Quite frankly I am scared to death! Higher taxes, higher gas prices and recession top that off with Clinton or Obama you get another stained blue dress in the white house.

    March 7, 2008 at 3:19 pm |
  142. Roger from Arkansas

    We will either have to include Florida and Michigan with a chance to clinch the primary or we will have to rely on the super delegates. But next time we have an election we need to do something about the caucuses or get rid of them because it dosn't look like a very reliable system. The Texas caucus has only reported about 40 something percent and it's been about 3 days so far. It looked like there was a lot of chaos.
    I also think that it would be a good idea to have a dream ticket. I don't think the republicans like the idea of the democrats having a dream ticket like this would be. The best of both world's. Both bringing inspiration to women and African-Americans.

    March 7, 2008 at 3:19 pm |
  143. Michael, Tampa Fl

    Jack, I wish I was more confident but all the noise we are hearing from the clinton campaign and the establisment behind her leaves me wondering. I am really disppointed in Clintons behavior, I am losing respect for her daily. One thing I don't have to wonder about is Hillary becoming president. If the party pulls this, the support for the party will evaporate and unfortunately John McCain will become president.

    Once again this election is the democrates to lose by bad behavior.

    March 7, 2008 at 3:20 pm |
  144. Scott

    To the people who say "rules are rules" and the Superdelegates should vote for who they think would be better for the party:

    It would be in the best interest of the party TO vote for the person with the most popular vote and the most delegates.

    Otherwise they will certainly rip the party completely apart and make people KNOW that their vote means NOTHING.

    The only reason you say they should follow the rules and vote for who they think is best is because you think that person is Clinton. It is a FACT that if Obama was behind 100+ delegates and just came off a 12 state losing streak and was trying to steal the superdelegate votes you would all be crying foul and the ultra feminists would be calling it an attempt to keep the woman out of office.

    Your stances are purely posturing that supports YOUR candidate.

    They can either vote for the person with more Delegates OR destroy the party and lose in November... Sounds like they should do what is best for the party like the rules say... vote Obama (most likely the one in the lead come the convention)

    P.S. You better believe if Clinton wins Florida and Michigan and pulls into the lead, her pressure to the Superdelegates to vote for the better candidate will go away FAST.

    March 7, 2008 at 3:20 pm |
  145. Tom, Y-town, OH

    I'm about as confident as a snowball in .......a hot oven. The Clinton's reek of blue blood wealth and politics. The backroom favors, paybacks and the tightness of the inside Democratic party will make sure it goes the way the bosses want it to.......and don't kid yourself....Bill Clinton is a boss, if not the head honcho. I'm not cynical...the Republican party is the same way, only, in my belief, worse. Obama was right. The insiders have to stew him a little longer as they sense there's still hope in this little unknown from Illinois.

    March 7, 2008 at 3:21 pm |
  146. mary person

    I am so confident that the candidate with the most pledged delegates will be the nominee that I am willing to bet money that Hillary Clinton will switch parties mid-primary and join McCain's ticket as VP. The Democratic voters will be satisfied and Hillary will not have to go stark raving mad from having to actually concede.

    March 7, 2008 at 3:21 pm |
  147. Justin

    The superdelegates were put in place to protect the party from the uneducated voting populus from lining up blindly behind a smooth-talking candidate. Rightfully so. I'm somewhat of an elitist, I know, but that comes at my disgust for uneducated voters. I've yet to meet an Obama supporter that can discuss, let alone defend his stance on any topic.

    I'm an independent, so I'm very happy that McCain won the Republican nomination (being the most centric candidate in the primary). Hillary, like McCain, is a problem solver. I LONG for the days of government surpluses to return under a Clinton and a return to where we were in 2000. To me, Clinton is the obvious, educated choice. Obama's followers (in a religious, dogmatic sense) will potentially bring this country down by installing this amateur.

    March 7, 2008 at 3:22 pm |
  148. Marie, California

    I am not confident at all. The truth is, while Obama's supporters are talking math, while Clinton's are claiming momentum. The old Washington machine is going to support Clinton whatever the numbers are, so watch out. The democratic party may be heading for self-destruction rather than an invigorated spurt of growth and a working majority in the Congress.

    March 7, 2008 at 3:22 pm |
  149. Richard, Toronto

    With Hillary at the wheel of spin, I'm not very confident this will be a fair outcome. The best thing Obama could do would be to use his record February fund-raising to offer to fund the re-primaries for those states. It'd be difficult for Hillary to spin that into her caring more about the voters there, and perhaps it'd be a fairer fight for those to-be-pledged delegates.

    March 7, 2008 at 3:22 pm |
  150. Julie A.

    Jack: Let not get all stirred up about pledged delegates. The present primary system heavily favors the canidate with the most mony. The caucuses are laughable, they violate the most basic requirement for democracy – the secret ballot. Everyone knew that some delegates might be pledged to canidates who dropped out along theay. Evryone knew that there were uperdelegates. Pledged delegate get to vote for the anidate they are pledged to intially. If there is more than one allot, they can and som will then vote for other canidates. Is this sytem perect – defenitely not but it is the system in place. If one canidates winds up with a few more pledged delegates than others, there is no automatic right to th nomination and none deserved.

    March 7, 2008 at 3:23 pm |
  151. Bill Vorbeck

    Jack: March 7, 2008

    Rules are rules. Neither candidate will reach the required number of delegates, “both” fall short. True, one may have more delegates then the other — but that is of little consequence.

    Super delegates are free to exercise their politically savvy judgment and cast their support for whomever they choose, THAT’S THE RULES. State delegates are bound, Super delegates aren’t, and THAT’S THE RULL. The U.S. is not a DEMOCARY, IT’S A REPUBLIC. That’s in the pledge of allegiance to the flag. Frankly I’m suppressed people have forgotten that.

    Bill Vorbeck

    March 7, 2008 at 3:23 pm |
  152. Tommy Caudill


    Pledged delegates will have to decide the democratic race, but let me say if they don't and the so called superdelegates decide this race for anyone who doesn't have the most pledged delegates, say hello to Presiden McCain.

    Columbia, Md

    March 7, 2008 at 3:23 pm |
  153. Sharon, Indiana

    I don't know if the role of the super delegates was ever meant to be a mere reflection of the popular vote or number of delegates. If that were the case, why have them, as essentially all they would serve to do is proportionately increase the delegate count for each candidate? Historically, I believe their role was intended to be a check on the caucus and primary system.

    Additionally, I think it is easy to forget that there are major differences between nominating a candidate for a particular party and voting in an actual election. The parties are responsible for designing their own nomination procedures, and the results produced by those procedures often aren't reflective of the results that would be expected in a general election (less voters participate in primaries and caucuses than the general election). Caucuses by their very nature are not as inclusive as primaries, and even in primaries, the rules differ from state to state as to whether or not independents or Republicans can participate. The entire concept of having your vote in a primary be public, or be known to your neighbors goes against the voting privacy rules applied for federal and state elections.

    With a race this close, in some fashion Michigan and Florida will need to be counted, either as is or through a re-do. Whatever approach is taken, the party will need to ensure that the supporters of both Senators Clinton and Obama are comfortable with the decision, or it may be impossible to re-unite the party. One of the benefits of allowing the race to continue through the remaining states, is we will all truly get a better measure of which candidate is the most electable - and, shouldn't that be in the best interest of the party?

    For the future, I think the Democrats should drop caucuses, because they seem to be problematic, and the reports coming out from Texas were very troubling. No one benefits when things get that out of control. The discrepancy between the primary results and the caucus results also seem to call into question whether or not they accurately reflect the will of the electorate.

    March 7, 2008 at 3:23 pm |
  154. Bimal Ghose

    Jack, Senator Obama is in the lead in delegate count and simple math is telling us that he will remain front runner till the final primary. Now if the super delegates dare to undo the verdict of the primary voters there will be such a revolt that the behind- the -door players are unable to comprehend. The Independents, Obama Republicans, the thousands of new young voters, the minorities....black,latinos,Asians will teach such a lesson to the Democratic candidate that will never be forgotten. We will CHANGE everything for future HOPE.

    March 7, 2008 at 3:23 pm |
  155. James from Pittsburgh


    The Super Delegates are going to do their job in the end. They are going to take the winner of the Pledge Delegates and provide him a mandate. Hillary knows this fact and is attempting to do everything to prevent the inevitable conclusion of the race.

    First, the math does not work. If you count Florida and Michigan, Hillary only nets 65+ pledge delegates. If she wins PA, she might net 9 to 15 delegates. The result that in the end, Hillary won't have enough delegates to surpass Obama's lead.

    Second, the electability issue is also mute now. People have run simulations and Obama wins over McCain in a mandate. Additionally, Barrack wins all the big states Hillary does with better mandates. Barrack also puts a lot of other states into play that Hillary does not and can not. Barrack also puts a lot of states out of play in the Democrat corner that Hillary does not.

    All that the negative campaigning that Hillary is doing is going to cause the Super Delegates to move quicker. They will probably push sooner to end the process if they think Hillary will damage the party nominee and the party.

    March 7, 2008 at 3:24 pm |
  156. Pete, NYC

    I am fairly confident that the rules as set up will be abandoned and the superdelegates will be pressured into voting for the candidate with the largest number of pledged delegates. That is not how it is supposed to work and I have to say that if Obama was named John Smith and was white that is not likely how it would work, but the case is different. I think neither of them will win the election in the end.

    I think the superdelegates, who are beholden to no one, should vote as their constituencies (if they are associated with one) voted and not in accordance with the national leader. By that I mean they should vote in line with their precint, district, county or state.

    And these are some of the same people (Dean et al) who selling the stolen election lies in 2000 and even 2004!

    March 7, 2008 at 3:24 pm |
  157. Gabriela from Penn

    Were it not for the fact Clinton was losing, Michigan and Florida wouldn't even be on the radar. Clinton's arrogance is to blame here; she never really considered the fact she might lose this thing. Now, when a loss has become stark reality, "we don't want to silence the voters in Michigan and Florida." Get real. On a related note, I'm a Hispanic voter and feel disgusted at the sense of entitlement her campaign feels for my demographic. Take note: I do not owe Clinton a thing.

    March 7, 2008 at 3:24 pm |

    Jack, Super delegates may very well decide this race. There job is to figure out what states were won by which candidate. Will these states most likely vote democratic or are they states that go to republicians in November? Since Obama has failed to carry important states in the primary, they have no choice but to consider that in making their decision. There is more at stake here then who inspires vs who can carry the Party to victory. Obama has done a fine job in the red states, but has yet to garner an important large state. JFK lost the popular vote but won the election, need I say more?

    March 7, 2008 at 3:25 pm |
  159. Jeff

    The super delegates must vote along with the will of the people. If they do not, and hand the nomination to the "looser", then they shall surely disenfranchise Democratic voters. This would possibly destroy the faith in the Democratic Party and surely cost them the election in November.

    Jeff – Port Huron MI

    March 7, 2008 at 3:25 pm |
  160. Andrea Fuentes, Miami FL

    If they somehow have a "do-over" in MIchigan and Florida the super-delegates will be less important. I agree that a smoke-filled room decision against the will of the people will backfire big time on the Democratic party.

    It is ludicrously self-serving for the Clinton campaign to suggest counting the Michigan and Florida votes... in MIchigan Obama was NOT on the ballot because he was following party rules. You don't hear that much in the news media who keep saying Hillary won Michigan, about like Castro kept winning the "elections" in Cuba.

    The media is paying alot of attention to Hillary's recent wins, for which she does deserve congratulations. However, the reality is that because Obama won the caucuses in Texas, she actually gained only a few delegates there net-net.

    March 7, 2008 at 3:25 pm |
  161. Ni

    Of course pledged delegates should decide the nominee. If the superdelegates wanted to reverse the pledged delegate and popular vote winner, what is the point of millions of people getting out there and voting? What is the point of the whole long primary process?

    March 7, 2008 at 3:26 pm |
  162. Michael in Texas


    I'm not confident that Dean will get anything right! He's a mess. How can he blame Democratic voters in Florida and Michigan when the Republican party changed the voting day? We lock those voters out, we will NEVER win Florida and Michigan again. Consider McCain a guarantee in November.

    Let Florida votes count(both were on ballot with no campaining), and redo Michigan since Obama took his name off.

    Done! Let the rules apply, and have the Supers decide if no one makes it there on votes.

    Rules are rules, and Supers are expected to do whats best for the party!

    March 7, 2008 at 3:26 pm |
  163. Bradie Speller

    I have been a Democratic voter for almost 40 years. If the Party pulls some back alley, smoke filled Clintonesque low down stunt and gives the nomination to Hillary, I will not only leave the Democratic Party, but will go on a personal campaign to get every African American and young voter to leave the party and let them implode. I would rather suffer a few more years of Republican nausea than to allow politics a la Clinton do us in for more years to come. It's time the people were heard and if Obama has more delegates and more popular votes, then so be it. If Hillary has the most votes, so be it. Right now it ain't adding up for Hillary. They need to play by the rules. Same goes for Florida and Michigan. Play by the rules.

    March 7, 2008 at 3:26 pm |
  164. Comments from Texas

    For those of you who think that the caucuses are a good think, you have to be out of your mind. I was Chair to a caucus in Texas, and let me tell you, all that does is allow the hungry dirty candidates to cheat and make it official. I saw Obama people locking Clinton people out of the door, some taking only signatures for those supporting Obama and others telling voters that the caucus was cancelled in order to have ONLY Obama supporters. You want fairness, than let the voters decide, not the caucuses. These is a dirty thirsty way to win, and if this makes you proud, than I'm sorry for all those thinking it's Hillary who is playing dirty. See the whole picture not just what you choose to see, why do you think they are still counting in Texas "Because there were soooo many irregularities people" wake up...Your Obama is NOT A SAINT., if his camp is encouraging people to come up from up North to teach his camps to do this tricks, can you imagine what he would do to our country.....My God, what next? And you complain of injustice? Please!

    March 7, 2008 at 3:27 pm |
  165. Yvonne, Atlanta GA

    I'm absolutely confident that the winner will be the one with the most pledged delegates and the most states. That's democracy. Let's not embarrass ourselves the whole world is watching.

    March 7, 2008 at 3:27 pm |
  166. David H

    Don't forget the 366 Florida and Michigan delegates, it looks like there just might be new primaries there.

    March 7, 2008 at 3:27 pm |
  167. Charlie


    I have one word for all the delegates voting for Hillary – spineless.

    March 7, 2008 at 3:27 pm |
  168. Tom, Avon, Maine, The Heart of Democracy

    Hamilton is not the hero in our history that Jefferson is. We got rid of the poll tax because not allowing people to choose their own government was considered un-American. Although we Democrats love circular firing squads, I believe we will stop short of denying the popular vote.

    March 7, 2008 at 3:27 pm |
  169. coreen steinbach

    Jack, I am wondering why the media has not given more attention to the fact that Republicans voted in seemingly large numbers in the TX and OH primaries for Hillary Clinton? Rush Limbaugh encouraged his listeners to "pimp themselves out for a day" because they dearly want Hillary as the nominee. I believe that in Ohio, especially, this may have been illegal activity as it is inciting the pubic to commit fraud. Many people think that her showing in both states may have been affected by this activity by several percentage points. I am appalled that people would use their precious votes to this end.
    I am hoping that you as the voice of reason and integrity in this current media climate will look into this phenomenon and expose it to more public scrutiny.
    Listen to you every day and admire your work enormously.

    Coreen Steinbach, Syracuse, NY

    March 7, 2008 at 3:27 pm |
  170. Ilse from Canada

    Brian from Fort Mill, NC–my thoughts exactly! Well put.

    March 7, 2008 at 3:29 pm |
  171. George Wilson

    I'm confident that the process will come about, as it comes about regardless if you like it , or not Jack. Democrats might have a complicated way to choose a nominee, but we don't need advice from the news media how to do it. , and I think it should be left to the Democrats to sort it out. At least we don't walk in lock step to the rich, and powerful to choose a nominee who will do their bidding for them, and leave the American people to fend for themselves. By the way Jack, where is your question about George Bush, and him saying this morning that there is a recession? What planet has he been on for the last three months? Most Americans have known it for a long time. Must really be bad if he has admitted to it.

    March 7, 2008 at 3:29 pm |
  172. Joshua P.

    No Clinton won't allow it

    March 7, 2008 at 3:29 pm |
  173. J Michigan

    To me it really don't matter who the party picks one way or the other. I am for Obama, but I will vote for Clinton this Nov if he is not the party nominee. Mccain is just going to be for more years of Bush. But let's remember back in 2000 the election was not won by popular vote.

    March 7, 2008 at 3:30 pm |
  174. rbrannan

    If the DNC doesn't do a redo in Florida and/or Michigan, then it's clear the DNC is only about the party and not about the people because the Democratic party is suppose to represent all the people–all 50 states worth of the people!

    March 7, 2008 at 3:31 pm |
  175. BJ Smith

    Unfortunately Jack, about as confident as HOPE will make it, more the pity!

    BJ FL

    March 7, 2008 at 3:31 pm |
  176. Greg

    Let's assume for a moment that Democrats will do what is good for the Party. That may be a fallacious assumption considering the individual greed that seems to permeate the bipeds known as "politicians" but let's be optimistic.

    So what is good for the Democratic Party?

    In the short term, winning the White House in November obviously.

    But what about long term benefits? This election process has galvanized young voters and brought in independents in a way not seen since JFK (and I make no comparisons between JFK and Senator Obama.) Would it not be good for the health of the Democratic Party to broaden its reach, strengthen its ranks, fill its coffers for a robust future?

    Should the Super Delegates overthrow the candidate that clearly has won the pledged delegates, the Democratic Party will be demonstrating to those who are its future, the young indealistic voters that are investing their hopes and dreams (and money) that any belief, any TRUST is misspent.

    An entire generation will be irrevocably lost.

    Greg from around Chicago

    March 7, 2008 at 3:31 pm |
  177. Anita

    Not very confident. A lot of "back door" dealings would take place, I think, between the supers and the candidates in order to sway them to vote their way. Happens all the time, I think.

    Why couldn't the DNC have reduced the number of pledged delegates needed (2025) when they penalized Michigan and Florida? Both states agreed to the terms, and they knew they were forfeiting delegates to the convention. Maybe then one of the candidates could have reached their goal and become the nominee, and there wouldn't be much talk about spending millions of dollars for a do-over.

    March 7, 2008 at 3:31 pm |
  178. Matt Hogan

    Ultimately I think pledged delegates will be the factor that decides the democratic nominee. Neither of the nominees are going to make the decision to pull out of a tight race for "the good of the party." Honestly I couldn't expect them to given how much work they've each been through but I think that responsibilty needs to fall on the superdelagates. They need to make it very clear that they are going to go along with what America votes. Even if they are going to sit tight until the convention to see what that is.

    Chicago, IL

    March 7, 2008 at 3:31 pm |
  179. Ian, Ontario, Canada

    I am not confident that the person with the most pledged delegates will get the nomination, if it is not Hillary Clinton. Politics is a form of war and the Clintons are street fighters.

    P.S. – I do not believe that Clinton has a lot of experience. What has she ever led? It is time for the baby boomers (I am one) to let another generation lead the country. Look what the last 16 years has brought.

    March 7, 2008 at 3:32 pm |
  180. Terry from North Carolina

    I am pretty confident that whoever has the majority of pledged delegates will win the nomination. However I would watch Hillary Clinton very closely this is a ruthless power hungry person. I would not put anything past her.

    March 7, 2008 at 3:32 pm |
  181. Ted

    Call me naive but I do believe that the candidate with the most pledged delegates will get the nomination. Why? For one simple reason, the democrats want to win the White House and if they choose a candidate that does not have the most pledged delegates then the party is going to be split and John McCain will walk away with the presidency. I can only hope and dream that this happens but even a die hard republican like myself does not believe that , the democrats are that ignorant to hand the election to a republican.

    March 7, 2008 at 3:33 pm |
  182. Vinnie Vino

    Not at all, The DNC created superdelegates to help reslove problems like this in the party's nomination process. In the end Hillary or Obama will not acheive enough pledged delegates to win the party's nomination, out rite. So at the Democratic Convention it all will be worked out in a back room deal... It will be like the good old days of yesteryear when the party bosses made all the decisions for the party.

    C.I., New York

    March 7, 2008 at 3:33 pm |
  183. Bill Vorbeck


    I don't believe all the noise about what the super delegates will do is healping anyone.

    It their decision to make and I don't believe they, the supper delegates will listem to the crowd, they will be looking to protect their position in Congress.

    They will pick whoever the believe will win, for them.

    Bill Vorbeck

    March 7, 2008 at 3:33 pm |
  184. Brian - Trinidad

    I don't know how you can't get the impression that the Democrat Leadership wants Senator Obama to get the nomination. Sensible debating about what should be done about the superdelegates, Michigan and Florida is missing. The reality is that the States that Senator Obama won isn't going to give him the electoral votes needed to win the Presidency,but the States that Senator Clinton won will give her the electoral votes needed to win.The rap against the Democrats has always been that they don't get the big picture and sadly, despite the fact they have 2 superior candidates to the Republicans, they will have once again let the Presidency slip away because they always seem to forget about the team and focus more on the individual.

    March 7, 2008 at 3:34 pm |
  185. Charlene, Henderson Nevada

    I am quickly losing my confidence in the democratic party.
    WE self destruct our party at every election. When will we learn from the past mistakes?? I am afraid if the candidate with the most pledged dlegates and most popular vote does not receive the nomination, all hell will break loose!!

    March 7, 2008 at 3:34 pm |
  186. Ken

    If superdelegates don't go with the pledged delegates, you may as well gift wrap the Nov. election to John McCain, because you'll destroy half the Democratic Party in the process. Same goes for Mich./Fla.: split the votes 50/50, or again, half the party will cry foul.

    Pierre, SD

    March 7, 2008 at 3:34 pm |
  187. Marie in SC

    I have 0% confidence in unnamed superdelegates that would be voting anonomously and have received money from candidates. Their subjective judgement has already been influenced. This seems to be a legal form of collusion to me. Who would feel good about a United States President being elected this way by a select few – that were selected and influenced who knows how?

    March 7, 2008 at 3:34 pm |
  188. Andrew


    I am a Republican, who believes in fair game . I'd like to remind all Americans about a simple rule, i.e., whosoever wins the total number of pledged delegates- that candidate should become the nominee. That is why we already have McCain.

    March 7, 2008 at 3:34 pm |
  189. Patricia, Metairie, LA

    Jack –
    Based on the way Howard Dean and the DNC are capitulating on the Florida/Michigan primaries, as well as Hillary's success in freezing the superdelegates for a while, I think the writing on the wall is pretty clear. The higher ups are going to let her shove her way in and take what she believes is rightfully hers. They will not step in to save the Democratic party, nor will they stop her from trying to destroy Barack Obama's candidacy and the voices of millions of new and reinvigorated voters. Hillary will get her wish, the nomination, and I and every other serious Obama supporter will either stay home for the general election or support John McCain. My dislike of her now is on the level of George W. Bush, and that is truly saying something.

    March 7, 2008 at 3:34 pm |
  190. Ian from IL

    I have faith in the Democrats' superdelegates to choose the candidate of the people. The problem is that there are scenarios where the candidate with the most pledged delegates could lose the popular vote, due to Michigan and Florida. Though it would take some decisive victories by Sen. Clinton, it would create a problem. Thats why the electoral college and delegate system is inferior to the popular vote. We've all seen what happens when the popular vote is overturned by a faulty "democratic" process.

    March 7, 2008 at 3:34 pm |
  191. Lovell Sewell

    Hi, Jack

    Some people need to do homework. I know we all want our candidate to win. I am from Obama but I will vote for Hillary even though I will be crying doing it. If she win the Nomination. The sad thing is this Michigan and Floriday is waying in that the people need to have a voice. Jack, please ask these Governors where was the people when the move up the dates to vote. Why? please Why wasn't the people given a voice then. What they are doing is given McCain the white house. Even our own canidate for President given him the white house. Hillary Clinton said her and McCain or the only one qualified to run the white house. SAD. Obama said if we looking for experience for foreign policy McCain would more experience is true. What Hillary saying is Obama do not have qualification but out the same mouth said that her and Obama will be more qualified to run this nation then McCain. People need to stop with this Hillary thing and realize we given McCain the white house. I am putting this own record if Hillary win even doe how she doing is so Nasty. She will not win the White House. I am a Democrate and I will vote for her. But she will not pull independent and moderates. She the only one talking about Michigan and Florida. She the only one talking about delegates. She is breaking this party and it is a D– Shame you taste power that you will throw you party under the bus.

    March 7, 2008 at 3:35 pm |
  192. Deborah -Iowa

    well jack the Super delegates will probably decide this thing and it should be decided on the popular vote.....but what is the popular vote is the democratic votes only..... not the republican and Independant votes they should be removed from the popular count.

    DNC should be very careful in this election, They are short on money and want donations going into the fall but yet they have no backbone in the congress. I think they need to start working for what the people have told them they want the congress to do.......or risk the donations they so desperately need.

    March 7, 2008 at 3:35 pm |
  193. Richard O'Rourke

    Try real hard Jack, and you might crawl out of the Obama Tank for just a day or so. The media, therefore the public, are confused about the purpose of the nominating process. It is to select the candidate who best mirrors the Party ideals AND who has the best shot at winning the Presidency. Because it is a long process (around 8 months), key factors change and the final nomination should reflect those changes. That is the primary reason for "Super" delegates. It's no less "fair" than the caucus system, which makes voting extremely difficult for many people, or than the disproportionate method used to allocate delegates to different districts.

    Rick Westlake, OH

    March 7, 2008 at 3:35 pm |
  194. shirley thibodeaux


    I watch you and Wolf every afternoon religiously. I LOVE you guys but Jack , I really believe Senator Clinton will do anything she can to win. Despite the fact that Senator Obama has more delegates, he will not get the nomination.

    March 7, 2008 at 3:35 pm |
  195. Gary of Little Rock, AR

    If the maniacal Howard Dean will back off his scheme to punish states who voted how and when then want to rather than when HE wanted them to, the Michigan and Florida delegates will be seated and this race will be over. Obama pulled his name from the Michigan primary and doesn't want either state to count, because he knew that Hillary was going to win those states, just like California, Ohio and Texas. Hillary didn't agree not to have the delegates counted, only not to campaign in Michigan and Florida.

    March 7, 2008 at 3:35 pm |
  196. Dustin

    The math is what makes Hillary's celebration the other night so odd. It was like watching a football team down 35-10 at the 2 minute warning in the 4th quarter kick a field goal and storm the field in triumph. She must be dreaming if she thinks superdelegates are going to override the will of the people. This campaign has quickly become Hillary vs. The People, and I think it is time she drops out of that race.

    March 7, 2008 at 3:35 pm |
  197. joan

    I am not confident in the system anymore, with Hillary's NAFTA games, her support for McCain, refusal to release information re tax returns, and white house years make me think she is going to do everything short of kill for the nomination. Obama' recently resigned advisor got it right, she said what a lot of people are thinking.

    March 7, 2008 at 3:35 pm |
  198. Frank

    Since 1984 the popular vote has decided who gets the nomination. Pledged delegates do not reflect the population as accurately as the popular vote does.

    March 7, 2008 at 3:36 pm |
  199. Barbara, Charleston, SC

    Not very. The reason why is because Superdelegates, when they come into play, exist simply to cast their vote for the candidate who can beat John McCain. Which candidate (Clinton or Obama) can best win the Presidency for the Democratic Party? Who can best withstand the attacks that will come from McCain and the Republican Party? As I said, the people already got to vote in the primaries and caucases and so they do not have the right to "tell" the Superdelegates who to cast their vote for. I am sure that the likes of Al Sharpton would not like to hear that, but none the less, when it comes down to the Superdelegates they can and must vote THEIR way and no one elses. Of course, they could probably be bought or could even be threatened with the loss of your political position next voting season (if they have one) but this is the game that we call politics.

    March 7, 2008 at 3:36 pm |
  200. Bob Landers

    Jack Hello? There will be no winner ... not enough delegates for either canfdidate.... except for the super delegates. Now you know why they call them SUPER delegates.

    March 7, 2008 at 3:36 pm |
  201. California Voter

    Jack, I hope it's decided at the convention and frankly if the super delegates end up with the deciding votes so be it. The democrats got themselves into this mess– their mixed primaries and caucuses, proportional delegates, no count of Michigan and Florida voters, and uncommitted "super elegates". Clearly, there will be no real front-runner and it will take the "uncommitted super elegates" to settle the issue. Although the superdelegates are supposed to vote their conscience, I can't wait to see if Kennedy, Kerry and Patrick follow the voters in their state and vote for Clinton!

    March 7, 2008 at 3:36 pm |
  202. Amy in Woodstock, NY

    Jack, my answer is I really don't know. I can only hope the democratic party will be fair and stand behind the candidate with the most delegates.

    What has concerned me is that Hillary, as a former "Goldwater Girl", and a good friend of John McCain, seems to be making overtures that are more Republican than Democratic. I am seeing a behavior of entitlement from Hillary that looks like she is threatening to take the entire party down if she is not the nominee.

    The DNC needs to stand up for what is right, not threats from the Clintons or anyone, and say we are going to nominate the candidate with the most delegates. We need to unite as a party, not destroy it. And neither should we support a candidate who is threatening to destroy the democratic party if she is not nominated.

    March 7, 2008 at 3:37 pm |
  203. Steve in Raritan, New Jersey

    I'm not confident at all. Remember, those in the party leadership are the same knuckleheads that allowed all of this to begin without resolving the issue of Florida and Michigan. Did they honestly think it would just go away? Dean, Pelosi, Reid and the rest of the fun bunch couldn't successfully organize a sock drawer. And while nobody will just come out and say it, there seems to be this underlying sentiment that super delegates are there to protect us from ourselves. As if they have some kind of divine insight that ultimately will keep the voters from making a mistake. Well, the biggest mistake will be when superdelegates don't honor the voters choice, which is whomever ends up earning the most pledged delegates. Judging from the party leadership thusfar, that's exactly what I can see happening.

    March 7, 2008 at 3:38 pm |
  204. Kevin Dobies

    I am confident that the superdelegates will vote with the pledged delegates, but the race is so close that whoever wins the nomination may have to pick the second place candidate as their running mate in order to reunite the party. This could result in the dream ticket that so many Democrats long for. A vote for Obama is not necessarily an anti-Hillary vote. The problem is that the Democrats like both their candidates so much, they don't want just one–they want both!

    March 7, 2008 at 3:40 pm |
  205. SJ

    If it comes down to the Super Delegates, their decision should be based on the latest information available. Iowa, New Hampshire, and several other states were decided eons ago and much more info is available today than was known at the time they voted. The whole primary system and use of caucus votes needs to be re-evaluated. There's a reason for secret ballots so that people can vote their own feelings and not be intimidated by their spouses, strong-armed political hacks, or worry that they will be seen as gender or racial biased.

    March 7, 2008 at 3:45 pm |
  206. Alex H


    I really believe that the winner of the pledged delegates will win the nomination. The democratic party knows that if they sweep the legs out from under the voters that they will destroy the party for another 8 years. I think you'll see that come convention time all the remaining superdelegates will follow through and support the candidate who got the most votes from the people. Doing this is the most respectful to each candidate and it will reassure the voters that each one of these superdelegates and political officials are there to serve them and not their own whims and wishes.

    Waterbury, CT

    March 7, 2008 at 3:45 pm |
  207. Candace from MA

    It would be beautiful if the winner of the most pledged delegates in the primary season became the Democratic nominee. However, Obama is running against the Clinton's and nothing is fair when it comes to those two. Americans want change. The Clinton's are forcing more of the same down our throats. I am glad that Nader is in the race because that is where my vote will go if Hillary is the Democratic nominee.

    March 7, 2008 at 3:46 pm |
  208. Steve

    Well, if you add in the Florida and Michigan votes as they occurred, Hillary actually leads in the popular vote. If they re-do the votes and Hillary wins both Florida and Michigan (by closer margins), we could have a situation where Clinton leads in the popular vote and Obama leads among delegates.

    I say they play knowledge of foreign affairs Jeopardy. It can be a pay-per-view bonanza, with the winner getting the top of the ticket.

    From New Jersey

    March 7, 2008 at 3:46 pm |
  209. Deepa

    It is absolutely critical for the Democratic party to go with the winner of the most pledged delegates. If it makes any mistake, voters will be completely let down and it may cost another term or more for the party to get back. If it were only the 800 or so super delegates to decide this, why involve the voters in the first place?

    March 7, 2008 at 3:47 pm |
  210. Bob S Philadelphia, PA


    If the super delegates decide the next president it would be a crime ! I want my vote to count and feel like I have decided who the next president will be

    March 7, 2008 at 3:47 pm |
  211. Hilde Schildgen

    I'm not confident at all. If it goes to the convention floor, theyll give it to Clinton, and then all the delegates and voters that voted for Obama in the primaries will sit this one out.
    They would rather see McCain win than a Clinton. It is time for change.
    I don't want to see a Clinton/Obama or Obama/Clinton ticket at all.

    March 7, 2008 at 3:47 pm |
  212. douglas harvey , washington state

    Jack, you know the answer, either the person with the most pledged delegates gets the nomination or the democratic party is destroyed for say ten or twenty years. If the insiders have it, so much for the youth and African American vote,by the way great job your doing.

    March 7, 2008 at 3:47 pm |
  213. Lori from

    I would like all votes to somehow to count, but this is a bigger message to the youth; if you don't follow the directions, someone will come along and fix it. To give the delegates from Florida and/or Michigan to Clinton without a fair election would be a total travesty. To host a re-vote of some sort is going to cost money that no one wants to spend. Split the delgates evenly if they must and then allow the super delegates to vote. Thanks to many of the conversations that CNN and others have provided, I am more comfortable with the super delegates choosing than the Florida's Republican Governor controlling it.

    March 7, 2008 at 3:49 pm |
  214. Adam, LV, NV

    Not confident at all Jack, and here is why...

    A lot of Dems remember that Al Gore won the popular vote, but lost the election, something the American people thought was wrong. If she has the popular vote, Dems are going to get flashbacks to 2000 and consider which system they really believe in, Popular vote or Delegates to a convention.

    March 7, 2008 at 3:49 pm |
  215. Erik, Wi

    I believe that the winner of the pledged delegate count has to be the nominee of the Democratic Party. Anything other than that would prove a "backroom deal" must have been made and would destroy the credibility of the party. I cant see it any other way after the whining that democrats still do over how the 2000 election was "stolen" from them with the same backroom deal. This whole process could have been made much easier by doing a winner take all process from all of the states. Instead democrats do their elections just like how they would run the country: Give everything to everyone fairly and equally and look where its gotten them.

    March 7, 2008 at 3:49 pm |
  216. Mary Johnson

    Jack; The way our election process "works" these days is so complicated and convoluting I wouldn't doubt we end up with a back room deal BeFORE the convention... Very few politicians currently active have personal experience with a contested convention and as a result are very dubious about its efficacity...
    I am old enough to remember how the "good old boy" syndrome used to work and it quite often did get us all a reasonable candidate and the parties were not "torn apart" What are they afraid of, for Pete's sake??? If they try to manipulate the whole thing before the convention people will lose confidence in the process.

    March 7, 2008 at 3:49 pm |
  217. George

    In the end, yes, I think the candidate with the most pledged delegates will get the nomination, and I expect that to be Obama. Along the way, there will be lots of turmoil about Florida and Michigan, about experience and electibility and momentum, about "important" states versus "unimportant" states, and so forth. But ultimately, the party will realize that a great deal of Obama's support has come from constituencies who WILL NOT VOTE if they perceive that the nomination was stolen from him.

    March 7, 2008 at 3:49 pm |
  218. Mike, Toronto

    Yes Jack, they will. Sen. Clinton's efforts are not directed towards winning the popular vote, but towards providing good pretexts for getting most of the super delagates. If I am right, and I hope that I am not, her nomination would produce a schism inside the Democratic Party. The only way I can see Obama winning is by continuing to increase his number of pledged delegates.

    March 7, 2008 at 3:50 pm |
  219. Bob Maher

    I care most about the popular vote. It should trump everything else, but I only hear the news shows talk about delegates and superdelegates. Hopefully, one candidate will win both the popular vote and the most delegates; the supers will go along. If it's split, the supers should back the winner of the popular vote. That would actually be democratic.

    March 7, 2008 at 3:51 pm |
  220. Ron ( Canada )

    I have no dog in this hunt, but I tend to read the blogs and follow U.S. politics for amusement. I can't help but notice that it seems to be the Obama supporters that believe the superdelegates have to vote for the candidate with the lead in pledged delegates. Some threaten that any elected superdelegate(s) who do not obey this "rule" should be deposed/impeached.
    I have to wonder: What happens if Clinton ends up with a marginal lead in pledged delegates/popular vote? Will there be rioting in the streets of Chicago when Illinois based superdelegates are forced to vote for Clinton instead of Obama?
    C'mon people. Get real. What is the point of having superdelegates if they can't support the person they believe is the best person for the job?

    March 7, 2008 at 3:52 pm |
  221. Allison - Manitowoc, WI

    As a new voter – one of those disaffected, disenfranchised, distrustful "don't really care" non-voters who is newly inspired and involved because of the hope Barack Obama has spread across this country, I find this whole superdelegate business disturbing. How can a candidate who has already spent 8 years in the White House be voted into the Democratic nomination for President by hundreds of Democratic officials who have previous ties, debts to and fears of the Clinton administration. The Clinton machine is a major power broker with a long history of building alliances with the majority of the superdelegates through their "quasi-joint" Presidency for two terms. The fact that Clinton administration ties can determine this race via superdelegates is outrageous to me.

    How could a new, fresh face EVER get into the White House to deliver true change with a structure such as this. If the superdelegates don't follow the popular vote in their voting, then I don't see how this is a democracy. "Exercising their own judgment for the good of the people, and/or the good of the party" sounds like pure Socialism to me when it's contrary to the vote of the people and the party. Nominate the candidate for whom THE PEOPLE vote. Period.

    March 7, 2008 at 3:52 pm |
  222. Doug Pierson Tohatchi, NM

    Jack: I am afraid that what I predicted months ago will now come true. I think that the super-delegates will really choose who is to run against McCain. It is going to be politics as usual then no matter if McCain or Clinton win. There is going to be a lot of incredibly disappointed people especially the young who for once thought that things might move in a more humanistic democratic direction. Our country appears to be in crises on all fronts and we are going about doing business as usual. I just don't get it. I have been voting since the late 1950s and I never have gotten what makes voters in this country tick. It is truly amazing.

    March 7, 2008 at 3:53 pm |
  223. Melanie

    The pledged deligates will decide the nominee, unless the Democrats want to choose their nominee in the same way that Bush got the Presidency in 2000 (a wrong about which Democrats have been outraged for 8 years).

    The only way that I can see the Superdeligates going for the loser of the pledged deligates is if the popular vote went the other way, and I doubt that will happen.

    March 7, 2008 at 3:53 pm |
  224. Godfrey Story Sr.

    I am a Hillary Clinton supporter. I have been from day one. However, if she win the battle to count the FL and Michigan delegates, I will change my allegiance. Back door politicting is not the way to win the primary. If Obamas name was on the michigan ballot, it might make a difference. Anyone who does not follow the rules of the DNC, is a monster.
    I am a 62 year old African American.
    Jacksonville, FL

    March 7, 2008 at 3:54 pm |
  225. Machelle, Tampa FL

    Well Jack, if Florida can't participate in this process because the Rules are the Rules (and many who don't think we should have a right to participate because our REPUBLICAN Legislature and Governor chose to move up our primary), well – then so be it.

    But, if we are going to follow the RULES, then the superdelegates are supposed to vote using their judgement in order to nominate the candidate who will have the best chance in the general election.

    Kinda a hard pill to swallow isn't it – to think that the superdelegates might actually do the RIGHT thing and vote for Hillary, the candidate with the experience and judgment we need?

    March 7, 2008 at 3:55 pm |
  226. Jim Destin Fl

    If Obama has a pledged delegate lead prior to the first ballot there is no way the Democratic party can productively overturn that vote. To my knowledge there is nothing in their rules about popular vote totals. That being said however , if the Clinton campaign can persuade the super delegates to overturn the pledged delegate lead (which is within the rules) , then they can immediately offer Obama a split ticket and try to put the onus on him to save the party . I doubt this would work and I doubt Clinton will beat Mccain if this happens.

    March 7, 2008 at 3:55 pm |
  227. Harley Webb Boaz, AL

    I don't want the one with the most pledged delegates too get the nomination. I want the strongest candidate that didn't win pledged delegates by winning mostly caucus states. As we can see caucus wins don't reflect the actual vote that will be in a general election. (Texas) Obama is a red state caucus winner and Hillary is a Big blue state primary winner. Who do you really think will be stronger? I think thats obvious.

    March 7, 2008 at 3:56 pm |
  228. Sorell

    The fact that Barack Obama may end up with more pledged delegates than Hillary Clinton is a non issue since he got most of his delegates from states which have gone Republican while Clinton won states that realy matter such as New York, New Jersey, Mass., Ohio, California and she will win Penn. easily. Bottom line;
    It is quality not quantity that counts to the super delegates and that is exactly why the democrats created super delegates.

    March 7, 2008 at 3:59 pm |
  229. rclendz

    No, not on either side. No candidate will be able to win the remaining contests 70-30 or even 65-35. Florida and Michigan are needed. And even with that, unless Hillary or Barack win those states 70-30 (if they finally allow Florida to vote in a Presidential election – primary or general), this will be a superdelegate battle.

    March 7, 2008 at 3:59 pm |
  230. Stephanie

    I am sure they will consider electability and I think that is who got more voters to the polls than ever before. Also they will look at the will of the people. I can't see how they would go against the popular vote and the pledged Delegates.

    St. Louis

    March 7, 2008 at 4:00 pm |
  231. Fred in Seattle, WA

    I think the super delegates read the polls as well as everyone else. It is clear that Obama has a better chance of beating McCain than does Hilary. Going into a presidential campaign with Hilary is like entering the boxing ring with one arm tied behind you.

    March 7, 2008 at 4:04 pm |
  232. Dave

    We live in a democracy. Majority rule is the cornerstone of a democracy. If the superdelegates can reverse this, then for what does the Democratic party stand? The person with the most pledged delegates, be it Obama or Clinton, should win. Otherwise the Democratic party will fall apart. I mean, why should I vote in the primaries if my vote doesn't matter? If the superdelegates rule, I guess the question should be, are we living in a fascist or communist state?

    March 7, 2008 at 4:04 pm |
  233. Charles

    All I know if super-delegates overrule the voters-there should be a walk out. Its crazy to think that people that have a politcal liability chose our nominee. As for the Obama camp making a misstep, no one cares about the comment from the Clinton campaign making statements linking Obama to Kenn Starr, George Bush and Karl Rove. But since they do want to talk about Kenn Star I think the press should lose their fear of asking Clinton the hard questions from that time. I know every time someone ask the Clinton camp a tough question they try linking that person to anyone thats deeply hated by the Democrats. There has been no apologies from the Clinton camp! They spread lies and yet there is no apologies. They stated that Obama talked to the Canadians and yet we find out that it was the Clinton camp! I'm tired of the Bushes and the Clintons.

    March 7, 2008 at 4:06 pm |
  234. Vivienne Miles


    I can't see how the superdelegates can be the "deciders" coining a phrase from our current commander and chief. This is a big deal because our kids our really engaged in this process in a way that hasn’t been seen for a very long time. No, we cannot allow superdelegates to override the will of the people. Obama said something the other night when he was delivering a speech in Texas. He told a crowd about a man in another country who was closely watching the process here in the US. Obama wanted us to know that the world is watching us and observing our process. I wonder what the world leaders think about our democratic process; when I say world leaders, I mean the ones in the "Axis of Evil" too. We need to be free to work through our democratic process but, not at the expense of our democracy. I hope we can manage to elect a candidate to represent the party without making bad press all over the world. I see riots if the superdelegates do anything other than go along with the will of the people. I think I’ll hang on to my cynicism for a little while longer. I don’t think we can change our ways. Look forward to this country being an embarrassment before the world yet again.

    March 7, 2008 at 4:08 pm |
  235. BELINDA

    If in anyway, the Super-Delegates or a rigged "do-over" Florida and Michigan vote override the will of the people or undo the simple mathematical facts that Obama has won more delegates and has won more elections – all just to get Clinton the Democratic nomination and satisfy her personal quest for power...I will stay home on election day...and as an African-American attorney I will encourage every Black person I know to do the same!!!!

    March 7, 2008 at 4:08 pm |
  236. William Sanford, NC

    If the Democrats change the rules after millions of people have had their say then this gives a big picture of what they will do to this country if they get the power of the presidency. Won't that be ironic, Democrats destroying democracy.

    March 7, 2008 at 4:08 pm |
  237. Tom from Boston Massachusetts

    The pledged delegates better decide who the Democratic nominee is. If the people's will is overturned, they will be rightfully outraged. I will, too, and I'll switch to voting for McCain. And I'm sure I won't be the only one.

    Leave it to the Democrats to successfully generate huge turnouts only to screw it up at the end – again.

    March 7, 2008 at 4:08 pm |
  238. Phil

    If the super delegates decide against the will of the people, in other words, against the candidate with the most votes and delegates going into the convention, essentially they will hand the election to Mr. McCain. The reason, it will mean no change in the way politics are done in the U.S.A. and that has been the mantra of the democrats thus far.

    March 7, 2008 at 4:09 pm |
  239. Rodney

    I don't think so the democrats aren't stupid if Obama has the delegate lead and Mrs. Clinton gets the nod all hell will break lose.
    For the first time you will see a real third party emerge if the super delegates bail Mrs. Clinton out like Enron

    March 7, 2008 at 4:10 pm |
  240. KC

    As I have read the above comments and I am wondering who was paying attention to their government & history class when they were in school. The electoral college was created to make sure that all states had a say in who was elected to be President no just the states with the largest populations. Without this method you would have TX, CA, NY, FL, etc with large populations showing complete disregard to the small states such as VT.
    I would also say that any state who moved the date of their primary election without consent should be penalized. If these delegates are seated at the DNC I think this will be the start of a huge legal battle as you have one candidate that did not even have his name on the ballot in that state, because they were told the delegates would not be seated at the DNC for a violation of the rules which each state agreed to prior to moving the date of their primary election.
    As the mother of a young man going into the Marines after graduation I want someone with military experience who has been there to answer the phone when it rings at 3am in the White House.

    March 7, 2008 at 4:10 pm |
  241. Shari

    The Clinton's back door same old ugly politics will unfortunately prevail. Sad since Obama has gotten more people to the polls than any candidatein a very long time. I am 48 and have voted Republican my whole life and voted and caucused and donated to Barack Obama because he gives people hope.
    They will unfortunately do their best to drag him down in the gutter where they have beenfor a long time.

    March 7, 2008 at 4:10 pm |
  242. Charles

    Jack, There is no reason to be confident that the winner with the most pledged delegates in this primary season will become the eventual Democratic nominee. Bickering over Florida and Michigan, and now Puerto Rico adding to the elections mischief, leave you less confident about this mess everyday. Democrat superdelegates are either stalwart about their candidate or hiding in the shadows until a clear champion is heralded helping to fuel the madness. Without a doubt, the 2008 elections will split the democrats into two bitter camps and the republican party may see some new members because of it.

    Charles in Crestview, Florida

    March 7, 2008 at 4:11 pm |
  243. Christian from Chicago, IL

    I am not confident very confident Jack. I don't think it matters who wins the most pledged delegates because it will basically a 50/50 split. The superdelgates have to look at the states that the nominees won and see which they consider important in winning the presidency, states like California, New York, Florida and Michigan, just to name a few. I hope they make the right decision.

    March 7, 2008 at 4:12 pm |
  244. Allen

    I think the Super delegates have no choice but to go with the will of the people, that is if they want to have a chance of winning in november.

    If they find a way of giving it to Hillary, The Obama people will feel cheated(rightfully so) and like that little kid in the school yard who is annoyed, they will just take their ball and go home.

    All the Obama supporters would just stay home in november, or worst yet vote republican as a way of showing their disgust.

    How can they take a chance of turning off all those new voters that Obama has now gotten into the process?.

    If they were to give it to Hillary through some kind of back room deal the demacratic party would not only lose in november, but it would take them years(if ever) to recover from such a despicable act.

    March 7, 2008 at 4:13 pm |
  245. Butch down South

    The original purpose of the superdelegates, if I remember correctly,
    was to make sure the citizens didn't elect an unqualified nominee.; so they were given the power to trump our decision.

    Based on this, I think we need them, as I don't see Hillary and Obama
    as equally qualified. He' was sworn into the U.S. Senate Jan. 4, 2005, (check Google!) taking time off since Jan. 2007 to campaign around the country. That equals 2 yrs, making him a "sophomore" who is gunning for the TOP job of not only this country, but of the entire PLANET.

    Hillary, at least has tons more experience and is the more qualified in my opinion. She may not be perfect – who is! – but she's the most informed candidate. And THAT is the deciding factor.

    Contrary to his claims, Obama has made decisions which reflect poorly on his judgment. i.e., Rezko, NAFTA, etc.,

    March 7, 2008 at 4:13 pm |
  246. S.J. Boyle

    That depends on what happens in Florida and Michigan. If the DNC can figure out how to seat those deleates, then I believe a winner will emerge before the convention.

    March 7, 2008 at 4:14 pm |
  247. Tenneille in CT

    I'm not very confident at all. Hillary Clinton will stop at nothing to win the nomination even if it means tearing the party apart and winning by unfair and shady means. It's obvious that it's not about the party, it's about her ego. She made it clear yesterday that she thinks that John McCain is more qualified to be commander in chief than Barack Obama. If she can't win, she'd rather a Republican in office.

    March 7, 2008 at 4:14 pm |
  248. Ja Mario J. Tulsa, OK


    Doing the math Clinton has very slim chances. I can tell you that I like the Clinton's, but if they steal this from Obama I and other democrats have already stated that we would "stay home". I'm sure that I'm not the only onw who feels this way.

    March 7, 2008 at 4:15 pm |
  249. Armando

    Unfortunately, I am not very confident at all. However, I do have a glimmer of hope. This election needs the winner of the nomination to be the person selected by the people, not the super-delegates. Our country was founded on government for the people by the people. We need the candidate that believes in that to be our representative in November. Only one of the Democratic candidates has made that part of their campaign. That is Senator Obama. After the last couple of presidential elections, the American people need to see that their vote counts. Right now, the election process is peaking interest in otherwise uninterested parties. If the Democratic nomination is not be decided by the pledged delegates, the people, the election process will lose steam and lose its new, young voters.

    Thank you
    Armando in PA.

    March 7, 2008 at 4:15 pm |
  250. Jamal Phx,AZ

    Not really Jack, Obama only has to win PA and it's the end of the road for hillary, now and in between the time for PA primary is a long way to go. Sen. Obama given that much time will Win both Wyoming and Mississippi and the momentum shifts back on for Obama since everyone believes momentum is part of the key. If it does come down to the Superdelegates then Obama is a done for, remember it's not Hillary who will work hard to get the superdelegates her way it's her husband Bill who knows everyone quite well.

    March 7, 2008 at 4:16 pm |
  251. Gigi in Alabama

    Why don't they just throw out these so called super delegates and have that brokered convention. If neither Obama or Clinton can garner enough votes in the first ballot then maybe we can get someone else altogether. I would like to see Al Gore and John Edwards drafted in the convention. I know that is just a pipe dream, but John McCain couldn't beat that combination in 100 years.

    March 7, 2008 at 4:16 pm |
  252. Mari

    The Super Delegates determining the nominee seems inevitable at this point. Yes, they should follow the will of the voters but one has to wonder if the Gen X and Gen Y voters will still be excited by November and actually show up to vote. Wouldn't it be unfortunate if the demographic which propelled a candidate to the party nomination loses interest before the final prize?

    March 7, 2008 at 4:17 pm |
  253. Leffry - Baltimore, MD

    I'm pretty confident that the DNC and the super delegates will get this one right and go along with the decision of the pledged delegates when deciding a nominee. I am more concerned that the DNC and super delegates will allow the Republican party guide them in their choice of the best candidate of the Democratic party.

    March 7, 2008 at 4:17 pm |
  254. J.C. / Destin, FL

    I am 23 years old and I have been a democrat since I first registered to vote over five years ago. I am very active in campaigning and fundraising, and I can tell you that if the campaign with the most pledged delegates does not win the nomination, it will surely leave a sour taste in my mouth. The super delegates have to side with the will of the people.

    March 7, 2008 at 4:18 pm |
  255. Ted Hart

    I am not at all confident that the candidate ahead in pledged delegates will get the nomination. It is clear to me that Hillary Clinton will do anything, say anything, using her insider tricks to get this nomination, even if it means burning the village (democratic party) to the ground to do it.

    March 7, 2008 at 4:18 pm |
  256. Alex Campbell

    Hillary will not give up the nomination, both Florida and Michigan will have their say in who will be the candidate, and she is hoping that these two primaries will give her the delegates that she needs to overtake Obama.
    However if this scenario continues , and Hillary does indeed become the nominee, then it will severly fracture the Demacratic party to the core, and hand the election to the Republicans.

    March 7, 2008 at 4:18 pm |
  257. Andy Laub

    Probably not Jack, it might be so close it won't make a sufficient difference on who wins the nomination, as you mentioned the super delegates will have an impact but if Hillary Clinton continues on this trajectory she may be able to overtake Obama in the popular vote, and when it comes down to everything Clinton has a better argument she has one the most important and biggest states that Democrats need to win and capture the White House and with a possible redue of Florida and Michigan she is in prime position. And in order to mend the divide worst comes to worse Clinton and Obama team up which could draw in the primary voters from both sides and reenhance the Democratic Party's chances in November.

    March 7, 2008 at 4:18 pm |
  258. Evan

    I'm confident that no matter what, Obama will have more pledged delegates than Clinton by the end of the summer. However, I am not confident that Obama will have more popular votes than Clinton. If we get a delegate/popular vote disparity, then we'll be in the same quagmire that we were in 2000, and we all know how that turned out. I'm an Obama supporter, but I think it's high time we got rid of pledged delegates, superdelegates, and the Electoral College, and let the popular will of the people decide.

    March 7, 2008 at 4:18 pm |
  259. James Appleton

    Some Super Delegates are already in defiance of the will of their constituents. The arm twisting and 'insider deals' for which the Clintons owe their past success may cause the Democrats to go against the winner of most delegates. If this happens the next president will not be a democrat.

    March 7, 2008 at 4:18 pm |
  260. Josh.

    If the super delegates decide the nomination, we may as well have not bothered with the entire democratic primary process.

    I understand the role of the super delegate, but these people have two votes, and more power over the entire election process than you or I, that seems to contradict the spirit of democracy.

    – josh.

    March 7, 2008 at 4:18 pm |
  261. Scott from Washington, DC

    I am very confident the superdelegates will ratify the voters' decision because less-than-super Democrats like myself can and will mobilize to give them the boot if they don't.

    March 7, 2008 at 4:18 pm |
  262. stephen simon

    Jack– superdelegates were created for one reason only: to use their independent judgment to choose the most electable person if one candidate got to the convention with a plurality of votes, not a majority. And that will be the case here.

    The superdelegates are going to be looking very closely at the national polls. In August. Not now. Whoever is doing better in the matchup against John McCain at that time should and will be the nominee.

    Stephen Simon
    West Linn, Oregon

    March 7, 2008 at 4:19 pm |
  263. Sandy, Powell, OH

    Unfortunately, since I have been around for some time myself as a voter, I do NOT believe that the candidate with the most pledged delegates will get the nomination. Politics is a dirty game and I think the Clintons have many favors to cash in on due to their length of time in politics. Ultimately that will probably knock Obama out of the candidacy. If that does happen, I am afraid we'll see many young people who will never again believe in the process.

    March 7, 2008 at 4:19 pm |
  264. Yanick,Dom Rep.

    As the word goes...."Democracy", i think the candidate with the most delegate count win the nomination. Ofcourse, if it all boils down to the superdelegates, they should do the right thing even if they have to go against their will, atleast just for the good of the party.

    March 7, 2008 at 4:19 pm |
  265. Robert H

    I just changed my party affiliation from Republican to Democrat so I could vote for Obama. If Superdelegates move to give Sen. Clinton the nomination even though Sen. Obama has won the popular vote, has won more states and has more elected delegates, I'll stay home in November.

    March 7, 2008 at 4:19 pm |
  266. wesley

    This is politics and I don't put alot of faith in the superdelegates. The will of the people should be the deciding factor. But I'm afraid some people will support a candidate because of a past promise or favor. In the end it really doesn't matter I'll still have to work to jobs just to get by. This is the Clinton's and they will do whatever it takes and I don't think they really care about the democratic party. The superdelegates should see the vigor of young people in this race and keep them for a lifetime.

    March 7, 2008 at 4:19 pm |
  267. Randy

    I am not very confident at all. These super delegates are politicians and most politicians have been inherently currupted by special interests. Obama campaigns on the idea that he will put an end to special interest groups in Washington. I think the superdelegates will vote for the candidate most likely to continue "business as usual".
    Assumption, IL

    March 7, 2008 at 4:19 pm |
  268. Ken from Alabama


    I am confident of one thing and one thing only. The DNC better take it to the backroom quickly, they are facing a serious risk of losing half the party. Barack has the delegate lead and they should put him on top and put Hillary as VP and reunify the party now before it is too late.

    March 7, 2008 at 4:19 pm |
  269. Mitch from Ann Arbor, MI

    Jack, I do not think the person who has the pledged delegate lead should "necessarily" be the winner of the nomination. Currently we are uncertain what will happen with both Michigan and Florida, and until that gets figured out, I think we have to give pause to such conversations.

    Personally, I think the Democratic party would be remiss to not find a way to count both Michigan and Florida, but this is the Democratic party and they more often than not can find a way to lose an election.

    Simply due to this rather large "unknown", I would say that we cannot yet determine if the person with the pledged delegate lead should win the nomination. Regardless, I would like to see whomever does not win the nomination become the vice presidential candidate. Ideally that would be Barack Obama because is 8 years he would still be young enough to run for president. Imagine how 16 years of Clinton and Obama would be. Music to my ears.

    March 7, 2008 at 4:20 pm |
  270. John-MO

    I think the Super Delegates must look to the long term health of the party and vote for the candidate that can give the best chance to win in Nov. Right now, and John King pointed out neither candidate will get 2025 delegates without the aid of Super delegates, so no matter what they will decide the election.

    Since Hillary has won CA, NY, MI, FL and Ohio. That gives her good ammo with the Super Delegates to say look I've won the big democratic states and the swing states, that's why I deserve the nomination. Obama has won a lot of red states that will not go for a Democrat no matter what, so while his wins are good, they aren't in Democratic strongholds and shouldn't be given as much weight.

    March 7, 2008 at 4:20 pm |
  271. Josh Van der Ploeg (Ann Arbor, MI)

    Realizing that Obama will likely have more pledged delegates, I am not at all confident that he will get the nomination. I don't think the superdelegates would ever admit that they're "going against the will of the people," but they would probably attempt to invent some formula under which they justify Clinton's nomination (be it Representatives' personal Congressional districts, city support for mayors, etc.). Perhaps if Florida and Michigan do not get their delegates seated, Clinton could also at least use her wins there as yet another justification for more superdelegates (either in superdelegates who come from those states or based on the popular vote including what she received in Florida and Michigan).

    March 7, 2008 at 4:20 pm |
  272. Diane

    Simply, yes. There is no question that in all of her "35 years" of experience, Senator Clinton has not inspired this many Democrats to vote. If she was able to bring out women, working people, older citizen etc, like she claims she is doing, then voter turnout would have shown this during her Senate campaign. Superdelegates will not be tricked with her smoke and mirrors.

    March 7, 2008 at 4:20 pm |
  273. Andrew - Charleston, SC

    I am scared to death that that the person who has the most pledged delegates will NOT get the nomination becuase of this issue of superdelegates. Do i think this will happen .... no, becuase the the last thing the Democratic Party wants to do is to make their voters outraged before a general election against McCain which could cause them to lose the White House...... again.

    March 7, 2008 at 4:21 pm |
  274. Bill Carrier

    Not confident at all. This is so typical of Democrats. Did anyone run the numbers on the probablility of gridlock before they:
    1. Constructed the super delegate system?
    2. Decided to prorate delegates by state rather than make them winner-take-all?
    3. Excluded Michigan and Florida from the process?

    It was inevitable that this thing blow up in their faces. No wonder they have a hard time winning the White House.

    March 7, 2008 at 4:21 pm |
  275. leslie

    I am not at all confident in the electoral process this time around, but then I'm not sure I ever was. It seems to me that the almighty DNC has usurped the voice of the American people repeatedly, and now they are just buying time to see which candidate looks more promising over the next couple of weeks. They'll throw the nomination to whoever emerges as "electable". Which, though pragmatic, is a violation of every principle I hold dear.

    I've been a Hillary supporter overall, but the sad truth is that the Democrats are just Republican Lite. The whole thing just stinks from top to bottom and I'm disgusted enough to vote for Nader.

    March 7, 2008 at 4:21 pm |
  276. Frank

    People want to talk about the rules and the Democratic process. This is what our leaders should consider. First, their mistakes should not dismiss the votes of Michigan and Florida. Second the rules are the Super Delegates have the RIGHT to vote how THEY want. A guy like Tome Dacshle who has promised a Obama job and spreading his FALLASY, that the SUPERS have to follow, is in dirrect contradicition to the SUPER D's Rights. They choose who they believe is best as President. And if they choose Hillary. God Bless America.

    March 7, 2008 at 4:21 pm |
  277. Belinda California

    I believe that pledge delegates should decide the nomination, after all, isn't that what all the voting and holding caucases is about? isn't that what it's always been about? So why change now ? Unless the Demecratic party never wants to get back in the white house, I think the will to do the right thing and follow the voters lead must be done, and will be done.

    March 7, 2008 at 4:21 pm |
  278. John J

    If this goes down to Obama just slightly ahead of Hillary going into the convention. Why is everyone so afraid of a floor fight, isn't that what the convention is supposed to be for?

    John J
    Hackensack NJ

    March 7, 2008 at 4:21 pm |
  279. Bob in King City, CA

    This race is already over. Hillary can't catch Obama in pledged delegates, and that's all that should matter.

    If the superdelegates overturn the will of the people and give Hillary the nomination, the end result will be the destruction of the democratic party. Millions of democrats, myself included, would be in line at the elections office the next morning to switch our party affiliations. Then we'd vote for McCain in November.

    How's that for an endgame?

    March 7, 2008 at 4:22 pm |
  280. Nathan in Germany


    If the Dems reverse a delegate advantage for Obama and give the nomination to Clinton, African American will stay home or even vote for McCain. McCain is not Bush. I have heard many people say they would do this...I have never voted for a republican in my life but I think I would do it as well.

    March 7, 2008 at 4:22 pm |
  281. Jamie in Belleville, MI

    I am not completely confident that if it comes to the decision of the Super Delegates that we will see the will of the voters enforced. It was only yesterday that I witnessed an Ohio senator stating that she will vote for the person who makes the most promises to her, to do things for her state. It seems that the role of Super Delegate is being confused with the role of Senator, in some cases. I think the only way to ensure that the will of the voters is enforced, the people will have to come up with a winner by popular vote. Otherwise, we are at the whim of the powerful and in-control.

    March 7, 2008 at 4:22 pm |
  282. Bettye, Gettysburg, PA


    There is no doubt in my mind that sufficient numbers of Super Delegates will get in line behind the elected delegates because the Democrats like all politicians want to stay in power. I can think of no scenario where the Dems want to see the party implode and thousands walk out of the convention handing the election over to the Republicans.

    March 7, 2008 at 4:23 pm |
  283. Darren P

    I am as confident that the DNC will follow the popular and pledged delegate leader as I am that doing anything else with crush the DNC. I am also as confident that the DNC will follow the pledged and popular delegate leader as I am that they will try to break the rules that were agreed upon and re-do, or re-seat the Michigan/Florida votes.

    March 7, 2008 at 4:23 pm |
  284. Sandra

    Meridian, Mississippi

    Jack, I think that if the process is completed with integrity, then yes, pledged delegates will determine the nominee. I agree that more voters have weighed in than in most recent history and the message should be sent that their voices are heard and their choices do matter. However, if some of those who like to flex their perceived power have any say...then the super delegates will probably be the determining factor.

    March 7, 2008 at 4:23 pm |
  285. Darlene San Jose

    As a VERY Active Democrat I have every confidence in our party that we will have a revote in MI and FL and the trend was Hillary and will be and the Candidate with the most delegates will win. If not and its a tie the SuperDelegates will because its the best thing for us, will decide for Hillary. Barrack is Vice Presidential material so he can SEASON for 8 years then come out less like a Basketball Star-Minister
    and go on to victory for that next 8 year time span. Dems in office for 16 years would build a Very Strong Middle Class and we would be
    admired around the world.

    March 7, 2008 at 4:24 pm |
  286. Nick

    Jack, I am very confident that the winner of the most pledged delegates will be the democratic party's nominee for the general elections. This is because, I believe those super delegates who are currently neutral are doing so to let the electorate decide who the party's nominee will be. I am therefore convinced they will throw their weight behind whoever will emerge with the most pledged delegates at the end of the primaries. The super delegates will not abort the will of electorate by ignoring the "voices" of the people. Already, some super delegates are caving in to the pressure of their constituents to support the candidate of their choice and I don't expect things to change come convention time.


    Silver Spring, MD

    March 7, 2008 at 4:24 pm |
  287. Rick

    If hillary goes on and wins in Pensylnania then the question will be who is most electible and the answer would be Hillay . When you go to a national election the descision is made by who won the most electorial college votes and not the popular votes By that reasoning Hillary has won the states in the primary that have more electorial college votes . If the democrats want to get back the white house then the super delegates should go by that reasoning when picking their canidate .

    March 7, 2008 at 4:50 pm |
  288. Michele Mateo Rusin

    I'm confident that the DNC is not on a suicide mission – therefore they will go with the will of the people. If they don't, there are many voters who will defect form the Democratic Party by voting for McCain, Nader, or not at all.
    Michele in Florida

    March 7, 2008 at 4:51 pm |
  289. Reggie

    If superdelegates decide the democratic nomination for Hillary Clinton. I will not vote in November.

    March 7, 2008 at 6:00 pm |
  290. peter tarpey

    I have a question.
    In michigan and florida didnt the democratic party print the primary ballots? Didn't the party count the votes. Where I live if you print and hand out ballots and then count them.
    That's an election.

    March 7, 2008 at 6:01 pm |