Despite the results of Johnny Camacho’s poll, the AP reports that undecided superdelegates are not going to be swayed by the popular vote.
Most of the more than 100 undecided superdelegates who discussed their decision-making with The Associated Press in the past two weeks agreed that the primaries and caucuses do matter — whether it’s who has the most national delegates or the candidate who won their state or congressional district. But few said the primaries will be the biggest factor in their decision.
“I think it’s really important that we keep our eye on the prize, and the prize is the win in November,” said Gail Rasmussen, an undecided superdelegate from Oregon.
Yep, it’s all about winning. As it should be.
UPDATE: Take a look at these electoral maps. If the election were held today, Clinton would beat McCain, while Obama would basically tie him. h/t Howling Latina
VIVIAN J. PAIGE | All Politics is Local 
Vivian,
Let’s say Obama ends the primaries with the lead in pledged delegates, but not enough to win, and popular vote.
Do you think it would be politically possible for the superdelegates to pick the other candidate without doing damage to the party in the fall ?
Frankly, I don’t see how it couldn’t hurt.
Neither Obama nor Clinton can win enough delegates to get to the magic number, so this nomination is already in the hands of the SDs. The popular vote selects the pledged delegates so that has already been considered in the numbers (even though no one really knows what the real “popular vote” is).
No matter what the SDs do, folks are going to claim it will hurt the party. But it will be a temporary thing. As I posted the other day, Democrats will come together after this mess.
I just want the SDs to do the job as it was laid before them and not change the rules. Everyone knew the rules beforehand, including the candidates and the voters.
vivian,
I hope you do not agree with the other quoted superdelegate in that article that says “the way the system is set up,the superdelegates are able to weigh in because we are the most experienced in our party. We are the ones who have been part of the party the longest and keep it running on a day to day basis”. This superdelegate, Blake Johnson from Alaska needs to get out of the cold. The statement reeks of complete arrogance by the superdelegate, completely forgetting that most superdelegates on a day to day basis do absoulutely nothing to keep our Democratic Party going, nor do they go door to dor during the campaign season, nor do they recruit volunteers, nor do they canvass. The real superdelegates are the grass root people, that are unpaid volunteers. they are also the ones that keep the party going and are usually far more experienced than the superdelegates. As I have said previously- the superdelegates should not have the right to vote twice.
Gene — why do you think you should have the right to vote for the Party’s candidate at all? Go form your own political party, and then you can make up your own rules.
Gene – just how many SDs do you know? I’m truly curious because the ones I know are just as hardworking as the rest of us. Yes, they go door to door, recruit volunteers and canvass. They even phone bank!
I can’t believe you made such a statement.
As for voting twice – don’t all the delegates essentially get to do that?
What are the chances neither candidate secures the 2025 required? One needs to win 55% of the seated delegates (4048 – 368 ) since the the Democratic Party is inconceivably choosing to disenfranchise the voters of 2 pivotal and major swing states. (Fl’s 211 and Mi’s 157).
Also, Clinton is currently ahead in primary votes, 13.4 mil versus 13.2 mil. and will add to that overall total in the upcoming contests. I defer to Vivian’s excellent posts to the undemocratic and discriminatory nature of caucuses versus primaries. Prima facie evidence in this cycle is Texas and Washington where both were conducted with very differing results.
That smiley face was supposed to be an 8, as in 368 missing delegates. The close bracket turned it into an emoticon!
I fixed it.
And did I understand that Clinton won the popular vote in TX but due to the 2-step, actually wound up with fewer delegates?
Right you are and read it an weep (HRC supporters)
Washington Caucus results Obama 21,629 or 68% Clinton 9992 or 31%
Washington Primary results Obama 353563 or 51% Clinton 315222 or 46%
Obama receives 53 delegates and Clinton 25 so which is more democratic?
Texas primary results Obama 1,358,785 or 47% Clinton 1,459,814 or 51%
Texas Caucus results Obama 23,918 or 56% Cliinton 18,620 or 44%
Obama receives 99 delegates and Clinton receives 94.
Also, save your pious “those are the rules” pablum. I acknowledge that but honesty on anyone’s part agrees that caucuses are unfair, undemocratic and unrepresentative of “the will of the people” that Obama supports shout from the rooftops.
We have already established that the Democratic Party nomination process is not democratic. We’ll see how many people care enough to change the rules before the next election cycle, and how many just like to complain.
Oh, I’m with you there. It’s been evident since TexOhio, if not sooner, that neither candidate was going to win based on pledged delegates alone, and that would be true even if delegates from Florida and Michigan were somehow included, which it now looks like they won’t be.
As a relative outside, though, it seems to me that the superdelegates are going to find themselves between a rock and a hard place. If they go with the candidate who has won the most primaries, pledged delegates, and popular votes — likely to be Obama — then they will face accusations that they doomed the party’s chances in November but only if Obama actually loses. Meaning that whatever blowback they feel won’t happen till after November, for the most part.
If they go against what many will see as the popularly expressed “will of the party” the problem will be more immediate. There will be unhappy delegates at the convention and, most likely, unhappy protesters on the streets of Denver. Under those circumstances, with a sizeable portion of the party’s base alienated, then they might just doom their chances in November anyway even if a credible case could be made that Hillary is the more “electable” candidate.
If the supers put Clinton ahead of Obama, there will be rioting. Chicago, L.A., Detriot, etc., will burn.
I think Clinton will win the total primary vote by a half a million when it is all said and done. She is up 200K going into PA.
Anyway, reposing my question, if FL and MI are not seated, what are the chances of nether candidate achieving the 2025 total? Just askin’
Vivian,
Well put on me with your remarks. however it seems to me that Anon E. Mouse when whoever it is questioned why I should get to vote for a Democrat. Anon E. Mouse I can think of over 1 million reasons I get to vote for a democratic candidate. that being the amount of money recently donated in the last election cycle to Democratic candidates in our state by the unions. Lest not forget the walking , canvassing, leafletting and other campaign stuff I dd for the candidates in the area. Vivian, I opened myself up for that one from you however if you tally the hours for candidates versus grassroot volunteers I know which ine would win. I simply hate that the grassroot people always are overlooked in lieu of those that supposedly are the speakers for the party. You know I know plenty of the superdelegate and when I see you again I will gladly name a few starting with Kaine, Mcclellan, Cranwell,Susan, Bobby Scott, oh well you get the picture.