UPDATE: I’m bumping this post up to the top because a few things have changed. Number one, returns in the 8th and the 4th CD moved slightly in Obama’s direction, netting him one more delegate in each. Second, Congressman Tim Walz endorsed Obama today and I also discovered that DNC member Kenneth Foxworth endorsed Obama some time ago (that’s what I get for not reading press releases carefully!) Apologies to Mr. Foxworth.
Total Pledged Delegates
Obama 48
Clinton 24
Total Delegates (includes Superdelegates)
Obama 54
Clinton 27
Uncommitted 7 (though at least two of these should be HEAVILY favored to go to Obama)
The breakdown is after the jump…
Statewide -
Obama 17
Clinton 8
CD 1
Obama 3
Clinton 2
CD 2
Obama 3
Clinton 2
CD 3
Obama 4
Clinton 2
* Obama is very close to picking up a delegate here, we’ll revisit this in the morning and let you know what happened. He did pick up that delegate over night, but he could still lose it with 20% 15% still to come in.
CD 4
Obama 5
Clinton 2
Obama picked up a delegate here throughout the course of the day.
CD 5
Obama 6
Clinton 2
CD 6
Obama 3
Clinton 2
CD 7
Obama 3
Clinton 2
CD 8
Obama 4
Clinton 2
Obama also picked up a delegate here.
Superdelegates
Obama 6 (Oberstar, McCollum, Ellison, Walz, Moua and Foxworth)
Clinton 3 (Mondale, Stevenson and Stafford)
Uncommitted 7 (Klobuchar, Peterson, Melendez, Cassutt, Larson and 2 delegates to be named later)
Those two delegates to be named later are chose by the DFL convention. Since the delegates to the DFL convention will be chosen from caucus goers (and two-thirds of them back Obama), I would be very surprised if they weren’t Obama delegates.
Loading ...
are you basing your breakdown on jsut the statewide numbers or are you breaking thewm down by Congressional District?
Remember, the bulk of the delegates are elected at the CD level based on the percentages in that CD.
Also, Ken Foxworth committed to Obama quite a while ago and Nancy Larson recently shifted from Edwards to Clinton.
Its broken down by CD.
I have confirmed that Nancy Larson is uncommitted. I have not heard anything about Ken Foxworth, but I will try to track that down tomorrow.
Ken Foxwoth is Obama. And, yes Nancy Larson is undecided/uncommitted.
After hearing about the Clinton loan, donations for Obama skyrocketed. He is on track to raise $6 million before midnight tonight. http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/2/6/21551/00927/43/451515
I have a question for you guys who are in the know about your party: Why do Democrats have “Superdelegates” in the first place? What’s up with that??? Shouldn’t the voters in the 50 states be able to pick the candidate instead of Members of Congress, Party Bosses, etc.?
Chris -
Though I agree that Democrats should get rid of the Superdelegate system, let’s not forget that Republicans also have Superdelegates, though far fewer and with less clout.
The Superstar (Tim Walz) has publicly connected his super delegate vote to Obama — even more reason to love him.
Nancy Larson was interviewed by MPR yesterday (2/6) and confirmed that she is not committed.
If only we could get Rick Stafford to change his mind….
Johnny,
Republicans do not have superdelegates. Every delegate is elected at their Congressional District or State level. Some states elect officeholders (ie. Governors, Senators, Congressmen, etc.) as delegates and some do not. But those officeholders are bound to their state’s vote results like all of the other delegates.
Chris,
after 1972 and the horrible defeat suffered by McGovern, the party switched to a larger amount of super-delegates in the hopes that those experienced in government would then be able to guide the party away from making disastrous nominees for the general election. As it is, 80% of the delegates are still elected through primaries and caucuses. While super-delegates might indeed put our candidate over the delegate threshold, they will not be “deciding” our nominee, as most likely someone will have a noticeable lead after all the nominating contests and SDs will fall in line with that.
The reason there is a caucus system and Super Delegates is because party leadership wanted more control and less democracy.
I disagree with Kerosene Hat. This is not a conspiracy. There is balance. As Archer says, 80% of the delegates are elected.
Actually, nearly ALL of them are “elected.” It’s just a matter of when. Minnesota’s DNC delegates, Super Delegates in 2008, were elected in 2004. Our Congress people were elected as well. It is their party too.
What would happen if we didn’t have Super Delegates? Congress people and other party dignitaries would be competing with everyone else to be a delegate. Would you like to take on Walter Mondale in a delegate race? Imagine running for delegate against Oberstar on the Iron Range! Good luck! This actually allows for MORE participation by the rank and file.
I am not worried about Super Delegates. This is all going to work out.
Mike,
In the GOP, Members of Congress and the like are given floor passes so they can be at the convention with the delegates and everyone else. They just don’t have a vote unless they are elected as a delegate. I agree with KH that that it certainly appears that the Superdelegates are in place to ensure more control and less democracy. Right now, Hillary and Obama are running pretty even with a pretty decent percentage of the delegates having been elected. If this trend continues, the Superdelegates (party bosses) will decide your candidate and not the people.
A little Minnesota electoral history would show you that I am right about why we have a caucus and super delegates. We had a primary one year in the 50’s and party leadership didn’t get the results they wanted so they switched back to a caucus and upped the number of super delegates. The Democrats are not about democracy as much as they are about winning election despite the will of the people.
I almost hope that Hillary is able to manipulate the system to ensure her nomination. Maybe that would wake up a few of the party faithful as to what they have been supporting. Maybe their heads would explode over supporting the same candidate as Sean Hannity and Ann Coulter.
Does anyone know what’s going on with the counties that haven’t reported results yet? There are a couple of counties on the SOS website that have 0% reporting, and several with less than 100%. Has there been any word on what happened?
I think we need a primary strictly for the Presidential vote, then a caucus that night for party business (this is what they do in Texas, I believe). And having both on a Saturday would be good too….
This term “Party Boss” is just silly. Do you know Rick Stafford? He is a “party boss?” Like I said earlier, at one one point nearly ALL of the super delgates were elected.
This is about party stakeholders. This is about dedicating a minority of the delegate spots to people that are not overly influenced by political fads. Party leaders and elected officials help to guide the party over the long haul, in such a way that will prevent us from making decisons in the present that will hurt us down the road.
The people that are going to share the ticket with the nominee, Congress people, deserve a say in who the nominee is. People like Walter Mondale have earned a right to get a vote at every DNC until they die.
By the way, I am an Obama supporter. And I am confident that this will all work out. Many of these Hillary super delegates pledged to support her when they assumed she would be the nominee. There is influence to be gained by getting on board early. These folks rolled the dice, thinking the odds were good, and appear to have lost. They are free to change their mind. In fact, we have already seen some movement within our Minnesota Super Delegates.
Super delegates, particularly those from states where Obama attained huge margins on Tuesday, will very likley support Obama. Everyone knows Obama is not George McGovern. In fact, when comapring our options, the powers that be within the Democratic party are much more optimistic about Obama’s chances to win in November and what his nomination will do for the future of the party brand.
Congress people and party leaders got behind Hillary early as a show of support for an old friend. And they were afraid of the wrath of the Clintons if she were to be elected and they failed to support her early. If her election looks unlikely, as it now does, that support will quickly desintigrate.
This will all work out. Would putting some gentle pressure on some folks help our cause? Perhaps.
I guess the GOP system is better where Dick Cheney makes a phone call to poor old Minnesota to decide who was running for Senate on the GOP ticket in 2002.
I agree with Mike that it is going to work out. The majority of Super Delegates have yet to endorse because they don’t want to be the deciding factor. They’ll go to whoever has the lead after all the contests are done. Or they’ll do like Walz and support the decision of their constituents and support the same candidate. Both are very viable. I would also say that a number of Clinton Super Delegates signed on when it seemed like there was no way she could lose, and might easily switch over if Obama opens up a 100 delegate lead. I really think it is going to need to be closer than 50 pledged delegates to have supers decide it.
While it was a very long post, I think Mike is right on. The Super Delegate deal is a solution looking for a problem. The rules are the rules.
Seems like the real issue is whether we should have a binding presidential primary. Having been on the “inside” enough to see a number of party “officials” (Mr. Stafford, et al) and how they operate up close, I want the binding primary as do a clear majority of state DFL’ers. The reality is that these party officials are more interested in protecting their power than winning general elections. Just ask Governor Moe, Senator Jerry J. from ‘da Range and countless others. The reality is that DFL party officials are incapable of understanding the difference between promoting their own self interests and the greater good of electing Democrats. We already have statewide binding primaries for statewide and federal offices. There’s no reason to not have the same for Democratic delegates to the national nominating convention. Let’s do the right thang.
I guess I don’t mind if Klobuchar and the members of congress get to be delegates. But who the fuck is Rick Stafford, and why is his opinion as important as thousands of caucus attendees combined? I guess I missed his election as a superdelegate in 2004.
Chris - Super delegates were initiated in 1987 for the 1988 presidential contest. Prior to this there were no super delegates. I served as a DNC member from 1984-1988, and I, along with the entire DNC delegation, voted “NO” to adding super delegates. All but 80 of the super delegates are elected representatives of their states in some fashion. They are Members of Congress, elected by a much larger base of Democrats and Indpedents (and a few Republicans) than come out to a primary or caucus; they are DNC members who are apportioned to state Democratic Parties based on the vote for the Democratic Presidential candidate in the previous election and most are elected by their state Party’s Democratic convention. Since the inception of the super delegates, at every convention the nominee was know well before the national convention and every super delegate voted for the presumptive nominee. This year might prove the exception, but I seriously hope (and believe) this will not be the case. Because I don’t think anyone wins with that scenario!
Kerosene Hat - Get you facts straight. Yes, the party bosses, Sen. Hubert Humnphrey and others didn’t like the outcome of a presidential primary in 1956 so they went back to caucuses to determine the allocation of delegates.
But, there was NO “upping” of super delegates. Super delegates did not come about until 1988.
General Comment - I have several numerous emails from MN Obama supporters requesting (some demanding) that I switch my support from HRC to Obama based on the results of the MN caucus presidential vote. Two observations: If the super delegates should reflect the caucus vote, then MN’s super delegates should be both Obama and Clinton supporters — which they are. If as some believe that all super delegates should vote for the victor in their home, the Obama folks will not be happy! Doing some quick math awarding all super delegates in respective states that each candidate won, Obama would get 170 super delegates and Clinton would get 266! About the spread that the AP is reporting now, interesting huh?
Archer Dem - You stated, “a numer of Clinton super delegates signed on when it seemed like she couldn’t lose”. Don’t count me in that camp, I was torn between two candidates that I wanted to support. In the end it came down to HRC for me — primarily because of her ability to really get change; leadership; a quck, but reasoned exit of the Bush Iraq War; the economy; electability; and, most importantly, health care (the one who can get us the fastest to a universal health care system).
Casual Observer - You post, “seems like the real issue is whether we should have a binding presidential primary….I want the binding primary”. In a sense we have a binding primary, in that the caucus vote is binding. And it was this party boss that was responsible for getting a binding allocation vote in 2000 — prior years it was a beauty contest. Yes, in my early years of party activism I have supported a caucus system in presidential caucus years versus a full-fledged binding primary. But, again. this party boss has tried unsuccesfuly since 1992 to get a presidential primary that you say you want. But, legislators don’t want to spend the money; and, yes, the party activists in the past have been resistant to support it for a variety of reasons. We will try again this legislative session. I want to say that I don’t want to get rid of caucuses. I want a blend of the caucuses along with a presidential primary. Also, you should know I am the party boss who was the author and leading proponent to move the caucus date to Feb. 5 contrary to state law so that Minnesotans could have a meaingful voice in selecting our nominee (tried in 2004 also but failed). After getting the DFL Party to agree, I worked hard to get the Repubs to join us.
Finally, you post, “The reality is that DFL party officials are incapable of understanding the difference between promoting their own self interests and the greater good of electing Democrats.” Since I specifically have been mentioned by name, I need some guidance. I always chuckle when “self interests/greater good” are thrown about. First, what is you definition of self interests and greater good of electing Democrats? I’m glad that my self interest was working hard for something that saw over 220,000 Minnesota come out to particiate in our caucuses, which might translate into the greater good of electing Democrats!!!!!!!
Rick, if Obama wins more delegate without counting Super Delegates and Clinton is nominated thru the Super Delegates, good luck. It will be known as the “stolen election”. People who came out for Obama will stay home.
I know responding to some posts starts the ever-back an forth. We all feel passionately about the candidate we support. We should.
But I have found in this super delegate debate many who think the DNC nominating rules should be upheld in regards to Florida and Michigan and the 2 million plus voters who participated get no representation are the same folks that don’t want to use the rules that were in place regarding super delegates. I have a solution, let’s count all the votes and let Florida and Michigan award their delegates based on their primaries and don’t let the super delegates vote. Oh, know, we can’t let that happen because Clinton would be ahead then too.
Let’s just keep the rhetoric down. It is my assumption after Saturday and the 19th, Obama will be ahead and it will boil down to what happens March 4 in Ohio and Texas, two states with huge nunmber of delegates. If Obama is still ahead after March 4, he will most likey be our presumptive nominee. If Clinton wins, I think the same will apply.
I believe it would be safe to assume that Nancy Larson, a Minnesota DNC Member and Superdelegate, will endorse whoever John Edwards chooses to endorse. http://www.johnedwards.com/news/press-releases/20070717-women-leaders/
Rick,
You are right that I was mistaken about the increase in the number of super delegates but you confirmed the main point of my post. That is that our current system has been designed to reduce democracy in favor of leadership control. The most troubling part of this is given that we are in a de facto two party system it means who ends up in office really isn’t a democratic choice of any sort.
Since the two major parties have written themselves into legally impenetrable positions I think maybe we should tax each party to pay for their own primary. A primary that can be verified by non-partisan officials and conform to state law. Those that support the two major parties can shoulder the costs associated with their dominance of power.
Rick, thanks for all your work to move up Minnesota primary / caucus from late March to early February.
The funny thing is that now that since Super Tuesday was a virtual tie it is going to be the next states that make the difference. The states that didn’t move their primaries or caucuses and have yet to vote will get more attention as any one of them could make the difference in who gets the nomination.
kh, you keep speaking of the parties as if they were seperate from the whole “us”. The superdelegates are not aliens unaccountable for their decisions.
The parties are separate from us Richard. A majority of the population does not belong to a party and with the approval ratings of both congress and the president in the toilet I doubt if that fact will change any time soon. The fact that it is likely that neither the presidential or senate nominee will be picked through a democratic process is only further evidence that the parties are not accountable to the people. And the idea that people should be forced to join a party to have a say is ridiculous. Simply because the two parties have taken power doesn’t give them any moral authority to wield it at the expense of the population.
The superdelegates are in many ways alien and unaccountable and that is why the parties have them. They are people that have been vetted by the parties to ensure their loyalty. It is also either impossible or highly unlikely that any of them would see an consequences to their choice. If Tim Waltz had decided to support Hillary I doubt if it would have an affect on his next campaign.
The superdelegates are only part of the problem for Democrats at this point. Florida and Michigan are much bigger issues. They either have to disenfranchise two large populations of citizens or allow Hillary to win the nomination after changing the rules part way through the process.
The parties are in no way democracies and since we are forced to pick between the candidates they provide our country is not a democracy.
Rick,
“Doing some quick math awarding all super delegates in respective states that each candidate won, Obama would get 170 super delegates and Clinton would get 266! About the spread that the AP is reporting now, interesting huh?”
Delegates in the Democratic party are awarded proportionally, not via winner-take-all.
Would you consider it appropriate if 2/3 of the state’s vote went to Obama, 2/3 of the pledged delegates went to Obama, and yet 1/2 of the superdelegates went to Clinton?
I think we need to look at anonymity in both the caucus and convention system. As a delegate to the state convention in 2004, it was clear that through the “stand up to vote” method, any vote could be manipulated by the union leaders. The unions do a great job of representing their importance to the party by wearing their respective colors. But it was clear to me that they voted in a block in most cases, and with the numbers they have, that could decide each vote.
Let’s make the system truly representative of the individuals and utilize technology to allow for efficient and secret ballots.
I’m not in any way suggesting that the unions shouldn’t be represented, but as a non-union member, I can tell you that I felt pressured to stand by the table of union shirts I sat with, and I spoke with others who felt the same.
Rick Stafford has posted here, but I still want to know who the fuck is Rick Stafford. Again, I would understand giving elected Democrats superdelegate votes, but why give them to the party hacks? Why does this jerkoff have the same input as Tim Walz or Keith Ellison?
Erik,
I was just responding to a suggestion that all MN superdelegates should go to Obama since he won the vote and took it to the extreme that if we followed that case, it should apply to all states.
I do not believe it woudl be appropriate that if 2/3 of the state’s votes and pledged delegates went to Obama that 1/2 or more of the super delegates should vote for Clinton.
Sometimes in this super delegate debate, one side seems to only agrue for a particular method of super delegate support when it works to their advantage. In MN, since we have 14 super delegates the 2/3rds/1/3rd split would proportional work out to 9 for Obama and 5 for Clinton. The current split of those publicly expressing candidate support finds that Obama 6, Clinton 3, Undecided 5 (although I have information that one undecided will be delcaring for Obama this week).
So, if all the remaining undecideds declare for Obama, is it fair to the Clinton MN voters that 79% of the superdelegates voted for Obama?? This is exactly what Obama says is unfair in many of the states that have a big number of super delegates, i.e., New York, California, New Jersey.
Again, it is my belief and hope, that after March 9 when VA, DC, MD, OH, TX, WI and couple other smaller states, that one of two candidates will have undisbutlable momentum as the presumption nominee. Then, you will see most superdelgates going to that individual, even those who have publicly supported another individual. If we don’t we all are, whether you in the Obama camp or the Clinton camp, have a big problem!!! If it goes to the remaing states that have contest in April and May, the Republicans are going to be a united front making hay of our unresolved party contest. Plus, I think will only further fuel the tension between varous parts of the Democratic family. This super delegate debate is a prime example!
I will be a Democrat that will be working my butt off for a November victory, even if it isn’t my Number 1 choice!!!
And what happens if we don’t have a clear winner? What if Obama is ahead in delegates won though primaries and caucuses, but the superdelegates as pledged now put Clinton over the top. Rick, are you going to switch your vote then? Your answer is really a cop-out, because it only matters if it is going to be close.
There are six superdelegates from the Democratic elected officials, four of whom are supporting Obama (Ellison, McCollum, Oberstar and Walz) and two undecided (Klobuchar, Peterson). Walter Mondale gets a superdelegate, and he is supporting Clinton.
There are seven people who are not elected officals and not Walter Mondale. Three of them (Stafford, Jackie Stevenson, and Buck Humphrey) are supporting Clinton, one (Ken Foxworth) supporting Obama, one (Nancy Larson) is supporting Edwards.
Unless that has changed, I count the numbers as Obama 5, Clinton 4, and Edwards 1. Obama’s support among the elected officials is offset but Clinton’s support from the party hacks. Why does Buck Humphrey’s support count as much as Jim Oberstar’s? What an absolute joke.
If Clinton wins by winning the most elected delegates, I will happily support her. If she wins by cheating (counting the Florida and Michigan races) and by the support of people like Buck Humphrey, I’ll probably stay home and a lot of other people will too.
Dan - “If Clinton wins by winning the most elected delegates, I will happily support her. If she wins by cheating (counting the Florida and Michigan races) and by the support of people like Buck Humphrey, I’ll probably stay home and a lot of other people will too”
I have heard this over and over in recent gatherings. If the person with the largest elected count does not get the nomination, then it will destroy the party and of course any chances of winning.
The fact will remain whether Hillary wins by gaming the system or not. The two major parties, who control all viable general election candidates, are not democratic in nature. Both the caucus system and the superdelegates are in place for party leadership to maintain control over the electorate.
If they were more interested in democracy than maintaining their power positions they would spend the money to have a primary and let the people pick the candidate without interference. Each party could easily put a small “tax” on their candidates campaign spending and pay for their primaries themselves. Instead they play up fake excuses about how they can’t seem to find support to force tax payers outside their party to pay the bill.
Hopefully this election cycle has opened the eyes of party supporters to how their parties are run. The real hope for us is that we discard the pseudo-democratic two party system and truly kick the bums out rather than simply replace one bum with another.
Just heard Tom Delay mention Pawlenty as a potential VP pick. What Delay is doing on Stephenopolis, I have no idea. How and why he’s not in jail, I have no idea, but anyway. The two party system means we will have elected represenitives that have gotten at least 50% of the votes. Third and fourth and fifth and sixth party choices are great but without something like Instant Runoff Ballots, we could have a candidate win with 30% of the vote. KH, the parties are us. They are a direct reflection of the cumulative attitude and the collection of views in the United States. Are we a wasteful, often lazy, bellicose society? Absolutely. If you look at the parties, you will find exactly the same thing. You can’t improve the parties without first improving society. A third party can only reflect the attitudes of it’s members. The same rule applies whether it’s a two party system or a 10 party system. Start your own Kerosene party. Issue a party manifesto. Develop a party platform. See how that goes.
Just heard Elenor mention Pawlenty as the pick for McCain’s VP pick. Do you think the bridge will get mentioned if that ends up to being the case? Will Minnesota go for McCain if Pawlenty is on the ticket?
Forgot to mention, MacLaughlin group.
The two major parties have the power to right law and have used that power to disenfranchise those who disagree with them. The parties are not “us” that is the point. Democrats and Republicans have the power to rig the game and they have done so with great affect. The fact that neither is democratic and means that they do not even represent the people who belong to the party but instead are greatly manipulated to please their respective leadership.
The fact that the candidates that win the election have the greatest percentage of votes, often not 50%, is meaningless if those candidates must first be vetted by one party or the other. We are given a false choice so what we pick is of little consequence. A candidate that supported proportional representation, run-off voting and truly open ballot access would not be allowed to run for either party. The parties are the authority and the problem, without question.
If we actually had rules that allowed representation of the population joining or starting a party that represented my ideas would be worth the time and energy. But until the supporters of the two major parties admit that their allegiance is part of the problem it would be in vain.
You may wonder why Delay isn’t in jail but a bigger question is why the equally criminal Hillary is neck and neck for the Democratic nomination.
I do think Pawlenty would have an affect on turn out but I don’t think it would be enough to push Minnesota into the Republican camp in November. Even if the bridge were mentioned the fact that the Democrats haven’t gotten any traction on the issue with the public at this point makes me doubt it would gain momentum a year later.
You may wonder why Delay isn’t in jail but a bigger question is why the equally criminal Hillary is neck and neck for the Democratic nomination.
Okay, I’m going to need a list of crimes Senator Clinton has been charged with and convicted of before equally criminal means anything. You’ve simply got to get a handle on the illogical, irrational Clinton hatred. Such hatred and bile, I never would’ve expected that of you. You really don’t get this. We are government. We are responsible for the system. By saying things are too screwed up for you to have any effect is tantamount to giving up. If that’s your choice, great. But honestly, quit your bitching.
Richard,
We are only responsible if we are given the power through representation. As I have point out that is not currently the case. The government would “be us” if it represented the people that it serves which it in no way does. It represents only a minority percentage of the population that already agrees with one of the two major parties. Those parties have used their power to suppress other voices and restrict access. Government may be in part you, as a loyal Democrat, but that doesn’t make it so for the majority of the population. Those who’s philosophies align more closely to one of the parties are either lucky or have chosen power over expression of their beliefs. Again, if we don’t have a say in how we are governed then “we” are not the government. And I think it is obvious that I haven’t given up, I just know that the first step needed is to find a way to de-institutionalize the two major parties.
As for Hillary’s crimes, being an accomplice to the murders of thousands in Iraq is enough for me. The refusal to release documents and her ties to the communications and financial industries are minor annoyances in comparison. The fact that she belongs to on the parties that decides what is illegal doesn’t mean she isn’t a criminal.
KH-
Hillary took positions a lot of us disagreed with. Thats different from her being a criminal. In fact, for all your talk about he party’s disenfranchising those who disagree with them, you seem to have quite a little list of people who need to be barred from politics…. for the good of democracy, of course!
Party leadership doesn’t care if you disagree with them if you are loyal to the party regardless. What better evidence that they can do whatever they want. The fact that so many continue to support a candidate that is so obviously the antithesis of their supposed values shows how little the will of the people has to do with the direction of their party.
To Democrats credit Obama at least has a chance, no matter how slim, of being open to real reform and change of both government and the party. The Clintons have more than enough history to show that reform and transparent government is nothing in which they are interested.
As complicated and potentially unfair as the existing rules are, we are stuck with them for ‘08. That means MI and FLA delegates should be held out (unless they rerun a caucus), and that superdelegates can vote however they want, or however they end up feeling pressured to vote. What should happen is that the superdelegates who are not elected officials be held accountable for choices that don’t reflect Minnesota DFL caucus goers. The place to hold them accountable is the state convention, which should be dominated by Obama supporters if his precinct delegates work hard to become delegates to the state convention. Obama supporters, and anybody annoyed with Clinton-supporting DNC reps should work to elect new DNC reps this year at the state convention. See http://www.dfl.org/index.asp?Type=B_BASIC&SEC={F9806706-2824-4539-B3C0-CD887BEBAACF}&DE={84EB7581-5A12-41E0-B999-C4EED91CC67E}
for an explanation of the party structure. Rick Stafford et al are not unaccountable party bosses; party rep.s can be changed.
Rick Stafford, Nancy Larson, Ken Foxworth and Jackie Stevenson are all up for election at the June DFL Convention. Ken Foxworth is the only Obama supporter. These are the only super-delegates that the DFL body can do anything about. Those four are the one who really represent us and my suggestion is to get the Obama commitment from them or replace them (they will still go to the convention).
Obama has tapped into something in this state that has been missing since HHH. We can’t ignore it as simply election day politics or accept the math as ‘fair’. 14 super-delegates and the DFL body has control of only four- then those four better reflect that body.
I hear rumblings that the Treasurer is going to run to be a DNC rep (super-delegate), he’s an Obama guy. I’m sure their are women out there who are pro-Obama that would love to take Jackie’s and Nancy’s place too. They count on the energy to disappear so that business as usual can take place.
Brian and Donna aren’t up for election for another year. I would suggest taking a page out of the Clinton handbook and exercising control in few places we (DFL regular schmoes) have it.
Rick can take credit for the wonderful things he’s been publicly in front of but, he’s been the number one behind the scenes operative over the last 30 years. I know he’s been friends with the Clintons and Terry MaCuliff for almost 20 years (it shows) but, to even attempt to bring the Michigan and Florida thing up shows what they are about. Winning at any cost. Rick, you were there, did you vote to support the Chairman’s decision to set these dates and any state who violates this will not have their delegates seated? Yes you did. Now that your candidate is in trouble, you can’t very well defend your vote can you?
How many of the Hillary super-delegates went along with the change of dates plan put forth by the Chair to only remain silent or opposed to the decision now?
How much to you want to bet these people all get re-elected. A lot of the delegates are going to be the same party hacks that put these people there in the first place.
When is Buck Humphrey up?
” And I think it is obvious that I haven’t given up, I just know that the first step needed is to find a way to de-institutionalize the two major parties.”
OK, I’m listening. You got a plan, or is that just a rant?
Buck is not a super-delegate.
http://www.minnesotamonitor.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=3034
“Of the 14 superdelegates from Minnesota, six have not endorsed a presidential candidate: Sen. Amy Klobuchar, Reps. Tim Walz and Collin Peterson, DFL Chair Brian Melendez, DFL Vice Chair Donna Cassutt and Democratic National Committeeman Ken Foxworth.
Four have endorsed Sen. Hillary Clinton: Mondale and Democratic National Committee members Jackie Stevenson, Rick Stafford and Hubert “Buck” Humphrey.
Two have endorsed Sen. Barack Obama: Reps. Keith Ellison and Betty McCollum, and two have endorsed John Edwards: Rep. Jim Oberstar and Democratic National Committee member Nancy Larson”
Who are the superdelegates then?
I believe that MN Monitor article is wrong. Shocking, I know.
How do we find out who they are? Is Rick Stafford around? Can he tell us who his secret brethren are?
Yes. My Minnesota Monitor article was incorrect in stating that Buck was a superdelegate. Thank you for the snark, Mike.
I was going by the only authoritative source on the issue I know of: Dem Con Watch
As far as I know, Sen. Mee Moua is the missing superdelegate and my post has been updated to reflect that change. It was also written a month ago.
An error corrected once contradictory information is presented? Shocking, I know.
I had a very hard time figuring out who these people were, which is part of the reason this is so frustrating. The MM article was the only source I could find that listed all the Minnesota delegates.
I feel a lot better about Moua, who is actually elected, than Buck. I see that Moua is endorsing Obama, which is even better.
Hey Stafford, check this out:
“Several Clinton superdelegates, whose votes could help decide the nomination, also said Monday that they were wavering in the face of Mr. Obama’s momentum after victories in Washington, Nebraska, Louisiana and Maine last weekend. Some of them said that they, like the hundreds of uncommitted superdelegates still at stake, may ultimately “go with the flow,” in the words of one, and support the candidate who appears to show the most strength in the primaries to come.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/12/us/politics/12clinton.html?_r=2&hp&oref=slogin&oref=slogin
I know that probably means no stay in the Lincoln bedroom, but I think it is more along the lines of what superdelegates are supposed to do.
Obama won the majority of delegates in this state. I think our super delegates need to honor our wishes. If they vote for Clinton that I will have lost all faith in the political process. Besides, a vote for Clinton is essentially a vote for McCain. The republicans know they can beat Clinton. Don’t the super delegates realize that republicans are voting for Clinton in the primaries so they can get McCain elected??? And they call themselves “super”???