Superdelegates predict quick primary end

Politico ^ | 6/2/08 | AMIE PARNES & CHARLES MAHTESIAN

[Dawnsblood]

As the Democratic nomination marathon neared a potential finish line, key senators said the results of Tuesday’s South Dakota and Montana primaries will have a domino effect on uncommitted superdelegates – quite possibly clinching the nomination for Barack Obama.

“We want this locked up sooner rather than later,” said Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa), who has remained undeclared. “Let’s have the nominee and let’s move on. That’s the common thread among the uncommitted superdelegates. … I will be ready after tomorrow night.”

With only 31 total pledged delegates at stake in the two states, Obama cannot win enough in the final two primaries to reach the 2,118 necessary to clinch the nomination. But Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.), one of Obama’s strongest Senate supporters, said that she had spoken to enough uncommitted superdelegates around the country Monday to determine that he will reach the threshold necessary to claim the Democratic nomination by the end of Tuesday evening.

“I think tomorrow will be a very big day. I’ve spoken to 10 uncommitteds, and they’ve said yes, they’ll be committing [to Obama], and they’ll be committing sometime tomorrow. “

The magic number has “been shrinking so quickly,” McCaskill said.

Eight superdelegates announced their choices Monday— six for Obama and two for Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y.). In addition, House Majority Whip James Clyburn (D-S.C.) confirmed that he will endorse Obama on Tuesday.

A group of 15 uncommitted Senate superdelegates met on Capitol Hill Monday to discuss how to proceed on making their endorsements.

“It was a dialogue about how people are feeling,” said Sen. Ken Salazar (D-Colo.), who noted that no decisions were made at the meeting Monday. “For me, it’s who I think can win this thing in November.”

[infowarrior]

The prospect of nominating Obama seems to evoke a neurotic reaction from the superdelegates.

Indeed... Which begs the question, why?

the infowarrior

[Carry_Okie]

It looks like Hillary is going to be President, thanks to Rush Limbaugh.

[CharacterCounts]

It looks like Hillary is going to be President, thanks to Rush Limbaugh.

So, the Repblican candidate would have no responsibility?

Candidates, not talk show hosts, lose elections.

[2nd Bn, 11th Mar]

I think you may be right, unfortunately.
My opinion from the git-go was that Operation Chaos would let the PIAPS win the nomination. When you let an enemy survive after having them whipped, you are asking for trouble.

Rush has made a large error and will suffer huge consequences, I’m afraid.

[shaft29]

Even if the Hildabeast concedes Wednesday it ain’t gonna be over. Bank on it.

Rubbish.

[shaft29]

Post of the day!

Rubbish

[Carry_Okie]

If you will recall, it was Hillary's early crossovers to the Republican race that brought McCain out of the pack, thus ridding the RINOs of the conservatives. That was what gave the Obamanation his early mo. It has very nearly cost her the nomination but you have to give her credit for chutzpah.

Voting for a weak opponent is a morally despicable practice, one that may well cost us dearly.

[Ann Archy]

The Nominatrix thought it would be over in February! Hubris will get you every time, Hilly.

[Tea in the Harbor]

>The prospect of nominating Obama seems to evoke a
>neurotic reaction from the superdelegates.

>>Indeed... Which begs the question, why?

I can venture a guess. Because he has the most liberal voting record in the Senate. Because he's already received the Kerry, Dukakis and McGovern endorsements. Because his ability to think on his feet is startlingly bad. Because the contrast between a veteran of six years in the Hanoi Hilton and a frail, chain-smoking objector who thinks Arabic is the principal language spoken in Afghanistan is too much for independent voters. And yet...he has one striking point in his favor, from their point of view: he's not Hillary.