Those Superdelegates

It seems that there are now three potential eventualities as the Democratic race goes on. First, Obama can build big momentum over this month and score a net gain in delegates between Ohio, Texas, and Pennsylvania. In theory, he can build a substantial lead in pledged delegates and even overtake Clinton's superdelegates. At that point, the remaining unpledged superdelegates would begin to flock to Obama and the race would be over around April. At the other extreme, Clinton wants to sustain a series of close losses this month before scoring big wins in Ohio and Texas. If Obama wants to hang around until Pennsylvania, she'd aim to knock him out there and ... the story about superdelegates but for Clinton.

A third scenario, perhaps the most likely, entails a long and super-close second half of the primary campaign. Whether in pledged or total delegates - whichever the media and the remaining superdelegates choose to care about - the race would leave Pennsylvania still too close to call. At that point, the superdelegates will have to come up with some rationale for choosing between the two. Some superdelegates, like Rep. Adam Smith (WA-9), argue that they should simply vote for the leader in pledged delegates. The obvious problem with that plan, is that, under this super-close scenario, we may have to wait until at least May 20th before the final pledged delegate leader is determined (the ultimate super-close race scenario would go all the way until Montana and South Dakota on June 3rd). I find it unlikely that most superdelegates would be willing to wait that long to choose a nominee. For the superdelegates to choose based on the pledged delegates counts, either of the first two scenarios (above) would have to work out.

A more workable system involves the currently un-"pledged" superdelegates to pledge their support to the winner of their state or, perhaps in the case of congressmen, their district. This plan has been proposed by Sen. Barbara Boxer and Maine Democratic Party Chairman John Knutson. That plan seems easy enough, but there are still some difficulties. Should Ted Kennedy, John Kerry, and Janet Napolitano be obligated to vote for Clinton, even though they declared their preferences at some point before their states voted? What about a more complex problem, like that facing Harry Mitchell: should he go with his state (which voted for Clinton) or his district (which voted for Obama)? In this case I'm biased, of course, but it seems like congressmen ought to vote the way their constituents did, especially since the delegate selection rules are oriented around congressional districts, anyway. Still, the case isn't exactly clear cut (i.e., some could argue that state superdelegations should be unanimous). At the very least, the question is ambiguous enough that a congressman could justify voting either way.

The most likely informal deal would probably be as follows: superdelegates that endorse before their states vote would be allowed to keep their allegiances (but would be pressured to switch if their state or district goes the other way); other statewide superdelegates would agree to vote for the winner in their respective states; representatives whose districts split from their states and others with ambiguous constituencies would feel free to vote whichever way they want.

Let's see how the currently unpledged superdelegates would break down under that scenario (conflicted representatives counted with their state winners b/c of the difficulty in identifying them):

Obama (98)
Alaska - 4
Alabama - 6
Colorado - 8
Connecticut - 6
Delaware - 5
Georgia - 10
Idaho - 3
Illinois - 13
Iowa - 8
Kansas - 6
Minnesota - 7
Missouri - 9
North Dakota - 4
South Carolina - 6
Utah - 3

Clinton (105)
Arizona - 5
Arkansas - 3
California - 37
Massachusetts - 15
Nevada - 5
New Hampshire - 3
New Jersey - 7
New York - 11
Oklahoma - 7
Tennessee - 12

New Mexico - 8 ???????

So, pretty even at this point, but state victories could take on new levels of importance from now on.

Super Standings

I was waiting for New Mexico's results to finalize before posting the pool standings. Well, it looks like I'll be waiting for a while, so I'll just do it now. These standings are unofficial. I'll double-check them after New Mexico comes in.

Joel 468 (Super Tuesday - 280)
JJ 419.5 (257)
Geoff 409 (293)
Devin 369.5 (191)
Joaquin 363 (278)
Matt 245.5 (131)

New Mexico is worth 10 points. Geoff, Matt, and I have Obama. Devin, JJ, and Joaquin have Clinton.

Super Tuesday Picks

Joel
Clinton - California, Massachusetts, New Jersey, Missouri, Arizona, Delaware
Obama - Alabama, Connecticut, Utah, Minnesota, Colorado, Kansas, New Mexico, Alaska
McCain - California, Missouri, Tennessee, Alabama, Oklahoma, North Dakota, Delaware
Romney - Georgia, Alaska, West Virginia, Montana

Devin
Clinton - Massachusetts, New Jersey, Alabama, Arizona, Delaware, Minnesota, Kansas, New Mexico, Alaska
Obama - California, Missouri, Connecticut, Utah, Colorado
McCain - California, Georgia, Missouri, Tennessee, Alabama, Alaska, Delaware
Romney - Oklahoma, North Dakota, West Virginia, Montana

JJ
Clinton - Massachusetts, New Jersey, Arizona, Delaware, New Mexico, Alaska
Obama - California, Missouri, Alabama, Connecticut, Utah, Minnesota, Colorado, Kansas
McCain - California, Georgia, Missouri, Tennessee, Alabama, Oklahoma, Delaware
Romney - Alaska, North Dakota, West Virginia, Montana

Geoff
Clinton - California, Massachusetts, New Jersey, Arizona, Delaware
Obama - Missouri, Alabama, Connecticut, Utah, Minnesota, Colorado, Kansas, New Mexico, Alaska
McCain - California, Georgia, Tennessee, Oklahoma, Alaska, West Virginia, Delaware
Romney - Missouri, North Dakota, Montana
Huckabee - Alabama

Matt
Clinton - Massachusetts, New Jersey, Minnesota, Kansas, Alaska
Obama - California, Missouri, Alabama, Arizona, Connecticut, Delaware, Utah, Colorado, New Mexico
McCain - Alabama, Oklahoma, Alaska, North Dakota, West Virginia, Montana, Delaware
Romney - California, Georgia, Missouri, Tennessee

Joaquin
Clinton - California, New Jersey, Missouri, Delaware, New Mexico
Obama - Massachusetts, Alabama, Arizona, Connecticut, Utah, Minnesota, Colorado, Kansas, Alaska
McCain - California, Missouri, Tennessee, Oklahoma, Alaska, West Virginia, Montana, Delaware
Romney - North Dakota
Huckabee - Georgia, Alabama

Why the Hard Delegate Count Matters

The only real surprise tomorrow would be if it's not super-close. So, does it really matter whether Clinton leads by 75 or 25 delegates? Suppose it's even closer, does it matter which candidates has a 20 delegate lead? I say, yes, it absolutely does matter.

At some point, there will be intense pressure for the party to coalesce around one of the front-runners. Exactly when that pressure will begin will depend on several variables, including the rate at which McCain approaches a mathematical lock on the Republican nomination and at what point McCain's rivals drop out. That pressure will also be dependent on one of our candidates building a small, yet sustainable lead in the hard delegate count.

The mechanism by which we will coalesce is two-fold. One, voters may recognize one of the other candidate as the front-runner and begin to break in their favor. Certainly, I don't expect either candidate to start winning 65%+ of the vote in many states, but a 55%-45% national split will start to push the race's parity beyond the breaking point. Secondly, whether the voters make a decisive switch or not, there will be a lot of pressure for the super-delegates to align with whichever candidate can build a small lead.

Now, I don't expect either process to begin on Feb. 6th, but the Super Tuesday results will set the context for the weeks leading up to March 4th. The contests in that period - primaries in Louisiana, D.C., Maryland, Virginia, and Wisconsin; caucuses in Nebraska, Washington, Maine, and Hawaii - seem likely to result in a net gain for Obama. If Obama can keep things close after tomorrow, then he can use these states to rack up not just momentum, but a lead going into March 4th. By then, McCain will likely have spent several weeks as the presumptive nominee and Democrats will be spoiling to get the primaries over with. At that point, front-runner status will mean a lot, but only if either of the candidates can achieve it.

Somebody Gets It Right

After hearing and reading dozens of MSM descriptions of the Super Tuesday rules just barely miss the boat, I was relieved to find this article on MSNBC.com that finally gets it right.

Super Tuesday Picks (Let's See 'Em)

I ask unanimous consent that we amend my proposal as previously read to exclude the 30% of the points allocated to picking the overall winner and instead allocate 100% of the points through the state-by-state picks. Hearing no objection, so ordered. I also ask unanimous consent to amend my proposal as previously read to remove the 12 state limitation for the purpose of providing more competition and excitement. Hearing no objection, so ordered.

Anyway, here are the picks I need. Pick the winner in each of these states (point values in parentheses):

Dem Primaries: CA(42), MA(17), NJ(17), MO(14), AL(12), AZ(12), CT(12), DE(9), UT(9)
Dem Caucuses: MN(14), CO(13), KS(10), NM(10), AK(9)
GOP Primaries: CA(39), GA(22), MO(19), TN(19), AL(18), OK(16)
GOP Caucuses: AK(14), ND(14), WV(14), MT(13), DE(12)

Pick well, because I wouldn't be surprised if this is our last round of picks on the Republican side. Speaking of that, I'm not sure how we'll decide when to stop making picks on either side. Any ideas?

Oh, and by the way, picks are due by midnight Tuesday.

Tempe End of Year Finance Reports

Hugh Hallman
Raised - $79,152.46
Spent - $55,246.05
CoH - $23,906.41

Hut Hutson
Raised - $56,055.70
Spent - $4,580.00
CoH - $52,302.77

Mark Mitchell
Raised - $30,034.00
Spent - $5,135.49
CoH - $40,433.18

Joel Navarro
Raised - $28,899.00
Spent - $5,865.48
CoH - $23,033.52

Corey Woods
Raised - $24,876.74
Spent - $15,670.09
CoH - $9,206.67

Rhett Wilson
Raised - $12,079.99
Spent - $8,556.24
CoH - $3,523.75

Darryl Jacobsen-Barnes
Raised - $3,733.92
Spent - $293.92
CoH - $3,440.00

Julie Jakubek
Raised - $1,815.00
Spent - $1,291.00
CoH - $524.00

Hallman has been paying $2,000 a month to Tom Evans Consulting for a "campaign manager", $500 a month to Patriot Consulting for a "volunteer coordinator", and $1,000 a month a firm called Rose & Allyn for "consulting" starting in June. He's also paid about $3,000 to McAndrew Kaps Inc. in Fountain Hills for website work. I didn't see expeditures for ad time, just a few hundred bucks for video equipment. He must have raised even more money to spend on ad time.

Navarro received PAC checks from the Mesa, Peoria, Avondale, Casa Grande, Goodyear, Gilbert, and Tucson Firefighters PACs. Add that to $2,000 from UFCW, and he's up to $4,710 in PAC checks.