Superdelegates tend to favor candidate who gave their campaigns cash
As more superdelegates declare their support -- mostly for Barack Obama -- the level of the largess to them from the Democratic presidential hopefuls becomes more clear.
And so does the apparent connection between who gave the superdelegates cash for their campaigns -- and who received their blessing.
The Center for Responsive Politics, a nonpartisan campaign finance watchdog group, said this evening that the total giving to the campaigns of superdelegates had increased to at least $710,900 from Obama's political action committee since 2005 and at least $236,100 from Hillary Clinton's. Her PAC gave another $617,500 during the 2002 and 2004 election cycles, the center reported.
And among those superdelegates -- elected officials, party officials, and others -- who had announced their endorsements by Monday, more than 80 percent supported the candidate who gave them the most money, the center said.
Since neither Clinton nor Obama is likely to win enough pledged delegates from primaries and caucuses to clinch the nomination, it is the 796 superdelegates who will likely crown the nominee. If Clinton loses either the Ohio or Texas primaries on Tuesday, it will probably be the party elders among the superdelegates who encourage her to make a graceful exit.
Is it possible that candidates gave more money to superdelegates (i.e., existing politicians) to whose outlooks they were closest, and that these superdelegates tended, for the same ideological reason to support that candidate? I would not assune that money implies a tit for tat. I give to politicians I have never met, but amongst elected officials the world is smaller, and it's quite possible thatthey know each other, that financial support and delegates support are both a function of simply liking each other's positions. I also support politicians in tight races elsewhere, and a politician's judgment about what's best for the party must figure highly in their decisions. That is exactly what superdelegates are meant to consider.
Why do these stories always end with Clinton's demise? Lordy I am tired of everyone's doomsday predictions. Someone is soon (I hope) going to do an analysis of the MSM's role in the destruction of the Clinton candidacy.
Yes Michael, it's very possible. However, to me it still highlights the fact that the Democratic nomination process is really indefensible. Why would the "party of the people" cling to a nomination process that undermines the will of those same people? Candidates are supposed to "buy" votes from the American people by convincing us to vote for them, not actually buy those votes from their fellow elected officials. How silly.
Ah, yes - Obama, the "change" candidate. Clearly more about
"cash" than change...
Congratulations, America. After seven (to be eight) years of
a "God wanted me to be President" man-child in office, you're
going to elect a Democrat version of the same person. With
the economy in shambles (and getting worse), and facing an
increasingly hostile world and foreign leaders (Putin?), we're
more about pretty and popular rather than wisdom.
Damn it, I don't want to have to vote for McCain in an attempt
to get a grown-up into office...
How democratic is the Democratic Party anyway? If 796 democratic superdelegates with cushi jobs to protect can simply be bought to vote one way or another, I would give my vote to the GOP any day!
I am so sorry that most of the news media has shown a bias against Hillary. Hillary as the first woman president would be so inspiring to women here and around the world. Now we find out after knocking Hillary on super delegates, that barack is buying them. we need Hillary to get us out of this mess we are in and to show the world that women count.
This blogger might want to review your comment before posting it.
Send your comments to masspolitics@globe.com
browse this blog
by categoryINside Boston.com