I published a diary on this about a month ago, and the response generally seemed positive, though not that many people seemed interested. Anyway, with the race still going on, I thought I'd republish it with updated data. My data is compiled from demconwatchand from the Superdelegate Transparency Project. I still haven't seen any systematic superdelegate review like this, so hopefully others will find it of some use.
Basically, I’ve only looked at superdelegates from states that have already had primaries or caucuses (or both). While this does leave out a decent sized chunk of the delegates, it’ll make more sense in terms of the numbers I’m looking at. Also, many of the states far down the road have large numbers of uncommitted delegates that could easily end up not mattering at all. Note that I do support Barack Obama, but that I am trying here to look impartially at the numbers. There are a couple of thorny issues to deal with, notably who exactly won Nevada and Texas. I personally am going with the vote/caucus total numbers and not delegates, but this is a problem I'm very uncertain as to how to deal with.
Those caveats being covered, some numbers: Total number of super-delegates in states that have completed primary/caucus: 603 Uncommitted: 201 Total committed: 402 Total committed to Obama: 185 (46.02%) Total committed to Clinton: 217 (53.98%)
The superdelegate lead for Clinton continues to steadily shrink, down to just around 30 now.
Number of superdelegates in jurisdictions won by Obama: 328 (54.39%) Number of superdelegates in jurisdictions won by Clinton: 275 (45.61%)
Interestingly, these numbers are almost directly opposite the total committed numbers, a fact that has remained true for the month of March, as Obama's superdelegate gains have been offset by losing the two largest states of the month.
Number of committed superdelegates that agree with ‘the will of the people’: 265 (65.92%) Number that do not: 137 (34.08%)
These proportions are basically identical with previous numbers, suggesting that about 2/3rds of all superdelegates are following their constituents (or vice versa).
Obama delegates that agree with the ‘will of the people’: 134 (72.43% of Obama delegates) Obama delegates that do not: 51 (27.57% of Obama delegates)
Clinton delegates that agree with the ‘will of the people’: 131 (60.37% of Clinton delegates) Clinton delegates that do not: 86 (39.63% of Clinton delegates)
Clinton has actually made a slight uptick in this number, but that isn't really surprising. All in all, this is a proportion you could have predicted pretty easily from above.
This is all superdelegates, though. Let’s focus only on elected officials (EOs), and assume others are free to do whatever they like (i.e. have no constituency).
Total number of EOs in states that have completed primary: 251 Uncommitted: 77 Total committed: 174 Total committed to Obama: 86 (49.43%) Total committed to Clinton: 88 (50.57%)
I found it really interesting last time that elected officials were pretty much equal, and I think it's even more interesting now, considering the clear shift towards Obama. This suggests that the majority of the shift has not come from the more high-profile superdelegates, but from lower-level DNC members.
Number of EOs in jurisdictions won by Obama: 132 (52.59%) Number of EOs in jurisdictions won by Clinton: 119 (47.41%)
This is a much better comparison with the overall committed proportions.
Number of committed EOs that agree with ‘the will of the people’: 127 (72.99%) Number that do not: 47 (27.01%)
I’m not sure if this is really a matter of EOs listening to the people better, or just a reflection of their more even support reflecting a pretty even race in terms of overall delegates, but this is again nearly unchanged over the last month.
Obama EOs that agree with the ‘will of the people’: 66 (76.74% of Obama EOs) Obama EOs that do not: 20 (23.26% of Obama EOs)
Clinton EOs that agree with the ‘will of the people’: 61 (69.32% of Clinton EOs) Clinton EOs that do not: 24 (30.68% of Clinton EOs)
A disparity does exist between the two candidates, but it is much smaller than the disparity we see in all superdelgates.
Finally, some more individual state analysis.
States with 100% agreement: Arkansas (10 Clinton, 1 undecided) Idaho (3 Obama, 1 undecided) Illinois (25 Obama, 2 undecided) North Dakota (6 Obama, 2 undecided) Nebraska (4 Obama, 2 undecided) Wyoming (2 Obama, 3 undecided) Mississippi (3 Obama, 3 undecided)
Yes, New York is not 100%, thanks to DNC member Marianne Spraggins, the only NY superdelegate for Obama.
States with 0% agreement Delaware (3 Clinton, 4 undecided)
Delaware is the only state that does not have a single superdelegate going for the winner.
Most decisive places: American Samoa (0% undecided, 4 Clinton, 2 Obama) Illinois (7% undecided, 25 Obama) New York (9% undecided, 40 Clinton, 1 Obama)
Most indecisive contests: Oklahoma (80% undecided, 1 Clinton, 1 Obama) Ohio (68% undecided, 4 Clinton, 2 Obama) Hawaii (63% undecided, 2 Clinton, 1 Obama)
C'mon guys, pick it up already. Sure, Ohio's only had a few weeks, but Oklahoma's been done for almost two months.
Senators who picked differently than their state: John Kerry + Ted Kennedy, MA Patty Murray + Maria Cantwell, WA Barbara Mikulski, MD Daniel Inouye, HI
The first pair have been talked about just a little during this campaign. The Washington senators were going against their governor, plus the Obama ‘caucus advantage’. Mikulski and Inouye both committed well before Iowa, let alone before their states actually voted.
Governors who picked differently than their state: Janet Napolitano, AZ Ruth Ann Miner, DE Deval Patrick, MA Martin O’Malley, MD Bill Richardson, NM
All these endorsements except the last one came at least a few weeks before voting, with a couple, O’Malley and Patrick, documented in mid-2007 on demconwatch. Richardson, of course, should be fairly fresh in our minds, and it obviously was well after the state voted.
Governors and senators whose states have voted, but not endorsed: Tom Harkin, IA John Lynch, NH Harry Reid, NV Bill Ritter + Ken Salazar, CO Joe Biden + Tom Carper, DE Amy Klobuchar, MN Frank Lautenberg, NJ Jeff Bingaman, NM Brad Henry, OK Phil Bredesen, TN Mary Landrieu, LA Ben Cardin, MD Jim Webb, VA Daniel Akaka, HI Herb Kohl, WI Jack Reed, RI Sherrod Brown, OH Dave Freudenthal, WY
I said last time that there were only 3 really news-worthy endorsements in this list, and of course one is gone with Richardson's. Reid and Biden would both make the national news, while the others would have little effect.
Last time I did this, someone asked in the comments about if there was a pattern to officials up for election. I saw someone writing about the fact that freshman house members were more for Obama than their more senior counterparts, there is a similar trend among governors and senators up for election, who distribute (7 O, 2 C, 9 U). The two Clintons are the American Samoa governor and Arkansas senator Pryor. Still, it's a little difficult to make any real assessment, as so few of these people really are in close enough battles for this to matter. Of the four races that CQ politics has in which Democratic incumbents are at Democratic Favored or worse (MT-Gov, NJ-Sen, LA-Sen, WA-Gov), only Washington Governor Gregoire has endorsed.
So basically, the idea that Clinton is subverting the will of the people with superdelegates is not really accurate, as the two candidates are pretty similar, especially with actual elected officials.
There’s probably still some useful data to mine from this, but I’m tuckered out, so if anyone can come up with anything, I’d be happy to add it. This may not have been the most electrifying of reads, but I think it has some interesting information, and is a good idea of the state of the superdelegate race, so I hope you enjoyed it.