« Moment of sanity - thank you, Keith Olbermann | Desidero's Blog | Driving the snakes out of Ireland »
Following the Rules: The Role of Superdelegates
One of the roles of superdelegates is to make sure a candidate or the party doesn't commit suicide. McGovern after the Eagleton fiasco might have been one good use. If Obama thinks he has any delegates fully committed, he's wrong. Same for Hillary. Until the count at the convention, they have all the chance in the world to self-destruct, and no amount of persuasion will save a sinking ship - "rights of the voters" or whatever. The delegates will shift to the other side during a catastrophe, just like shifting cargo in a seastorm.
And right now between shifting of delegates after the primaries, the abomination of miniscule participation called caucuses, the screw-ups on Michigan and Florida, there is really no big clear honorable position or real alignment between number of delegates and amount of votes or popular support. Both candidates have gotten a helluva lot of voters out. Support is roughly equal. No one looks to have the required committed delegates come the convention. The "electable" quotient for November is still a question undecided with much of the "analysis" being simple partisan cheerleading at this point.
Whomever you support, your candidate has a few months to make it clear they're the right one for the job - both to win in November and start running the country in January. It's not just Pennsylvania. It's the whole campaign. It will likely be decided by the remaining voters and the pool of delegates and super-delegates, but not just be elections.
And if you think this is unfair, I quote Butch Cassidy: "First we need to discuss the rules". "Rules, Butch, there ain't never been any rules before?!!" Kick to the groin, heavy groan. "You're right, there ain't no rules."
More specifically, the rules for Superdelegates? There ain't no rules. If you don't like it, well, better get persuading. Complaining at convention time won't help much.
And right now between shifting of delegates after the primaries, the abomination of miniscule participation called caucuses, the screw-ups on Michigan and Florida, there is really no big clear honorable position or real alignment between number of delegates and amount of votes or popular support. Both candidates have gotten a helluva lot of voters out. Support is roughly equal. No one looks to have the required committed delegates come the convention. The "electable" quotient for November is still a question undecided with much of the "analysis" being simple partisan cheerleading at this point.
Whomever you support, your candidate has a few months to make it clear they're the right one for the job - both to win in November and start running the country in January. It's not just Pennsylvania. It's the whole campaign. It will likely be decided by the remaining voters and the pool of delegates and super-delegates, but not just be elections.
And if you think this is unfair, I quote Butch Cassidy: "First we need to discuss the rules". "Rules, Butch, there ain't never been any rules before?!!" Kick to the groin, heavy groan. "You're right, there ain't no rules."
More specifically, the rules for Superdelegates? There ain't no rules. If you don't like it, well, better get persuading. Complaining at convention time won't help much.
Advertisement
"Support is roughly equal."
You seriously need to study some third-grade math.
March 16, 2008 10:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well here's a rule for you. The candidate who gets the nomination by convincing the superdelegates to overturn the result of the primary process will be perceived as having stolen the nomination by the supporters of the other and will lose the general. That's the best case scenario. The worst case involes riots.
I really don't know how much longer you guys can stick your fingers in your ears and go "LA-LA-LA-LA-LA NOT LISTENING CAN'T HEAR YOU" whenever you're confronted by this. To maintain a credible candidacy, she has to at least lay out a plausible path to victory that doesn't rely on magical thinking like "oh, everyone will just get over their mad and come around by November."
March 16, 2008 11:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
Obama supporters have been proudly pointing out how their candidate followed the rules. They insisted that rules are followed for MI/FL. I think it's shameful that how we want to twist the rules and declar that simple majority of pledged delegates shows the winner.
This is bullshit. The nomination used proportional representation at every step of the way. Yes, it would be convenient to throw it out of the window now, but in that case, we have recalculate all contests done until now in accordance with the simple majority Obama supporters now advocate.
March 16, 2008 11:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think it's shameful that how we want to twist the rules and declar that simple majority of pledged delegates shows the winner.
For the umpteenth time, that's not the argument being made.
The argument that Hillary supporters find so offensive is this: the super-dels should take into account the damage that would be done if they overrule the primary and caucus voters.
The super-dels have the freedom to do this if they have a compelling reason to do so, one that would outweigh the damage that would be done by pissing off millions of primary and caucus voters.
They should and presumably willl take other things into consideration, such as Hillary's unprecedented claim that the Republican candidate is more ready for the job than her Democratic rival. They'll have to decide if they want to reward odious behavior. Again, they'll need a compelling reason to do so.
Hillary supporters hate these arguments because they know that Hillary hasn't come up with a compelling reason.
March 16, 2008 11:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
To maintain a credible candidacy, she has to at least lay out a plausible path to victory that doesn't rely on magical thinking like "oh, everyone will just get over their mad and come around by November."
She'll worry about a credible candidacy later, at the moment she's focused on getting the nomination.
To get the nomination, Obama has to be torn down so completely that the super-dels feel they have no choice but to give the nomination to her, in spite of the damage that would be done by overruling millions of primary and caucus voters, and in spite of her odious behavior such as endorsing McCain over Obama.
If she succeeds in tearing Obama down to that extent, I hope the backlash is so severe that the nomination instead goes to Edwards or Gore or someone else.
March 16, 2008 11:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
More specifically, the rules for Superdelegates? There ain't no rules.
What you're hoping is that the super-dels will ignore the consequences of overruling the primary and caucus voters. See Pelosi's recent comments about that. The super-dels are entirely free to decide that pissing off millions of voters is necessary for the good of the party. But they'll want to have a compelling reason.
They'll also have noticed the type of campaign Hillary has been running. They'll notice in particular that she claimed, more than once, that McCain was more qualified than Obama to be commander-in-chief. Has anything like that ever happened before in the Democratic party? A candidate endorses the Republican candidate over their own Democratic opponent?
The super-dels will have to decide if that's the sort of behavior they want to reward.
No one looks to have the required committed delegates come the convention.
But Obama appears to have an insurmountable lead in the primary and caucus delegates.
If Hillary is such a strong candidate, such a "ready on day one" sort of candidate, why is she behind in the delegates that are based on voting? The general election is based on voting, not on convincing super-delegates to overrule voters.
She probably would be in the lead, and perhaps would have locked up the nomination by now, if she hadn't been so completely unprepared with a "plan B" when the early primaries didn't go the way she'd hoped. But that just emphasizes that she's not really "ready on day one." The super-dels aren't going to miss the fact that she didn't organize her campaign very well.
So why should they overrule the primary and caucus voters?
Support is roughly equal.
Suppose you were right about that. Then why would the super-dels overrule the primary and caucus voters?
As Pelosi put it:
[...]
"But what if one candidate has won the popular vote and the other candidate has won the delegates?" asked Stephanopoulos.
"But it's a delegate race," Pelosi replied. "The way the system works is that the delegates choose the nominee."
This is the reason behind Hillary's slash-and-burn campaign. She knows that her comments about McCain-vs-Obama are odious. And clearly those comments were designed to tear Obama down, and nothing else -- her own team wasn't even prepared to give examples of her relevant experience. The argument she made against Obama works just as well against Hillary. And she knows that many of the super-dels will be repulsed by those comments,
It's not about trying to finish a "close second" and hoping that the super-dels will overrule the primary and caucus voters. The super-dels would be foolish to do that, and they aren't foolish. Her only hope is to tear down Obama, to the point that the super-dels would give her the nomination in spite of the damage done to the party. She has to convince the super-dels that they really have no other viable choice.
March 16, 2008 11:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
If I understand the argument. Nobody has the thing wrapped up without getting any super delegates, therefore it should be ok if the supers pick whoever they want. If there are 2 viable candidates, then with the current system it is guaranteed that super delegates will be needed.
The problem is that the way delegates are selected, where a clear win in a large state like Ohio gets you 9 delegates, a lead of 100 delegates is a very clear win. We are at about a 170 difference right now. It is almost impossible to get back to a 100 difference. It is over. Time to focus on McCentryInIraq. If the campaigns can go on in a positive manner, continuing is ok as it will lay foundations for november. But everyone paying attention knows this is over, another round of kitchen sink is not acceptable. The supers should not allow it and should swing very clearly at the next sniff of negativity.
March 16, 2008 11:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
Here's another election where support was roughly equal:
John Kennedy 49.7%
Richard Nixon 49.5%
But there is also a clear winner.
Same goes for here. "Roughly equal" doesn't really count for much. Having more votes does.
Fascinating statement considering the source. I hope you plan on helping all of us to remind Hillary Clinton of this come Denver.
March 16, 2008 11:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
Personally I think there is one major factor that the super delegates will factor in. I think it will decide it for them.
a good 80% of Senator Clintons support comes from party loyalists. People who have voted Democrat since they have been able to vote.
Probably a good 60% of Senator Obamas support comes from first time voters and independents.
Unless both candidates can prove an ability to make the Mcain friendly media turn against him (might be hard since the media elite may be too busy attending one of Mcains famous press BBQ's to pay attention) then the independents may believe his maverick shtick and cross over to him.
As far as first time voters lets get real hear. Many of these first time voters ONLY identify themselves as Democrats because there candidate is a democrat. They are identifying with Obama, not the Democratic party. This is why we are seeing SO much, "if she wins I won't vote for her."
I think the SD's will see an opportunity to try and make these first time voters permanent Democrats. I believe if Obama were to lose this, and Naider were to play his cards right he could pick up a lot of these first timers votes.
Of course this is only if Obama does not explode in some ugly way. That part of Desedero's post I agree with.
It hasn't happened yet though. He just cleared up the Rezco thing to the presses satisfaction and this Wright thing doesn't seem to be doing too much damage based on the polls, and by the fact that when Iowa went back to caucus after all this happened he still picked up 7 more delegates.
So far the evidence isn't looking good for senetor Clinton, even taking SD's into the equation. I know this upsets her supporters, but it is true. Obama has put together an impressive campaign that takes advantage of every RULE in every state. He has done this and is ahead.
P.S. I am tired of the caucus state arguments. We trust a small percentage of voters for the most part when it comes in the form of a poll or calling the state at 25% counted, there is not a whole lot of difference. Do Caucuses favor the candidate with more passionate support? Sure. But doesn't that say something good about that candidate?
It is not like this is the general, if it were the general election they would be messed up. However rarely has a primary been so contested. Most of the time voters would be OK with whoever the nominee is.
This election happens to have many of the candidates supporters on both sides projecting all of there hopes and desires on to the candidate.
March 16, 2008 1:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
How many of those first time voters would be voting Republican in the fall anyway? Thanks for the overt campaigning for the crossover vote. I'm sure they'll support you on Iraq and Health Care when the chips are down.
March 16, 2008 3:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
All wishful thinking.
If no one has an outright victory in delegates (50% +1 of regular + supers) after the last contest, all bets are off.
If Obama has another bad week of Rev. Wright or Candadian Embassy or his wife misspeaking in public, all those superdelegates will do all their re-thinking. If Hillary does something super-self-destructive, same goes.
Being ahead isn't good enough. It's over when it's clinched, not before.
Super-delegates will make up their own minds, Pelosi can take a hike.
Caucuses? Well, I'm happy that 7000 people came out to caucus in Wyoming. Wow, democracy in action. 110,000 got out to the caucuses in Texas - that's almost as many as an A&M football game. Pathetic, truly pathetic, but some elitists think that having 110,000 "enthusiastic" people is better than almost 3 million run-of-the-mill citizens. I'm not one of them. Stolen? I won't go that far, but seriously mishandled and idiotic might describe it. 2008 and somehow private universal ballots are a step too far for American Democracy. Perhaps we have something to learn from Iraqis.
March 16, 2008 2:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Perhaps, but short-sighted.
If you think about it, there are only TWO possible outcomes of having super delegates:
1. They vote in accordance with the delegate majority, making their vote unnecessary; or
2. They vote AGAINST the delegate majority.
Since the establishment of the super delegate system, it is worth noting that the super delegates have never ONCE overruled the candidate with the pledged delegate lead. You have to ask yourself why. The super delegates are a last-ditch effort to prevent the nomination of a terrible candidate, one who obviously would be destroyed in the General Election. You'd have to argue Obama is such a person in order to convince the super delegates to vote against Obama at this point (or, in the exceedingly improbably case that Hillary nets 65% of the remaining pledged delegates, to vote against Hillary).
Incidentally, this is exactly what Hillary is attempting to do - produce in Obama a candidate so damaged that the super delegates can't vote for him. If that isn't the very definition of dirty politics, I don't know what is.
I'm curious - when did you first express your distaste for caucuses? Was it right around the time that Hillary started complaining about them because she couldn't win them?
Here's the thing about caucuses versus primaries: Primaries present an evaluation of the general public sentiment about a candidate. There's no particularly or necessarily informed view that goes into a primary vote.
Caucuses are designed to, and have been used for a century precisely BECAUSE they, bring out the supporters who both are (ostensibly) more well-informed and more involved in the success or failure of the party.
Both systems have their benefits. There's a reason they're both used. Hillary, and everyone else, knew the rules going in, rules that have been in place in their current incarnation for over 30 years.
To complain about them now, REGARDLESS of the fairness or genuine argument of the complaint, simply smacks of poor sportsmanship. It's childish. It's also a massive waste of time, because the rules aren't going to change now just because you complain about them. And in the end, all that complaining does is sow sour grapes towards the candidate doing the complaining.
March 16, 2008 3:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sigh.. blockquoting. Everything after "2008 and somehow private universal ballots are a step too far for American Democracy." is my response.
March 16, 2008 4:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
No problem.
But the electoral college isn't elitist - it specifically tries to keep what would be lesser states represented, and while it may have gone too far in letting some tiny states trump California, there is some planning in how it benefits us overall.
Superdelegates are similar - they're basically long-term Democrats, and they have the possibility of fixing something completely wrong if voting goes odd - say a candidate like Eagleton reveals electroshock and is completely unelectable. Not that the rules say it has to be that drastic for superdelegates to vote another way. But theoretically, all of these superdelegates have a fair amount of allegiance to the party, and in general the decision is made before they come into effect.
But caucuses - who do they benefit? "The enthusiastic". Well, they doubtfully benefit old people who might have more trouble making it to the longer caucuses, and might not be as forceful in caucusing. They generate say 5% of the primary vote, but we don't really know who those 5% will be - Republican crossovers? Those who live near the caucus locations if there aren't many? (In Kansas, some were 70 miles away, as one blogger noted). A whole state like Wyoming represented by 7000 caucusers, with a commanding 4000 going for one candidate - is this really the enthusiastic participation we're looking for? Any thought to the other Democrats out there who didn't caucus? They must not be enthusiastic? They shouldn't count? Sure, I didn't think about it much before because the races haven't been that close before - usually it was decided shortly after New Hampshire. Now we see.
March 16, 2008 6:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
And this is a fair enough argument, although it's worth noting that the caucuses aren't intended to represent a whole state, only that state's Democrats. I'm not sure that changes anything, but it's something to consider.
I wonder, though, at what level of participation this argument would change. Let's say the national average for participation in Primary elections is 35% (I have no idea what it actually is - at my precinct where I worked at the polls it was about 30%).
If caucuses drew in 35%, would that be sufficient to make them seen as equal to primaries?
How about 30%? 25%? Where's the cutoff? I think the best we can say is merely "somewhere in between 10% and 35%" (assuming 35% is the national average for primaries).
Let's say, hypothetically, that caucuses really got that kind of turnout.. and Obama still won them handily. Would the arguments change?
I'm not trying to be standoffish with these questions - I'm genuinely curious. I don't fundamentally comprehend people's opposition to them. For my own part, I'm content to say "each state chooses its delegate selection process" and leave it at that. I'd argue about it if I thought those processes were obviously and inherently unfair, but I don't see caucuses that way. I'm curious why others do.
March 16, 2008 8:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Quite frankly, yes, once we start hitting something like 35% it's easier to start touting their benefits.
One huge benefit of caucuses is that they're cheap, and they don't require the approval of the legislature to manage. But that can mean that there aren't very many caucus sites as well.
Actually the little I know of the "firehouse caucus" sounded like a reasonable compromise - more like a primary vote, much less costly. But I haven't looked at details, and reserve the right to be viscerally offended if it works against my candidate ;-)
March 17, 2008 7:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
I meant to add -
Fair enough. I suppose I didn't pay the process much attention until this election either.
That, at least, is one benefit of this drawn out battle.. it's gotten millions of people far more involved than they've been in decades.
March 16, 2008 8:15 PM | Reply | Permalink