« John McCain's domestic terrorism problem | jedreport's Blog | As Indiana tightens, evidence strengthens that McCain meddlers delivered state to Clinton »

Superdelegates to blame for enabling destructive campaign


Cross-posted from The Jed Report.

::

For most of this campaign, the Democratic Party has been unified by optimism that our eventual nominee would trounce the Republican candidate in November, 2008. That began to change towards the end of February, when the contest between Senators Clinton and Obama began to turn sharply negative.

The media and the Clinton campaign deserve their share of blame for this. And Obama is not perfect, either. But the people who deserve the most blame are the superdelegates, for it is their indecision that has made this mess possible in the first place.

Since late February, it has been clear that the Clinton campaign's only hope for victory rested in their hands. Over the past two months, the sole uncertainty about the campaign has been whether or not superdelegates will stage a coup against the voters.

::

At any point during the last two months, superdelegates could have made it clear that they would support the will of voters. Instead, by declaring their indecision, they provided Clinton with a new rationale for her campaign. Effectively, they encouraged her coup attempt. It was if they said to her: if you can prove to us that Barack Obama is unelectable, we will overturn the judgment of voters.

It is now clear just how foolish and unwise the superdelegates were for offering Clinton such a destructive path to the nomination, for she has tried to meet it with unrestrained vigor. Two months later, a party that was once unified is now divided. The septuagenarian Republican presidential candidate who devised the Iraq war strategy and wants to stay there for one hundred years is leading or tied in most polls.

And the ultimate blame for making this possible rests with the very people who are supposed to lead the Democratic Party: the superdelegates.

::

It's important to remember the state of the campaign in late February. At that point, 70% of the pledged delegates had been chosen. Barack Obama had 1,210 pledged delegates and Clinton had 1,044, a lead of 166. It was clear that Obama's pledged delegate lead was insurmountable.

Now, after two months of nastiness on the campaign trail, voters have selected another another 573 pledged delegates, 20% of the total. With just 10% remaining, the pledged delegate margin is virtually identical heading into May as it was in late February: Obama leads by 161. (He has has 1,494 and Clinton has 1,333.)

(I focus on pledged delegates because they are the only way to to measure the will of voters. The "popular vote" is just as misleading the number of states won. Moreover, delegates select the nominee -- 2,024 of them, to be exact.)

The point is clear: Hillary Clinton took the superdelegates up on their irresponsible challenge and tried to prove that Obama is unelectable. Meanwhile, Obama could not respond as forcefully to Clinton as he would have to John McCain. He knew that unlike Clinton, he had to worry about unifying the party after her superdelegate gambit. He couldn't afford to attack her the way she attacked him.

Moreover, the media created a new Clinton-friendly narrative in order to support a continued campaign. Between Clinton's attacks, his measured response, and the media's pile-on, Obama endured his worst two-month stretch of the campaign so far. Making matters more difficult, the key primaries were on Hillary Clinton's home turf.

Yet through it all, Barack Obama won just five fewer delegates than Clinton. In short, nothing much changed. Hillary Clinton failed in her mission. And now, with just 408 delegates left to be chosen, the superdelegates remain sidelined. They remain the only uncertainty left in this campaign.

It is certain that Barack Obama will end up with a solid majority of pledged delegates. It is also certain that when the voting is done, he'll need just 30% of the undecided superdelegates to vote for him at the convention. And it's overwhelmingly likely that he will win those superdelegates.

Until the superdelegates formally make their views known, however, there will be uncertainty. And as long as that uncertainty remains, the media and the Clinton campaign will be able to exploit it -- further dividing the Democratic Party.

For two months, the superdelegates have had all the information they needed to make a decision. Yet they continue to dither about. The media and the Clinton campaign do deserve blame for exploiting the environment of uncertainty. But the environment was created by the superdelegates, and for that we have nobody to blame but the superdelegates themselves.

::

Cross-posted from The Jed Report.


37 Comments

| Leave a comment

Yes Jed Report...This has been my point of view for a while now!!!!!!!!
Maybe with your credibility..(I mean that sincerely) they will end this nonsense!

I'm trying to imagine what the video would be like. It would be hard to do. People talking about the superdelegates job to act in the best interests of the party, then footage of the endless Dem primary, the negatives rising, the free ride for John McCain--ending with the quote about Dems snatching defeat from the jaws of victory...

This really gets to the core of the problem. I had accepted the fact that we were going to sit through PA before any decisive superdelegate move, and even the steady trickle to Obama during that six-week stretch seemed like it might have some merit when it came to minimizing hard feelings among Clinton supporters.

But I have to admit I'm pretty astounded by the supers' failure to act post-PA, once it was clear that the delegate math remained unfazed after her last chance at a significant net delegate haul. I'm worried the party is in danger of becoming a parody of itself.

user-pic

You hit the nail on the head, Jed Report. These idiots really are unfit to govern. The wounds are 100% self-inflicted.

But in the end, isn't this exactly what everyone is expecting from the Democratic party? They are so afraid of winning that they'll lose, every single time (unless a Ross Perot comes along).

A minor quibble though. Don't blame the media. They are just doing their job. Perhaps you just forgot that the media's job is not to inform the public, let alone in a fair and impartial manner. Their job is to make money.

user-pic

I take issue with you about the media - very serious issue.

If they don't have any responsibility in democracy, then why: are they called the 4th Estate? And most importantly, why is the press mentioned specifically in the First Amendment if all their function is is to make money?


You have bought the Republican spin on what the media is supposed to be and what they've been busily turning it into.

user-pic

I'm not talking about what the media should be, I'm talking about what the media are. And the media definitely aren't what they should be.

user-pic

You said "don't blame the media they are doing their job - to make money."

I'm telling that isn't the whole of their job in a democracy.

Funny how everyone nowadays seems to have totally forgotten that.

You are so right, TenaX! They have constitutional protection, and instead of COVERING real news, they fill 24 hours with speculation, rumors and opinion. There was a great column on HuffPost not too long ago (I've been looking and I can't find it...I can't remember the author's name, and that would help) that talked about how journalists have turned into stenographers who simply report the administration's talking points without much question.

This column was good, too: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bill-moyers/on-journalism_b_95444.html Enjoy it while I find the other one I was talking about....

Agreed with Tena and others on the Media take. At the same time, I think the Super Dels have to take responsibility as well. If they care about the Party as a whole, they should have been the grown ups and better sooner than later, no matter who they support!!!! The party suffers the more they wait!

user-pic

Jed, you hit the nail right on the head yet again. I cross post your insightful videos wherever I can to point out the obvious spin that printed words just cannot do.

If no one has done it yet. Please copy this post and send it to the DNC. Maybe if we get enough to flood them with it, Dean could pass it on using "coersive diplomacy" to get them to finally pick one.

Democralypse Now, indeed.

I'm seeing less and less of a difference between McCain and Clinton now. If the superdelegates overturn the will of the voters and nominate Hillary, I will not support her in the general election. What would be the point?

I wish it would matter. But she will basically be continuance of Republican policies, with the only difference being that the disaster she helps bring about will be blamed on Democrats.

Dems and liberals need to take the longer view, and remain patient, if Hillary wins the nomination. She needs to be rejected, even though that means letting a hypocritical jackass like McCain take power. It does the country and the Democratic Party no good to basically have a Lieberman-like entity running things.

The biggest frustration with the party leaders is that they won't call 'foul' on campaign tactics harmful to the party's chances in November. That's really where leadership is absent.

Mike Huckabee and Ron Paul are still on the ballots, yet you never hear them attacking McCain. Even before McCain had the nomination locked-up, you didn't see either Huckabee or Romney burning the Republican house down trying to beat him. Does anyone think that if they had tried to the Republican party leadership would have tolerated it?

The Dem. race was fun and uplifting until Clinton went ugly after realizing she was behind. Not being the voters first choice is not justification to destroy the party. Unless, of course, the party leadership tacitly says it is by remaining silent.

Agreed. But the problem has to do who will stand up to the Clinton family, who are really at the helm of the party. If Hillary were not the losing candidate, you can bet that the losing candidate would have been shouted down. But, since Hillary is losing and Bill is backing her and allegedly even suggesting that she go more negative, no one has the rocks to shout them down.

WELL DONE. THE SD's have managed to once again destroy the Democrats chances.

Maybe the SDs and covert republicans, sent to dismantle the democratic party from the inside...

woops...ARE covert republicans...

I agree wholeheartedly!

I may sound like the devil's advocate for saying this, but I think most of the remaining "undecided" superdelegates are probably favoring Obama and waiting for him to put Senator Clinton away with some more decisive victories close to the end of the primary process, so that they can avoid the accusation of trying to "fix" the election before citizen voters have had their say. Hillary is already trying to claim that Senator Obama and DNC Chairman Howard Dean are colluding to disenfranchise the voters in Florida and Michigan. By rolling out the final superdelegates slowly, Obama can keep a sense of momentum without making himself a target for further "disenfranchisment of voters" accusations. I suspect he will keep rolling them out 2 a day until he is caught up with Clinton, and hang there with a tie until she drops out or until the final contests are over, at which point the endorsements will start coming around 5-10 a day until they are done. Hillary is probably keeping a few in her back pocket as well, and now releasing them to try to counter Barack's momentum. We'll see how long she can keep this up.

They support him but are waiting for him to put her away decisively? That is not how the Democratic nominating process works. We have an apportionment system. So this concept of the knock out punch simply doesn't work. If we had winner take all (which I am NOT advocating) it might be different. So if that's what they are waiting for, they suck just as badly as I suspected. Have some balls and make the call. If they supported him already, they should have said it before Hillary called him the angry black boogey man/uncle Tom/Harvard elitist/muslim/black panther.

I could not agree more. But can I offer a slightly different view? We need, in 2012, to get rid of superdelegates! The rationale for this system is specious. Nothing we have experienced since February would have even occurred were it not for the superdelegate system. Mind you, although I am an Obama supporter, I say this in support of Hillary too (who I will vote for if she gets the nomination): They should just pick already! Seriously, there are no undecided superdelegates. Each and every one of them knows who they want to get the nom. So say it already, for fuck's sake. There is no reason, none, to hide the ball. They are such freaking weasels. If you think the people will not like your choice, then that is the chance you take as a superdelegate. If you are going to accept a title that suggests you are better than the rest of us, then act like it and do your job. If you are going to pick Hillary do it already and let's move on. And if you aren't going to pick Hillary, why the hell didn't you say it before she smeared Obama from one end of the country to the other? If you were going to pick Obama all along, what the hell have we been doing for last two months? Oh, that's right. Self-destructing. I forgot, we are Democrats. We are the most essential voting block for continued Neo-con control of all three branches of government.

"(I focus on pledged delegates because they are the only way to to measure the will of voters. The "popular vote" is just as misleading the number of states won. Moreover, delegates select the nominee -- 2,024 of them, to be exact.)"

Ha! What a joke. Please enlighten me on why pledged delegates are the only way to measure the will of the voters.

user-pic

Cuz they are the ones who people actually elected to make a decision for them at the convention?

I have a strong urge to call you a n00b, but I will resist (although I may have compromised that effort by posting this).

user-pic

Because this isn't the general election. It's the primary. The ballot box is only part of it.


user-pic

Excellent post. The superdelegates should have moved long ago to end this. I think what's holding them back is that they're terrified of dividing the party, and they're terrified of pissing off their constituents. I also believe they're scared to death of the Clintons. So they're hedging their bets, waiting until the "right" moment. Which, of course, passed long ago.

Your point about how Obama needs to think about unifying the party while Clinton does not is something I hadn't considered in those terms. It makes perfect sense, of course. And it explains why he's willing to risk losing his lead in these upcoming states. The superdelegates know the score. And they know the pressure he's under. I have to believe the deal's been done and we're just waiting Hillary out.

I don't see how she gets the nomination under any circumstance, but the waiting is sheer torture.

user-pic

The irony of course is that by not acting due to being terrified of dividing the party, they might just achieve that very thing. But this "hello shotgun, meet foot" standard operating procedure is somehow typical of the Dem party.

user-pic

Excellent post, and I agree with everything you said. I hate to bring Hardball into this, but I am too mad to let it go. Chris Matthews just talked about how Wright's words were his words even when Obama was sitting in his pew, so how could he stay in the church?

I would ask Chris how he has stayed in the Catholic church while its administration - ALL THE WAY UP TO THE POPE -- ignored the disgusting travesties that occurred to its young boys for generations.

If you have to leave a church because you disagree with parts of it, no one would belong to any church. My advice is --> take a hint! They are all frauds, but that is beside the point.

How can any Catholic say that Obama is wrong for staying in a church when the pastor says things he doesn't agree with? Of course hypocrisy is not exactly a new phenomenon among the "faithful," which by definition means, "I believe something because I want to and I don't let reality get in my way."

user-pic

This is really pathetic. I'm a cafeteria Catholic and once in a blue moon you actually get a priest with the guts to speak out on controversial issues - race, war, poverty -- you know all those issues the DLC wants buried in the backyard of Reagan Democrats.

This reminds me of a "poverty tour" the local Catholic and Lutheran Bishops and a local rabbi held for the education of local politicians. None showed up! Too controversial to be seen with the poor.

What politician will go anywhere near the Sermon on the Mount from now on? Blessed are the poor... isn't that unAmerican?

user-pic
I would ask Chris how he has stayed in the Catholic church while its administration - ALL THE WAY UP TO THE POPE -- ignored the disgusting travesties that occurred to its young boys for generations.

Let me go see if I can find a link to his email addy and you can tell him that because I think it's an excellent excellent point.

I'd just add (as an irreparably lapsed Catholic) that the Catholic Church has ideas about AIDS that are even crazier than Rev. Wright's. The head of the Vatican's Pontifical Council for the Family claims, falsely, that HIV can pass through a condom. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/3176982.stm He also urges that governments discourage people from using condoms.

Does that mean that this ridiculous (and pernicious) falsehood should be attributed to every Catholic politician? Or just the Catholic politicians who failed to leave, reject and denouce their church when it took that position? ... or just the politicians who are black?

Sorry, I should say "claimed" and "urged". Apparently, Cardinal Lopez Trujillo died this month.

I agree 100000%

...superdelegates will stage a coup against the voters.

What "coup"? The SDs are voters too.

(I focus on pledged delegates because they are the only way to to measure the will of voters.

I call bullshit. "The will of the people" is determined by a secret ballot vote. That hasn't been the case here so go ahead and claim "the most pledged delegates, however selected, by X with FL and MI excluded". That would be accurate.

But don't try to claim 'the will of the people". That's bullshit.

user-pic

Blaming anyone at this point just looks like defensiveness to the people we need to vote for Obama, the people in the middle twenty percent. We need a more positive and aggressive approach to the problem of attack politics. See my current post, In Search of a Statesman to Challenge Undermining Political Attacks.

Don't blame the supers, they have a good excuse, their kids haven't been able to convince them yet.

But, I do agree, they should all announce for Hillary tomorrow, and put Barack out of his misery.

Can't you see how he is in agony because of this Wright business, brought upon him by that dastardly media?

I mean he is going down the tubes, hanging on to an anchor, that for 20 years he believed was a life raft.

I was one of the cheer leaders proclaiming that the remaining states should get their say and be allowed to vote before intervention by the super delegates. I'm not so sure that is a good thing at this point. It seems to me, even after the remaining nine states vote, that the pledged delegate difference will remain the same--Obama will be ahead. Whereas it is true that the DNC rules allow the supers to vote their conscience, they'd better have a damn good reason to overturn the decisions of the states in this matter. Obama deserves the nomination. He has taken a considerable licking over Jeremiah Wright, but I believe that particular line of attack has run its course. It may have been potent in October in the general, but it has been largely neutralized in the primary. We can be thankful for that. Hillary's argument that Obama hasn't been properly vetted is also neutralized. Obama is seasoned and ready to go. Any further in-fighting at this juncture insures only one thing--a victory by John McCain. For the good of the party, the supers should do their thing by May the tenth. This is, consequently, the date Obama intends to unleash his Fifty State strategy. We need to consolidate behind Obama, and the sooner the better.

...they'd better have a damn good reason to overturn the decisions of the states...

"A damn good reason"? You mean, something like "the fucked up voting process provided the weakest candidate"? That kind of damn good reason?

State voting processes differ. A caucus is far different than a secret ballot primary. TX makes that point elegantly.

Leave a comment

jedreport

user-pic

Following:
Followers:

Posts
Comments & Recommends


Favorites

All Reader Posts
How to use myTPM

Advertise Liberally
Share
Close Social Web Email

"To" Email Address

Your Name

Your Email Address