What If Super Delegates Decide It?
By Justin Gardner | Related entries in 2008 Election, Democrats, Super Delegates!!!Well, one Democratic insider has already made up her mind…
“If 795 of my colleagues decide this election, I will quit the Democratic Party. I feel very strongly about this,” Donna Brazile told CNN this week.Brazile, who managed Al Gore’s presidential campaign in 2000, is herself a super delegate.
I agree. Super delegates choosing the nominee would be a complete perversion of this process.
So where do the candidates stand? As with most things in the election cycle, Obama’s stance seem like common sense and Hillary sounds like an insider.
SEATTLE — Barack Obama said today that Democratic party superdelegates should throw their support to him if he wins the most states and pledged delegates.“My strong belief is that if we end up with the most states and the most pledged delegates from the most voters in the country, that it would be problematic for the political insiders to overturn the judgment of the voters.â€
Problematic? I think that’s putting it lightly.
Here’s what Hill has to say…
“Superdelegates are by design supposed to exercise independent judgment, that is the way the system works,†she told reporters after a town hall in Orono, Maine. “If Sen. Obama and his campaign continue to push this position which is really contrary to what the definition of a super delegate has historically been then I look forward to receiving the support of Sen. Kennedy and Sen. Kerry.â€
Let’s be clear that Kerry and Kennedy supported Obama before Hillary won Massachusetts. And I think it’s obvious that as long as Hillary agrees that she’ll go along with a “more pledged delegates” agreement, Kerry and Kennedy won’t matter.
And so it goes…
This entry was posted on Saturday, February 9th, 2008 and is filed under 2008 Election, Democrats, Super Delegates!!!. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
February 9th, 2008 at 6:03 pm
I support the Democratic party no matter who the winner is but under the condition that the outcome is decided by the voters. If the superdelegates tilt the issue in favor of the person with the least number of pledged delegates I will either abstain from voting or cast my lot with Mccain
February 9th, 2008 at 11:53 pm
What you are really saying is that there should be no super delegates. Thats fine. That is a reasonable and defendable position.
But they all agreed to the rules of the Democratic Party game before the game started. I think it is a little silly to say that it is fair that the rules should be changed retroactively now to change super delegates into pledged delegates.
But, I guess if you think it is fair to change the super delegate rules retroactively, you would have no problem changing the rules retroactively on seating pledged delegates for Florida and Michigan per the results of their primaries. I expect Clinton would take that trade.
February 10th, 2008 at 2:55 pm
MW:
The problem with what you’re saying is that there’s a statute of limitations on injustice. There isn’t.
The Democratic Party stands for inclusion and the will of the people. Until this year, I had no idea that they put in a mechanism that is more reminiscent of the Soviet Politburo than of any true democratic mechanism.
Lets be clear: The super delegates are a tool for the party insiders (der komrads!) to override the registered voters who participated.
You tell the young couple who paid a babysitter so they could take off work and go to their first caucus why you’re in favor of their votes not counting. The excitement at the caucuses and primaries this year was palpable. The letdown if its all for naught would be worse.
They cannot do this. It would be a disaster.
February 10th, 2008 at 4:27 pm
Michael,
I agree. That can be the only purpose for Super Delegates. If overriding the popular vote was not the purpose, they would have no reason to exist.
That does not mean you get to change the rules of the game after the game is started. That is the way the game has been played in the Democratic Party for 30 years – specifically to avoid another McGovern. Obama supporters are now deciding they may not like the game they are playing at half-time. Too bad.
The good news, is that if Clinton wins, the super delegates will force a Clinton/Obama ticket, even if they hate each other. You know – for the good of the party. An Obama VP will be as historic as an Obama Presidency. Which he’ll have a shot at in 2016.
February 10th, 2008 at 6:48 pm
Super Delegates have the right to change their vote up until the moment they vote, but are not required to do so. Delegates have the right to use the will of the people as evidence that influences this choice.
They can just as easily decide that it is time to rebel a little against “the system” and join together to help form the new union, choosing Barack Obama.
February 10th, 2008 at 7:29 pm
MW: That young couple that took their kids to a sitter and went to the caucus may not show up to vote for the consolation prize.
You look at the angst in the Republican chatting classes right now and the angst they’ve got as well as some of the more adamant “base” voters. Now imagine the scenario where those guys not only have a guy they don’t support as the candidate, but they see that there’s a way to say it was an injustice that led to it.
Remember Florida?
The Party will have a disaster on its hands if it lets this happen.
The answer is to be DEMOCRATS. Call a meeting and at that meeting do two things: (1) have a fresh primary vote with both candidates on the ballot in Michigan and Florida — the Party’s game of chicken with those states was deplorable; (2) specify that the super delegates must vote in the proportion as the delegates coming from their state of residence.
As for agreeing to the rules and then acting contrary to them, I think Ms. Clinton is not immune to criticism there, frankly. Her opponents seem to have gotten their names off the ballots in Michigan and Florida.
I’m not saying the answer is to deprive those voters of a voice, but c’mon… there’s a lot of B.S. going on. And one reason its going on is that the party has left a fertile opportunity for it.
February 11th, 2008 at 11:16 am
Michael, Shawnism,
I do not disagree with what either of you are saying here. And if Obama keeps up his momentum, and continues to kick Clinton’s butt like he did over the weekend, then it will play out exactly as you’d like and the Supes will line up with Obama. I have no problem with that. But …
if Clinton can win in Texas, keep up her record of winning in the big states, and show an upward trend as we get closer to the convention…
then you should expect that the supes will decide she is the best chance for the Dems to win in November and will line up with her…
even if she is slightly behind in elected delegates and popular vote.
I don’t have a problem with that either. They’re smart enough and will take care of your idealistic young couple by forcing Clinton to put Obama on the ticket.
Maybe it is just my age and I have been watching politics too long. But I am just amused as hell at the Obama supporters suddenly being “Shocked! Shocked! To learn that are political insiders involved in Politics!” And Horrors! They really have something to say about who gets nominated to lead the party they depend on for their livlihood!
The fact is, this is not an election to public office. The same rules of “injustice” do not apply when selecting the standard bearer for a a political party as when electing a public servant. This is a byzantine process to nominate the leader of political party, which is essentially a private organization that is not recognized in the constitution. There are many political insiders that have a huge personal stake in who gets nominated to head their party’s ticket. That includes every elected representative who would like to not lose their job because the great unwashed nominates another McGovern that loses a national election in a landslide. Right or wrong, they think they should have a bigger say in who gets the nomination.
Thats the game. Maybe the rules will change before the next election, but I doubt it.
February 12th, 2008 at 1:34 am
She’s free to leave and he Party set it’s own rules. Election law doesn’t really take effect until the general election.
February 12th, 2008 at 12:22 pm
MW:
You wrote: “there are many political insiders that have a huge personal stake in who gets nominated to head their party’s ticket. That includes every elected representative who would like to not lose their job because the great unwashed nominates another McGovern that loses a national election in a landslide. Right or wrong, they think they should have a bigger say in who gets the nomination.”
Like the 21 year old “superdelegate recently reported as having had breakfast with Ms. Clinton’s daughter brokered by the former POTUS?
Kid was elected as a superdelegate at age 17. Its not encouraging in terms of arguments about the wisdom of the party.
Here’s the thing. You’ve now demonstrated you’re a Hillary person. Edwards is (was) my guy. But you talk about the game and the rules of the game and then don’t mention what Hillary did with keeping her name on the ballots in Florida and Michagan when the rest of the candidates abided by their pledges.
What Ms. Clinton is doing is not for the better of the party, its for her own gain, period. She covets the presidency at any cost. The fact she’ll call in favors (or IOUs) to get the super delegates to put her at the head of the ticket instead of simply offer to be Obama’s VP is ample evidence of why he shouldn’t do the same.
Meanwhile, middle America will hear the conservatives telling everyone about how we’re behaving like the politburo and they’ll be right to some measure.
February 12th, 2008 at 3:11 pm
Actually I’m not. I was a Ron Paul person, and before that a Chuck Hagel person, and at the moment I am a man without a country.
I’m not saying that all Super Delegates are elected officials and political insiders. There are democratic political activists also, which is presumably the one you are referring to, although I am not familiar with that story. However, many (most?) are, and including activists does not change my point.
I don’t have an axe to grind in your little democratic party spat. It is a real interesting contest and this is my opinion on how this is going to play out. If Hillary takes Ohio and Texas, it will be difficult for the Super delegates to not support her, regardless of the delegate and popular vote count. If Obama takes Ohio and Texas he probably will roll on to the nomination and the super delegates will fall in line.
I just think it is ridiculous for Obama supporters to get on their high horse and pillory Hillary for fighting hard to win the nomination and playing by the exact same rules that the Democratic nomination has been determined by for last 30 years. Rules that Obama supporters want to change in the middle of the game.
March 25th, 2008 at 12:48 pm
Now that the American people are aware of Obama’s 20 year association with the anti-American, racist rants of his mentor/advisor Wright (and Moss) … polls are already showing a dramatic drop in the polls for Obama. Had the American people known about this Obama/Wright association a year ago, Obama would not be ahead in popular votes, or delegates at this point in time … in fact, he probably wouldn’t even still be in the race. This type of situation is exactly why super delegates exist … and, if they continue to support Obama, it will guarantee McCain’s victory in November. The Democrats’ only hope for victory in November’s general election is HIllary Clinton.