Super Delegates

[TTB]

This concept seems like pure bullshit. Why in holy hell did they add this concept to their nomination process?

Don't you think the Dems should dump it before the next election?

[Jack Daniels]

What's the difference between a delegate & a superdelegate?

And how did that young homo college kid, who was on Larry King, get appointed a superdelegate?

I kind of figured you had to be in politics a while to earn such a distinction.

[triggercut1]

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/2...558/471/457181

The above link is a terrific (if wonky) history of Superdelegates and the rationale (flawed as it may be) behind them.

[hansolo]

Minor correction - according to the Clinton campaign, they prefer to call it "automatic delegates"

[chiguy]

Super Delegates were implemented as part of the post 1972 (I think) party reforms which were themselves implemented as part of the 1968 party reforms (the McGovern-Fraser Commission) which was implemented in response to the disastrous 1968 party convention. So, in some sense its an overreaction.

The basic story goes like this: prior to the 1970s, primaries and caucuses were more or less meaningless events (except for a brief time when they first appeared in the 1920s and 1930s). The convention choose the nominee and to be at the convention, you had to be a party "regular." This was an artifact of the old party machine system that started back in the days of Andrew Jackson and Martin van Buren when parties were organized locally.

In 1968, a number of Democratic voting groups were shut out of the nomination process and an establishment candidate was chosen, despite the overwhelming primary and caucus results for anti-war candidates Bobby Kennedy and Gene McCarthy (if memory serves). These groups understandably got pissed and, in the wake of the infamous Chicago convention and the party losing in 1968 despite being the dominant legislative party, it spurred a round of party reform designed to make nominations more "democratic." These reforms -- implemented by the McGovern-Fraser Commission in the Democratic party and passed into law by state legislatures largely controlled by Democrats -- tied convention delegates to primary and caucus results.

In 1972 this had the consequence of shutting out party regulars -- e.g., elected officials -- from the nomination process. This in part lead to the nomination of George McGovern who, while popular with the left, was not a good choice for a major party nominee (too ideologically extreme). So, people started wondering if the reforms had "gone too far" and whether or not it made sense to have elected officials and the party organization to still get some say in the nomination. They ended up creating the superdelegates classification so that the convention would combine grassroots delegates with elected party leaders.

Is it kind of odd? Sure, but political parties are not public organizations and it makes some sense that the organization doesn't want to leave itself open to the whims of only partial supporters. In other major democracies, you have to be a due-paying member of the party to get a say in nominations. In the U.S. anyone who calls themselves a Dem or Rep can participate, so this is kind of a way of protecting themselves (though in practice its never worked out that way).

Hope that helps.

[FAR52]

Here's Geraldine Ferraro's take:

Got a Problem? Ask the Super By GERALDINE A. FERRARO Published: February 25, 2008 AS the race for the Democratic presidential nomination nears its end and attention turns to the role of so-called superdelegates in choosing the nominee, it is instructive to look at why my party created this class of delegates. After the 1980 presidential election, the Democratic Party was in disarray. That year, Senator Ted Kennedy had challenged President Jimmy Carter for the presidential nomination, and Mr. Kennedy took the fight to the convention floor by proposing 23 amendments to the party platform. When it was all over, members of Congress who were concerned about their re-election walked away from the president and from the party. The rest of the campaign was plagued by infighting. In 1982, we tried to remedy some of the party’s internal problems by creating the Hunt Commission, which reformed the way the party selects its presidential nominees. Because I was then the vice chairwoman of the House Democratic Caucus, Tip O’Neill, the speaker of the House, appointed me as his representative to the commission. The commission considered several reforms, but one of the most significant was the creation of superdelegates, the reform in which I was most involved. Democrats had to figure out a way to unify our party. What better way, we reasoned, than to get elected officials involved in writing the platform, sitting on the credentials committee and helping to write the rules that the party would play by? Most officeholders, however, were reluctant to run as delegates in a primary election — running against a constituent who really wants to be a delegate to the party’s national convention is not exactly good politics. So we created superdelegates and gave that designation to every Democratic member of Congress. Today the 796 superdelegates also include Democratic governors, former presidents and vice presidents, and members of the Democratic National Committee and former heads of the national committee. These superdelegates, we reasoned, are the party’s leaders. They are the ones who can bring together the most liberal members of our party with the most conservative and reach accommodation. They would help write the platform. They would determine if a delegate should be seated. They would help determine the rules. And having done so, they would have no excuse to walk away from the party or its presidential nominee. It worked. In 1984 I headed the party’s platform committee. We produced the longest platform in Democratic history, a document that stated the party’s principles in broad terms that neither the most liberal nor the most conservative elected officials would denounce. It generated no fights at the convention. It was a document that no one would walk away from. We lost in 1984, big time. But that loss had nothing to do with Democratic Party infighting. Today, with the possibility that Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama will end up with about the same number of delegates after all 50 states have held their primaries and caucuses, the pundits and many others are saying that superdelegates should not decide who the nominee will be. That decision, they say, should rest with the rank-and-file Democrats who went to the polls and voted. But the superdelegates were created to lead, not to follow. They were, and are, expected to determine what is best for our party and best for the country. I would hope that is why many superdelegates have already chosen a candidate to support. Besides, the delegate totals from primaries and caucuses do not necessarily reflect the will of rank-and-file Democrats. Most Democrats have not been heard from at the polls. We have all been impressed by the turnout for this year’s primaries — clearly both candidates have excited and engaged the party’s membership — but, even so, turnout for primaries and caucuses is notoriously low. It would be shocking if 30 percent of registered Democrats have participated. If that is the case, we could end up with a nominee who has been actively supported by, at most, 15 percent of registered Democrats. That’s hardly a grassroots mandate. More important, although many states like New York have closed primaries in which only enrolled Democrats are allowed to vote, in many other states Republicans and independents can make the difference by voting in Democratic primaries or caucuses. In the Democratic primary in South Carolina, tens of thousands of Republicans and independents no doubt voted, many of them for Mr. Obama. The same rules prevail at the Iowa caucuses, in which Mr. Obama also triumphed. He won his delegates fair and square, but those delegates represent the wishes not only of grassroots Democrats, but also Republicans and independents. If rank-and-file Democrats should decide who the party’s nominee is, each state should pass a rule allowing only people who have been registered in the Democratic Party for a given time — not nonmembers or day-of registrants — to vote for the party’s nominee. Perhaps because I have endorsed Mrs. Clinton, I have noticed that most of the people complaining about the influence of the superdelegates are supporters of Mr. Obama. I can’t help thinking that their problem with the superdelegates may not be that they’re “unrepresentative,” but rather that they are perceived as disproportionately likely to support Mrs. Clinton. And I am watching, with great disappointment, people whom I respect in the Congress who endorsed Hillary Clinton — I assume because she was the leader they felt could best represent the party and lead the country — now switching to Barack Obama with the excuse that their constituents have spoken. I may be a cynic, but I’m a fairly knowledgeable political cynic. If Mr. Obama wins the nomination, those members are undoubtedly concerned that they would be inviting a primary challenge in their next re-election campaign by failing to support his candidacy. But if they are actually upset over the diminished clout of rank-and-file Democrats in the presidential nominating process, then I would love to see them agitating to force the party to seat the delegates elected by the voters in Florida and Michigan. In those two states, the votes of thousands of rank-and-file party members will not be counted because their states voted on dates earlier than those authorized by the national party. Because both states went strongly for Mrs. Clinton, standing up for the voices of grassroots Democrats in Florida and Michigan would prove the integrity of the superdelegate-bashers. The people of those states surely don’t deserve to be disenfranchised simply because the leaders of their state parties brought them to the polls on a day that had not been endorsed by the leaders of our national party — a slight the voters might not easily forget in November. As it happens, the superdelegates themselves can solve this problem. At this summer’s Democratic national convention in Denver, the superdelegates could assert their leadership on the credentials and rules committees. That is, after all, one of the reasons they were created in the first place in 1982.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/25/op...=2&ref=opinion

[chiguy]

A bit self-serving by the former VP rep, but interesting take. I'll note my time line is off in that I thought the superdelegates came earlier though, as she shows it was the Hunt Commission that implemented them in the 80s. From 68 to 84, the Democrats had so many reform commissions its not hard to get them all confused.

[ElviswasaBluesFan]

But the superdelegates were created to lead, not to follow. They were, and are, expected to determine what is best for our party and best for the country. I would hope that is why many superdelegates have already chosen a candidate to support

So let me get this straight. It doesn't matter what the voting public decides over the last couple of months of primaries? All that really matters is who these 800 Superdelegates decide should be the Democratic nominee? Did I read that right?

[FAR52]

So let me get this straight. It doesn't matter what the voting public decides over the last couple of months of primaries? All that really matters is who these 800 Superdelegates decide should be the Democratic nominee? Did I read that right?

In this case, the voting dem public will not get either candidate across the finish line. The Super Delegates will, unless the DNC changes their mind on Florida and Michigan. But here is her rationale:

But the superdelegates were created to lead, not to follow. They were, and are, expected to determine what is best for our party and best for the country. I would hope that is why many superdelegates have already chosen a candidate to support.

Besides, the delegate totals from primaries and caucuses do not necessarily reflect the will of rank-and-file Democrats. Most Democrats have not been heard from at the polls. We have all been impressed by the turnout for this year’s primaries — clearly both candidates have excited and engaged the party’s membership — but, even so, turnout for primaries and caucuses is notoriously low. It would be shocking if 30 percent of registered Democrats have participated.

If that is the case, we could end up with a nominee who has been actively supported by, at most, 15 percent of registered Democrats. That’s hardly a grassroots mandate.

More important, although many states like New York have closed primaries in which only enrolled Democrats are allowed to vote, in many other states Republicans and independents can make the difference by voting in Democratic primaries or caucuses.

In the Democratic primary in South Carolina, tens of thousands of Republicans and independents no doubt voted, many of them for Mr. Obama. The same rules prevail at the Iowa caucuses, in which Mr. Obama also triumphed.

He won his delegates fair and square, but those delegates represent the wishes not only of grassroots Democrats, but also Republicans and independents. If rank-and-file Democrats should decide who the party’s nominee is, each state should pass a rule allowing only people who have been registered in the Democratic Party for a given time — not nonmembers or day-of registrants — to vote for the party’s nominee.

[ElviswasaBluesFan]

Sounds like they should just eliminate the primaries if they don't matter.

[FAR52]

Sounds like they should just eliminate the primaries if they don't matter.

Well, to be fair, this is the first one in a long time where it has been this close -- where the primaries, by themselves, failed to select a candidate. In other words, this is kind of a unique situation.

[madyaks]

This concept seems like pure bullshit. Why in holy hell did they add this concept to their nomination process?

Don't you think the Dems should dump it before the next election?

They should dump it, the fact that a bunch of party leaders could pick the nominee is BS and very un democratic. Could they do anything more to turn off young energetic voters than to overturn the popular vote?

[triggercut1]

Geralidine Ferraro's take is misguided and in the vast minority, but that hasn't stopped FAR from frantically posting it (as if Ferraro had any juice in the Democratic party--she doesn't; most Dems prefer to pretend the 1984 election cycle never happened) in various threads here.

One more time FAR: Ferraro is a frantic and upset Clintonista (sorta like you: politics makes strange bedfellows, eh?) and hardly an objective observer and hardly anyone who has anyone in the party listening to them.

The nomination race in the Democratic party is over. Barring Obama having something come to pass that makes him completely unviable, he's already wrapped this up. The vast majority of uncommitted supers have already decided to follow the leader in pledged delegates, and already Obama has narrowed the gap between himself and Clinton in that respect.

[FAR52]

Geralidine Ferraro's take is misguided and in the vast minority, but that hasn't stopped FAR from frantically posting it (as if Ferraro had any juice in the Democratic party--she doesn't; most Dems prefer to pretend the 1984 election cycle never happened) in various threads here.

One more time FAR: Ferraro is a frantic and upset Clintonista (sorta like you: politics makes strange bedfellows, eh?) and hardly an objective observer and hardly anyone who has anyone in the party listening to them.

The nomination race in the Democratic party is over. Barring Obama having something come to pass that makes him completely unviable, he's already wrapped this up. The vast majority of uncommitted supers have already decided to follow the leader in pledged delegates, and already Obama has narrowed the gap between himself and Clinton in that respect.

Yeah, posting an article about the super delegate process in a super delegate thread is really a frantic move on my part. So let me see if I understand your position correctly. Obama supporters, like yourself, are objective. Clinton supporters, like Geraldine Ferraro, are not. Got it. Thanks for the insight.

[FAR52]

This is an excellent analysis of the super delegate process and how they may vote. It's a long read, but a good one.

Is It Over?

Jonathan Alter has a thought-provoking article in the latest Newsweek. He writes:

If Hillary Clinton wanted a graceful exit, she'd drop out now--before the March 4 Texas and Ohio primaries--and endorse Barack Obama... Withdrawing would be stupid if Hillary had a reasonable chance to win the nomination, but she doesn't. To win, she would have to do more than reverse the tide in Texas and Ohio, where polls show Obama already even or closing fast. She would have to hold off his surge, then establish her own powerful momentum within three or four days. Without a victory of 20 points or more in both states, the delegate math is forbidding. In Pennsylvania, which votes on April 22, the Clinton campaign did not even file full delegate slates. That's how sure they were of putting Obama away on Super Tuesday.

The key word is "reasonable" - as in Hillary doesn't have a reasonable chance to win the nomination. While I agree that Obama stands a much better chance of winning the nomination than Clinton, I think Alter's conclusion is hasty. If she loses either Texas or Ohio next week - the race will end. Nevertheless, let's assume that she wins both, though not by the large margins Alter says she needs. What happens next?

Neither Clinton nor Obama can expect to win the nomination by virtue of the pledged delegates alone. Obama would have to win more than 75% of the remaining delegates. Clinton needs more than are available. Thus, the nominee will have to fill the gap via the super delegates.

This is critically important. The nominee will be the one who makes a compelling argument to a sufficient number of the 795 super delegates. This is the first reason not to be so quick to declare the race finished. Do we know what these delegates are thinking? We have no survey data on them - nothing that gauges their preferences or beliefs. We can easily track how candidates are doing when their audience is the American public. That's what opinion polls are for. We have nothing of the sort for the super delegates.

Even though we do not know what these super delegates will decide, we can draw a general outline of how they might decide. Doing so should demonstrate just how complicated matters could become. Their decision will hinge upon their answers to two general questions:

(A) Which candidate is better for the party?

(B) Which candidate is better for me?

Super delegates are free to answers these questions however they like. They are also free to weigh the answers however they like. They can be selfish or sefless - whichever they prefer. That's what makes them super. This adds another dimension of uncertainty. Not only do we have few indications about their thought processes, we know that their thought processes are unconstrained by any party rules.

Let's take a closer look at each question, beginning with the "What's in it for me?" query. In the 19th century, presidential candidates could use patronage to offer all kinds of perquisites. They cannot do this any longer. So, personal interests will hinge on answers to the following questions:

(1) Which candidate do I prefer?

(2) Which candidate do my constituents - whose support I need for reelection - prefer?

Question (2) will matter less to the super delegates who do not hold elective office. However, it could matter a great deal to those who do, and answers to it could be quite different.

Suppose that House and Senate Democrats, all of whom double as super delegates, decide that they shall reflect the will of their constituents. How would they vote? It depends. Obviously, senators would follow their states. But what would House members do? They might ask:

(a) Do I follow my state's vote?

(b) Do I follow my district's vote?

Their individual answers could have a sizeable cumulative effect. If all Senate and House members follow their state results, Clinton would have 108 super delegates (so far) to Obama's 88. If, on the other hand, House members follow their congressional districts, Clinton would have 86 to Obama's 110. That's a 44 delegate swing - over what is a tiny distinction.
Obviously, some will follow their districts, some will follow their states, and some will support the candidate they personally prefer. Some might not even be moved by personal concerns - and will instead support who is best for the party.

But who the heck is that?

It seems to me that there are at least two ways for a delegate to consider who is best for the party. They could ask:

(1) Which candidate is more able to defeat John McCain?

(2) Which candidate is the legitimate choice of Democrats nationwide?

These two questions are probably not exclusive. The candidate who is perceived to be the choice of the Democratic electorate will probably be better positioned for the general election. That being said, we can still look at each question individually. It is here that the candidates will begin to make real arguments. Each delegate is going to have to make and weigh decisions about their personal interests by themselves. Where the Clinton and Obama "spin" machines can have their greatest effect on the delegates is persuading them that their particular candidate is best for the party.

What could each candidate argue vis-à-vis McCain? Obama can point to his lead in the head-to-head polls as well as the "Obama-mania" that has overtaken part of the country. He can assert that his supporters are more dedicated, and will give him a better donor and volunteer base. Clinton has a good argument, too. She can reference the old adage that a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush. Sure, Obama enjoys this enthusiasm now, but it only matters if it is there in November. Will the Republicans tear him down the way they "Swift-Boated" John Kerry? Clinton can argue that they won't be able to do this to her. They have been trying to no avail for sixteen years.

The second question - who is the "legitimate" candidate? - will be the most important. As of now, Obama has a clear advantage. He leads in the delegate count as well as all tabulations of the popular vote. This is why Texas, Ohio, and Pennsylvania are must-wins for Clinton. She has to make a compelling argument that she is the legitimate choice of the party. This will require victories in all three.

Assuming that she wins them, what would an argument for Clinton as the legitimate nominee look like? It probably will not include the claim that she leads the pledged delegate count. Alter is correct: she probably won't. Her objectives must be to close the gap by a good amount (victories in the big states should help), and diminish the importance of the count.

There are several ways she could accomplish the latter task. First, she could say that Obama's strength is in red states that John McCain will carry in November, while her strength is in the heart of Democratic territory. Second, she could say that she wins Democrats while Obama wins Independents - and the delegate allocation process does a poor job excluding the latter from a process that should belong to the former. Third, she could argue that the delegates for Michigan and Florida should be seated - that the nominee of the party should not hinge on a Carl Levin power play that backfired.

Fourth, and most important of all, she could attack the fairness of the caucus system. This will be her best bet, I think. Obama has won most of the caucus states overwhelmingly. Clinton could assert that the caucus favors Obama by unfairly excluding voters who happen to favor her - namely, "downscale" Democrats who cannot take off work to attend and elderly voters who are unable to. Clinton will have some evidence to buttress this claim. The Washington state caucus allocated 68% of the state's delegates to Obama on February 9th. Ten days later, on February 19th, the state held a non-binding primary in which Obama won 51% of the vote. Texas might yield a similar result. If Obama beats Clinton in the caucus, and she beats him in the primary - Clinton can argue that the caucus system unfairly skews toward him.

None of this will matter, however, if Clinton does not have a lead in a nationwide vote count. I cannot see her arguing for legitimacy without this. RCP is keeping track of the vote leader by three metrics: including Florida and Michigan, including Florida, and excluding Florida and Michigan.

Clinton needs to be the leader by one of these. Her legitimacy case will be stronger if she leads by more than one. In that case, she could try to paint Obama as a Democratic version of George W. Bush - somebody who lost the popular vote but nevertheless "won" by virtue of the quirks of an outdated, unfair system that is still around because nobody put much effort into getting rid of it before it created such trouble.

Can she take a popular vote lead? Possibly. The average turnout in the primary contests that have already occurred has been 12.4% of the total population of those states. If we assume that the remaining primaries will have the same turnout - we can make the following observations:

(a) She would have to win more than 54.7% of the remaining vote to take a lead in the count that excludes Florida and Michigan.

(b) She would have to win more than 53.2% of the remaining vote to take a lead in the count that excludes Michigan.

(c) She would have to win more than 51.5% of the remaining vote to take a lead in the count that excludes nothing.

This is why Texas, Ohio, and Pennsylvania are important. Combined, they make up 60% of the remaining population left to vote. If Clinton wins all three by solid margins, her burden will be greatly diminished.
Of course, Obama is currently much better positioned for a legitimacy argument. He has all three vote leads - and he is closing fast in Texas and Ohio. Clinton can only threaten him if she finishes strong enough to eliminate one of the popular vote gaps. Even then it might not be enough.

It will be hard for her to win 54.7% of the remaining vote. If she does not, Obama will have at least one lead. If the best she can do is win 51.5% of the vote, Obama will be well-positioned to argue that including Michigan is completely unfair because he was not even on the ballot. What is more - the three metrics necessarily exclude a few caucus states like Iowa that do not report actual votes. This would help Obama rebut Clinton's claim to be the "choice of the voters" if she were to take the lead.

Obama can respond to most of Clinton's other arguments. For instance, he could argue that the pledged delegate count is what matters, and that the super delegates should not presume to alter the outcome of the primaries/caucuses. He could assert that Clinton's anti-caucus argument is just the bellyaching of a candidate who failed to prepare adequately for the contests on and after Super Tuesday. This could even pivot into an electability argument. Sure, Clinton cannot be "Swift-Boated," but she was unprepared for the primary process. Shouldn't this worry the super delegates?

What should be clear from all of this is that, if Clinton does well on March 4th and in Pennsylvania next month, things could get very complicated. Let's review our outline of the questions the super delegates will answer. Remember that each must formulate his or her own answer, and must weigh the answer to each question for himself or herself.

(A) Which candidate is better for the party?

(1) Which candidate is more able to defeat John McCain in November?

(a) What are the chances Obama's reputation will be diminished by Republican attacks? (b) What are the chances Clinton will under-prepare for the general election?

(2) Which candidate is legitimate choice of Democrats nationwide?

(a) Who has a lead among the pledged delegates? (b) Does it matter what types of states and voters each candidate has won?
(c) Is the caucus system sufficiently democratic?
(d) Should I care about the popular vote leader...

(i) ...including Michigan and Florida? (ii) ...including Florida?
(iii) ...excluding Florida and Michigan?

(B) Which candidate is better for me?

(1) Which candidate do I prefer? (2) Which candidate do my constituents - whose support I need for reelection - prefer?

(a) Do I follow my state's vote? (b) Do I follow my district's vote?

This set of questions is surely not comprehensive. There are others that will factor into each delegate's decision. This will make their decisions all the more complex.

You probably have opinions on all of these points. So do I. But here's the kicker - our opinions don't matter. We're just spectators. It's up to the super delegates, and we have no idea how they will decide.

I think it is hasty to say that Clinton lacks a "reasonable" chance to win the nomination. If she wins Texas, Ohio, and Pennsylvania - the race will hinge upon how each super delegate answers and values these questions. I'm not saying that I favor Clinton to win. At this point, I don't. She stands a chance if she wins the three big states that remain. He stands a chance regardless. This tips the scales in his favor. He also has an advantage due to the pledged delegates - the more of those you have, the fewer super delegates you need, the less pressure there is for you to argue a case. Nevertheless, Clinton still has a reasonable shot if she can win next week.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/hor...it_over_1.html