MyDD :: Superdelegates: Loyalty and Politics

Superdelegates: Loyalty and Politics

by Dracomicron, Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 01:32:23 PM EST

I'm new in these parts, but I'd just like to comment on a trend I've seen trying to play semantics games with Teams Obama and Clinton's positions on superdelegates.

Some have said that the superdelegates "should not go against the will of the people" (quote attributed to Obama) This is reasonable advice for currently uncommitted superdelegates; many of them are elected officials and endorsing a candidate after looking at how their districts voted will be good for their re-election campaign.

Others have come back with the assertion that, if we're going with the will of the people instead of personal preference, superdelegates who endorsed before their state had its primary, like Kerry and Kennedy, should switch sides once their state goes the other way. While I do believe that this is certainly a consideration, especially if one is concerned with getting re-elected (I don't think Kerry or Kennedy are), there is an element of loyalty that's also important.

It doesn't take a rocket surgeon to figure out that each candidate is going to suggest options that will help them win the primary, but let's not get into absolutes here.

Being a superdelegate is a pretty big responsibility, and any choice they make is going to have consequences. If they vote against their district, they risk the wrath of the voters. Whichever candidate they endorse will risk disfavor with the opposing side; especially if they change their vote at some point. Superdelegates have to lie in whatever bed they make.

Furthermore, offering an opinion about how superdelegates "should" vote is not in the same category as suggesting that Florida and Michigan should not be seated because they broke the rules. One is opinion, the other is fact.

(As an aside: any contestation to the fact that Michigan and Florida weren't going to count should have taken place before the primaries began. The fact that they are being given ad hoc options at this late stage of the game is generous enough.)

While I don't really agree with the idea of superdelegates, I understand that their purpose is for the leadership of the party to step in during an ugly primary and help the process along if they feel that one candidate is unviable. That said, we have two very viable candidates in this contest, and it's starting to look that one is a smidge more viable than the other due to a pledged delegate lead that will be extremely difficult for the other candidate to counter due to proportional attribution.

The 300 or so remaining superdelegates should carefully consider the advantages and disadvantages of going against a pledged delegate lead. Either way, voting blocks risk getting disillusioned even if the losing candidate steps up campaigning for the nominee extensively; obviously there's also a concern over whether that losing candidate will even do so.

Poll

Votes: 13
Results : Vote Link : Polls

Tags: Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, President, Primary, Democratic, Superdelegates (all tags)

Permalink :: 10 Comments :: Post a Comment

Re: Superdelegates: Loyalty and Politics (2.00 / 1)

March 17, 2008
Hillary's Plan to Elect McCain and a Right-Wing Supreme Court (Brent Budowsky)
@ 8:17 am
As someone in regular contact with major superdelegates in Congress, let me explain why there is a near-panic among the supers which I predict will lead to a major move to Obama fairly soon.

Setting aside motive for now, there is one mathematically provable and irrefutable impact of the campaign of personal destruction that Hillary Clinton is waging against Barack Obama. It is this: The road of her campaign leads to helping to elect John McCain and hurting every Democrat on every ballot throughout America.

Here is why. What Clinton is doing, which I believe is deliberate but in any event is happening, is to seek to drive many of her supporters to McCain in a general election.

The best example is her false and destructive claim that she and McCain are qualified to be president and Obama is not. There are other spurious and malicious attacks from Hillary that readers are aware of, which need not be repeated here, which all have the same effect.

From the point of view of superdelegates, and especially elected officials and supers who want Democrats elected and not defeated, here is how it looks and why they will make their move for Barack sooner than pundits expect.

Hillary's negative attacks have some short-term impact that does not help her against Barack, but does hurt Barack against McCain. Hillary may be running the only negative campaign in Democratic political history aimed to persuade her own voters to support a Republican in a general against her Democratic opponents.

In Hillary's scheme, if Barack is nominated, some of her supporters would theoretically support McCain or stay home. Similarly, as Obama's supporters become (correctly) enraged by Hillary's campaign of personal destruction against the candidate (Barack) with the most elected delegates and popular votes, Obama supporters become so embittered by Hillary that a number of them would stay home with Hillary as nominee.

In Hillary's scheme, no matter who is nominated, there would be Democratic and independent voters who have Democratic-leaning views who would stay home, which hurts all Democratic candidates.

If a Democratic voter or Democratic-leaning independent stays home because of the Hillary onslaught of personal destruction while she is losing the battle of elected delegates and popular vote, aimed against the Democrat who is winning, those stay-home voters by definition do not vote, either, for the member of the House or Senate, or governor or alderman running as a Democrat.

My personal opinion is that Hillary would rather elect a one-term Republican of advanced age than a two-term young Democratic leader as president. Of course, the corollary of the Hillary scheme is that a President McCain would give America the most anti-woman, anti-worker, anti-environment Supreme Court in history. But that is not Hillary's concern in her campaign of personal attack and destruction.

Even if this is not Hillary's intent, this is the inevitable, mathematically irrefutable result of Hillary's campaign as she is running it.

Privately, the superdelegates can do the math, and while many lack the courage of conviction and common sense to stand against this, they know it is true.

For these reasons the supers are in a stone-cold panic and will make their move to end this, and sooner than pundits expect.

by a gunslinger on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 01:41:52 PM EST

Re: Superdelegates: Loyalty and Politics (none / 0)

I'm not sure that Clinton really believes that her hard campaigning style is actually hurting the party. I personally think that it is, because there's some historical background that suggests that difficult and contentious primaries lead to serious trouble in November (McGovern vs. Humphrey 1968, Hart vs. Mondale, 1984).

That said, there are also tough primaries that worked out okay for Democrats, like Clinton vs. Tsongas.

I don't think, however, that the current race easily falls into any standard historical mould. Never before has a former First Lady from a popular but polarizing administration gone up against an outsider populist.

If I had to point to a historical situation that resembled this, I'd say 1984, with Obama corresponding to Gary Hart and Clinton corresponding to Mondale. Mondale started with a huge lead in superdelegates, but Hart started a pretty good momentum after New Hampshire, winning a plurality in Massachusetts by 13%.

The difference is that Hart made more mistakes than Obama and the media hasn't been as willing to write Obama off as they were for Hart. That was also a much more crowded field, with states being won by other candidates as late as June 1 for such luminaries as Earnest Hollings and Lane Kirkland.

That rough-and-tumble primary fight, of course, didn't mean all that much because Reagan absolutely annihilated Mondale. What would have happened with Hart? We'll never know, but I suspect he would have been crushed as well.

John McCain is no Ronald Reagan. He's tied his fate to one issue, and, barring (by chance or by Bush administration finagling) a major terrorist or war incident shortly before the election, is in serious risk of losing before he begins.

That doesn't necessarally mean that either Clinton or Obama should handicap him by kneecapping one another.

In this avalanche, the pebbles get to vote.

by Dracomicron on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 02:08:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]

When did (none / 0)

Ernest Hollings and Lane Kirkland win primaries in 84?

by Mayor McCheese on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 02:59:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: When did (none / 0)

I don't think turnout was high, but Wikipedia has Hollings winning Nebraska, Idaho, Oregon, & Montana. Kirkland won West Virginia. Needless to say, their delegates didn't survive the convention.

Normally I don't cite wikis, but I don't see why anyone would spread misinformation about the 1984 Democratic primary.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_ Party_%28United_States%29_presidential_p rimaries%2C_1984

In this avalanche, the pebbles get to vote.

by Dracomicron on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 03:22:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: When did (none / 0)

Looks very suspicious. I mean, look at the WIki entry for PA. It has Hart, getting 0% in PA and McGovern, who had been blown out of the water by then, getting 25%. Those numbers look wacky to me.
Here's what I found re PA from another source (Franklin and Marshal, a fairly well respected college:

http://www.fandm.edu/x4518.xml

Jimmy Carter's former Vice-President Walter Mondale beat Colorado Senator Gary Hart in the 1984 Democratic Primary. Hart won 551,335 votes, or 35% of the vote, while Mondale won 747,267 votes, or 47% of the vote. Civil rights leader Jesse Jackson trailed with 264,463 votes, or 17% of the vote. Jackson's votes came mostly from Philadelphia, Dauphin and Allegheny counties (See Map below). Mondale's voter support came from blue-collar working class portions of the state: geographically his strength was in western Pennsylvania. He also finished a close second to Jackson in Philadelphia and to Hart in the central and southeastern parts of the state. Hart's strength was with the middle class, especially white-collar suburban voters. Hart also did well in the mid-state region. Mondale's victory, however, was acheived in western Pennsylvania.

by Mayor McCheese on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 03:40:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: When did (none / 0)

Hmm, you're right. Once again, Wikipedia, have you seduced me with your foul half-truths on nigh insignificant issues...

In this avalanche, the pebbles get to vote.

by Dracomicron on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 04:00:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]

well (none / 0)

I will believe this when I see it. First, I see no reason why superdelegates would rush to Obama now in light of the absolute disaster his campaign has faced over the past three weeks or so. If I were an undecided super, I'd have to think hard about stampeding toward eitehr candidate at this point. CLinton is behind and probably can't win in pledged delegates. Obama's ahead, but probably can win on pledged delegates either.

by Mayor McCheese on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 01:58:10 PM EST

Re: well (none / 0)

I wouldn't call Obama's troubles a "disaster," really. He's gained delegates at a faster rate than his opponent, and the worst scandal he's faced came with six weeks before the next primary.

He was on all major networks within 24 hours to reassure people that he didn't agree with the controvercial statements. All but lunatic fringers will probably have lost interest in this "disaster" by the convention.

Whomever you support in the primary, it's a longshot to suggest that Obama's facing a "disaster" when he's still gaining delegates, popular vote, and states won. Hart being revealed to have been having an affair with Donna Rice was a "disaster" for him, I'd classify Wright as a minor house fire.

In this avalanche, the pebbles get to vote.

by Dracomicron on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 02:15:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: well (none / 0)

I disagree. It's not a disaster in the primary. But the general matters too and this stuff is hurting him bad. Wright will hurt him very badly with white moderate voters, especially the Republicans he claims he can appeal to. Superdelegates may want to consider this before making sure he is the nominee.

by Mayor McCheese on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 02:53:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Nah. (none / 0)

What hurts Barack Obama with white folks is the fact that he's black in the first place. The racist vote has been tipping against him well before Mississippi; exit polls from Ohio had 20% of the voters saying that race was "important" in their decision, and they went 80% to Clinton. So, 16% of Clinton's Ohio vote either had a problem with Obama being black or liked Clinton more because she was white.

Assuming that's at least reasonably accurate, that leaves 84% of Ohio voters that don't care about race, which is more than enough to draw a winning majority to beat McCain if the war and economy continues to go badly, if you ask me. People are more concerned with the possibility of their houses being foreclosed upon or sons and daughters being shipped off to a quagmire than they are afraid that a guy whose pastor was a Civil Rights activist has a problem with rich white entitlement. Most Democrats have a problem with rich white entitlement, too.

In this avalanche, the pebbles get to vote.

by Dracomicron on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 03:13:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.