Superdelegates
Today’s Washington Post has an op-ed column by Jim Hunt, former governor of North Carolina in which he defends the role of superdelegates in the Democratic Party. Here’s a crucial paragraph:
“In creating superdelegates, the Democratic Party recognized the expertise that its top holders of public office have gained by running for office themselves. They are experts at winning. They know the issues. They are in a unique position to evaluate presidential candidates. They have a well-honed instinct for how candidates will be received in their own states and districts. In short, they can help the Democratic Party pick a winner.”
In addition, the involvement of the superdelegates is necessary, Hunt argues, if these leaders are to be enthusiastic in support of the candidate in the general election. The failures of the McGovern campaign and of the Carter administration are traced to the failure to appreciate the role of the superdelegates. The conclusion:
“Too often, the Democratic Party has been split between its grass-roots activists on one side and its elected officials and party leaders on the other. It’s important to remember: We need both wings to fly.”
Comments?
As a Republican, I am dee-lighted (as T.R. would say) that the Democrats are even thinking about thwarting the will of the people at their convention, refusing to nominate the clear winner of the popular vote, and instead possibly letting the party elite throw the deciding votes … if Hillary gets the nomination in that manner, there will be chaos at the convention–all captured live on TV (or at least taped for rebroadcast on the evening news) … and if Obama gets the nomination through super delegates–oh well, that would be OK … (just kidding, SNL-style)
The consequences of the SuperDs going for Clinton if Obama has the largest number of elected delegates are probably immolation.
However, the SuperDs have a critical function in a party that has such diverse tendencies and multiple constituents–and for the reasons that former Governor Hunt notes. Then there are the calculations about the role of independents who voted in the Democratics primaries. Obama has won in 24 states only six of which voted Democratic in 2004. The Dems are certainly hoping to do better in at least some of those states in 2008. But how many can Obama carry against McCain? At least one role of the Super Ds is to consider whether or not, Obama can win the electoral college vote. And if he can’t, they need to consider whether Clinton can. Not an easy task.
Obviously it was a coordinated campaign to get Geraldine Ferraro to say basically the same thing in the times yesterday that Jim Hunt said in the WaPo. I would like to note for the record that neither of these two has contributed to any well-honed winning instinct for the Democratic party in the last 20 years.
They are espousing (and are probably the epitome of) the triangulation strategy that Bill Clinton perfected with the help of Mark Penn. This is the strategy whereby the candidate demonizes half the party and crosses her fingers that it won’t deter them from helping her win in November anyway, and that by dissing her friends who are not so popular with the cool kids (here, the so-called independents), she will thereby appeal to the cool kids to at least by nice to her enough to take her just that much over the top. I think of this strategy what Josh Marshall said, whether it’s about Penn or either of the Clintons:
“He’s the classic rooster whose one well-timed break he’s interpreted as an ability to make the sun rise.”
Time. Place. Circumstances. All different now. Jim and Geraldine, it’s a new day and you need to stop reliving the 80s.
Robert,
Although I agree that there will be big trouble if the superdelegates swing the nomination to Hillary if she doesn’t manage to rack up more delegates than Obama by the end of the primaries, it is not at all clear to me that the primaries tell us “the will of the people.” Considering the complex rules for things like caucuses, the exclusion of Michigan and Florida, and the many primaries that were open to non-Democrats, I don’t know how you determine “the will of the people,” and particularly “the will of the people in the Democratic party.”
If we had gone by “the will of the people,” Al Gore would have become president in 2000.
The Super Ds have no better idea than you or I do about who can win the electoral college. And to the extent that “new states” might contribute towards a Democratic victory, that won’t happen if the Super Ds are allowed to act on the assumption that it won’t. Furthermore, there is this embedded idea that somehow the Super Ds have more at stake than voters themselves in this decision when poll after poll has shown that for many D voters the issue foremost on their mind is who they think has the best chance of winning in November. This smug and largely unexamined attitude that they have superior information has got to stop. It simply isn’t the case. Moreover, the regular voter is far less likely to be beset by institutional and personal conflicts regarding who they should be voting for.
I would also like to note that Obama has not just won in these states, but he has won convincingly, and he has stoked major turnout — in some cases three and four times the number of voters ever voting in a state primary or caucus in previous election cycles, including many new voters turning out.
Regarding HRC’s strategy that puts so much emphasis on Massachusetts and California and NY and NJ (though much of it is post hoc happy talk and rationalization), it’s as if Ulysses S. Grant based his whole strategy of winning the Civil War by using significant resources to make sure, whatever else, that New York and Massachusetts didn’t secede from the Union! It doesn’t get the job done.
I don’t think SD’s should come into play unless the spread between the number of pledged delegates for both candidates is less than 5%. If greater, then let the games begin and the most likely result will be a McCain presidency.
There needs to be a clear, decisive nomination of a candidate who clearly has received the will of the voters during the primary/caucus season. Anything else will just validate the Democratic party is being a self-destructive entitly unworthy of leadership in this country. They have proved that already, to a lesser degree, in the House and Senate.
I have been a voting Democrat for 50 years. I vote early and often, too.
David,
I must reluctantly agree that if Bush and Gore had run against each other for senator, governor, even dog-catcher, you are right–Gore got more popular votes so Gore would have won. But that is not how we elect our presidents, and Gore certainly knew it (indeed, just a few days before the 2000 election–when Democrats hoped that Gore might pull off an electoral college win even though Biush was epxected to win the popular vote, the democrats were reminding everyone that it is the electoral college that decides the EWhite House, NOT the popular vote)
You are also quite correct that the primaries hardly reflect the “will of the people,” especially not with all those restructed caucuses and the usually low turnout … but I am trying to explain how a Hillary-by-superD nomination would be PERCEIVED by the public and the media, and how Obama’s supporters might react … remmeber: Theodore Roosevelt won ALL the primaries in 1912 (there weren’t a lot back then, but he swept them) yet Taft got the nomination because the party controlled the process–so TR went out and ran as the 3rd party Bull moose candidate, splitting republican supporters and electing Wilson (though those who cast ballots for TR and Taft–combined–outnumber those who supported Wilson)
Obama probably wouldn’t run as a 3rd party candidate, but it could split the party–and keep enough voters home (especially African-Americans who felt Obama’s nomination had been “stolen” by hillary) to swing the election.
If we back away from the present campaign, I believe that a good case can e made for giving a special role in the nomination process to some people who have run successfully for some significant political office. There really is good reason to have established successful party office holders bring their collective experience and judgment to bear on the selection of the party’s nominee for president.
The main difficulty I see is in setting up a easily explained process for giving the a voice, while still holding the nomination process open to new blood. I have no answer for that difficulty. This year, though, it’s surely too late to make it reasonable for the superdelegates to overturn the results of the primaries.
Bernard is right -there may be a special place for those who’ve successfully run for office, but what percentage of superdelegates are these?
Here in NM. Gov. Richardson, Diane Denish Jjeff Bingamin and Tom Udall fir that bill.
The gal who ran the caucus here resigned in disgrace and the superdelegate head of the party, under fire to get out too, will probably survive -not without a good deal of cynicism.
Which raises the question of how many superdelegates are party hacks and does it matter how much they contribute not only to the campaign but the annual diners, etc.?
I also return to the pivotal point that I’d like to see answered, viz. if Obama/Clinton kep telling people they’re speaking for them, the average voters, why should there be an extra voice for party nabobs?
Robert,
I agree with you. I have been supporting Hillary Clinton, but if Obama wins more delegates than she does, I will be appalled if the superdelegates hand the nomination to her. Under other circumstances, I would say the superdelegates should vote as they see fit, but not in this case.
Bernard and Bob ==
Yes, it makes perfect sense to have Super Ds to break a tie or, should a named candidate become totally incompetent (e.g., die) or obviously unacceptable (e.g., go to jail), then SDs would be needed to decide on the nominee. But it seems to me they should vote only in such crisis situations. When party leaders choose party leaders we no longer have government of and by the people. We might as well have a monarchy — they’re easier to get rid of than oligarchies.
And yes, Bernard, Friday in New Orleans continues to make a mockery of Church intentions. Crawfish right now are particularly good, yum, yum.