USA Presidential Politics - 2008

[MikeW]

As for the Democratic race, it could come down to back room deals with Super Delegates to get the nomination. Got to love the process

[ryberg]

RCP = Real Clear Politics, not the Mounties. Their delegate breakdown is here.

Originally Posted by MikeW

As for the Democratic race, it could come down to back room deals with Super Delegates to get the nomination. Got to love the process

Hold all calls -- we have a winner!

Most unfortunately.

I know you don't believe it, Roni, but the numbers are telling that story, now, and very much as my complaints predicted long ago in this discussion.

To wit, 2008 Democratic Convention Watch also shows Obama currently winning by 1, as it were, but losing by 90, because of the superdelegates, of which they provide a named list, broken down by candidate they're supporting and by their position as an elected official or member of the Democratic National Committee. And by my count just now -- here's a shocker for ya! -- 3 out of 4 DNC superdelegates have pledged for Clinton, with the resulting total being the majority of her lead in superdelegates (= the only lead she has, now).

Gee, stick with me here and see if this makes any sense to you...

Democrat voters have never been more evenly split between 2 candidates, and we can't even get a consistent report on who they prefer, now, it's so close, even after Super Tuesday and about 1,200 of delegates from the popular vote have been assigned. (Indeed, just as I have been writing this, CNN has switched to Obama now leading by 13.)

BUT... And as Pee-Wee would say, this is a big but... Party wonk superdelegates are going for Clinton over Obama 3 to 1.

Is it still really possibly to argue that there is not any significant weighting in this system in favor of Clinton, and that the party and its machinery are not actually being myopic and are not out of touch with the larger context of this election and what the people (including their own voting party members!) want out of it? Is there a reasonable explanation to this other than the old boy network at work for the establishment candidate?

Yes, DNC, please override the popular vote decisions of your own party members in the primaries and caucuses and install Clinton as the nominee, precisely in the same way the Electoral College managed to override the votes of the people in 2000 and install Bush as President. THAT will help us move forward as a party and as a nation!

Figure out a way to screw it up, indeed. Mark my words -- great danger here, and danger Clinton supporters are in, as well, both on the national level (if it costs the election) and on the party level (if it costs us our democratic approach). If that danger turns out to be real, never would there be a case to which you could more accurately apply Pogo's line about the enemy being us...

Steve

[MWC]

Perhaps a veritable fart in a windstorm ...
But Rep Loretta Sanchez of California is listed as endorsing Clinton; but she was introduced at the Hartford Obama rally as supporting Obama.
So things can change.

Thanks for the link, though. I intend to start emailing some of the Connecticut uncommitteds right away.

[melliedee]

Someone please explain this super delegate BS to me?

I saw an interview with a super delegate on CNN last night, and when asked point blank, "so will you go against your constituants if Obama wins your state's primary?" And his answer was, "I have pledged my support to Clinton." (sorry don't remember who or which state, was cable news surfing...)

[MikeW]

Is it wrong I was watching the Lakers trounce the Nets last night, while the election results were starting to come in?

Opinion. I don't like caucuses. I much prefer voting in private. Seems like a caucus can skew the true opinion of the voters.

[ryberg]

Originally Posted by melliedee

Someone please explain this super delegate BS to me?

I saw an interview with a super delegate on CNN last night, and when asked point blank, "so will you go against your constituants if Obama wins your state's primary?" And his answer was, "I have pledged my support to Clinton." (sorry don't remember who or which state, was cable news surfing...)

Well that sort of illustrates it for you, doesn't it? With respect to the regular delegates assigned by the regular voters' preferences in the primaries, they're sort of the counterpart of electors in the Electoral College, only as you see from that comment, superdelegates are not bound to vote the way their constituents vote.

Here again is the Wikipedia entry I quoted on them.

Superdelegates are delegates to a presidential nominating convention in the United States who are not bound by the decisions of party primaries or caucuses. Superdelegates are elected officeholders and party officials.

Superdelegates were first appointed in the 1970s, after control of the nomination process in the Democratic Party effectively moved out of the hands of party officials into the primary and caucus process. The aim was to grant some say in the process to people who had been playing roles in the party before the election year.

The Democratic Party is often criticized during election cycles for conducting primary elections in a non-democratic fashion, since superdelegates are appointed by the party and are not obligated to support the candidate chosen by the voters. There have been repeated calls to eliminate the superdelegates from the primaries to more accurately reflect the popular vote.

Check that 2008 Democratic Convention Watch link, too, for more specific info.

I'm sure you're going to hear a lot more questions like that and a lot more about superdelegates if they continue to be the difference in the race and to be disproportionately for one candidate over the other, despite the public split.

Steve

[jtm1631]

The process is FUBAR. Clinton will get the nomination and it will be politics as usual in Washington.

As Steve pointed out, the difference in 2008 for the democrats is that we are being screwed by our own party. I guess the insiders to like the way Obama plays. I can only assume that Obama is sincere in his call for Change because they sure are scared of him in Washington.

The people are not represented by our "elected" officials. At some point, Washington decided to keep the charade of an election in place when the process become more akin to appointing a new king/queen.

[roni]

I heard a report that, according to exit polls, about 70% of democratic voters would be delighted with Hillary as the candidate and about 70% of voters would be delighted with Obama as the candidate.

While I have a preference, I am and have been part of that 70%.

I would like to suggest that ya'll read some of the history of the Democratic party nominating process going back to about 1948 and reading forward. If that is too far ago, start with the McGovern Commission which came into being after the 1968 Chicago convention.

Ron

[roni]

Originally Posted by ryberg

R
Is it still really possibly to argue that there is not any significant weighting in this system in favor of Clinton, and that the party and its machinery are not actually being myopic and are not out of touch with the larger context of this election and what the people (including their own voting party members!) want out of it? Is there a reasonable explanation to this other than the old boy network at work for the establishment candidate?

Yes it is. The current system was put into place to avoid another McGovern debacle. It had nothing to do with HRC. In the case of a nomination not being decided by primaries and caucuses, the balance of power in the decision goes to elected officials, members of the Democratic National Committee and so on.

The system is weighted in favor of party professionals, (Barack and Clinton are both that and are both super-delegates), but only in a case where one candidate does not gain enough delegates in the primaries and caucuses.

Everything to do with the system the party put into place a long time ago. Nothing to do with it being put into place in order to advantage one candidate or another in 2008. It could end up favoring Obama rather than Clinton, before all is said and done.

[roni]

In big states (with the exception of Illinois), Clinton won big:

NJ 10 point margin
CA 10 point margin
AZ 9 point margin
NY 27 point margin
MA 15 point margin

Other states

AR - 43 point margin
TN - 13 point margin
OK - 24 point margin

These states all had elections (you know, private votes in a voting booth or by mail) rather than caucuses, right?

The question now, and a far more important one than the super-delegate one, is: Do yesterday's results allow Clinton to raise the money needed to compete with the tens of thousands of people plowing millions of dollars into Obama's campaign treasure chest. He outraised Clinton by well over 2-1 in January.

Without the money, Clinton is dead in the water. If, OTOH, she wins OH, PA and TX - it will continue to be interesting.

Folks, I think Democrats are big winners in either case.

[ryberg]

Originally Posted by roni

Yes it is. The current system was put into place to avoid another McGovern debacle. It had nothing to do with HRC. In the case of a nomination not being decided by primaries and caucuses, the balance of power in the decision goes to elected officials, members of the Democratic National Committee and so on.

The system is weighted in favor of party professionals, (Barack and Clinton are both that and are both super-delegates), but only in a case where one candidate does not gain enough delegates in the primaries and caucuses.

Everything to do with the system the party put into place a long time ago. Nothing to do with it being put into place in order to advantage one candidate or another in 2008. It could come to pass before the nominating convention that it may favor Obama over Clinton rather than vice-versa.

Would that this (= the bit about them only mattering if no one gets a majority of regular delegates) were true, but it's not according to what I can see.

Who are the superdelegates?

"The essential purpose of superdelegates is to maintain some control of the nominating process by establishment party elites," said Northeastern State University political science professor Dr. Ron Becker. "It is purely undemocratic..."

The Presidential Nominating Process: A Place for Us?

In creating this new class of delegates, party officials . . . wanted to . . . create a firewall to blunt any party outsider that built up a head of steam in the primaries...

About 14 percent of delegates aren't chosen in voting booths

. . ."superdelegates," the party's top echelon of elected officials who can back a candidate at any time no matter what the calendar, caucus-goer or primary voter says. Candidates have been pursuing endorsements from Democratic governors and members of Congress, knowing these individuals will have a direct say in choosing the party's nominee...

Add this to the Wikipedia description above and the discussion here and in other such places, and you have picture of just what I'm talking about.

Also it's not relevant that each Clinton and Obama are superdelegates, since of course each of them will just vote for themselves and that's a wash. Nor was I referring in my previous comments about the disproportionate split to any elected official-type superdelegates, purposely avoiding mention of those because you don't even need to discuss them to get at the balance-reversing difference of superdelegates Clinton currently has. We're talking unelected DNC people, party officials, nothing more.

Clearly Obama much more closely fits the bill of the outsider, the challenger, the up-and-comer already with a head of steam built up in the primaries, than does Clinton...

Steve

[roni]

About 14 percent of delegates aren't chosen in voting booths

The delegates chosen in caucuses also are not chosen in voting booths, so you need to increase the percentage who are not selected in voting booths.

[MWC]

I agree with Ron that both Obama and Hillary should be considered to be party professionals ... certainly Obama should not be given outsider status -- since 2004, he has been very generous with his presence to help other Democratic candidates raise funds and win elections. His ability to attract new voters and new contributors (and so many!) make him a force to be reckoned with by Super Delegates who are elected officials or party machinistas.

If memory serves me correctly, these rules were put in place not only for McGovern, but also in response to Jimmy Carter. Both candidates, one could argue, were "one-shot" flukes who did little to raise the collective boat for the Democratic Party. That's what the party wants to avoid, more than anything.

[roni]

Originally Posted by ryeberg

Would that this (= the bit about them only mattering if no one gets a majority of regular delegates) were true, but it's not according to what I can see.

There are delegates. In a case where a candidate gets enough delegates in the primary/caucus process to win the nomination the so-called super-delegates are a non issue.

They are all delegates.

[Jacko]

I believe the super delegates will ultimately go with who is the most electable in their minds....particularly given the strength of these two candidates the similarities of their positions......