Super delegates may sink the Democrats

[question everything]

http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/asection/la-oe-spivak19jan19,0,6856334.story?coll=la-home-center

From the Los Angeles Times

Super delegates may sink the Democrats
Rules adopted in 1982 to take back the nominating process could haunt the party's leaders.
By Joshua Spivak

January 19, 2008

(snip)

Some early predictions were that the nominations would be a foregone conclusion by now or, at the latest, after Feb. 5, when 24 states, including California, hold primaries and caucuses. But both parties' races are still so tight and in flux that there is a chance in each party that no candidate will capture enough votes to secure the nomination before the conventions. This development would lead to great upheaval for either party, but it may be a significantly bigger danger for the Democrats because of a rule enacted in 1982 by party leaders. In 2008, the result may be a Democratic convention choosing a nominee who lacks the legitimacy of being the "people's choice."

Until 1972, there was no uniform primary-and-caucus system; the nominees of both parties were chosen by the convention delegates. But after the tumultuous 1968 Democratic primary races, and after party leaders ensured then-Vice President Hubert H. Humphrey received the nomination despite not running in any primary, the party opened up the process. Suddenly, primaries and caucuses became the important component to the nominee selection process. However, this did not help the party win the presidency. The 1972 nominee, George McGovern, did very well in the primaries but went on to a crushing defeat in the general election. The party leaders saw further erosion of their own power in the two succeeding elections, as little-heralded Jimmy Carter won the nomination and the presidency in 1976, and Edward Kennedy was able to mount an unsuccessful but damaging primary challenge to Carter in 1980. In response, party leaders made a significant revision to the selection process.

In 1982, party leaders allocated for themselves a heaping portion of the delegates, creating positions called super delegates. Every Democratic member of Congress, every Democratic governor and all of the elected members of the Democratic National Committee (the majority of the super delegates) were each granted a vote at the convention. Party leaders assumed this would help them retain a measure of control over the process -- and of course continue to be granted the bounty of political favors that historically flowed from backing the right horse at the convention. In 2008, the 796 super delegates will make up about 20% of the entire convention. Winning the nomination requires 2,025 delegates.

In creating the super delegates, Democratic Party leaders sought to show that although they respected the popular will as expressed in the primaries and caucuses, they also expected that the super delegates could play a significant if not necessarily decisive role in the selection process. However, it did not work out that way. Popular will has put one candidate far enough ahead by the convention that the super delegates haven't come into play. Every nominee since these reforms has been decided based on the primary and caucus votes.

(snip)

[Yael]

1. And the whole concept is undemocratic to the core

[Eurobabe]

2. I could not agree more

Why do the people even bother to "vote/caucus" anyhow?

This system is bullshit.

:eyes:

[adadem]

7. Exactly n/t

[ursi]

16. 100% undemocratic

[Andy823]

27. It sure is

At it should be changed!

[HughMoran]

3. Thought-provoking

I guess we'll have to wait and see.

[aquart]

4. "Sink the Democrats"?

Now why would the rightwing LA Times think that?

[Hart2008]

5. The Super Delegates sank the party in '84. They gave the nomination to Mondale!

Hart had won 26 primaries or caucuses and was the only Dem to have led Reagan in the polls.

The rest is history. The worst election loss in U.S. history.

:hurts:

[MonkeyFunk]

8. Got any evidence that superdelegates decided the nomination?

[Hart2008]

12. Here's the beef...

Those of us who lived through it, don't need any further proof.

"By the time the Democratic convention arrived, Mondale had a lead in total delegates (owing largely to the un-elected super delegates from the party establishment) that Hart was not quite able to overcome, and Mondale was nominated."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gary_Hart#1984_presidential_campaign

The news accounts of 24 years ago will be hard to find now unless you pay for them, but wikipedia is correct on this point. There was a poll published at the time of the '84 convention in San Francisco showing Hart beating Reagan while Mondale was far behind. Hart delegates went and stuck those newspapers under the doors of the Mondale delegates at their hotels.

We all knew what was coming.



:banghead:

[MonkeyFunk]

13. That's an unsourced claim on Wikipedia

Do you have evidence that Hart got more votes than Mondale in the primaries? Because I lived through that, too, and I certainly don't remember that.

It's odd that I read that exact wiki entry earlier, and the parenthetical line about superdelegates wasn't there.

[Hart2008]

15. More beef! You must have a very bad memory. Mondale had almost every Super Delegate in San Fran...

It was in all the papers in '84! Hart won the most primaries and caucuses 26. Jesse Jackson won Virginia, South Carolina, and Louisiana, and split Mississippi. So Mondale won approximately 20 primaries or caucuses.

1984 Rules: In 1982, the DNC adopted several changes in the nominating process. They had been proposed by the party's Commission on Presidential Nominations, which was established in 1980 and led by Gov. James Hunt of North Carolina. The party created a new group of "SUPERDELEGATES," party and elected officials who would go to the 1984 convention "uncommitted" and cast about 14% of the ballots. (This was a continuation of the effort to bring the experienced, more MODERATE members of the party to the convention to act as a "ballast" against the passions of other delegates.)

In 1984, this had the effect of stabilizing support for "establishment" candidate Walter Mondale over "insurgent" candidates Gary Hart and Jesse Jackson.

http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1996/conventions/chicago/facts/rules/index.shtml

On the morning of June 6, 1984, Walter Mondale's campaign aides woke the Democratic presidential candidate to inform him of a big problem. California and New Jersey had held primaries the day before. The former vice president had confidently scheduled a press conference to announce that he had finally amassed enough delegates to claim the nomination over Colorado Sen. Gary Hart.

There was just one glitch: Mondale was about 40 delegates short. Hart had won California; even worse, Mondale had not done well enough there to pick up as many delegates as the campaign had counted on. So frantic Mondale aides hit the phones to the superdelegates. These were the Democratic insiders who had been given a big new voice in the process, a change to party rules engineered by Mondale backers anticipating the need for just such a firewall.

Mondale managed to pull it off that day. Though the story may sound like ancient history, it remains relevant -- more relevant than it's been in years -- as a reminder of the importance of the arcane rules for choosing and allocating delegates.

http://demconwatch.blogspot.com/2008/01/superdelegate-madness-1984-version.html

John W. Mashek interviewed Hart on August 7, 2007.

Mashek: You, generally, were considered to have a good campaign staff. Was it knowing that the structure that Mondale had — and see if my memory is right here — that Dick Moe, who is certainly a personable man, had to scramble for delegates on Hill to get him anywhere near over the top? Is my recollection right on that?

Hart: Yeah. The difference was the so-called superdelegates, most of whom had already pre-endorsed Vice President Mondale in ’83 thinking that this was an inevitable shoo-in. So I ended up with 1,200 delegates after and winning 25 or 26 primaries and caucuses, including California.

Mashek: Weren’t you winning big in the West?

Hart: Well, I think I won 11 out of the last 12 primaries, and almost all of the Western states. But the superdelegate structure, which I think counted for about 800 delegates, was virtually to a person committed to Walter Mondale.

Mashek: It’s pretty hard to run up against the lock of that many delegates.

Hart: Impossible.

But the interesting thing was, even at the convention, there were no defections. We did not lose, to my knowledge, one delegate, even as it looked as if Vice President Mondale had it locked up. And you would have thought half or more of mine would have defected. No one did.

http://www.buyingofthepresident.org/index.php/interviews/gary_w_hart/

[MonkeyFunk]

20. You're missing the point

who cares who won more primaries? Did Mondale or Hart get more primary votes that year?

[Hart2008]

21. Here's the map of primary and caucus winners from '84!

http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Agora/8088/Dem1984.html

In some cases, like Wisconsin, Hart won the primary, which was only a "beauty contest", but Mondale won the caucus which awarded the delegates.

If you want more numbers than that, you will need to go to a library.

I can't do all your research for you here about what happened 24 years ago.

:hi:

[MonkeyFunk]

22. So Hart won more states

big deal?

If you can't demonstrate that Mondale won more DELEGATES and VOTES, then you're just blowing smoke.

[Hart2008]

23. I never said that Mondale won more delegates or votes, only that he had almost all SuperDelegates.nt

[MonkeyFunk]

30. so the candidate with the most votes won

as it should be.

[Hart2008]

31. You are very, very confused.

Hart and Jackson combined for more votes than Mondale, but together couldn't stop the coming 49 state slaughter in November because of the SuperDelegates.

How was that fair?

:crazy:

[MonkeyFunk]

33. Because the candidate with the most votes

won. Why do you have a problem with this?

If Hart got fewer votes than Mondale, why should he have become the nominee?

[Hart2008]

36. I don't believe that was the case. I believe Hart had more pledged delegates.

The problem was that the judgement of the SuperDelegates resulted in another 49 state loss, which was exactly what it was designed to avoid.

I don't want to go down that road again.
:crazy:

[MonkeyFunk]

39. You "believe" it

but haven't shown it anywhere. And I don't remember it that way at all.

[no name no slogan]

28. Convention delegates from 1984

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1984_Democratic_National_Convention

* Walter F. Mondale 2191
* Gary W. Hart 1200
* The Rev. Jesse L. Jackson 485
* Thomas F. Eagleton 18
* George S. McGovern 4
* John H. Glenn Jr. 2
* Joseph Biden 1
* Martha Kirkland 1

Mondale went into the convention with nearly 1,000 more delegates than Hart. Not all of them could have been superdelegates.

[Hart2008]

29. How many delegates did Mondale have before he locked up the nomination and the bandwagon got full?

After the candidate hits the magic number, others jump on the bandwagon who previously supported other candidates.

Assuming the the number of convention votes was the total number of delegates: 3902 total delegates
Therefore, total delegates needed to win the nomination was half this, plus 1: 1951+1=1952

Taking the above story as accurate, that Mondale was 40 delegates short after the last day of primaries, then Mondales total delegates before locking up the nominations was 1952-40=1912.

So Mondales total before calling remaining uncommitted SuperDelegates was 1912.

If there were 800 SuperDelegates, and Mondale had 90% of them before making his final round of calls for holdouts, then Mondale had 800 x .9=720 Super Delegates added to his total as of the above story.

1912-720=1192 total "normal" delegates for Mondale,
(This is charitable, because some delegates changed from other candidates to Mondale after he locked up the nomination. Gary doesn't remember, but we lost at least one.)
vs.
1200 total delegates for Hart.

I don't think Hart had 8 SuperDelegates in that total. (I'll say he had 4, himself, Dodd, Waxman, and Schumer.)



:beer:

If you want more info on this, please go to a library.

[no name no slogan]

32. From CNN:

The delegate count from above is from the first ballot, where delegates are required to vote for their candidate (hence the two votes for John Glenn, etc.) Mondale had the 1,000 lead on the first ballot, BEFORE any of the other delegates shifted to him.

This article from CNN explains a lot:

http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1996/conventions/chicago/facts/rules/index.shtml

1984 Rules: In 1982, the DNC adopted several changes in the nominating process. They had been proposed by the party's Commission on Presidential Nominations, which was established in 1980 and led by Gov. James Hunt of North Carolina. The party created a new group of "SUPERDELEGATES," party and elected officials who would go to the 1984 convention "uncommitted" and cast about 14% of the ballots. (This was a continuation of the effort to bring the experienced, more MODERATE members of the party to the convention to act as a "ballast" against the passions of other delegates.)

In 1984, this had the effect of stabilizing support for "establishment" candidate Walter Mondale over "insurgent" candidates Gary Hart and Jesse Jackson. Also adopted was a proposal allowing a presidential candidate to replace a disloyal delegate. Another revision was a decision to allow states to choose to keep a proportional representation system AND allow them to adopt a winner bonus plan that awarded the top vote-getter in each district one extra delegate.

Also in 1984, the DNC retained the three-month delegate selection "window" stretching from the second Tuesday in March to the second Tuesday in June. But to reduce the growing influence of early states in the nominating process, the Democrats required Iowa and New Hampshire to move their publicized events to late winter. Although these states retained their privileged status of "going first," party rules mandated their initial nominating rounds be held only eight days apart in 1984. (There were five weeks between the Iowa caucuses and the New Hampshire primary in 1980.) The DNC also set candidate filing deadlines of 30-90 days before the election and limited participation in the delegate selection process to Democrats only.

The superdelegates (14% of the total) probably did not keep Gary Hart from the nomination, but made the margin of victory for Mondale that much greater.

[Hart2008]

35. According to Time, there were 568 SuperDelegates in '84..

Adding Up the Delegates
Monday, May. 21, 1984
The Democrats will send two basic kinds of delegates to their convention this year. The first are those elected in primaries and caucuses. Most are pledged to a particular candidate, while some are elected as uncommitted. Those who are either pledged or have expressed a preference are listed in their candidate's totals. Under the 1984 rules, however, even pledged delegates are not forced to vote for their candidates. The second type consists of 568 slots set aside for party officials and local and national officeholders. These "superdelegates" are technically unpledged. But those who have made their preferences known are listed in the totals for the candidate they support.

What I was missing was that Mondale was also poaching delegates from other candidates who dropped out: Glenn, McGovern, Askew, etc. (Glenn hung in the longest and was getting 20% in many Southern states before he dropped out.)

[no name no slogan]

37. 588 sounds about right for the superdelegate count

That's 14% of ±3,000. What I remember most from 1984 was that the media coverage turned on Hart after the whole "Where's the Beef?" episode (unfairly, IMHO).

I forgot what it was called, but there was a film made about Hart's '84 campaign-- I believe it was a public TV production. I remember seeing it as an undergrad (late 80s). A media crew followed him from before New Hampshire and Iowa all the way through the convention. It was pretty good.

[dbackjon]

25. Only two contests in February

February 20: Iowa
February 28: New Hampshire
March 6: Vermont
March 13: Alabama (Democrats), Florida, Georgia, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, plus caucuses in Nevada, Oklahoma, Washington
March 18: Puerto Rico (Democrats)
March 20: Illinois
March 27: Connecticut (Democrats)
April 3: New York (Democrats) , Wisconsin
April 10: Pennsylvania
May 1: DC, Tennessee
May 5: Louisiana, Texas (Republicans)
May 8: Maryland, North Carolina, Indiana, Ohio
May 15: Nebraska, Oregon, Idaho
June 5: California, New Jersey, Montana, New Mexico, South Dakota (Democrats), West Virginia
June 12: North Dakota



How quaint...

[Hart2008]

26. And none in January! n/t

[2hip]

6. How many superdelegates are DLC?

That'll tell us a lot about where this is all going.




              Edwards '08 tees!

[musicblind]

9. Question about supers

So how does CNN already claim to "know" how many super delegates each candidate is getting? Have these delegates allready declared who they are voting for? Is CNN just guessing because they saw Obama/Hillary/Edwards having LUNCH somewhere with one of these delegates?

How is that working?

Do the delegates vote publicly or privately?


Thank you for the post above, it is very informative and I did not know all of that information.

[MonkeyFunk]

10. Yes

some superdelegats have already declared their affiliation. That's why Kucinich is shown as having one delegate - himself.

[Hoof Hearted]

11. And I proudly cast my delegate vote for - me!

Yeesh.

[robbedvoter]

14. The vote should be DIRECT - for the candidate, not delegates.

get rid of the delegates all together!

[mogster]

17. This is very interesting

I looked into the 1968 Dem convention recently when writing an article, and took some quotes as example:

Johnson had lost control of the Democratic party, which was splitting into four factions, each of which despised the other three. The first comprised Johnson (and Humphrey), labor unions, and local party bosses (led by Chicago Mayor Richard J. Daley). The second group comprised students and intellectuals who were vociferously against the war, and rallied behind McCarthy. The third group comprised Catholics and blacks; they rallied behind Robert Kennedy. The fourth group was traditional white Southerners, who rallied behind George C. Wallace and his third party. Vietnam was one of many issues that splintered the party and Johnson could see no way to unite the party long enough for him to win reelection.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lyndon_B._Johnson#1968_Presidential_election

More about that period, an amazing hot time politically:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._presidential_election%2C_1968
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_F._Kennedy_assassination

I didn't know that the election system actually changed as well.

On edit:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1968_Democratic_National_Convention

[Jim Lane]

40. The superdelegate system didn't result from the 1968 election

The result of 1968 was the establishment of the , which championed reforms to make the primaries and caucuses more important and more open. Those of you assessing nomination rules according to the party's result in the succeeding election (a methodology I reject) should note that the first Presidential election under these rules, 1972, was a resounding Democratic defeat.

Up to and including the 1968 election, Democratic Party insiders had enormous sway over the nominating process. The post-1968 changes eliminated any special role for them. The establishment of the superdelegate procedure in 1982 was an attempt to give some voice to the people who'd won elections on behalf of the Party. I think that part was reasonable (elected officials as superdelegates), but including every member of the DNC was going too far.

[kurth]

18. DNC is the Democrats' Politburo

Just like the good ole Soviet Union...

[MaineDem]

19. That's unfair and not true

Most of the DNC is composed of members elected by the Democrats in each state. Those members take their responsibilities very seriously and attend meetings with the idea of voting based on their constituents needs.

They pay their own way to meetings all around the country. They are no more a politburo than you or I.

Others are named by the Chair to be At-Large members. Granted, some of them don't do squat. But to say the DNC is anything like the Soviet Union is uninformed and untrue.

[OzarkDem]

24. if they use it to nominte DLC Dems, it will n/t

[hogwyld]

34. This is exactly why I believe Hillary is the shoe in.

The establishment has already anointed her, so all of the rest is just a dog and pony show to give the illusion that our votes actually matter.

[FlyingSquirrel]

38. We'll see.

I find it hard to believe that if Barack Obama were ahead at the convention, they would risk alienating voters by choosing HRC over him. If Edwards does not manage to gain some momentum, he'll still have a lot of delegates that he could release to BO. Although they would technically be free to vote however they saw fit, IIRC. This convention could be a huge mess, that's for sure. But I don't think at this point that Hillary Clinton is a shoe-in.

[PassingFair]

43. She's been a shoe-in since...

before she announced.

I got bumperstickers to "re-elect" Hillary for
New York senate sent to my home, IN MICHIGAN,
in '06!

Since then it's been trick after trick.

[pampango]

41. How is it that we have superdelegates and the GOP doesn't? The concept seems

made for a party that wants to control the emotions (and "irrational" behavior of its base. :)

[MonkeyFunk]

42. The republicans do...

they just don't call them "superdelegates". They call them "unpledged" delegates.