superdelegates- manufacturing a crisis

[hay rick]

The mainstream media has developed a script for the Democrats' "superdelegate crisis." Virtually all of the commentary centers on the fact that the Clinton-Obama race is very close and therefore there is a good chance that neither candidate will arrive at the convention with pledged delegates sufficient to assure a majority of all delegates and assure the nomination of a candidate expressing "the will of the people." Under these circumstances, a majority can only be obtained through the machinations of "unelected superdelegates." The cherry on top of this cheerless scenario is the "back room deal", particularly if the ultimate nominee is not the one who won the "popular vote." Subliminal conclusion: the Democrats are still the party of Boss Tweed and Mayor Daley.

I have a few problems with this script.

1. What is the "popular vote"? Is the candidate with the most pledged delegates earned in the primaries the winner of the popular vote or is it it the candidate who received the most total votes nationally? They don't have to be the same candidate. Bush or Gore?

2. How do you account for "will of the people" in states like Wisconsin, where Republicans and Independents can vote in the Democratic primary? Their vote could be decisive in a close race. I want the Democratic candidate to be the person who expresses the will of the Democrats, not the will of the people. I don't want to vote in a general election where both candidates have been chosen by Republicans.

3. The script always refers to "unelected superdelegates." It is true that superdelegates are not chosen by voters in the Presidential primaries. It is also true that the majority of the superdelegates obtain that status because they are, you guessed it, elected officials. I think most of them want to be re-elected and therefore would think very hard before backing a candidate that they thought was unpopular with their constituency. It's an example of representative democracy rather than town hall or direct democracy, but democracy never the less.

4. Much worse scenarios having to do with primary math are imaginable. Here's a possible Republican nightmare. A "moderate" Republican wins the Republican nomination over a conservative Republican in a tight race decided by a good showing in California. The Republican nominee loses California in the general election, as Republicans usually do, and also loses some border states that a more conservative candidate might have won and thereby loses the election.

5. I thought contested elections were supposed to be good. I'll keep what we've got and McCain can have the "cakewalk." As I recall, the last cakewalk didn't work out so well for the Republicans.

[Beregond2]

1. Superdelegates

Very well put. I've been trying to put a statement about this issue together myself; now I don't have to!

[John Q. Citizen]

2. 1.Most pledged delegates wins. (according to many party big wigs)

2. Doesn't matter what you want. Primaries and caucuses are run by state parties within the DNC framework (scheduling, total delegates from each state)

3.Supers are elected officials (us congress, senate) DNC members, and some former elected (like Bill) Everything I've heard is that most tend to vote with the majority of pledged(elected) delegates

4. I like the proportional awarding of the elected delegates.


I doubt this will go to the convention. The math heavily favors Obama to win a majority of the elected delegates, and thus the nomination. My bet is after March 4th (when the math should be much clearer) that super delegates will start endorsing Obama in droves. More of Hill's endorsed supers will switch to Obama or go neutral, Hill will see the writing on the wall and will concede.

I'm guessing she will concede on Friday, March 7th. That's unless Hill pulls off some kind of Miracle and wins tomorrows primaries by large margins 10-20 points, and then wins really big on March 4th 15-20 points or more in OH, TX, and RI and wins Vermont. Then win PA big and some of the other states. Extremely unlikely.

In fact, if she loses big enough tomorrow it could end in a few days.

I've liked the drama, the spectacle and the national focus on politics of our race. But I haven't liked the recent bs charges trumpeted by the Clinton campaign over nothing to try and smear Obama in a desperate attempt for Hill to make something happen. I understand it, but too much of that crap could hurt the party. And the sooner we get our nominee decided the better for the party as a whole and the better chance we have to take back the white house.

[hay rick]

3. open primaries

My concern in 2 is that "open" primaries present a huge opportunity for abuse. Republicans, having already decided on their candidate, can now use their votes in tightly contested open primaries to swing the verdict to the candidate they prefer, either because they dislike that candidate less or because they think that candidate will be easier to defeat in November.

As to mechanics, I think state laws (not the state parties) determine whether primaries are open or not. Just my guess. Appreciate references on subject if anyone has them.

If March 7 is the over/under, I'll take the under.

[John Q. Citizen]

4. No, parties decide if they are open or not. I know this because the Repos already had a closed

caucus (and by closed, it was by party invitation. Lots and lots of pissed off Repo voters here.

The Dem primary is open, on June 3.

I hear a lot of worry about mass cross overs but I've never seen any data to suggest it happens much.

A lot of independents vote. But this is a weird year. Primaries usually are very low turn out.