Who says more plegded delegates automatically = nomination?

[tgnyc]

The conventional wisdom among Obama supporters is that because he will almost certainly arrive at the convention with more pledged delegates, even though it may be short of the threshold required to clinch the nomination, it would be "undemocratic" for the superdelegates to support Clinton to point that she actually wins the nomination.

But that's based on what, exactly? Apparently not precedent...


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/stephen-schlesinger/obama-and-the-myth-of-ple_b_89977.html

Obama and the Myth of the Plegded Delegates

There is no rule in the politics of Democratic Party conventions that says that the contender with the largest number of pledged delegates short of the total required for nomination should automatically, by dint of that achievement, be handed the party's designation. This argument is now being put forth by Senator Obama's campaign.

Such a contention is belied by the modern-day history of Democratic conventions. In 1912, the Democratic Speaker of the House of Representatives, Champ Clark, went to the Baltimore convention with the largest number of delegates, around 440, Woodrow Wilson was second with 324, trailed by a few others -- with two thirds of the convention vote required for nomination. Champ Clark was not then allowed to proclaim himself victorious simply because he led the pack. Rather the proceedings went through almost 50 ballots over a week's period that, after much maneuvering, resulted in Wilson accumulating enough delegates to secure the nomination.

In 1932, Franklin Roosevelt arrived at the Democratic Convention this time with the most delegates -- having won them through some primaries and some Democratic state organizations -- but still short of the requisite two-thirds majority. Despite this lead, the party did not hand him the nomination. He had to proceed through four ballots to achieve it.

Finally in the 1952 Democratic race, Senator Estes Kefauver went through the primary process, beat President Truman in New Hampshire, won Wisconsin, Nebraska, Illinois, New Jersey, Massachusetts and Maryland and entered the Chicago convention with a lead of 257 votes, with four other contenders trailing behind, including Adlai Stevenson. On the first actual ballot, Kefauver held the lead but by now Stevenson had crept up to second place. Then ultimately Stevenson grabbed the designation from Kefauver on the third ballot -- all of this, despite his failure to contest a single primary, with no accumulated Democratic votes compared to those of Kefauver's, and in spite of his late entry into the race. But the party thought he would be the better nominee.

Thoughts?

[thunder rising]

1. If Barack comes in with the most delegates and is not the nominee, there will be an R for Pres

The Dem party will have to rely on BIG donors since nobody will donate. Millions go back to ignoring politics.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

25. Count me among those millions. Hillary has lost me FOREVER!

[HooptieWagon]

27. Amen that

I imagine 20% of Ds would sit out in disgust. Funds would dry up, there'd be no boots on the ground. Overturning the pledged delegate results definately would fracture the party. And evidently the HRC camp has floated that trial balloon to DNC and had it thrown back in their faces... hence the new calls for FL and MI to count.

[redqueen]

31. Agree 100%

and if it does end up that way, Nader may finally get his wish of destroying the Dem party, and hoping something better is formed as a result.

[loveangelc]

2. I just dont see supers overturning pledged delegates just because Hillary can say she won big states

the idea that obama won't win most of hillary's supporters is wrong. yes, 25% of them may go to mccain, but im sure he'll get some republicans, and it wont be enough to overcome the record numbers who will turn out in the democratic race.

[ruggerson]

26. they wouldn't be "overturning" anything

they're as legitimate a part of the process, as it is set up, as you or I.

[HooptieWagon]

28. Uh, if the SDs reverse the delegate count, they've overturned it.

But nice attempt at spin.

[ruggerson]

29. But no one has WON with the delegate count

neither candidate has achieved a majority. You can't reverse something that hasn't been won yet.

The spin is yours.

[HooptieWagon]

30. You're spinning in circles

The chances of getting to denver in a dead tie in pledged delegates are remote. One candidate will have a pledged delegate lead, and it's all but certain it will be Obama. If the SDs vote to swing the nomination to Clinton, that would be overturning the pledged delegate results. Are you having a math problem with this, or is it a comprehension problem?

[thunder rising]

3. self delete ... dup

[robbedvoter]

4. Apparently voters "ain't shit". It's all for those delegates - MSM & Obama keep

drumming this in our heads...

[tabasco]

19. Obama has more votes and will have more votes at the convention.

What's your point?

[hedgehog]

5. I forget - how did Adlai Stevenson do in the General Election?

[tgnyc]

6. Is your assertion that Kefauver would have done better? How did FDR do?

That's not a strong enough argument.

[hedgehog]

12. But FDR started with the most delegates - not exactly comparing apples

with apples.

In any case, you're talking anicient history as far as the candidate selection process goes. Among other things, blacks were disenfranchised in the elections you mention.

[hedgehog]

14. Maybe Kefauver was just a little ahead of his time:

From the Wiki article:


...led to enactment of his most famous legislative achievement, the Kefauver-Harris Drug Act of 1962, after Kefauver expressed shock about the excess profits that U.S. drug companies were taking in at the expense of U.S. consumers. Some of what Kefauver's hearings on the U.S. pharmaceutical industry revealed includes the following:

"Witnesses told of conflicts of interest for the AMA (whose Journal, for example, received millions of dollars in drug advertising and was, therefore, reluctant to challenge claims made by drug company ads)…The drug companies themselves were shown to be engaged in frenzied advertising campaigns designed to sell trade name versions of drugs that could otherwise be prescribed under generic names at a fraction of the cost; this competition, in turn, had led to the marketing of new drugs that were no improvements on drugs already on the market but, nevertheless, heralded as dramatic breakthroughs without proper concern for either effectiveness or safety."<2>

[TheDoorbellRang]

23. The article contradicts its own premise

It says FDR went in with most delegates to convention; lots of action at convention before he was ultimately named nominee.

Stephenson went into the convention with less delegates than Kefauver but Stephenson became the nominee.

Problem is, our ultimate goal isn't just a nominee, it's the presidency. So which of the above became president -- the one who went in with the most delegates by popular vote or the one who didn't?

[gravity]

7. If the Supers value the unity of the party

They won't overturn the pledge delegates unless extreme circumstances occur.

While you are technically correct in that the SD's can vote for whomever they want, it doesn't mean that they will do it. Technically pledge delegates can switch their votes too

[tgnyc]

10. good point. but is there any precedent for that happening?

[gravity]

13. There is none

It's just a longshot expecting this to happen.

Both Hillary and Obama are capable candidates and that the SD's have no reason to risks damaging the party to overturn the pledge count.

[9119495]

8. Clinton and the myth of the supers saving the day for her

Does anyone think she can win the nomination with Super Delegates and still get to the White House. Just like Clinton voters according to recent polls, many Obama supporters will stay home. The difference is that Obama gets Independent voter and new voters to fill the ones he looses to pouting Clinton supporters.

So does Obama own the nomination? No. But Clinton simply can't ever own it.

[msallied]

9. There are no hard and fast Constitutional "rules" for Primaries

In fact, we could get to the convention and the DNC could just scrap Obama and Hillary and put Al Gore in as the candidate if they really wanted to. But unless you want all out destruction of your respective party, then you follow the ones established by that party. Otherwise we're talking all-out anarchy, not to mention a certain guarantee of a Republican win. Of course, history has seen similar predicaments. I remember sitting in shock as I learned about the 1948 election in my high school American Government class many moons ago, reflecting how things seemed so "tame" in the modern day. Of course, Bill Clinton was President and we were living in peaceful utopia land. lol Here we are on the verge of history again. This election will make or break the party. I'm nearly of the mind that it needs to be broken and have something better remade in its place. But the state of the world is such that now wouldn't be a good time for that to happen.

If anything is to be learned for this, it's that the Democratic Party needs to severely remake its rules. Particularly if they don't get the Whitehouse.

[tabasco]

20. The Constitution is not the governing document for the Dem selection process.

That would be the rules established by the DNC.

[high density]

11. My thoughts are that we are not living in 1912, 1932, or 1952

We have instant information about the process through television and the internet, so there's much more accountability in the process. The smoke filled room idea isn't attractive to anybody.

[pampango]

15. If there is no "deal" between the candidates, the SDs will unavoidably

piss off one group of supporters or the other.

I would have an easier time accepting the SDs' decision, if it went against my candidate, if that person was behind in the pledged delegates. They both have tailored their campaigns to win elected delegates in the primaries and caucuses. If one has less than the other, it is easier to accept the SDs going against that person.

They are both "historic" candidates. To get within a hair of the nomination and lose it right at the end is going to be tough for supporters of either who passionately support their first-of-a-kind candidate. To lose the nomination at the convention due to SD support going to the "trailing" candidate (while perfectly "legal") after your candidate has attracted more support in the course of the primary/caucus process than the other would understandably make it more difficult for those supporters get behind our nominee.

Most of us will acknowledge that the SDs CAN do anything they want to do. There are not restrictions. However, everyone is entitled to an opinion as to what they SHOULD do for the good of the party not for our own particular candidate.

[Zachstar]

16. If the supers overturn a pledged delegate lead for whatever reason.

Then say hello to President McCain.

[tgnyc]

17. Why would that be the natural result?

[joshcryer]

22. If the supers give the person with the least amount of votes the nomination...

...say hello to President McCain.

[lmbradford]

18. OH I don't know....

Maybe it would be the will of the people. Democracy. Democratic Party.......duh!

[adoraz]

21. all it will take is probably a 20-30 delegate advantage

and there is no way it will be overturned. (assuming there isn't any scandal or anything going on)

[FrenchieCat]

24. the myth will about whatever happened to that Democratic Party?.....this keeps up.