Are Dems walking into a primary quagmire?

[Tansy_Gold]

I've asked this question frequently, in a variety of ways, but today I stumbled upon some information that puts it into a different perspective, at least for me.

And I do hope someone will correct me if my initial information is incorrect or out-dated. I also hope someone can answer the various questions posed throughout.

According to "Presidential Elections: Strategies and Structures of American Politics," by Nelson W. Polsby and the late Aaron Wildavsky (tenth edition, 2000), the Democratic Party's nomination procedure involves a variety of delegate selection processes. Some states use primaries, like New Hampshire and Arizona; others use caucuses, like Iowa. Whatever format is used, it must take place within a prescribed time frame relative to the general election and the nominating convention.

Any Democratic candidate who receives 15% or more of the vote in a given caucus or primary "obtains a proportionate share of the delegates per congressional district." There are also "super-delegates," who are not required to align themselves with a candidate on the basis of this proportionate share. These "super-delegates" include elected officials -- governors, congresspersons, senators, etc. -- and accounted for 15% of the total delegates at the 1996 convention. It is the winner-takes-most-but-not-all nature of the delegate selection that allows candidates to declare a second- or third-place finish in a given state a "victory," since they may still pick up at least some committed delegates.

In order to be selected as the party's nominee on the first ballot at the convention, the candidate must have a majority of delegates committed to his or her nomination prior to the convention -- and I assume this means the aforementioned apportioned delegates, but not the unaligned superdelegates, though they would of course be counted in the total.

Sidebar of hypothetical numbers --
If the total number of regular delegates is 1500, the nominee would need 751 (50% + 1) to take the nomination. If 15%, or 225, are uncommitted superdelegates, that leaves only 1275 delegates to be chosen in the primary and caucus votes. Although a candidate might be able to count on some of those superdelegates, they aren't committed the way regular ones are. In essence, then, the nominee must pick up considerably more than 50% + 1 of the regular delegates to ensure there won't be a "coup" by the uncommitted superdelegates. Oh, dear, I'm sure I've lost a lot of readers with this; chalk it up to basically I'm thinking out loud in trying to make sense of it myself.

Since 1928, the Democrats have chosen their nominee on the first ballot 17 out of 19 times, with 7 of those being incumbents eligible for re-election. (The GOP has almost identical stats, 17 of 19, with 6 eligible incumbents nominated.)

I have been trying, without much success, to determine how many delegates each state will send to the Democratic convention, but I'm sure we can safely assume that it will be well over 1000. I'm also sure that by the time the primaries and caucuses begin in earnest in January, there will be some kind of charts posted at various sites so we can keep track of each candidate's progress (or lack thereof).

Now, it may work out that by the second week in March of 2004, one of the Democratic hopefuls will have sufficient delegate votes to clinch the nomination, either by having won them through primaries and caucuses or by getting commitments from super-delegates. I'm not sure, but I don't think committed delegates can be transferred, so if anyone else knows for sure, please speak up!

In fact, we may see some of the current crop drop out even before then, allowing their supporters to shift to other campaigns AND keeping from locking up delegates that might be able to shift also and push a stronger candidate into the nomination ahead of the convention.

For example -- and I'm NOT picking on any of the current crop of candidates, I'm just using them to illustrate a point -- it could happen that as we move into the New Hampshire race, we have the nine holding poll stats as follows:
Dean - 20%
Kerry - 15%
Clark - 12%
Gephardt - 10%
Lieberman - 8%
Edwards - 6%
Moseley-Braun - 5%
Sharpton - 5%
Kucinich - 5%
Undecided - 14%

Assuming the poll numbers will translate into actual votes, Dean and Kerry -- having received 15% or more of the primary vote -- would be entitled to some committed delegates, but the others wouldn't.

What I don't know -- and hope someone can answer -- is whether or not ALL the delegate votes would be divided between Dean and Kerry on the basis of their relative proportions, roughly 56% to Dean, 44% to Kerry, or if they would get their 20 and 15%, with the balance of delegates uncommitted.

Even so, I think the potential for a real splintering of the delegate vote is strong for this 2004 convention. And since the commitment of the delegates is only obligatory on the first nominating ballot, IF THERE IS NO FIRST BALLOT NOMINEE, we could be in for a mess. Then the convention becomes essentially a free-for-all.

Is this likely? I don't know. The levels of support for the various candidates don't seem to point to any clear majority leader. The undecideds could still play an enormous role. And I think there is at least a very real potential that we could go into the July convention without a sewn-up nomination.

I see several problems inherent in this. If there is no nomination reasonably sewn up by mid-March, when the major primaries are over, we would enter a secondary phase of campaigning and money spending and money raising. All the money raised and all the money spent in the primary season will not be able to be recouped for the general election. Howard Dean said he wants to raise $200,000,000 by getting two million voters to contribute $100 each, and that's probably not unrealistic. But a long drawn out primary campaign is going to gobble up enormous amounts of money from ALL the candidates and ALL their supporters, while our dear little murdering whistlebuns just tucks his millions away to monopolize the airwaves for two months.

If Dean and Kerry and Gephardt and Clark and Edwards, et alia, spend a combined total of $150 million on the primaries, that's $150 million that won't be spent against chimpy. I've got to think the GOP is just loving every single second of this hate-fest. Not only are the Democrats splintering their own party, but they're squandering the resources they don't have in abundance to begin with.

Yes, yes, yes, I know Soros and Lewis have pledged to help, and I'm not discounting that. But goodness gracious, if we had their millions as well as our own????

Worse, though, and this really is my greatest fear, is that the continued animosity between the candidates' camps will turn into real hatred over the next couple of months, and that disappointment and exhaustion and emotional disengagement in the face of political defeat will overwhelm too many of us, forcing us to opt out of the fight altogether. I don't know exactly what to do about it. I read on an earlier post in another thread that Dean supporters were "non-transferable." I'm not sure what that means. I certainly hope it DOESN'T mean that should another candidate get the nomination, Gov. Dean's supporters wouldn't support the nominee. But I'm not sure. And the Dean supporters shouldn't take offense at this, because I've seen others say "My guy or nobody." "I couldn't vote for Lieberman with a C-clamp on my nose." "Clark is a DINO and I couldn't vote for him no matter what." "Sharpton won't get my vote because of Tawana Brawley." And so on. it doesn't matter if the reasons are legit or not; for the individual voter, they're sufficient.

Maybe I'm worrying needlessly. Maybe in the next few weeks things will shake out and we'll have a nominee well ahead of the July convention, so we can stop blowing money on this internal conflict and save it to go after the real enemy. Maybe the animosity that so quickly manifests in so many threads on DU isn't representative of the country at large. Maybe we'll set aside our differences and get behind someone for the long haul.

But I also worry that our intense concentration on the primary has somewhat blinded us to other considerations. There's a thread here about why W can't win, in which several posters state that no one who voted for Gore could possibly vote for W this time. I think, just mho, that's slightly foolish thinking, for two main reasons.

1. There are indeed people who voted for Gore -- for whatever reasons -- who did not see a distinct difference between the two candidates or the two parties and who will shift to W because he's the incumbent (better the devil you know. . . . ) and because they will perceive us as being at war and be reluctant to change presidents in war time. This may be especially true if the Democratic challenger is the slightest bit waffly on how best to treat the military if we still have troops committed in combat. I think that is going to be a major issue. We've already had over 400 killed, and no one is going to want to campaign on any kind of notion that they died in vain. It's going to be tough.

2. I believe there are also people who will be swayed by whatever campaign spin the GOP puts on the other major issues -- from taxes and the economy to the environment and judicial appointments. Al Gore won in 2000, but he did not win by a huge margin, and the polls seem to show that the country is still pretty evenly divided on the candidates/parties. Issues like abortion, faith-based welfare programs, even the confederate flag, are still very divisive and hot, and they can be used by both sides. In part, these are the people who say they'll vote for "any Dem" rather than Bush, but remain undecided when asked which Dem. Essentially, they don't see any one of the current crop as grabbing their loyalty and enthusiasm enough -- yet -- to say they'll vote for her or him. And it may be that none of them grabs those undecided voters -- or those voters get turned off by all the rhetoric and campaign blather and end up confused -- and they just stay home on election day or vote for the sock monkey because even if they don't like him or agree with him, they know him. As Michael Moore said on Booknotes yesterday, people want a leader; right now, W is the "leader," no matter how rotten a leader he is. The Dems, as a party, don't have an alternative. Yes, I'm sure each group of supporters will insist their candidate is the Dem leader, but we really do not have one strong person to put a single face, a single message, a single unified campaign on.

The foregoing gives, I hope, some idea of why I'm more frightened by this primary battle within the Democratic party than I am of the November election. I think -- I really fear -- that we could mess it up beyond all recognition, beyond all hope of repair, if we don't get our focus onto the issues and off the individuals, if we don't rally and unite instead of speechify and divide. I think right now we're going in the WRONG direction, and we may reach a point of no return sooner than we think.

We can't afford to be without a nominee until July. We have to be united before then. And I know, I know, I know, all the Deaniacs and the Kerryites and the Clarkies and the Edwardians here on DU will jump in on this thread and tell me that their candidate is THE ONE, but that's not what I'm personally looking for. I want, I guess, to see more than the slamming and bashing, more cooperation and conciliation, more let's work together to get this dimwit back on his pig farm where he belongs.

How can we do that? I don't know. None of the national campaigns is calling me on the phone and asking me for my views or my strategies, but I think there has to be one out there, somewhere.

Hoping to avoid self-destruction,

I remain,

Tansy Gold

[lancdem]

1. I don't how to answer you

Has the delegate distribution process changed? Perhaps after the first few primaries, some of the candidates will drop out, making it easier for one of the rest to get a majority.

[tsipple]

2. Excellent Questions! Here Are Some Answers (Maybe)

I believe the superdelegates are around 14% of the total. Superdelegates are not specifically assigned to a particular candidate. They're typically high Democratic elected officials plus a few former office holders.

There's this great myth that superdelegates vote en masse against the expressed preferences of rank-and-file delegates. Not so. There's enormous pressure, for a variety of reasons, for them to align with Democratic voters. If anything, the superdelegates reinforce the people's choice. The last time superdelegates were a factor was in 1988, and they did exactly what I described.

I believe there are approximately 5,000 delegates (to the nearest thousand) in total. Something like that, anyway. Representation is a bit broader than the Electoral College. For example, "Democrats Abroad" get some delegates.

There are interesting gender balance rules that tend to result in a very slight majority of elected delegates who are women. The superdelegates offset this female advantage. I'm actually an expert on this subset of the rules, so ask me anything. :-)

You should know that every four (or eight) years, pundits everywhere hope for a "brokered convention." And they're always disappointed. :-) In a crowded (nine-candidate) field, with the 15% threshold rule, and a front-loaded primary system, you can pretty much count on a nominee emerging rather quickly. There's enormous pressure for losing candidates to drop out. (The press makes sure of that. Frankly they don't like to spend money covering losing candidates.) There's also the fact that many candidates hold elected office, and there are all kinds of ways they can suffer politically if they appear to be party spoilers.

This year does not strike me as any different than years past, except perhaps that it's even slightly more favorable to a quick decision on a nominee. There's always carping about any perceived frontrunner(s). It's what the campaigns do.

[lancdem]

3. Nice post, tsipple

You make some excellent points.

[tsipple]

5. Another Example: Massachusetts, 1990

The Massachusetts Democratic Convention in 1990 was interesting for a variety of reasons. The rule was that a gubernatorial candidate had to get 15% of the delegates in order to appear on the primary ballot. (The state convention came before the primary.)

A candidate by the name of John Silber, ex-President of Boston University, was running for Massachusetts Governor at the time. He was deeply unpopular within the Democratic Party "establishment." But the delegates at the state convention knew he was very popular outside the hall.

Guess what happened? Silber got his 15% with perhaps two votes to spare! The movers-and-shakers made sure that the people were respected. (All sorts of bad things would have happened if they denied Silber a spot on the primary ballot.) Silber went on to win the Democratic primary, so obviously he was popular among Democratic rank-and-file. He then lost the general election to William Weld. (Weld just ran a better campaign, and he was perhaps the last liberal Republican, while Silber was much more conservative.)

My point is that people seem to think superdelegates, party hacks, etc. are somehow immune to public pressure and motivated to act contrary to their own Democratic Party membership. Nonsense. They don't last very long if party members are pissed at them.

[NewYorkerfromMass]

6. John Silber was an asshole

(for lack of a better description) and he was rightly rejected by Massachusetts voters at the twilight of the Dukakis years. It's too bad they couldn't find a better candidate to go against the moderately acceptable Weld. But thanks for an actual example of where the party establishment indeed knew best.

[Tansy_Gold]

7. Thanks, tsipple, for the info

My concern is that right now, mid-November, we've only seen one drop-out from this crowded field. While I think there are probably at least three or four candidates who may drop out before January, simply based on low polling numbers, I also worry that there are other factors that may contribute to their staying in, and thus eventually garnering enough delegate votes to push everything to a second contested ballot. or at least delay the decision past early-March. The GOP isn't wasting money and energy the way we are, so the longer we take to pick a nominee, the further we are behind them in the campaigning and money-raising.

In talking to politically active Dems, many of them truly enjoy the debates and the presence of low-polling candidates like Kucinich and Sharpton and Moseley-Braun. I agree with them in the sense that even these candidates have very, very valuable messages that desperately need to be heard.

But I also suspect/worry that some of the continued attention given to these candidates, and maybe even some of the funding that allows them to remain in the race, comes from forces seeking to divide and conquer the Democratic party.

I don't want to lose those diverse voices. I wish there were a way to keep them vibrant and alive and part of the campaign process even if the candidates have to drop out of actively pursuing the nomination.

The point made about other obligations -- Kerry, Edwards, Lieberman in the Senate, Gephardt and Kucinich in the House -- is more than valid, especially with the filibusters over the judicial nominations and the fragile imbalance in the Senate. Maybe what's cooking at the back of my head is that maybe -- too many maybes -- the candidates ought to consolidate their own campaigns.

And again, maybe by the middle of January, when Iowa and New Hampshire are over, there will have been a big shake-out and it will be down to two or three or four. Yet even then, I worry that the personal attacks will escalate, the supporters will polarize, and the wounds will be too severe for healing.

If the Bush v Gore obscenity polarized the country, I don't want to see a similar polarization happen to the Democratic party. We gotta hang together, or we'll all hang separately.

Tansy Gold

[Yupster]

15. After Iowa

the field will be down to about four is my guess. No need to push anyone out. They'll leave on their own soon enough.

[Yupster]

14. Agree tsipple

every election there's talk of a brokered convention and it never happens.

Someone wins the early primaries. Everyone but 2-3 drop out. Then there's always a "Stop X" movement which never works. Then there's a boomlet of "Y" getting into the race to save the party and the person never does. Then then the race is over in plenty of time.

I expect this one to be the same.

[tsipple]

18. I Don't Think It'll Even Have That Many Plot Twists

Particularly given the Big Evil (Bush), I don't see any chance of brokering. The stakes are just too high this time.

[kalashnikov]

4. go here for good info: www.thegreenpapers.com

[Upfront]

8. Good work

Very thoughtfull. The only question I think I can answer with what I beleive to be true, is about the Dean supporters not supporting other candidates should he lose. We will, for the most part, back the winner. Beating Bush* is the 1st goal. Dean has said he will support and work for who ever wins, and he will convence his people to do the same. I to worry about this thing getting hatefull, and we are sometimes so stupid, it stuns me. Hell, I am mad about half the time on here any more, and I hate myself for that. Wake up people. Post positive stuff about who you support, you might even sell some one. It happens.

[Eloriel]

9. Kick

Because it fits so well with the Hillary / Nomination thread I started tonight.

Eloriel

[sangh0]

12. Actually, it argues against your position

It argues that Hillary and the DLC power brokers can't engineer her nomination.

[JCMach1]

10. Good points, but I think it is highly unlikely

that we will have a hung convention. I would have to say there is about a 90% chance we will know the nominee by the end of March.

I think, even if the scenario you describe comes to pass, enough of the minor candidates will release their delegates to make up the difference in order to avoid a crisis.

For example, if two of the candidates are running neck and neck with no clear majority. Let's say it is Clark and Dean. I would suspect that Kerry and Edwards might release delegates to vote freely on either the first or second ballot. Deals would be cut in order to prevent the semblance of disunity. That would be a case where you might have a Clark/Dean or Dean/Clark unity ticket... or something like that.

[Tansy_Gold]

11. Thanks, JCMach1.

The delegates are only committed to the first ballot, and one thing I'm trying to find out is whether or not the candidates even CAN release delegates prior to the first ballot. If they could, then that might prevent a first ballot blank, but if they can't, then it's back to the drawing board.

The delegates a second- or third-tier candidate picks up in Iowa or New Hampshire aren't going to be enough to make a difference, even if they actually won one of those states with a commanding margin. There just aren't enough delegate votes in either state to make a difference.

But with the second round of primaries in February, I think it's possible -- and this is why I'm trying to find the actual delegate numbers -- that a voting split that goes, say, 23%, 19%, 17%, 15%, 10%, 5%, 4%, 4%, 3% could fracture the delegate count enough that, even with quasi-committed super-delegates, no one will go in with an absolute majority needed for that first ballot clincher.

If the committed delegates are locked in for the first ballot, even if the candidate releases them, that may be the Achilles' heel. At 12-15%, the super-delegates offer a real conundrum, since they can come out and endorse or support a candidate, but they are not "committed" the way the other delegates are. They can change, if the candidate they've endorsed releases them. I'm not sure the regular delegates have that flexibility.

But the other thing that worries me, as I discussed with a fellow Dem on the phone last night, is that all the bickering and back-stabbing gives the Pukes lots and lots and lots of ammunition. We're handing them our own internal discord, and they will be free to use it in the final campaign.

In addition, there's the very real possibility that the escalating fund-raising in the primary and then the general presidential election will siphon funds from the state and local candidates. What good will it do to take the White House for the Dems, if the Pukes get larger majorities in the House and Senate? There's been little attention paid to that aspect. With the horrendous redistricting nightmares that have been visited upon Texas and Colorado and Arizona, the congressional battles are more important than ever, but we're sucking all our resources into this vampire feast of a primary.

Incumbents who do not have substantial opposition within their own party invariably win: Nixon, Reagan, Clinton had no serious challengers within their own party. Ford did, Carter did, so did Bush 1, and they went down to defeat. Chimpy has no challengers. The time, the money, the energy, the everything is being saved to launch an all-out attack on the Dems in the fall. And we're doing nothing but helping.

Tansy Gold

[sangh0]

13. IMO, there wont be a first-round nominee

I believe that going into the convention there will be no clear winner. None of the candidates will have a majority on the first round, and if you think about this, it's not good for Dean unless Dean is a runaway favorite of the people. Otherwise the delegates, many of whom are loyal to the party, will not vote for the guy who ran against the party

[Yupster]

16. It would be fun

just once to have a real convention fight, but I don't see it.

The Repblicans almost had one in 76 and I enjoyed watching that convention because of it.

Ford had just enough delegates, but the Reagan people were trying to peel off enough delegates to open it to a second ballot free for all.

Reagan ended up choosing his VP nominee early (Schweiker of Pa) to peel off the Penn. delegation, but it didn't work. He didn't get the extra votes and he made his southern and western conservatives mad.

He made it up to Schweiker when he became president by putting him in the cabinet.

[Ficus]

17. At least

we won't have to watch a boring convention. Back in the day people used to fist fight at them. I'm sure it'll be interesting!