Refresher Course: the truth about "Super Delegates"

[featherman]

One of the most consistently misunderstood themes around here is that "the Super Delegates will do this" or "the Super Delegates will do that". The idea that the Super Delegates will do anything as a voting bloc is not accurate.

Super Delegates is a bad term to begin with... a media creation that has been abused. They do not have any "super powers" but the term suggests that they do to the uninformed... as recently as this morning in a discussion with my spouse.

At one point the Clinton campaign suggested they be called Automatic Delegates to distinguish them from elected (pledged) delegates. This is because as party officials (state chairs, Governors, Lt. Governors, DNC members, Senators, Representatives, etc) they automatically become delegates to the national convention. They don't have to be elected. This term didn't stick however.

The SD's floor votes are just single votes like the elected delegates. The main difference is that they are free to vote as they choose in a floor vote while the elected delegates have signed a pledge to vote for one candidate or the other thus becoming "pledged delegates". As the Clinton campaign has correctly pointed out, even pledged delegates can vote other than how they pledged without penalty. However, the pledged delegates from a particular state are generally chosen by the respective campaigns and are particular loyalists to that candidate...very unlikely to change... at least on the first ballot.

As I said above, the SD's are not a bloc. Each is part of a state delegation for voting purposes. They don't sit in a special Super Delegate Room ready to jump out en masse and control the convention.

How they will vote is very, very clear. EACH ONE vote will according to their own particular preference based on state politics, regional affiliation, friendships, political analysis, gut feeling, flipping a coin, or any number of ways. The result will be a close to EVEN split on the first ballot at worst and those 400+ votes will give the pledged delegate leader the majority (2025+) on the first ballot.

It's pretty simple really. What makes it particularly obvious that the SD's will split roughly evenly is that both candidate have a matching set of Democratic heavyweights backing them: Bill Clinton, Schumer, Feinstein, et al on one side Kennedy, Kerry, Richardson, et al on the other. This makes it quite certain that there will not be a preponderance of SD's going one way or the other.

Hope this is helpful to some who have had a problem with this. I know many already know this stuff but thought I'd write it out for my spouse and others who are less certain what the Super Delegate thing means.

[sandnsea]

1. They could, but they won't

They will go for the winner. They are not going to rip this party apart for Hillary Clinton.

[DemVet]

9. Yeah, keep drinking the Kool-Aid

A big misconception...the superdelegates will go for the leader. Uh huh. :eyes:

[GoldieAZ49]

13. there isn't a 'winner' short of 2025 prior to the convention

and whoever is in the lead is not owed the nomination.

[grantcart]

2. super

by the way Lt. Governors are not super delegates by office although many of them like Governor Patterson were SD by means of DNC spots - Patterson did not resign his DNC spot so he is going as a DNC SD and not as a Governor - thereby costing the Clinton camp a SD)

[featherman]

3. I though Garamendi of CA was as the highest ranking CA official

But will have to check that

[Willo]

4. I'm getting the sense that the voting at the convention will operate

somewhat like a caucus. In that there are deals and arguments to sway votes?

Is that correct?

[featherman]

5. The first floor vote doesn't come until the third (?) day (I think)

so there is plenty of time to talk and schmooze about stuff. I don't see significant movement likely one way or the other as far as casting actual votes in the first floor vote from that process. All these decisions are made individually and for every ardent SD arguing that Clinton is the better candidate there is a just as ardent SD arguing that Obama is. Barring a catastrophe for one or the other between now and then this is likely how it will play out.

[rodbailey]

8. And one deal we might be suggesting,

is that, if things get too bloody between Clinton and Obama, and their negatives are going up because of it, that the Party and a group of the super delegates think about turning to Al Gore as a unifying/winning candidate for November. This strategy has been discussed nationally in Time and Newsweek, on CNN and MSNBC. It is not a figment of someone's "Goreniac" imagination at this point. It is generating discussion among some of the super delegates as has been reported in other threads on DU. It is a possibility that those of us over at the Al Gore '08 Forum on DU are actively trying to do something about: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=260x3294. Come on over and see what kind of fun we're having.

[Butch350]

14. Oh No It Won't!

rodbailey (163 posts) Tue Apr-01-08 06:48 AM
Response to Reply #4
8. And one deal we might be suggesting,
is that, if things get too bloody between Clinton and Obama, and their negatives are going up because of it, that the Party and a group of the super delegates think about turning to Al Gore as a unifying/winning candidate for November. This strategy has been discussed nationally in Time and Newsweek, on CNN and MSNBC. It is not a figment of someone's "Goreniac" imagination at this point. It is generating discussion among some of the super delegates as has been reported in other threads on DU. It is a possibility that those of us over at the Al Gore '08 Forum on DU are actively trying to do something about: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph... . Come on over and see what kind of fun we're having.
rab runner


*** This WILL NOT happen - it would cause total CHAOS - and it would rip the Democratic Party "a new one"!

[karynnj]

16. No one has really discussed the riskes with doing that at the convention

In addition to the view many would have that the entire process was not Democratic, Gore might not be as stellar a candidaet as some here suggest. His numbers now reflect his role as - out of politics and committed to global warming.

Every candidate running usually spends more than a year building their platform, designing their signature plans and chaeking the response of audiences in the primaries to them. Gore would need no work on his environkmental platform - I think we would all agree, but he has not spoken in great detail on his views on other subjects. He was always a better policy wonk than campaigner - which is not a negative to those of us who have CSPAN as our favorite channel - but there are not enough of us.

At this point, Obama is about 160+ pledged delegates ahead - this is about a 10% lead in delegates (ststing it as a few hundred is an attempt to minimize that it is a a few hundred of a number that ultimately when all are assigned will be in the low 2,000 range.)- no matter how Clinton wants to fudge it. Winning delegates was the way the rules of this game work. Going to popular vote was not how you win and when there is a mix of caucues and primaries, it makes no sense. (Then to add insult to injury, they add MI giving Obama no votes there. If I were a super delegate - the inclusion og MI there would be enough that I would refuse to look at their argument further - because that is a sign of its lack of credibility.)

It is particully galling as Obama is actually being the powers that be in the party establishment. This entire election - with 22 states on SuperTuesday was designed to make beating HRC - the flawless inevitable 20 to 30 % ahead candidate the winner. What does it say if these same people ignore that he is significantly ahead in pledged delegates.

[NoBushSpokenHere]

6. Nice OP featherman ty for posting nt

[MaineDem]

7. The difference, as you stated, is that they are Unpledged

In fact, the official term for them is Unpledged Party Leaders and Elected Officials.

Thanks for the post.

[Apollo11]

10. Except some of them are kinda pledged

Like Bill Clinton. You can say he has pretty much taken the pledge.

Or on the Obama side: John Kerry, Ted Kennedy, Chris Dodd, Bill Richardson ...

[MaineDem]

15. No, they aren't pledged, they are supporters

Pledged in these terms means allocated based on the state vote. None of these superdelegates are pledged as far as the Rules go.

I know it's semantics but it's how the DNC breaks down the delegations. Each state is entitled to so many pledged delegates and then the unpledged are added on top of that.

[Arkansas Granny]

11. Thanks for the info.

[GoldieAZ49]

12. That is why both candidates will go to the convention

for the delegates to vote.

without reaching 2025 there is no 'winner' without SD votes.

Should be a great convention, and serve its purpose for a change.