Superdelegates, Back Off

[jefferson_dem]

Superdelegates, Back Off
By TAD DEVINE
Washington

ON the first Wednesday in June, the morning after the last day of voting in the 1984 campaign for the Democratic presidential nomination, the long, drawn-out battle that began with Gary Hart’s stunning victory in New Hampshire ended — but only after one last plot twist. I was Walter Mondale’s delegate counter, and I had stayed up all night to estimate the delegates won and lost in the five states, including California and New Jersey, that had voted the day before. I realized we were in big trouble. Mr. Mondale was not going to deliver on his pledge to be over the top in the delegate count by noon on the day after the last primary. He fell 40 delegates short of a majority.

<SNIP>

The superdelegates were never intended to be part of the dash from Iowa to Super Tuesday and beyond. They should resist the impulse and pressure to decide the nomination before the voters have had their say.

The party’s leaders and elected officials need to stop pledging themselves to either Mrs. Clinton or Mr. Obama, the two remarkable candidates who are locked in an intense battle for the Democratic presidential nomination.

If the superdelegates determine the party’s nominee before primary and caucus voters have rendered a clear verdict, Democrats risk losing the trust that we are building with voters today. The perception that the votes of ordinary people don’t count as much as those of the political insiders, who get to pick the nominee in some mythical back room, could hurt our party for decades to come.

The damage would be amplified if African-Americans or women, two of the party’s key constituencies, feel that a candidate who represents their most fervent hopes and aspirations is deprived of a nomination rightfully earned by majority support from voters.

Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Obama, and their campaigns, are pressuring superdelegates to pledge support to them before Democratic voters in the remaining primaries and caucuses have made their decisions. But Democratic leaders need to let the voters sort out which one of these two remarkable people will lead our party and, we hope, the nation.

After listening to the voters, the superdelegates can do what the Democratic Party’s rules originally envisioned. They can ratify the results of the primaries and caucuses in all 50 states by moving as a bloc toward the candidate who has proved to be the strongest in the contest that matters — not the inside game of the delegate hunt, but the outside contest of ideas and inspiration, where hope can battle with experience and voters can make the right and best choice for our party and our future.

Tad Devine, a Democratic strategist, was the chief political consultant to Al Gore’s presidential campaign in 2000.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/10/opinion/10devine.html?_r=1&oref=slogin&ref=opinion&pagewanted=print

[cloudythescribbler]

1. K & R -- this superdelegate issue is key ...

Progressives (especially Obama supporters) need to start insisting NOW that if Obama has a clear lead in delegates from the primaries and caucuses at the end of the season, but no clear majority, the superdelegates should unite behind him. After Obama catches up in TOTAL delegates including superdelegates after Tues, this issue is only going to sharpen.

Possibly, someone could draw up a NON-candidate-partisan statement, including both supporters of HRC AND Obama etc, and collect signatures insisting that if either candidate gets a clear majority of the pledged delegates THAT HAVE been awarded during the primary campaign, the Democrats should unite behind that candidate. Then I have no doubt that Brazile would sign it and publicize it, and that Howard Dean would at least lend a receptive ear.

This statement would HAVE to be available for more than the usual 24-48 hour time limit on Democratic Underground, a policy that would require at least SOME active cooperation from the site Administrators. (Someone on especially good terms with them might approach them perhaps even with a draft of the statement)

[AZ Criminal JD]

2. That is against the rules of the Convention

The Superdelegates can vote as they please. Funny how the Obama supporters feel we have to "go by the rules" to ban Michigan and Florida but when it comes to the superdelegates we have to throw the rules out.

[thoughtcrime1984]

3. So you think that SD's should hold 20% of the power?

Just a question. Try to look at it from an unbiased view. Should Fla and Mi delegates from a vote under the premise of no delegates be counted? Wouldn't a re-vote be appropriate, complete with campaigning and THE COMPLETE UNDERSTANDING that the delegates would be seated? Two different issues at play. Apples and oranges.

[SCRUBDASHRUB]

4. It would feel, to me, like Bush v. Gore again if the superdelegates

take the nomination away from the one who has earned the most popular votes. That would really piss me off.

[AZ Criminal JD]

5. Whether I think SD should hold 20% of the power is besides the point.

That is what the rules have been for 30 years. Why didn't Obama lead an effort to change that in 2004? He was the keynote speaker. What would be the point of a re-vote in FL and MI? It would cost millions of dollars and no-one has said where that money would be coming from. When people voted in those states they knew who the two candidates were. There are a lot of states on Super Tuesday where candidates did not campaign or just barely campaigned because there just is not the time to go to 22 states. How about having re-voting in those states one-by-one and have fair campaigning in all those states? In elections you have to take them as they are and move on.

[GarbagemanLB]

9. How many people just didn't vote in those two states because they knew the situation?

The point is it was not a fair competition. Obama didn't campaign there because unlike a certain other candidate he kept his promise. He removed himself from the ballot entirely in Michigan and had no get out the vote effort in either state. Obviously in such a situation Hillary will win for NAME RECOGNITION alone. She has been in the public eye for how many years versus Obama?

If the results from those two states are kept the same and the delegates are seated, the Democratic Party will dissolve into chaos over this.

[jefferson_dem]

10. Red herring. Nobody's saying the SDs should be formally bound to vote in a certain way.

Did you read the Devine Op-Ed?

The point is that they *should* exercise judgment in casting their votes. Realistically, the calculus should include a major consideration for who the "rank-in-file" citizens support. If not, are we really *democrats*?

The Party should expect a severe backlash if the SDs don't do the right thing.

[thoughtcrime1984]

12. Again, you are not seeing the differences

Honestly, your examples of the ST states that were not campaigned in vs. the MI/FLA are totally different circumstances. The ST states all voted under a premise of delegates, and those delegates will be seated, fair and square. MI/FLA on the other hand, had votes that the constituents knew at the time were not to result in delegate seating. Now we want to seat them after all? Even after not allowing campaigning in the two states, not allowing all the get-out-the vote efforts and local candidate offices. This talk of changing the rules after the fact is flat out wrong, and anyone claiming they can't see that is being disingenuous, plain and simple. I am all for a solution where the states can have a real vote, complete with campaigning- a vote that they know will count this time, a vote that will get the 2 states the true voice they want. The efforts of Bill Nelson and other Fla Dem leaders (and MI)are running counter to this. They are the ones that are ruining this primary by not taking the chance to have the re-vote that the DNC has offered.

[cloudythescribbler]

8. Indeed, Obama supporters on DU should collect and DEMAND this as solution (petition), and then ...

present it publicly. I have already advocated that sort of response for the SDs (above)

[cloudythescribbler]

7. Several points -- many Obama supporters have advocated a REAL vote in MI and FL, & the "rules" ...

do not prohibit the superdelegates (who are unbound) from rallying behind any candidate who establishes clear dominance, even if less than the required majority, in the primary campaign.

Otherwise, you have the paradox that without the superdelegates, candidate X WOULD have the required majority, while WITH the superdelegates swelling the total, a majority (now more difficult) is not achieved. The SDs are there clearly to resolve an issue of the primary campaign not generating a clear winner, and to AVOID a brokered convention.

I think some people here are being 'more royalist than the king' vis-a-vis Howard Dean on these issues

[Windy]

11. Look it wasn't a free and fair election in MIchigan and Florida

We were told that our votes wouldn't be counted. Many sat the primary out. For that reason alone, the delegates from my state and florida cannot be used to determine the nominee without a new election.

Jesus... I thought we were the democratic party. Hillary has already announced that she has the support of superdelegates in VA, MD and DC before the people have even cast a ballot. She knows full well that those superdelegates can change there vote. the win by all means necessary method is into full gear now.

Every day, I'm finding more and more reasons to sit out the election if Clinton is successful in stealing it.

[greguganus]

6. I wonder who Bill Clinton and Terry Mcauliffe will vote for?

:eyes: