CE Week #3: “Democrats uneasy about super delegates”
796 insiders could override ordinary voters
Peter Wallsten and James Rainey
Los Angeles Times
February 10, 2008
WASHINGTON – In a year that has seen Democratic voters flock to the polls but produce two evenly matched candidates, some party leaders are becoming alarmed that the process for deciding an eventual winner is in disarray, and that the decision may come down not to ordinary voters but to the group of 796 insiders known as “super delegates.”
Contributing to the tension is a continuing battle over the roles of Florida and Michigan, which were stripped of their participation in the party’s national nominating convention due to a fight with the Democratic National Committee, or DNC, over the primary election calendar.
Now, with the prospect that neither Hillary Rodham Clinton nor Barack Obama will win a clear majority in the delegate count, a discussion is re-emerging over whether voters in those states should return to the polls and help pick the nominee, voting this time in an election formally sanctioned by the party.
“We’re headed for a train wreck if we don’t get this resolved,” said Sen. Bill Nelson, D-Fla., referring both to the role of super delegates and to the DNC’s decision to penalize his state. “It is a flawed system that has to be changed.”
Donna Brazile, who ran Al Gore’s 2000 campaign and is herself a super delegate, threatened to quit her leadership post in the party if the nomination were to be decided by insiders rather than the broader group of Democratic voters who have turned out in huge numbers. Brazile, while pleased that the competitive race has invigorated the party, said Friday she was “deeply worried about our ability to ensure that this is a very smooth process.”
The anxiety has risen in the wake of Tuesday’s coast-to-coast primaries and caucuses, which left Obama and Clinton nearly even in the delegate count – leaving strategists in both campaigns to conclude that neither was likely to win the needed 2,025 delegates even after primary and caucus voting ends this summer.
Republicans, meanwhile, have all but crowned a nominee, Sen. John McCain of Arizona.
Now some Democrats are fretting that the GOP can prepare for the general election while Clinton and Obama wage a bitter and personal war for delegates that would end in a swirl of controversy.
DNC Chairman Howard Dean sought last week to calm those fears, predicting that the party would likely know its nominee by the spring – even if it requires some sort of deal between Clinton and Obama.
“The idea that we can afford to have a big fight at the convention and then win the race (in November), I think, is not a good scenario,” he said Tuesday. “I think we will have a nominee sometime in the middle of March or April. But if we don’t, then we’re going to have to get the candidates together and make some kind of an arrangement. Because I don’t think we can afford to have a brokered convention.”
Florida and Michigan together account for more than 350 delegates. But at the moment the DNC is refusing to seat the delegations because both states held primary elections earlier than the official party calendar allowed.
With the delegate race so close, the dispute over Florida and Michigan has emerged as a point of contention between Clinton and Obama. Clinton, who won the votes in both states, is demanding that the delegates be counted. Obama disagrees, noting that his name did not appear on the Michigan ballot nor did he officially campaign in Florida.
Florida officials said they were especially loath to put aside the Jan. 29 primary results, given that more than 1.7 million Democrats turned out that day and that Clinton and Obama appeared on the ballot.
“You can’t undo an election with a caucus where you would be switching 1.7 million private ballots with maybe as many as 50,000 attending a caucus,” said Nelson, who has endorsed Clinton. “That just is not going to work, especially in a state that is so sensitive about having the right to vote and having it count as intended.”
Another senior Democrat, Sen. Carl Levin of Michigan, issued a similar statement Friday, noting that 600,000 Democrats voted in that state’s primary and that it “would not be practical or fair to throw out the results of that election.”
Adding to the friction is the role that super delegates are entitled to play at the party’s national convention in Denver, set for August.
Both campaigns are now focusing intensely on those 796 insiders – members of Congress, governors, state party chairs and DNC members from each state – who could play kingmaker at a competitive convention. Those super delegates are free to vote for a candidate of their choice, regardless of the outcome of nomination contests in their states.
The super-delegate process appears to benefit Clinton, with her family’s long-standing political connections. She leads among declared super delegates, about 270-170 – a lead that includes the vote of her own husband, former President Clinton, who gets a vote as a “distinguished party leader.”
The tradition of super delegates was adopted in the 1980s as party leaders and elected officials looked for ways to maintain their influence over a national convention. DNC officials on Friday defended the practice, arguing that many of the super delegates are grass-roots activists.
But the closely fought contest between Clinton and Obama is making some super delegates uneasy. Some do not relish the idea of deciding the nominee, even after millions of Americans have already voted.
Questions from Kautzman: What do you think the Democratic Party should do to resolve these two issues? What do you think it will do? What will be the result?
Wow… Bill Clinton is voting for his wife… Aww, how sweet…
Alright so we’re having issues because Obama and Hillary are neck-and-neck and this tends to throw a lot of people off. Now we have to rely on delegates, right? And super delegates… how much of the party do they make up… I’m talking percentage wise, maybe 40%? Super delegates are meant to give elected officials some say in the vote…so even though citizens can vote, there is still a ‘balance of power.’ It’s not complete democracy (we knew that already.)
As far as ‘what the party will do,’ I’m not really sure. Perhaps we’d have another ‘poll’ or whatever, but seeing as how the entire nation is half and half…both candidacy’s are going to be trying their hardest to make the other candidate look bad so that they can sneakily win the majority vote by swaying some of the more uneasy voters/delegates. But I have a feeling that nobody will be happy with the end result because it’s obviously not a clear majority. But we’ll see what happens.
Florida, Michigan, super delegates oh my!
Did Florida and Michigan win the battle of frontloading? If the Democratic committee agrees for another vote, SHU-BANG! Florida and Michigan both win the battle. What an interesting scenario having Florida and Michigan vote again. I think that their vote should count in all circumstances. I mean Florida and Michigan both have the right to vote whenever they want to in order to propose a candidate. In this race what does it matter? Obama and Clinton probably would have split the vote in those states any ways, so where is the problem? I guess the problem is what if? But the what if? in this case comes from: What if the super delegates have to decide between the two candidates. “Now, with the prospect that neither Hillary Rodham Clinton nor Barack Obama will win a clear majority in the delegate count” the decision will come down to the “political machine”, the Super Delegates. The people’s voice is being squashed yet again to who they want to win the presidency. After 1968, when the Democratic Party decided to include the people (pretty smart since demo means people, so obviously they should allow the people decide), in 1972 the people nominated George McGovern who lost in the popular vote 60.67% to 37.52% and in the electoral vote 520 to 17. So to “cushion” the people the leaders decided to create super delegates to inform the people on elect-able candidates. Cushions were created quite a bit to prevent the ignorant masses from running the country. Look at how we “elect” the president…through electors, which are appointed by the state legislators, who are then voted by us. Even though there is a popular vote, no one wins the election by simply winning the popular vote—as Al Gore realized in 2000. Senates were not directly elected until the 17th Amendment. Now the people do not want the cushion but want direct election of the nominees, we are not yet at the election of the President, but it is starting at the nomination level. What if the regulations do change, will it ever change that the President is finally decided by direct popular vote? Although my voice will seem to have more power, I’m afraid that as a people we will elect incapable Presidents—which could be a problem in the future of America… Interesting stuff; makes me think about the government that runs this country and the people that want to change it.
Danny Porter
If you frontload you won’t get delegates. So don’t do it ok! Yah well we really showed them the power behind that statement. Both Florida and Michigan frontloaded by scheduling their primaries earlier than they were allowed; so we took always their delegates and low and behold we pin ourselves anyways. Those 350 delegates could very well decide the nominee for the Democratic Party. Honestly (and maybe I lean this way because I support Obama) I think they should have “do-overs” in the two states (since Hillary practically cheated by running in those states when she wasn’t supposed to…two wrongs DO NOT make a right =] ) and I think we should throw out the super-delegates. The super-delegates were put into place so that we didn’t nominate someone unelectable. Both Hillary and Barak are electable and I don’t think the super-delegates should play king makers. They lean towards Hillary (2:1) and I don’t think they represent the will of the people. As for what the party should do…I don’t think they’ll throw out the super-delegates because they are Democratic leaders. And as for the two mischievous states….? I think they might actually have a re-do and for the results its depends on the kind of primary. If it’s a caucus I think Obama will win and if it’s not then Hillary might. But as its going with Obama’s 8th straight win who knows =]
Kelsea, you have a point but I don’t think that you are completely right about the whole “go negative” thing. Barack Obama’s whole campaign has been based around his ability to not go negative. Obama might try to undercut Hillary in some way or find a way around it, but I don’t think he has come this far to pull Lee Atwater in the final home stretch. People respect the integrity that Obama has and he seems to be doing just fine as far as voting goes without negativity in his campaign. Also, super delegates are there to allow elected officials to have their say in the voting process, but there is more to it than that. Super delegates are there to make sure that the candidates that the people have chosen are “electable” candidates. As far as I can see, I think that both candidates are more than electable. I really don’t think that super delegates are needed, as opposed to after the McGovern election. I really don’t see a difference (looking at the election results thus far) between the two candidates. As fair as they stand with me, it’s virtually a tie. The democratic system is the weirdest I have seen, and I still don’t quite understand the whole purpose behind the caucus as opposed to the primaries, and so on. What makes the most sense to me is the primaries, but I guess that’s only a republican thing, and heaven forbid the two parties do something that is the same for once, but that wouldn’t be politics now would it.
All of this business is pretty crazy, but I think the solution is simple. Hillary should just drop out. This would solve all of the problems mentioned in the article; however, this is probably not going to happen, so instead we must look to the other, equally simple solution: the Democrats shouldn’t change anything. Yes, the race is close, and yes, a divided party would make it more difficult to win in November, but changing the current state of things would only cause further uproar and controversy.
First, the Democrats should not give any delegates to Florida and Michigan. Simply awarding delegates to those states would give a big advantage to Hillary and, as the article said, having caucuses wouldn’t be practical. The Obama camp would be outraged if delegates were to come from these states, as would be much of America.
Also, the Democrats definitely shouldn’t get rid of the superdelegates. Whereas awarding delegates from Florida and Michigan would greatly benefit Hillary, abolishing the superdelegates would have the same effect for Barack. But while the superdelegates shouldn’t be abolished, they definitely should serve their purpose. They were created as a result of George McGovern’s big loss in order to ensure that the Democratic nominee for president would be electable. This is the key in this situation. Many Democrats are siding with Hillary simply because they are loyal to the Clintons, but they could be effectively doing the opposite of what they were intended to do in the first place. The polls have shown that Hillary only leads John McCain by 3% (the margin of error) in head-to-head polls, while Barack leads McCain by a much wider margin. (See the article “Analysis: Obama has advantage in head-to-head with McCain”.) It seems very much so that Obama is the more electable of the two. 2008 could be one of the best years in the Democratic Party’s existence, but the superdelegates could be pounding the nails into their own coffin if they support Hillary.
First I would like to start out by saying this: Why the heck did Michigan and Florida go ahead and have their primaries before the Democratic Party told them they could!!! WHY?!?! I’ve asked questions in class about this before and yet I still am confused and frustrated with the people in charge of these two states. Yes I know their trying to make some stand or something….big FREAKIN deal! Now they’ve totally wasted their “participation”! If I was a voter of either Michigan or Florida, I would be infuriated! Get over your fight with the DNC and just have your stupid primary when they tell ya to! I sure as heck would want my vote or participation to count for as much as possible!
Anywho… the article stated that “Donna Brazile, who ran Al Gore’s 2000 campaign and is herself a super delegate, threatened to quit her leadership post in the party if the nomination were to be decided by insiders rather than the broader group of Democratic voters who have turned out in huge numbers.” I totally agree with this and it totally makes sense. I know that originally the creation of the super delegates was some kind of precaution but now I really think that the Democrats’ “chickens have come home to roost”. It’s scary to think that the Democratic nomination could depend – alone on the super delegates. In class while going over recent primary/caucus results, we’ve discussed the rare importance of the super delegates in this year’s presidential election. Personally, I would not want to be one because it seems as if a lot of pressure comes with the territory.
Just to point out something interesting… I find it amusing that once again a dispute has broken out between Obama and Clinton concerning the “Michigan and Florida hullabaloo”. “With the delegate race so close, the dispute over Florida and Michigan has emerged as a point of contention between Clinton and Obama. Clinton, who won the votes in both states, is demanding that the delegates be counted. Obama disagrees, noting that his name did not appear on the Michigan ballot nor did he officially campaign in Florida.” This just further goes to prove my “disappointment” in those two states for basically blowing it this time around.
I don’t think the super delegates are going to be the deciding factor in the delegate count, at least, I don’t think the majority will pledge themselves to a candidate that the majority of the democratic party hasn’t already given a lead. I think this would cause a large rift in the democratic party which they cannot afford to create in a year when record numbers are attending democratic caucuses and primaries.
As a young, sometimes democrat, I really don’t like the idea of super delegates. I am a firm believer in one person one vote with equal power given to each. Those considered “super delegates” have every right to support their chosen candidate, but their votes shouldn’t count more than mine. In our information age, this safety net, protecting government from the ignorant masses has become very antiquated.
I think that the democratic party should lower the delegate count it takes to win the nomination. I understand that this would be extremely impractical in the middle of the primary season, but it’s something that should be considered for later. Also, I agree with the proportional distribution of delegates in large states, but small states should be winner take all.
The big question as we come down the home stretch of the nomination period is: Should we allow the delegates of Florida and Michigan to be seated even though they front loaded their primaries? Well what once seemed a plain and simple question is now very interesting. Barack supporters say there should be a re-vote whereas Hillary supporters believe that the delegates should be seated as is. Both want to help their own candidacy. The third route is to just leave the two states out. However this could lead to some interesting implications come November. Although I don’t think that many people will be so upset with the Democratic National Party that they will vote Republican, yet they might just stay home which could hurt the Democrats in these two crucial swing states. All in all the Democrats are in quite the pickle here. The way that seems most fair is to redo the elections because the numbers to begin with aren’t even accurate. What if the states hadn’t front loaded and then John Edwards or Dennis Kucinich won these two states? So its not really as cut and dry and is seems. I believe that if the Democrats decide to seat the delegates of these two states that they will have a redo. Thus putting the kabbash on front loading but also allowing both candidates to campaign fairly.
For the super delegates I believe that they could be abolished because it’s been over 30 years since they’ve been implemented and I believe that Democrats will pick an electable candidate from now on. Ultimately it makes the most sense to have the super delegates vote along with their constituents because those are the same people who elected them to their positions. This would throw a little bit of a curveball into the mix because it would reverse the way that it is right now.
All in all a very interesting predicament.
Florida’s insistence on counting the Democratic delegates decided on January 29th is a prime example of the state’s omnipresent sense of caution following the debauchery of 2000; voters, of course, will not have forgotten how whole counties were miscounted or subject to various other errors such as ballot design, and those memories are being reflected eight years later. Not counting the Florida delegates is a deliberate disregarding of the opinions of voters – a prime example of the brokenness of our present system. Nonetheless, I can understand the DNC’s trepidation. Counting Florida’s delegates, as well as Michigan’s, would give Clinton an unfair advantage over Obama, who only chose to remain loyal to the standards of the DNC. Although, they can’t have not seen this coming! The DNC was very foolish in not considering the consequences of excluding Florida and Michigan from the delegate count.
As for the possibility of a brokered convention, the DNC’s concern is understandable. A brokered convention could produce a nominee not chosen democratically and would make the party more vulnerable to Republican attacks in the general election. Howard Dean is correct in stating that the party would be better off making an accord between the candidates before the convention. Could this possibly be a Clinton-Obama ticket?
It’s funny that now the Republican Party has a front runner and the Democrats have no idea on who will be selected as the nominee. Only a few short months ago the roles were completely reversed. I think that the Democratic Party should not count the votes from the Michigan and Florida primaries as they said they would do because it makes the race unfair because as the article said that Obama did nothing in these two states. To resolve the issue on the super delegates is that they should just get rid of them and not use them at all. The republicans don’t have super delegates and they get along fine. If the super delegates are taken away I think that the party leaders would be extremely upset but I think that the country would be happy. I think that if the super delegates change the voted outcome of the democratic nomination many people will be upset and want to get rid of them. Anyway, this entire article talks about how Barrack has been winning a lot of caucuses and primaries and getting the big Mo, but I think that the super delegates have been keeping Hillary in the race and also giving her free media attention and giving her the Big Mo as well. I think that it is a cheap deal for the democrats.
For the sake of argument I’m gonna have to disagree with Ms. Dinger. I really do think that the super delegates are going to be the deciding factor in the nomination process. This election has been a horse race ever since the beginning. First it was Obama leading off with the first W and then Hillary came out with a big win in New Hampshire. Ever since then it’s been back and forth between the two, except for Obama’s current winning streak. But if the election plays out like it has so far, I don’t believe any of the candidates will come out with a large margin of delegates. This is my prediction: Obama comes out with a slight lead in delegates and the decision goes to the supers. The supers who have had past “relations” with Mrs. Clinton will vote for her and the others who don’t wanna think about seeing Bill’s white pasty legs again will vote for Obama. It’ll be close, but I think by way of super delegates Hillary will come out with the win. Then she’ll be all emotional, as all girls would, and cry. Then half of America will slap their hands to their foreheads and say, “Doh”. I’m not claiming that I’m a psychic, but it seems that’s what everything is alluding to.
My response is to Shauna Johnson’s post.
First off, the situation we have put ourselves in due to the consequences we set for Florida and Michigan wasn’t on purpose and that’s why there is controversy over what we should do about it. You’re right, those 350 delegates could and would make or break a candidate for the nomination for the Democrats. But technically, we didn’t pin ourselves, Florida and Michigan pinned us.
Next, for being an Obama supporter, I’d think you could spell his first name…it’s Barack. (not Barak). haha. Also, did Clinton really cheat by campaigning in Florida? I mean, I am definitely NOT a Hillary supporter, but how do you know that her campaign runners hadn’t foreseen this? Maybe they planned this. (<–that was for the sake of argument. I want a do over if they do count the votes from that state! :] )
Finally, I really must argue with your idea of “throwing out the super delegates”. Come on! They are there and have been there for a long, long time and are there for a very good reason. The Democratic Party needs them there as a safeguard. If we got rid of them for just this election, then who’s to decide the next time we throw them out. The year that McGovern ran and got DOMINATED, I’m pretty sure if we had super delegates they wouldn’t have voted the way the Democratic people wanted (aka-the same crazies who gave him the nomination). That’s not the role of super delegates. Just because you don’t like the way the super delegates are leaning for votes, it doesn’t give us means to rid them. That’s ridiculous. Both candidates are electable, but the super delegates aren’t going to always vote the way the people want them to; they’re voting the way they think is going to best benefit the country, despite what the ignorant masses think they want.
Wait, wait, what?
Oh, I see. Yeah, you’re right. Obama isn’t really the type to dig use dirty tactics in his campaign, with in which to combat Clinton with. but Heaven knows there are already a plethora of them out there about her husband (you’d think there would be a goood one about Hillary, just to juice it up, though, wouldn’t you?)
The whole point and idea I was trying to make was the fact that the two candidates have to find away to defeat each other…
And if Obama won’t go negative, then Hillary will…