CE Week #3: “Many Washington superdelegates waiting to endorse”
Jim Camden
Staff writer
February 13, 2008
|
Most of Washington state’s 17 superdelegates to the Democratic convention have yet to announce who they will back for president, but the ones who have are an almost opposite image of last Saturday’s caucus results.
Caucus participants supported Barack Obama by about 2-to-1 over Hillary Clinton. But five of the state’s superdelegates are supporting Clinton while just three are supporting Obama.
On Tuesday, some superdelegates tried to calm fears that they would sway a close vote and override the grassroots choice of those who participated in local caucuses. That scenario could occur if neither Obama nor Clinton captures a majority of regular delegates by the time the states finish with their primaries or caucuses in June.
“I would ask everyone to calm down a little bit,” said U.S. Rep. Adam Smith, a superdelegate backing Obama. He’s urging the state’s undecided, or at least unannounced, superdelegates to hold off for a few months on stating their support.
U.S. Sen. Patty Murray, a superdelegate supporting Clinton, announced her endorsement before the caucuses “because I felt voters deserved to know where I stand.” But she believes the voters will select enough delegates through primaries and caucuses to give one candidate or the other the majority before the national convention starts in August.
A spokeswoman said Murray was urging everyone to let the process run its course. When asked how she would vote if neither Clinton nor Obama had enough delegate votes to secure the nomination, spokeswoman Alex Glass added: “We’re not going to get into hypotheticals.”
At issue is the question of the Democratic Party’s use of key members – some elected officials and some party leaders – to cast their ballot for a nominee along with delegates selected through the primary or caucus process. Regular delegates are bound to vote for the candidate to whom they are pledged on the first ballot at the national convention. Superdelegates are allowed to choose which candidate to support, and can switch their support at any time.
That system, which the Democratic Party has used in various forms since the 1970s, rankles some Obama supporters who contend the superdelegates should reflect the caucus or primary results. In an interview with Politico.com, an online political news site, Obama said Monday he thought it would be a problem if either he or Clinton won a majority of the delegates, and “that was somehow overturned by party insiders.”
The issue may be less of a concern in Idaho, where Obama won an overwhelming victory in that state’s county caucuses, and three of the four known superdelegates have endorsed him. State Chairman R. Keith Roark is uncommitted and a fifth superdelegate will be chosen by delegates to the state convention.
Idaho Party Vice Chairwoman Jeanne Buell of Worley said she feels she has an obligation to represent voters in Idaho in general, and in Kootenai County in particular, where about 79 percent of the caucus participants supported Obama. She also promised to endorse the first Democratic candidate who would come to Idaho and campaign, and that was Obama, she said.
Even if Clinton had won the caucuses, she’d back Obama because “I made that commitment.”
In Washington, Clinton has the support of most superdelegates who have announced who they back, even though Obama was the clear favorite among caucus participants.
Smith notes, however, that the majority of Washington’s superdelegates are uncommitted, so the final tally could wind up close to the caucus results.
It would look bad for the superdelegates to decide the election by voting in a far different ratio than the public, Smith said. But he doubts that would happen.
“I think it would interfere with the ability of our candidate to win in November,” he said. “These are not stupid people and they want to get a Democrat elected.”
Several of Washington’s superdelegates said they are going to wait for the primaries and caucuses to play out before deciding who to support. Although he’s a superdelegate, U.S. Rep. Rick Larsen said he’s no fan of the system; he isn’t even planning on going to the national convention in Denver unless the votes of the superdelegates are needed to select the nominee.
He said he doesn’t know yet who he’ll support, and is waiting to see the results of all of the caucuses and primaries – including Washington’s Feb. 19 primary, which has no effect on selecting regular delegates.
“We do need to let the grass roots decide, but we need to let them go through the process,” Larsen said.
Washington superdelegates
Endorsing Sen. Hillary Clinton
Sen. Patty Murray
Sen. Maria Cantwell
Rep. Norm Dicks
Rep. Jay Inslee
King County Executive Ron Simms
Endorsing Barack Obama
Gov. Chris Gregoire
Rep. Adam Smith
National Committeewoman Pat Notter
Uncommitted
Former House Speaker Tom Foley *
Rep. Brian Baird
Rep. Rick Larsen
Rep. Jim McDermott
State Chairman Dwight Pelz
State Vice Chairwoman Eileen Macoll
National Committeeman David MacDonald
National Committeeman Ed Cote
National Committeewoman Sharon Mast
Idaho’s superdelegates
Endorsing Obama
State Chairwoman Jeanne Buell
National Committeeman Grant Burgoyne
National Committeewoman Gail Bray
Uncommitted
State Chairman R. Keith Roark
Superdelegate to be chosen at the state convention
* Some lists have Foley, who served as ambassador to Japan during the Clinton Administration, as a Clinton superdelegate, but he hasn’t made a public endorsement.
This relates to the to the discussions and readings we have done on the national conventions on deciding who will be the presidential nominee for each party. For the Democrats its more like a popular vote because they have less winner take all states and its less likely that the less popular candidate would get the nominations. But if we count the hypothetical situation were Obama and Clinton head into June neck and neck in the “regular” delegate count it is possible that the less favored candidate could get the nominee. Since super delegates are not awarded based on votes and just by the decisions of the super delegates themselves then in a close race it could go either way. Currently Obama is ahead of Clinton by a fairly significant amount but when you add in the super delegates Clinton is right back in the race. I agree mostly with what the super delegates did in Idaho. Besides the fact the gave their votes to Obama because he actually campaigned there, I think the super delegates should be awarded based on how each candidates performs in each state so all the votes show what the people actually voted for.
NC – Connection
I don’t think that there is an eloquent way to say that I really don’t like the superdelegate system. What gives the democrat party to right to give these essential votes to the higher-ups? I mean, the people attend the caucuses and primaries which determine which delegates go to which candidates. But all their efforts can be quickly turned around with their endorsement choice. It is up to the superdelegates themselves which way they will go, and are not locked into support for a candidate once their state’s caucus or primary has been held. Which is the subject of a big debate – is it morally wrong for the superdelegate to endorse against what the people voted for? I believe that yes, it is, because the system is morally wrong. It is also proven that some of the superdelegates (like Idaho Party Vice Chairwoman Jeanne Buellalso) think that it is wrong to choose the other candidate. Really, what exactly is wrong with just appointing delegates from the caucuses and primaries, without all the extra superdelegate nonsense? Nothing. I think that it is a suspense factor. But the race being as close as it is, it might very well come down to that suspense, when we see which way the superdelegates go.
~Liz
“…rankles some Obama supporters who contend the superdelegates should reflect the caucus or primary results.”
That is why they are called superdelegates. In class we learned that a superdelegate is a national party leader that gets an automatic slot at the democratic national convention. They basically don’t need to make up their minds until then, and can vote for whomever want. It is kind of like a safeguard against “poor voting” by the electorate. It allows the party to have some real say in who the nominee should be. It’s a good system in my opinion.
The election will be interesting. (yes, I know this is news to you all…) It will be interesting to see if the election will come down to the superdelegates or not. Two weeks ago, going into, and right after Super Tuesday, it looked as if it might come down to that. At this point, it looks like Obama is going to continue his winning streak. He has won all of the caucuses and primaries since Super Tuesday. However, if the democratic nomination does come down to the superdelegates, I wonder if a candidate will get so upset they’ll call for reform of the whole system.
-Jason Wong
Erin, conventions error, three lines up from the bottom, the first word of the line, “the” is supposed to be “they”, at least I hope so. Just left off the y, but it did make me reread your response twice.
As for Liz, there is a very good reason that the democrats have a super delegate system. It is so candidates whom the people like but aren’t good for the Democratic Party, or have little to no chance of winning don’t get the nomination. The Democrats goal is to win office, if the people fall for someone who can’t win, and then the super delegates balance out the matter. Even with the super delegates if there was someone who was way over in popularity and delegate count then it wouldn’t matter how the delegates voted because they still might have enough to win the nomination anyways, super delegates are good not bad… just as the indirect voting for the presidency is a good safety feature (although it didn’t stop George W. Bush from being elected twice, I’d say a major fault, where are the elites stepping in saying, he’s too dumb to be President?). We have it this way for a reason, and we have had experience the other way. For example is Huckabee swept the nation in popularity the Republican party would probably kick themselves because he’d not be likely to win over the democratic nominee (no matter who it was), I’d bet they would be wishing for super delegates then. I agree it’s not convenient for many Democratic party member right now, but the super delegates ARE important… they aren’t just for decoration, and I believe based on the founding fathers views while writing the constitution they are probably looking down kicking themselves saying, why didn’t we think of that?
I disagree with Liz on the subject of superdelegates, which also means that I agree with Mr. Wong. Liz presented the question, “is it morally wrong for the superdelegate to endorse against what the people voted for?” I believe that no; it isn’t because it was the superdelegates that saved the Democratic Party from itself. Because of McGovern and the long hot summer, we know there is room for only so much democracy. Too much, history tells us, is no good. The intention is for superdelegates to keep the balance of moderation. If the Democratic Party decided that they were immoral, then, it would have to come up with new means of stability, or else it could fall apart altogether. The concept is like that of The Electoral College System. Both keep checks by stepping away from true democracy. If true democracy can weaken a party, such as it did in 1972, then my guess is it can have similar effects on a country. Whether it’s superdelegates or the Electoral College, the flaws are certainly evident, and there is always room for improvement. Dismissal of these checking systems may be the answer, but not without something for replacement.
In this case I really have to disagree with Jason. The super delegates were first created in 1984 as a result of several conventions that lacked having party leaders play key roles. Now, as Jason said this was to prevent “poor voting” by the electorate. However, this just seems silly to me. The candidate should be someone whom the electorate wants, not just what the party leaders want. Also why would the party even put forth possible candidates who would be “poor” choices? Honestly, that doesn’t make much sense to me.
Secondly, in today’s race it seems that the super delegates are voting more for Hillary even when the people, for example in Washington, most obviously chose Obama. Is Obama a poor choice as a candidate? Another thing that makes me think the super delegate system is not a very good one is that, say the candidate chosen by the people was really a terrible candidate, but the super delegates give him their vote because the people chose that person. In that case it would seem that their job would be defeated, but if they did the opposite and gave their votes to a better candidate and this other candidate won because of it then the electorate would be outraged. I think the reason the system has lasted this long is because a situation like that has never happened. However, this year a scenario close to that could play out. The electorate has recently been choosing Obama over Clinton, but more of the super delegates have endorsed Clinton. The candidacy could come down to the super delegates’ choices and if they are contrary to the electorates’ it could cause some serious problems for the Democrats.
Lindsey Devaney
So I’m going to have to disagree with Vanessa because her post was just about the closest thing I could find to disagreeing with my post. I don’t agree that super delegates are a good thing. Our country is suppose to have a system were the peoples voices are heard and their opinions are counted. If we have super delegates than like you and Jason mentioned they can basically in a way just override our vote which is not how the system is suppose to work. The people of the U.S. are allowed to pick there president regardless of if he is good our bad. I’m mean honestly if that’s your defense for super delegates than why don’t the Republicans have super delegates when Bush got elected the first time. They didn’t stop us from having a crappy president that time around. So I just think they are there too make us worry and make us feel like our votes are not counting. If people don’t think there votes are counting that is certainly not going to help the voter turnout rate. I feel that if we are going to keep the super delegates around then they should vote the way each state votes because they are in fact from that state. I disagree with the statement that the delegates are there so that the candidates that have little chance of winning don’t get nominated. I think I would be safe to say that if there was a Ron Paul of the Democratic party he surely wouldn’t win and we would not have to worry about it. The people of each party vote for who they think will be the best president and that is the most likely person who has a chance to win the nominee.
Lindsey, it seems that both Stefanie and Vanessa share the same view as me in that superdelegates in a way, are a safeguard against “poor voting” by the electorate. Vanessa mentioned, “It is so candidates whom the people like but aren’t good for the Democratic Party, or have little to no chance of winning don’t get the nomination. The Democrats goal is to win office, if the people fall for someone who can’t win, and then the super delegates balance out the matter.” Stefanie said “The concept is like that of The Electoral College System. Both keep checks by stepping away from true democracy.”
Superdelegates are a check of the entire Democratic Party.
Now to address what you said about “The candidate should be someone whom the electorate wants, not just what the party leaders want.” Democratic party leaders want the party to win the White House, much like Vanessa mentioned in her post. If the electorate likes a certain candidate, he or she might not be the “right” candidate for the Democrats to win the election.
I do agree with you that the electorate (or at least part of it) would be “outraged” if the superdelegates decided against the more “popular” candidate. However, I don’t think this will ruin their political views or party loyalty and make them vote Republican…
-Jason Wong