Undecided superdelegates don't feel bound by primaries

digg Share this on Facebook Huffpost - Undecided superdelegates don't feel bound by primaries stumble reddit del.ico.us RSS

STEPHEN OHLEMACHER | April 20, 2008 03:15 PM EST | AP

Compare other versions »
I Like ItI Don’t Like It

WASHINGTON — Many of the Democratic superdelegates who are still undecided say the most important factor in their decision is simple _ they just want a winner in November.

Problem is, after nearly four months of primaries and caucuses in 46 states, territories and the District of Columbia, they still aren't sure who that is, don't seem be in any hurry to make up their minds and aren't interested in any artificial process that might force them to choose between Barack Obama and Hillary Rodham Clinton.

Most of the more than 100 undecided superdelegates who discussed their decision-making with The Associated Press in the past two weeks agreed that the primaries and caucuses do matter _ whether it's who has the most national delegates or the candidate who won their state or congressional district. But few said the primaries will be the biggest factor in their decision.

"I think it's really important that we keep our eye on the prize, and the prize is the win in November," said Gail Rasmussen, an undecided superdelegate from Oregon.

That's good news for Clinton, who cannot catch Obama in delegates won in the few remaining primaries and caucuses.

Obama has been arguing for months that the superdelegates would be overturning the will of the voters if they don't nominate the candidate who has won the most pledged delegates. He has a 164-delegate lead in that category. Clinton, meanwhile, has argued that superdelegates should exercise independent judgment.

Many of the undecided superdelegates say they don't want to be perceived as elite insiders, cutting backroom deals to select a nominee. But that doesn't mean they're ready to forfeit their status.

"The way the system is set up, the superdelegates are able to weigh in because we are the most experienced people in the party," said Blake Johnson, an undecided superdelegate from Alaska. "We are the ones who have been part of the party the longest and keep it running on a day-to-day basis."

Story continues below
advertisement

There will be nearly 800 superdelegates at the party's national convention in Denver this summer. They are the party and elected officials who automatically attend the convention and are free to support whomever they choose. They are in high demand now that neither Clinton nor Obama can clinch the nomination without them.

Clinton leads in superdelegate endorsements, 258-232, according to the latest tally by the AP. However, Obama has been eating away at her lead for much of the past two months, picking up 84 percent of the superdelegate endorsements since Super Tuesday.

About 250 superdelegates have told the AP they are undecided or uncommitted. About 60 more will be selected at state party conventions and meetings this spring.

AP reporters across the nation contacted the undecideds and asked them how they plan to choose. Of those, 117 agreed to discuss the decision-making process.

_About a third said the most important factor will be the candidate who, they believe, has the best chance of beating Republican John McCain in the general election.

_One in 10 said the biggest factor will be the candidate with the most pledged delegates won in primaries and caucuses.

_One in 10 said what matters most is who won their state or congressional district in the primary or caucus.

_The rest cited multiple factors or parochial issues.

Most undecided superdelegates surveyed said they hope the nomination is settled before the party's convention. However, by more than a 2-to-1 margin, they said they oppose any formal mechanism, such as a separate primary or caucus, for the superdelegates to decide the nomination.

"I think that is changing the rules in the middle of the process," said Rep. Dan Boren of Oklahoma. "Obviously there are some problems with the process; there need to be some reforms made. Frankly, I would favor the people making the decision rather than insiders and party bosses."

Many undecided superdelegates refused to discuss their decision-making process, showing discomfort with the subject. Eighty-nine undecided superdelegates didn't return repeated phone calls or e-mails in the past two weeks, and 42 refused to discuss their decision when they were contacted.

"If I answer any of those (questions), people might be able to divine which way I am leaning," said Wayne Kinney, an undecided superdelegate from Oregon.

Even some experienced pols demurred.

"I'm not saying anything," said Rep. Rahm Emanuel, an Illinois superdelegate and a former aide to President Clinton. "There's no value to it."

___

Associated Press writers Julia Silverman in Portland, Ore.; Steve Quinn in Juneau, Alaska; Ron Jenkins in Oklahoma City and Dennis Conrad in Washington contributed to this report.

WASHINGTON — Many of the Democratic superdelegates who are still undecided say the most important factor in their decision is simple _ they just want a winner in November. Problem is, after nea...
WASHINGTON — Many of the Democratic superdelegates who are still undecided say the most important factor in their decision is simple _ they just want a winner in November. Problem is, after nea...
Filed by Max Follmer  |  Report Corrections
 
Comments
560
Pending Comments
0
iPhone App Promo

Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to

View Comments:
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next › Last » (8 pages total)
- Nofoolhere I'm a Fan of Nofoolhere 12 fans permalink
photo

The super delegates will respond to whomever jerks their strings like the puppets they are. But the strings won't be pulled by the electorate. No Way! They will be pulled by the corporations who own and operate them. The voters tried to overturn them in the 2006 election, but instead got a do-nothing congress. It won't be different this time.

Unless enough Pennsylvanians support Obama in massive numbers, enough to override the near certain vote fraud that is already wired in to "elect" the hard core corporatist, Hillary Clinton, its all over, not just for the election, but for the sorry residue of our former democracy.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 04:04 PM on 04/21/2008
- lisakaz2 I'm a Fan of lisakaz2 82 fans permalink
photo

I'd like to know what they do feel bound to and hope there's a principle attached rather than a $.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:40 PM on 04/21/2008

Please, superdelegates, overturn the will of the people, so that I can hear from the Republicans from August to November how the Democratic candidate was chosen only by the few party insiders over and over again, until I finally listen to reason and vote for John McCain, because, after all, at least he was selected by the majority of Republicans...

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:52 PM on 04/21/2008
- JMorgan I'm a Fan of JMorgan 3 fans permalink

Republicans have superdelegates, too, only not as many. They have something like 123, all of the members of the Republican National Committee.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:17 PM on 04/21/2008

True, this. However, due to the "kit and caboodle" way that many states distribute their delegates (in the Republican party,) these RNC bigwigs don't have as much of a say. (The Dems have, what, 800 superdels?)

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:07 PM on 04/21/2008
- lisakaz2 I'm a Fan of lisakaz2 82 fans permalink
photo

Indeed, it would be an issue AND it would make any of them complaining about 2000 look stoopid. It would also split the party. I can imagine how certain Obama voters would see it as "back of the bus" type stuff in this "not you turn" assertion. It will be an ugly election and these "insiders" will probably blame voters instead of themselves if it came to this.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:44 PM on 04/21/2008

these idiotic, head-in-the-sand superdelegates should be tarred and feathered for what they're doing to the democratic party. If they can't decide after OVER A YEAR of campaigning who they think the best candidate is, they are absolute idiots. I cannot believe our party ever set up this structure to give so much power to a bunch of feather headed cowards. They want to win in November and so they're going to wait until when to decide? Until the candidates are so badly damaged and John McCain is already the perceived next president of the United States? Wait until the convention when the party will have no prayer of organizing around the candidate in time? Wait until democrats are so divided that Ralph Nader will take 20% of the pissed off supporters of the losing candidate? And what the hell is wrong with Al Gore? You can be stately and stand on the sidelines all you want - but you're not going to get far on global warming progress with the republicans in control. Idiots!

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:40 PM on 04/21/2008
- JMorgan I'm a Fan of JMorgan 3 fans permalink

The way that superdelegates came into being is the best example of Will Rogers' line, "I don't belong to any organized party..I'm a Democrat." It also explains why the unitary executive is such a tempting prospect, or the other old saw, that "the number of people in a committee should always be odd, and never more than two."

This system of superdelegates was created out of arrogance and an elitist attitude among Democratic Party members who enjoy the clubbiness and the fraternity of party politics, not to mention the potential for riches. They join like they'd join the Rotary Club, for business contacts. When you register to vote, do you realize that there are local Democratic Parties that meet regularly to make decisions on a local level and all the way up to the national level?

We Americans are fat, lazy people who take this democracy for granted. Superdelegates can get away with doing this because you think that showing up at the polls every two or four years is enough.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:15 PM on 04/21/2008
- sheisme I'm a Fan of sheisme 4 fans permalink

Unbelievable - they have put us through this LONG primary season with the suggestion that they will decide once "we the people have our say." Now to find out the people's voices will not really make a difference! Come on. If that is the case, let us hear from you NOW so that the bloodbath doesn't have to continue in order to win superdelegate support. The democrat nominee will be badly bruised in the end and "we the people" are going to be the ones to suffer. I will remember all of you fence sitters in my district ... and in my state. And does anyone really believe that Hillary and her goon staff will gladly toss their support to Obama and become "the party HEALERS" when she loses? I imagine they are already plotting their wink and nod strategies to undermine his fall candidacy.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:02 PM on 04/21/2008
- JMorgan I'm a Fan of JMorgan 3 fans permalink

"They" don't put us through anything. Unless you join your local Democratic Party and are active, you aren't "them". Checking off "Democrat" on a voter registration card doesn't make you "them".

"They" are doing their thing, holding their event, to which they graciously allow you to weigh in with an opinion. But unless you join your local Democratic Party, attend meetings, work on behalf of the party, you're a butterfly flitting around this great democracy.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:24 PM on 04/21/2008


Part of me is thinking that a few superdelegates are so cautious in making a decision -
at this point when Senator Obama has the lead - that actually, they are either afraid
of the Billary/Cl­intonard's wrath or that they are giving in - so afraid of the RATS - to McSame.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:00 PM on 04/21/2008
- lisakaz2 I'm a Fan of lisakaz2 82 fans permalink
photo

I think there is fear of the Clintons, too -- maybe even fear of this donor thing. But I can't for the life of me get how bullying like this is supposed to work. Sounds like a bunch of marshmallows imo.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:48 PM on 04/21/2008
- JMorgan I'm a Fan of JMorgan 3 fans permalink

The way it works (one way, at least, when the Clintons are doing it) is like this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4NlqGg2WVUA&feature=related

Pay close attention to George Stephanopoulos on the phone in that clip. He's talking to Steve Denari, a Democrat who was working for Ross Perot. Set aside the topic of their discussion, if you can, and just focus on what Stephanopoulos is saying to Denari.

The Clintons aren't liked, but are feared, not unlike Bush and Cheney. When people fear you, the only way you can guarantee your own longevity is by repression. Then even more people are going to hate you and plot your overthrow. This is really what is at the heart of our foreign policy, and our problems around the world.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 04:20 PM on 04/21/2008
- BBackSoon I'm a Fan of BBackSoon 38 fans permalink
photo

As an Obama supporter I am a little disappointed in the fact that on the Huffpo Obama’s name is a link to many Pro Obama articles yet Clintons name is not a link. I think Obama is our best choice but I don’t like not giving Clinton a fair shot. The truth should be enough in this case, play fair.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:51 PM on 04/21/2008

They had better pay attention to the primaries or they will become an irrelevant party as many of us will become Independents after over thirty years of supporting the party. Bye, bye

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:50 PM on 04/21/2008

No one can get to 2024.

So the SDs will support the will of the democrats - which is to put a democrat that can beat McCain on the ticket.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:36 PM on 04/21/2008
- JMorgan I'm a Fan of JMorgan 3 fans permalink

How do you think superdelegates come to decide "hmmmmm, which one could beat McCain?"

Polling? Polling is informal elections, the results of which are calculated using biased formulas. Who is going to do that polling? Mark Penn for Clinton? Joel Benenson for Obama? Dueling pollsters leaning on superdelegates with polling propaganda?

Wet their fingers and hold them up to the wind to gauge racism, sexism, ageism, in voters?

How about gifts and gratuities? Clinton will make treat my district favorably, Obama will make me Secretary of the Interior?

Why should superdelegates get the equivalent of 10,000 votes to your one?

Before this election, fewer than 5% of registered Democrats had any idea what a superdelegate was. This has been a sleeping aneurysm, 30 years in the making.

Superdelegates, all of them, need to resign immediately, and state, "We will abstain from voting and leave it to the process that existed in years previous to the creation of superdelegates, which is the candidate with the most pledged delegates after the election is the candidate of the people."

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:45 PM on 04/21/2008
- cct1984 I'm a Fan of cct1984 7 fans permalink

It seems ridiculous to me for people on this site to criticize superdelegates for "overturning" the will of the people, when no one can define what the "will" of the people is. Since it is unlikely that either candidate will garner enough delegates to win the nomination outright, how do you determine the will of the people--the person with the most votes? If that were the case, why not write the rules to reflect that the nominee will be the candidate with the most delegates and/or popular votes at the end of the primaries...why the need for superdelegates at all? Therein lies the crux of the issue, the justification for having superdelegates. What so many of you fail to realize is that the whole point of superdelegates is to do precisely that thing so many of you fear may happen, to intervene in the electoral process by nominating the candidate who in their judgment has the best chance of winning the general election, when no candidate wins outright--even if that means overruling the majority vote. Right or wrong, good or bad is not the immediate issue at hand; this is the system the Dems have devised and it is one you’ll have to live with (at least for this election cycle). If you don’t like it, change the party nomination rules.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:32 PM on 04/21/2008
- Oldbuck I'm a Fan of Oldbuck 8 fans permalink
photo

I don't want the nomination to go someone who is not leading in pledged delegates are popular vote. Electability is BS either of the Democrat's candidates should win the general

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:49 PM on 04/21/2008

give me a break. His lead is HUGE. This is a proporational delegate distribution, which makes the lead he has HUGE. Just because he didn't get to some arbitrary number of delegates, he is far ahead of HER. Clinton says "oh he's only ahead aby 170 delegates" well, 170 delegates in a proportional representation primary system is a massive lead. He has won more states, more votes and more delegates. So, yes, if the superdelegates vote the other way they will be overturning the votes of the rank and file members of this party. There's no logical reason for them to do this because then HRC would be labeled illegitimate (and rightly so) by the republicans and her candidacy would be doomed. And many democrats would leave the party and not vote for her this November. I will never vote for her if she steals this election by superdelegate (which is the only way she can win)

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:45 PM on 04/21/2008
- cct1984 I'm a Fan of cct1984 7 fans permalink

santamonica39
Define HUGE... Exactly how big a delegate lead does one have to have in order to claim the mantel of "will of the people"? If this were a simple matter of developing the right mathematical equation then superdelegates wouldn't be an issue and we wouldn't be having this conversation. Face it, the Dems have devised a system that allows an anointed group of party officials to intervene in the electoral process when no candidate wins the nomination outright or to overturn a nomination when they believe the benighted masses have picked a weak candidate--elitism at its worst. For the superdelegates it's not about which candidate the rank and file Dems support, it's about who they believe has the best chance of winning the general election, period. Your description of Obama's lead as "huge" is neither here nor there...

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:16 PM on 04/21/2008

It seems ridiculous to me that 900 people think thay have a better grasp of who should be the democratic nominee than the millions of people who have voted in the primaries and caucuses. It is also ridiculous to HRC say that none of the delegates are tied to any delegate or how unfair caucuses are since she has been involved in the party for over 30 years and had no problem with the system until she was behind in the vote.

Why have primaries or caucuses if the delegates that are supposed to vote the way the people voted go against their wishes. I couldn't think of anything more undemocratic than to see people disregard the wishes of the people who actually voted.

Only people who believe in the knowledge of the few over the knowledge of the many would want these superdelgates to overturn this election (how elitest is that). A lot of these superdelegates are the same people who have been loosing elections for democrats for years. The activist and the new people brought into the party by Obama will show the insiders that only a motivated base will win an election for a democrat.

Overturn the election and loose the election that will be the lesson. Maybe the democrats will go the way of the whigs if party bosses disregards an election and says they know better.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:17 PM on 04/21/2008
- lisakaz2 I'm a Fan of lisakaz2 82 fans permalink
photo

What do you mean can't definie the will of the ppl? In this system, it's pledged delegates. That's it. That's the will of the ppl.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:51 PM on 04/21/2008
photo


If the super delegates select Hillary, it will be proof to many that the two party system

is a sham and that we have no choice. I will not vote for either if the choice is between

an old war whore and an even older war horse. Under either, the Crusade for Muslim

Resources will continue and another half million people must die for America's greed.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:30 PM on 04/21/2008
photo

The superdelegates are there to pick who they think has the best chance in November. Obama should have no wories about that whatsoever.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:33 AM on 04/21/2008

If i an not mistaken one of the Super Delegates is 21 years old. How does that make him more experienced than the people?
I suspect the Super Delegates will go with the people or you will see a huge drop out of newcomers and "experience" members as well. I know I will.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:21 AM on 04/21/2008
- joeinvt I'm a Fan of joeinvt 10 fans permalink

Jason Rae, the 21-year-old superdelegate, is the Chair of the DNC Youth Council. He has already pledged to Obama. It is likely that his support of BHO represents the will of his youth constituency, although I don't know if he did any systematic polling of Democratic youth..

Many Obama superdelegate, e.g. Kennedy, Kerrey, Richardson, have ignored the will of their constituents. They did so without any objection from the Obama campaign, which I think is a very good thing. It would not be fair to change the DNC rules regarding superdelegates at this point. Also, it would allow the people of Florida and Michigan to have an indirect voice if their superdelegates take the primary results in those states into account

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:32 PM on 04/21/2008
- Hawise I'm a Fan of Hawise 2 fans permalink

No, all that means is that he is a politiclaly active member of the party. At 21, he has already made a difference in his state and local party to the extent that his opinion is differed to by older members. That is quite a place to have earned by 21. Maybe if some of these newcomers got to know their local parties and not just the national candidates they could be superdelegates in four years.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:32 PM on 04/21/2008

IF you do not allow the superdeligates to choose on their own, why even have superdeligates. To amke them vote the same as the popular vote means their vbote has no meaning or influance at at and it makes no sense to have them in the first place.

IF you call it "go withthe will of the people" then you can not call it a vote. Of course they should decide themselves and vote for hwoever they want- it is called Democracy. Sadam had a system where voters where told what they could vote for and it did not work out so well, Clinton supporters would do well not to emulate a dictatorship and try embracing democracy even when they do not get their way!

Those that say they will not support Obama if Clinton does not get the nomination speak very poorly of Clinton. Given the choice to support McCain, Obama, or no one,at all those that choose not to support Obama are simply bad for this country. I hate to think their are that many Clinton supporters that are in it for HIllary but don''t really care about America. That would speak very poorly of Hillary.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:39 PM on 04/21/2008
- Ozarks I'm a Fan of Ozarks 43 fans permalink
photo

You are right! Why have super delegates at all???? If Eliot Spitzer is an example of a super delegate I would not have one of them overriding the pledged delegates. If super delegates somehow hand the nomination to Hillary, then the whole democratic ticket will go down the drain. In one sense it may be a good thing. The alleged Democratic Party will cease to exist.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:45 PM on 04/21/2008
- JMorgan I'm a Fan of JMorgan 3 fans permalink

He's 21 years old and this is his first election.

As a superdelegate, he has 10,000 votes to your one.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:50 PM on 04/21/2008
- springsm I'm a Fan of springsm 51 fans permalink

I expect this will be an acid test for the super delegataes. What are they going to be promised (shades of bush), how much money is going to grease the palms, which special interest will benefit and on and on. They are politicians and contrary to other comments, it is my belief that they do not give a rip about the voting public...these people are out to enhance their own self. And by making the decision in this manner, we might as well have bush's gd supreme court making the decision...sadly..

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:17 AM on 04/21/2008
- anney I'm a Fan of anney 9 fans permalink

Ohio Democratic super delegates have already said they'd vote only for whoever would promise to guarantee them support for their political interests:

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0308/8867.html

The Democratic super delegate system is already corrupt -- it didn't take long for the notion of trading votes for favors to visit the scene, did it?

So depending on what's happened behind the scenes, I don't think we can count on all the super delegates to be as concerned about who will win the election as which candidate has made promises to them. I think we can predict much more confidently how Americans will vote than how the super delegates will vote.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:40 AM on 04/21/2008

THEY ARE NOT ALL POLITICIANS. This is very important and something that not many people are talking about. The POLITICIANS are actually breaking for Obama. It is the party "members" who are breaking for Clinton and who make up most of the undecideds. These people are NOT elected, they are not accountable to the public in any way. Some of them don't even seem to be that knowledgable and God knows how they got to have this power. People are assuming that superdelegates will 'vote the will of the people' because they are elected representatives and are smart enough to know the policital implications of not doing so (not to mention the coat tails argument which is why so many of the congresstional reps in red states are supporting Obama). But these party members can do whatever they want and you can be sure that there are attempts as we speak to "buy them" by the Clinton campaign.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:52 PM on 04/21/2008
- JMorgan I'm a Fan of JMorgan 3 fans permalink

Not to put too fine a point on it, but I agree that it's important to inform others that many superdelegates aren't politicians in office (Walter Mondale, Geraldine Ferraro, Jimmy Carter, for examples), and can't be held accountable by voters.

Holding people accountable "after the fact" doesn't work in politics generally. We get through 8 years of Bush believing that when he's out we will turn things around and hold him accountable for the damage he's done, only to hear from those in office that politics is all about "looking to the future, not the past". They have the power to create great diversions and distractions when it's time again to "hold them accountable" at the ballot box. They count on us having short memories which they can easily influence through corporate media manipulation.

Bill Clinton refused to hold Bush accountable for Iran-Contra. He had the power and unilaterally used it to end all investigations into Bush scandals. Republicans used the power they had to thwart Democrats' programs and checkmate Clinton, and the next thing you know, W. is sitting in the Oval Office.

The only way the people can hold power to account in election seasons. The time is now. Make your presence felt by them, daily. Out of sight, out of mind. Keep writing them, keep calling them, get out your protest garb and march on the Democratic convention in Denver.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:20 PM on 04/21/2008
photo

That's what I am talking about. The superdelegates are like parents or doctors. They are supposed to intervene for the good of the offspring or patient. Go Hillary! You are far, far better than O! You made a rug out of him during the ABC debate, so you're far, far more IT!

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:16 AM on 04/21/2008
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next › Last » (8 pages total)
Comments are closed for this entry

 You must be logged in to comment. Log in  or connect with 

Connect