I have talked to many Democratic Superdelegates in the last few days and the one thing they all have in common -- they don't want to use their supervote.
To be sure, most everyone believes this year that the remaining primaries should be played out. I certainly do. My friend Donna Brazile recently said that if superdelgates pick the nominee before the primaries are over, she will quit the party. Most people have misquoted this as her saying that if the superdelgates pick a nominee at all, she will quit the party. She didn't say that.
She couldn't say that. Because given how Clinton and Obama are splitting the delegates, the superdelegates must vote to get either candidate to 2,025 -- the magic number for the nomination. Some of the superdelegates have already pledged. But most haven't. And they won't until after the primaries are over. But then there is little choice.
How did we get here? In the early '80s the Democratic electeds didn't want to have to run for their convention slot as a committed delegate like normal people did. So hence the "super" category. These folks -- members of Congress, Governors, State Legislative leaders, party officials -- etc. would get special status. Add to that a bunch of DNC Chairman appointments to assure diversity and repay favors and you have the crowd of superdelegates that exists today.
The last time that superdelgates picked our party's nominee was Walter Mondale over Gary Hart in 1984. That didn't turn out so well. But we didn't change the rules for superdelegates. I guess most people didn't think that Gary Hart would have beaten Ronald Reagan either so the party rules were never blamed.
Which brings me back to my original point. They don't want to vote. Yes they may care about which way their state goes and follow along -- but they are not all electeds. And even those that are electeds have constituencies on both sides. Women's groups, African-Americans, donors, etc. They don't want to upset anyone. Most people don't.
On the other hand, they all want to retain their vaulted superdelegate status. Why? because that status has meant something important in recent elections. It defines who gets the best perks at the party's convention -- extra floor passes, a podium visit, invites to better parties, leadership in the caucus meetings, guest passes to special seating, votes on the self-perpetuating rules, etc.
Oh dear, what is a party VIP to do?
Despite all the threats and pressures from all sides, superdelgates are just going to have to do the ONLY thing being a delegate actually means you MUST do under the rules and that is to VOTE. If we didn't want them to actually have the vote, we shouldn't have given it to them. And if they didn't actually want to have the responsibility of voting, they should relinquish their delegate status and the number of delegates needed for the nomination should be reduced by each resigning superdelgate. And ultimately, just like the rest of the delegates in this primary, every vote counts.
Sorry folks, there doesn't seem to be any way to duck. And that is a superdelegate's dilemma.
Follow Hilary Rosen on Twitter: www.twitter.com/hilaryr
We don't elect the President by popular vote but why not the nominee?
Bullshit.
let's just go w/ the popular vote fm ALL the states. not sure who that favors, if it favors anyone...
...NO MORE CHERRY PICKING FAVORED PTS OF THE PROCESS!
outcome determinative logic shdnt be the std.
"One of the things that's definitely being underreported is the threats coming out of the Obama camp: talks about how the election will be 'stolen' if the super delegates exercise their judgement."
1st) I don't think people saying they won't vote for a candidate who steals an election is a "threat". What people do with their votes is their business, and nobody's obligated to abide by the rules of an election that on its face would be illegitimate.
2nd) This was the purpose of this whole blog I think. Had people reacted another way, she would have said "I think this is all being overblown: super delegates have always played a process in the selection of candidates, and I think this is much to do about nothing".
So there you have it - damned if you do, damned if you don't.
It is worth reminding that the principal block of superdelegates are elected officeholders so blanket characterizations of them as 'unelected insiders' are inaccurate.
Ron Brown is sooo missed and must be flipping in his grave.
yeeHAAAAAAAAW & GO DODGERS!
Can you imagine if Hart had beaten RayGun?!
Mondale, a classic party insider, never had a chance!
The answer is "very, very badly." You'd not only have the democrats lose THIS year, they'd lose the next five or six elections - it would be 1960 all over again.
To not do that would disenfranchise voters in states where some of their representation comes in the form of superdelegate votes.
Obama supporters, whose candidate stands to be hurt by including the FL/MI delegates are understandably against their inclusion and call it an unfair last-minute rule change.
Clinton supporters, whose candidate stands to be hurt by *not* letting the superdelegates vote are understandably against that and call it an unfair last-minute rule change.
Both are right in terms of the rules. Fairness is another issue. There are voters out there who interests are supposed to be represented by the Florida, Michigan and super- delegates. Leaving them out hurts those voters.
The fairest thing to do would be to somehow figure out the 'will of the voters' and allocate the uncommitted delegates proportionately. I guess you could do that by tallying the entire popular vote (though the mixture of primaries and caucuses would make that tricky). Or do it state by state. Probably one of those options favors Obama and the other favors Clinton.
In any case, it's not as simple as it seems, and people are being disingenuous in painting the superdelegate issue as a corruption of democracy. Democracy's in trouble either way.
I listened to conservative talk radio and mnay republicans are going to vote in the Democratic primary. Not because they "believe" in any candidate. They're doing so to create mischief as their primary is essentially over.
Should the democratic party allow republican mischief makers to decide their candidate?
The answer is no.
Within that framework, the popularly elected nominee has always gone on to be the democratic nominee - that result has never been overturned in the history of super delegates, who go back almost 30 years.
CAN they do it? Yes.
Have they ever done it before? No.
Should they ever do it in the future? No.
To me, it is time for the two to make a binding pact, signed in BLOOD, that whoever wins the nomination will select the other as Vice President.
That might seem unsavory to the rather arrogant, other-worldly Obamaites. But when you think about it, Obama has so far LOST virtually ALL of the critical big blue states that are essential for a Democratic victory.
He has lost California (#1), New York (#2), and Florida (#4), in addition to several others. Without Hillary's support, he is road kill.
In addition, McCain is going to be more attractive to Independents than Bush was.
So for the sake of a Democratic Party victory in November, both sides should seriously consider signing this blood pact.
CA and NY are giveaway blue states in November.
Florida didn't hold an election. Obama's name wasn't even on the ballot for the joke in Michigan.
Obama won in ID, UT, CO, ND, NE, MO, IA, LA, AL, SC, GA - all states that voted for Bush in 2004.
I just think Hillary Clinton playing second fiddle to Barack Obama would look worse than it would if she isn't on the ticket at all.
And nowhere is it written that the second place finisher has earned the vice-presidency. In fact it almost never works out that way.
Let the people decide. Give a VIP pass to these guys and let them have fun at the convention, but their vote should not count for more than mine or anyone else's.