California Superdelegates: No Brokered Convention

In interviews with OffTheBus this past week, California superdelegates undercut media-generated dramatic narratives about how the Democratic nomination will unfold in August. They discounted, for example, the Spielbergian "doomsday scenario" painted by Time magazine, where back room "wheelers and dealers" would revel in the power they "wrestled from the rabble." They shook their heads, basically, at the way CNN, way back before Super Tuesday, was warning that members of the "super class of super Democrats" had been given "the power of tens of thousands of average citizens."

The situation the superdelegates themselves described is a lot less Spielberg than it is C-Span. For them, it's all about the slow and largely predictable functioning of party machinery. For the superdelegates in California, at least, the two plot lines that drive the media version of the story of the nomination basically don't exist. First, the chance of an actual brokered convention is seen as slim to none. Second, the alleged tension between the citizens and the delegates seems either a misreading or just plain exaggeration.

Of course many of the superdelegates have already pledged and done so as early as last summer. Even among the unpledged, however, there is consensus that most everyone has made up their mind. "I think by now [we've all] decided, [even] if we don't want to say," says superdelegate Norma Torres. She's not worried about last-minute dealmaking. "We have a long way to go before the convention."

Superdelegate Gary Shay echoes the point: "Most [of us] will have made up our mind [by then]" .... Deciding at the convention, he deadpans, "would be a rather unusual situation."

Bob Mullholland dismisses the story out of hand: "Right now it's all speculation. I would rather talk about the voters' interests."

Important for the California superdelegates was to make it plain that the largest part of their responsibility was to represent their constituencies. Steve Ybarra, for instance, is the former head of the party's Latino caucus. "There's really only one factor for me," he says. "Which of the candidates are more committed to Latino voters, which one will take up our concerns for the fall election? That's it." The idea of matching the popular vote for him is clearly beside the point.

"The popular vote is a made-up thing," he says. The question, from his perspective is "Why should 100,000 people in Iowa decide the nominee?" They've done their voting, is how he thinks about it. Those votes decide the pledged delegates. The superdelegate system, however, is about advancing your cause. There's no secret about any of that, as far as Ybarra is concerned. He'll talk to anyone about it openly and has to several newspapers in California already. But the message gets clouded.

For superdelegate Crystal Strait, for example, the citizen votes still being cast do matter, but only because, as president of the Young Democrats of America, her constituency is youth voters nationwide. "Clinton won the youth vote in California," she says, which is a factor she has to consider as a California superdelegate. But she also has to weigh "the results of the remaining primaries as well" to honestly do what's in the best interest of all young American voters.

No Speilberg. No swelling music. No Harrison Ford as a superdelegate with a conscience. No wheeler dealers. Just ask them and they'll tell you.

Who are the superdelegates in your state? Click here to find out.

Comments

[ignorantwillyharper]

Vote against anyone that's an incumbent, there's not a honest one in Washington at this time.

[Subway]

What's all this I hear about a Dreadlocked Convention? -Emily Latella

[MrWinky]

I guess this begs the question - given that they have had numerous state contests, 20 debates don't necessarily reflect the popular vote and have already made their decision, then why haven't they acted?

Are they just going to let their supporters spend and spend and spend to support a now somewhat onanistic candidate fight? Money that could be used in the general election.

Are they going to force the two candidates to tear each other down in front of the now undivided attention of the nation while the Republican nominee sits back and picks them both off at will?

As the Republicans no longer have to worry about their candidate, are they going to give the Republicans opportunity to mess with our selection process in states that allow anyone to vote?

Are they going to give the Republicans a chance to monitor which cuts and criticisms get the most traction with each candidate?

Let's end our Democratic tradition of sitting on the sideline b/c we don't want to cause waves. The superdelegates should come out for their candidates, which will force one of the two candidates to capitulate and we can get on with it. Sitting around and waiting is only going to cause trouble we don't need. We've waited too long and the stakes are too high.

[mamacat]

I remember when I was younger some conventions where things were not decided until the actual convention. In those days it was not a big deal. Eventually, a candidate is decided upon.
The idea of a "knock down, dragged down" fight plays well in the media, but it is not happening. What is happening is that both candidates are trying to get the nomination, which is what they are supposed to be doing. The talking heads on TV have to try to justify their jobs somehow, and creating a scenario in which the candidates are scratching and spitting at each other is how they do it.

[mouselion]

This is more of what I mean by one Big Super Duper Tuesday for everyone -- basically a convention for each party where their nominee is picked at that time -- but not by having reached a certain level of delegates, but only by who receives the most by the end of the day. This takes all this calculating mumbo-jumbo, hocus-pocus out of the picture and prevents candidates from running to these cockamamie superdelegates to circumvent all the convoluted-ness of the current system. Also, state party chairmans should not be allowed to assign delegates however they want: each delegates should count for so many votes are cast in a specific district. The vote to delegate ratio is the same for all parties in all states.

[lenners]

yeah I like what you say "mamacat".
i am not old enough to remember much before the 2000 convention. But I always thought the purpose of having a convention was to decide who the candidate was and that it was somewhat unusual for the candidate to be decided by Iowa and new Hampshire even though we have gotten used to it.

[jsinclair]

The names in my state (California) are interesting. Many are familiar party insiders (or their relatives) which raises a question to me: how many of the superdelegates have pre-existing strong personal ties to Obama or (far more likely) Clinton?

They're not exactly impartial, are they? And why were so many committed before the first vote was ever cast? That hardly makes it sound like they are letting the process and positions unfold and weighing the merits as time goes on.

[whitegoldwielder]

What is democratic about superdelegates choosing sides right now? I thought they were supposed to wait until the convention in case there was a convention fight.

[jayefftee]

Hi all. I'm the guilty party who wrote the original piece up there. Thanks for reading and writing. Maybe it will help to add that I wanted to include a paragraph but didn't about how there was a general impression among the superdelegates, not directly articulated, that the party machinery would generate at some point before the convention a kind of tipping point moment, the product of some combination of a certain number of pledged delegates and a move by Dean as head of the party and key switchovers or declared endorsements among the superdelegates that would translate to a critical mass. Clearly if Ohio and Texas majorities went for Obama yesterday such a tipping point would have likely occurred. It will come. We just have to wait a little longer. Personally, I don't see how Hillary can influence the machinery to tip her way without switching its gears up majorly somehow, and I'm not talking about gaining a mere 12 pledged delegates or whatever, as she did yesterday.

[UtahLiberal435]

The democratic process does not weaken a Democratic party.
And it's ludicrous to say that because she hasn't rolled over and died
(like Kerry), she's handing the country to McCain.

It will indeed be a brokered convention of some sort.
And I don't think that's such a bad thing.

But in our current 24-7 news timeframe, the convention is ages away, and the election eons.

The rest is people demanding a result, and editors/producers demanding a headline, right now.
Sorry, the deadlines will have to wait.
Story's not finished yet.

[wessev]

Really this nonsense the media is spewing about the super delegates is another way to further divide the Democratic party. Super delegates DO NOT circumvent individual voters in the election process. Voters cast their ballots, and then those votes translate into (non-super) delegate awards for either candidate. The candidates MUST have won these delegates from the state primaries, which CAME FROM THE PEOPLE VOTING, no matter how many super delegates they have backing them. So quit letting the media and their corporate overlords continue to fragment the Democratic party and hand the election over to John McCain. In fact, quit listening to the media all together.

As far as the FL issue goes, Im still not sure why the Democratic party is insisting that 2 millions Democratic voters should be punished disenfranchised and because a REPUBLICAN STATE CONGRESS decided they were going to move the primary way ahead of other states and upset the rules of the game. If you really want a sure way to divide and move people away from the Democratic party, well then go ahead and disenfranchise 2 million people who are still pissed off from 2000.

[kellygrrrl]

The SuperDelegate situation - whether or not you like it - is in place, and has been for some time. Those were the rules going in.

I am far more concerned with the possibility of the FLA situation turning this nomination over to the candidate who broke their word. The Rethug NeoCon Gov of FLA is going to make a giant mess out of this and Clinton best display some integrity and not play into that game ... lest she live with the legacy of singlehandedly destroying the Dem Party

[gba]

It was not Clinton but Obama that campaigned in Florida.

[lokywoky]

Florida MODERATE Governor Charlie Crist had no hand in what happened in Florida. That was the decision of the DLC! And all the candidates agreed to the terms. Obama did NOT campaign in Florida - he was running national ads on national networks - which of course play in Florida as well. You can't really run an ad like that and say "Oh, but wait - don't play that in Florida - every where else but just not Florida". Hillary was running ads in adjoining states - lots of Floridians see those too.

In this case - the voters of Florida - when they voted - knew they were not having delegates since the DNC had already announced the fact. While they may not have liked it - they knew it in advance. The turnout was very low there compared to what is going elsewhere - for the obvious reason.

Gov Crist said if the Dems want to have another primary - he has no problem with it. So why is he the bad guy? This "mess" was caused by the Democratic leadership - not the Florida governor.

I am not a Republican - my candidate was Dennis Kucinich, then John Edwards, now Barack Obama.

Even Al Sharpton said he's opposed to another primary in Florida because "you can't change the rules in the middle of the game". Hillary knew the rules. So did Obama. Now she's the one who wants to change everything.

In Michigan - all the candidates agreed to take their names off the ballot. Guess who's name remained on there? Hillary. Her excuse "I didn't have time to take it off." (Takes two minutes to sign the form and have a staffer send it in) So she got votes and no one else did. And now she wants to seat those delegates also? It's called CHEATING!!! We've had enough of that for ten lifetimes already. Don't need any more.

[cartox]

Ybarra is right. This is not an election for the presidency. Instead we have been engaged in a process to determine each party's nominee. If it is not already clear to all, the nomination process does not need to follow "one person one vote." The Republicans have agreed to a winner take all primary. The Democrats have agreed to a proportional system. These decisions are theirs alone -- the candidates have agreed to abide by all the arcane rules to obtain the power of being named the ____________ Party Presidential Nominee. With that nomination comes money, nationwide support and credibility.

So who is ahead? Clearly Obama has an insurmountable pledged delegate lead. Whether that is sufficient to warrant the superdelegates to throw him their vote is entirely up to them. And not you or me.

[SwampFox]

" 'The popular vote is a made-up thing,' [Ybarra] says." Geez, I can't imagine why we think that the superdelegates may not have the interests of the people in mind. If the intent of this article was to make us pause and think that the superdelegates aren't going to override the will of the people, well, it didn't work for me. This article does nothing to dispel the "media-generated dramatic narrative."

[Taan]

Haven't the Super Delegates already voted once in their home district? Doesn't voting again mean they get to vote twice?

[mouselion]

"The popular vote is a made-up thing," says superdelegate Steve Ybarra -- "The superdelegate system, however, is about advancing your cause."

OK, so we have to put up with this superdelegate system for '08. But, doesn't this raise everybody else's eyebrows? (It should!)

When one person gets to equal 10,000 votes -- or whatever -- and vote according to what they >perceive< as being their voting interest -- this is not democratic! MoveOn.org has a petition for the superdelegates to PLEASE pledge to vote according to their state's overall vote-counts which you can sign. (Check it out and please sign this!) I don't care if it were John McCain in the lead, even -- One Citizen, One Vote.!

After Election 2008, let's stop this Superdelegate nonsense! We can come up with a system where dead-heats for the nominee do not need to be decided by these "para-citizens".

One Citizen, One Vote.!

[EinChicago]

The move on thing is idiotic. If the superdelgate sare just supposed to rubber stamp the caucus/primary results, why have them? They're superfluous at that point. They're carefull designed to represent mainstream Dem groups and be a defense against being hijacked by the loonies as a result of the Cuucus system.

[Ozarks]

your comment on loonies would make more sense if you directed it at these superdelegates. Your conclusion should state that these alleged "Mainstream Dem groups plan to hijack any democratic election. you should go to cuba.

[whitegoldwielder]

I think loonies must have how the british described the patriots in the war for independence

[mouselion]

Sort of the reason to get them to do it -- to basically neutralize their ability to change the direction of the vote based solely on their opinion. This is not democracy which is precisely my point. If they have any function at all, then, yes, it is to "rubber stamp" the Will Of The People.

[DMC66]

Regardless of what happens Obama and Clinton should both turn their guns on McCain. They shouldn't give him a chance to build any momentum and they sure don't need to help him by tearing each other down.