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
31
Pending Comments
0

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

Hint sample
View Comments:

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

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 07:10 PM on 03/09/2008

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

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 10:22 AM on 03/08/2008

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.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 01:08 AM on 03/06/2008

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.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 11:16 PM on 03/05/2008

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.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 04:46 PM on 03/09/2008

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.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 12:03 AM on 03/06/2008

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.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 09:26 PM on 03/05/2008

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.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 08:46 PM on 03/05/2008

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.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 06:54 PM on 03/05/2008

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.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 06:42 PM on 03/05/2008

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.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 06:26 PM on 03/05/2008

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

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 05:36 PM on 03/05/2008

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.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 08:11 PM on 03/05/2008

It was not Clinton but Obama that campaigned in Florida.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 07:13 PM on 03/05/2008

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.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 05:30 PM on 03/05/2008

" '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."

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 02:31 PM on 03/05/2008

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

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 02:30 PM on 03/05/2008

"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.!

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 02:00 PM on 03/05/2008

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.



favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 04:13 PM on 03/05/2008

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.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 12:09 AM on 03/06/2008

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

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 08:51 PM on 03/05/2008

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.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 05:13 PM on 03/05/2008

No. It makes sense in reality. That's the stated official reason for the superdelegates. The Dem party discovered with Mondale that the weakness of the cauccus system was that it enabled fringe groups to wield influence in the nomination process that was far out of proportion to the amount of votes those fringe groups represented in the general. As a result, tindependents and fringes could could effectively hijack small state caucuses to foist an unelectable candidate on the mainstream of the party. The superdelegates are charged with the responsibility of acting as a circuit breaker to those fringe groups at the convention.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 05:38 PM on 03/05/2008

Do away with caucuses, as well. Quaint practice, as necessary as your appendix.

Have one big super Tuesday (after a long, bloody brawl) with Party Primaries for Republicans, Democrats and any independent party that wants one.

Set a specific date, whoever has the most delegates assigned by that date (doesn't matter how many) gets their party's nomination.

The general campaign happens and then in November, everybody to the polls. If somehow a dead heat within a certain averaged percentage range of the vote, a second election date is held within a certain amount of time proscribed by congress.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 11:49 PM on 03/05/2008

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.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 01:55 PM on 03/05/2008

they have already made up their minds? so no matter who has the most elected delegates they still have their vote even if it doesnt reflect the clear winner of the elected delegates? clinton's only hope is that she can steal the nomination with the help of superdelegates. she is already stealing obama's speeches......Yes we will! and changingin america and then the world! what a joke.

if obama does not get what he has earned in elected delegates many people will be staying home this november. hillary has proven she has name recognition and that she gets the womens vote and the uneducated white vote in ohio. remember she is supporting bushes war in iraq.

otherwise she is in the process of coopting obamas positions.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 01:10 PM on 03/05/2008

Hey, the press needs conflict! They will make it so.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 12:18 PM on 03/05/2008

Exactly. They (the press) invented the doomsday superdelegate issue the same as they invented the "race card" issue.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 04:31 PM on 03/05/2008

Exactly. The whole thing last nite was strictly MSM horserace hype.

Hillary didn't "win" Texas and Ohio: she decreased her gap with Obama by a measely 9 delegates. Obama will get that back in Mississippi and Wyoming within a week.

Hillary is using this as an excuse to prolong a process that will only result in weakening the Democratic party. The ONLY chance John McCain has in November is if Hillary gets the nomination from a brokered convention while having fewer pledged delegates than Obama. The Democratic base will stay home in discouragement and the Republican base will turn out in force to vote against Hillary and Bill.

The Clintons in their blind ambition are handing the country over to four more years of failed Bush policy in Iraq.



favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 04:26 PM on 03/05/2008

Good article. Lots of voters were not apparently aware of the Dems system of selecting our candidate. As always lots of uninformed voters vote, each and every year. The selection process MUST include the viability of a candidate to beat the opposition. Now that MCCain is defined, things will take a different look. I am personally glad that this is taking a long time to sort out the very best candidate for the Dems. I want the white house and I think most dems do.
what I dont understand is the Obama people wanting to determine the rules when it comes to the superdelegates, but dont want the rules changed in MI or Fla. Personally I dont think Obama can beat McCain and I think the polls will soon start reflecting that as the national polls are now swinging away from Obamas big lead. I am personally very happy that superdelegates decided to make FDR our president, not the guy who had the delegate lead.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 02:01 PM on 03/05/2008

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

What I dont understand is the Obama people wanting to determine the rules when it comes to the superdelegates, but dont want the rules changed in MI or Fla

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

You are confused by the Clinton spin. The Obama camp is NOT trying to change the superdelegate rules. They have been suggesting that the superdelegates vote a certain way. The Clinton camp does the same thing. Trying to sway the superdelegates is playing within the rules.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 04:30 PM on 03/05/2008
Comments are closed for this entry

You must be logged in to reply to this comment. Log in