Obama and The Myth of Pledged Delegates

There is no rule in the politics of Democratic Party conventions that says that the contender with the largest number of pledged delegates short of the total required for nomination should automatically, by dint of that achievement, be handed the party's designation. This argument is now being put forth by Senator Obama's campaign.

Such a contention is belied by the modern-day history of Democratic conventions. In 1912, the Democratic Speaker of the House of Representatives, Champ Clark, went to the Baltimore convention with the largest number of delegates, around 440, Woodrow Wilson was second with 324, trailed by a few others -- with two thirds of the convention vote required for nomination. Champ Clark was not then allowed to proclaim himself victorious simply because he led the pack. Rather the proceedings went through almost 50 ballots over a week's period that, after much maneuvering, resulted in Wilson accumulating enough delegates to secure the nomination.

In 1932, Franklin Roosevelt arrived at the Democratic Convention this time with the most delegates -- having won them through some primaries and some Democratic state organizations -- but still short of the requisite two-thirds majority. Despite this lead, the party did not hand him the nomination. He had to proceed through four ballots to achieve it.

Finally in the 1952 Democratic race, Senator Estes Kefauver went through the primary process, beat President Truman in New Hampshire, won Wisconsin, Nebraska, Illinois, New Jersey, Massachusetts and Maryland and entered the Chicago convention with a lead of 257 votes, with four other contenders trailing behind, including Adlai Stevenson. On the first actual ballot, Kefauver held the lead but by now Stevenson had crept up to second place. Then ultimately Stevenson grabbed the designation from Kefauver on the third ballot -- all of this, despite his failure to contest a single primary, with no accumulated Democratic votes compared to those of Kefauver's, and in spite of his late entry into the race. But the party thought he would be the better nominee.

Now today some in the Obama campaign and in the media are dismissing the importance of Hillary Clinton's victories in Ohio, Texas and Rhode Island as unimportant. For they argue that, by any careful analysis of the delegate selection process under the present Democratic Party proportional representation system, whatever delegate totals Senator Clinton wins through the end of this year's primary season, will not be able to overcome Senator Obama's current unsurpassable lead over Senator Clinton and therefore Obama will deserve the support of the so-called "super delegates" and should gain the nomination. But that is not how it works as we have seen in past Democratic conventions. A lead in pledged delegates is not enough. You still have to convince your party that you are the best nominee. That is what the next stage of this election is all about.

Comments

[tcpgh]

Your reliance on what amounts to ancient history as a justification for giving this to Hillary is ridiculous! (And that's a VERY kind word for it.) The super delegates doing this would be the equivalent of the Bush v. Gore fiasco in 2000, where the winner of the popular vote lost.

Also, do the math before proposing such nonsense: Even if Hillary won EVERY SINGLE PLEDGED DELEGATE from now through June, she would STILL NOT have enough to hit the magic number. The voters have spoken, and they're not giving her enough pledged delegates to win. Period.

Finally, imagine if the situation were reversed, with Obama trailing by the same number. Can you honestly say that you would be arguing in his favor, given your blatant bias toward Hillary? No, you wouldn't.

[Careful]

Your denial of the history of the party as a justification for not giving this to Hillary is stupidity! (And that's a VERY kind word for it.) There is no comparison between super delegates doing this and the Bush v. Gore fiasco in 2000, where the winner of the popular vote lost.
Also, do the math before proposing such nonsense: Even if Barack won EVERY SINGLE PLEDGED DELEGATE from now through June, he would STILL NOT have enough to hit the magic number. The voters have spoken, and they're not giving him enough pledged delegates to win. Period.
Finally, imagine if the situation were reversed, with Obama trailing by the same number. Can you honestly say that you would be arguing in her favor, given your support of Hillary? Yes, you would.

By the way, I notice you use the word "bias." If he supporst Hillary, he's biased. But I'm sure you're not biased. Yeah. Right.

[rh654]

Yet while Democrats still bring up Bush v Gore - they are ok with the Democrats not abiding by the will of the majority when they want Hillary to be the nominee.

I think that this race will nullify any more Democrats whining about Bush v Gore.

[eddiestardust]

I agree with poster Careful below.

History is history and is ALWAYS RELEVANT.

In this case, more recent history, as in what happened in previous years past involving superdelegates is more relevant.

Superdelegates are, for the most part, elected officeholders....Mayors, City Councilmen, State Reps & State Senators, United States Reps and United States Senators.

Making these folks delegates leaves room for REGULAR AMERICAN CITIZENS to participate.

And it wasn't always like this either...

Or perhaps, you would rather have the superdelegates become Party Bosses and leave everyone else out?

[MarkieBee001]

Most states won, most votes won and most elected delegates won...what are we debating about again? Oh yeah, Hillary can win the big states. Whoop-de-doo...do you really think that Obama will lose California and New York to McBush? Obama draws huge amounts of Repubs and Independents to the polls (well, at least those who don't listen to Rush every day) and that will make a huge difference in November. He also has given voice to the youth who have finally started turning out in the numbers we though they should, could and would. Most of those folks go to McCain if Hillary is the nominee. That's something every super delegate should be weighing in their mind right now. Party loyalty to what the Clinton dynasty accomplished (and wrecked) in the 1990s should not be enough to swing this election. Once agin Hillary sock puppets, it's all about "mst states won, most votes won and most elected delegates won."

[Ivotedemocrat]

Did you ever consider that many of the Republicans that voted for Obama were only doing so to prevent Hillary Clinton from being nominated? What makes you so sure that these Republicans intend on voting for the Democrat in the general election? They should not have been allowed to vote in the Democratic primaries in the first place. Primaries should be for those who are registered members of the party that is having the vote. If independents can't bring themselves to register as either a Democrat or a Republican, then maybe they shouldn't have a say in either party's primaries.

[accountability]

however they won't give him all the pledged delegates either?
so what do you suggest?
Give the nomination to the one with the most delegates?
The one with the most poular votes?

or which ever benefits your candidate?

please, tell us what is right?

Then I challange you to get involved to make it change after the election.

All this whining. Every 4 years we hear all this outrage over the electoral college but nothing is ever done.

Be the change you are waiting for.
That means stop waiting and stop whining and actually take action.

[clevelandchick]

Wow, it didn't take long for Mr. Schlesinger to pen another Pro-Super Delegate Giving Hillary The Nom Piece did it?

Fine...I give up. Have it your way...let Hillary get her "rightful nomination" by hook or by crook whether or not it will result in an irreparable rift in the Democratic Party and another POTUS loss for the party.

The polling on Hillary is done. She has the highest negatives of any of the three candidates. The nation knows her, they know how they feel about her. She is not going to get anyone new to the polls. She's not going to get any new fans. She loses to McCain now, she'll lose to McCain in November.

Will I vote for her in November? Yeah. Will I give money, phone bank, pass out literature, or canvass for her? No. I've seen too much nasty dark dirty garbage from her campaign that I could not in good conscience advocate for her. I'll try to help out the down ticket candidates because they'll need it with her at the head of the ticket. Let's hope it doesn't hurt our chances to gain seats in Congress too badly.

I'm beginning to think it really will be the best thing for the party at this point if she ends up scheming her way in with super delegates. She'll lose in November and maybe then Democrats will wise up and kick the DLC corporate concubines out of the party; because that is what sorely needs to happen for the Democrats to return to being 'the party of the people'.

[profsteph]

Amen Clevelandchick.

[argent1]

"The polling on Hillary is done."



You saw how well polling works these days?

[prittfumes]

clevelandchick, Mr. Schlesinger's post is factual, whether you agree with it or not. Having followed your comments on HuffPost (and elsewhere) for a long while, I did not expect that you wouild rush headlong into the Republicans' Obama-trap.

[AntonBursch]

Stephen,

The ONLY way Hillary will win by super delegates is bribing them with jobs and/or favors.

This is supposed to be a democracy. Nobody should be able to buy the election.

You make me SICK that you suggest she should be able to pay for the nomination.

And you are LYING if you say you think she won't do this. LYING.

But we, the voters, aren't stupid. We won't let her get away with it.

Every single one of the super delegates will be on public trial if they give this to Hillary after Obama win s the vote of the people.

[Ward1964]

Last I saw on the net Obama has handed out $496,000+ to influence automatic delegates.

New rule: Campaign funds rsised to run in Presidential primaries may not be used to assist (bribe)others seeking other offices.All in favor?

[accountability]

AYE!

if you can, post links to this.
not that it matters, when you are this far gone objectivity is out the window.

[ducatichk]

What was so negative about the 3 a.m ad? So what if Clinton wishes to imply that she is better suited to handle an international situation. Isn't the purpose of a campaign ad to sell oneself ? This is a contest. The 3a.m ad was lightyears from a "swiftboat". There was nothing untrue or defamatory against Barack Obama. Is this the contest for the President of the United States, leader of the free world? or is this the campaign for the President of the Sleepy Hollow Elementary School. Wow....Obama people.... if you think this was negative, just wait...you'll all be having seizures during the general election.

[lenners]

THANK YOU DUCATICHK!
you so simply put into words what I was trying to for awhile!

oh and thanks for this article mr Schlesinger, good, informing read.

[TimSearl]

The point is that Clinton was deliberately poisoning the well against Obama. And that attack will be used by republicans in November with Clinton having "endorsed" this view. Now you may not see that this is reckless destructive behaviour. But I and many others do. At this point Clinton is unelectable in November. She has alienated a substantial proportion of the democratic party, to the point of appearing to endorse McCain over Obama as being able to answer the 3am phone-call. At this point, she wants to make Obama unelectable in November. In fact her running this ad shows that she should not be commander in chief. It shows a lack of values and judgment- which apparently you share. Truely for her and her suporters, the "ends" justify the means- where the ends are apparently only satisfying her vanity and her sense of entitlement.

[accountability]

I second that.
OMG... negative.

the lack of perspective, objectivity, proportion and the absolute self absorbed self righteousness with these "attacks" on the so called "attacks" shows either profound ignorance or profound youth and lack of experience... or just an unwillingness to be fair in any way.

Obama has his own rips and kniofings and attacks. His is just presented differently, harder to detect and name, pin down.
Its a passive aggressive style.

Clinton is not passive aggressive so it is easy to point a finger.
However if you want to be fair is to look at both, see the flaws and the strengths of each.

This whole thing is becoming so stupid between the followers.

The supporters are far more divisive than the candidates.
They are doing their job. Trying to get elected.

I don't know about you but if I am trying to hammer out a deal with China about our debt, or their arms build up I want someone not afraid to get in their face and get tough, not someone who takes little passive aggressive swipes so no one can say they were nasty and mean. Though those swipes can take their toll cumulatively in individual relationships or debate they are not effective in the world.

This is prep work kids, this is where you get ready to see if you can take on the other party... and that is where we get to see who can deal with the world effectively.

I have been supporting both candidates though I have a preference... that preference has changed back and forth a couple of times.
I support bothh of them because I am committed to having a Democratic President and I am committed to having either an African American or a Woman for President and not some old white man again.
Sorry for all you partisans but the fact is we don't have time for this petty hissing and spitting.
Grow up and stop luxuriating in this self indulgent hateful garbage.

I tell you, I am so sick of this effete crap, this moralizing. Does anyone really think that Obama has never done something that was maybe a little ummm shifty maybe?

Is ther anyone here who can say they have always been a wonderful person who has never once done anything they couldn't be proud of... Maybe I shouldn't ask that waym, it seems that many people are very proud of their hatefulness and divisiveness.

Lord have mercy.

I think those of us who worked our asses off to have this day come would like to extend a hearty thank you... and your welcome to all the little shits that are whining about what is and isn't unfair.
suck it up and get off your asses and get to work.

How do you think we got to a place that you can be whining about this particular election.

I don't know about them, but I am tired and I would really like to see a little more activism on the part of those who are so outraged.
Be the change blahblahblah.

[Kermugeon]

Finally...a blog with some actual facts on the subject of the delegate process.
People...read your constitution. Our President is not elected via a democratic vote, nor are the nominees of the parties. Delegates to the Democrat party convention are under no obligation to vote for any of the party candidates based on what we the voters say in our primaries and caucuses. The party elites (delegates) decide who they think will best represent the party in the national election.
Obama isn't wrong for arguing that he should get the nomination because he won the majority of votes/states. Hillary isn't wrong to argue she should get it because of winning the big states. Both can and should make all the arguments they can.
Count on the fact that the backroom deals are being made as we blog. Bill is neck deep in offering lucrative positons in the next Clinton administration in return for Super delegate votes. I hate to say it, but with the track record of the Clintons there are no lengths they won't go to secure this thing and I predict Hillary gets it.

[TimSearl]

She might get the nomination but she will lose in November.

[TellingTruth2Kooks]

The Solution is relatively easy to fix, and that is for Barack Obama to drop out now, as the Momentum has changed. Barack should DEMAND that all of his "Groupies" to VOTE for Hillary and get behind her Candidacy Immediately!

The Republicans are sitting on their Fat Asses, and plotting against Hillary and the Sooner she can get in the Fight, the Better! The More we allow this farce to continue, the More prepared John McCain will be to Destroy Hillary's Campaign!!!

Drop out NOW BARACK!!!

Thanks, it's been Fun, but now you need to get behind Hillary and give her all the Support you can, and tell your Groupies to do the Same!!!

[Ward1964]

TellingTruthtoKooks,
You have just said what most of the media has been saying to Hillary for a month.It's an election,stop whining about the rules and stop strong-arming Hillary to quit.After all,this is no caucus room!

[magen]

Trying to win the nomination with loopholes and overriding the will of the MAJORITY of Democratic voters, delegates, and superdelegates is pretty Bushie of you Hillary supporters. Rove, Cheney, DeLay, and a whole bunch of fascist a-holes are proud of you.

Your fear-mongering 3AM ads, and "kitchen sink" tactics are also disgusting. Why doesn't Hillary just hire Rove as campaign manager?

Also, watch how gracefully Barack handles the situation without having temper tantrums and hissy fits.

Shows you what kind of person each candidate is inside, what kind of President each would be, and how they would handle situations, whether they come at 3AM, or during a primary season.

[ducatichk]

The delegate and superdelegate system is the current rule. Unfortunately, it's not the time to rant about the silly nomination process. If the current contest was not practically neck and neck and one candidate was much further behind than the other, and still won the election based upon superdelegates- then we would have more to cry about. Obama and Clinton are basically a tie. The Democrats are really split down the middle on this. Let it not be a bad thing and war. As seemingly wonderful as Obama is to many, if he hadn't entered the race, Hillary would be our nominee by now and we would be banding together to close a scary chapter in American History.

Pay attention indiscriminantly, the 3a.m ads were not fear mongering, just a sales pitch- national security is a hot issue for many Americans- maybe not you or me, but for many. The ad never portraid Obama in a negative light or defamed him in any way. This was not a negative ad. just a bit corny.
I watched Barack being asked some tough questions the other day and sure, he didn't have a temper tantrum, but he ran out the door, clearly frustrated and refused to answer any questions. If the tantrums to which you referred were Bill Clinton's- search u tube for a few minutes before the s.carolina comment and the question by the reporter that led to the famous sound bite and ridiculous accusation of race bating. Call Clinton what you want...but seriously.... a racist? I don't think so.

Regardless of all that, don't you think that the people in the states of Michigan and Florida have the right to have their vote count. It's actually more "Bushie" to disallow their voices to be heard don't you think?

[chocco]

I am a yellow dog Democrat and I will NOT, repeat NOT vote for Hillary Clinton at this point. She is willing to destroy the Democratic Party just to become the nominee. And she will definitely lose in the GE because McCain will paint her as being no different from him on the war and will brand her a "liberal" who will raise taxes, etec. It will be the worst of all worlds with her. So I won't vote for Nader. I won't vote for McCain. I will stay home. This election just went from interesting to ugly.

[elion10]

waa waa waa.

[UCLAdy04]

So I guess the millions of us that voted for Obama and gave him the pledged delegate lead count for nothing?

What is so hilarious and ironic is how Hillary supporters scream "Count Michigan and FL" and then in the next breath advocate for party bosses to overtune the popular vote choice and pick Hillary.

The super delegates can pick Hillary inspite of the Obama's popular delegate lead and popular vote lead at their own peril and to the detriment of the democratic party. If they want to send the message that the rules don't apply to Hillary, then they for damn sure better not expect us to show up for her in November.

[BHWolf]

And the millions of us that voted for Hillary Clinton should just roll over? Grow up people this is called Democracy!

[ducatichk]

I seriously doubt any one supporting Clinton will need to roll over. I hope she wins. I think she's the right candidate. The Clinton campaign needs to navigate the superdelegate, Florida/Michigan thing delicately though- they need to leave behind the least amount of ammunition for the angry masses.

oh... we are a democracy, but the primaries, caucuses, delegates and superdelegates are proving to be very un-democratic.

[ducatichk]

No one wants to overturn the popular vote. Unfortunately, the Dem.party presidential nomination does not rely solely on popular vote. It should ...but the height of the primary season is not the time to re design the process.

The process was designed so that a potential nominee must win a 2/3 majority. It appears that neither candidate will have that 2/3 majority and as the rules dictate, it will be left to those "super delegates". As the process stipulates, they can cast their own vote. It's too late to change the process. If Obama was leeps and bounds ahead of Clinton no one would be whining about popular vote vs. delegate count. It seems for Mr. Obama it was all about the delegate count a few weeks ago and now, it's all about the popular vote. It's not just the Clinton campaign who has a complaint du jour. It seems that maybe more of us should have been more interested in the Democratic party nomination process BEFORE now. Sadly, the republicans have it right...just show up and vote on election day....winner takes all. The superdelegates are the volunteers and elected leaders of the Democratic party. They should be allowed to place their votes free of pressure and threats from either campaign or supporters of either campaign.

We need to let the process continue the way it was designed to and not make changes along the way. There are many many supporters of each candidate so when it's all over, we will have the right person either way.

The beauty of it all is that if this system doesn't work we can bitch about it for a while, then fix it.

[Ivotedemocrat]

You have nerve. The popular voting has not even finished yet. This race is so close, but Obama supporters act like he is the winner already! There are up to a few million votes that need to be cast yet in Mississipi, Wyoming, Pennsylvania, Puerto Rico, etc. Why are you acting like the voting is finished in this tight race? The big state of Pennsylvania could easily put Hillary in the popular vote lead, not that it matters. Popular vote, as the rules are currently set up, doesn't matter. Therefore, reliably Republican states will still vote Republican on election day regardless of what the Democratic primary results were. Yes, Obama won many of these small "red" state primaries, but come election day, the Republicans far outnumber Democrats in these states. Most of them will vote Republican. So what is a Democrat to believe? Obama's delegates from these states are not going to help him win those states in any way. So why harp on the fact that he won more delegates in those states? In fact, he is not winning by that many pledged delegates. Neither Hillary or Barack will attain the number needed to become the nominee without the support of superdelegates. If the popular vote is counted, including the elections in Florida and Michigan, where there was a fair choice regardless, Hillary is actually winning the popular vote. After all is said and done, I believe that Hillary will win the popular vote for all of the primaries. If this were to happen, will people then say that Barack should still be the nominee? I hope not.

[MidSection]

This was a great article to read from a historical perspective. Clinton will win this nominations, by having otherwise pledged delegates jumping ship on Obama and moving to Hillary. If it happened to her, whay cannot it happen to him? I think that the founding fathers were geniuses.

[JoelNH]

The founding fathers has absolutely nothing to do with this undemocratic arrangement of "Super" delegates. This the DNC Insiders usurping power from the people..

That being said, the rules are the rules. I think what is different now is the transparency. With the Web and online access to info, we are all much more informed and any smoke filled rooms will probably have a video camera and the results will be on YouTube.

My biggest concern about the Supers turning over the will of the people is how the demographics are working out. Obama supporters are the very youngest and newest members of this party. They are turning out in record numbers to do what they think is going to change this country in significant ways. If the DNC insiders squash that movement by "selecting" one of their own (Hillary), it will dissolution the future of the DNC. This heavy turnout that will put us over the top in November will not show up.

So, what is wrong with the candidate with the most pledged delegates, most popular votes, most states and the broadest coalition of supporters winning the nomination?

[jeffhas]

"So, what is wrong with the candidate with the most pledged delegates, most popular votes, most states and the broadest coalition of supporters winning the nomination?"

Maybe he's a flawed candidate that cannot win big states and 'close the deal'... maybe he's a bunny and cannot fight a tough campaign.... maybe he was coddled by the press and made to feel like a super rock star that could do no wrong - only to have them turn on him when it was brought to light what they were doing.

The Super delegate system was put in place to make sure another McGovern wouldn't happen... Maybe Obama is just another McGovern.

Seems like maybe the Party with it's superdelegates may have done something right after all.

[ESerafina42]

Well, you see, this is St. Barack we're talking about here. Not only should all other candidates have left the race immediately once he announced (or actually not announced since he was one of the first ones), but McCain should get up at the Republican convention and concede the election. Then we can crown him our first king.

[Rhydderch69]

Yup... Barack was the inevitable candidate that the media expected to win the election all along.

[TheAirport]

This article kind of misses the point entirely. When Obama says "we're on our way to nomination," he's not saying that he's going to get the nomination after PA, but he's saying that he's on his way to 2,025.

[Emmaboverry]

If you think the press is going soft on Hill, form your own questions and send to MSM news hosts and newspapers or copy these:

Dear Mr. Russert,

Questions I hope you and other respected journalists will ask of Senator Clinton as well as research yourself:

1) Please give specific examples of your participation in a) Peace talks in Northern Ireland b) the Kosovo refugee crisis--how did you influence the outcomes of these events? In what official capacity did you act at these events and what specific actions did you take, decisions did you participate in that can help Americans assess your foreign policy /national security experience and expertise over and beyond that of Senator Obama's?

2) How does your speech on women's rights in China substantiate your claim to foreign policy experience or your readiness to respond with sound judgment to an international
crisis as you suggest in your red phone ad?

3) Please give us examples of your work on the Senate Armed Services Committee and instances of how your superior judgment was tested and employed in that work.

4) What do you say to those who argue that in the most crucial test of judgment bearing on your potential to exercise sound judgment on foreign policy and in behalf of national security interests, you failed to demonstrate
a thorough enough consideration of all the evidence at hand so as to come to a decision you, and many other Americans, would not later regret-i.e. your vote to authorize the president to go to war with Iraq?

[liveandlearn]

how do you like the way obama has of not voting and then accusing his opponent of what he would have done had he voted?

[STParker]

Wow, that's a speculation, based on an assumption, based on an undeniable FACT: Hillary's ACTUAL voting record. Damn that experience, sometimes you are actually judged on it.

You may call Obama inexperienced I say he has the appearance of integrity.

Again, it may be easy to criticize the "insiders" from the outside, but Hillary is still an insider. Threatening to use the anti-Democratic party rules to throttle the will of the voters. All the voters are doing is threatening to hold the Supers and the Dem establishment to account.

[heavyrunner]

You must even older than you look. Modern starts some time around 1985 or 1990, like a generation and a half or 30 years ago. You know, about when your great grandchildren entered high school.

1912 is ancient history. Not modern.

[heavyrunner]

Isn't that when the world war number one ended or something? A boat sank or whatever?

[mix2007]

I agree with the other posters. This article is BS.

The current system has been recently reformed to make it more democratic and transparent.

You drag out examples from the Bad Old Days of party machines and bosses and backdoor shenanigans. Who cares?

If votes don't count, why have all these elections?

Your argument is asinine.