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.
Loading comments…
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
What about Clinton and the myth of big states are better than all other states combined? Spin, spin, spin...... for once I actually like math! It does not lie.
Get used to the "big states are better" argument. That's how it works in the general election. They're called Electoral College votes, and the big states have more of them then the little states. If your candidate can't deal with that concept now, he's going to be in a world of hurt come November if he's the nominee.
oh yeah, and the "blue states won't vote for the Dem nominee" argument. You think New York is going McCain in 2008.
Face it what Obama is doing to Hillary is the exact same thing that the Republicans do every election with the Democrats. They win A LOT of small states then hold close elections in bigger states like Florida and Ohio. The only reliably BIG state that is a huge margin for Republicans is Texas.
So tell me again how small states don't matter, and New York and California will go for McCain if Barak is nominated! LOL!
So, the un-democratic history of the Democratic Party is precedence for Hillary being handed the nomination by Party hacks?
Thanks for enlightening us. And I suppose that we could expect politics as usual from Clinton following politics as usual from DNC potentates.
This year has produced a different type of Democrat - the self loathing Democrat. All of these rules have been in place for a LONG time. The rules are not new. Hillary did not write the rules. Let's change the rules so we don't have to hate ourselves. Yes, we will change those rules as soon as this election is over.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xeu1FLulWCo&feature=related watch and learn something you Ohioans and RI residents still drank on Clinton kool-aid.
If that's how it works why do we need Super Delegates at all? I think the Democratic party should change all this nonsense for the next election, but that will be four years from now. Not now... in the middle of the game.
"The Obama campaign argues that his "unsurpassable" lead over Hillary in pledged delegates entitles him to the support of the superdelegates and the nomination. But that is not how it works."
What a crybaby! Total Veruca Salt tantrum. That "I have the lead" refrain is gonna get him nowhere - except maybe Ambassador to Guam. Even NPR is turning on him. Hillary can just ignore him now and start after McCain.
I hope you are right. This is not over and why not go to the convention? Not afraid of more people voting and I do think my girl can get some of those super deligates.
I think a lot of Dems have forgotten that the current primary system only dates to1980, and was preceeded by hard-fought horse trading at the convention. The nominee has to be elected by the delegates, who can and do change positions in successive ballots. The notion that the primaries automatically select the nominee ignores the entire purpose of the convention. With a clear frontrunner, it seems like the convention is a redundancy, but in a hard-fought contest the convention is the vehicle to choose the best nominee with the highest likelihood of winning in November. Delegate counts are important, but the convention will make the selection.
The rules are the rules....as "unfair" and pro-Clinton as they may seem. It's only in the last few election years that the primaries have yielded a candidate with the total needed for the nomination. That looks practically impossible for either of the candidates now. Conventions with many voting opportunities for delegates haven't happened for awhile now, but that's the primary purpose of the convention. The fact that the acolytes of Sen. Obama can't and don't want to understand that parties have procedures and those procedures don't change within the campaign season, is not the fault of Clinton or anybody, but if these rules are so repugnant, then the Obama-ites need to move for rule changes AFTER the current campaign/election cycle. Since no one foresaw that the Dems would have such a hotly contested primary campaign, the party should be excited that it is a cliffhanger and that it has gained so much public attention. Usually, it goes on with the notice of only those with interest in party politics. As Oldtt said....the convention will make the selection.
Mr. Schlesinger. The Senator from New York is still behind in popular vote and delegates. And a little thing too, Senator Obama won overwhelming from our Democratic citizen from around the world. And if you step back, the New York politician was never the underdog - because of her vast name recognition and good will she received as First Lady. She lost this. Now give her credit as a campaigner when she was knocked to the ground she appealed to the the darker side of people. She knew regions and she knew education levels, or at least her handlers did. Because how brilliant to engage in silly talk, pettiness, unproductive arguments and hearsay, at this stage of the Primary game when we should be talking about the bigger things like the economy and the war. Silly, sir. Her Achilles heel is, that in doing so, she sacrificed her appearance of clear and Democratic judgments. I guess it was just too tempting for her. Like the apple.
Obama has convinced me both in the importance, relevance and historical aspects of his wins. Fact is, Obama, in this Primary season has lost California, Texas, Ohio and New York, not because he is unable to win them, but because of the set of circumstances that he will not overcome quickly: time, vast population and their demographics, her name recognition and her established good will. These are hard cookies crumble in a Primary but in November he will win Texas and California and New York. By November of this year, his message and his name recognition, and who he is and stands for won't be unknown. But telling was Texas, her regional strategy did not pay the dividends she wanted, and there are signs that " security appeal" "take me at my word appearl" is wearing off. With her game plan, she should have clobered Obama in Texas. Time is not on her side but is on his. He has until November - 8 months. Look what he has done in 2 months alone! That is convincing, as you say.
Another convincing aspect of his type of wins, relates to this Country's FUTURE. It is that Obama's campaign, is winning EVERYWHERE ELSE, - from Washington State and Colorado, to Missouri, Alaska and Georgia, all the way to Maine and Connecticut, coupled with Wisconsin, Utah, Idaho, Colorado, Kansas, Virginia, Louisiana and Minnesota. And important to the future of this Country, is that these are not "concrete jungle" states. But give him credit, he is able to win in Illinois, and lose by little in California, and by very very little in Texas. He's winning in places where there is higher quality of life and where people hold even truer to the underlying beliefs of this Country.
Clinton does not convince me. Ironically, the now security message " i am prepared for a crisis" the Senator from New York is running on, is exactly what she is NOT good at. She lost her candidacy after NOT BEING PREPARED for a Crisis, February 5. To put it bluntly, she lost after September 11 2001 What is disturbing is she wants to be a Security Candidate now. She will not have the instinct, background or judgment to pull from. To make the decisions necessary to go forward, but what will keep her going, is the smoke and mirrors of fear. Taking a page from Cheney and Bush, she's playing with Fear and has no idea how to use it. Talk about plagarism.
Lastly, why in these times, she does not convince me. What is troubling about her candidacy is her lack of a sense of place. Like the shell shocked Country on 9/12/01, like her campaign of 2/6/08, the factors are similar, they cannot believe THIS has happened. Unprepared. Unpreparedness. Ignorant. That is why there is this fear from a majority of people. Democrats, Republicans and a growing Independent body, who are not Hill haters, but see this Country going back to 9/10/01. And it is dangerous that she is running on a Security measure now. Doesn't she see the irony and pittfalls ahead? If 2/6/08 is any indication, No.
So you're saying that she's like Eve and is to be blamed for all mankind's sins, right?
Figures that the sexist Eurotrash would chime in eventually.
All American here
YOU SAID IT!
Your lead sentence states that "There is no rule......". The closing sentence of the first paragraph states
"This argument is now being put forth by Senator Obama's campaign." WHAT ARGUMENT???!!!
Your construction very clearly implies that Obama's campaign is stating that such a rule exists and I very definitely do not believe that to be the case. You, oh so cleverly , in the last paragraph change your tack to acknowledge that "some in the Obama campaign and in the media" believe that (assuming he maintains his lead in committed delegates) Obama will deserve the support of the so-called "super delegates" and should gain the nomination. In other words, deep in the piece you indulge in CYA and grudgingly tell the truth. Your credentials suggest that you clearly understand the difference between the "rule" approach and the "deserve" approach yet you engage in this Clintonian parsing which is just part of why so many thinking Americans long for the Clkintons departure from the public scene.
Obviously someone in the DNC needs to reads Gerge Orwell's book, "Animal Farm", as to where it pertains to the Description of "Super Delegates", and how some of the Animals on this Democratically Run Farm, are MORE EQUAL THAN THE OTHERS!!!
Our Delegates should automatically represent the WILL of the MAJORITY of the VOTERS in their District.
What's the Matter with us?
We are unable to learn from our past mistakes?
The Whole Idea of Super Delegates needs to be abandoned or at least renamed to "Authorian Overlords", if their sole purpose is to SELL THEIR VOTE TO THE HIGHEST BIDDER!!!
Regardless of what the Little People want.
I see a Train Wreck coming, and we are stuck on the Tracks between them.
Yeah, good point about Animal Farm. Also, I keep saying the same thing about this being like a train wreck. But it's like we're watching it in excruciating slow motion. Or better yet, it's more like that scene in Austin Powers where Austin's riding the steamroller at a snail's pace at the secruity guard and they both keep screaming, but neither of them prevents the inevitable run over.
Zactly!
I really believe that this whole Democratic Campaign started way too early, because it seems to be losing steam as the Convention approaches, thus your "Slo-mo" description is very accurate. What has it been? 3 years and a Billion Bucks, and we are in the worst possible position we can be in. A Victimized Female Candidate, and an Over-Achieving Half-Black Candidate, and both feel as if this will be their last time to grab at the Presidential Brass Ring.
Already there has been beatings and stabbings between these two candidates supporters, and I am afraid there may be Killings before this is all over.
me, my wife, my nephews, and brothers will be in denver w/ about a million other obama supporters if the superdelegates try to award this nomination to hillary if she's lost the delegate and popular vote totals. if the democratic party is going to stoop to the level of not heeding the people's will, then why be a democrat?
Good question. Why do we have Super Delegates at all? I don't know how far you have to stoop to get a Super Delegate to switch. Didn't John Lewis - a Super Delegate - switch his vote to Obama from Hillary? I don't think he in too much pain over his decision.
Will Obama's superdelegates follow his logic and pledge to Hillary in the states SHE won handily..namely Mass. and CA.?
Where's the pressure on Kennedy and Kerry to "follow the will of the people" and abide by the choice of the voters of their state? Aha! It must be an effort of the Obama elites to steal the nomination!! :0)
just looking for some consistency here from BOTH sides.
dr. dean certainly has some 'splaining to do.
If you're going to write an article like this wouldn't it be better to give an example from sometime in the "modern era" instead of just from the time when party bosses controlled everything anyway?
Thanks for clarifying. Obviously the Obamatons would like to dismiss the importance of Hillary's wins. I believe she'll be a wonderful President and I think Obama should take the lifeline she graciously extended to him today, before both the media and the Republicans turn him into dog food. Hillary DOES have more experience! She's been scrutinized inside out for 20 some years. Let's see how he holds up...
Ick. Gotta go wash this bad taste out of my Democratic mouth. Clinton will not be able to fly this by the Democratic party or the people of the United States. If the convention desregards the popular wish of the people, just as the Supreme Court installed Bush in 2000, the Democratic Party can not stand as the "Party of the People".
Oh, it's been done in the past all right. In sweaty back rooms full of cigar smoke. Yep, that is indeed the true history of the Democratic Party. But Clinton will break the back of the modern Democratic movement if she tries to pull it out with back-room deals.
I predict these latest fear mongering tactics of her campaign will back-fire too. But....? I have always over-estimated the intelligence and courage of the American people. A fatal flaw in the democratic impulse, it would seem, is how easy it is to scare folks.
Greetings!
The Hilary Haters are really going to town in the wake of her victories last night. Here's an interesting thing that no one seems to be mentioning. Pew just did a survey of (normal) Democrats; and they found that respondents overwhelmingly WANT HILLARY TO CONTINUE HER CAMPAIGN. 'Nuf said.
Isn't it delicious? Huffpo is like eavesdropping on a coven of harpies as they chant, "Double, double, toil and trouble, fire burn and cauldron bubble." Every now and then one of them tosses in an eye of newt, wing of bat, or head of Hillary, Peace! The charms wound up. Exit cackling. The haters give me such pleasure, not as much pleasure as last night did, but pleasure all the same.
Hate to tell you Mr. Schlesinger, but the DNC understands the situation better than you do. There is absolutely no way the superdelegates will be overturning the popular vote and the pledged delegate count because they are thinking about the future of the party.
Barack Obama is bringing in Independents, Republicans, formally apathetic voters, and the youth vote by huge margins and the Democratic party want those people to remain and become permanent Democratic voters. They can't take the chance of losing all those people just to appease some older Democratic loyalist because in the end, those people will vote for a straight Democratic ticket anyway no matter who the candidate is.
In the end, the superdelegates will do what is best for the party, and that is to vote with the pledged delegates. Your best chance is to get Hillary's votes up. Other than that, you're out of luck so stop spinning.
If Hillary runs the general election, and more importantly the white house, like she has run her idiotic, tonedeaf campaign, we are all in trouble!
The superdelegates know that Obama has actually GROWN the party. This is the future of the DNC. If they "steal" the nomination from the guy who won the most votes, they will instantly lose these people for decades possibly.
She can't catch up. She needed BIG wins yesterday and didn't get it.
No need to ask her to bow out, eventually, with the clock running out, after her last "firewall" in PA, she will dwindle away to irrelevancy.
Sorry, the voters matter. She can't win. It's over. If she wants to drag it out, spend all her supporters money, that's her call. But she can not catch up.
The only downside is if she ends up helping McCain by either giving him plenty of time to raise money and attack Obama, and also provide the GOP with more and more material to attack him with. That is why I think Hillary is selfish and ruthless to go on. It seems like it is mostly out of ego or spite.
**So is Hillary the new Huckabee, or the new Nader?**
The super delegate two step... they get to vote in their own state election and then cast another one as a super delegate....terrible process........the will of the people is all that should matter........we do not need another 2000 in our own democratic party.....he needs to start hitting back on her blind spot which is her record as a Senator.. she has passed no bills of substance, supported a woodstock museum and upstate NY has lost jobs since she took office........barack and the media have given her a free pass and its time which i see today he is starting to do to focus the spotlight on her record to contrast the two.. he has served in local , state and federal government and taught the constitution for ten yrs and passed major legislation with lugar and coburn as co sponsors.....he has worked his way up the ladder based on his own merit and has worked with the gop to get things done.. that will be the most effective way of offsetting her negative attacks without her winning the sympathy vote of women.. even my wife who supports obama feels bad for hilary every time she loses or goes bipolar.. pretty sad that saturday night lives dicates media coverage in our country as well.....pretty clever dirty trick they played on obama by making him look like the one who has gotten the free pass.....
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
