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
Obama will win every state that Hillary has won...not sure what planet some people live on.
While what you say may be true, one cannot be certain that either candidate will win any of the states they won in the primaries. On can certainly make a case, however, that no Democrat has a chance of winning in many of the states Obama won -- Idaho, Utah, South Dakota (for instance)-- and that Sen Obama has less of a chance to win in Tennessee and Arkansas. What we do know is that the Dem nominee must win Ohio, Florida, and Pennsylvania, as well as the traditional Democratic states. Missouri was essentially a tie, so each has about the same chance to win there.
There are some underlying facts in the exit polling data that strongly suggest that Obama could easily lose Hillary voters to McCain in some of the big swing states.
Didn't Stevenson lose the general election? Maybe the ordinary Democrats were on to something in voting for Kefauver!
Eisenhower was a national hero who had no political leanings until Truman fired his ex-boss Douglas MacArthur, turning Ike into a Truman hater. No one could have defeated him, not even UN-founder Stevenson with all his genuine eloquence. Kefauver's only claim to fame was chairing a Senate committee on organized crime.
It was interesting this week as I attempted to explain our American democratic election processes to our guests from Eastern Europe. I lost them somewhere between caucuses, primaries, outlawed primaries, delegates and appointed superdelegates. When I got to explaining the electoral college and the reasoning as to why they truly elect the president, they simply laughed at my insistence of our one person-one vote as 'democratic' nonsense. Perhaps I merely confused them.
Oh, I see - 1912, 1932 and 1952. Wait, doesn't that mean that this elitist means of "persuading the party" shouldn't be available until 2012?
If the superdelegates overturn the will of the people, I can guarantee that John McCain will win the WH. There are so many first time voters who have been brought into the electoral process by Obama who will be sorely disenfranchised and either sit out the election of vote for McCain. Hillary knows this and if she doesn't care enough about the party or this country then she has no business running for president.
Here's some math for you. Hillary will have to win every other state by 73% in order to surpass Obama.
So, Hillary has two choices:
1) Step out of the race soon.
OR
2) Tear apart the Democratic Party.
I suspect that she will chose option 2.
Guess what? Obama can't possibly reach the magic number without the superdelegates. Why should Hillary be the one to step out. Let him quit if the fight is too tough for him.
If you think all Obama supporters will rally around a winner of a back-room deal then you and those that would entertain this idea are sadly mistaken. Even in a contest between an old school, reproductive rights repressing warhawk conservative I'm not sure I can hold my nose long enough to vote for that too tightly wound, uber ambitious ex-first-lady with a rictus like smile.
Sorry to tell you that there are plenty of Hillary supporters who feel exactly the same way. Multiple votes on the convention floor, by the way, is not a back-room deal. Hasn't happened in a long while, but with the proportional voting system arranged (in a backroom deal) by Dukakis and Jesse Jackson, it was bound to happen sooner or later. If the Democratic Party had a proportional delegate system based solely on population by congressional district (rather than on votes cast in the previous election), Sen Clinton's totals would far surpass Sen Obama's at this point.
Actually, I supported Edwards and have reservations about Obama. Of course they are a mole hill next to Hillery's mountain of faults. I just don't want to see another damn Republican elected especially a dyed in the wool warhawk. Our country simply can't survive a Republican like this at this point in time because he'll drag us down with that damned essentially perpetual war in Iraq.
Obama's clearly the better nominee. He has a broader, more diverse base of support. He brings hundreds of thousand of new voters into the democratic party. Hillary will galvanize the republican party if she is the nominee.
AMEN!
This is why Rush Limbaugh is laughing!
The Republicans want Hillary to win yesterday
just so, the fighting goes on and on and on ...
and which will then make the case, that Hillary is the winnable candidate.
And surely, if she does get nominated -
the Republicans core base will unite and go to the polls
in support of McCain.
and where will Obama's main supporters go - the 85% of the African American electorate,
the youth and first-time voters, the independents, the greens?
They will just sit down and watch the two war-and-fe
and that will be the beginning of the end ...
I did listen to Rush today and he was just gloating after telling his listeners to go out and vote for Hillary in OH and TX.
Sounds like the book of Revelations to me.
Except the Lations and the blue collar workers
I don’t know the point you’re trying to make. I thought you were going to talk about the fact that the term “pledged delegate” is a misnomer. Under the party rules, those pledged delegates can support whichever candidate they want despite the vote. I believe though they always vote for the candidate to whom they are pledged on the first ballot. I’ve read reports that Hillary’s campaign plans to go after Obama’s pledged delegates.
Senator Obama’s argument is about the super delegates and the criteria super delegates should use to determine which candidate to support. The concept of super delegates are fairly recent and didn’t even exist in the time period of your examples. They were dreamed up after the 1968 Democratic Convention.
People realize there is a delegate vote at the convention and that there would be more than one. Senator Obama isn’t expecting to be “handed” the nomination but he is putting forth a criteria for the super delegates to determine their support.
Many democrats beliee the super delegates are undemocratic in that it seems their vote counts more and that it can override the will of the people.
Most Democratic Party members think the disenfranchisement of Florida and Michigan is also undemocratic, so while you're counting delegates, remember:
"Idiots at the Democratic National Committee’s Rules Committee and other Washington insiders made a stupid decision and want to punish Florida and Michigan voters for their own (DNC) stupidity.
Let Obama spend the next several months arguing against voter rights. Let Obama paint himself into a box on the Florida and Michigan issue. The more Obama argues against seating Florida and Michigan delegates the more he argues against his own candidacy. Politically, Obama arguing against seating Florida/Michigan delegates makes it less likely he will win those states in a general election. Obama is arguing against himself. Let Obama twist slowly in the wind." - http://www
As ususal the younger people do not understand what a convention is all about. They for to long have sat on the side lines and have not voted or paid any attention to politics until now. A sweet talker comes along and they think in terms of celibrity. Not understanding the issues and what it takes to govern a nation.
If Obama, young as he is, believes this and the delegates do not do their job, then democracy in the US is dead. We will elect people on the popular vote and not with common sense. Of course most of those under 40 lack common sense. Most voted for Bush, and look what we got!!
Would you like to have a beer with Obama???!!!???
lambdin 1 - And who is going to be the arbiter of "common sense," you?
fstory,
And why is it that you think you know any better?
Smart aleck huh?
Try doing some work in Poli-Sci and then work on campaigns, run for delegate yourself and you will have SOME experience.
Lambdin1,
Yes, you are correct.
Many folks who post here have very little understanding of how the system operates.
I suggest that THEY GET INVOLVED and then they will have an understanding!
I will promise this - If the superdelegates determine the winner at the convention and do not giv e their vote to the person voted as our candidate by the majority of voters, this is one life-long Democrat who will, over night, become an Independent. This is my promise, my hand to God.
Lifelong democrat..
Why don't you LEARN how the system operates?
eddiestardust, why don't you LEARN how a democracy should function? do you think we'll allow some faceless bureaucrat STEAL the nomination and give it to a representative of the system that has led to so much corruption? obama's campaign promises to change the d.c. system.
Good riddance.
[Here is my response to you Mr. Schleshinger. This is an email that I sent out to 200 African Americans in states like Georgia, Florida, South Carolina, Maryland, New York, New Jersey, California, and Texas. They in turn are taking the email and distributing it with their own email groups and encouraging recipients to do the same. I will be providing weekly updates to this group of the "PLEDGED=ELECTED" delegate count and the popular vote for further distribution. I am calling in to radio talk shows like Tom Joyner and Michael Baisden to raise the awareness even further.]
CLINTON CAMPAIGN MISCHIEF, PAY ATTENTION
I am writing this to you to make sure you are paying attention. The Clinton campaign is up to no good. I need you to read this and forward it or cut and paste it in messages to your own personal email groups. When you send encourage the recipients to do likewise.
As most of you know I have been very active for some time in what is going on with this year’s Presidential Campaign (I do spend a portion of my leisure time on sites like the Huffington Post and Politico.c
Which brings me to the urgency of this email and why we have to spread the word through email, at church, at the barbershop and beauty shop, on campuses, at the club (Walmart), to other family members and friends. The Clinton campaign has also figured this out. In order for the Clinton campaign to catch up in “PLEDGED” delegates they would need to win the remaining 16 contests of margins greater than 20 percent. It is not likely that she will not even win contest that she is currently favored in, PA, WV, KY, IN, Puerto Rico, and Guam by more than 10 percent. Thus her campaign has come up with the argument to the media that they have won states that matter. Mind you they get to determine the states that matter. Through this spin of the facts they get the press to help them argue this and thus provide cover to STEAL the nomination through the so called superdelegates. There are some indications that some of the news pundits are giving in to the pressure and spinning by the Clinton campaign. Joe Scarborough (MSNBC Morning Joe) is trumpeting all the Clinton talking points now. Following the last primaries and caucuses on February 19th it was generally agreed that she would need “blow out” wins to win the nomination. Now the Clinton campaign is making the argument that they just need to win Ohio and Pennsylvania by any margin to justify the superdelegates GIVING her the nomination and therefore STEALING it from Obama.
Let me first say if Hillary can do the unthinkable and close Obama’s lead to around 25 “PLEDGED” delegates then in my opinion she has a plausible case for the nomination and we should support her. But if she does not and the superdelegates STEAL the nomination from Senator Obama we must let the Democratic Party know we are not taking it and will SIT THIS ELECTION OUT. They need to know that we will not only lose the Presidential Campaign but other down ticket elections also if they go through with such Shenanigans. We have been the most loyal of all constituencies to the Democratic Party. In General Elections we vote anywhere from 80 percent up for the Democratic candidate. Here is where we draw the line and again I urge you to disseminate this email and begin to talk about it in your own respective circles so that the Democratic Party knows we are watching with OUR EYES WIDE OPEN.
the way candidates get "pledged" delegates is unfair to start with
Hillary won big in California, but had to share "pledged" delegates with Obama
and in tiny states, like Idaho, Obama got a lot of "pledged" delegates
bottom line: getting the "pledged" delegates is NOT DEMOCRATIC to begin with
so you can't use "pledged" delegates as the basis for any kind of fair or democratic outcome
So after years of electing Democratic nominees, suddenly when you're losing it's unfair. wahhhhh.
tabatha,
You "pledge" when you get involved with a presidential candidate.
Get involved early enough in the campaign and the campaign calls you up and asks if you would like to run as a "Clinton Delegate" or "Obama Delegate".
In other words, those who SHOW UP get to participate.
It's the 15% rule....
You get less than 15% then you don't get delegates.
You get 15% or more and you get delegates.
I am all for this!
I am not African American, but Asian American.
I believe in Mr. Obama's capacity to make a change in this nation,
with all our support!
Why dont you go on back to either Africa or Asia(your choice) and leave the real american people to attend to our business without the interference of outsiders such as yourself.
Why dont you Egobamanuts just stop with the ridicules threats to leave the party and do it.We do not need people who tell us "vote the way we tell you or we will leave the party".Go ahead leave already.I double dog dare you.We will never be intimidated by a bunch of bullies.Hi
Super-delegates can vote the way they want... John Lewis switched from Hillary to Obama. Is Obama stealing that vote. I agree the thing is crazy, but than it's been that way since the 80's why is that Hilary's problem? I will not sit this election out and pout I will vote for the Democratic nominee - it's not really NOT a very difficult decision.
"Ohio and Pennsylvania by any margin to justify the superdelegates GIVING her the nomination and therefore STEALING it from Obama."
Have you (Stephen Schlesinger) clearly indicated you are working with the Clinton campaign?
So what if he is.It's a free country,last time I checked.
I agree with SCHLESINGER and his accurate analysis. I logical compromise would be a Gore/Pelosi ticket.
Please tell me that was a joke. "Do nothing" Pelosi would definately be the biggest mistake since George Bush.
Thank you for the clarification. As you have shown, selecting the nominee of the Party isn't really a democratic process. Some of the primaries and the caucuses were quite democratic, allowing any and all to vote regardless of party affiliation, but they were NOT the result of DEMOCRATIC selection. You still have to convince the Party of your qualifications at the Convention. It seems impossible then to nominate a man which very little experience who won only one of the big industrial states: Illinois. Hillary won New York, California, Texas, Ohio (and no candidate in many years has won the Democratic nomination who has not won in Ohio), and Massachusetts, That has to weigh heavily on the Convention's consideration and would the more significant of the qualifications for heading the ticket.
agree....
and the Iowa dem caucaus certainly reeked of arm twisting and back room deals...no
Ohio has special significan
Obama's big Ohio loss means he cannot win the GE....
plus...as you said....Hi
the Convention cannot ignore the will of the voters here
and......t
so the convention can't rely on pledged delegates
impossible? By what measure? Are you honestly implying that carrying 45+% of the DEMOCRATIC primaries in those "big states" isn't enough for him to go all the way, when combined with his other 20+ blowout state wins?
As for the nonsense about Ohio, when is the last time "in many years" there were still two candidates in the race by the time Ohio voted? Talk about silly reasoning - because we've not had a contested race in Ohio before, the winner of Ohio gets all the cookies? Besides, the last two candidates Ohio picked for us didn't exactly become president, now did they?
I wonder if the convention will be swayed by the same silliness as some Clinton supporters.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
