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
If the superdelegates don't vote to reflect both the popular vote and pledged delegate lead then how can we say we have a democratic process? Why have primaries at all? Why not just ignore the will of the democratic electorate altogether by skipping all the dog and pony show stuff and just let those 800+ party apparatchiks choose a candidtate for us in some smoky back room?
Because THAT is exactly what you are advocating. If the superdelegates base their vote on ANYTHING other than the outcomes of the primaries we don't have democracy at all.
What we shouldn't have are superdelegates.
You can claim whatever you want, sir, but the majority of the American public will look at the results, REGARDLESS of who is ahead, and expect that person to win with the support of the remaining superdelegates. If they overturn what the public has decided it will be horrible for the democratic party, and I for one will be reregistering as an independent.
I see the uninformed brigade is having a party. I am posting a link to the popular vote. In the spirit of generosity I will allow Florida. Michigan can not be counted unless you want to advocate for the kind of elections dictators run
http://www
If Obama wins in pledged delegates and the supers steal the nomination from him, it will be the worst thing the Democrats could possibly do. I'm talking massive riots.
Is that a threat?
If she has the popular vote lead at the end (very possible) and he has the delegate lead. Then what? riots?
Are you going to put down your latte long enough to "riot"?
There's no rule that the pledged delegates have to do anything - except do what's right for the party. If you think overturning the voters is going to help the party; if you think reversing the will of the people is going to help the party; if you think rewarding a ruthless, lying campaigner is going to help the party; if you think nominating the single most divisive, highest negatives candidate in America is going to help the party; then you're an idiot.
Really, the party is going to be in trouble way before the convention. It's time for the party to make a deal now, before there's nuclear war between these two camps and it becomes just a matter of time before the Republicans get on TV and laugh about how the Democrats had TWO candidates who could win and wound up losing anyway.
Neither one of these two or the two together is going to win the election against McCain. The electoral math is simply not there. Clinton and Obama were the two most unelectable candidates we fielded out of the original six main candidates for the nomination, and the party totally screwed up.
Neither of them should have ever run for president knowing the huge risks involved.
This blog is so revealing. You are in a rush to declare Obama the winner because you are an Obama supporter and a Clinton hater. That is obvious. But your argument does not hold water. Imagine this. It is Super Bowl 2008. New England just went ahead with less than 2 minutes to go. The referees decide magically that they can call the game for the Patriots because there might be unhappy spectators in the seats. The race is not over. Neither candidate can get a majority of pledged delegates. Those are the simple facts. What happens next is for the party and the conventioneers to make their decisions. Under no circumstances would it serve the Democratic party that the superdelegates jump the gun and anoint Obama or Clinton just to make voters like you happy. This campaign is, for all intents and purposes, a tie. Now we're approaching an overtime drill.
A tie? One team is 135 points ahead...
you need to take something for anger. Is Hillary really ruthless and a liar or are you just a vehement Obama supporter who can;t handle a fight or a punch.
Hey Steve, even Mark Penn disagrees with you. Read his Feb. 13th memo where he says the candidate with the most delegates should win.
i think it's hard to argue that either candidates are not fit to be president. it is impossible to predict the future so who will be "best" is subjective, at best.
dummy, the obama campaign is arguing that overturning the will of the people (popular vote and pledged delegate leads) would damage the party and hurt the democratic process given that both candidates are obviously fit to serve as president. it will also get a republican into office again, the ultimate misstep by democrats.
am i the only here scared for november..
No, I think anyone who is reasonable is scared for November.
I'm not scared at all. Either Hillary or Barack will be able to mobilize far more voters on the ground then john mccain and will overwhelm the polls.
Timmo said: "If you have the most pledged delegates and you are not an insane maniac with a hideous track record nor some shady character who withholds information from the voters, like deliberately shielding documents that would prove or refute your claims to "experience" and tax returns - then you should get the nomination
Stephen,
As a successfully ELECTED delegate to the 1984 Democratic National Convention I have to agree with you.
Even pledged delegates CAN switch allegiances ( as one Hart Delegate from PA did in 1984)
although this is a very rare occurence and depending who you are, it can have disasterous effects
politically when you arrive home.
Ethically though, you are really bound...de
Superdelegates are NOT bound and there is NOTHING set in stone to say that they should go either way.
That being said, in 1984, Gary Hart was leading Walter Mondale in elected delegates and votes won in more states. Mondale, however, wrestled enough superdelegates to capture the nomination.
And told the world he would raise taxes and lost the election on the floor of the convention.
If Hillary keeps winning states, there will be a push for Superdelegates to change and to get on board for her.
I could care less about "pledged" delegates. That's just an intraparty version of the undemocratic Electoral College.
I do care about voters and citizens, not "electors" and "delegates".
Unless a candidate is in some sort of career ending ethics scandal, the superdelegates should vote for whoever received the most votes nationwide in the primaries, whether that's Obama or Clinton.
Well, ProudliberalDan,
You should care because that is HOW the system operates.
It would be possible for Democrats to avoid catastrophe and a tumultuous convention if the leadership would agree to NOT permit superdelegates to vote on the first ballot at the Convention. Let them join in later if it proves necessary. That way Democrats would retain the respect of the democracy they serve.
Exellent idea! Not as good as scrapping both parties and their attendant special interests, but far more workable!
Unfortunately, that's not going to happen. There is an unbridgeable gap between Clinton supporters and Obama supporters. There is NO way to avoid an absolutely mess at the convention, which in a way is good for Democrats because the Republicans don't know who is going to be the nominee.
The best thing that could happen is for the convention is to ditch both of them in favor of somebody else.
Nunes, After listening to talk radio late last evening, I got the drift. Hannity and Limbaugh "told" the voters of SW Ohio to vote for Hillary and like good soldiers they did. Republican stronghold voted for Clinton almost en mass??!! Wonder who they think they can beat if they stack the deck with Clinton? No way, no how can Obama be beat!!!! Hillary? Not too sure.
I get a bit jumpy with GHWBush, BClinton, GWBush, HClinton, JBush and on and on and on! Doesn't this bother anyone but me?
As for the mess at the convention, you're damned straight. If she pulls a Huccabee and just stays on and on, a spoiler she will be. You KNOW Clintons are aware of all this and I honestly I wonder if they care.
Actually, the first vote does not make a difference. All pledged delegates are required to vote for their candidate on the first round.
And most times, one ballot is ALL that happens:)
This piece is the best explanation of why Obama's chances of being the nominee are slight and that Hillary Clinton's chances are better.
Clinton, as you recall, always had the support of the party establishment. She was groomed for the nomination ever since John Kerry was cheated out of the election in 2004. We had far better candidates for the general election this year such as Joseph Biden and John Edwards, but they didn't have that support. Clinton on the other hand lined up the lion's share of the support, and while some of them might be a little squeamish because of Obama's string of victories and the fact she didn't secure the nomination early, that doesn't mean they will go to Obama.
Obama's weaknesses are just now being brought out into the open. This is the reason Clinton won narrowly in Texas and in a landslide in Ohio.
The best scenario for the Democratic Party's chances in the fall is if there is a brokered convention and a different nominee is selected, whether that is Gore, Edwards, Biden, or somebody else. It's probably the most unlikely. What will happen is we will have a horrid mess because the two factions, the Clinton supporters and the Obama supporters, will have a huge problem in uniting against McCain.
Why is it Democrats, who seemed to have had this election in the bag, screw it up?
Well if it was in the bag then they should have let someone know. Yes, it is a mess, and that is what the Clintons clean us best.
Math is math. Obama has a better chance to win the nomination due to the cold hard numbers. He has won 27 states, she has won 14. Obama has had over 1 million individual persons who gave /money/ to his campaign for president. There is no way that the turn-outs would be nearly as high in this primary season without Obama. If Clinton were running against anyone else she would already be the nominee, but she's not, she's running against Obama. Obama will win Mississippi and Wyoming... the press and superdelegates will have over a month to let those numbers sink in. She knows this yet still wants to denigrate Obama... she's willing to throw her own party under the bus just to win around 10 pledge delegates which Obama will make up within the week. Sad.
... by her campaign's own account, she's getting p0wned by a n00b! How exactly are we to expect her to lead us to victory in November?
The states he has won now are sure fire losers in November, with a couple of exceptions. Illinois, Washington, Virginia are good states to get. Washington and Virginia are Clinton's biggest mistakes. That being said, if he can't win the large states and the swing states he stands zero chance in November. Math is not math. Reality is the Electoral College. Don't expect folks in NY, CA etc. to fall in line because ultra-lefties in Kansas and Idaho and South Carolina picked the wrong candidate. He's not representative of the party. He will be abandoned by the Democrats on the coast. And if he even whiffs at MI and FL, he loses. BTW - nice job Howard Dean - he's turned those two swing states red for the next 2 cycles if not longer. Idiots. Convention delegates do what they want. This is the Kennedy-mafia v. the Clintons, nothing more - Obama is a figurehead at best - out there to put a friendly face on the Kennedy-mafia and not to say anything stupid, which we're seeing with increasing regularity he's not capable of.
March 4th was not only the day the republicans made John McCain their nominee it was also the day the democratic party committed hari kari. Heres the two choices we had going into March.
Option One---coalesce around Barack Obama, have 8 months to out fund raise and organize against John McCain. Nomimate the candidate who polled better against McCain, brought independents and some disillusioned republicans to our side. Hillary falls on her sword putting party before self. Seems tlike a huge advantage for the Democrats and a no brainer. Do we do the smart thing, hell no.
Option two--continue fighting this out, weakening Obama in the general, spend tens of millions more dollars fighting amongst ourselves. Provide future talking points and campaign ads for McCain to use against us. Hillarys supporters will argue they can have the super delegates give her the nomination even though she WILL end up with less pledged delegates than Obama or have the rules changed at the end of the campaign to seat Florida and Michigan. The problem with that scenario Hillary supporters is that even if you win the nomination like that she and the democrats will be slaughtered in November. The most loyal base of the democratic party, African Americans, the group that went 90% for Al Gore,the one group of our base you need to come out big in November, will be so turned off they will stay home. The youth vote will be disillusioned. So even if Hillary and her supporters win the nomination like this they cant win in November. Its to bad they cant see the forrest for the trees.
Democratic circling firing squad. its what we do, snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.
Because Soros and the Kennedy mafia want back into the establishment the Clinton's kicked them out of.
Let me see if I have this straight.. Since FDR actually went on to win the nomination anyway, you have a grand total of 2 examples over the past 100 years where the democratic party countermanded the delegate count and installed someone else instead. And this comprises the basis for your candidate's chances at winning the nomination?
Plus, all the while we're having this fight, back-biting and declaring we won't support this candidate or that, John McCain has started his general election campaign. This man who came back from having no money and being written off is now the lone player on the national stage. Above everything, that is the dumbest thing we could have let happen.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
