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

[Larry of Corrales]

that is how it better work if the Democratic party expects to see my vote in the Democratic column. If either Clinton or Obama go into the convention with a lead in the number of pledged delegates I expect them to get the nomination. I've written Howard Dean and said that as I am sure many many others have as well.

[NoGoodNamesLeft]

that's right. and I wrote to Dean and told him if he doesn't buy me a pony, I'm not going to vote either. so there.....

[Hart]

Yeah, and I sent off a request ... er, demand to Howie for a new transmission for my car in order for the democrats to get my vote in the fall. I get it or my righteous fat butt is staying nestled in the soft, comfy indentation of my recliner on election day, by god!!!

[World Gone Wrong]

So, according to your argument, we should never do anything differently than it was done in the past? Just because they did it that way doesn't mean we should. Especially when that way of doing things was deeply undemocratic. The Democratic Party should be emvarrassed that the Republicans have a more democratic nominating process than they do.

[torlof]

Maybe that "is not how it has worked" a few times in the distant past. But it damn well better work this way today, or I'm leaving the Democratic Party. Smoked filled rooms filled with "big shots" has got to go and stay gone!!

[Suprshrink]

A lead is not a majority. If you want to change the rules in the future - great! But for now this is what we have. The superdelegates are not required to vote for the person ahead and they have no vote that counts if the candidate has the required majority before the convention. Neither candidate can achieve that. So, now we have to wait and see.

[AnninCA]

They are not at all required to vote for the person ahead. LOL*

Where did you get that notion?

[mgloraine]

I'm sure the "process" of candidate selection is steeped in tradition which may have made sense at one time, but educated voters are awfully tired of having "delegates", "super-delegates", "electors", "representatives", "lobbyists", and other stand-ins interfering in what should be straightforward "one party member - one vote" selection process.

We don't get to select our party's candidate directly, then we don't get to vote directly for the President or Vice-President, and every group of "electors" can supposedly make arbitrary or whimsical decisions which do not reflect the will of the voters.

That's how we get stuck with fake Presidents who were never elected, like G.W. Bush. Doesn't it seem like time to close these loopholes rather than continuing to exploit them in covert back-room political manuevers which cheat party members and voters of a fair process?

The usual response to questions about election reform boils down to "Let me exploit this loophole one last time to get elected, then we'll really look at reforming the system!!"

[naugiedoggie]

I'd like to meet a few of those "educated voters." Damned few of them on the Obama train.

We got stuck with GW Bush because the Democratic Party put up less fight than my 95 y/o grandma. You can't win if you don't play.

Thanks.

mp

[Suprshrink]

Let's imagine another scenario. If we were to eliminate superdelegates, the number of pledged delegates would have to be increased for the individual states according to their population size. Since Clinton has won every large state (except Illinois), she would have amassed a substantially larger number of pledged delegates.

[altohone]

Mr. Hillary supporter,

There isn't a rule that says you have to put your socks on before your shoes either.
Common sense plays a role.

Elections have consequences, and if superdelegates think they can invalidate votes because they know better, more than Houston will have a problem.

[kingofscotts]

Then start a petition to do away with superdelegates for the NEXT election. Only a die hard Obama supporter would be trying to change the rules in the middle of the game (insert FL,MI attack here).

If you don't like the rules change parties or try and change the rules but don't cry about them when they get in the way of what you want.

[ThP2]

Your argument is intellectually dishonest. The creation of a class of so-called "super delegates" was meant to avoid the sort multi-ballot, brokered conventions you cite as historical justification for preventing this year's super delegates from doing what they were designed to do: putting the candidate with the most pledged delegates over the top.

[kingofscotts]

Sorry but your response is completely dishonest. You need to do some simple background on the creation of superdelegates. When you do that you will no doubt be embarrased for having written that post.

[NoGoodNamesLeft]

you need to read some history. That is not why the super delegates were created.

[naugiedoggie]

This is only half correct. It was also intended to prevent the popular vote for inserting a candidate that could not win in the general -- because what is popular with Democratic caucasses and Democratic primaries is not necessarily reflective of the larger public.

That is why the so-called superdelegates are elected officials or proxies for elected officials. They know what it takes to get elected in their districts. They'd be stupid to vote for a candidate that did not meet that simple criterion. Even if that candidate happens to have a lead in popular delegates going in.

Thanks.

mp

[fitnessnerd]

Great Diary. Thank you so much for the historical perspective!

[Orikinla]

"We still have an insurmountable lead."
~ Obama.

Nothing is nsurmountable in politics.

Obama's political naivety makes me to question his erudition as a legal expert on the U.S. Constitution as he claims. His statements also show his poor knowledge of the political history of America. In fact, what he knows best is to ape JFK, RFK and MLK and copy soundbites from Rev. Jesse Jackson's presidential campaign slogans and others.

Senator Barack Obama has lost in the states a credible presidential nominee should have won and Senator Hillary Clinton has won them all so far.

Barack Obama cannot beat John McCain in the presidential election and the last results of the primaries in Ohio and Texas are enough to show us his shortcomings after spending more than twice what Hillary Clinton spent in the two states, he still failed to beat her.

If she had done her homework after the Super Tuesday presidential primaries and caucuses, she would not have lost in the 11 states to Barack Obama.

Is it not amazing that it took Barack Obama 11 straight victories to overtake Hillary Clinton?
So, without the 11 straight victories, he would not have won more pledged delegates than her?

In conclusion, the final verdict is, Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton will be a better and more credible presidential nominee than Senator Barack Hussein Obama.

[auntiecairo]

You are forgetting these are Democratic primaries - not a reflection of how Republicans will vote - which in the case of at least Texas and Florida is Republican. The other large states won by Clinton would vote for Obama over McCain. INdeed it is McCain who receives independent votes, not Clinton so arguably her candidacy could cause the Democrats to lose the Southern states won by Obama that are usually Red. Clearly race is an issue with you so there's probably no point in arguing. But do you think if the situations were reversed Clinton wouldn't be saying the same thing? It's just politics -- the reason Clinton didn't do better after Super Tuesday is because she didn't have a plan - thinking she was going to win - or money. So despite her experience she couldn't see beyond the polls and pundits and overspent and ran out of money. There was alot of early voting in California, Michigan and Florida - a later vote might have a different outcome. The bottom line is there is a 50/50 split for both candidates - hopefully there will be a consensus of what the people (not insiders of the Party) want. It is naive though to think Clinton is the candidate to beat McCain - given her praise of him the last few days he already has lots of material for commercials where she touts him over Obama - and presumably her since when you read the details her experience on matters of national security and legislation are the same as Obama - in fact - she had the opportunity to be given an security clearance when Bill was President and for some reason did not receive one - which is a questions someone need to get the answer to. . .

[bkb]

Well said. No way OB has a shot. The repubs will rip him apart, and the O-mentum won't last till November. HRC however can take the heat, as she has proven many times before.

[LeftRight]

So..... why do all of your examples occur more than 50 years ago???

[mcartri]

Dear Stephen, thanks for an informative article. Sadly, me thinks you hit a speed bump while typing it. Does the year 1968 and the streets of Chicago ring a bell? Oh, that's for another article. I see. Well, if Hillary is chosen by the really smart people, watch your TV screen for the streets of Denver. I'm sure future President John McCain will.

[Suprshrink]

It's called "history." Since we have presidential elections only every 4 years and since many of the conventions have been held for incumbent presidents, the statistical probability that the primary election could end in a virtual tie is quite low. So, we get to look back into "history" to see what has happened before in such uncertain times. It seems that you just don't like the possibility that your candidate might not benefit from this process.

[Brayne]

The Obama fan is reminiscent of The Oakland Raider fan. Very angry. "My way or I'll stab you!" The fact is we are at war. Eighteen former admirals, generals, and senior defense officials gave their reasons for supporting Senator Clinton to be our next Commander-in-Chief. Overall she has the endorsement of two former chairmen of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, five admirals and generals at the four-star rank. They must be stupid or jaded too??? Now that having been said. I WILL BACK WHOM EVER GETS THE NOD!!! WE and I stress "WE" need to defeat the GOP. At this time, in the middle of the mess that W has left for us, I think we need Hillary for the above reasons. See the forest through the trees. I really wish Obama and Clinton weren't running against each other.

[Najam]

Mr. Barack Hussain Obama does not want the super delegates to change the will of the people and wants them to vote as their constituents voted. How about rejecting super delegates Kerry and Kennedy's endorsement and would he accept their votes in the convention?

On the same token of "will of the people", how comes he is against the "will of the those who voted in Folrida and Michigan"? Is it about if you voted for me it must count, and if you didn't it shouldn't. How different is it from; "if you are not with us you are against us"? So much for change!!!!

Please do not vote on the basis of your race, America is more precious than the color of any skin. The statistics shows that 80 to 90% African/Americans voted for Barack Hussain in last nights primaries. Blame game aside, Latinos showed better political awareness and understanding of the issues at hand, otherwise Bill Richardson would still be in the race.

Najam, NJ

[BitJam]

Najam asked:

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

[H]ow comes [Obama] is against the "will of the those who voted in Folrida and Michigan"?

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

He's not! It is the Clinton camp that is trying to stop the re-votes!

Michigan Superdelegates Tense As March 4 Primaries Near

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dan-treul/michigan-superdelegates-t_b_89110.html

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

Brewer has been heavily criticized for his organization's bungling of its primary, and, like Gov. Granholm, is quietly resisting calls for a "do-over" - a caucus that analysts predict would heavily favor Obama.

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

A re-vote in Michigan will put an end to Hillary's dreams of getting the nomination.

[eddiestardust]

Trust me, there won't be a "re vote" no need for it then again are YOU going to pay for it?

[BitJam]

History.

300 years ago Democracy was at best a dream. Today it is the norm in North America, Europe, and most of the rest of the world. We welcome this change.

200 years ago it was considered acceptable in parts of the United States for one human being to own another human being. Today that idea is abhorrent. We welcome this change.

100 years ago the majority of adults, women, were not allowed to vote in our country. Today that idea is unthinkable. We welcome this change.

50 years ago it was acceptable for backroom politics to overturn the will of the people in the Democratic primary. Today, this too has changed. Nancy Pelosi, Donna Brazile, and Joe Trippi are all top Democratic party members who have not endorsed either candidate. They have all said it would be unacceptable to let the superdelegates overturn the will of the people. Since at least two of them are superdelegates themselves, their opinions carry some weight. We welcome this change.

[z1scouts]

Stephen,
Thank you for your information on how delegates and super delegates work. Now if only we can get the mdia and the other ill informed writers to stop feeding the public airways with the Hillary does not have the math to win (which has begun this morning).
Over the next few weeks, the media analysis could poison the remainder of the states who have not voted, into thinking it's not necessary to vote.
The Obama camp has continually pumped out information that the super delegates have to do the right thing and hand him the nomination. Additionally, they tout, that because he has won the popular vote he is entitled to be the nominee; they just want to rush this process, as if "we the people" won't notice.

[em0199]

The only thing I see happening if this is the way things work is that a lot of these people that have come out for the democrats will not anymore myself included. I did not know that the big wigs in the party could overturn the vote of the people in this way. It seems to me to be the most undemocratic thing I have ever seen. I see myself becoming independent next voting cycle it is obvious to me this system that the two parties have developed is not for the people but for the leaders of the parties.

[AnninCA]

To reduce our process to nothing more than numbers is to diminish the actual vitality of the Democratic Party.

Thanks for offering perspective.

[peaceandfreedom]

Yes, the Democratic Party of Mayor Daley lives! Smoke filled back room arm twisting "politics" of the Machine, and she and Bill have learned that one well! Her Rovian attack ads and entitled attitude of, damn the voters, let's do this behind closed doors will lead to this scenario:

One third of the deal is done:
1. She "won" Texas, that pinkest of Blue states that would vote for Hitler if he ran as a Dem, and she won the "Diebold" lottery of Ohio--better check those machines, boys.

2. She will overturn the Florida and Michigan prohibition, and add those to her total as well.

3. The undeclared Superdelegates will flock to her banner at the convention, the "comeback" complete, the MSM thrilled by the meme (oh, what papers they will sell)--And the Deal is Done!

If, as Mr. Schlesinger suggests, this nomination process is just a prelude to the "Real Thing," to take place after the people have spoken, then we really need to make a clean sweep, not just of those incumbents who continue to support the fascist, Bush, but of all the antiquated good old boy rules that allow this to rob us of our voice in the election.