An Internet hub for moderates, centrists, and independents, with domestic and international news, analysis, original reporting, and popular features from the left, center, and right

Guest Voice: What IS The Role Of Superdelegates?

This Guest Voice post is by blogger and Blog Radio talk show co-host Jazz Shaw, who writes regularly on Middle Earth Journal. Guest Voice posts do not necessarily represent the opinion of The Moderate Voice or its writers.

What IS The Role Of Superdelegates

By Jazz Shaw

There was a rather controversial post from one our favorite bloggers, Josh Marshall at TPM, purporting that Hillary Clinton’s supporters are trying to game the system outside of the rules to put their candidate over the finish line

I imagine playing poker around a table with friends. Player A has a Straight Flush; Player B has four of a kind. Then B says well, sure, if you’re counting straights, but if we were adding up the numbers rather than going by straights winning, I’d have won.

A similar theory was extolled at KOS. Over at TalkLeft (another excellent blog) Big Tent Democrat retorts that Clinton’s strategy is exactly within the rules.

Let’s focus on whether the rules allow this. The answer is obviously yes, they do. It seems to me that it is Obama supporters like Markos who are complaining that the rules MAY NOT favor Obama. It is they who are whining that the rules permit Super Delegates to pick a nominee who is not the pledged delegate leader. I do not like the rules either. But for a different reason. They allow Super Delegates to pick a nominee who might not be the popular vote leader.

While I may sound like a tiresome Mike Brady trying to settle a dispute between Greg and Marsha, might I suggest that each of you have many technical points which recommend your theories, but that you are both missing the big picture and getting it completely wrong.

The problem here does not lie with the current rule set (which is in desperate need of improvement) or with the party leadership or with the supporters of the two candidates. It is with the two campaigns themselves. On the one hand, this is the Democratic Party you’re talking about, and thwarting the will of the popular vote, the total pledged delegate count, most states won, etc., would send a terrible, fracturing message to the party membership, possibly keeping new, excited voters on the bench in November. On the other hand, the rules are clear and are there for a reason. The super delegates exist for the express purpose of being able to resolve such disputes in their best judgment, so a candidate asking to push the contest to the convention for such a “coup” is completely within their rights and might be putting the decision in the hands of experienced players better suited to reading the tea leaves for the upcoming election.

But none of this addresses the real fault here. First, let me say that we are in no way out of time… yet. Some of the numbers are not yet out of reach for either candidate for all the major metrics being discussed, and allowing Pennsylvania, Oregon, and North Carolina (among others) to have their say will not kill us. However, the longer this drags on past that, the more harm is done. As Ron and I discussed during our interview with Shaun Mullen on today’s edition of Mid Stream Radio, time is on McCain’s side. A story on St. John McBush’s questionable relationship with telecom lobbyists passed almost without notice today. And why would the media bother? Why chase scraps of bread sticks when there are chunks of filet mignon on the table?

The solution to this conundrum can not come from the blogs, the media, the DNC, or even the super delegates. Any forced resolution will come at a higher cost to the party than all of these pretty rationalizations would lead one to believe.

It is high time for both of these candidates to act like adults who are committed to the one concept which both of them seem to embrace – that they both wish to see the Democratic party prevail in November. The only viable remedy is for one of these candidates to come out very publicly to their own supporters, well ahead of any type of Waterloo, and say that they will never forget the boundless support of their followers, but that for the good of the party they are going to bow out and support their opponent.

This need not be done now, but this pause before the Pennsylvania primary is indeed the time for them both to sit down, look at the numbers, and decide on the parameters which each will accept for moving forward by June at the latest.

What this does is allow both candidates to come together and say, “No. This is most certainly not a case of some anonymous group of party power brokers robbing you of the nation’s first [black] – [female] president. It is to our great credit and honor that both have been fairly considered and given this opportunity. It is simply a case of our party coming together to decide that the most electable one of this pair of historic contenders will be the person to defeat John McCain in November.”

Anything short of this is nothing less than yet another case of the Democrats snatching defeat from the jaws of victory and giving away the White House in an election year where they should have taken it in a walk. There is too much blood in the water for either candidates’ supporters to bow down gracefully before a victor anointed by the Powers That Be during the convention.

I personally find it difficult to envision a scenario where Hillary Clinton makes this case successfully, given the math, but that could still change in the primary battles next month. Be that as it may, I will gladly take either of them at this point if the other is willing to make that long, hard walk down the hall and do what is in the best interest of the party.

  • and say that they will never forget the boundless support of their followers, but that for the good of the party they are going to bow out and support their opponent.

    Agreed. I have been waiting for Barak Obama to do that very thing.
  • PaulSilver
    At this time is appears to me that Obama has a better chance of winning in November than Sen Clinton. And that Obama's celebrity can provide more helpful coattails so that the Democrats can achieve a 60 seat Senator Majority.

    I still remain hopeful that an Obama/Clinton ticket can heal the party and provide the complimentary skills to move forward a progressive agenda.
  • Mike_P
    I believe this pause before PA is just the right time to end this. Hillary, who should win that primary easily, and is at least 10 pts ahead there in the polls, would truly look gracious and salvage some of her (and her husband's) legacies by dropping out for the "good of the party" now. Barring that, I wish the party leadership and superdelegates would do something more dramatic to nudge her out. I believe that was what Richardson was attempting to initiate with his endorsement. It may happen yet.

    McCain's popularity is on the rise, while the Democrats continue to bludgeon each other, for no good reason since even Clinton's own campaign has now privately acknowledged her insurmountable deficit in votes and pledged delegates. If Senator Clinton were any other candidate, she would have been shown the door by the Party a month ago.
  • PWT
    Its time for the supporters of It is high time for supporters of both of these candidates to act like adults who are committed to the one concept which both groups seem to embrace - that they both wish to see their candidate prevail in November. This is a winner take all contest, a race. I was always taught that you don't stop running until you've crossed the finish line and that you should run faster and faster the closer you get to the line. This race is no different. The candidates need to fight it out until the convention when the super delegates decide the winner.
  • Slamfu
    PWT is the only one being realistic here. There is no way in hell either of them are going to back down, there is too much at stake and the race is too close. I'd be outraged at my candidate if they just decided to throw in the towel now.

    What needs to happen is to have the primaries not stretched out over 4 months. Its asinine and serves no purpose. As if folks haven't had their minds made up for months.
  • StockBoySF
    "What needs to happen is to have the primaries not stretched out over 4 months."

    Primary season is January to June. I WISH it were only four months. In fact I would be happy if primary season was two months. Three months at the most. Have a vote, have a debate. Have some more votes, see how people like them. Have a couple more rounds of voting and vetting and then presto! You've got a candidate.

    On the one hand I really do want a short primary season, but on the other hand this is the time we get to really look at our candidates and pose questions to them about how they may act (unless you're a Republican- they wouldn't answer "hypothetical" questions- and I think any candidate which refuses to answer hypothetical questions should be shown to the door). See how they respond, etc.

    Unfortunately Hillary announced her candidacy late 2006 (or was it early 2007?) and other candidates soon followed, so this has been dragging on for a year longer than just the primary season. I think a candidate who announces more than two months BEFORE the primaries start should be shown to the door too.

    Really.... you'd think the Dems and GOPers would limit us to the amount of pain they put us through.
  • StockBoySF
    I got so wrapped up in reading other postings that I forgot to respond to the topic at hand. Sorry.

    First I would like to point at that the primary does not elect a leader. Rather the primary selects a person to advance to the next stage- the actual election. If a candidate does not like the outcome of the primary of their choosing (Democratic or Republican or whatever), they are free to run as an independent.

    Second, the voice of the people should count for something- that is why the Dem and Repub parties have people vote in the primaries- for input. But again this doesn't have to be strictly "fair". After all it is how the party helps to select the person to advance to the next stage- the actual general election.

    The superdelegates are supposed to be party leaders who should select someone they think they can work with, who can lead most effectively (both the party and the country) and ultimately can get the job done. If only two candidates make it to the convention, and both candidates have these traits (regardless of the personal preference of a superdelegate) I think the superdelegates should support the candidate with a clear lead (more on "clear lead" in a moment).

    If the superdelegates know something about a candidate that the public doesn't know (fat chance in these times, the way every rock is turned over again and again until these rocks are polished stones) then the superdelegates should step in and support the best candidate.

    As I mentioned, if one candidate has a clear lead over another candidate, then I think the superdelegates should support the candidate with the clear lead. I don't think a 51%/49% (2 pt. spread) vote split constitutes a clear lead, but I think that if we're talking a 52%/48% (4 pt. spread) vote split in the primary, that seems pretty clear to me, but could still be argued. Certainly 53%/47% (6 pts.) is a clear lead.

    Anyway, essentially what I'm trying to do is balance the vote and will of the people, while recognizing the primary is the function of a particular party and the rules don't necessarily enjoy the typical 50% plus 1 rules in a democratic vote. I as much as the primaries exist for the input of the people, I think their voices should be heard. But if the popular vote favors one candidate over another by a slim margin and/or one candidate has serious flaws, then the supoerdelegates can step in.

    Certainly if neither candidate had serious (or material) flaws, and if the public clearly favored one candidate over the other, then the party needs to choose that candidate.

    As an example, if candidate x had 55% and candidate y had 45 % of the primary vote, and neither had any fatal flaws, then the superdelegates should support candiate x, with 55% of the vote. If the superdelegates choose candidate y with 45 % of the votes, then 55% of the voters would really feel alienated. Whereas it would be hard for the candidate with the fewest votes to feel cheated.

    That's also why it is important to follow rules. As far as I can tell, both Obama and Clinton agreed to the rules governing the FL and MI delegates. Those rules should be followed. If both candidates agree to a change in the rules, that's fine. But neither candidate is obligated (nor should it be held against them) if they do not consent to a rules change. The reason a candidate wouldn't want to consent to a rules change is because they feel it would benefit their opponent more than them, and so who can blame them for not agreeing to change the rules.

    That's how I see it- maybe not perfect, but just trying to strike a reasonable balance.
blog comments powered by Disqus
© 2005-2009 The Moderate Voice | Site design by Elegant Themes | Site customization, hosting, and security by Enxit Group, LLC