Reader Posts
« previous | TPM CAFÉ READER POSTS HOME | next »
Fair or Smart? What Will the Supers Really Do?
There's nothing fair about the primary process. It's only a way for the DNC to figure out who will win against a Republican in the GE. Our votes and caucuses are merely our opinions in the primaries—opinions that weigh in only as a way to determine which Democrat can win the GE. Fair is not what the DNC is after; it is after the White House. This is politics, folks. (And just so this is clear, the DNC are the Superdelegates.)
Once a candidate is nominated, the DNC gets behind them 100%, and will spin and spin to the Democrats of this land until anyone who was against this candidate will come around to at least vote for them over the Republican. The losing candidate in this election is also a Superdelegate, so they, too, will get 100% behind the winner, no matter how contentious this contest has been. That is because it is in their best interest to see a Democrat in the White House, even if it is their arch rival.
Our votes and caucuses show the DNC several things, all of which they consider before choosing the nominee:
It shows them who comes out and actually votes, which is really important because that's the way the GE is run. If one candidate wins the votes, but the other wins the caucus, the result of the votes are going to carry more weight. It doesn't matter that Florida and Michigan delegates won't count; what matters is what the vote showed. Even though the people of those states believed their votes wouldn't count, in reality, the fact that they still came out in large numbers tells the DNC what they will do in the GE. So in essence, their votes do weigh in, even if their delegates don't. Remember, this is not about fair. It is about beating the Republican in the GE.
It shows them which states a candidate is likely to win over the Republican. If one candidate carries the states with high Electoral votes, that will carry more weight than delegate counts. It's not fair, but it's legal, and it's the way the system is set up.
The delegates only matter if there is a strong and obvious difference, such as with the Republicans this year. McCain's lead was overwhelming. Even so, Huckabee stuck with it because he knew that the RNC was not thrilled with McCain as the Republican nominee. But because there was such an obvious difference, the RNC knew that the GE votes would be much stronger for McCain.
Unfortunately, the Democratic candidates are too close to be decided upon by the delegate count alone. Math would be fair, but the primaries are not about fair. The Delegate math is merely one indicator among several to help the DNC make the all important decision.
If nothing else, this election is presenting a great opportunity for a lesson in Government. Those of us who always thought it was simply about the math are learning some new political lessons.
I have no idea who the Superdelegates will decide upon, but I will say once again that it is not about fairness or delegate math. They will decide based on the most likely Electoral college win. We can get all pissy about Bosnia or Wright, but none of that will matter unless it means that a candidate will lose (or win) Electoral votes because of it.
I'd say that the DNC has some serious thinking to do in the upcoming weeks. They have their work cut out for them. I don't envy them.
Comments (18)
Right. If the super-delegates decide that in their elite wisdom they must overrule the pledged delegates, then all they have to say to avoid deep damage to the party is "hey, it's not about fairness or delegate math, get over it."
March 24, 2008 4:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's a fact...sucks, doesn't it?
March 24, 2008 5:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
"If nothing else, this election is presenting a great opportunity for a lesson in Government. Those of us who always thought it was simply about the math are learning some new political lessons."
Indeed, and that's a lovely thing. But you haven't got the lesson right yet. Try Wikipedia.
March 24, 2008 5:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks, I did:
...primary elections are one means by which a political party nominates candidates for the following general election. "Primaries" are common in the United States, where their origins are traced to the progressive movement. There, primary elections are conducted by government on behalf of the parties. ...Besides primaries, other ways that parties may select candidates include caucuses, conventions, and nomination meetings.
March 24, 2008 9:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Heh. Anyone who thinks the super-dels could do that without creating a deep rift in the party is off their rocker. It's yet another bit of delusion that's needed in order to hope that Hillary would be given the nomination.
March 24, 2008 6:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's what I've been saying all along. I support Clinton, but right now, I haven't a clue what's going to happen.
March 24, 2008 4:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Really? REALLY??? You don't have a clue what's going to happen??
Here's a guess: the majority of superdelegates are going to resist Clinton's specious and disingenuous arguments, and are going to select Obama as the nominee.
It's not a fifty-fifty call.
March 24, 2008 6:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Whoa, whoa, don't hit too hard. This is progress from a Clinton supporter.
March 24, 2008 6:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Dude, love ya, but this is simply false. The delegates to the convention (elected delegates and superdelegates) select the nominee. They are not there in a merely advisory capacity to the DNC. The delegates *choose* the nominee.
On the Republican side, there are no superdelegates, so the logic is even more straightforward there.
March 24, 2008 5:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Actually, they don't call them Superdelegates, but they have a similar system.
I believe I stated right at the beginning that the DNC are the Superdelegates, and of course they make the decision. But the earned delegates only count when the voters are not so closely split.
If you think the Superdelegates are afraid to vote in favor of Clinton, think again. 1/2 of this country's democrats are for Clinton, so they would not be alienating as many as we would all like to think.
I'm trying to be a voice of reason here, and you all have me pegged as a Clinton lover, which I'm not. I've been involved in politics long enough to know that things are not always as reliable and simple as most of us would like them to be. All I'm saying is don't be too surprised if they support Clinton. There is plenty of precedent for that possibility.
March 24, 2008 9:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
This seems like a lot of whistling past the graveyard to me. If you take consolation in telling yourself that the supers will go for Clinton, far be it from me to stop you. If you mean this to convince us of something, however, you will have to do better than this. I am a scientist, so I have long since learned to value actual data over hand-waving explanations of why the data should be this way or that. The fact of the matter is that the superdelegates who have chosen have done so in a pretty even split (246 to Clinton vs 210 for Obama). These people are and have been aware of all the considerations which you detailed above, and yet they are basically split 50/50. Why are we supposed to expect that the undeclared superdelegates will be especially more swayed by the issues you detail above than the declared superdelegates have been?
March 24, 2008 5:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
You're not. I never suggested you should. But then we don't know either way, now, do we?
March 24, 2008 9:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
"I have no idea who the Superdelegates will decide upon, but I will say once again that it is not about fairness or delegate math."
So it sounds like an acknowledgement that if Clinton wins with the Supers that it would be unfair.
Listen, the Supers won't overturn Obama's lead. I agree with the Politico piece. If you really imagine about the Dem establishment looking at Obama at this point, and his supporters, and saying "we're just not going to nominate him even though he's in the lead" it just seems highly highly implausible.
That's dropping a major bomb in the middle of the party. While some will be disappointed with an Obama nomination, it is much easier for Supers to explain "he was in the lead in delegates and the popular vote, and I decided to honor that." Choosing Obama is politically expedient if nothing else.
March 24, 2008 5:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Um, McCain's delegate lead was overwhelming because the Republican primaries are winner-take-all. If the Repubs had proportioned delegates like the Dems, McCain would still be short of the necessary delegates.
Winning the states with high delegate counts is a misleading indicator as the other candidate, if the nominee, is likely to poll as well as the only candidate. Does anyone doubt that Obama would carry California?
What the delegates have to consider is the drastic increase in voter turnout on the Dem side, and who can keep this voter enthusiasm going? The delegates have to consider who can draw independents and moderate Repubs to compete in toss-up states, and which candidate is more likely to energize the opposition. The presidency may be the prize, but increased majorities in the House and Senate are the key to a successful presidency for whomever is elected.
March 24, 2008 6:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
And if the Democrats primaries and caucuses were winner take all, Hillary would now be the presumptive nominee.
April 26, 2008 11:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think its much more complicated than this. A lot will have to do with how these next contests go. If the Wright controversy has no effect Hillary is done. if it has a medium effect the supers will know it will have a major effect in the general. Most of the holdouts are politicians who know how to get the common person to vote for them. They know how toxic it can be in the hands of a well funded 527.
Then there's the probability of the losing side getting pissed and not voting or voting republican. The MI and Fl issue will cast a pall of illigitamacy over the decision as well. That's a tough problem to solve.
If obama keeps his PA loss to under 10% Clinton is probably finished. If its above 20% he's in trouble.
March 24, 2008 6:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is pure speculation and it's not even based on fact. You say:
In point of fact, most of the holdouts are DNC members and not elected officials:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Party_%28United_States%29_superdelegates%2C_2008#Totals_by_group
This is significant because these members are the lions share of unpledged supers, just over 140. It should also be noted that Clinton gained nearly all of her supporting DNC members in the first half of 2007. She has gained almost none of them since Wisconsin.
http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/2008/03/this-election-is-in-the-hands.php
Speculation is hardly necessary here. We can see how they are moving.
March 24, 2008 10:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
In point of fact, most of the holdouts are DNC members and not elected officials:
------------------------------------------------
What makes you think a DNC member is not or has never been an elected official? Being an elected official does not disqualify one form becoming a DNC member. Many currently hold office in state legislatures or are former governors or other elected officials not currently in office, in other words, politicians. You should take a bit of time to look below the surface.
March 24, 2008 11:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Post a Comment