Reader Posts
« previous | TPM CAFÉ READER POSTS HOME | next »
Super Delegates Jumped the Gun?
We all remember only a few months ago when Hillary was the presumptive nominee. Back then, it seemed unlikely that any of the other candidates running had a chance to be anything other than VP. Now of course, things have changed. The only measure Hillary has the lead in today is Super Delegates. Which brings up an interesting point.
I assumed that the Supers supported Hillary early because they felt that her nomination would be swept up before the 5th of February, or at least by then. Perhaps, had they seen this whole Obama thing coming, they wouldn't have acted so hastily.
So, here's my question to you, TPMers, if it had been foreseen that the race would play out as it has up to this point, do you think that the Supers would have made different choices early on?
Comments (12)
A lot is said about how Obama support grows as voters learn more about him. Likely he wasn't too well known to those with the title of superdelegate, either. And now, as they learn more about him, some decide to come out of the Undecided column and move to his column, some in the HRC column decide to move to his column. Some stay put. That said, if he had been more well known in the beginning, I think supers would have made different choices. Not necessarily because anyone did or didn't foresee what would happen in the race. I don't think anyone could have foreseen this.
April 10, 2008 12:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well of course he wasn't well known enough with the super delegates. I feel that the super delegates don't feel that they are as free to switch candidates as you suggested. A more interesting question might be, in the next election if the democrats let super delegates retain the same function, will they perhaps wait longer into the primary before a large number of them choose a candidate?
April 10, 2008 12:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ah yes, true. And a lesson learned from this primary could be to stay Undecided for a while, let the primary actually unfold for a while and give the voters a chance.
April 10, 2008 12:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't know that you've arrived at a reasonable, sustainable final conclusion on that. Let's face facts: In the vast majority of cases, people who endorse early have a strong connection with the person they endorsed. Sure, there are some people who were just sucking up to the presumptive nominee, but that's probably not as widespread as you think. Here in Maryland, for example, the writing was on the wall for a while before our primary, but our governor was on Team Clinton because of his direct interaction with them during Bill's Administration.
I don't see anything inherently wrong in people deciding to stand up for the candidate they wanted to win early on. I don't see anything inherently wrong in SuperDs deciding to vote with their state results and against their endorsement (or against their state results and with their endorsement). They are SuperDs. They have a clearly defined role in the process and a great deal of flexibility in making their ultimate decision. If some of them want to go with years and years of loyalty and friendship, fine. If some want to "wait and see," fine. If some want to publicly support one candidate, but vote with their constituents, fine. If some want to blow in the wind until July, fine. If some want to wait until Denver, DAGNABIT, HOW DARE YOU?!?!?!
April 10, 2008 1:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Kerry and Kennedy went against the people in their State.
April 10, 2008 12:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Kerry probably knew Obama better than many of the other superdelegates. He picked Obama to do the keynote at the 2004 convention
April 10, 2008 12:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
You're an idiot. Kerry and Obama endorsed before the primary in Massachusetts. Do you have even the most tenuous grasp on basic facts?
April 10, 2008 12:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
BTW, that vitriol was not for you Jocelyn. I was feeding the troll again...
April 10, 2008 1:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks! I figured that out :)
April 10, 2008 2:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think this "voter's remorse" goes beyond superdelegates. I think there are many voters in some of the Super Tuesday states (California in particular comes to mind) that wish they had voted for Obama over Clinton. I've seen several CA-based bloggers express this. In addition, polling in some of the early voting states (Obama v. McCain and Clinton v. McCain) shows Obama with larger leads over McCain than Clinton has, or running neck and neck while Clinton is behind. In most of these states, Obama is running ahead of Clinton against McCain. There are some notable and unsurprising exceptions - e.g. Arkansas.
While I know the primary process this year has seemed ridiculously drawn out - I think that front-loading the primaries is a bad idea. That results in Candidates/Nominees with more name recognition, not necessarily better Candidates/Nominees. A more measured process will allow voters to get to know the candidates, and puts them on more equal footing. The presidency shouldn't be a popularity contest, but rather be decided on the merits. BTW - I think we have two candidates with excellent merits this time - so ultimately will be pulling my lever for the democrat. However, I think one is better than the other (on the merits - not on name recognition, personality cults or other nonsensical measures.)
April 10, 2008 12:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
In the vast majority of cases, people who endorse early have a strong connection with the person they endorsed.
IIRC Hillary had nearly 100 superdels endorsing her before the the primary/caucus season even began. Those superdels are probably not having any "voters remorse" because their support was based on personal connections. Nothing wrong with that, it's just the way the system works, in this case in favor of deep political connections.
April 10, 2008 1:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Much of the Clinton Superdelegate support is due to the inevitability factor. I have said since about Super Tuesday that if it comes down to Superdelegates, Hillary is toast. Because if the undecided Superdelegates were favorably disposed to her at any time from then until now, they likely would not be undecided, but rather already declared as part of the inevitibility squad.
Eventually it will pick up in the blogs, and about July we'll hear MSM analysis of why all the Superdelegates went to Obama in June, because they never were Hillary leans, or they'd have been on the train back in December. The MSM will only analyze what has happened, not what will happen, because that is the limit of the capability of the MSM.
April 10, 2008 2:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Post a Comment