Neither Obama nor Hillary can expect to win enough "pledged" delegates
Submitted by Nick Kelly on March 5, 2008 - 8:16pm.
Barack Obama | Democratic politics | Hillary Clinton | Super-delegates
UPDATE: The Democratic Party use of super-delegates is much more democratic than many Obama supporters realize. See this comment.
First, a caveat. So-called "pledged" delegates are not required by any State or Federal laws that I am familiar with to cast their ballots at the national Convention for the candidate to whom they are said to be "pledged". State Party rules do apply, but even those cannot absolutely prevent a so-called "pledged" delegate from breaking ranks if they choose to do so. I realize this happens rarely, but it could become a very small (yet potentially significant) factor this year.
That disquieting potential aside, presuming that the Party refuses to seat the Michigan and Florida delegations, as I understand reports I have heard, Hillary would need to win over 93% of the remaining so-called "pledged" delegates to have won a majority of the seated delegates. Obama would need to win over 77% of them. These figures may be slightly off, but regardless of that, while either of these are theoretically possible, neither of them is very likely.
One major reason it's so hard for either to win without resorting to super-delegates is that the Party doesn't plan to count something like (round figure here) 300 "pledged" delegates from Michigan and Florida. That's over 9% of the "pledged" delegates.
Before they decided not to seat Michigan and Florida "pledged" delegates, super-delegates made up about 20% (round figure again) of the total delegates that would be seated. Now super-delegates make up a somewhat larger percentage of the new smaller total. So, how hard is it for someone to win the required 50% + 1 from a group (the so-called "pledged" delegates) that comprises something less that 80% of the total delegates? Very hard, especially in a close race. In fact, in order to win the required 50% + 1 to be nominated, in a race as close as this one, the winner (whomever it is) will have to convince roughly half (at least) of the super-delegates to support them.
Obama's campaign has been well aware of this ever since at least Super Tuesday. At the same time, they have also realized that Obama himself is not likely to be the natural first choice of the majority of super-delegates many of whom hold Hillary in very high regard. That is why the Obama campaign has proposed very strongly that super-delegates follow the "will of the people" (meaning of course the outcomes in Democratic primaries and caucuses).
The trouble is that neither the outcomes in Democratic caucuses nor the outcomes in Democratic primaries reflect "the will of the people". Neither do they reflect the will of Democrats. They instead reflect only the will of the voters in those contests.
It's quite clear that Obama has dominated in caucus states. Many of the delegates he has won come from those states. However, caucuses have never mirrored "the will of the people". They reflect, instead, the will of a relatively small percentage of eligible voters. They are, in fact, far less democratic than primaries, which also fail to fully reflect "the will of the people", since the participants are generally comprised of mostly one party, together with some independents and a group of cross-over voters. So, one thing the Democratic Party needs to balance out (if it hopes to have a candidate who really appeals to the majority of anticipated voters in the GE - or as it is frequently called, "the will of the people") is the relative weight it thinks delegates picked in caucuses ought to have vis-a-vis delegates picked in primary states.
It's also very clear that (until this latest round in Texas and Ohio), Obama has generally done better in states that hold open primaries where Republicans and Independents get to vote as if they were Democrats. Indeed, the Obama campaign was rather proud of that until today. Many Obama supporters argued that it showed that he had widespread appeal beyond the Democratic Party. However, what they were ignoring is that many of those Republican crossovers were simply "gaming the system" in his favor. They would not listen to that, however, insisting that those were all genuine converts, and refusing to accept the fact that the Republican Party did not wish to face Hillary next November. However, Rush Limbaugh and other right wing talk show hosts had been advocating cross-overs for Obama from the very start for the express purpose of preventing another Clinton in the White House. Interestingly, now that he figures Obama will win the nomination, Limbaugh reversed his orders to his "ditto heads", and urged them to vote for Hillary so that she can hurt Obama (who Rush still thinks will be the nominee). Only now are Obama supporters crying foul! It's no fair! Well, the truth is it wasn't fair when they crossed over to vote for Obama either. And the larger truth here is that the Democratic Party should not allow itself to be victimized by such Republican dirty tricks.
Moreover, the Obama camp strongly opposes the seating of the Michigan and Florida delegations only. Meanwhile, they favor the seating of the Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina delegations. As all five states held their primaries/caucuses in violation of Democratic Party rules, it seems peculiar to deny the so-called "will of the people" in Florida and Michigan while accepting it in the other three offending states.
Finally, "the will of the people" in January is one thing. In March, it's another. By next November, it is likely to be yet another (at least percentage-wise).
So, whats a wise Democratic Party to do?
Well, that's why we have super-delegates. They are the people with experience who are supposed to sort through all these factors and vote accordingly. In spite of the attempts by the Obama camp to have them vote robotically for whomever won their district, or their state, or whatever; my guess is that many of them will vote their best judgment as to which of the candidates would be the best nominee and be the best President on day 1.
Will the Democratic Convention in Denver be incredibly full of emotion? Yes, I think it will.
Will a fiercely contested Democratic Convention turn off some voters? Hopefully not, but it will probably have that effect on some.
And will the Democratic Convention nominate a ticket that can and will defeat John McCain in November? I'm about 75% confident that it will, and I personally anticipate that Hillary will be at the top of that ticket. I also hope that Obama will rise to the occasion and urge all of his supporters to support her candidacy completely, thus proving himself fully worthy of a rightful place at the top of another Democratic ticket in his not so distant future.
In the final analysis, it really will be in the hands of the super-delegates. May they be guided by their ultimate sense of what would be best for all of us.
If you want the Democratic Party to enforce the rules regarding penalizing those five states (or forcing them to revote), then why don't you want it to enforce the rules regarding super-delegates?
It's not as if this super-delegate issue is new. We've had them for many years; and during those years, they have always been allowed (per Party rules) to vote for the candidate of their own choice.
Sorry to disillusion you, but somewhat like our nation, which is a Republic, not a Direct Democracy, the Democratic Party is not a Direct Democracy either. For example, caucuses aren't very democratic; and the whole process by which we select our candidates isn't always entirely democratic. Some people even get to vote twice in Texas! So, realizing this lack of a democratic ideal, we are left with following the rules, unless we agree to overturn them. And even that last decision may not be made entirely democratically.
Nick Kelly
Wes Clark could still secure America as a national security candidate.
I think every states delagates should be seated at the convention, I just think they should be revoted to fairly reflect the will of the people.
As for the supers, I wasn't around when the superdelagates were created, in 04 it was a non issue, it was much to my surprise and horror that I learned on Countdown with Keith Olbermann a month or so back that there are political creatures known as superdelagates who are worth the votes of some 10,000 or so of us mere mortals.
I think after this election the supers should be removed permenantly, it is deeply undemocratic and wrong on so many levels I don't know where to begin to start. Delagates should be based on who wins the vote, this whole idea of the "wise" elite's deciding what is best for us smacks of plutocracy.
In all fairness I also happen to beleive the caucuses and the Texas two step should be scrapped, it should be primaries only. Cacauses make it very hard for regular working people to make their votes heard, and I think that is deeply wrong.
Really I'm not a political hack, I just want a fair process, apparently this cycle "fair" is a little much to ask for, both sides are getting the raw deal on this, Obama supporters and Hillary supporters have been disenfranchised by a broken process, and I am deeply disappointed in howard dean for letting it come to this...
Why oh why didn't I back someone else like Rosenberg for DNC chair? That is $25 I've never regretted more in my life, 50 state strategy aside Dean really should have gotten into the nuts and bolts of how the party works and fix the broken system and he didn't.
All but a very few (two here) of the superdelegates in each state are DNC members, sitting congresspeople and senators, and sitting governors. There's often a "Distinguished Party Leader" (here, former DNC chair Roy Romer) and one appointee, often at the state convention. These are the people who make the party work and who have put their lives on the line to run for office and win. They deserve their own independent voice.
The second reason is that without that system, people like you and me would be competing with these much better-known people for delegate spots. Removing them from the pool from which delegates are elected opens up more of the system to mere mortals.
Stan Davis
Lakewood, CO
Wes Clark -- Make America All It Can Be!
From where I sit, that sound exactly like plutocracy.
While I appreciate the service of those in the party, they do get paid for their work, if they want to serve the people great, but saying they deserve special priviliges, I find that deeply opposed to American democratic values Stan.
This comes down to core principles, do we beleive that all people were created equal and as such deserve an equal stake in their government, do we beleive in the idea of one person one vote? Or do we beleive that party insiders are somehow more important than the rest of us and they deserve special priviliges. It is one or the other, I do not think we can have it both ways.
It's hard to argue that we actually do beleive in those things if we stick to a policy that gives one person the equivilent to 10,000 votes, I cannot help but find that deeply troubling, it's is deeply opposed to everything I have ever been taught about what it means to be an American.
I see nothing, truly nothing wrong with a process of delagates that is made up of mere mortals.
Well, first, I don't think the DNC members get a dime, and I think they travel to their meetings on their own nickel.
But the larger point is that the primary season isn't really a democratic (small "d") election. It's a function of the organized parties. The superdelegates are the party's leaders. As such, they deserve their votes.
Stan Davis
Lakewood, CO
Wes Clark -- Make America All It Can Be!
I personally find it deeply troubling as an American, it goes against everything that I was taught that we stand for as country. Why shouldn't our party nomination process reflect the same values that made America a democracy by, of and for the people? It's not perfect but it is by far the purist process we have had and one of the best in the world.
"As such, they deserve their votes."
I'm just going to have to agree to disagree with you on this Stan, no offense but I personally find it deeply un-american to have a party elite having a disportional role in the decision making process, it really does smack of plutocracy imho. But that is just my opinion for what it is worth.
you have an opportunity to voice your opinion on this matter. If you don't bother to participate in Party functions, then you let others decide -- that's the way it works.
"Growing the party" is a function of the Party leadership - including the Presidential nominee. It's why promoting "Democrat for a Day" is so distasteful to long-time Dems.
Must be, since we don't get to elect a set of average voters to cast votes on pending legislation.
If the Party weren't pretty much democratic in nature, ONLY the superdelegates would vote for the nominee. That's relatively close to what existed prior to 1972.
Stan Davis
Lakewood, CO
Wes Clark -- Make America All It Can Be!
If we compare how the Democrats do it to what the Republicans do to select their nominee, our process is eminently more fair to the voters.
The Republican winner take all system is far less democratic than our manner of selecting delegates, and ultimately, nominating our candidates.
Furthermore, it also bears pointing out that many of the super-delegates are or were elected officials themselves. They are not merely "insiders". They are people with considerable democratic legs. Way more than mine, for example. I've never once been elected to public office (although I have been elected to be a state delegate in the Democratic Party). So, if I were ever lucky enough to get elected to the national Democratic Convention (as a so-called "pledged" delegate, I don't see why my vote there (which would be rooted in the votes of only a small percentage of Colorado Democrats) ought to be equal to that of Roy Romer, who was elected Colorado Governor several times. In other words, I can see how it would be patently un-democratic for me (a so-called "pledged" delegate) to have the same influence on our party's nominee as former Governor Romer.
Nick Kelly
Wes Clark could still secure America as a national security candidate.
so called pleged delegates are apportioned in percentages to vote the way their district voted. There are threshhold limits and a vast number of party rules determining how they are split. But at the end of the day whoever won the most votes in a given district gets the most pledged delegates.
Superdelagates on the other hand basically make up their own mind based on what they think is best. Which may not nessicarily what the majority of the people in the party voted for. There are issues of loyalty and political debts, even bribery becomes an issue when elected officials are deciding the nominee. I'm not saying that is the case this time, but it is entirely possible that candidates might promise money and fundraising to a superdelagate in return for their vote at the convention. Tell me how that is democratic, because it strikes me as deeply prone to corruption.
Regardless of their elected status they are party elites, Al Gore was an elected official and he is is a memeber of the party elite, he is also a superdelagate. Donna Brazile is a member of the party elite and again also a superdelagate. And Roy Romer since he was elected to governor several times is also a member of the party elite. These are all people who have been in politics for a long time, they have political debts to pay, political allies and enemies. Why should they get more of a voice? Merely because they are or were elected officials, what gives them the right to be able to overturn the will of the people? Merely holding an elected office, how did they get to that elected office?
They had to raise money, it came from somewhere. So if a presidential candidate has a lot of political connections made over the years by fund raising and campaigning what happens when he or she calls in all those political favors done for all those elected or former elected officials who are now superdelagates? You see how someone might see such a system as being deeply unrepresentative and prone to corruption?
And maybe it is just me, but I just think there is something deeply undemocratic about giving elite party members much as former or active Presidents, Vice Presidents, Governors, Senators and such an equivilent to 10,000 votes of regular citizens. Then telling these superdelagates to excercise their own judgment instead of following the will of the people that they represent. But I am just an overly idealistic college kid, what would I know about democracy...
Now I will be the first to admit we have a far better system than the Republicans, but since when did we Democrats start setting the bar that low in the sand? We have plenty of room for improvement. No offense but saying we have a more democratic system than the Republicans is not saying very much at all now is it?
Just a minor correction: Roy Romer isn't a superdelegate because he was a multi-term governor. He earned that spot as a former national DNC chair. He qualifies as a "Distinguished Party Leader."
Stan Davis
Lakewood, CO
Wes Clark -- Make America All It Can Be!
But the point still stands, he did have to raise money, and he did have to make deals to get things done while in office. I think the longer one stays in politics, the more debts they owe.
Part of the reason I supported Wes in 04, he wasn't part of the system, hence not beholden to anyone.
That was one of the battles my parents generation fought, and more power to them for having done so. But there is still room for improvement, my generation is coming of age and frankly we aren't thrilled by having members of the party elite have the ability to overturn the will of the voters.
Lock republicans and indies out of our primaries, end the caucus system, I'm all for it. But don't give members of the party elite undue influence over our nomination process, there are other and better ways to deal with these issues.
As for the thing about Congress, there has for a long time been discussion about the undue influence of the wealthy in the political system. It used to be one had to be rich or politically well connected to run for office. Thankfully that time is coming to an end as we see more and more "normal" people like Eric Massa being able to mount effective campaigns.
I know this much, when I cast my vote for Jim Webb there wasn't any member of the party elite that could erase my vote and the vote of thousands of other Virginians and change the outcome of the election to an unpopular result.
To put it in congressional terms, it's like back in the days when you had to have a certain amount of wealth or property to be able to vote for a Senator. In this case instead of the wealthy, people with political clout are given undue influence on the system. Having superdelegates who can in effect negate the the impact of many thousands of votes cast by regular citizens when they cast their vote at the convention is an elitist system by it's very nature.
See my post to Stan beginning "Moreover and Furthermore".
The Democratic Party process is really very much more democratic than you realize.
Nick Kelly
Wes Clark could still secure America as a national security candidate.
Nick, if Florida and Michigan are seated, the delegate count rises from 4048 to 4415, and the magic number goes up from 2025 to 2208.
Stan Davis
Lakewood, CO
Wes Clark -- Make America All It Can Be!
I didn't bother to do the math, but I think there is likely to be a slight difference in the percentage of super-delegates overall in those 4048 and 4415 totals. If my understanding is correct, there would be a slightly higher such percentage in the former. In any case, it is only a small point mathematically, and a small part of the general problem. However, it does bring into mind the thought that the refusal to seat Michigan and Florida has a number of unforeseen consequences.
Another such even more significant consequence is the effect of that decision on media commentary which then effected decisions made by voters in other states. In our serial quasi-democratic process, some voters generally decide to vote for the purported leader, rationalizing that they would like the party to quit it's intra-mural contest, rally around a candidate, and move to the fight against the Republican Party. That's a significant component of what we call "momentum". So, since the media uniformly reported results without Florida and Michigan, that worked very much to the advantage of Obama, and to the disadvantage of Hillary in subsequent states. And throughout our serial quasi-democratic process, the impact of leaving out those two states worked very much like the effect of compound interest on an investment. That is, because of the way momentum feeds on itself, in each ensuing caucus/primary the effect of leaving the Michigan and Florida races out of reported totals has been multiplied, rather than diminished. This too needs to be considered by our super-delegates.
Nick Kelly
Wes Clark could still secure America as a national security candidate.
....Am I wrong in thinking this is above and beyond the call of duty? Cheers to Obama, who is caucus king thanks to the way he has mobilized his ultra-enthusiastic supporters. But if I were a superdelegate forced to choose between two attractive candidates, I’d look for the one who won the big primaries where people were actually encouraged to vote.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/06/opinion/06collins.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin
"It's not all about words and math. It comes down to who can win."
......The problem for Obama is that he's run out of chances to put Clinton away. Now, with the next big contest looming in PA, she's the one favored and riding the momentum. I'm sure that Clinton will raised $20-30M, more than enough, to win, even if Obama does raise $50M in March. The national poll numbers have already swung back to favor Clinton. With the potential of having FL & MI contests, it'll be up to Obama to upset the equation, starting in Pennsylvania. Are super-delegates are going to be swayed to vote for a candidate that loses the trifecta of PA/MI/FL, but points to a delegate lead due to wins in Republican states like a caucus like WY and a primary in MS? I doubt it.
I should add that neither Obama or Clinton has, or can possibly have within reason, the number of delegates needed to win this outright. A rule of thumb I have for recognizing the campaign that's 'losing' at the moment is to listen to which one is making their argument based on 'the math' or 'the numbers' of the delegates that are nevertheless not enough-- this won't be won on a technicality.
http://www.mydd.com/story/2008/3/6/105042/7901
"It's not all about words and math. It comes down to who can win."
Facts about super-delegates:
White Men: About 50%
White Men as part of the Democratic Primary electorate: About 28%
The super delegates are a gathering of muckety-mucks, who are (for the most part) Democratic Party Elites.
Many currently hold political office, and many others hope to do so.
If Hillary backers believe that a majority of these muckety-mucks are going to cast a vote opposite the majority of elected delegates who come to Denver pledged to Barack Hussein Obama, you are assuming that enough of them are suicidal, and/or willing to ignite a Democratic Party civil war --for WHAT?
To rescue Hillary Clinton?
If this is Hillary's hope, she's dreaming.
Close to half of the superdelegates are elected officials only in the sense that they got elected as DNC members or state party chairs or vice-chairs. Seven of the fifteen SuperDs here fall into that category. The other eight are four congresspeople, one senator, one governor, one Roy Romer (former DNC national chair), and one draft choice to be nominated at the state convention.
At least here, the DNC members aren't widely known except among party activists.
Stan Davis
Lakewood, CO
Wes Clark -- Make America All It Can Be!
Wow... strong language. Who would even dream of such a violent and divisive response to a political contest?
Oh. Wait. It's the Hope and Unity solution, right?
Because nothing says Unity like igniting civil war... ;)
Michigan, Florida, South Carolina, Iowa and New Hampshire should all be revoted. I think having this decided by superdelagates is deeply undemocratic and I would be deeply offended if my vote and the votes of my fellow Virginians meant nothing and the result was overturned by Virginia's superdelagates. It's hard to beleive in democracy if the winner of the popular vote and the "pledged" delegates is not the nominee.
It smacks of the Florida Supreme Court intervention on so many levels, maybe that is not an accurate comparison, but that is how it feels. I think there are going to be a lot of people disillusioned with the process if the supers overturn the popular vote and pledged delagates.
As for the Limbaugh/Republican issue, this sits squarly on the shoulders of DNC chairman Howard Dean, party rules regarding Republicans should have been changed a long time ago. Thankfully given the shift in the margins in texas I think it is now possible to roughly estimate the "Limbaugh effect" as it were, it would seem to be roughly 30% of republicans voting in the Dem primary, the other 70% appears to be split 50% Obama, 20% Clinton. Obviously that is just a very rough estimate based on movement away from Obama among republicans in Texas, But I think it gives us a rough idea of Limbaugh's actual effect.