The Texas Two-Step of Tuesday was a interesting opportunity to see how the race to 2,025 has played out over this primary season. We saw Hillary Clinton win the first step – the primary – and Barack Obama (likely to) win the second – the caucus. In so many ways, this is a microcosm of what we have seen time and time again in this race: Clinton generally winning the primaries and Obama generally winning the caucuses.
I’m no fan of caucuses. Winning one is less about which candidate is better than which can pack a room. But caucuses are a part of the process and those who follow politics closely knew going in that going in. But we also knew that super delegates were a part of the process. It seems hypocritical to me that we accept the results of one while dissing the other.
Talking with non-political junkies, i.e., normal folks, over the last few weeks, it has become clear to me that most people have never participated in a caucus and that the meme spoonfed to them by the media about superdelegates “deciding the nominee” has taken hold. I think the case can be made just as easily that caucuses shouldn’t have a role in “deciding the nominee,” either. Two sides of the same coin, if you ask me. (As for the allocation of pledged delegates – well, that’s a post for another day.)
A look at how the superdelegates came to be is in order. From Wikipedia:
After the 1968 Democratic National Convention, the Democratic Party implemented changes in its delegate selection process, based on the work of the McGovern-Fraser Commission. The purpose of the changes was to make the composition of the convention less subject to control by party leaders and more responsive to the votes cast during the campaign for the nomination.
These comprehensive changes left some Democrats believing that the role of party leaders and elected officials had been unduly diminished, weakening the Democratic tickets of George McGovern and Jimmy Carter. In 1982, a commission chaired by former North Carolina Governor James Hunt created superdelegates. Under the original Hunt plan, superdelegates consisted of 30% of the total delegate count, but when it was finally implemented in 1984, superdelegates consisted of 14% of the total count. The number has steadily increased until today, where superdelegates are approximately 20% of the total delegate count.
From CQ:
They were supposed to be the voice of the Democratic Party’s insiders, free to participate in the party’s conventions without picking sides and to vote for the candidate they thought would have the best chance to win the White House. Now, the party’s “superdelegates” may be forced to become exactly what they were never supposed to be: a rubber stamp for the party’s voters.
I think that the role of the superdelegates is to offset that of the quite undemocratic caucuses.
They eliminate the secret ballot, forcing voters to declare their loyalties publicly, and are thus vulnerable to intimidation and manipulation. They also shut out many citizens who have to work during caucus times. If you can’t show up at a specific hour, you can’t vote — a particular problem for people with fixed shifts, including many of the working poor. (The supposedly democratic caucuses can also discriminate, as happened to Sabbath-observant Jews who couldn’t get to Nevada‘s Saturday caucuses.) And there are usually no absentee ballots, of course.
And in this post, we see how this plays out:
In states won by Obama, 6.6 million Americans have decided the distribution of 925 delegates, for a rate of 1 delegate for every 7000 or so participants. In states won by Hillary Clinton, 12.6 million American have decided the distribution of 1072 delegates, or 1 delegate for every 11700 participants.
Those party insiders (cough, Donna Brazile, cough) who have dogged the superdelegates while saying nothing of the role of caucuses should be ashamed of themselves. They both are a part of the political process. If you want to change the rules, do so at the beginning of the game, not in the middle.
VIVIAN J. PAIGE | All Politics is Local 
While all names may have been on the ballot, as you say, nndem, in January there was a law suit by Fl Dems against the DNC and Dean, saying the delegates should be seated. The Fl Dems lost the suit.
I guess when the primary for the Dems was set up a lot of people stayed home cause they were told their vote would not count.
Why another month wait to file AGAIN?? There was a lot of problems with the Dems in Florida. Like Mi, the wanted their Primary pushed up but the DNC said they had voted over a year before to abide by the rules.
While I think the Repub Gov. knew what he was doing, so did the Florida Dems.
Why should two states that did not follow the rules get a bye?
And the candidates vowed not to campaign in Florida and Mi, why?
If they thought it would count they would have been there.
We don’t always get what we want.
And Obama won Tx when all the caucus was counted. Why is that not put out there?
You want votes to count, count them all, but not if they don’t follow the rules.
The state of FL set up there own rules as to how they wanted to vote.
They voted to follow the rules of the DNC. They didn’t.
Why is it so hard to acknowledge that the system of caucuses and superdelegates is a broken system?
but viv, it is the system we have in place now. And who changes it? The members of the DNC. Who voted on the rules we have now.
Just cause a candidate or pundit doesn’t like it now, it can’t be changed.
The states that have caucuses, voted to have them. A state like Va that has a primary, has it because the Dems of Va voted for it. Uniique.
For a candidate to come out now , at this stage of the game and say a caucus does not matter is moot. It is , as they say, bad sport.
And it does not matter.
And a candidate to come out now and say some states don’t matter because they lost them is beyond me.
linda – when nearly 1.7 million people vote in a closed primary (FL), I don’t know why you think some people stayed at home. And take a look at the link I posted in my response to Randy. I think you will find that the the FL dems did all they could to encourage people to vote there.
I think you are mixing up MI and FL. The circumstances are not the same.
As for Obama winning the caucus in TX, I said that in the original post.
As for this:
I haven’t heard any candidate say that. Just as I haven’t heard any candidate say that the superdelegates are a bad idea. What I have heard from Obama supporters is that they think the superdelegates ought to ignore the rules that put them in place and follow the popular vote. And I’ve heard Clinton supporters say that they don’t like the caucuses, but I haven’t heard any of them saying they should be disregarded. I do think you are confusing the supporters of the candidates with the candidates themselves.
Try for a moment to step back from your role as a supporter and look at the overall picture.
It is a sad commentary on the Democratic Party’s ability to manage themselves. I fear they will beat themselves again.
For the record, my position is that caucuses favor candidates that activists favor, they prevent large numbers of Democratic base voters from participating, and the public nature of them affects how people vote. They just provide fodder for the “pundits” to spout about momentum and other sports oriented drivel.
I have little faith in the DNC and Howard Dean, especially with the way they are handling the Florida and Michigan fiascos. To totally ignore these states will just cause more erosion in Democratic ranks and ensure a McCain victory, and with his positions, that would just mean four more years of the same policies and direction.
Steve NY Dem you’re exactly right, especially your note about the DNC and Howard Dean. How can the DNC, Howard Dean, and the Political Leaders in FL and MI act so irresponsibly and prevent voters from being participants in the election process? I am a Hillary supporter; however, this is EXACTLY why so many Americans are being drawn toward Obama. Change and working for a common good of the Nation! It’s time for the DNC and Rep. to realize it’s the voters that matter NOT another display of bickering over who didn’t follow the rules, blah! blah! It was the Political leaders (both Dem & Rep) that created the mess in MI and FL. I don’t care that the DNC rules weren’t followed. The ONLY issue should be regarding a voters right to participate in the Dem. Presidential nominating process; therefore, setting up a process so that FL and MI residents can vote.
As for the caucus process, what a joke! I participated in the Texas Caucus for the 1st time this year. Until about a week before voting, I had never heard of the Texas 2 Step. In my precinct, 130 people showed up to caucus and there was an overwhelming 4 or 5 to 1 ratio of Obama to Hillary supporters and Hillary took Texas popular vote. I live in a huge precinct that covers a large area of town and there’s no way that people would have driven 30 minutes to an hour just to caucus. Also, there are many people being left out of the caucus process i.e. the elderly, shift workers, single parents, students, etc. I don’t have a clue how other states do the caucus, but my elderly mom (she was only there because I drove her) and I spent 4 hours to basically write our information and candidate we supported on a sheet of paper. Then it was announced how many people caucused for Obama and for Hillary, we divided up into those 2 groups and then selected delegates to an end of month convention. In my opinion, it was a complete WASTE of time. I did get nominated to be a delegate and I’m looking forward to expressing my discontent over a very disorganized process in Texas. This week it was announced that there’s such a mess with paperwork getting lost, not turned in, etc. that it’s been decided to just let the delegates show up to the end of March convention and that there would be no official count of caucus delegates. It was by accident I saw the news cast, so how many people will NOT know what has happened.
The thing that really ticks me off right now is that the Republicans are sitting back and laughing at the whole Dem. Party. The one thing that really infuriates me is the reference to how Clinton is picking up most of the Hispanic, women, and elderly votes and in the media it’s been said that Obama takes the college educated voters, etc. I guess I shouldn’t be so sensitive, but I’m a college educated woman and I believe Hillary Clinton is the BEST candidate to take us forward in the next 4 years. 1) With everything going on with the Iraq war still in effect, we need a Commander in Chief with experience that can negotiate with other World Leaders. I think Mr. Obama is an eloquient speaker, but he hasn’t held a nat’l political position long enough. I know she voted in favor of the war, but she like so many Americans were fooled by Mr. Bush into believing Iraq was involved in Sept. 11th. Bush messed up big time. Bin Laden is still out there and now his crazy’s are terrorizing Iraq and other parts of the world. 2) The media would have everyone believing the Clinton’s are hated in Wash. and in many political circles; however, I think her being elected has many afraid she may actually make a difference for America and that’s why so much of the media is handling Mr. Obama with kid gloves. It makes me sick. The media is afraid someone will play the discrimination/race card if they get too tough with Mr. Obama. I don’t care that he’s more accessible and media friendly than Hillary. Do what’s right by the American people, NOT by EGO’s and get the real issues on the airwaves. 3) It’s way past time for America to elect a women as President. Other countries woke up decades ago and America still doesn’t get the message. I believe Hillary will be able to create a more partisan Congress/Senate and get our Trillion $$$ debt turned around toward Black just like when Bill was President. Don’t get me wrong, she’ll do it her way and we’ll become a more financially responsible country, then programs will be in place that will turn around our economy, create more jobs, and dig the middle class and elderly out of this financial nightmare that Bush created.
I just hope the DNC and Howard Dean wake up and smell the roses, instead of bickering over someone breaking some DNC rules. With something as critical as a Presidential election, nothing should be etched in stone. There’s nothing wrong with strict guidelines, but NOT in the case of FL and MI. I just hope neither state uses a caucus because the process is seriously flawed. It doesn’t allow for the greatest possibility of voter turn out and how can that be a fair process.