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 
Actually, Randy, that is misleading, if this is correct.
The vote tally hardly matters, Randy. The legislature imposed the primary date on the party. Any reasonable notion of fair play says that the Florida delegates should be seated.
I don’t think you can fairly compare a caucus with the superdelegates. Superdelegates are composed of party leaders – some elected, but others not. While we hope that their decisions will be influenced by the general public, they don’t actually represent anyone but themselves.
A caucus is still the general population. Anyone motivated enough to make it to their caucus site gets to participate. There’s no atmosphere of “party bosses” or back-room decisions here.
Most of the superdelegates are elected in some fashion, including the DNC members. (See the definition in rule 9A (pdf)) The only ones who are not are those in item 5:
Here in VA, our DNC members will be elected at the state convention.
On Wednesday a prominent super-delegate told the press that should Hillary Clinton’s primary campaign continue to be based on “the seeds of doubt” about Barack Obama or otherwise be perceived as negative in tone, then the head of the DNC Howard Dean should step in and pressure Hillary to drop out of the race, presumably using the super-delegates as a lever.
“Despite Obama’s impressive victories in February, Clinton’s comeback is based on sowing political seeds of doubt,” said Donna Brazile, a Democratic strategist and one of nearly 800 party leaders known as superdelegates for their ability to determine the nomination. “In order to clinch the nomination, he must anticipate the worst attacks ever….If these attacks are contrasts based on policy differences, there is no need to stop the race or halt the debate,” Brazile said. “But, if this is more division, more diversion from the issues and more of the same politics of personal destruction, chairman Dean and other should be on standby.”
I understand Ms. Brazile’s aversion to negative campaigning, since her unsubstantiated accusation of an extramarital affair against George W. Bush got her fired from the Michael Dukakis general election campaign. (Said Brazile at the time, “The American people have every right to know if Barbara Bush will share that bed with him in the White House”.)
I do not necessarily mean this in a sarcastic way—people learn from their mistakes. However, neither is the irony of Donna Brazile (who accused an opposition presidential candidate of planning on sharing his White House bed with a lady not his wife, and more recently injected race into the Hillary vs. Obama campaign by urging on CNN that Bill Clinton’s use of the words “kid” and “fairy tale” in reference to Obama was racist) describing Hillary’s “3:00 am phone call” campaign add as particularly negative lost on us.
Indeed, some might legitimately refer to Donna Brazile as the queen of campaign mean.
But we can think of at least two reasons why any attempt by the DNC to force an early end to Hillary Clinton’s primary bid based on the content of her campaign message is a bad idea.
First and most obvious, the idea that a political party would try to censor the speech and ideas of a political candidate or campaign in this manner is not only offensive but contrary to the constitutional values of the United States of America under the First Amendment.
Second, ending the primary process now before any candidate obtains the minimum number of pledged delegates will disenfranchise the voters in those states where the Democratic primary elections have not yet been held.
That would mean that the DNC—in addition to disenfranchising the voters of Florida and Michigan (which the DNC has already done, as punishment for holding early primaries)—would be telling the voters with later primaries in their states that their votes will not count either.
In other words by fiat of the DNC, the voters in Guam, Indiana, Kentucky, Montana, North Carolina, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Puerto Rico, South Dakota, and West Virginia will join the voters of Michigan and Florida in the “your votes don’t count club”.
I applaud House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s statement on Wednesday implying that the super-delegates should back off for now and let the primary process continue to play out. (“I was never among those who believed this would be resolved by now.”)
I do not think that Speaker Pelosi has gone far enough to insure democracy.
Unless and until a single Democratic Party candidate wins enough pledged delegates to capture the nomination the last primary in the last state should be held and the votes counted.
Only then should the super-delegates cast their votes—in the manner provided by the rules.
the plain fact of the matter is that if obama gets more delegates and the superdelegates over ride that lead to give Clinton the nomination the party will be seriously damaged. Probably for a long time.
This will happen in large part becasue most of the black voters who have been the most loyal supporters of the democratic party will be outraged. Forgetting about Obama’s rabid progressive youth, which he might be able to bring in if he is veep, I think this “wishes of loyal black vote issue” is the most serious issue facing the party. These voters do play by the rules which for them include backing only viable black candidates historically. THat is, there is a reason Jackson never got this kind of support and that reason and historical goodwill toward the party will be eroded with a SD reversal.
Though counted on in the general election to carry many swings and blue states, their voice in the their own party nomination process will have been trumped by the supers. Even a small dispassion by Blacks in swing states barely won by the DEMS (Wisconsin /carried by blacks in Milwaukee, Penn/ carried by blacks in Phillly) are two examples, will result in an electoral defeat.
It’s also a disaster for Ohio/(cleveland) and Michigan/(detroit among others) though I think Michigan could remain blue. As for swing state Missouri it’s only close becasue of Blacks in St. Louis. It will stay red with a super reversal.
Bottom line DEMS lose if it plays out that way.
THe party is really playing with fire here in my opinion and risking disenthused support from the base. Listen to some black radio if you think this is not so.
“party takes us for granted” is a meme. and at 90% loyalty it’s a disastorous mistake to let that meme turn into voter emotion and lower turnout.
As the stated purpose of superdelegates is According to Democratic National Committee Chairman, Howard Dean,
“Their role is to exercise their best judgement in the interests of the nation and of the Democratic Party”
the issue I suppose is going to be nation and party. A superdelegate “reversal of the pledged result” will kill the party and result in a loss for whatever national interest there is to have Clinton at the top of the ticket.
While I agreee in principle with everything you said, Hillary is not going to have the pledged delegate lead at the end. So while I disagree with the message of Ms. Brazile, she perhaps is right in what needs to happen for the party.
Just my $.02 as I hope they avoid this train wreck.
I’d add that despite the problems of a caucus system there is no excuse for not winning them if you have statewide support. If Clinton could get her voters to caucus for her she’d win. Why can’t she? If she could all this noise about the process would be silent.
The problem she has is her strategy was always consistent with Red State blue state politics. Win the big states and get a majority of the pols to wrap it up with inevitablility, superior fundraising and super tuesday. In a real sense its like Guiliani’s strategy in a lot of ways. Her lack of a knockout left her in a deep delegate hole in post super tuesday contests. Now she can;t catch up and the party is iin peril if she is perceived as stealing it with superdelegates. It’s that simple.
Michigan and Florida won’t do it either. Obama would do pretty well in Michigan to avoid a major delegate loss and the magic number would be raised past 2025 if they go back in with a revote. Same problem at the end.
One thing about Obama his campaign at least IS his red state blue state message complete with organization from followers committed to “making a difference”. They caucus which is rewarded. But if Clinton supporters caucus they would be rewarded as well. Despite the flawed system there is no advantage in it to either.
I know a ton of active people in each camp and call tell you anecdotally what I see with the voters (not the campaign supporters)
The “ask not what our country can do for line” applies.
Clinton voters want to know what he country can do for them, Obama voters want to know what they can do to change the country. Look at the material they send out if you don;t think its so. So before you attack the line consider its an over-generalization not an indictment of the “what can government do for me” base of the party Clinton wins.
But the difference in the supporters makes for an epic struggle, and while I think the camp with the largest army wins in a democratic process, the camp with the most committed army might actually be far superior in getting things done.
at least thats how the caucuses have worked isn’t it?
Vivian…I agree with this point you make…”If you want to change the rules, do so at the beginning of the game, not in the middle.”
This is one of the things that has me so angry with Hillary Clinton…She keeps trying to change the rules, the goalposts, anything to gain another delegate. I have not seen Obama trying to change the rules.
It’s amazing to me that Hillary continues to talk about how important her experience is. Hillary is definitely more experienced than Obama (running in his first presidential campaign) when it comes to campaigning for president. Yet Obama and his team have run circles around Hillary’s campaign team. It appears that Obama is better at picking great people and getting them to work well together.
Buzz…Buzz…
I think it is sad that folks are so blinded by their support of a candidate that we as Democrats cannot have a reasonable discussion of what is wrong with our system of selecting the nominee without bashing one or the other candidate. While today this might be about Hillary & Obama, tomorrow it will be about other candidates. Why is it so hard to acknowledge that the system of caucuses and superdelegates is a broken system?
I apologize if my previous posts fall into the category of bashing a candidate without addressing your premise. I suppose I’ve just gone from very excited by the process to very disenchanted by the prospect that super delegates are going to decide it either way and cause party problems.
But I do have some suggestions for consideration:
Schedules for primaries should be set well ahead of legislature’s ability to change them. If the party has a problem with date the party should inform the state that the delegation will not be seated and encourage the state party to ratify (ahead of time) the date for a contest that will actually count. The problem with the Michigan and Florida situation should not be allowed to occur with anyone thinking they are casting a vote that matters when it does not. A major part of the reform is to eliminate the notion that Iowa and new Hampshire actually deserve such special status.
Eliminate primary dates such as Super Tuesday as they discourage candidates without infinite resources to be competitive in a quasi national primary. No more than 7 contests should occur on any date. 7 X 9 events gets them all in. 9 contests over 3 months should get it done. The advantage is a candidate can spend time in each state which is virtually impossible with a 22 state primary occurring after Iowa, NH and SC.
Super delegates can exist but should probably be limited in their percent of the total delegate allocation. 20% is just ridiculous. This is a party question and I have no problem with zero supers if primaries are closed. However closing primaries discourages people from switching to the party… which is good for the party.
Caucuses should be altered or perhaps even eliminated. However caucuses are much less expensive to run and eliminating them is difficult because of that. Modify the format to include a secret ballot followed by the caucus. Results of the secret ballot are then added to the caucus results for the total result and apportionment. If 15% threshold votes from the secret portion that are otherwise abandoned get divided to the open caucus result. This virtually eliminates any intimidation factor and allows for write in votes to the caucus as well. The effect is an inexpensive primary (write in) with a caucus.
At least 20% of states delegates should be winner take all. Award 20% by state popular vote then do any district allocations. This virtually assures an electoral flavor and that the popular vote winner gets the lions share. (Clinton would probably have a current lead in excess of the popular vote in this system.)
State by state inconsistencies in delegate allocation need to be eliminated. Odd and even districts can alter the result of the popular vote. However this problem is already removed with the 20% rule above.
No two step voting should be required as in the two step texas system as it disenfranchises those that can only attend one vote relative to those that can attend both. However the dual process of the same time prima/caucus system above avoids the problem and allows for significant results from those unable to attend as well as secret balloting.
One of the merits of the caucus system is similar to the merits of super delegates. These are often people that will actively work to get the party nominee elected. While the system is flawed it does have the merits of allowing the party’s grass roots elements who will actively work for the party nominee to have a slightly larger impact overall. I suppose its arguable whether that is better than 100% democracy but if that is the argument there should be no super delegates either.
All of these are debate-able reforms which may be the real goal of your post that I agree with. Caucuses are a problem but so are the proportional primaries. In my opinion, a proportional primary that results in two or three net delegates from a huge state is nuts also.
Changing the rules for Michigan or Florida (as Clinton wants) or super delegate independence (as Obama basically wants) is not allowable in the middle of the game. I also have a real problem that a single contest (Iowa) results in not enough funds to go on for real experienced candidates such as Dodd, and Biden.
But campaign financing is a whole other can of worms.
Personally I’d rather have Biden answer that 3.a.m. call than McCain, Clinton, Bush or Obama. But I don’t want him answering the calls any other time so what good is that? Maybe that’s why Presidents have advisors and contingencies for most of what would be said on the 3 a.m. call. There was even such a thing for 9/11 which included scrabling planes and later taking out the Taliban plan already drafted before Bush was elected.
ANyway hope that was more on point despite the late in the post ramble. 😉
In January, the florida dems were warned of putting the primary forward. There was a big fight and they took the DNC and Dean to court – and lost. They violated the rules.
None of the candidates campaigned there. Why Hillary’s name was on the ballot was a violation.
So.. by the rules and Brian, bless your heart, are the DNC rules – voted on by Fl and Mi – so those two states can’t be exempted.
A “do over” for those two states? You want another in VA cause Hillary didn’t win?
Making a case over a month after is all for naught.
See you at the convention.
Love you Linda (here is my hug), but a couple of points.
The Democratic Party in Florida really did not have the ability to stop the scheduling date selected. Then the RNC choose to punish FL by cutting their delegation is half and the DNC made it 100%. It will have no impact to republicans now that McBush is their presumptive nominee. We, on the other hand……..
All names, including Obama, were on the Florida ballot. It is Michigan where only Hillary and Kucinich remained on it.
It is a false comparison and an argument which nobody is making, contrasting VA to FL or MI. Hillary got her butt kicked in VA and that’s that. Whether this whole brouhaha benefits one candidate over the other, Democrats have a huge problem in need of a solution.
It is well within the current rules to exclude seating the delegates (political suicide for the fall,, IMHO). It is well within the rules to seat them through the convention credentials committee (highly unlikely). It is also well within the rules to have the states petition the DNC for an acceptable plan to seat them, according to none other than Chairman Dean.
“All they have to do is come before us with rules that fit into what they agreed to a year and a half ago, and then they’ll be seated,” Dean said Thursday during interviews on network and cable TV news programs.
So this whole meme that Hillary is trying to change the rules after the fact is not accurate. She is trying to seat the FL and MI delegations (yes to possibley her benefit!) within the rules. One could argue, I suggest, that it is Obama trying to “change the rules” with the “demand” that unpledged delegates “must” vote a certain way. They do not.
XXXOOO
Tone – thanks for coming back on point 😉 I do appreciate that. As for the SD being 20%, note that they were originally supposed to be 30%!
Linda – NND is right – all of the candidates were on the ballot in FL.
I sent your post to my one senior level Democratic pol contact, who then sent it on to some other connected people because of its analysis.
Good job.