Clyburn Dissents: Says Super-Dels Shouldn't Necessarily Follow Popular Vote
This seems significant, as it may be the first real dissent by a high-profile neutral party from the emerging notion that the super-dels should feel compelled to base their choice on the popular will:
COLUMBIA, S.C. -- House Majority Leader (sic)Jim Clyburn said Friday some of his fellow Democratic Party superdelegates have been too quick to endorse presidential candidates and said he disagrees with those who base their support on election and caucus results."We're supposed to be unpledged delegates," Clyburn said during a discussion with reporters. "We are not supposed to be pledged."...
While Clyburn said he'd prefer superdelegates not announce their support until much later in the nominating process, he said he also doesn't agree with superdelegates shifting support from one candidate to another based on how their constituents vote in a primary or caucus.
Clyburn said superdelegates are not in place simply to mirror the popular vote. "I don't think people are really thinking through what they're saying," he said.
Not in line with what we've been hearing from many other quarters, to be sure -- and this is coming from someone who considered endorsing Obama. Full story here.
Late Update: The most super delegate, Nancy Pelosi, who will chair the Democratic convention, says that the super-dels should follow the people's will:
"It would be a problem for the party if the verdict would be something different than the public has decided."
I'm pretty sure he is in the minority here, and the voters won't stand for it, regardless if every superdelegate supports swinging the election, it isn't going to happen.
February 15, 2008 5:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
How do you spell political suicide?
If the superdelegates act to overturn the popular vote by giving the nomination to the candidate who lags in the pledged delegate count, there will be hell to pay--not only for the party itself, but for the superdelegates who are elected officials.
If it does happen, I for one will leave the Democratic Party and reregister as an independent.
February 15, 2008 5:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
re: "Clyburn said superdelegates are not in place simply to mirror the popular vote."
And neither is the Electoral College, and look what that got us. 8 years of BushCo.
February 15, 2008 5:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's unclear that he's actually saying what you suggest Greg.
What he's complaining about is the fact that many superdelegates have already pledged their support for one candidate and that some are changing based on the votes in their district or state.
He doesn't appear to be addressing the argument that the superdelegates should follow the will of the people in terms of looking at the pledged delegate totals. In fact, in looks like that's the view he's endorsing. But he needs to clarify that. It's just not clear from that article.
February 15, 2008 5:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Just to follow up on what I said, I found this quote from Clyburn from 3 days ago:
That seems to somewhat confirm what I said and strongly dispute the headline of this post.
February 15, 2008 5:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Greg,
Could you update your post to reflect the fact that it isn't clear there is a difference between what Pelosi and Clyburn are saying. In fact, I think they're saying a similar thing. It's just that the person who wrote this Clyburn article wasn't precise in describing what Clyburn said.
February 15, 2008 6:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bingo!I'm sure you're right. To paraphrase Sen. Clinton, Jim Clyburn was uncommited from day one. I'm here in South Carolina, and I heard Clyburn with my own ears state that he was uncommitted. Where the confusion might come from is that late last year no one took the other cadidates seriously, and it was taken for granted that he was in the Clinton camp. I don't think Bill Clinton's remarks before the primary pleased him, however he downplayed it and asked for calm. When Obama trounced Clinton in the primary, of course he offered his hearty congratulations. That was the victor's due, but now people assumed he was an Obama supporter. Now when he reaffirms that he is uncommited people say "Damn! he's backing off of Obama." Fact is, the Old Man hasn't moved. Do I think he'll support Obama if it goes to the convention? Absolutely!
February 15, 2008 11:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's going be hilarious if we get some kind of repeat of 68. And by hilarious I mean really, really stupid.
February 15, 2008 5:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
What would really cap that off is if Mayor Daley made a public, anti-Semitic remark about Russ Feingold.
What a shitshow that convention must have been.
February 15, 2008 5:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Try this spelling--HILLarious
February 15, 2008 11:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
That could only mean he's wants to endorse Clinton at this point, since she has no chance of regaining the pledged delegate lead.
February 15, 2008 5:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Clyburn said superdelegates are not in place simply to mirror the popular vote.
By what authority are they supposed to be guided, then? Is there transparency here -- did the DNC establish rules, and memorialize their intentions, when they created this whole superdelegate system twenty years ago.
You can't possibly claim legitimacy for this point of view unless there is rocks-solid evidence that it was the intent of the people who created the system for the party that the superdelegates should simply exercise their own discretion.
Personally I think such a system would still be woefully illegitimate and undemocratic (as well as unDemocratic), but at least there would be some colorable basis for such an argument.
As it is, I don't think there is any rule-based justification, much less any justification in democratic values, that can permit superdelegates to effectively overturn the clear command of the voters.
February 15, 2008 6:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry Gee, the "voters" have no authority to command the super delegates.
And while I agree that it is intuitively undemocratic it most certainly is not unDemocratic.
The party is not a democratic institution, never has been and never was meant to be.
Obama himself accepts that super delegates are entitled to vote as they wish. Like you (I assume) he wants them to vote for whichever candidate has a plurality or majority of elected delegates, depending upon who and how they are counted.
But that is a moral argument not a legal one.
After all, if the party were truly democratic wouldn't all registered dems simply vote for their preferred nominee directly? Instead there is an incredible hodgepodge, state by state, of rules governing apportionment of elected delegates.
Like the Senate and the Electoral College, the super delegates serve to restrain the will of the voters if the powers that be think them in error.
Not at all democratic but totally Democratic.
But really, don't worry, be happy!
If Obama has a delegate lead that is at all significant (and he will) the super delegates will not throw the nomination to HRC.
Promise.
February 15, 2008 6:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
It doesn't make it right, but it's true. The system by design is flawed, not how the superdelegates are executing it persay.
I find it unlikely though that Clyburn is backing Clinton, I think he is making a factual statement free from whom he supports, which would make him very unique from others.
February 15, 2008 6:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
I just started this Facebook group, should y'all want to join and work to make sure it's us, not the superdelegates, that decide the Democratic nominee: http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=24110476944
Thanks.
February 15, 2008 6:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
D'oh. Remembered as I hit enter on the last comment that TPM doesn't automatically hyperlink. Anyway, here's the Facebook group. Bugger superdelegates.
February 15, 2008 6:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
And apparently they do now. D'oh^2.
February 15, 2008 6:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
The internet has become a new and very effective form of oversight, the kind congress has been deprived of. We might need to kick that oversight into overdrive these next 9 months.
And now that it looks like Bush 41 is siding with McCain, and the Clintons are in full attack mode, we have two old dynasties competing for power.
Both will go to extremes if they have to, to close down the rising movement of democracy.
We're already seeing the shadows of voter fraud emerge. Calling the Washington state primary prematurely, with just 87% of the vote counted.
The Clintons have already tried to disenfranchise casino workers in Vegas as soon as those workers chose to back Obama. And all this super-delegate talk may turn for the worse.
But this time, there aren't just two powers clashing. There's a third power--the voice of the people.
The house dems finally said enough is enough. And I hope we can build on that in every way possible.
There isn't anything we can take for granted. I for one don't want to spend the next 8 years saying "hey, that last presidential election just wasn't fair.
February 15, 2008 7:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
This whole super-delegate thing is starting to sound like it was created by Republicans.
It's my greatest hope that Barack will continue his upward trajectory and win every forthcoming state, so that we don't need to worry about the super-delegates and which way they end up going.
Call me naive, but....that's my hope.
February 15, 2008 7:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
MikeMo
Give it a rest already. Since I presume you weren't part of the conversation between Clyburn and the reporter, you're hardly in a position to pass judgment on how precise the reporter was. You can have your own opinion on the matter, but that hardly justifies insisting that Greg change the headline to suit your speculation.
The headline reflects the article in The State, not the WLTX article you linked to. And reading the WLTX article makes it clear that Clyburn was hardly as definitive as you make him out to be.
February 15, 2008 7:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't think people really understand the role of the super delegates.
They are NOT there to mirror anything.
In Fact, pretty much the opposite.
They were put in place to give the Democratic party leaders ("insiders in smoke filled rooms" as the media like to call them to make then sound evil) a way to avoid the "people" making a choice that they didn't think was the right choice.
Now you can disagree with this , but that is the way it is set up.
It really isn't a bad system, because in most cases, they don't have enough votes to make a significant difference, yet it gives some deserved reverence to Democratic elected and unelected leaders, loyal for many years.
the ONLY reason it seems so awful to some of you now, is because you are seeing this for the first time and you are only seeing it's impact in a rare situation such as this years race. The ONLY reason thse votes now matter is for one reason and one reason only. THE RACE IS VERY CLOSE.
so let's all relax. it's not a terrible and undemocratic process created to let people that have big egos decide your fate and make your votes not count, it really isn't.
To Obama supporters I would say this; Please, don't be so ready to condemn this party as undemocratic. The truth is that if Obama gets a large advantage in pledged delegates, the supers will probably follow. If he doesn't have a large margin of victory, why should they feel obligated to abdicate their vote. If he had "put away" this nomination, then we would not be having this conversation.
If Hillary and Barack remain neck and neck at the end, then I think it is fine for the super D's to vote their consciences, whichever way that take them.
February 15, 2008 7:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
James Clyburn is right. The rules do not require super delegates to follow the wishes of the majority of those who voted in their primaries.
On the other hand: There are no rules that require that the majority of their voters have to accept it, and can not opt to put forward another candidate to run against any super delegates that voted against the will of the voters. The Super Delegates are free to vote for the candidates of their choice, and the voters are free to vote for challengers to those super delegates the next time they are up for reelection.
February 15, 2008 7:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm from SC and you've got to respect Mr. Clyburn. He's honest, straightforward and objective in all this.
And he's correct. Superdelagates are not there simply to mirror the popular vote. These people are not bound by that. That is not the purpose.
Rae
February 15, 2008 7:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
but will we know who they voted for?
I don't think we will.
February 15, 2008 7:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Clyburn if way off base. The supposed purpose of the superdelegates is to mediate a decision when there is NO CLEAR WINNER coming into the convention. It is certainly not to throw the nomination to the one whom the superdelegates favor. So if there is a clear winner, the supers are ethically bound to support that candidate.
So this comes down to a decision of what is a clear winner? Well, the winner is one who gets the most committed delegates coming in. How can that be any clearer?
I think you can set up a tiebreaker rule, whereby the leading candidate has to have say, 2% more delegates. So out of 4050 delegates, that would mean unless the leader is ahead by 80 delegates or more, then it is a tie. Only then should the supers step in.
Clyburn is setting this up to be a huge fight in Denver, and what's more he is saying this on the same day Pelosi says the DNC should recognize the majority candidate.
But wasn't Clyburn Pelosi's choise for majority leader? Something's going on here.
February 15, 2008 7:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
I really like the idea of voting my conscience. Sorry Hillary.
February 15, 2008 7:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why should the super delegates decide a tie? Or better put, what is there to guarantee that the superdelegate vote wouldn't be a tie as well? It is a flawed system.
I imagine it was put in place as some have suggested to give party bosses the chance have extra influence, but it doesn't even guarantee that since there are so many superdelegates and they are so diverse that there is nothing to make them think and act as any sort of block. It's just a stupid fucking system. Welcome to the Democratic Party.
The super delegates are not going to hand the election to Clinton if Obama has a lead, and vice versa. Like was said above, political suicide. It is damn easy to find out who these people are and who they are voting(ed). Imagine if they flip the nomination to Clinton and she loses. Oh. My. Fucking. God.
No way they do it.
February 15, 2008 7:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think the superdelegates should vote however they want, just as the rules allow them.
And if they want to lose the election due to pissing off the base of the party, so be it. But they're not going to do that; they're not stupid. Not all of them, at least.
I frankly think that Obama and his campaign should stay neutral on this "issue". It will work out in their favor regardless.
February 15, 2008 8:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Zell,
You know that picture of yours belies your calm rational demeanor. Well said.
My friends who aren't paying as much attention are freaking out about this whole thing. If Hillary has is in the delegate position that is likely at the end of the campaign season, then this will go away on its own.
February 15, 2008 9:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
The superdelegates should do whatever they want, them's the rules. But I think they should want what's best for the party: That is to vote for whomever is ahead in the delegate count, lest they want to destroy the party. I would far rather see Hillary have the nomination than the supers give it to Barack if she is ahead, no matter how much I think Barack is a better candidate.
February 15, 2008 8:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
To avoid the entire super delegate influence Obama needs to win one of the big states and stay a close second in the two he doesnt win and its over, the super delegates will have no choice but to side for him...
If Hillary sweeps the 3 big states, buckle your seat belts, because the the super delegates will play a role in selecting the nomination and that will split the party making Macain the next president by default...
So if you are from anyone of the 3 states get out and campaign for Obama...
February 15, 2008 8:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
I reject your attempt to reframe the debate.
February 15, 2008 10:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Greg:
Not sure I would classify Clyburn's comments the same way you do.
It seems to me that there are two (somewhat) conflicting theories as to how a superdelegate should "submit to the will of the people."
One theory is that they should vote for the candidate that their district voted for. Under this theory Kennedy and Kerry should vote for Hillary. This is the theory Clyburn seems to be rejecting.
The second theory is more macro: that superdelegates should vote for whomever wins the overall pledged delegate total regardless of how a candidate does is the supers own district. This is Obama's official position, and the one that Pelosi has come out to support. I dont think Clyburn is addressing this theory at all. At least not from the partial quote you posted.
February 15, 2008 9:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
He seems to be saying that everyone who has already pledged goofed, should take it back and have a do over....who does that favor?
Yes!
February 15, 2008 10:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Looks like some superdelegates are getting some "persuasion":
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=19096400
February 15, 2008 9:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
wah wah wah ... Obama cry babies.
Clinton / Obama is the ticket get used to it.
You do want the democrats to win in November don't you? Line up behind it.
February 15, 2008 9:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Fool
February 15, 2008 10:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
"You know that picture of yours belies your calm rational demeanor. Well said."
Oh yeah? Well I CHALLENGE YOU TO A DUEL!
February 15, 2008 9:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
The super delegates should do what's best for the Democratic Party!
They need to consider the effect of their decision on us, the grassroots Democrats; they need to consider electability; they need to consider the mood of the country.
Based on that, they should vote for Obama even if Clinton somehow manages to get a few more pledged delegates.
Hee Hee.
February 15, 2008 10:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
I sure you're right. I'm here in South Carolina, and I heard Clyburn with my own ears state that he was uncommitted. Where the confusion might come from is that late last year it was taken for granted that he was in the Clinton camp. I don't think Bill Clinton's remarks before the primary pleased him, but he downplayed it and asked for calm. When Obama trounced Clinton in the primary, of course he offered his hearty congratulations. That was the victor's due, but now people assumed he was an Obama supporter. Now when he reaffirms that he is uncommited people say "Damn! he's backing off of Obama." Fact is, the Old Man hasn't moved. Do I think he'll support Obama if it goes to the convention? Absolutely!
February 15, 2008 10:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Memo to Greg Sargent:
Steny Hoyer is the House Majority Leader for the 110th Congress.
James Clyburn is the House Majority Whip.
Oy.
John Lewis is Chief Deputy Whip, btw. Works closely with Clyburn. Think about it.
P.S. If you ever need a proofreader or fact-checker, feel free to e-mail me.
February 15, 2008 11:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Nancy "Impeachment is off the table" Pelosi is advocating following the will of the people? Since when?
2nd memo to Greg: The State's Clyburn article you linked to must have changed "Leader" to "Whip" after you'd posted.
February 16, 2008 12:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
Obama's rules:
We shouldn't change rules in midstream and allow the Forida and Michigan delegates to be seated.
We should change the rules in midstream and force the super delegates to vote for Obama.
Heads he wins, tails you lose.
But what do you expect from a deity who has supernatural powers? Who is held in the same high reverence as Ghandi, JFK, MLK and RFK, even though he's never done a damned thing in his life which is comparable to these men, except of course, give fancy speeches.
February 16, 2008 12:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
OMG, you must burn at the steak for heresy! OFF WITH HIS HEAD!
February 16, 2008 2:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
And Hillary--don't disenfranchise the voters (who voted for her) in MI and FL, DO disenfranchise people in those states who wanted to vote for Barack or John Edwards, and then let superdelegates decide the whole thing no matter what the votes say. It is amazing that Hillary can argue so vociferously for the rights of these voters while completely ignoring the rights of those who never got to cast their votes for Obama, Edwards, or Richardson. And then arguing that there was nothing at all unseemly about her friends in the party giving her the nomination even if she is behind.
No one is trying to "change the rules" on superdelegates. In the end they are going to vote however they want. But there needs to be some way out of this mess that doesn't destroy the party and hand the election to McCain. Which having the superdelegates give the nomination to the person who is behind in delegates would do, no matter which candidate it is.
It's not really an issue of rules or what superdelegates were meant to do. It is an issue of the health of the party.
Shouldn't you be calling them "automatic" delegates?
February 16, 2008 2:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
Republicans didn't take ALL of MI and FL's delegates away, only half. Republicans don't have super delegates to complicate the whole process. No chance of insiders and elites changing the results, at least at the convention, and no stopping votes from being counted and the voters from hearing each message before they vote.
I'm not saying I like the Republicans (the extreme opposite is true), but I can say they actually might have gotten it right this time... the process that is. They just need to get used to their very-soon-to-be nominee.
February 16, 2008 6:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
absolutely have to agree that the R's did this one much better.
btw, it would seem that the D's already had the right idea when they awarded extra delegates to the late voters. a natural extension would have been to take some % of delegates away from the early voters.
maybe that is how they should assign the order the states vote in. some sort of auction based on % of delegates they want to sit.
February 16, 2008 1:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
They're not supposed to be pledged, but they're supposed to be democrats.
February 16, 2008 10:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
I gotta say I like that late update reference to Pelosi as the most super delegate. I always thought that she was wonder woman and I guess dems think so also by designating her the most super delegate.
You know all this sexist whining from the clinton people is really pathetic. Pelosi shattered the marble ceiling by being elected speaker of the house. Anybody who knows anything about washington knows that the speaker of the house has the most power in our government, more than even the president and Pelosi, a women, has that position.
February 16, 2008 10:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
I honestly think this is a strategic comment from Clyburn. He wants to make sure that it doesn't appear that Every African American super delegate is aboard Obama bandwagon. Clyburn is a good supporter of Obama, at the same time he sees a danger in the narratice "Black delegates for a Black candidate."
Clever!!!! This stance helps Barack in the long run.
BYW- I'm falling falling in love with Nancy Pelosi. She had a good week with FISA, Contempt Charges and call for right thing to do.
February 16, 2008 4:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
"It would be a problem for the party if the verdict would be something different than the public has decided."
Then what good is the idea of super delegates if they can't think for themselves? Legislators don't mirror the electorate or else we would have direct initiative in every policy making instance. This is a mirror of their normally representative duties as a legislator, maybe more so.
February 16, 2008 5:13 PM | Reply | Permalink