Super-Delegates, Super-Delegates, And More Super-Delegates
Here's a quick roundup of the super-delegate news from today:
• Geraldine Ferraro, who is supporting Hillary Clinton, had an op-ed in today's New York Times advancing an argument in favor of super-delegates that we haven't really heard yet during this cycle: That Democratic primaries, as well as caucuses, "do not necessarily reflect the will of rank-and-file Democrats."
• Cincinnati Mayor Mark Mallory, a DNC member and a potentially good get for the Ohio primary, has endorsed Barack Obama.
• Rhode Island Mayor David Cicilline is now hedging on his support for Hillary Clinton after he was asked not to attend a campaign rally: "I will take a hard look at my responses as a super-delegate, in light of the will of the electorate."
• Congresswoman Stephanie Herseth Sandlin (D-SD), a former John Edwards supporter, says she is leaning towards Obama, citing "that intangible leadership quality" and the feeling that he would appear to be the more electable candidate.
Geraldine Ferraro- "Primaries don't matter. We, the party bosses, know what's best for you." Wow! No wonder she was a loser.
February 25, 2008 8:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think Ferraro means that Democratic primary voters don't represent rank and file lobbyists.
February 25, 2008 8:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree with Geraldine but would like to add that in addition to primaries being flawed, general elections are even worse. Rarely if ever do they truly reflect the will of rank-and-file Americans. In other words, Hillary for Queen!
February 25, 2008 8:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
"But the superdelegates were created to lead, not to follow. They were, and are, expected to determine what is best for our party and best for the country."
This is small "p" democracy. Super delegates for sale to the highest bidding plutocrats.
February 25, 2008 8:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hillary Huckabee.
February 25, 2008 8:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Of course she like the plan of superdelegates:
So we were hoping she would be some neutral party official who could assess it in an unbiased way and seriously consider that her "reforms" might not have turned out to be the best idea around?
February 25, 2008 8:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
I find it very hard to swallow the idea that primaries don't represent the will of the democratic voters. They are all eligible to vote and those who want to can do so. How is the vote tally not an expression of their will?
I also think Ferraro shot herself in the foot by saying that the Michigan delegates should be seated when only Hillary was on the ballot. The claim is so absurd that it undermines any claim to objectivity she might have.
February 25, 2008 8:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
• Geraldine Ferraro, who is supporting Hillary Clinton, had an op-ed in today's New York Times advancing an argument in favor of super-delegates that we haven't really heard yet during this cycle: That Democratic primaries, as well as caucuses, "do not necessarily reflect the will of rank-and-file Democrats."
With all due respect Ms. Ferraro, then why the does the party waste all the voters time holding those contests, if they are not to determine who the nominee should be.
Why are you spending all that money, and making such a big deal about holding all those televised debates if you want those who voted to not decide who their nominee should be.
Finally Ms. Ferraro, why did you not make that claim at a time when Senator Clinton was the perceived front runner.
February 25, 2008 8:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Not just wrong, but...
ugly and wrong.
From the Rhode Island Mayor link there is this bit of Hillary blather:
Senator Clinton did tell Eyewitness News she was disappointed to hear that Ralph Nader was now diving into the race. She says he was the reason Al Gore lost the election in 2000.
The reason why Gore lost is because your "First Hubby" couldn't keep his pants up in the People's Oval Office. Clinton's term ended in moral decay. The coattails that Gore might have run on weren't an option.
Get real Billary.
Don't #$%@ with history! Get real:
The Clintons have been pure poison for the Democratic party.
February 25, 2008 8:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
But most people didn't care about that nonsense. It was the Tucker Carlsons and Chris Matthewses and Sean Hannitys of the world who were doing everything they could to *make* us care . . . but most of us saw it for the nonsense it was. Bill enjoyed high approval ratings when he left office. The coattails were there; Gore chose not to ride them in order to placate Clinton-haters like my father-in-law. And we can see how well that worked out for him.
HRC is only partially right. The real reason Bush got close enough to steal the election in 2000 is because Gore's campaign was an uninspiring mess (and even despite that, he *still* won).
February 26, 2008 10:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
As a Democrat for over 30 years may I just say that Geraldine Ferraro can go fuck herself.
February 25, 2008 9:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wow, a one sentence summary of a rather lenghty blog post I made on this subject earlier today! ;-)
February 25, 2008 9:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
While I completely agree with your sentiment regarding Ferraro's piece, as did a majority people who read it judging by the comments on NYTimes.com, I would appreciate it if you would cut the vitriol. The reason I come to TPM is because there is much more logical, reasoned debate here. Besides, to react so emotionally just detracts from your argument. It seems to me this is the precise reason why Sen. Clinton is going down in flames--her irrational, vitriolic attacks. Not that your comment is irrational or even so egregious or different from a lot of webspeak. But, I often wonder why it has to be this way. Sometimes I fantasize about starting a website that would track people's comments on websites, find out who they are and publish their pictures, names and addresses. Maybe then people would take responsibility for what they type.
February 26, 2008 9:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well said, djd. Let's all see if we can keep a civil tongue about ourselves. I expect a lot of intemperate rhetoric in tonight's debate, and in the week to come.
Patience and forbearance, please. You wouldn't get permanently angry with your aunt over something she said in her death-rattle.
February 26, 2008 11:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
That Democratic primaries, as well as caucuses, "do not necessarily reflect the will of rank-and-file Democrats."
yeah, ms. ferraro is most concerned with the forgotten Democrats who can't be bothered to vote.
February 25, 2008 9:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Let's see if I have the argument straight.
Caucuses don't represent the will of the people because they take up too much of our valuable time.
Primaries are a little better, but they still don't represent the silent majority of voters who don't, you know, vote in them.
Therefore the only truly democratic solution is to let a few party bosses select our candidates. Because the bosses are really in tune with what we, the people, want. Ms. Ferraro surely knows me better than I know myself.
The logic is impeccable and, hey, if it's good enough for China it's good enough for me. Billions of people there use this system, so it's definitely got a majority behind it.
February 25, 2008 9:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Not that I have any desire to defend Ms. Ferraro, but I can only surmise that her mindset is still in the Democratic Party of her youth. Primaries and caucuses are still relatively new to bringing "party" nominations to voters in the General Election. I don't have the history at hand, but I know there were not primaries and caucuses in all 50 states when JFK won the nomination... by virtue of a backroom deal at the convention. Ferraro seems to want us to return to the era when only those active in "the Party" had a say in who the Democratic nominee would be. I guess I'd be open to hearing whether we should return to the old system, but I've been voting in primaries and caucuses with an understanding that my voice mattered. This is no time to toss out the rule book, which has zero rules about how the Super Delegates are supposed to make a decision. At the least, I expect transparency on the actions of the SDs. And I don't think it's a bad assumption for us average voters to think the the SDs should be following rather than leading at this stage.
February 25, 2008 10:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
My recollection is that there were seven primaries.
State leaders controlled each state's delegation. Sometimes these state leaders were elected officials, sometimes not. Ferraro wants to go back to those days, which were eliminated after the 1968 fiasco in Chicago, and which resulted in the people's choice McGovern. Now McGovern got beaten pretty badly in 1972, for a variety of reasons, one of them being the loss of Democratic voters as a consequence of 1968. To the party, that just proved that the people couldn't be trusted.
So the "grown-ups" were added to the mix after 1972. I wonder if Democratic party officials understand how insulting that is to their customers, the people who vote for Democratic candidates.
I'm f*****g tired of being patronized. Or matronized.
February 26, 2008 2:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
By her logic, the elected superdelegates shouldn't be allowed to participate since they were selected in elections which, again according to her logic, didn't reflect the will of the people. So we are left with the unelected officials who apparently represent the will of the people. Or the person(s) who appointed them. Or something.
February 25, 2008 9:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
You guys are so busy assailing this claim, demanding 'democracy' in the Democratic party in direct contravention to its established rules and advocating for your chosen nominee that you miss the point entirely: what is the will of 'rank and file' Democrats if independent and Republican crossover participation in primaries and caucuses has in fact pushed one candidate to a position of having won more total participant votes, while being outvoted —according to exit poles—by registered Democrats who may have given his opponent at least 650,000 more votes then they did him?
Just pretend for a moment that this is the case. How does the outcome reflect the will of Democratic party participants? That's a realistic issue, and its what intentional manipulation by Republican activists and earnest, heartfelt sentiment toward Senator Obama among independents has created. Your 'party' is being actively and passively hijacked, and you see no problem with that? Why? Because you candidate benefits? What if the opposite had been the case?
Just think about that before you demand Ferraro's head. Her point is worth considering.
February 25, 2008 10:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's this type of thinking that has resulted in Democratic defeats in the 2000/2004 POTUS elections. If you can't broaden your appeal, YOU LOSE.
February 25, 2008 10:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Here in Missouri, our voter rolls do not contain any reference to party preference. None. Anyone can request one party ballot during a primary by just asking for that party's ballot--or even none and they will get an "issues" ballot if any issues are being considered.
If the Democratic Party wants to remain "pure", then they need to require the selection of candidate by only those who pay dues and register with the state and local party as Democrats.
But, then, we wouldn't have a two party system in this country. Geraldine needs to be very careful about what she is advocating.
And if Democrats are so busy caring about the number of voters actually voting, then I could suggest that they advocate making it easier to register to vote and easier to actually vote.
It seems my party needs a sweeping out with Obama and Dean wielding the broom.
February 25, 2008 10:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
We don't have any way to determine who is voting in the open contests. If we limit participation to declared party affiliation, there's still nothing to stop a Republican from changing their registration before the primary in an effort to affect the outcome. And when you think about it, who cares? Democrats can vote in open Republican parties and sway the other side. In the end, the process produces a nominee with more votes and delegates than any other competitors. Both Clinton and Obama have understood and operated based on the playing field at hand. You can't conclude, based on a commentor's preferred candidate, that the preference is the basis for criticizing the process. The process is a mess and the cause of a handwringing among all Democrats.
We have some serious issues to work through after this election. But let's wait until we're through before throwing up our hands and allowing the Party elites to make the decisions for us.
February 25, 2008 11:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
I intended to add one more thing... the fact that people are coming out in 2-1 and 3-1 proportions in the Dem primary is a huge and positive development for the party. I find it impossible to believe that this is the result of Repub crossovers trying to influence the Dem contest. Rather, the Party and its platform are energizing voters to express their choice. And they are not choosing the Repub candidates in anywhere the number they are choosing Dem candidates. Ultimately, the Dem party will attract some more regular voters. More importantly, the critical non-aligned independents are aligning with the Democrats. That didn't happen in 2000 or 2004 and it was the difference between a Dem and a Repub win. Let's by really happy to see the turnout and not let the Party elites spin this in their own interests.
February 25, 2008 11:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Her point is that the Democratic Majority in Congress, that has done such an abysmal job of addressing the concerns of their constituencies,who have repeatedly been turned away by the most unpopular and incompetent President in history, are the best suited to select a candidate and a strategy to defeat him in a general election.
"Most officeholders, however, were reluctant to run as delegates in a primary election — running against a constituent who really wants to be a delegate to the party’s national convention is not exactly good politics."
This is disingenuous nonsense. Since delegates are assigned to their supported candidates, they would run the risk of not going to the convention if their candidate lost. Also why not have superdelegates run on a statewide ballot?
"But the superdelegates were created to lead, not to follow."
Which is why we need to wait until 70% of the country voices disapproval of the war before our democratic congress addresses the issue.
The rest of the selfserving sophistry regarding FL, MI, and the perils of democracy is too convoluted to address in a lucid manner.
February 26, 2008 7:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well, gee, if we had to pay dues, or belong to a particular union or religion, or pass a test, or take a loyalty oath, or study up and be able to explain on command how current events are predicted by the economic and social theories of some long-dead crackpot, or any of the other things that parties do in parlimentary democracies do, what you're saying might make sense. (Except, that is, for the fact that in countries like that they don't let people from other parties or nonaligneds vote in party elections.)
But since we live in a country with a two party system and a directly elected executive where all you have to do to "join" a party is to register with a local government (not party) official, what you're saying makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. There are a lot of people who self-identify as belonging to one party or the other who aren't actually registered, precisely because registration means so little here.
This is how we keep our parties more or less relevant in this country. When the sound policies of the past turn into today's stupid dogma that's causing stupid policy outcomes, people migrate from that party either into the independents or into the other party. That's a good thing. Its good for the party gaining votes and its good for the party that's gotten senile and stupid because its the only thing that can (eventually, after a decade or two of denial and anger) shock them out of their stupidity.
So, no, I really don't see how rigging the system so old-time party elites can change the outcome of elections to reflect the presumed will of the people who've self-identified with the party the longest is in any way, shape, or form beneficial to the party or the country. Instead, its a prescription for perpetual defeat.
And, btw, this fable the Clintonites are spinning about an orchestrating mass crossover of Republicans to our primaries to vote for a weaker candidate is no different than the Republican "voter fraud" myth: it's just an anecdote-driven lie unsupported by any meaningful data perpetrated solely as an excuse to steal elections.
February 26, 2008 10:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
In response to Michael Lafferty:
Rather than save the Democratic party, I'd like to save our country.
Rather than cling to ideals that oppose the opposing party's ideals, I'd like to find our common ground.
Rather than continue the needless fighting in our government, I'd like to end the needless fighting in our government and in Iraq.
I don't really see a problem with that.
February 25, 2008 10:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks Geraldine, now go quietly back where you came from.
February 25, 2008 10:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Not sure if anyone has commented on this before, but looking at the list of superdelegate endorsements, two things struck me:
1) Elected Superdelegates are almost exactly evenly split at this point between Clinton and Obama
2) Almost 100% of Clinton's remaining Superdelegate lead comes from DNC party officials, not elected officials
I suspect the elected delegates are more responsive to the electorate and this is the difference. It would be interesting to see the % mix of party officials to elected officials for uncommitted delegates. I'm guessing the remaining uncommitted elected delegates will break heavily to the elected delegate leader (Obama), while the DNC officials will be more of a wildcard.
http://demconwatch.blogspot.com/2008/01/superdelegate-list.html
February 25, 2008 10:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
What the hell? Why do we even have primaries, then? Why not just have the eight hundred super-delegates pick the nominee, since they know better than us anyway?
February 25, 2008 11:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
An addition to the list: Sen. Chris Dodd to endorse Obama in Ohio.
Check out the Hartford Courant story:
http://www.courant.com/news/politics/hc-doddobama0226.artfeb26,0,3702439.story
February 26, 2008 8:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
Mondale for president! So what if he lost by 23,149,032,843,290 votes!
February 26, 2008 9:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
HRC campaign is increasingly deriding the DNC as well the voters by a series of comments thats could hurt the party come November. Howard Dean should be steeping in right now before it gets out of hand.
February 26, 2008 9:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
Geraldine Ferraro:
"It's OK--you can all stay home. We'll choose your president for you. No need to trouble yourselves or waste your valuable time voting. Just relax and we professionals will take care of the messy details of this Democracy for you. Voting is really a meaningless exercise anyway--just a way to let you voters feel some of the 'fun' of what it's like to be part of a representative government. It's really not essential."
February 26, 2008 10:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
As a lifetime Demorcrat, all I can say is, it's time this party hot "hijacked" by the people.
Party insiders have been costing us elections since 1984, and Geraldine A. Ferraro herself admits:
" In 1984 I headed the party’s platform committee. We produced the longest platform in Democratic history, a document that stated the party’s principles in broad terms that neither the most liberal nor the most conservative elected officials would denounce. It generated no fights at the convention. It was a document that no one would walk away from. We lost in 1984, big time. "
It's time to stop losing elections based on the decisions of those who supposedly "know best".
February 26, 2008 10:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
If anyone is listening especially Super Delegates here is example of what RANK & FILE Democrats are saying in the swing state of Colorado.
1) Record turnout for a closed caucus....13.5%, my precinct had 16.5%. That means they came out in person and patiently went through the caucus system and voted in the open.
2) Our county convention last Saturday had 100% turnout....100% 1553 delegates....they waited in line 3 hours to just be let into the building, packed an over capacity auditorium and then patiently waded through a typical political voting session for 6 more hours to seek a State Delegate election. My Legislative House District which I was the lead had 150 delegates (only 8 alternates were needed and 80 showed up also), had 115 (76% turnout) show up in the final session to vote on the 38 delegates to be elected to the State Convention. We decided to split the delegation making for 76 delegates and the remainder being alternates.
3) Don't give me this crap about rank and file...these are rank & file Democrats streaming out and voting with their feet, their heads, and their emotion.
Oh and by the way Obama carried the day garnishing 69.5% of the vote, both in the caucus and County Convention......
The old time regulars are out of step, kind of like the old timers of Al Smith were out of step with the FDR New Dealers.....
February 26, 2008 10:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
Geraldine Ferraro? Isn't she the same political hack who pushed for "deregulating" the trucking industry?
What she accopmlished was the destruction of thousands of teamster jobs, and a false "competition" that actually led to higher transportation rates, and higher costs to every item shipped by truck! What a surprise that the will of the people means nothing to her.
February 26, 2008 4:43 PM | Reply | Permalink