« Wright Speaking Engagements Cancelled, Security Cited As Concern | Home | Rasmussen: McCain Beating Both Dems In Missouri »
Dem Gov. Bredesen (TN) Warns Against Super-Delegates Overturning Primaries
Gov. Phil Bredesen (D-TN) is growing more outspoken in his calls for a super-delegate meeting in June, so as to sew up the Democratic race before the convention and avoid a bloody Summer — and one comment in particular seems inclined towards supporting Barack Obama.
Bredesen said the super-delegates should not overturn the results of the primaries and caucuses. If such a thing were to occur, Bredesen warned, "There would be hell to pay in the party for a long time to come."
Late Update: It's not entirely clear whether Bredesen was referring to the pledged delegates or the aggregate popular vote as his preferred metric for this scenario. It's also worth pointing out that Bredesen has not publicly endorsed either of the Dem candidates.
Advertisement
A CQ Politics analysis using party and state data, as well as information from Dave Leip’s Atlas of U.S. Presidential Elections, has identified 22 declared Clinton supporters whose districts, states or territories tilted toward Obama. The tally includes three Floridians — Alcee L. Hastings , Kendrick B. Meek and Corrine Brown — but does not include John Lewis and David Scott , a pair of Georgia congressmen who supported Clinton but flipped into the Obama column after their districts went for Obama.
On Obama’s endorsement list, there are 12 lawmakers, including Florida Rep. Robert Wexler , whose constituents favored Clinton.
Some of the states that have voted have not reported district-level presidential primary data, precluding the compilation of a complete list of outcomes in all the districts that have voted thus far. Texas and New Jersey, where Clinton won, are the most populous that have yet to report vote tallies by congressional district.
http://www.cqpolitics.com/wmspage.cfm?docID=news-000002692073
March 26, 2008 9:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
I am beginning if more of these Supers are going to start coming out and saying the same thing. Cantwell recently stated this as did Pelosi. Maybe it is their way of telling Clinton to back off without coming right out and saying it.
March 26, 2008 9:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think we are going to be hearing a lot more of this in the coming weeks. Super delegates are losing patience.
March 26, 2008 9:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
This strikes me as a good idea, one way or the other. I'd rather it didn't take until the beginning of June, but if that's the way it has to be, fine. Let all the states vote, then let the superdelegates shut this entire thing down.
If we fight to the convention, we lose. As it is, if Obama's the nominee he'll have to do extra work winning over the froth-mouthed Clinton supporters who say they'd rather vote for McCain.
March 26, 2008 9:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
Not to mention the independents that are slipping into the McCain camp.
March 26, 2008 9:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
Glad to hear Breseden say this.
March 26, 2008 9:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
June?! Why not now? Enough is enough.
March 26, 2008 9:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
If enough super delegates come out in support of the eventual winner of the pledged delegates, it could have the effect of ending it sooner than June.
It would effectively reduce the "magic number" of delegates needed to win the nomination to 1627, putting an end to the Clinton campaign's attempt to win this with super delegates alone.
March 26, 2008 9:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yep--no mention of how caucuses are undemocratic at best. No mention of how disenfranchising MI and FL is undemocratic. Just the bull Obama line that you can't overturn the "results". Have these people been brainwashed?
March 26, 2008 9:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
If caucuses are undemocratic at best, what are they at worst? Are you accusing those states that held them as being communists? That sounds like McCarthism ;o) Seriously, you need to accept that they are part of the process and not dismiss them if you care at all about democracy. You don't mind disenfranchising caucus states/voters but the illegitimate results of MI and FL must stand? Do you realize more people did not vote because they knew their vote wouldn't count than did vote? Blaming Obama for their not finding a solution in advance of the primaries or following them is pathetic.
March 26, 2008 10:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
I accept that they're part of the process. However, I also accept that superdelegates are part of the process and are free to exercise independent judgment. My point is that by this guy arguing that superdelegates should not overturn the results of the primaries and caucuses does not take into consideration that caucuses aren't truly democratic. They tend to disenfranchise the elderly and shift workers, Hillary's base.
March 26, 2008 10:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
Stop being silly. Superdelegates ARE free to overturn the vote, caucuses and primaries included. It is totally within the rules. The point is that it would be a political disaster to do so. Hillary--even if this goes until august--won't win the total in pledged delegates, even if we seat Florida and michigan. She won't. So the prospect of her winning given that outcome really means that the decision of the democratic party in the primary would be overturned at the convention. Plain and simple.
Is that by the books? Yes. Are superdelegates a good thing? I don't know. Are caucuses a good thing? I don't know. DOES ANY OF THAT MATTER? No. The agreed upon rules are set. If Clinton doesn't like the fact that some states have caucuses, tough shit. I'm sure Obama doesn't like the fact that Clinton watching him take his name of the MI ballot (and attempt to take his name of the FL ballot) only to champion the results when they came in her favor later. But those are the rules.
To ignore the reality of the delegate count and to decry the existence of caucus states is nonsensical. Hillary didn't like the fact that Obama did better in caucuses? Tough. she should have spent more money on organizing and less on Mark Penn. Doesn't like the fact that black voters flocked to Obama? tough. Should have reigned in bill before he made that silly Jesse Jackson comment. Those aren't reasons to overturn the vote. They are mistakes made in campaigning.
And to be honest, super delgates aren't going to back clinton in the numbers necessary for her to win unless Obama implodes. Unless she destroys him. In a few weeks, the declared super numbers will even out and the math will look less and less promising for hillary.
It is one thing to support Hillary. That's all well and good. Great, whatever. It's another to spew nonsense and obvious falsehoods in order to defend what is effectively a repeat of 1968 just so that Hillary can be the democratic nominee.
March 26, 2008 12:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'd prefer you stop being silly.
"Superdelegates ARE free to overturn the vote, caucuses and primaries included. It is totally within the rules. The point is that it would be a political disaster to do so."
Why would it be a political disaster? Because people keep spouting this nonsense as if the pledged delegates from caucuses are really worth that much. If we could have an honest discussion about how we've arrived to where we are, that would be great. Unfortunately, people buy Obama's lines just because they're easier to repeat. So much for challenging America to think.
March 26, 2008 1:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Now her base is workers on shiftwork? Come the fuck on. That was her base as she went in to Wisconsin and Ohio. It wasn't her base in 2007. It wasn't her base in New Hampshire.
I'll accept that caucuses aren't democratic in the sense that a secret, nonrepudiatable (spelling?) ballot is democratic. But in most cases, they basically are democratic, in the sense that support is counted and tallied in a free and fair way. The timing of it is restrictive, but most caucus locations with long lines were held open. Also, the notion that caucuses disenfranchise the elderly is kind of funny. Who (aside from party members) do you think RUNS these caucuses? I'll give you a hint, it is about the same people that run the regular election. The elderly. They are a consistent voting block and they are consistent in caucuses as well. Also, states don't all run caucuses like Texas did. Wyoming ran caucuses throughout the day, with various times and meetings (and on a Saturday, no less).
March 26, 2008 12:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
I've made many calls for Hillary and consistently I hear the elderly complain that they can't leave their house for one reason or another. As caucusing doesn't allow for absentee balloting, they are being disenfranchised. Of course, it's not ALL elderly, but take it that way to prove a minor point. Intellectually dishonest.
March 26, 2008 1:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
There was a solution to MI. DNC, Clinton and the state party signed off on it. There was money for the new primary.
The only reason it is dead is because of Obama.
March 26, 2008 12:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
another_reader,
"Cognitive dissonance is a psychological state that describes the uncomfortable feeling between what one holds to be true and what one knows to be true."
It seems to me that arguging on one hand that MI and FL are being disenfranchised(despite Clinton telling NH the election in MI "doesn't count") while at the same time arguging that the delegates elected in all the other states are free to switch the candidate they vote for at any time is a classic example of cognitive dissonance.
Let's skip through the BS and quit pretending your candidate actually cares about representing the will of the people shall we?
March 26, 2008 10:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
Not to mention her supporters suing to stop Las Vegas Strip caucus locations in Nevada so that more workers could participate.
Now THAT was disenfranchisement. The only disenfranchisers in FL and MI are the Dem party leadership who broke the rules and are now complaining about the consequences.
March 26, 2008 10:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
Most admirable, most admirable. I especially love the way that Hillary and her minions fought those caucuses tooth and nail, and likewise fought the rules stating that a state that held an unauthorized early primary would receive no delegates, back when they were running the committees that drafted them. A true woman of principle, that Hillary.
March 26, 2008 10:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
June?!
So two more months of falling further and further behind McCain as the Clintons run their "scary black people" routine?
I'm starting to think a lot of these chickenshit party leaders are just plain scared of the Clintons.
March 26, 2008 10:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
Obvuiously what this bozo Gov. Phil Bredesen should be talking about is attempting to get revotes underway in both Florida and Tennessee or we are not going to have any idea who has the most pledged delegates or who is the aggregate popular vote in this primary. Shame on the divisive Obama campaign for blocking the revotes. His penalty should be that we count them as they stand, both major wins for Hillary.
March 26, 2008 10:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
dembillc,
A revote in Tennessee? Where Clinton won? PLEASE! When do we start the process?
You really have no clue what's going on in this election do you?
March 26, 2008 10:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
Whoops, I meant Michigan. I was thinking about this Bozo being from Tennessee.
March 26, 2008 10:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
Tennessee needs a revote?
March 26, 2008 10:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
Dembilic,
Why is Bredesen a Bozo? He's governor of Tennessee, and has no authority to tell Florida (or Michigan) what to do. But since Clinton won Tennessee, I'd be up for a re-vote here.
Yes, please!
March 26, 2008 12:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
I can assure you that Phil Bredesen is no bozo. He may be an Obama supporter, which might displease some TPM readers (who may or may not be bozos themselves). What's obvious, however, is that Bredesen has the best interests of the Democratic Party and the country in mind as he continues to push for the quite reasonable solution of holding a pre-convention superdelegate primary. (If only it could be a caucus, though I've heard they're undemocratic at best and demonically evil and the spawn of Beelzebub at worst.)
March 26, 2008 2:22 PM | Reply | Permalink