Or at least, there are very few of them. The majority of undeclared Supers are just that - undeclared. It doesn't mean they don't have a clear preference. Keep that in mind when people are talking about the need for the candidates to lobby or not lobby the Supers more often. Because the truth is, it's really not that necessary.
Main | March 23, 2008 - March 29, 2008 »
March 16, 2008 - March 22, 2008
March 20, 2008
A Super Delegate Primary?
Or how about a Super Delegate convention?
Two articles recently circulating proposing ways to organize Super Delegates. The first suggest a "superconvention" in a satirical piece by Dan Gerstein at Politico.com (it just has to have been a satirical piece). The second and most recent piece is an Op-Ed by Tennessee Governor Phil Bredesen in the New York Times calling for a Super Delegate primary in June.
I'm not crazy about either of these ideas.
For starters, we don't need to wait until June - this can be resolved by Memorial Day at the latest. AND, the month of June hosts primaries for Puerto Rico, a territory which will not have any bearing on the general election, yet gets more delegates than Nevada or New Hampshire - two crucial swing states in the fall. Should they really have any additional bearing on determining our nominee?
Aside from that, there is a laundry list as to why a "Superconvention" or a "Superprimary" don't get us anywhere.
They don't resolve anything. What if there's a tie? If 51% of the Supers go one way, does that mean the consensus should be that they all go the same way? What about the Supers who have already endorsed? If a Super cannot attend, are they left out? What are the logistics involved in either one of these things? Gerstein points out that this is the biggest hurdle.
My questions are all valid points. But they are also irrelevant.
They are irrelevant because Supers shouldn't need a convention or a primary to take a position. As well, the candidate who clearly is in a tight spot at that point should be able to see the writing on the wall and have the character to withdraw and save the Party from major bloodletting.
There are not very many impact primaries left on the calendar. After Pennsylvania, there are only two real "impact primary" dates on the Democratic calendar - May 6th in Indiana and North Carolina, and May 20th in Kentucky and Oregon.
That said, we should be able to wrap this up by Memorial Day at the latest.
You say Superdelegate, I say Super Delegate
Pet Peeve: the spelling of Super Delegate. I wonder what William Strunk would have to say? I prefer the two-word phrasing "Super Delegate" as opposed to the invented one-word "Superdelegate," because I don't think it's a real word. If anyone knows a reference tool that can verify the appropriate term that would be helpful.
March 19, 2008
Q: Why Do Some Supers Wait to Endorse?
This link from the American Prospect was sent to me via a post on the Washington Monthly. The question is why do Supers wait to endorse when they can just end this whole thing by picking a side now? It's a good question.
A: There are a couple of reasons. The first is that there could be Supers who want to vote against the way their state voted, and they want the process to play out in order to justify their switch - it provides political cover (how each chooses to justify that is up to them). The second and more salient reason is because the appearance of Supers endorsing at this point, when the race is this close, could give the appearance of tampering as each individual endorsement exponentially affects the delegate race more than any single state election. It's bad PR for the Party if a race is seen as being fixed by Party insiders.
And about Supers holding out for favors in exchange for their votes...this could be a good topic for my next myths post.
Rules Count
A post from the former Communications Director of the Iowa Democratic Party. While I am not opposed to new elections in these states, all of the points she makes about the conduct of the two states are spot-on. They tried to game the system (a system that they helped build), and they lost.
Op-Ed Contributor
Rules Count
By CARRIE GIDDINS
Published: March 19, 2008
Washington
In life, in love and in politics, when you break the rules there are inevitable and often deserved consequences.
Last year, the Democratic National Committee tried to work with the Florida Democratic Party after the Florida Legislature selected a date for the state’s primary that conflicted with the committee’s nominating calendar. Those efforts were met with silence and stonewalling from Florida’s party leaders despite the penalties. The same thing essentially happened in Michigan.
Meet the Supers
First in an occasional series.
It's not many 25-year-olds who get calls from former U.S. Sen. Tom
Daschle or get a few minutes of one-on-one time with the leading
Democratic candidates for president.
"I keep getting calls from people who ask: 'Can I speak with Lauren Wolfe's assistant,' " she said last week during a break between classes. "But it's just me."
She takes her job as a superdelegate seriously. While young voters have been turning out in record numbers in state primaries and caucus this winter -- many supporting Obama -- Wolfe is diplomatic.
"I want to see what happens after all the primaries," she said. "But ultimately, it's my job to represent young people and stand up and vote for the person who young people feel is the best candidate."
March 18, 2008
Myth #3: Supers Support One Candidate
De-bunking myth #3: the idea that Superdelegates overwhelmingly support one candidate. Taking a look at three news sources in today's papers, the most recent surveys show a break down as follows: Clinton 221 Obama 201.5 (NY Times), Clinton 237 Obama 207 (CNN), and Clinton 249 Obama 213 (Wash Post).
When you look at the average spread in each survey, the difference is only 33 Superdelegates. Of the roughly 796 Supers available, that means that Supers prefer one candidate over another by 4%. More significantly, if I'm doing my math right, the numbers show that 45% of the Supers are choosing to remain undeclared - which would compose the largest preference group of all.
No-Flo
Florida Democrats have decided against a re-vote, which is too bad because a new election is still the best option for that state (and to think how much better off the states would have been if they had stuck to their original primary dates - February 9
in Michigan, March 11 in Florida).
A couple of things here: though the Florida legislature is controlled by Republicans, nearly all of the Democrats in the chamber voted for the bill to move the election date. So there's that. Then there's the fact that the Florida and Michigan DNC delegations voted in favor of the current primary calendar that put them in this mess to begin with.
Dictionary.com defines disfranchise as to deprive a right of citizenship or the right to vote. The DNC has not deprived anyone of the right to vote. What is at stake here is a delegate seating plan that was previously approved by the two states in question. Not nearly the same thing. A more accurate reflection is that the state leadership of Florida and Michigan tried to change the rules mid-game and they failed.
In my opinion, cries of disenfranchisement are disingenuous when both states knew the consequences involved when they changed their elections.
March 17, 2008
Myth #2: Republicans Don't Have Supers
Debunking Myth #2: The Republicans do not have Superdelegates. In fact, they do - they just don't have as many and they have a different name. They are RNC members and can vote how they choose. Check CNN's Election Center and see the delegate tallies for Democrats and Republicans. Compare the last line for all candidates - you'll see Supers side-by-side with "unpledged RNC members."
March 16, 2008
The SNL-ification of the Democratic Nomination
Updated: The presidential nomination goes pop culture on us. Tracey Morgan does a bit for Obama, Tina Fey does something for Hillary.
Recent Comments