« That annoying queen endorsement explained | Main | Gay Republicans for Obama? »
February 08, 2008
The superdelegate problem
Posted by: Chris
I would like to second and recommend to others Andoni's excellent post yesterday about the "upcoming Democratic Party trainwreck" over the presidential primary. In an echo of Andoni's point, the Washington Post's Paul Kane has worked out how it is virtually impossible mathematically for either Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton to clinch the nomination through the "pledged delegates" chosen in primaries and caucuses:
We've done a bad job of explaing this, but it is now basically mathematically impossible for either Clinton or Obama to win the nomination through the regular voting process (meaning the super-delegates decide this one, baby!).
Here's the math. There are 3,253 pledged delegates, those doled out based on actual voting in primaries and caucuses. And you need 2,025 to win the nomination.
To date, about 55% of those 3,253 delegates have been pledged in the voting process -- with Clinton and Obama roughly splitting them at about 900 delegates a piece.
That means there are now only about 1,400 delegates left up for grabs in the remaining states and territories voting.
So, do the math. If they both have about 900 pledged delegates so far, they need to win more than 1,100 of the remaining 1,400 delegates to win the nomination through actual voting.
Ain't gonna happen, barring a stunning scandal or some new crazy revelation. So, they'll keep fighting this thing out, each accumulating their chunk of delegates, one of them holding a slight edge and bothing finishing the voting process with 1,600 or so delegates.
There are various scenarios for how the party might avoid the prospect of the party's superdelegate powerbrokers deciding the nominee, rather than the people. Party chair Howard Dean is suggesting several pre-emptive moves that are well-intentioned if likely to go nowhere.
Dean told NY-1 this week that the two candidates should agree sooner rather than later on how to avoid a brokered convention, but I'm betting the stakes are way too high at this point for either of them to give ground on the key issues, which include:
- Will the candidates agree that either (a) the one with the more "pledged delegates" wins or (b) that superdelegates retain the ability to override voters and select the nominee with fewer pledged delegates?
- Will the convention seat the delegates elected in the Michigan and Florida primaries? The candidates earlier agreed to abide by the party's decision to disqualify delegates from both contests because they were held too early on the calendar. Clinton won both states, but hers was the only name on the ballot in Michigan, and she was the only one to show up on election night in Florida.
Taking the second issue first, Clinton is already calling on the convention to seat the Michigan and Florida delegates, despite her earlier agreement to abide by their disqualification. It is typical of the "say anything" and "do anything" to win sliminess that makes so many of us loathe to support a Clinton for president.
Dean has suggested an end-run around the Michigan-Florida problem, by pressing both states to hold "do-over" caucuses. The idea has real appeal since the whole point of violating the party's primary calendar to begin with was a desire to influence the race. Well, the race is still hotly contested and both candidates would no doubt campaign in both states this time.
The superdelegate problem, on the other hand, is highly unlikely to be resolved by the candidates themselves. There's zero chance Hillary will willingly give up her advantage among superdelegates, which stands at about 100 right now. (Check out the Wikipedia sub-site superdelegates.org for more than you could ever want to know about them.)
But there are just under 500 superdelegates that remain uncommitted and, of course, the 300 give or take who've already picked between the two can always switch to avoid a brokered convention.
No doubt Obama's game plan at this point is put the pressure on superdelegates to accept the decision of voters and back whichever candidate wins more pledged delegates. After Super Tuesday he said, "Those super delegates will have to think long and hard about who they'll support because the people they represent have said, 'Obama's our guy.'"
The large number of uncommitted superdelegates is a hopeful sign that a significant number of them are prepared to abide by the will of the voters.
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
https://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d834527dd469e200e5501f09e58833
Comments
-
Great explanation on the background Tim.
Here's another thought, but I don't know if it's possible at this stage. Is it too late for the Party to "disenfranchise" the superdelegates? Can an emergency meeting of the Executive Committee accomplish this or would it take a vote of the entire body in Denver? Can the Rules Committee do this?
Certainly disenfranchising does not have an initial good ring to it, but I bet they can spin that into we decided to give the power to the voters, not the party hacks.
Anyone know if it's too late to change the system?
Another thought would be if all the former candidates (Biden, Dodd, Edwards, Kucinich, etc.) + Gore and Carter spoke up in unison advocating that that whoever wins the pledged delegate battle should get the nomination.
-
I'm not sure the suggestion that each superdelegate vote according to his/her state or congressional district is the way to go. The "pledged delegate" process is complicated enough, but treating superdelegates as some sort of extra prize only further complicates things.
Remember that superdelegates include all sorts of elected officials and party leaders, and there is no guarantee that they are apportioned fairly among the states and congressional districts.
If the Democratic Party wants to assure that the candidate who wins the primary/caucus process becomes the nominee, then the bulk of the superdelegates should commit to supporting whoever wins the "pledged delegate" battle overall, without regard to what happened in their specific congressional district or state.
-
The Clintons want to trick you into signing that teaser rate mortgage contract. She cheated in Florida, Michigan, and took cheap shots in South Carolina. Do you trust them to abide by a jello solid oral agreement.
Who would have more energy on that convention floor?
Obama's people or Hillary's?
Who gets more votes when the mood gets contentious - Obama.
Where does turnout and energy go when it gets rough - Obama.
Have Democratic prospects been hurt by the battle that has taken place so far, NO. Then why fear the drama of Denver?
And how would John Edwards rather be remembered as the man who handed it to Hillary or Obama?
Stay the course.
The comments to this entry are closed.
Tim C on Feb 8, 2008 8:08:36 AM:
The superdelegate problem was discussed last night on Dan Abram's show on MSNBC. Superdelegate Barbara Boxer of CA said before the CA primary that her vote would be determined by where the CA voters fell on election day. Rep. John Adams of Washington said that there are discussions among the superdelegates around voting as their states or congressional districts did. Many of the superdelegates are becoming concerned that should the Democratic nominee end up being selected by a "council of elders", it would so alienate supporters of the loser that the party would be broken for the general election. Superdelegates are the outcome of the 1982 convention fight between Carter and Kennedy. For whatever reason, the party leadership became frightened of a contentious convention. Instead of being where the nominee is decided, they just want the convention to be where the nominee is anointed. It is interesting that no one in that segment on Abram's show was in favor of the superdelegate system and these guests were all people deeply involved in Democratic party politics. As one said, "What's wrong with 3 or 4 or 5 ballots?" That's just the way politics sometimes work.
A big worry of Howard Dean seems to be that if no Democratic nominee is selected before the convention in August that they will spend the summer attacking each other rather than the Republicans, but the party created that problem itself. At one time, conventions were held 4 or 5 weeks after the last primary. The delegates were selected, the convention convened and the nominee selected. They didn't have 3 or 4 months of dead space between the primaries and the convention. Maybe, instead of being frightened of having a real convention, they should look at their scheduling.