Gee, it’s a close contest and the posturing is taking place in front of the media. Go figure.
If the “super delegates” are truly evil, shouldn’t our leading candidates give them up? Is Barack Obama going to give up Kathleen Sebelius (Governor of Kansas) or Claire McCaskill (Senator from Missouri), just to name a few? Is Hillary Clinton going to give up Emmanuel Cleaver and Dick Gephardt? I don’t think so.
“…If 795 of my colleagues decide this election, I will quit the Democratic Party. I feel very strongly about this,” Donna Brazile told CNN this week.
Brazile, who managed Al Gore’s presidential campaign in 2000, is herself a super delegate…
As the campaign manager for Al Gore in 2000 she was lining up “super delegates” in their campaign facing Bill Bradley. Where were her complaints then? Just asking.
Could it be that the candidate she currently backs benefits from all this “storm and stress”?
“Super delegates” are “democratic”? You bet.
Actually, all “super delegates” in Missouri stand for election in one fashion or another.
When you vote for a Democratic Governor, a Democratic U.S. Senator, or a Democratic U.S. Representative in our state you are actually also voting to make them a party “super delegates”.
Further, in Missouri, delegates to the state party convention are elected starting in county caucuses (this year on February 28) by Democrats to become delegates to their Congressional District “convention” and the state convention (held on May 10th). At the state convention the state delegates elect the state’s members of the Democratic National Committee, who are also “super delegates” by virtue of the job.
Every two years precinct committee members for all parties are elected (as per state statute) in the August primary by voters in their precinct. These precinct committee people elect, in turn, the members of the party legislative district and state senate committees. The members of the state senate committees elect two members of the state party committee. Every four years the state party committee members elect the PLEO (party leader/elected official) delegates to the national convention. PLEO delegates are pledged and apportioned to the candidates based on the percentage of their statewide vote if it’s above the 15% threshold. The state committee also elects a small number of “unpledged add-ons” (I believe there are two).
As you can see, all delegates stand for election at some point. It is in fact a very democratic process. I’ve been through this at several levels, and believe you me, people vote on this stuff and the campaigning is tough. It’s like running a regular campaign.
Now, if you’re complaining that you don’t have a direct vote on all delegates that’s one thing. If you did, chances are people from St. Louis and Kansas City standing for election as delegates would always take the slots. Kansas City and St. Louis are rewarded with a higher proportion of delegates because of their history of strong Democratic Party turnout and support. Is that “democratic”?
In fact, most of the delegates are allocated by Congressional district (if I recall correctly, only 14 are elected statewide “at large” at the state convention). But, if you want to have a direct vote, show up to your county convention and run. Look at the rules (Delegate Selection Process) on the state party web site. If you want to have a say in the party, file to run for precinct committee member in late February (when all candidates file) and stand for election in the August primary (it’s an actual campaign if you have opposition).
It’s a somewhat complicated process for sure, but it isn’t overly so. Just don’t tell me that it’s “undemocratic”.
Add this to the fun: all Democratic delegates, including those “committed” to a candidate are not bound to vote for anyone on the first ballot. The party rules states that they should reflect the wishes of those who elected them, but they are not bound to that.
Add even more to the fun: People who want to run as delegates in close states like Missouri and who know the system will run as a delegate for one candidate when they actually supported another. This if they perceive that it’s an easier route to being elected as a delegate.
Here’s a helpful hint if you decide you want to run as a delegate to the state convention so that you can eventually run for the DNC and change the “super delegate” rules: By all means, if you’re new to political activism, make sure that you tell people who might vote for you and who have spent 20 or more years in the trenches working to elect Democrats to office (including Claire McCaskill and Susan Montee, both supporters of Barack Obama) that they don’t know squat about activism and that they and their party are “un-democratic”. I guarantee you that it’ll go over really well.
then if a majority of states and people voted for one candidate, and super delegates tipped the balance in favor of the other candidate, then yes super delegates would be behaving undemocratically. The fact that someone got elected 40 years ago shouldn’t give that person more of a say on who wins the primary.
Also, there are plenty of other perks to having spent 20 years in the trenches. There’s already a bias in favor of people who have worked in the party: you don’t need to institutionalize a “special status” for the politically connected.
who, afterall, will have no choice but to publically rally behind that individual. We give rank-and-file party members a majority say here in the U.S. which I think is good. However, I don’t think that it is evil that party officials and elected representatives get a real say in the person that will be their strategic and policy leader.
then the grassroots (or netroots) should also put the pressure super delegats in order to optimze rank-and-file influence even more.
The ones who are not in office are no longer accountable to any voters. So what kind of “pressure” can we really put on them? They are completely removed from the democratic process.
Of course; candidates can always offer them favors for voting for them; now that’s a great system!!
Right now Barack Obama has received more total votes by Democrats in the primaries and more pledged delegates.
I don’t believe that the super delegates will go against the wishes of the majority of Democrats who participated in the process. We all remember Gore v. Bush in 2000 when the person who got the most votes lost.
If we nominate someone who has fewer pledged delegates and received demonstrably fewer votes than another, we will guarantee an irreparable split in the Democratic Party that will give us four years of John “bomb, bomb, bomb Iran” McCain and a couple of more Alito-Scalia’s on the Supreme Court.
And, that is not speculation. That is merely stating a fact that should be clear to anyone concerned about a democratic process.
Donna Brazele recognizes this and is stating her position that is must not happen. Howard Dean, I believe recognizes this, and he is in the position he has because of the members of the DNC. I am sure he is communicating what must happen.
Let’s see who wins today and next week. And, who wins in Ohio and Texas. I think the Democrats in the primary will have made clear who they want and the super delegates will ratify that decision.
If early March is a clear victory or draw for the person ahead at that point, we will know who are nominee is and the super delegates will confirm it.
Any speculation now is ridiculous and counterproductive to unifying the party for the fall.
If “super delegates” are so evil, then why haven’t Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton repudiated the concept? Have I somehow missed the mad rush by either candidate to publicly disavow those “super delegates” who have already endorsed them?
[sound of crickets]
I thought so. Somebody’s spinning the media for their own agenda.
After the huge win Obama had in the Potomac Primary today, super delegates are not going to be an issue.
They are not going to give a candidate who received demonstrably fewer votes from ALL Democrats the nomination and they are not going to give the nomination to someone who goes to Denver with fewer pledged delegates.
If they do, they will have given the election to the Republicans.
I know I am not working nor giving money to a nominee who received fewer votes than the other candidate. With great reluctance, I will vote that person, but I will not convince anyone who will not join me.
Again, if superdelegate votes goes against what grassroots Democrats have done in the primaries, we will have successfully snatched defeat from the jaws of victory and jeopardize countless down ballot candidates, including Nixon being the next Governor.
I repeat it will not happen.
Mike Bersin is my good friend. I can think of no one who has helped build the Democratic Party more in Johnson County and west central Missouri than Mike.
We must all honor his enthusiastic support for Clinton.
He is now giving us the argument the Clinton campaign will use if the superdelegates vote dramatically differently in Denver from the pledged delegates.
It is a losing argument on two counts.
1) It ignores the fact that the vast majority of Democrats who participated in the primary have chosen Barack Obama. And, given 2000, it will be ironic that the person who wins the most votes loses. My good friend can use the Clinton argument that caucuses are not democratic, but that certainly is an argument after the fact. Does anyone truly believe a Clinton supporter would use that argument if she had won more than just Nevada?
2) It ignores the fact that, if the superdelegates do vote dramatically differently from how the millions of Democrats who have already participated in the primaries have voted, the party will split apart (Donna Brazele will not be alone in leaving the party) and give the election to McCain and Jay Nixon will not be the next governor of the state of Missouri. That is a FACT. Clinton supporters had better recognize it and stop pinning their hopes on the superdelegates selecting Clinton over the wishes of the Democrats who have voted in the primaries all across the country.
The superdelegates are not evil. They are just irrelevant to the selection of our nominee. Millions of Democrats are the ones who will select our nominee and right now it is unambiguous that the clear majority want Barack Obama.
My prediction: After the results on March 4, when Clinton recognizes she will be unable to overcome the clear lead in pledged delegates, she will graciously suspend her campaign and we will all unite to defeat John McCain and create a landslide of 1932/1964 proportions.
I know our decision should be based on the candidate and not the campaign, but for someone who has 35 years of experience and will be ready on day one, it is interesting to wonder why one of her most important campaign people says really stupid things.
Here is Mark Penn on a conference call will reporters.
This is a campaign that ignored small states and went all in on super Tuesday. If he really means we are not significant (of course, he could be just stupid), what kind of activities by the Clinton campaign will we see in Missouri?
A statement like this raises serious questions about what to expect from the Clinton campaign in Missouri in the fall. The Clinton campaign has not finished cleaning out the incompetence.