The Superdelegate Criteria

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 07:13:47 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

By Big Tent Democrat

Here's one standard:

This is America. I have freedom of speech and freedom of choice and I'm free to change my vote. I don't have to answer to anyone except God and my conscience.
-Christine Samuels, Superdelegate, New Jersey

I think that is fair. I think the popular vote should be her guide but the rules clearly allow her to make her own independent choice. That the state she represents voted by double digits for the opponent of the person Ms. Andrews has endorsed clearly indicates that she is not following the will of the voters.

Is Ms. Samuels subverting democracy? Does Move On condemn this move? How about the Super Delegate Transparency Project? Is Barack Obama encouraging the subversion of democracy by accepting the endorsement of Ms. Samuels (or Sens. Kerry and Kennedy, and Gov. Deval Patrick of MA)? Of course not. But it just goes to show how ridiculous some people look when they lambaste in the most outrageous ways the candidates in this race. For the sake of their own credibility, I hope that folks learn to have a little bit of measured judgment before going off on their latest tirade against either Obama or Clinton.

< Hillary Clinton Wins New Mexico | Abrams: The Media Shoudn't Write Off Hillary Clinton >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

The Superdelegate Criteria | 60 comments (60 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

The will of the people (5.00 / 1) (#4)
by wasabi on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 07:23:00 PM EST

Big question as to how the superdelegates should vote. Is it by popular vote in the state, by popular vote in the district, by state delegate count, delegate count per district, national delegate count, national vote count? So many ways to interpret the "will of the people".

if the superdelegates don't vote for my candidate (5.00 / 5) (#14)
by Turkana on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 07:49:56 PM EST

they are undermining freedom and democracy.

No (none / 0) (#27)
by marcellus on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 08:31:30 PM EST

A superdelegate is free to vote their conscience according to the rules. For the good of the party's chances in the General Election, it would be preferrable if they did it with civility. They are not required to do so.


Re "according to the rules" (none / 0) (#30)
by oculus on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 08:35:09 PM EST

Where may I look to find the rules?


: The Rules (none / 0) (#36)
by marcellus on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 08:54:09 PM EST

of how to vote as SD? I don't really know, I assume there's some backroom dealing involved, favors called, while the elected one's might want to pander to their constituency. Or if they stand up with conviction for their vote, that might impress their constituency also.

Can someone please tell me (5.00 / 3) (#16)
by Kathy on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 08:05:41 PM EST

one instance--and I mean a real one--where Obama has united this country?

I'm very serious here, because that's the big claim from his supporters--and it's said in Ms. Samuels' statement.

Please give me a concrete example. And I don't mean in the IL senate. That is not the country--that is an arm of the Daley Machine. Or his vaunted ethics bill, because making senators stand up at a cocktail party while they eat their caviar has nothing to do with uniting the actual PEOPLE of America.

One example.

No I can't. (5.00 / 1) (#21)
by Mike Pridmore on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 08:16:05 PM EST

My further thoughts on that are here.


He hasn't (5.00 / 1) (#24)
by auntmo on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 08:20:39 PM EST

In fact, look how divided we all are now.


Oh please (none / 0) (#26)
by marcellus on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 08:27:13 PM EST

The standing up, sitting down thing has been disproven hasn't it? and is a cheap shot in any case.

Obama has unified the country many, many times. If you don't want to see it...


answer my question, then (5.00 / 1) (#28)
by Kathy on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 08:32:20 PM EST

You say he has united the country many, many times.

I really want to see it. Tell me how he has done this. One concrete example.


One Personal Example (none / 0) (#32)
by marcellus on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 08:42:49 PM EST

I'll try just one personal example, but I can't guarantee you'll see it. There are many, many more.

1. After GWB's war on terror, I live in the middle of the reddest states, and my work environment became a "white male club" in 2004 that it wasn't earlier. Out of 15-20 people, 2 women and 2 minorities left/were fired. I was soon one of only 2 minorities left, and at the brink of being forced out due to my race. At the same time, I was stopped and harrassed by police, 3 times in between 2003-2005. I'm sure that Barack Obama's candidacy has changed the tone of the paranoia that people speak about at my work environment. The next interview we have, a female candidate is being seriously considered (something that was officially voiced against by a supervisor).


I am in no way invalidating (none / 0) (#38)
by Kathy on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 08:56:02 PM EST

your personal experience, which to my thinking sounds like a completely unacceptable situation, but you must understand that, to me, this is in no way indicative of Obama uniting the country. His legitimacy as a candidate has perhaps given you a sense of personal pride, but the original challenge I made was for a concrete example of where Barrack Obama has personally united the country.

As a rhetorical device, I could just as easily argue that Hillary Clinton united the country because your employer is seriously considering a female candidate.

Do you see what I mean?


Not Really (none / 0) (#42)
by marcellus on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 08:59:09 PM EST

Because about 1/3 are voting Obama, 2/3 McCain. It is the specific discussion of his candidacy and his first book that I had a couple of more sympathetic ones read that changed the tone in my office. Hillary didn't enter the discussion.


: I have also (none / 0) (#45)
by marcellus on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 09:01:26 PM EST

read Hillary Clinton's book Living History, and did not find it to be similarly inspirational. Note that I am in no way dismissing your right to vote for her. I only explain my vote with the example you asked for.

: Or to be more accurate (none / 0) (#53)
by marcellus on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 09:13:36 PM EST

the 2/3 other side, probably voted for Huckabee and Romney in the primaries.

Since Hillary Clinton is a woman and (none / 0) (#44)
by Dan the Man on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 09:00:48 PM EST

The next interview we have, a female candidate is being seriously considered (something that was officially voiced against by a supervisor)

wouldn't it be more plausible to say it was Hillary Clinton, and not Obama, who caused the changed since Clinton is a woman and Obama is not?


Sady no (none / 0) (#46)
by marcellus on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 09:04:14 PM EST

they still continue their sexist bashing of Hillary Clinton. I swear that I defend Hillary with what opportunity I can in personal conversations. If I was in a stronger position I would have lodged an official complaint when the earlier woman was fired a couple of years back.


marcellus (none / 0) (#47)
by Kathy on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 09:06:03 PM EST

obviously, this is a deeply personal thing for you, and I am very sorry that you have to continue to work in such an awful environment.


I'm actually looking for a (none / 0) (#50)
by marcellus on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 09:11:44 PM EST

new job and hoping to California soon! The land of milk and honey! In any case, I will vote for Hillary if she is nominated, and I only urge you to keep an open mind about Obama. The coalition and the passion we feel is real.


: I for one will say (none / 0) (#59)
by Marvin42 on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 09:34:53 PM EST

I really would love to vote for Sen Obama in eight years. This is really not a dig. I think if he was VP for eight years he would:
a) Gain more experience (important to me),
b) Help the democratic party a great deal more than winning the primary now, because I believe he would lose to McCain, and if he was VP he would almost guarantee a 16 year lock on the White House for democrats. I think he would be unbeatable in 8 years.
And this is really how I feel, and is not in any way meant to put down the Senator or his supporters.

: I tried to keep an open mind about Obama (none / 0) (#64)
by BrandingIron on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 07:02:25 AM EST

But I just can't do it. He's dividing/conquering his own party on preaches (not speeches), the anti-gay issue isn't just about McClurkin (it's about the two other anti-gay musical acts he had at that three-day gospel tour at the end of his "40 Days of Faith and Family" tour throughout South Carolina where he was specifically aiming towards securing the vote of homophobic churchgoers), it's about the lies that keep popping up from the pond like dead fish, it's about using the race card before he even accused the Clintons of doing so, it's about running negative ads and then accusing John Edwards of running negative ads...it's a whole host of things that I've discovered after further examining Obama as a candidate and as a person of great ambition (and greater potential, but he is squandering it by making the wrong choices). He has lost me where he would've had me if he hadn't turned out to be upholding the status quo while at the same time insisting that he was the candidate for progressives. Sorry, but the everything about what he allowed to happen on behalf of his campaign in South Carolina is -not- in the least progressive/"liberal".

But is it a black female candidate? (none / 0) (#55)
by Cream City on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 09:26:27 PM EST

I may have missed that, but -- if she's white, how does this fit your frame that this was due to Obama, not Clinton?


I think there is very much (5.00 / 4) (#19)
by Mike Pridmore on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 08:11:52 PM EST

a move for Obama supporters to have their cake and eat it too. When it comes to seating the FL and MI delegates they want to play by the rules. And not just the rules but specifically their interpretation of the rules. They think they can use the rules to keep Hillary from getting delegates there. But when it comes to superdelegates they don't want to play by the rules at all. The rules were for independent superdelegates, elected officials that know what it means to run for office and appeal to voters, to have a chance to influence the process. The one time they decided things gave us Walter Mondale over Gary Hart, but the expected reform that would have changed the rules and eliminated the independence of superdelegates has never taken place. The rule that superdelegates be independents still in place.

BRAVO (5.00 / 1) (#23)
by auntmo on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 08:19:25 PM EST

I am an Obama supporter ... (5.00 / 2) (#31)
by Meteor Blades on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 08:37:38 PM EST

...(my first choice couldn't have run, my second choice failed to declare, my third choice had the ideas but not the organizing abilities and my fourth choice gave up after coming in third too many times), so I concededly came my stance rather late, though in time to cast my ballot for the Senator on February 5.

Nonetheless, I agree with you, Mike. While I have strong criticisms of the Clinton campaign, and Clinton's views on many subjects, there is a major double-standard among many Obama supporters when it comes to the discussion of super-delegates and the discussion of super-delegates vs. Florida/Michigan.


: I've been fighting (none / 0) (#35)
by Mike Pridmore on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 08:53:57 PM EST

tooth and nail for her, but I don't agree with Senator Clinton on everything either. I think her new anti-special-interest emphasis is a good move on her part to address one of her perceived weaknesses.

Representative Ron Kind (WI-3) (none / 0) (#1)
by Ben Masel on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 07:19:10 PM EST

says he'll vote with the majority of his largely rural SW Wisconsin District. I figure it narrowly favors Obama.

For Members from Districts that have not yet voted, this seems the easy option, you don't risk offending either Candidate.

Barbara Boxer stated she would vote (none / 0) (#3)
by oculus on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 07:21:30 PM EST

the way CA went.

Ms. Andrews's rationale is quite interesting. HRC ignored me and my kids had a great deal to do with my decision to switch to Obama.

Well SD's are supposed to vote (none / 0) (#5)
by Florida Resident on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 07:24:45 PM EST

independently of their states results if they think it is the correct thing to do. I just hope that this quiets down the chat on having to vote with the popular vote or we will revolt talk.

You've come to an appreciation (none / 0) (#7)
by Alien Abductee on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 07:27:47 PM EST

of the value of civility. And in the middle of a primary campaign much less.

How very strange.

Do the Dem. written rules (none / 0) (#9)
by oculus on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 07:34:57 PM EST

contain anything on how a Super D may or should cast a Super D vote?

: Short answer: apparently not. (none / 0) (#12)
by oculus on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 07:48:44 PM EST

Checked the party website and searched for "super delegate." Nada.

it is perhaps the oldest debate (none / 0) (#11)
by Tano on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 07:39:43 PM EST

in the history of representative democracy.

Does one, as a representative, vote according to one's judgement and conscience - given that one has an intimate knowledge of the issues relative to the people you represent, and should be thinking through consequences as your full time job?

Or does one give the people want they say they want?

Though there are well thought out arguments on both sides, I imagine that every representative eventually finds some middle ground. Rely on your own judgement, as opposed to the wishes of the people, too often, and you dont survive. Be nothing but a funnel for the thoughts of your people and you may end up failing them because they may not see the unintended consequences that you can see.

I imagine the superdels will go through this conflict and muddle through some how, although responding to a mob sensation, if one arises, is also part of the mix.

But a political party (none / 0) (#15)
by Alien Abductee on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 07:53:53 PM EST

isn't government. It's a voluntary association that has a goal of winning political power for its members. The SDs should be attending to that goal.

The popular vote and the delegate totals already each provide their own weight in the decision making process. The weight of the SD vote should be based on the independent judgment of the SDs, just as the one quoted here says, though for the purpose of advancing the prospects of the party to win, which she doesn't mention.


Yes (none / 0) (#22)
by auntmo on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 08:16:27 PM EST

And by locking the SD's into pledged delegate count, as Obama supporters want, essentially, they're changing the rules in the middle of the game, which they purport to be AGAINST.

Tad confusing, eh?


locking? (5.00 / 1) (#40)
by Tano on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 08:57:45 PM EST

Are the Obama people trying to pass some rule that will bind the superdels to the pleged delegate winner?

I dont think so. There is no rule-changing going on. Perhaps you are confusing an attempt to persuade with an attempt to change rules?


Shoudl not Move On (none / 0) (#43)
by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 08:59:26 PM EST

criticize Ms. Samuels for this?


: What does it matter what MoveOn says? (none / 0) (#52)
by Alien Abductee on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 09:13:18 PM EST

The important thing is that both candidates are maneuvering in order to win. Politics is the art of persuasion, and seeing if they can persuade SDs to whatever reading of the rules most favors them is just another part of the job interview, imo.

Ah (none / 0) (#25)
by Alien Abductee on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 08:25:34 PM EST

Obama, root of all evil in this campaign. I guess you've nailed it.

::eye roll::


Yes, but super-delegates aren't ... (none / 0) (#34)
by Meteor Blades on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 08:43:53 PM EST

...ELECTED as super-delegates, they are, in essence, appointed, even though most of them are elected officials in some capacity. But, when you elect your Representative in Congress, do you think about that being the person you want to make a weighted decision about who should be Nominee/President.

The rules are the rules. The question now is whether the rules should be changed for the next time around. Does the purer McGovern-Fraser rules of 1969 make more sense than the modified rules of 1976-1984 (by which we got super-delegates). One argues for more democracy, one for more stability. Is the current compromise the right or wrong balance?


: Actually, I'm so wonky-weird that I did (none / 0) (#37)
by Cream City on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 08:55:59 PM EST

keep in mind that electing my state officials and Congress members meant they would be super-delegates, too. That's how much winning back the White House meant to me -- what it would take every step of the way, which I mapped out years ago. But then, I'm a convention watcher and campaign worker from 'way back and well recall the debacles that led to the super-delegates, so we wouldn't go there as a party again.
I recently said to someone complaining about s-d's, a very politically wonky type, too, that he ought to have realized he was electing our state's s-d's when he voted for them as our governor, members of Congress, etc. And he said I'm probably the only person in my entire state who did so. Not so! Ibet the governor, members of Congress, etc., had it in mind.:-)

Well (none / 0) (#13)
by Korha on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 07:49:25 PM EST

Is Ms. Samuels subverting democracy?

If she votes against a decisive majority of both the overall popular vote AND pledged delegates, then yes I think she is. What people are getting up in arms about is the unlikely but still real possibility of this scenario occuring. Obviously if, say, Clinton wins the popular vote without MI/Florida but Obama leads in pledged delegates, or if the pledged delegate count is very close, then it's justifiable for the superdelegates to step in and decide things.

But look, the most likely outcome at this point is that neither Clinton or Obama will be able to achieve an unquestionably decisive victory among regular voters, and if it comes down to superdelegates, one side is going to feel really cheated. So frankly I think the DNC, Howard Dean, et al. need to step in no later than mid-March and broker an arrangement between the two candidates SOMEHOW. Otherwise the situation is going to become more and more charged, and that will be really bad for our party and for our chances in November.

However, for those of us old enough (none / 0) (#17)
by Cream City on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 08:10:32 PM EST

to remember brokered conventions, they meant a lot of "free publicity" -- tv coverage -- for our party. I grew up getting to stay up (with very political parents) until all hours to watch conventions broadcast late into the night. And much of America watched. (Okay, admittedly, there weren't many channels and not much else to watch except for Milton Berle, Kukla and Ollie, etc. . . .)

I agree there are potential downsides -- but it's not that there are no upsides. There are good ones, at least in the good old days when the commentators shut up and let the cameras just roll, so we could see speakers like Estes Kefauver roll on and on.


WHAT? (5.00 / 1) (#49)
by oldpro on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 09:11:12 PM EST

You left out FRAN?!?

Jeez...women never get the credit they deserve....sigh...


: omg, I knew it didn't sound right! (5.00 / 1) (#56)
by Cream City on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 09:29:54 PM EST

But I liked Kukla and Ollie more. There, I admit it. Fran just never got my groove on. Whew, I feel so much better now, unloading that at long last. . . .
(And believe me, Uncle Miltie never did it for me other. But Ernie Kovacs? He was hot, hot, hot!)

You are on to something (none / 0) (#29)
by kenosharick on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 08:34:00 PM EST

people might actually watch our convention for a change. Viewership has been declining (no suspense) for decades.


Networks might actually SHOW (none / 0) (#39)
by Cream City on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 08:57:06 PM EST

our convention again, instead of soundbytes and cutting away in prime time for reruns.


Ponder me this. Assuming (none / 0) (#62)
by oculus on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 01:48:44 AM EST

HRC gets the nomination, who should she tap to give the keynote speech?


: Zel Miller (none / 0) (#65)
by BrandingIron on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 07:09:09 AM EST

because he was d@mn entertaining to watch!

Publicity: Good Outcome: Bad (none / 0) (#61)
by Socraticsilence on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 11:21:26 PM EST

While Brokered conventions are more compelling, I ouwld note that they don't often produce winners.


I think a supperdelegate... (none / 0) (#18)
by Jerrymcl89 on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 08:11:12 PM EST

...really ought to be able to make some case that they are doing the will of the people. Voting for the candidate who carried their state or congressional district works. As does voting for the candidate with the most pledged delegates. And if the pledged delegates are very close and the MI and FL delegations are not seated, I could see some superdelegates supporting Hillary in the belief that that should be corrected.

But simply voting from personal loyalty against any defensible view of the will of the people doesn't seem right to me.

The will of the Democratic people (none / 0) (#57)
by Cream City on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 09:31:45 PM EST

-- not all those "Dems for a Day" -- is that a Democrat win back the White House.

My super-d's had better keep that in mind, or else . . . as they are accountable to me when they come up for re-election. And that's not true of the pledged delegates, who have no accountability to me at all.


: Well, I agree. (none / 0) (#60)
by Jerrymcl89 on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 10:22:30 PM EST

There are a lot of different ways that a superdelegate can defend their position. But they need to pick one, and "I know better than the people" isn't it.

this is a republic not a democracy (none / 0) (#20)
by hue on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 08:14:34 PM EST

the framers set it up that way, hence the electoral college. and the Democratic primary process is neither.

Superdelegates should vote any way they choose. like Jeralyn has said, if you don't like the rules, change them after. if SDs are supposed to just follow the popular vote or the pledged-delegate totals, then what is the point of having SDs?

Especially since (none / 0) (#33)
by badger on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 08:42:51 PM EST

the "pledged" delegates can also vote anyway they choose. They're representatives, not proxies, and very few are bound by law or party rules to vote for the delegate they're pledged to.


Some are until the second ballot, (none / 0) (#41)
by Cream City on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 08:58:27 PM EST

some after the second ballot, etc., per their states' rules. Sure, they could bolt and not be arrested for it -- but they better not want a seat in the room of their state parties again.


the Edwards pledged delegates (none / 0) (#48)
by Kathy on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 09:08:37 PM EST

are probably on an all expenses paid vacation on an island in Tahiti right now...


: Edwards hasn't released them yet, so (none / 0) (#58)
by Cream City on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 09:33:28 PM EST

it's him that would be enjoying Tahiti, and with Elizabeth, if they could. I hope she is well and am thinking of her in this "Think Pink" week for women's health.

Honor anyone (none / 0) (#51)
by Salt on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 09:13:13 PM EST

Good advice (none / 0) (#63)
by robrecht on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 06:49:29 AM EST

For the sake of their own credibility, I hope that folks learn to have a little bit of measured judgment before going off on their latest tirade against either Obama or Clinton.

BTW, I've noticed some perfectly legitimate comments being deleted here.