I was going to post something trenchant today but I've had a couple students and a commenter ask me what in the flying hell a "Superdelegate" is and why they are suddenly important. If you really want to know, let's take a tour into the grimy fine print of the Democratic Party's internal rules governing nominations. Superdelegates (that's a media term; they're actually called uncommitted or unpledged delegates) have been in place for 40 years but have never mattered. Now they might. So I suspect a lot of America, media and candidates included, are suddenly scrambling to learn the rules. Believe it or not, what you are about to read is the short version.
buy doxycycline online buy doxycycline no prescription
First, some history.
Prior to 1970 the presidential nominees were chosen by delegates at the national conventions. And by "chosen by delegates" I mean they were chosen by the delegates. At the convention. Not in primaries. A few states held primaries but they were simply popularity contests – the candidates tried to show off their electability to the delegates. So who were these delegates? Insiders. Party insiders. Each state chose a delegation to attend the convention composed entirely of local party bosses, state party chairmen, and so on.
Then the debacle of 1968 came along and America got to watch the Democratic Party douse itself in gas and light a match. On national television. Despite the fact that the 1968 primaries were contested among Eugene McCarthy, RFK (until he was shot, of course), and in the late stages, George McGoven, the convention delegates' infinite wisdom saw fit to nominate incumbent VP Hubert Humphrey. In short, the "insider" system highlighted how removed from reality the delegates could be and how little grasp they had on which candidates the party faithful supported.
In the wake of this disaster the Democratic Party instituted the reforms of the McGovern-Fraser commission, empaneled to fix the nominating process. The major reform was, obviously, the decision to award delegates to candidates based on the result of state-by-state primaries and caucuses. These are referred to as committed delegates. They are awarded proportionally. So, in a simplified example, if Iowa has 10 delegates and the results are Clinton 50%, Obama 30%, and Edwards 20%, they get 5, 3, and 2 delegates respectively. These delegate MUST vote for said candidate at the convention (unless, as usually happens, the losing candidates quit and ask their delegates to support the frontrunner).
BUT. McGovern-Fraser reforms didn't totally eliminate the privileged position enjoyed by DNC members and other party honchos. They created a separate category of delegates who are uncommitted. Their votes at the convention do not in any way have to relate to the primaries – just like in the old days. Approximately 18% of the ~4000 delegates (changes regularly but is always in this ballpark) are uncommitted delegates, a.k.a. Superdelegates.
Who in the hell cooked up this arcane system and why? Simple – avoid at all costs the televised meltdown/free-for-all of 1968. By making 1 in 5 delegates uncommitted, they are absolutely guaranteeing that someone will get a decisive majority at the convention. The Superdelegates were originally intended to act in unison to break ties or create a majority when none exists. Of course, being uncommitted they don't have to do so. They can do whatever they damn well please.
So. Where does this leave us for 2008? Assume that Obama and Clinton will continue to essentially split things in the primaries. In theory, that will leave it to the Superdelegates. Advantage? Clinton. These people are the inside-iest of insiders. DNC folks. Fund raisers. In other words, the kind of people who'd have personal connections to and favor someone with decades of deep roots in the Party. While Obama was a nobody state senator 6 years ago, HRC has been one of the five heaviest hitters in the Democratic apparatus for two decades.
Why does Ed think it won't come to this? Obama is not stupid, and he knows which direction the winds blow with the Superdelegates.
buy zovirax online buy zovirax no prescription
And both candidates are bright enough to realize how much of an advantage the GOP will have if Obama and Clinton continue to grind away at each other until the very end of the primary season (May). The insiders will sit down with Obama for the Here's Reality speech. He'll realize that the overwhelming balance of the uncommitted delegates are essentially Clinton delegates, and he will yield from the race in return for some sort of concession.
VP? I doubt it. Obama loathes the Clintons and vice-versa.
But one never knows.
If you want to see who the Superdelegates are, look here. I can guarantee you that you've not heard of more than a handful of them (the ex-presidents, for example). Note that the nomination rules are set by the parties and none of what you've just read is true of the GOP. They voluntarily adopted some McGovern-Fraser reforms and instituted primaries/caucuses in place of the old convention system, but they did not adopt all of the proposed changes. They do have a small number of unpledged delegates but their purpose and manner of selection are different.
So that's a Superdelegate. With wicked mad skills like this, I can't imagine why women do not flock to me.
Brandon says:
Thanks for the explanation, Ed. Call me crazy, but the whole thing seems quite sensible to me. I mean, the decision to institute primaries and caucases after '68 was intended to inject more of a popular input into the nominating process. But, it does seem that there must be a mechanism in place to break essential deadlocks like the one we are witnessing now. I guess you could criticize it for leaving too much power in the hands of insiders, but our system for selecting party nominees is still far more decentralized than in most countries. Anyways, it would be interesting to hear if anybody has suggestions for reforming the process.
Batocchio says:
Thanks! Helpful. This is one of the better write-ups I've seen. I'm glad the Dems don't do a winner-takes-all system, but the superdelegates still concern me.
Michael says:
I wonder though. Obama has to know this math equally well. Presumably, he's trying to make inroads with the superdelegates. It seems like some could see the opportunity to play kingmaker and guarantee access to a new administration. Particulalry with Romney officially out, people have to be thinking about whether a Clinton campaign would fire up the conservative base in a way that McCain really can't on his own. There's not much a superdelegate can cash in on if a Republican wins the White House.
That being said, I've predicted just about everything 100% wrong throughout the primaries.
Ed says:
Obama is definitely going to try to work these people – I just don't think it will work. Clinton is more connected, she's "safer" (i.e. Obama is too "radical", which is a sad commentary on the state of the party. Also, black.), and she's probably going to have the delegate lead coming out of the primaries.
As for Clinton firing up the GOP base…with time, I am starting to think that trope is bullshit. What state is that going to deliver? All it really does is increase victory margins in Alabama. So what. Bill Clinton f'n owned Ohio in the 1990s, and I see no reason why the two of them can't deliver it again. If that's secured, the Conservative Base can get as fired up as it wants for all I care. Take either of the last two elections and flip Ohio, different result. I find it hard to believe that a fired-up GOP base takes away any of the Kerry states from 2004.
J. Dryden says:
Great post–I may refer some of my own students to it. I think I would have to side on the "one never knows" part of your point re: Obama taking the Veep slot. History is of course rife with Ps/VPs who mutually despised each other–Kennedy and Johnson probably couldn't have hated each other more if they'd each slept with the other's wife. (Come to think of it…) Party loyalty and–more important–the guarantee of a subsequent nomination if the ticket wins will, I think, win out. Clinton/Obama is a winning ticket. (Never thought I'd use those words in that order.) Obama's young, and taking the Veep slot is the smart play, as I'm sure more than one person has said to him by now. His idealism may, of course, win out; he may wish to play the odds and hope that Clinton loses. But potentially hating your ticket-mate probably isn't a decent reason to turn down the slot, among grown-ups, and both Clinton and Obama strike me as being that, at least.
pmayo says:
_As for Clinton firing up the GOP base…with time, I am starting to think that trope is bullshit. What state is that going to deliver?_
Solid point. Hard to imagine a conservative base more fired up than the 2004 election, when they were at the height of their theocratic power, and if Democratic voter turnouts hold in the way they have been in primaries and Clinton can take Ohio, I don't see how she couldn't beat McCain.
Rick says:
Re: Women
Simple, Ed. Show them your Superdelegate. ::zing!::