Left Flank

LiberalOasis' Bill Scher is the optimist in the superdelegate debate today, and I need some optimism. Here's hoping for a blowout, just so that the Democrats don't look undemocratic. But then, Conn Carroll (who's the liberal here?) ruins it with his progressive coup scenario.

Fortunately, Kevin Drum rebuts the progressive presumption and Daniel W. Drezner skewers the logic of this incipient undemocratic reaction to what is the result of not establishing a national primary system. If states can decide when to hold their primaries and caucuses, then the two parties will just have to deal with the mess. Ultimately, it's the DNC's fault for not doing at least what the GOP did, taking half the delegate count.

Speaking of democracy, here's a primer on how delegate selection works.

Florida Democrats refuse to play ball with the DNC, and consider themselves kingmakers.

The Democratic National Committee says Michigan and Florida could discard their primary results and hold state conventions or caucuses to allocate delegates by June 10, the party deadline for holding nominating contests. And Michigan might consider doing that.

But Florida Democrats ruled out that approach last summer, arguing it would cost the state party millions of dollars it doesn't have.

And now, after a record 1.7 million Democrats cast ballots Jan. 29, state Democrats say there's no way they will hold another nominating contest.

"Our position hasn't changed," said Alejandro Miyar, a Florida Democratic Party spokesman. "We're very satisfied that we held a fair, open election Jan. 29 and that Florida Democrats spoke in big numbers."

Even Jon Ausman, a Leon County Democratic activist who had tried to push state leaders into holding caucuses, now says the primary results should stand.

"When you have 1.7 million Florida Democrats voting, even I have to say, 'Wow,' " said Ausman, who had backed Edwards and now says he's neutral.

Ausman instead is turning his attention toward getting the state's 22 superdelegates an active role in the Denver convention, saying they are protected by the party's national charter and can't be banned.

I'm writing down names for any other races in November. It looks like my only vote for the Democrats will be for president.

Oh damn, there has to be a few in Congress to pass health care. Alright, but this is probation!

  Finally! TNR writes an editorial with gravity and perspicacity. And, yes, the Clinton campaign is desperate, but not enough that I would condone this transparent stunt.

The back story is simple: The Florida and Michigan legislatures moved their primaries forward in the calendar to exert greater influence on the nominating process. But, by scheduling their primaries before February 5, they broke rules set by both the Democratic and the Republican parties. The GOP punished these scofflaw states by stripping them of half their delegates to the Republican National Convention. The Democratic National Committee (DNC) took them all away--and, so, the Democratic candidates did not campaign in these states.

Without ads and stump speeches--Obama's name wasn't even on the ballot in Michigan--the actual primary votes in these states were meaningless beauty contests, and perhaps not even that. Knowing that their ballots meant nothing, many voters stayed home. And, as everyone expected, Hillary romped to victory on the basis of her brand name and voters' lack of familiarity with the alternatives.

You can certainly debate the merits of the DNC's move. What is beyond debate, though, is that all the major Democratic campaigns accepted this move without complaint. Clinton, along with her rivals, signed a pledge not to "participate" in the Michigan and Florida primaries.

But as soon as it became clear, in the wake of Iowa and on the eve of South Carolina, that Clinton potentially faced an extended battle for delegates, she began to demand that the rules be changed in the middle of the game. Her campaign has been arguing that the non-contested elections in Michigan and Florida should be made retroactively meaningful--and, therefore, that Clinton should be handed a gift of nearly 200 delegates. The Clinton team has wrapped its case in the logic of voter disenfranchisement. "I hear all the time from people in Florida and Michigan that they want their voices heard in selecting the Democratic nominee," Clinton has said.

There is a perfectly cogent case to be made that Floridians and Michiganders deserve their say. (Some of our best friends and elderly relatives reside in those states.) The way to address this complaint is to schedule new elections so that candidates can advertise, make speeches, organize voters, distribute yard signs--you know, do "democracy," a concept Clinton seems not to understand. The DNC, if it does decide to redress Clinton's complaint, needs to do so immediately.

The New Republic hasn't endorsed any candidate in this race. Our staff is divided, like the Democratic electorate.

But neutral observers can't stand idly by as one campaign openly discusses stealing the nomination at the convention. Democrats need to recognize this potential gambit for what it is: a cynical, selfish hijacking of the democratic process. Clinton would not be laying the groundwork for this ploy unless it was potentially decisive. And the damage to Democrats (and democrats) would be profound. If Clinton is truly willing to trample so many institutions she professes to care about in pursuit of victory, she will have proven her enemies correct.

Keep up the good work, TNR! Twenty or more such good editorials might just keep my money flowing to you! However, nice try, but Tad Devine is dead on:

Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Obama, and their campaigns, are pressuring superdelegates to pledge support to them before Democratic voters in the remaining primaries and caucuses have made their decisions. But Democratic leaders need to let the voters sort out which one of these two remarkable people will lead our party and, we hope, the nation.

After listening to the voters, the superdelegates can do what the Democratic Party's rules originally envisioned. They can ratify the results of the primaries and caucuses in all 50 states by moving as a bloc toward the candidate who has proved to be the strongest in the contest that matters — not the inside game of the delegate hunt, but the outside contest of ideas and inspiration, where hope can battle with experience and voters can make the right and best choice for our party and our future.

The Democratic party needs to restrain its fractious impulses before it sullies its democratic reputation and tosses the general election to the GOP. I've expressed my displeasure here often, and again on Lawyers, Guns, and Money's "The Superdelegate Question".

So, as a compromise, instead of executing the FL delegation (just joking!), as a penalty, why not compel the FL superdelegates to announce their pledges publicly and soon based on the results of the election mess they caused held last month. I know the elections were faulty, but as an expat I'm worried about being disenfranchised (again!). I doubt anything can be cobbled together in a short period of time to allow me to vote in absentia. And, I say this, too as an Obama supporter.

I'm astounded the DNC has not replied!

I'm just as concerned about the message that the Democratic party's rules about delegates and proportional representation sends to the broader electorate, but wait! What about the spectacle of a party that can't even follow its own rules because of its own ambition? What was so egregious about Florida's and Michigan's actions that necessitated this debacle? Floridians and Michiganders can deal with their own elected officials. Democrats are after all, democratic! With respect, Florida doesn't need Ezra Klein (or any other self-interested power-brokers) to tell us what's wrong with the Democratic party. Even more so, we're not flip-floppers and rule-breakers! It's the accretion of waffling and fractious behavior that will undo the Democratic party, not the behavior of any one member, however popular, in the end.

So, just stop, and let sleeping dogs lie! The Florida and Michigan delegations have already ruined my 2008 elections. Let's not provoke Democrats and independents to vote Republican! Or, change parties!

It's no longer a secret how the Democratic party will decide its presidential nominee. But, it's still not any easier to calculate the ranks of delegates and super-delegates. The Economist does as good a job as Reuters (above) explaining the mysterious X factor, the "super-delegates", and adds:

If the superdelegates were to force the selection of the candidate who won fewer of the ordinary delegates, it would be quite a propaganda gift to the Republicans. But if they conclude that Mrs Clinton, though ahead, cannot win against John McCain, they might just do it.

TNR's Dayo Olopade, though, dissents, arguing that superdelegates "don't really matter":

With many superdelegates, their voting status at the convention is just a minor part of why the campaigns are wooing them so fervently. But in the same way that a string of high-profile endorsements of Obama from red-state Democrats has been interpreted as a sign of his crossover appeal, examining the roster of superdelegates who have endorsed so far is revealing of larger dynamics in the party. Hillary Clinton has garnered the most support among women and Hispanic superdelegates, and is showing strongly with those from Washington, D.C. and Northeastern states like New York, New Jersey, and Massachusetts. She also holds a 99-31 advantage among unelected superdelegates, longtime party members who may already have personal relationships with the Clintons.

Still, the fluidity of superdelegate allegiances undermines the case for their disproportionate influence. Though a handful of superdelegates have clear affinities--Hillary and Bill Clinton, as well as Clinton campaign operatives Harold Ickes and Terry McAuliffe, for example, aren't impartial--support is often soft until the day of the convention. A majority have stayed uncommitted so far, and even those who have already endorsed a candidate are still technically «unpledged.» Furthermore, superdelegates follow the political tides--Clinton built a substantial lead among them when she led national polls throughout the summer, while several dozen superdelegates surged into Obama's camp after his Iowa victory. In 2004, superdelegates backpedaled from their endorsements of Dean, rallying around Kerry after he won early caucuses and primaries. (In most years, the also-rans symbolically turn over their delegates to the prospective nominee as well.

But let's say that the Clinton-Obama race remains dead-even, even after votes are in. The 350 or so superdelegates who have already pledged their support to a candidate are unlikely to jump ship, but the truly «unpledged» will face increasing pressure to make an affirmative decision. Of course, both candidates will continue their attempts to sway superdelegates, though Clinton certainly holds a natural advantage here. If these allegiances hold, an up-or-down vote on the convention floor could easily tip in her favor. But if history is any guide, the odds of such a dramatic rescue for either campaign are slim--unanimity is a powerful force for the Democrats, and barring an absolute tie, superdelegates are unlikely to side against the primary-season winner, the peoples' choice.

First, there was the 2000 presidential election, and now the Democratic primary race, both of which have been decided on a non-"democratic" basis. I f readers want to do so, they can wade through the Democratic party's manual. These selection rules for delegates were introduced after the 1980 election, and allow elected Democrats in national, state, and party office to guide party nominations.

I am not a progressive. The United States is a constitutional republic, not a direct, or even a representative, democracy. In Federalist No. 59, Alexander Hamilton, in this case speaking of the Senate, nonetheless touched upon the salient problem:

I shall not deny, that there is a degree of weight in the observation, that the interests of each State, to be represented in the federal councils, will be a security against the abuse of a power over its elections in the hands of the State legislatures. But the security will not be considered as complete, by those who attend to the force of an obvious distinction between the interest of the people in the public felicity, and the interest of their local rulers in the power and consequence of their offices. The people of America may be warmly attached to the government of the Union, at times when the particular rulers of particular States, stimulated by the natural rivalship of power, and by the hopes of personal aggrandizement, and supported by a strong faction in each of those States, may be in a very opposite temper. This diversity of sentiment between a majority of the people, and the individuals who have the greatest credit in their councils, is exemplified in some of the States at the present moment, on the present question. The scheme of separate confederacies, which will always nultiply the chances of ambition, will be a never failing bait to all such influential characters in the State administrations as are capable of preferring their own emolument and advancement to the public weal. With so effectual a weapon in their hands as the exclusive power of regulating elections for the national government, a combination of a few such men, in a few of the most considerable States, where the temptation will always be the strongest, might accomplish the destruction of the Union, by seizing the opportunity of some casual dissatisfaction among the people (and which perhaps they may themselves have excited), to discontinue the choice of members for the federal House of Representatives. It ought never to be forgotten, that a firm union of this country, under an efficient government, will probably be an increasing object of jealousy to more than one nation of Europe; and that enterprises to subvert it will sometimes originate in the intrigues of foreign powers, and will seldom fail to be patronized and abetted by some of them. Its preservation, therefore ought in no case that can be avoided, to be committed to the guardianship of any but those whose situation will uniformly beget an immediate interest in the faithful and vigilant performance of the trust.

Party elections are federal elections writ small. The same protection against an accretion of power in the majority striving against a minority, or vice versa, is as necessary in one as the other. The requisite jealousy between people and rulers fosters republicanism, rather than weakens it. Safeguarding against precipitous actions is tantamount, if a truly republican government is to be preserved.

And, further, superdelegates can keep the media on its toes, because the media will never be able to ascertain the facts until the actual party nomination. Checks and balances, huzzah!