Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Super Delegates Can End the Democratic Race Right Now

Posted by Steve Benen, The Carpetbagger Report at 6:50 AM on March 17, 2008.


Sorry to break it to the superdelegates, but this is in their hands.

Shortly after Super Tuesday, DNC Chairman Howard Dean sounded a relatively optimistic note, noting his belief that Dems will have a nominee "sometime in the middle of March or April." If not, Dean said, he intended to "make some kind of an arrangement."

Well, it's the middle of March, and road ahead still looks awfully long. The superdelegates, who will ultimately make the difference in the process, are feeling more than a little antsy.

Lacking a clear route to the selection of a Democratic presidential nominee, the party's uncommitted superdelegates say they are growing increasingly concerned about the risks of a prolonged fight between Senators Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama, and perplexed about how to resolve the conflict. [...]

While many superdelegates said they intended to keep their options open as the race continued to play out over the next three months, the interviews suggested that the playing field was tilting slightly toward Mr. Obama in one potentially vital respect. Many of them said that in deciding whom to support, they would adopt what Mr. Obama's campaign has advocated as the essential principle: reflecting the will of the voters.

Mr. Obama has won more states, a greater share of the popular vote and more pledged delegates than Mrs. Clinton.

The NYT noted that the party leaders and insiders are "uncertain about who, if anyone, would step in to fill a leadership vacuum and help guide the contest to a conclusion that would not weaken the Democratic ticket in the general election."

I can't help but find this all a little odd. The superdelegates need not look for someone to fill the vacuum and guide the contest; they can fill the vacuum and guide the contest. If they believe a prolonged fight would be bad for the party, they could choose to effectively end the process -- today.

It's a fascinating NYT article, but it left me with the impression that superdelegates are missing the point of their role entirely.

The delegates said they hoped to avoid being portrayed as party elites overturning the will of Democratic voters. They spoke of having some power broker -- the names mentioned included Howard Dean, the chairman of the Democratic National Committee; former Vice President Al Gore; and Speaker Nancy Pelosi -- step in to forge a deal.

The piece also noted that these superdelegates, influential party insiders, are hoping power-brokers will fix this so they'll be "relieved of making an excruciating decision that could lose them friends and supporters at home."

Sorry to break it to the superdelegates, but this is in their hands. They may not like the responsibility, and they may not want the responsibility, and they may not have signed up for this responsibility, but I'm afraid none of that matters right now. They can pick a candidate right now and he or she would be the nominee.

A lot of observers, including a lot of superdelegates, seem to have this notion of Dean and Gore, working the phones with the Clinton and Obama campaigns, trying to see if they can reach some kind of agreement. That, I suspect, is pointless -- neither Obama nor Clinton are prepared to drop out or accept the #2 slot.

What party leaders could do, however, is work the phones to convince 200 uncommitted superdelegates to pick one candidate or the other and make a public announcement, en masse. That would go a long way in showing one candidate or the other the writing on the wall.

"Every day that this continues, people can surmise that this is going to the convention in Colorado and it could be decided by the superdelegates," said Gov. Joe Manchin III of West Virginia, the head of the Democratic Governors Association. "There is not a superdelegate that I have spoken to who wants that to happen."

They're in luck. These superdelegates -- and, in all likelihood, only these superdelegates -- can prevent this. One candidate is going to enter the convention with more delegates, more states, and probably more popular votes. If superdelegates find that compelling, fine, back Obama. If they find other factors more compelling, fine, back Clinton.

But for superdelegates to sit around, wringing their hands, wanting the process to end while hoping for someone else to ease their burden of choice, is foolish. Like it or not, this is up to them. What are they waiting for?

AlterNet is a nonprofit organization and does not make political endorsements. The opinions expressed by its writers are their own.

Digg!

Tagged as: dean, dnc, democratic party, superdelgates, clinton, obama

Steve Benen is a freelance writer/researcher and creator of The Carpetbagger Report. In addition, he is the lead editor of Salon.com's Blog Report, and has been a contributor to Talking Points Memo, Washington Monthly, Crooks & Liars, The American Prospect, and the Guardian.


Labor Leader Argues for Workers' Interests Over Racism in Explosive Speech
Richard Trumka is taking on the issue of race to support the presidential candidate he thinks will do the most for the American worker.
Post by Tula Connell. August 21, 2008.
McCain's Money History and Why it Matters
McCain has led an aristocratic lifestyle as a consort to a liquor heiress, and it shows.
Post by Digby. August 21, 2008.
Poll-watch: Gallup Finds Wedding-Cake Sized Marriage Gap in Pres Race
Apparently, the married and unmarried have very different concerns.
Post by AlterNet Staff. August 21, 2008.

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
The burden of leadership
Posted by: jebpgh on Mar 17, 2008 6:33 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Good commentary. It has come down to the "super" delegates stepping up and making a decision. Since we now have two candidates who fundamentally agree on nearly everything then the campaigns will focus on their opponent in ways that can only diminish them and eventually cost them the election. McCain now has all the time in the world to brush up his image, avoid any controversy, be statesman-like and get the swing voters to start believing that he is a positive voice for change even though he is anything but. Meanwhile, the two Democrat camps must find ways to tear the other person down in order to gain an edge. Since we can now see that the Clintons are unwilling to step aside it comes down to the party "elders" who were vested with this responsibility. Leadership is a real pain but that's why not everyone gets to be one.

If this continues on the Bush folks will have defended the White House and we will all be in very deep trouble.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The problem...
Posted by: RobNLA on Mar 17, 2008 8:21 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Many of the superdelegates considered Hillary the inevitable choice a year ago...she had the backing of the party elite, name recognition, and was way ahead in the polls.

But the voters have favored Obama instead and that has turned everything upsidedown. Now the superdelegates are realizing the truth, that Clinton is losing and they will have hell to pay with voters if they choose her over Obama.

Dem leaders are trying to gracefully push Hillary out now by asking superdelegates to back the delegate leader. However, it looks like she is going to wait until the convention, or at least until her or Obama gain enough total delegates to secure the nomination.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

pretty unrelated, but Nader is at 6% in the latest Zoby poll
Posted by: happyhermit on Mar 17, 2008 8:44 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
doesn't mean much now, i suppose. but food for thought and surprising.

http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1467

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» zogby.com Posted by: indepentent
» zogby.com Posted by: indepentent
» any proof of this? Posted by: happyhermit
» zogby.com Posted by: indepentent
I'm not sure if the sampling data . . .
Posted by: Scientz on Mar 17, 2008 10:16 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Is wide enough in terms of numbers surveyed, or if a New York sampling is a good indicator of a country-wide feeling.

That said, Nader needs to be assassinated.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Reap What You Sow
Posted by: OldRedleg on Mar 17, 2008 10:55 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This is the crap that the Democratic Party brought on to themselves. Too many "Party Elites" after the Carter nomination thought that they should have the final power to control who would ultimately be the Presidential nominee. Little did they think that maybe the voters would actually want to become involved in the selection process, and demand true representation from their delegates. Now many of them find themselves in the dilemma of voting for the person formerly anointed by the press and the Party elites or voting for the current voter majority selected one.

Clinton cannot win if the Super-delegates vote in accordance with the majority of the popular vote. If she steals the nomination through pressure on the Super-delegates, I will not vote for her. In case anyone is wondering, I will/would say the same about Obama if the circumstances fit.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Either way, Superdelegates must use their judgment
Posted by: hotdog on Mar 17, 2008 11:57 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If Clinton or Obama is over the threshold then the superdelegates won't matter. If neither crosses the bar, then superdelegates must use their judgment as the system ordains (if you don't like it, organize to fix it for 2012!). Among the factors they will consider are:

-# of delegates
-# of popular votes
-votes among Democrats
-votes among Independents and Reps
-performance in blue states
-performance in swing states
-all sorts of intangibles such as to what extent they are each prepared to face the Rovian attack machine.

Lots of factors, just like you consider when you go to the polls. You don't vote for the guy who's ahead without considering other factors and neither should they.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Florida and Michigan
Posted by: uncleeddie on Apr 1, 2008 7:37 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
One problem with your story Steve. Michigan and Florida have not been totally resolved and all uncommitted super delegates need that resolved.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]