Don't Count The Supers

Yesterday, Chris Bowers explained why it doesn't make sense to start tallying up how many superdelegates won candidate or another "has." It's a good post, but to boil it down to a sentence: These are unpledged delegates and they're allowed to change their minds.

I would also, however, note another factor -- very few people know who the superdelegates are. Indeed, I heard an anecdote the other day about a politician who was wondering whether or not she was a superdelegate. The person who related the anecdote to me didn't know either. Well, I knew that she was, in fact, a superdelegate but I understand the rules -- but at this point in time the rules are so poorly understood that some superdelegates don't realize they're superdelegates.

Comments

the main reason you don't add them in yet is that there are still nearly 500 of them undecided, and how they will be allocated and what loyalties they really have is not really known right now. just note them separately, that they're not pledged, and that most of them are still up for grabs.

Posted by onceler | February 9, 2008 4:36 PM

Agreed. It's just stupid to include them. This is why all the different news organizations seem to have different estimates when they include superdelegates.

It's pretty simple: Just tell us who's won the pledges delegates from the primaries and caucuses.

Posted by Mike | February 9, 2008 5:11 PM

I tell you why it might make sense to count them. If we want this thing to be over before August, isn't it the supers, in practice, who will need to call it "over"? I'm assuming they would do that only by flocking to a candidate who seemed to be establishing an insurmountable lead.

I agree, however, that they should be mentioned separately and not included in the main graphic.

Posted by Ted | February 9, 2008 5:16 PM

Counting the super-delegates now would be like using a poll taken a week before an election as representing the true outcome of that election.

For the purpose of a delegate count, don't tally people who can change their minds. Counting superdelegates is relying on a prediction.

Posted by riffle | February 9, 2008 5:22 PM

It's the legitimacy, stupid. The delegates might be a proxy for that, but ultimately, one of these two must emerge in a fairly convincing way (e.g., HRC splits these small states with Obama and wins all the large ones... or Obama wins all the small states and takes 2 of 3 of the big ones.)

If one of these doesn't happen, we got trouble.

As Donna Brazile says, if 700 people decide this after what? 30 million votes? She'll leave the party.

I agree with her.

I'm an Obama guy and if HRC wins in some nominally commanding fashion, I'm happy to concede her victory and support her in November. However, if Obama wins 30 states and 1/2 the votes and it's 'sorry Barry,' well, let's just say I'll be pretty pissed.

Posted by mike | February 9, 2008 5:49 PM

Other reasons for not counting superdelegates. An example My understanding is that Yvette Clarke (D-Central Brooklyn), is "pledged" to Hillary. But her district went for Obama in the NY primary. Moreover, one of her main opponents in the free-for-all primary in '06 is an Obama delegate this year. The moment she senses that Obama's going to pull it out, she'll flip (pure conjecture, but what do you think?). My guess is that there are such stories for each of the 800 superdelegates, making counting of them a pointless task.

Posted by David in NY | February 9, 2008 5:54 PM

the main reason you don't add them in yet is that there are still nearly 500 of them undecided

I'm pretty sure nobody's counting undecided superdelegates in their delegate counts.

Posted by Aaron S. Veenstra | February 9, 2008 6:01 PM

Any delegate, pledged or otherwise, can change their minds. There is no penalty for a change of mind if additional information comes to light.

Say for example it was revealed that Barack Obama and Rezko were involved in some drug deals along with the property scam. His pledeged delegates could, in good conscience, change their minds and vote for Clinton instead.

Same thing if something were to come up with Clinton. Any delegate that chose to could vote for BHO or even JE without penelty if they felt strongly enough about it.

And Edwards' delegates can vote for anyone they want to. Edwards may have some influence over them but it is no more binding than what BHO or HRC has over their delegates. They probably would vote for Edwards on the first ballot just out of a sense of loyalty but after that they are free agents.

Posted by uncle anon | February 9, 2008 6:01 PM

Some of the superdelegates (random DNC members) could lose their positions between now and the national convention, too.

Posted by Anonymous | February 9, 2008 6:08 PM

It seems to me that HRC's lead in superdelegates was primarily a result of her massive early poll lead (in '07) and the "You're with us or against us" ethos of the early efforts. She was the "Inevitable Candidate" and people were worried that they had to get onboard early or suffer political reprecussions.

I can't see her lead getting any better if Obama racks up more electoral wins. The superdelegates will get onboard with the electoral winner.

Posted by ben | February 9, 2008 6:36 PM

Donna Brazile should leave the party now. She was a DNC member when it ratified the rules in play now back in 2006. If she didn't think allowing superdelegates a free vote was a good idea she could have actually done something about then.

According to the leaked Obama memo, they think it will end up 1806 for him and 1789 for Clinton. I don't have any problem with supers choosing her when his lead would be less than 1%. It is almost a certainty that Clinton will win more registered Democrats than Obama so I wouldn't be surprised if members of the Democratic Party break for her if the difference is 2% or less.

If he has over a 100 delegate lead he has at worst a 75% chance of being the nominee. 150 delegate lead gives him a 99% chance of being the nominee.

Posted by static | February 9, 2008 7:12 PM

The superdelegates don't matter until June 8 after the Puerto Rico primary. At that point they will look at who has the most pledged delegates and they will come out in support of that person en masse in order to avoid a brokered convention and a further delay in the Democratic nominee's ability to take on John McCain.

Posted by Ron | February 9, 2008 7:16 PM

I don't have any problem with supers choosing her when his lead would be less than 1%.

You may want to consider the effect this would have on the turnout in November, and the party as a whole, when you consider whether you have a "problem" with it. Just sayin'.

Posted by Tractarian | February 9, 2008 7:31 PM

It's worth noting that counting the superdelegates has, from an expectations standpoint, benefited Obama so far.

Hillary's de facto lead has kept her the front-runner and will intensify the impact of his likely victories in the next couple states.

That said, I do think it would be far more accurate to leave the supers out (unless they've made a binding committment).

Posted by southpaw | February 9, 2008 7:51 PM

This situation is similar to the MI and FL debacles; strict interpretation of the rules obviously allows superdelegates to vote however they want (who they support), so the end result of such voting is completely legit and within the rules every candidate agreed to.

But in my opinion, unless there is a real statistical tie (50.05 for the popular vote 'winner', 6 delegate lead for the 'winner'), the superdelegates have to go with the person with a real lead.

Posted by Andruw | February 9, 2008 9:28 PM

Allegedly the superdelegates were added to the system after the McGovern debacle (correct me if I'm wrong). The idea was to stop irresponsible insurgent candidacies, I'm told. But as the Donna Brazil comment quoted above shows, it's not clear how they expected these delegates to come into play. If the superdelegates were to veto the most popular candidate, that would obviously be bad for the party. Even if they broke a tie, it might look pretty bad. So the only way superdelegates can stop an insurgent candidate is by ending the race early: cementing a front-runner's early wins with their own support to push them over the top.

But in the current situation it's not clear that the mass of them will just swing in some predictable direction. These are real political figures in many cases, who have in fact endorsed Obama or Hillary. Minor figures are a different story, but the dozens of known endorsements will find it hard to change.

Posted by Colatina | February 9, 2008 10:35 PM

As Donna Brazile says, if 700 people decide this after what? 30 million votes? She'll leave the party.

Somebody must win. If it's tied after 30 million votes, the party still needs a nominee. Better 700 people in public than 7 in a smoky room. Plus, aren't most of those superdelegates elected officials? If so, then they are answerable to their constituents for who they back at the convention.

Posted by matt foley | February 9, 2008 11:56 PM

The interesting thing would be what would happen if the superdelegates choose throw the nominee to one of the camps and then that nominee loses the general election. You can bet there will be a bit of a backlash.

Posted by Reality Man | February 10, 2008 1:07 AM

The interesting thing would be what would happen if the superdelegates choose throw the nominee to one of the camps and then that nominee loses the general election. You can bet there will be a bit of a backlash.

What if the super delegates chose a dark horse who wins the general election? Will this lead to calls for super-duper delegates who can overrule the primaries?

Posted by matt foley | February 10, 2008 9:44 AM