Superdelegates

I don't think I buy the argument that the Democratic Party's superdelegates have some kind of categorical ethical obligation to obey the dictates of the pledged delegate count. Indeed, one of the best things you can say about superdelegates is that it's fairly easy to imagine scenarios in which giving the nomination to the pledged delegates leader would have a perverse result. For example, suppose Candidate A cleans up in early primaries and jumps out to a big lead. But just when the pundits were ready to declare it "essentially impossible" for Candidate B to catch up, he unveils a very appealing new message and sweeps the remainder of the states. Thanks to the proportional allocation rules, though, it's not enough to catch Candidate A, who winds up with 52 percent of pledged delegates. But since many of those delegates came from states that voted months ago, and lots of former Candidate A supporters feel buyer's remorse; national polling shows convincingly that 59 percent of registered Democrats prefer Candidate B, who also has a lead in head-to-head polling matchups with the GOP nominee and a fundraising advantage.

Would it really be so absurd for the superdelegates to overrule the "will of the people" and instead give the people what they tell pollsters they want? I don't think so. The superdelegates have both an opportunity and an obligation to take seriously their obligation to do the best thing for the party and the country.

But part of taking that obligation seriously is recognizing that an extremely drawn-out primary campaign that's ultimately decided by superdelegate wrangling probably doesn't serve the best interests of the party and the country. If, on the morning of March 5, Hillary Clinton did poorly enough the previous day that she's facing a choice between dropping out of the race and pursuing a strategy that involves two months of vicious campaigning and integrally requires her to secure the support of the superdelegates, then I think it would make sense for the superdelegates (probably represented behind-closed-doors by neutral party leaders like Gore, Pelosi, Reid, etc.) to tell her campaign that it's not going to happen, and they're going to endorse Obama and seal the nomination for him.

If he's clearly winning, it would be preferable for the party to just make him the winner, rather than get into endless mucking around about Michigan and superdelegates. But if the delegate count genuinely just stays super-narrow, that's another matter, and I don't see it as intrinsically illegitimate for the SDs to put Clinton over the top if Obama's beating her by a half-dozen pledged delegates or something. On the other hand, there's no real reason to think that the bulk of the currently unpledged superdelegates have a secret preference for Hillary. An early Clinton endorsement was an essentially zero cost move for people to make, so non-endorsers are probably either genuinely undecided or else closet Obama fans.

Comments

Good analysis about what superdelegates are for, but frankly, it really doesn't describe the 2008 Democratic Presidential race.

I expect Obama to win Wisconsin and Hawaii (yes, even with the Dem machine against him), and then to basically tie on March 4th (frankly, the delegate allocation analysis on blog.texansforobama.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=751 seems pretty negative for Hillary).

While I can see the sense in Hillary staying until March 4th, I don't see the sense in her staying in AFTER March 4th, if she hasn't cut Obama's lead (i.e., then it's Reid/Pelosi/Gore's time to pull the plug on Hillary).

Posted by JRVJ | February 13, 2008 3:52 PM

I agree. Hillary clearly locked up lots of superdelegates early when her nomination was "inevitable." I suspect many SDs made the decision not so much because they were behind Hillary with all their hearts and souls, but because it was the politically expedient thing to do.

Well, it turns out her nomination is quite "evitable" after all. The winds are turning, Obama clearly has mega-momentum, and her campaign is floundering (seriously, it's getting embarrassing to watch her spinsters flail about).

Barring another major shift in momentum back to Hillary, those superdelegates are going to do the politically expedient thing yet again and drift to Obama.

Posted by SDinIA | February 13, 2008 3:54 PM

But since many of those delegates came from states that voted months ago, and lots of former Candidate A supporters feel buyer's remorse; national polling shows convincingly that 59 percent of registered Democrats prefer Candidate B, who also has a lead in head-to-head polling matchups with the GOP nominee and a fundraising advantage

Isn't this sort of the opposite of what's happening with Obama? Clinton took an early delegate lead but has been slowly losing support to Obama as he attracts a larger coalition of formerly Hillary-leaning demographics. I agree that in your example a "super delagate coup" could turn out to be better for the party and supported by the voters, I just don't see it happening this way.

Posted by drjimcooper | February 13, 2008 3:55 PM

Matthew writes "If he's clearly winning, it would be preferable for the party to just make him the winner, rather than get into endless mucking around about Michigan and superdelegates."

Shorter Matthew Yglesias: superdelegates don't really count and should do whatever everyone tells them to do instead of thinking for themselves. LOL.

Posted by TLM | February 13, 2008 4:02 PM

Agreed (and I voted for Obama). The superdelegates are undemocratic by design.

I believe a lot of the superdelegates are waiting to see if Obama reaches a tipping point. Another large group of superdelegates that have not been discussed much are labor folks from unions that are officially neutral in the race. It makes sense for the unions to drive the best deal by playing coy.

Posted by danimal | February 13, 2008 4:03 PM

I don't think MY ever meant to imply that the scenario he was putting out there was the story for this season, but just to put a plausible scenario in which super-delegates might want to vote against the candidate with the most pledged delegates.

That said, if everyone does what they think is best, we will have a winner, probably as early as March 5, and that will be that. They get a vote for their judgment or accomplishment, so let them vote.

Posted by Curtis | February 13, 2008 4:03 PM

There seems to be real disagreement in commentators intuitions about the number of pledged delegates which it would be unreasonable for unpledged delegates to overcome, and this could be a real problem. For instance, the above post says "I don't see it as intrinsically illegitimate for the SDs to put Clinton over the top if Obama's beating her by a half-dozen pledged delegates or something." That's not a hard and fast maximum for MY's intuitive number, but it gives us a ballpark.

This morning, Kevin Drum said, "And one other thing: as I said the other day, if the race ends up in a dead heat going into the convention, then superdelegates should be free to vote for whoever they want to. But if Obama is ahead by more than, say, 200 delegates or so, the people really have spoken." That's a pretty big difference.

Posted by washerdreyer | February 13, 2008 4:06 PM

Particularly given the many ways you can interpret "will of the people:"

1. The will of your constituents.
2. The will of the congressional district you live in.
3. The will of your state.
4. The will of your party as a whole.
5. What's "best" for each of these polities. (Does best = most pork, most likely to win, most likely to party build, or something else?)
6. The will of the Democrats in each of these polities.
7. The polling estimation of the desires of each of these polities.
8. The will as expressed in the ballot box.
9. The will at what time?
10. Others?

I think that, if the delegate count remains close as we near the convention, many superdelegates will simply have to go with their gut, given these competing demands. Many will simply decide based on one of these dimensions, some in combination. But many just by their gut.

Posted by gfw | February 13, 2008 4:09 PM

While the scenario you describe is not technically inconceivable, it's worth remembering that the whole reason for the existence of the superdelegates is to keep control in the hands of the party machine and out of those of 'party activists' (voters). Though it might be possible for superdelegate votes to serve some meaningful but non-corrupt function, it'd basically be a glitch.

Posted by Toadmonster | February 13, 2008 4:10 PM

"If he's clearly winning, it would be preferable for the party to just make him the winner"

Yup. Obama definitely has a chance to close down the race by winning OH and TX.

If not, we're going to see a test of just how skillful Ickes can be.

Posted by Petey | February 13, 2008 4:22 PM

Petey,

Based on the math I'd say even narrow loses in TX and OH close down the race. By then Obama should be up by ~200, Hillary needs 65-35 style landslides.

I would expect that if she doesn't see the hand writing on the wall and bow out gracefully there will be some intervention by party leaders showing her that a gracefull exit sets her up nicely to be Senate Majority Leader, a long drawn out fight that she will eventually lose diminishes her long term.

Posted by Eric k | February 13, 2008 4:39 PM

Superdelegates remind me of the famous Brecht quote.

In the wake of East Berlin's 1953 bread riots, the Communist regime scolded the people for having forfeited the government's confidence and demanded that they work twice as hard to atone. Marxist Dramatist Bertolt Brecht offered a classic rejoinder. Instead of trying to rehabilitate such people, asked Brecht sarcastically, "wouldn't it be simpler for the government to dissolve the people and elect another?"

I think it's up in the air. Will be interesting to see how it playsout.

Posted by Peter K. | February 13, 2008 4:46 PM

"Based on the math I'd say even narrow loses (for Clinton) in TX and OH close down the race."

I add up the numbers differently than you.

Posted by Petey | February 13, 2008 5:02 PM

If Obama wins Wisconsin, it's all over but the shouting.

Posted by southpaw | February 13, 2008 5:04 PM

God I hope we can pull it out in TX. Not just because it'll secure the nomination, but because the media will finally shut up about the whole superdelegate issue.

Posted by John M. | February 13, 2008 5:06 PM

"God I hope we can pull it out in TX. Not just because it'll secure the nomination, but because the media will finally shut up about the whole superdelegate issue."

Obama definitely has a shot to close things down on March 4th if he can continue to maintain his substance-free surge for the next three weeks.

Posted by Petey | February 13, 2008 5:10 PM

"Hillary needs 65-35 style landslides"

You mean Obama-like landslides?

I'd put the margin at about 65 pledged delegates -- approximately the number of delegates Hilary picked up in FL and MI, allocating "uncommitted" to Obama. If it looks Obama is going to win by more than that amount on March 4 (and I think there is probably an 80-90% chance of that at this point), then my guess is that the DNC elders step in to tell Hilary to give it up.

Keep in mind that Obama has no incentive to avoid a long, drawn out race where Hilary wins in a controversial manner. Even in that scenario, he almost certainly is the Democratic nominee in 2012. Hilary, on the other hand, would be run out of the party if she decides to fight this to the end and hope the superdelegates vote her in, when doing so very well might cost the election.

Posted by Joe | February 13, 2008 5:13 PM

There is no way in hell that Clinton will accede the nomination to Obama without having *serious* pressure brought to bear upon her from folks like Gore, Pelosi, and Dean. The question is, are folks like them likely to bring such pressure if Obama is ahead by less than 100 delegates?

One other aspect of this: because Obama will likely have the lead in pledged delegates, the whole MI and FL issue falls by the wayside. He with have a larger presence on the committee which decides whether to seat those states' delegates and in what manner they are seated. Clinton's attempt to seat these delegates was premised upon the belief that she'd be tied or slightly ahead of Obama, and thus be able to effectively determine the process for seating them.

This is why the Clinton camp is now focused on Super-Delegates and has quieted down about MI and FL.

Posted by wj | February 13, 2008 5:14 PM

What's the point of having unpledged delegates if they can't vote as they see fit*? While picking either candidate A or B may be pragmatically, tactically, or strategically lousy, not following someone else's lead is not a violation of any moral imperative.

* absent bribery, etc.

Posted by Matt B | February 13, 2008 5:17 PM

While there are certainly scenarios where superdelegates would legitimately choose a candidate who recieved less pledged delegates, this year certainly is not one of them.

Even if Obama is up only a half-dozen pledged delegates, the superdelegates will have to support him. If not, it will be a PR disaster for the Dems.

I never believed the Clinton can't beat McCain meme some Obama supporters have thrown around. But, given the likely scenarios in which Clinton actually gets the nomination now (e.g., MI and FL, superdelegates), I think the anger of parts of the Dem base would be significant enough to make it virtually impossible for Hillary to win what would have been a close race anyway against McCain.

Posted by Brian | February 13, 2008 5:18 PM

"Even if Obama is up only a half-dozen pledged delegates, the superdelegates will have to support him."

How poorly you understand the process.

Win late or go home.

Posted by Petey | February 13, 2008 5:23 PM

I find the whole conversation about SD "legitimacy" to be odd, as an Obama supporter. Clearly, they are part of the process. Clearly, they can do whatever they want. That's how the system is set up. The issue is not legitimacy, it's about pragmatism.

Historic numbers of independents, young people, and 1st time voters have come out in the contest, mostly for Obama. If the democratic party throws it to the other side, the precise message is: "Thank you for your enthusiasm, but we don't want you involved." Legitimate or not, this would be a tremendous blow to Democratic grassroots organizing - worse than any opposition could ever hurt us. We've just taken a groundswell of support and involvement in progressive politics and flushed it down the shitter.

This is true whether the pledged delegate margin is 1 or 100 - it would set back organizing efforts for the party 10 years. THAT's why the SDs need to bow the PD winner - Hillary's admonitions to do otherwise are cutting off the nose to spite the face.

Posted by ArtB | February 13, 2008 5:23 PM

"What's the point of having unpledged delegates if they can't vote as they see fit? While picking either candidate A or B may be pragmatically, tactically, or strategically lousy, not following someone else's lead is not a violation of any moral imperative."

Well, in a race where a third (or fourth or fifth) stays in it long enough to make it impossible for one candidate to win a majority of the vote on the first ballot, superdelegates could helpfully (and legitimately) make the winner of the clear plurality the nominee.

Or, in a case where there are disputed delegates that would sway the election one way or the other (this is why it is important for Obama to win by enough pledged delegates for FL/MI not to matter), they could effectively decide that dispute.

Or, in a nomination contest where it looks like one candidate will certainly end up with less pledged delegates but is unwilling to forego a drawn-out and vicious race, they could step end to force that candidate to withdraw.

These are all legitimate purposes for superdelegates. Flipping the nominee where one candidate unambiguously got more pledged delegates than the other is not.

Posted by Joe | February 13, 2008 5:25 PM

I don't see it as intrinsically illegitimate for the SDs to put Clinton over the top if Obama's beating her by a half-dozen pledged delegates or something.

It may not be "intrinsically illegitimate" but it will be an awful strategic move. There's no way to get around the "Party Hacks Make Backroom Deal To Rob Black Candidate Of Nomination" narrative (and of course if Obama were pursuing this strategy, you'd have the same problem). Obama may or may not make the argument, but many of his supporters will (particularly ones new to the process), and the Republicans and the more anti-Democratic/anti-Clinton media definitely will. Like a lot of things in our political system, there's no really strong legal or even objectively moral barrier to doing this, but it's still a really freaking bad idea.

Posted by NS | February 13, 2008 5:27 PM

I find it amusing that Joe assumes that Obama is such a cold Machiavellian player that he would only avoid a protracted fight for his own good. I'm pretty sure the good of the Democratic party and positioning the party to win in November will factory into both Obama's and Clinton's decisions on this issue.

I feel confident that by mid to late March it will be perfectly clear which way the wind is blowing and one of the candidates will respectfully bow out.

And wj, it is not just Clinton who will attempt to seat the Florida delegation. There are many politicians and activists from Florida who will, on their own, petition to have their state's votes counted.

Sadly, for Obama, the harm has already been done with regard to the fight to disenfranchise Florida. McCain will surely run ads in Florida reminding the state's voters that Obama said our votes didn't count and worked to make sure that was the case. It could be enough to lose him the state.

However, the Florida/Michigan delegate fight and the super delegate fight shows us one thing about Obama. He is not afraid to fight and he will do pretty much anything to get the nomination, and, I hope, the presidency. Unlike some hand wringers out there, I see this as a good thing.

Posted by Rob Mac | February 13, 2008 5:31 PM

I asked this in a previous thread, but didn't get much of a response.

Is there a reason the process goes on 3 more months after Texas-Ohio? I can kind of see the reasoning behind having a few small states up front followed by a few rounds with lots more states coming into play. But this long tail with just a few delegates spread out over 3 months just seems designed to allow for distructive horse-trading of super-delegates. But maybe that's by design. Seems crazy to me. Does anyone else know anything about that?

Posted by mpowell | February 13, 2008 5:31 PM

How poorly you understand the process.

Not as poorly as your reading comprehension. I'm not saying they are required to do so. Only that if they do not the PR result will be terrible. And yes, that is even true if Hillary wins the late contests and has some measure of momentum.

Necessarily if she is still down in pledged delegates any measure of momentum will not be tremendously large -- if she actually does have significant momentum she would win by big enough margins to take the pledged delegate lead. Under the circumstances where she is still down even by a few delegates it would be a disaster for the superdelegates to swing things her way.

Look, even a pompous, Obama-supporter hating a** as yourself can at least recognize that Obama's supporters are a particularly fervent bunch on average. You think they would just sit by and watch as the superdelegates decided the race even if Obama won the pledged delegates. You think they would all just get in-line behind Clinton come November. Sorry, it ain't so. Now, the vast majority would. But enough would not and in a close race (and a Hillary/McCain race would be that) it could (and likely would) easily have enough of an effect to hand the race to McCain.

Oh, and, Petey, young lad, I think your previous predictions based on your "understanding of the process" speak for themselves.

Posted by Brian | February 13, 2008 5:32 PM

How poorly you understand the process.

Win late or go home.

I don't think anyone pretending the media is going to accept sitzkrieg in the democratic race between now and march should get too snooty.

Posted by southpaw | February 13, 2008 5:33 PM

"But if the delegate count genuinely just stays super-narrow, that's another matter, and I don't see it as intrinsically illegitimate for the SDs to put Clinton over the top if Obama's beating her by a half-dozen pledged delegates or something."

Matt, would you then agree that this should apply to the Supreme Court, who in the Bush v. Gore decision simply stopped the Florida Supreme Court from trying to throw the state to Gore by its changing of the election rules and procedures that the Florida Legislature had established prior to the election?

Just asking. lol

Posted by Chicounsel | February 13, 2008 5:35 PM

"I find it amusing that Joe assumes that Obama is such a cold Machiavellian player that he would only avoid a protracted fight for his own good. I'm pretty sure the good of the Democratic party and positioning the party to win in November will factory into both Obama's and Clinton's decisions on this issue."

Obama and Clinton are in fundamentally different positions. What on earth would the party elders say to him to get him to leave the race? "Barack, we know you have the most delegates, and probably the most votes, but the party insiders are going to narrowly give this to Clinton. So could you drop out?"

Contrast with "Hilary, if your best-case endgame is coming in a few dozen pledged delegates behind, and then convincing the superdelegates to flip that result through two months of vicious knife-fighting, we're here to tell you that it's not going to happen."

Posted by Joe | February 13, 2008 5:41 PM

Obama needs to win Texas and Ohio? I think Petey's political judgment has been slipping since he decided to stop worrying and love Mark Penn.

Posted by Scott Lemieux | February 13, 2008 5:51 PM

Like Joe, I don't see how there's any way Obama drops out in March. If he wins Ohio or Texas, he wins the whole thing, if he loses, he'll still be winning the pledged delegate count (probably by a significant margin), and we're here at least until Pennsylvania on 4/22. If Obama wins then, again, it's over. If Clinton wins, again, Obama is still probably ahead in the pledged count, and this thing goes to 6/5, and probably to the convention.

Obama can lose all three of Clinton's firewall states, and still end up with +140 delegates going into the convention.

Does Petey think that it would be acceptable for the superdelegates to give the race to Clinton in such a context?

Posted by John | February 13, 2008 5:57 PM

substance-free surge for the next three weeks.

"Substance-free" because Sen. Obama hasn't changed while his support has, "substance-free" because voters are choosing him for poor reasons, substance-free because he's not using drugs anymore, or substance-free because you're falsely imputing that Sen. Obama doesn't have substance as a candidate?

Posted by washerdreyer | February 13, 2008 6:02 PM

"I think Petey's political judgment has been slipping since he decided to stop worrying and love Mark Penn."

I think there are many perfectly valid reasons to be intensely uncomfortable with the Clinton campaign, Penn included. But I voted for her anyway based on UHC.

Lesser of two evils, y'know...

Posted by Petey | February 13, 2008 6:04 PM

Superdelegates remind me of the famous Brecht quote.

In the wake of East Berlin's 1953 bread riots, the Communist regime scolded the people for having forfeited the government's confidence and demanded that they work twice as hard to atone. Marxist Dramatist Bertolt Brecht offered a classic rejoinder. Instead of trying to rehabilitate such people, asked Brecht sarcastically, "wouldn't it be simpler for the government to dissolve the people and elect another?"

I think it's up in the air. Will be interesting to see how it playsout.

Posted by Peter K. | February 13, 2008 4:46 PM

Um, ok, but don't forget that people are allowed to create competing parties here if they don't like the rules of the ones that exist.

Matter of fact, ironic and somehow related anecdote: the spouse went to vote in the NY primary and found out he couldn't, he forgot that he had registered as Communist Worker's Party for a protest in the last election and hadn't remembered to change it back in time. :-)

Posted by artappraiser | February 13, 2008 6:04 PM

Petey's grovin' on his inner Karl.

Posted by bjd | February 13, 2008 6:11 PM

What Rick Hertzberg said.

If Clinton outperforms going forward, the superdelegates will have free will.

Posted by Petey | February 13, 2008 6:21 PM

Petey, universal health insurance,even if attainable using Clinton's plan, is not the same thing as universal health care.

Posted by mad6798j | February 13, 2008 6:31 PM

Hertzberg's numbers don't match Bowers's, not sure why.

Posted by washerdreyer | February 13, 2008 6:31 PM

Rob Mac:

Sadly, for Obama, the harm has already been done with regard to the fight to disenfranchise Florida. McCain will surely run ads in Florida reminding the state's voters that Obama said our votes didn't count and worked to make sure that was the case. It could be enough to lose him the state.

"The fight to disenfranchise Florida"? That's loaded language Rob.

Floridians disenfranchised themselves. What makes that state so special that it can jump ahead of all of the other states? No one ever answers this question. It's all taunting and baiting, Petey's m.o. as of late.

Idealy, voters in the 48 other states (no Michigan of course who are just as bad) will see McCain's pandering here and reward Obama. (I'd guess some have punished Hillary over this already).

I'll ask again, Rob, what makes Flordia so freakin' special?

Posted by Peter K. | February 13, 2008 6:33 PM

What Rick Hertzberg said.

"However, these numbers are only from primaries, which, so far, have been held in twenty-two states plus the District of Columbia. They leave out the eleven states, beginning with Iowa, which have held caucuses. Voter numbers from caucus states (as opposed to numbers of “delegates to county conventions” and the like) are weirdly difficult to come by. Obama won all but one of these caucus states. I strongly suspect that enough people voted for him to wipe out Clinton’s minuscule pop-vote margin, maybe even replace it with a tiny margin of his own. (If anyone knows of reliable vote numbers from these states, I’d appreciate hearing about it.)"

Hertzberg had follow Krugman off into la-la land. Odd.

Posted by Peter K. | February 13, 2008 6:39 PM

"Petey, universal health insurance,even if attainable using Clinton's plan, is not the same thing as universal health care."

For those of us using commonly accepted definitions of words, they are indeed the same thing.

However, if you are defining words idiosyncratically, mad6798j, you also can maintain with a straight face that up is down by defining up to mean down.

" ...universal health insurance, even if attainable..."

Scratch an Obama supporter and find a UHC denier. Harry and Louise uber alles.

Posted by Petey | February 13, 2008 6:41 PM

"Hertzberg ha(s) follow(ed) Krugman off into la-la land. Odd."

Folks who care about lefty policy are on a different train than you. Not so odd.

Posted by Petey | February 13, 2008 6:43 PM

Alright, let's try again.

Petey: If Obama loses PA, OH, and TX, but is, at the end of the primary process, still up by 140 pledged delegates, would it be legitimate for Clinton to win based on superdelegates?

Posted by John | February 13, 2008 6:44 PM

"I'll ask again, Rob, what makes Flordia so freakin' special?"

The fact that it so strongly resembles the profile of a cock and balls.

Posted by Petey | February 13, 2008 6:46 PM

Floridians disenfranchised themselves. What makes that state so special that it can jump ahead of all of the other states? No one ever answers this question. It's all taunting and baiting, Petey's m.o. as of late.

And more importantly, Florida would still be disenfranchised even if their delegates are seated. They still wouldn't have had a real election that everybody agreed would count at the time and had an actual campaign.

Posted by Scott Lemieux | February 13, 2008 6:49 PM

@ArtB: You got it. Speaking as a 31-year-old Independent who generally votes Democrat but isn't committed to it, I'll be through with the Dems if Obama has a workable lead and some sketchy superdelegate endgame wins Clinton the nomination. I mean, if it looks legitimate, it's one thing; but given her family's record, it's gotta look real legitimate.

The Democrats have had too many chances to earn my goodwill. They wouldn't take a stand on Iraq, they haven't called Bush out on his lies, they won't step up to the plate on gay marriage, and they don't seem particularly concerned with protecting our civil liberties. They can really change things if they amass enough regular swing-voter support to give them a decent edge in the House and Senate; and as the Obama supporters have demonstrated, we're willing to spend time and money when we think someone's actually listening. If the Democratic Party decides to ignore us, I'll sure take the hint, thanks.

Posted by moff | February 13, 2008 6:50 PM

"Petey: If Obama loses PA, OH, and TX, but is, at the end of the primary process, still up by 140 pledged delegates, would it be legitimate for Clinton to win based on superdelegates?"

Given that Clinton will almost definitely have received more votes in Democratic primaries in such a situation, yes, it indeed would be legitimate for the superdelegates to exercise free will.

The Obama caucus delegate edge is no less undemocratic than any potential Clinton superdelegate edge.

Posted by Petey | February 13, 2008 6:51 PM

"It's all taunting and baiting, Petey's m.o. as of late."

My M.O.?

Folks are accusing me of being a Mark Penn lover because I voted Clinton over UHC, y'know...

Posted by Petey | February 13, 2008 6:53 PM

Caucuses are no less undemocratic than superdelegates? That's pretty breath-taking.

Obviously caucuses are considerably less democratic than primaries. But they are rather more democratic than giving automatic votes to 400 DNC hacks.

Beyond that, having established that you think it would be legitimate for superdelegates to give Clinton the victory, even if she is losing by 140 pledged delegates, I will ask two further questions:

1) Do you think that this is what would actually happen, in that circumstance?; and

2) Do you think that this would be a politically wise course, as far as winning the general election?

Posted by John | February 13, 2008 6:56 PM

"Do you think that this is what would actually happen, in that circumstance?"

I think without a doubt that Clinton will be the nominee if she wins OH, TX, and PA. (The difficulty of that task is why I think Obama is rightly favored for the nomination at this point.)

"Do you think that this would be a politically wise course, as far as winning the general election?"

I think Clinton's and Obama's general election quotients are about equal.

Given that I think electability is a draw, and given that I think Clinton would accomplish more positive change in '09-'10 than Obama, she won my vote.

Posted by Petey | February 13, 2008 7:02 PM

Let me add that I don't think the scenario I outline above is particularly likely.

I think the most likely thing is that Obama surges and wins Texas and/or Ohio, and Clinton drops out in March some time.

The second most likely think is that she holds on for narrow victories in those two states. If this happens, Obama will still have a wide lead in pledged delegates, which will widen again after Wyoming and Mississippi. Given the tenor of a lot of the stories that have been coming out, such a situation is going to lead to a mutiny among Clinton superdelegates - there will be widespread pressure for her to concede before Pennsylvania. She might accede to this, or not.

If not, going into Pennsylvania it's going to become starkly clear that the choices are a) Obama wins and is the nominee; b) Clinton wins and we have a messy fight at the convention. As superdelegates desert the sinking ship, Obama wins Pennsylvania and seals the thing up.

There've been a number of stories now indicating that the superdelegates are not particularly interested in comprising Clinton's margin of victory at the convention - and that this distinctly includes superdelegates who have already endorsed Clinton.

Posted by John | February 13, 2008 7:02 PM

Is there anything more predictably amusing than to scroll down Yglesias's comment section to find a host of arrogant, invariably inane pronouncements by "Petey"?

If someone can find the time to run through the thousands of "Petey" comments -- including all the simpering paeans to Edwards over the past year -- and compile a greatest hits collection, I'd put up $8.95.

Posted by Ryan W. | February 13, 2008 7:07 PM

I think it's reasonable to think that, all else being equal, Clinton and Obama are equally good general election candidates. I disagree with that, but that's a reasonable position to take.

But do you really think that a bruising convention floor fight, which would leave African Americans and young people entirely alienated from the Democratic nominee, would be a good political move?

In terms of what's going to happen, Howard Dean has said a couple of times that nobody wants this thing to drag on. There's pretty much only one candidate who can win now without winning ugly, and that's Obama, unless Clinton manages to secure some utterly huge victories in Ohio and Texas.

Why do you think that that New York Times article quoted Clinton superdelegates as saying Clinton had to win "comfortably" in Ohio and Texas? If they meant "she needs to win Ohio and Texas," they could've said that. What they mean, so far as I can tell, is, "the pledged delegate race has to be close."

I would say that Clinton's not going to have a win out of this unless she can get it so that including Florida and Michigan will give her a pledged delegate lead. That means a 60 delegate deficit, or so, is about the largest she can manage. Obama winning by 140 is not something the superdelegates are going to want to overturn.

Of course, it'll all be easier if Obama can close the deal, either 3/4 or 4/22, which I think he will do. But even if he doesn't, I don't think Clinton squeaking through in all three is going to be sufficient to get her the nomination.

Posted by John | February 13, 2008 7:14 PM

I'll also add that Petey has drunk the Clinton kool-aid in a remarkably quick amount of time. I except long-time Clinton dead-enders like Jerome Armstrong and Armando to go in for this kind of argument, but it's rather odd to see someone who's been supporting Clinton for all of two weeks spouting exactly the same lines.

Posted by John | February 13, 2008 7:17 PM

And a further point - while I suppose there might be a certain degree of disagreement as to whether or not the situation I outlined above - Obama up by 140 delegates, losing the nomination due to superdelegate defections - is likely to occur, I fail to understand how this could be anyone's preferred outcome. This would be such an utter disaster for the party. Petey would prefer an ugly credentials fight at the Convention over Obama just sealing the deal in three weeks. This is totally insane.

Anyway, I just hope that all of this proves academic, and Obama puts her away on 3/4. If not, it might be a bumpy ride.

Posted by John | February 13, 2008 7:21 PM

"I fail to understand how this could be anyone's preferred outcome"

You don't understand that Clinton supporters would rather her have a 10% chance at the Presidency (i.e., she wins the nomination in a way that rips the party apart) than a 0% chance (Obama wins the nomination)?

What I don't get is that she is still viable in 2012. At some point, I would think that she will realize the chance of Obama losing to McCain in 2008 (thus making her the 2012 nominee) is substantially greater than her chance of winning the nomination in a way where she is a viable candidate.

Posted by Joe | February 13, 2008 7:48 PM

Matt, you set up a kind of law-school hypothetical in which an unforeseeable situation requires resort to the intent of the legislature and a decision will be made by a panel of scrupulously impartial judges. What we have here on earth, among the superdelegates, is lots of hacks who owe their jobs to one of the litigants and will shake down both sides for campaign contributions, favors, appointments, and contracts for patrons. Yeah, there's something intrinsically illegitimate about that.

Posted by lindsay | February 13, 2008 7:57 PM

Petey:

Folks are accusing me of being a Mark Penn lover because I voted Clinton over UHC, y'know...

Yeah sometimes the comments get out of hand.

Posted by Peter K. | February 13, 2008 8:18 PM

But do you really think that a bruising convention floor fight, which would leave African Americans and young people entirely alienated from the Democratic nominee, would be a good political move?

John is right in his analysis of what the result is likely to be should Clinton win by a slim margin. The hysteria among Obama supporters has reached the point that anything short of victory will be seen as a cheat and the Democratic Party (and by extension the nation) will suffer the consequences for years to come.

The primary system is far from a fully democratic process. When the rules tip their way, Obama supporters chortle with glee. When there is some hint that the same undemocratic rules might tip against them, out come the pitchforks and torches.

A bitter floor fight would not be a smart political move for either candidate. But if Obama wins such a narrow fight, the healing will begin because those who oppose Obama don't tend to hate him. Should Clinton win such a contest, the healing will be very difficult unless Obama serves as her running mate.

However, all this is idle speculation. I think a last ditch fight of this nature is vanishingly unlikely. By early April at the latest the writing will be on the wall and one of the candidates will have the grace to quietly stop fighting.

Posted by Rob Mac | February 13, 2008 8:26 PM

Lindsay - right, and this is why DNC members need to be removed from the superdelegate roster, if the position is going to survive. It's one thing for Democratic elected officials and elder statesmen like Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton to have a say. It's quite another for the nomination to be decided by anonymous party hacks like Rhett Ruggerio and Randy Roy, to take two alliterative examples.

Rob Mac - I fail to conceive of any likely scenario where Obama would concede in early April. I suppose if he's utterly annihilated in Texas and Ohio, but that seems vanishingly unlikely. Beyond that, a bruising floor fight would be bad no matter who comes out the winner of it, although I think Clinton, who would clearly be overturning the pledged delegate winner through unelected superdelegates, would come off somewhat worse out of winning than Obama.

Joe - I guess I can see how this would be pro-Clinton devotees' favored scenario. I don't see why someone who professedly doesn't especially care for Clinton, like Petey, would view things that way.

If the only way for Clinton to win is essentially by a coup de main with the superdelegates, which seems to be more or less the case, anyone who cares more about the party than about the candidate should be rooting for decisive Obama wins on 3/4.

Posted by John | February 13, 2008 8:37 PM

But do you really think that a bruising convention floor fight, which would leave African Americans and young people entirely alienated from the Democratic nominee, would be a good political move?

Why would a Clinton victory require a "bruising floor fight?" If Clinton can pull of a sizeable victory on March 4th -- winning Texas, RI., and Ohio, she may have demonstrated enough strength to similarly take Indiana and West Virginia. And then Pennsylvannia. Under such circumstances she'll likely cut into Obama's current pledged delegate lead, and maybe pull enough superdelegates to take the nomination on the first ballot. Or, if, as some people are saying, the GOP will by then have begun to rip into the Democrats on the Florida/Michigan issue, it's possible a reasonable consensus will have emerged to seat at least the former's delegates. Clinton might well have obtained a popular vote lead by then, as well.

Obama's certainly the frontrunner at this point, but Clinton has somewhere around 1000 pledged delegates, poll leads in Texas and Ohio, a revitalized fundraising operation, new management, and a seemingly better handle on how to utilize Bill Clinton. She also has what would appear to be a more cooperative press (more scrutiny of Obama, etc.). My point is, this thing isn't over. Although the smart money's obviously on Obama, a Clinton nomination is hardly an impossibility, and, should it occur, it seems more likely than not it would come together without some kind of bruising convention fight and multiple ballots. There's also not much evidence that highly competitive nomination processes hurt the party going through them. People inevitably point to 1968, but that was a very close election in a year that, by rights, probably should have been a walk for Nixon. Eight years earlier the Democrats underwent a highly competitive, much tougher nomination fight than the GOP. And they won.

Posted by Jasper | February 13, 2008 8:54 PM

Jasper - what counts as a sizeable victory? She's likely going to be down 150 pledged delegates going into March 4. Texas will be very difficult for her to pick up more than, say, ten delegates in, even with a fairly substantial popular vote lead.

Let's say she does that - picks up 10 in Texas. Let's say she does rather better in Ohio, picking up 20. And that Rhode Island and Vermont more or less cancel out.

So now she's down 120 pledged delegates. We go on the next week to a caucus in Wyoming and a primary in Mississippi. No way Obama loses there. He is probably likely to pick up about what he lost on March 4. So we're back to a 150 delegate lead for Obama moving into Pennsylvania - hell, let's be conservative and say 140.

If she then wins a moderate margin in Pennsylvania, she's still behind by 120 or so, at least.

Then we go into North Carolina and Indiana two weeks later, on May 6. I suppose if she can win those by decent margins, the superdelegates will start to flock to her. And I guess if she's been winning the big states, it's possible she'll start to look inevitable again, and this will happen.

But Obama will still be ahead by more than 100 pledged delegates, so it's hard to see how she's going to be looking all that inevitable at that point.

You're right that Indiana doesn't look terrible for her, but it doesn't look very good either. I don't imagine she gains much out of it - certainly not enough to outweigh a likely Obama victory in North Carolina. But let's see she gains a bit out of May 6 - she's now down by 110. Then she wins West Virginia on May 13, picks up another 7 delegates - she's down 103. Kentucky and Oregon have about 100 delegates between them. Let's say she gets 60 of those. Now she's down 83.

Obama then wins South Dakota and Montana - he's back up by 90.

We come into Puerto Rico. She wins by 10. Obama will still be up by about 80 pledged delegates.

Then we're going to see a scramble for superdelegates. Obama will, at this point, have about 1670 pledged delegates, Clinton 1590. Obama will need around 355 superdelegates to secure the nomination. Clinton will need around 435. Note that, at the moment, Clinton is about 90 superdelegates ahead of Clinton, so assuming this lead stays about the same, we'll go into the post primary period essentially with the two candidates tied. It's quite possible we'll come into the convention not actually knowing which of them has secured the superdelegates. If this is so, then we get a floor fight over Michigan and Florida, which will essentially be a test of strength between the two sides. If they get seated, then Clinton has enough superdelegate support to win the nomination. If not, then Obama gets the nod. But either way it's ugly.

However it turns out, this seems like just about the worst way for things to turn out.

I suppose one could envision scenarios in which Clinton comes somewhat closer to taking the pledged delegate lead - winning Wisconsin would help. But this is actually a relatively favorable to Clinton scenario.

And it'd be highly unpleasant, and would lead to great amounts of ill will, however it turned out.

But it's a lot easier to imagine Obama winning cleanly than it is to see Clinton doing the same.

Posted by John | February 13, 2008 9:47 PM

But part of taking that obligation seriously is recognizing that an extremely drawn-out primary campaign that's ultimately decided by superdelegate wrangling probably doesn't serve the best interests of the party and the country.

This long primary has been great for the Democrats. Not only is most of the country staying involved in the process and thus investing in Obama, but Obama's campaign staff is learning the lay of the land. Once he gets independents and Obamacans to vote for him once, he's much more likely to win their vote a second time. They feel a part of his success and want it to continue. The more states that become invested, the better our chances in November. The added bonus is that the Obama campaign is making the connections and gaining the experience they need to run in the general. They're getting plenty of practice shifting gears, framing debates, and improving the message. This long campaign has benefited the country tremendously. But it's now time for it to end. No Democrat should want this thing decided at the convention by superdelegates.

Posted by Just Karl | February 13, 2008 9:59 PM

"...I don't see it as intrinsically illegitimate for the SDs to put Clinton over the top if Obama's beating her by a half-dozen pledged delegates or something."

You may not believe it would be illegitimate, but Clinton seems to "strongly" disagree -- in her own words, from 2000, regarding a system similar to the superdelegate scheme:

"I have thought about this for a long time," Mrs. Clinton said at a rally in an airport hangar in Syracuse. "I've always thought we had outlived the need for an Electoral College, and now that I am going to the Senate, I am going to try to do what I can to make clear that the popular vote, the will of the people, should be followed."

She said she wanted "to be on the side of the democratic process working," and so would support the effort to establish direct presidential elections.

"I believe strongly that in a democracy we should respect the will of the people."

Posted by Jason Guthartz | February 13, 2008 9:59 PM

My impression of Petey is that he has never tasted koolaid. (And Edwards was my least favorite when there were 3 in the race, so that has nothing to do with my impression.) There are quite a few other commmenters here who clearly seem to imbibe the stuff often enough, though.

Posted by artappraiser | February 13, 2008 10:04 PM

But it's a lot easier to imagine Obama winning cleanly than it is to see Clinton doing the same.

Perhaps. He could soundly beat her in Texas and Ohio, leading to the collapse of her candidacy. But if he doesn't, then BOTH campaigns finish up well shy of a first ballot majority, and both will need superdelegates. And they're likely to wind up fairly close in both pledged delegates and popular vote, and there's still the unresolved issue of Michigan and Florida...

A win for Obama that happens to be ugly seems like a reasonably plausible outcome. But that's the price he'll pay for not killing the queen in New Hampshire.

Posted by Jasper | February 13, 2008 10:13 PM

But I voted for her anyway based on UHC...Lesser of two evils, y'know...

That's so fucking lame. That was the only reason you supported Edwards? Because it's about the only issue they agreed on.

Folks who care about lefty policy are on a different train than you.

Yeah, lefty policy like free trade and war.

Scratch an Obama supporter and find a UHC denier.

UHC is slogan on the road to single payer. Scratch UHC purists and you find corporate sell-outs.

Petey, you're very wrong on this.

Posted by Just Karl | February 13, 2008 10:14 PM

This long campaign has benefited the country tremendously. But it's now time for it to end. No Democrat should want this thing decided at the convention by superdelegates.

Just Karl: Avoiding a convention fight hardly requires the campaign to end "now." If you don't mind, me and the nine million other Clinton primary voters would just as soon see what our comrades in Texas and Ohio have to say, and maybe even those in Pennsylvannia. Okay with you?

Posted by Jasper | February 13, 2008 10:23 PM

"For those of us using commonly accepted definitions of words, they are indeed the same thing.

However, if you are defining words idiosyncratically, mad6798j, you also can maintain with a straight face that up is down by defining up to mean down."

My mother had insurance. My mother was denied treatment despite having insurance. Having insurance is not a guarantee for receiving care. Thus my point in differentiating universal health care, and universal health insurance. I thought the point was obvious.

"Scratch an Obama supporter and find a UHC denier. Harry and Louise uber alles."

My 'even if attainable' comment was referring to Clinton's previous disastrous attempt to reform healthcare. Perhaps you remember it?

Posted by mad6798j | February 13, 2008 10:24 PM

Jasper,

Clinton's only remaining play is to hit Obama hard at the debates and go negative. I don't happen to believe that will help us, as a party, in November. It's inviting Pyhrric victory to soothe your ego, so no, it's not OK.

Posted by Just Karl | February 13, 2008 10:30 PM

Clinton's only remaining play is to hit Obama hard at the debates and go negative.

Heaven forbid the Messiah face, gulp, actual criticism. The nerve of that Clinton woman!

I don't happen to believe that will help us, as a party, in November.

There's precious little evidence a vigorous competition for the nomination hurts a nominee. And, given the experience gap between John McCain (older, fought in many more elections, and has actually been a presidential candidate before) and Senator Obama, I reckon a continued struggle is in every Democrat's best interest. I'd rather find out about a glass jaw in April than in October.

It's inviting Pyhrric victory to soothe your ego, so no, it's not OK.

Well too bad, coz Hillary ain't quitting.

Posted by Jasper | February 13, 2008 10:40 PM

There's precious little evidence a vigorous competition for the nomination hurts a nominee.

Indeed...

Goldwater/Rockefeller
Humphrey/McCarthy/Kennedy
McGovern/everybody else
Ford/Reagan
Carter/Kennedy
Mondale/Hart

Those all proved pretty successful...

Posted by John | February 13, 2008 10:42 PM

Heaven forbid the Messiah face, gulp, actual criticism.

So you agree that negative campaigning is her only remaining option?

Posted by Just Karl | February 13, 2008 10:44 PM

Just to note, a vigorous primary fight can be bracing and useful for the party. But a bruising, down to the convention fight of the kind that, at this point, it would seem to take for Clinton win, has rarely turned out well in the modern era.

Carter, Reagan, Bush I, Clinton, and Bush II all had to face relatively significant primary battles before winning the nomination, and went on to win the election. With the possible exception of Bush/McCain, none of them had the kind of rancorous party-destroying conflict that you see with the Republicans in 64, or the Democrats in 72 and 80.

Posted by John | February 13, 2008 10:55 PM

So you agree that negative campaigning is her only remaining option?

No. She has several. Criticisms of Obama will naturally be one of them.

Those all proved pretty successful...

John, each of those candidacies you mention lost soundly for reasons other than the fact that they faced a tough fight for the nomination. I mean, was Mondale seriously supposed to defeat an extraordinarily popular incumbent during a year the economy grew 6.5%? Was Carter supposed to win reelection with a skyrocketing misery index and a bunch of American hostages in Tehran? Perhaps if McGovern had waltzed to the nomination he would have won five states instead of one, or maybe Goldwater would have had an 8% shot at beating Johnson instead of a 3% shot. And, curiously, you make no mention of candidates who fought tough nomination battles and then went on to win, like Kennedy in 1960, Bill Clinton in 1992, or George W. Bush in 2000.

Posted by Jasper | February 13, 2008 11:20 PM

you make no mention of candidates who fought tough nomination battles and then went on to win, like Kennedy in 1960, Bill Clinton in 1992, or George W. Bush in 2000.

All three either had to steal the general election or won considerably less than half the popular vote. You're proving my point.

Posted by Just Karl | February 13, 2008 11:40 PM

Here's a very plausible situation.

Obama picks up 10-15 delegates on Feb 19th, heads into March 4th up 145-150 pledged delegates.

Clinton wins Texas 54-46 but only garners slight delegate support for it, say 4 or 5, b/c of the disadvantageous delegate allocation rules in the state. She wins Ohio by similar margins and gains a decent # of delegates for it say 18 or 19. Any gains made in RI are washed out by losses in VT.

Does anyone think that represents a plausible path to victory for Clinton? Please. Let's lay it out. That would put her down roughly 130 pledged delegates on March 5th, with the following situation ahead of her:

12 contests, 561 delegates at stake, Obama the easy favorite in 5 of those contests, worth 198 delegates. That leaves Clinton a rather shallow pool of delegates from which she'd be drawing in order to catch Obama. Assuming she doesn't win any of Wyoming, Mississippi, North Carolina, Oregon, or South Dakota, she'd have to pick up an absurd 67.9% share of the delegates in the remaining 7 contests to pick up 130 pledged delegates on Obama, which would only be good enough to keep it close since he'll be padding his lead with all his favorable states along the way. I'll be blunt: that is not going to happen. What's more, neither the logic nor the math are escapable, because the contours of this race are already set in stone. And lol @ anyone who thinks the currently uncommitted super delegates care more about delegate totals than pledged delegates.

If the Supers are so slow that they don't see this on March 5th, they will see it shortly after, when most/all of Hillary's hard-fought gains in Ohio and Texas are immediately lost in Wyoming and Mississippi, re-setting the contest to where it is right now. The closer we get to the end, the more obvious it becomes that Hillary has no credible path to the pledged delegate lead, until her only path to victory is laid bare: stall the supers from crowning Obama as long as you can (success would be all the way to the convention), kick up as much dust as possible about the legitimacy of Obama's lead (shitting on as many states as you'd like along the way; Mark Penn has already dismissed 23 states as insignificant in the general election! way to go Mark! You keep doing us Dems a service!), and then try to "win" the nomination with lots of back-room arm twisting.

And faced with the choice of simply ending a battle that'll only get uglier and crowning a popular, charismatic, well-liked, and winning candidate, or indulging Hillary's desperate, last-ditch power-grab, Petey thinks the latter is more likely than the former.

Of course.

And that's a situation where Obama loses both Ohio and Texas, by decent margins. Petey thinks even winning one won't be enough; Obama will have to win both!

You really don't get it at all.

Posted by Michael | February 14, 2008 6:55 AM

Perhaps if McGovern had waltzed to the nomination he would have won five states instead of one,

No, McGovern could not have waltzed to the nomination, because he was unacceptable to the majority of the party. If Muskie had waltzed to the nomination, it would have been a real contest.

Posted by John | February 14, 2008 8:17 AM

Michael - yes, exactly. Clinton has no clear path to the nomination at this point.

Posted by John | February 14, 2008 8:21 AM

"Petey thinks even winning one won't be enough; Obama will have to win both!"

Realistically, Clinton has to indeed win both to have more than an outside shot at the nomination.

Posted by Petey | February 14, 2008 9:56 AM

If you look at who the superdelegates are, it's pretty obvious how they will trend -- to electability and coattail effect on down-ticket races.

I hope the superdelegates will look especially closely at Senate races; because without a Democratic majority of 56-58 seats, much of a Democratic president's legislative program will fall to GOP filibusters.

<