Superdelegates

What Mark Schmitt said about this. It's astounding that the Clinton campaign has, in essence, wasted an enormous amount of senior staff time on trying to spin reporters and bloggers about superdelegates. The only way they could possibly persuade superdelegates to rally around the Clinton cause would be to start putting some convincing wins together. Having lost 187 primaries and caucuses in a row, at this point that means very solid wins in Texas and Ohio -- not more bluster about Michigan.

UPDATE: See, for example, this sort of bullshit isn't the kind of thing they need to be wasting their time on. Persuade some people to vote for you!

There seem to maybe be too many aides over there who enjoy talking to reporters and want to come up with some interesting debater's points about whether or not there was a campaign in Florida and the metaphysical status of DNC at-large members when they need to be talking to voters.

Comments

Absolutely. The superdelegate arguments do *not* help them with voters. Quite the reverse: they suggest that voting for HRC is a vote for a messy convention fight.

All I can figure is that they needed to grasp at this particular straw in order to keep up the morale of donors. But at this point I'm having trouble understanding what goal the campaign really has in mind.

Posted by Ted | February 20, 2008 10:27 AM

I think it boils down to these people being not all that smart.

Posted by Bill | February 20, 2008 10:32 AM

Other than distinguishing itself to the extent possible on healthcare and on the gender of the candidate, HRC and co. have done very little in terms of offering a distinctive pitch to voters. Not just the FL and Michigan/superdelegates flap but also the plagiarism/Jesse/drug dealing etc are distractions from the real business of trying to get voters enthusiastic about her.

Posted by otto | February 20, 2008 10:35 AM

I agree with you and Schmitt. This superdelegate stuff is highly contingent, a Hail Mary scenario that's way less effective than crafting a retooled message that might win over actual voters. Some version of the "Night Shift" ad as an argument that HRC is personally committed to improving things for working Americans is probably the best way to go, but do something. Even if morale in the campaign may be bad, pushing this superdelegates argument almost tacitly concedes that she has no hope of turning it around with actual voters and has to resort to strong-arming a bunch of back-room pols. If I was working for her campaign, I'd rather go down fighting with the best appeals I can make to voters than spinning inside-baseball esoterica to my media pals in the Village.

Posted by scott | February 20, 2008 10:37 AM

I agree completely. I've come around to the view that Hillary has run a bad campaign, even though she herself is a better campaigner and especially debater than I had expected. It seems that she really is surrounded by incompetents. Her downfall started with the ridiculous attacks about Obama's grade-school essays.

Wisconsin was the final nail in the coffin. There's no way she can come back now.

Posted by Jim W | February 20, 2008 10:37 AM

Here in Texas our office has a saying: if it doesn't get votes, don't bother. But then, I'm just a lowly volunteer field organizer in the Houston suburbs, so what do I know, right?

BTW, so far we're crushing her in our hardcount down here in Fort Bend county, with the caveat that we haven't yet gone into the Hispanic neighborhoods.

Posted by Michael | February 20, 2008 10:37 AM

Clinton needs to hope that Obama stumbles in the debate as much as some of his surrogates have done recently. The moderators of the debates will surely be looking to take Obama down and give Clinton some softballs, so it's possible.

Posted by Mike | February 20, 2008 10:39 AM

But they're not directing these statements at the voters. They're directing them at the influentials and members of the national press.
Look for many in the media to start referring to them as "automatic delegates" in the coming weeks.

Posted by willie | February 20, 2008 10:41 AM

It is almost as if the mindset of the Clinton campaign has always been, even before the first vote was cast, that she is the automatic front runner, the establishment candidate, and that it is inevitable that she will be nominated at the end. So even if the voters don't see the light (and hence, don't count), clearly the superdelegates must understand that she is the anointed one.

It seems the reality of the situation hasn't sunk in yet.

Posted by MS | February 20, 2008 10:42 AM

It would be a lot easier to disregard HRC's attempts to bag the superdelegates if they hadn't just set up a website to promote that very idea.

http://delegatehub.com/

With such analysis as, in a listing of "facts:" "Fact: Florida and Michigan should count."

and

"FACT: Automatic delegates are expected to exercise their best judgment in the interests of the nation and the Democratic Party."

I was going to give the Clinton camp a pass because they got thumped so badly, but it appears they are going to go down pushing every institutional lever possible to game the system and also go very negative on Obama as McCain traipses around crowing.

And they or their supporters are setting up a 527 that will not possibly win them the nomination, but which will trash Obama before the general.

http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/02/proclinton_527_prepares_for_oh.php

A 527 during a primary to trash another Democrat.

Whatever respect remained for HRC is quickly draining.

Posted by riffle | February 20, 2008 10:42 AM

Look for many in the media to start referring to them as "automatic delegates" in the coming weeks.

That will happen when pigs begin to fly out of my ass.

Posted by Susan | February 20, 2008 10:44 AM

The moderators of the debates will surely be looking to take Obama down and give Clinton some softballs

Really? So you're saying that the moderators for some unknown reason are Clinton shills or on the payroll? Highly unlikely scenario. I really see a much more even handed affair question-wise.

Posted by Mort | February 20, 2008 10:47 AM

What riffle said. I was coming here to cross-post the same info.

Man, this is starting to p*ss me the hell off. I used to like Hillary, and I've been trying not to get all heated up -- primaries are primaries, you know. People get bruised and then make up afterward.

But what's beginning to get to me is that, at this point, the Clinton people have got know they can't actually win. So what the ---- are they doing with the 527s and the rule-changing arguments and all this ---? I'm just beginning to get an iota of suspicion that they might actually be trying to ---- Obama up in the general election, and run in 2012. Someone please tell me I'm being paranoid. Surely they're too smart to do something stupid like that. But jesus, otherwise, what is the point of this nonsense?

Posted by Ted | February 20, 2008 10:51 AM

From riffle's link:

"FACT: Neither candidate can secure the nomination without automatic delegates.

The Obama campaign is trying to shut down the Democratic race before the rest of the country votes. There are still many states and territories that have not voted with over 1000 delegates at stake." (emphasis added)

Are they seriously going attempting to make this race come down to Puerto Rico? This is pure fantasy.

Posted by Alexander | February 20, 2008 10:51 AM

I waiting for the youtube clip of Hillary & surrogates saying how states don't count and the primary campaign will go on to June spliced with the Black Knight from 'the Holy Grail' insisting that he's only suffered a flesh wound.

Posted by otto | February 20, 2008 10:54 AM

Hillary seems to have forgotten that when you get to Iowa, you need to stop catering to donors and start appealing to the electorate.

Posted by dbt | February 20, 2008 10:56 AM

Really? So you're saying that the moderators for some unknown reason are Clinton shills or on the payroll? Highly unlikely scenario. I really see a much more even handed affair question-wise.

I can't speak for Mike, but I see this happening as Obama begins to take on the air of inevitability. The media wants a race, and it's only got one hope. They won't let it get away if they can help it.

Posted by Seitz | February 20, 2008 10:58 AM

MY, per your update about the delegatehub.com bullshit.

Unfortunately, yes, that's exactly what the Clinton campaign needs to be doing now. Because unfortunately for her, the time for persuading voters - at least in the numbers she needs to be a serious contender again - has passed. And she was pulling stunts like this a month ago when she should have been persuading voters. But she didn't.

I firmly believe that in a few weeks, when her campaign is officially dead and the press starts to write the "what went wrong" stories, we will all be shocked at how poorly her campaign was run, and we will all wonder how in the hell anyone ever considered her the inevitable candidate. The blunders they have made have been mind-boggling, topped only by the pure hubris that has permeated everything they've done.

Posted by SDinIA | February 20, 2008 11:05 AM

Matt,

I think the discussion of superdelegates, Florida and Michigan is borne of necessity more than anything else.

If all the MSM discussed now were the pledged delegates not including FL and MI, it would be very apparent that Clinton has almost no realistic chance of winning the nomination. The last time I looked, for example, ABC still reports on the delegate race without distinguishing supers and pledged. We know that the simple perception of a winning candidate drummed in over time has a real effect on voters' preferences, and the Clinton camp can't be seen as being blown away in the race.

I agree that the reliance on supers and MI/FL has its own drawbacks (anti-democratric, changing the rules in the middle of the game, looking desperate and shady, etc.), but they have to pick their poison. As long as much of the MSM reports on the delegate race using supers and pledged combined (with no further discussion), I think the Clinton camp wins on this one, all things considered.

Posted by Spenser | February 20, 2008 11:06 AM

"Hillary Clinton has won states from New York to California and everywhere in between. She has won in states north, south, east and west, red and blue. She has won states she was not expected to win -- such as Oklahoma, Tennessee, and Arizona. She has won in rural, urban and suburban areas. She has won key swing general election states such as Nevada, Arizona, New Mexico, Arkansas and Tennessee. She is winning virtually all the states a Democrat will need to win the presidency. Hillary Clinton is working for every vote in the many contests to come and she believes every vote should count. By June 7, when Puerto Rico holds its election, Hillary will be in a position to clinch the Democratic nomination."

Sure it's been beaten to death, but this is easily the most floral version of the spin I've heard yet. Reading this, one might wonder why Obama hasn't conceded already.

http://delegatehub.com/

Posted by Alexander | February 20, 2008 11:10 AM

Okay. I've calmed down a bit, and I retract my paranoid suspicions about the HRC campaign trying to mess up the general election.

But I do think the way they've been running this campaign is symptomatic of people who have been inside the corridors of power for too long. When they start to lose control of the party -- first of all, they can't believe it's possible. So they seem to go into this cocoon of denial. And secondly, they seem to have forgotten about the voters. They're spending an enormous amount of time on "inside baseball" arguments because they've been on the inside too long. Come on guys, wake up! You're smart people, and you've done great work -- but right now, American voters are just not that into you. Time to move on.

Posted by Ted | February 20, 2008 11:13 AM

Change the rules midway through the game? SHE STOLE GEORGE BUSH'S MOVE!

Posted by Helter | February 20, 2008 11:14 AM

Willie, you're completely wrong. None of them honestly believes what they are saying is even possible, let alone realistic. They are clearly hoping to do two things here. First, they want to provide their supporters with some credible rationale for sticking with them and prevent their poll numbers from collapsing. Second, they are hoping to convince enough Obama supporters not to bother voting, that it won't count anyay.

This has very little to do with the media, beyond getting them to pretend that Hillary still has a snowballs chance in hell at pulling this one out.

Posted by soullite | February 20, 2008 11:19 AM

""FACT: Neither candidate can secure the nomination without automatic delegates.

The Obama campaign is trying to shut down the Democratic race before the rest of the country votes. There are still many states and territories that have not voted with over 1000 delegates at stake." "

Yes, that dirty Obama trying to shut down the race by winning primaries and caucuses. How dare he win.

Posted by John | February 20, 2008 11:20 AM

...spliced with the Black Knight from 'the Holy Grail' insisting that he's only suffered a flesh wound.

Otto,
Arthur was an inexperienced fighter - nothing but empty armor who relied on hollow sword-swinging and limb-severing. Can you name one accomplishment of his as King? And just wait until right-wing poets start digging into his love life.

Posted by ao | February 20, 2008 11:23 AM

What's with the "automatic delegates" gambit, have they so sullied the value of words they now feel comfortable wallowing in Rovian doublespeak?

Posted by blindjoedeath | February 20, 2008 11:27 AM

That business of pulling the sword from the stone was totally plagiarised.

Posted by otto | February 20, 2008 11:30 AM

I'm not really surprised that the Clinton campaign has been relying a lot on this strategy. They don't really have any better one.

At this late date, primary voters' decisions are increasingly based on electability and inevitability considerations. Winning regular votes in these key upcoming primaries requires stopping the bleeding, stopping the incredible Obama momentum, and stopping the bandwagoning. To the extent people come to perceive Obama is inevitable, many will continue to switch sides. This is especially the case with vital local leaders who are listening to their constituents.

To hang on to the voters that are drifting away from them in Ohio, Texas and Pennsylvania, the Clintons need to persuade wavering supporters that they have a "strategy for victory". Realistically, it is almost impossible for them to overcome Obama's lead in pledged delegates without some sort of massively improbably turnaround and a string of colossal victories, and everyone can see that. So the only "strategy for victory" that looks remotely credible at this point to supporters, and has the slightest chance of keeping rapidly defecting backers on board and preventing the donations from drying up, is a strategy based on delegate politicking at the convention. Sure its desperate, but the Clinton campaign is in desperate straits. Recommending that they just win Texas, Ohio and Pennsylvania with 65% of the vote is hardly any more realistic.

Posted by Dan Kervick | February 20, 2008 11:33 AM

The superdelegate stuff is still part of HRC's essential I. Am Inevitable. strategy. Now it's morphed into a "I am going to get this nomination one way or another, so you voters had better get with the program!"

It's really a sophisticated, high-brow form of voter intimidation.

Posted by Woody Bombay | February 20, 2008 11:35 AM

FACT:
1. Automatic delegates are mammals.

2. Automatic delegates fight ALL the time.

3. The purpose of the Automatic delegate is to flip out and kill people.

Posted by MikeJ | February 20, 2008 11:35 AM

The sad thing about the graceless way Clinton has run her campaign is that she has poisoned her reputation among a great many of the people who are currently supporting Obama -- loyal Democrats, independents, young people new to the process, even many who previously supported her but made the switch. How is that good for her, or anyone?

Personally, my opinion of her has moved from admiration to genuine distaste, and I know I can't be the only one. For instance, it blows my mind that anyone can defend or support her plan to seat the Michigan and Florida delegates -- it's so transparently wrong to anyone paying attention.

The odd thing is, I almost always like her at the debates. She seems to reach her comfort level there and, in that setting, often does seem to be genuinely magnanimous and fair-minded. Too bad that hasn't translated to her wider campaign. By the way, blaming it on her campaign people is beside the point, sort of like blaming the Iraq debacle on Rumsfeld. She is the one who hired and pays Penn, Wolfson, etc... The buck stops with her, unfortunately.

Posted by Ban Johnson | February 20, 2008 11:48 AM

Seeing Hillary trying to push the Florida and Michigan Delegates makes me physically sick.

She is fucking pathetic. They agreed to not campaign there. The states don't count. That's it. I'm a michigan resident, and I would've voted, had the election meant something. Her attempts to win at all costs, and use Michigan and Florida, really reveal her for the phony that she is. If she somehow pulls it off by slight of hand, and not by actually winning elections, I will write off the dems forever . . .

Posted by nattyb | February 20, 2008 11:53 AM

The best part of the Delegate Hub site is that the argument for seating Florida and Michigan delegates is that it is "in the spirit of the Democrats' 50-state strategy."

Umm...

Posted by BP | February 20, 2008 12:24 PM

"Personally, my opinion of her has moved from admiration to genuine distaste, and I know I can't be the only one."

Unfortunately this race is having the same effect on me. I started out excited that HRC was going to be a candidate, and excited that she might be President. I also started out thinking that Obama was charismatic, young and interesting, but not ready. Now, I'm clearly understanding the Hillary haters while still trying to give HRC the benefit of the doubt. And, my estimation of Obama has significantly improved.

It's been interesting to talk to some of my friends here in California too. Most of them voted for HRC during the California primary, but say that if the same election were held today they would vote for Obama.

Posted by Sherry | February 20, 2008 12:24 PM

When the law is on your side, you pound on the law.
When the facts are on your side, you pound on the facts.
When nothing is on your side, you pound on the table.

Posted by aleks | February 20, 2008 12:53 PM

Does anyone at this stage of the year's fascinating political process doubt that the Clinton camp, starting with the Senator herself, has fumbled about every play from scrimmage?

Wisconsin and Hawaii make it clear as it can be...the people sense a winner, and everybody's getting ready to run down onto the field and sack the goal posts.

Clinton: 4th and 27, down by 21, late in the fourth quarter.

Comeback Kid would now seem to refer to the inarticulate non-witticisms and attack phrases that have proven so embarrassingly to miss the mark time and again.

And, to reprise those wonderful moments when Redford and Newman looked over their shoulders and said, "Who are those guys?" we can change the scene to Hillary and her posse, awash in dust, looking ahead at the well-organized ranks of Obama cavalry and saying, "I never saw them coming."

Posted by James Lawrence | February 20, 2008 12:54 PM

I agree that senior Clinton people are wasting their time with projects like the Delegate Hub. But if they're going to do it, it seems to me they should at least be semi-coherent.

As Jake Tapper noted in the piece Matt linked to, one of their five "FACTS" is clearly an opinion (FL and MI delegates should be seated). But I think the more egregious matter is their blatantly false accusation that the Obama campaign "is trying to shut down the Democratic race," and "is claiming that automatic delegates must follow the lead of pledged delegates and switch their vote to Sen. Obama." Unfortunately, these assertions are undermined right on the same page where, in support of their argument favoring the freedom of super delegates to vote their conscience, they note that "Chief Obama strategist David Axelrod said that automatic delegates should 'exercise their judgment as to what would be best for the party.'" Yes he did didn't he -- not a very good job of shutting down the race.

I'm sure the Obama camp does believe super delegates should not overturn the pledged delegate winner, but they've been focused on becoming that winner rather than having this argument. So, in my view, it's worse than a waste of time for these senior Clinton aides, it's actually Exhibit Z in their willingness to stretch the truth to create another straw man to rail against. In the mean time, Obama actually IS shutting down the race by winning it.

Posted by KT | February 20, 2008 1:06 PM

Wisconsin and Hawaii make it clear as it can be...the people sense a winner, and everybody's getting ready to run down onto the field and sack the goal posts.

That seems to be the case. Right on the heels of Obama's landslide win in Wisconsin, two more unions endorse (including the Teamsters), and a bunch of New Jersey pols switch over to Obama from Clinton (including two superdelegates). I think most people are going to see that this thing is functionally over now.

Posted by jbryan | February 20, 2008 1:13 PM

I agree that senior Clinton people are wasting their time with projects like the Delegate Hub. But if they're going to do it, it seems to me they should at least be semi-coherent.

As Jake Tapper noted in the piece Matt linked to, one of their five "FACTS" is clearly an opinion (FL and MI delegates should be seated). But I think the more egregious matter is their blatantly false accusation that the Obama campaign "is trying to shut down the Democratic race," and "is claiming that automatic delegates must follow the lead of pledged delegates and switch their vote to Sen. Obama." Unfortunately, these assertions are undermined right on the same page where, in support of their argument favoring the freedom of super delegates to vote their conscience, they note that "Chief Obama strategist David Axelrod said that automatic delegates should 'exercise their judgment as to what would be best for the party.'" Yes he did didn't he -- not a very good job of shutting down the race.

I'm sure the Obama camp does believe super delegates should not overturn the pledged delegate winner, but they've been focused on becoming that winner rather than having this argument. So, in my view, it's worse than a waste of time for these senior Clinton aides, it's actually Exhibit Z in their willingness to stretch the truth to create another straw man to rail against. In the mean time, Obama actually IS shutting down the race by winning it.

Posted by KT | February 20, 2008 1:14 PM

re: plagiarism

Did Obama plagiarize John Edwards last night? I would swear that I've heard Edwards say the line about workers watching their equipment being unbolted from the floor and shipped to new factories overseas. Is this a fact? Do you think Obama knows the names and dates of factories where this took place? Does Edwards, for that matter? I don't know, either, but Obama needs to be more careful. Yeah, politicians borrow from each other all the time, but he wants to make sure he is seen as an original and not just recycled ideas with more natural gift wrap. Obama's speech last night went on way too long. Maybe he thought the TVs would cut away, but it seemed to me like he was winging it. The Clinton attacks are going to put a lot of pressure on the Obama campaign and it's bound to produce some cracks. The comment by Michelle about being proud of America for the first time has not done anyone any good. This is the sort of fodder that will feed the Republicans this fall. It's all so unnecessary. This race was over last week.

Posted by Just Karl | February 20, 2008 1:23 PM

I agree that senior Clinton people are wasting their time with projects like the Delegate Hub. But if they're going to do it, it seems to me they should at least be semi-coherent.

As Jake Tapper noted in the piece Matt linked to, one of their five "FACTS" is clearly an opinion (FL and MI delegates should be seated). But I think the more egregious matter is their blatantly false accusation that the Obama campaign "is trying to shut down the Democratic race," and "is claiming that automatic delegates must follow the lead of pledged delegates and switch their vote to Sen. Obama." Unfortunately, these assertions are undermined right on the same page where, in support of their argument favoring the freedom of super delegates to vote their conscience, they note that "Chief Obama strategist David Axelrod said that automatic delegates should 'exercise their judgment as to what would be best for the party.'" Yes he did didn't he -- not a very good job of shutting down the race.

I'm sure the Obama camp does believe super delegates should not overturn the pledged delegate winner, but they've been focused on becoming that winner rather than having this argument. So, in my view, it's worse than a waste of time for these senior Clinton aides, it's actually Exhibit Z in their willingness to stretch the truth to create another straw man to rail against. In the mean time, Obama actually IS shutting down the race by winning it.

Posted by KT | February 20, 2008 3:01 PM

Mike J wins the day.

Posted by biwah | February 20, 2008 4:09 PM

Dan Kervick's analysis makes sense, but what he leaves out is that Clinton's strategy is alienating voters. I voted for Clinton, based on my judgement that she was likely to be a (slightly) better president than Obama. But the more the Clinton campaign talks about ways to win the nomination even if she loses the primaries, the more I worry about how the Convention will play out if Obama doesn't build up a commanding lead in committed delegates. So if I were voting today, I would vote for Obama.

Posted by Kenneth Almquist | February 20, 2008 5:56 PM

I'm guessing the air of desperation is that she knows after how this campaign went, this is her one shot at the presidency. If Obama wins and wins the general, she will have to wait until 2016 and run as the Democrats' Bob Dole. If Obama wins the nomination and loses the general, her gambit here will probably piss off enough party insiders that they will let her know they won't let her run. There is also the chance that another candidate like Obama could emerge and ruin her chances. After all, at this point in 2004 Obama was not that well known. We have a few young people coming up in Congress, State Houses ang governors' mansions that could become potential party superstars, including a few women. If a single smart, charismatic female Democrat expresses any real interest in running in 2012 (if Obama isn't the incumbent) or 2016, Clinton has no chance, especially if that woman is a Latina. She put up with all of Bill's shit for just this and she's blowing her only chance by being arrogant and neglecting actually reaching out to voters that feel alienated after the Bush years. She's forgotten that knowing who is who in a smoke-filled rooms aren't the only important thing in politics.

Posted by Reality Man | February 21, 2008 1:58 AM