A consensus is emerging on superdelegates
Interesting article in the NYTimes reporting that Al Gore is emerging as the central figure in the debate over Democratic superdelegates. The short version is that he's leading the consensus that the superdelegates to remain neutral for now and eventually cast their votes based on the voting.
With Howard Dean tied up in the mess over Florida and Michigan, Al Gore is probably the only credible figure to lead this discussion.
Here's the most challenging bit, near the end.
There may end up being a meaningful difference between who won the state/district, delegate count, or popular vote, but, I think it's notable that not a single one of these party insiders or "elders" proposes the current Clinton spin, that superdelegates are somehow obligated to ignore the people's vote.
The bottom line is that a consensus appears to be building that would seem to shoot down the Clinton argument, meaning she has to win this thing through the voting. (How weird is it I have to write that sentence?)
The next question is Florida and Michigan. Most of the quotes I've seen from neutrals tend to echo what Ms. Pelosi says in this article, "the nomination should not be decided by delegates from Florida and Michigan allocated on the basis of voting in primaries there last month."
I think the Dem insiders are hoping a winner will be clear enough that Michigan and Florida won't matter, but neither of these states as they stand will be allowed to change the outcome.
Oh, and also it appears there will be no Edwards endorsement
(So, was "Edwards endorsing Clinton" a campaign pushed rumor?)
With Howard Dean tied up in the mess over Florida and Michigan, Al Gore is probably the only credible figure to lead this discussion.
Here's the most challenging bit, near the end.
Several senior officials cautioned that the party elders had not yet determined whether superdelegates should be urged to cast their votes for the candidate who has the most delegates, or the one who won their state or Congressional district, or the winner of the popular vote. Because Mr. Obama and Mrs. Clinton might lead in different categories, the question is a vital one.
There may end up being a meaningful difference between who won the state/district, delegate count, or popular vote, but, I think it's notable that not a single one of these party insiders or "elders" proposes the current Clinton spin, that superdelegates are somehow obligated to ignore the people's vote.
The bottom line is that a consensus appears to be building that would seem to shoot down the Clinton argument, meaning she has to win this thing through the voting. (How weird is it I have to write that sentence?)
The next question is Florida and Michigan. Most of the quotes I've seen from neutrals tend to echo what Ms. Pelosi says in this article, "the nomination should not be decided by delegates from Florida and Michigan allocated on the basis of voting in primaries there last month."
I think the Dem insiders are hoping a winner will be clear enough that Michigan and Florida won't matter, but neither of these states as they stand will be allowed to change the outcome.
Oh, and also it appears there will be no Edwards endorsement
At a private dinner that Mr. Edwards, a former senator, held at his home last Saturday for a dozen close friends, he said he had spoken recently with Mr. Gore about the benefits of neutrality, someone who was at the dinner said. ....Mr. Edwards said he intended to remain on the fence for the time being, the person said.
(So, was "Edwards endorsing Clinton" a campaign pushed rumor?)
posted by mikevotes at
7:05 AM
10 Comments:
How weird it is that we put up with this entire absurd, lengthy, expensive, complex system of primaries, caucuses, superdelegates, delegates who aren't counted, etc, etc...
In the 21st century, we should be able to have a single primary day where a nominee is selected by actual votes of ordinary Americans.
The system we have is simply crazy. But then again, we can't bring ourselves to admit that voting for a president through the electoral college is also anti-democratic and outdated.
Change doesn't come easy to a nation that likes to think of itself as having the best system of government the world has ever seen.
By
Anonymous, at 9:38 AM
Gore could be the Democrat's Solomon. He, above all others, is seen as possibly the only honest broker in this party crap-fest.
We need to realize political parties and their primaries/caucuses have nothing to do with the Constitution or even federal law, for the most part. Parties are little more than political unions: some more analogous to organized crime than selfless patriotism. I have little sympathy for arguments that complain about party rules, states being denied delegates, election calendar, super delegates, etc.
Political parties, as George Washington warned, are a pox on democracy... Well, "pox" is my word, but Geo Washington felt as much. They are also, I think, inevitable given the human need for, as Mike might say, "tribal identity."
By
-epm, at 10:05 AM
Abi, I really prefer the staggered primary calendar as it gives lesser known lesser funded candidates a chance.
I don't like all the arcane delegate rules and apportionment, but I think it is important that we not just automatically elect the best funded or most known candidate each time. (Not that we don't always)
Then there's the larger question that elections as a whole tend to elect the best campaigner, not the best president, but that's a much longer discussion.
.....
EPM, Gore also has the added authority (right word?) granted by the fact that Dems think he was cheated out of the presidency. Thus, when he talks of such shenanigans....
And, that's a very interesting point on parties.
By
mikevotes, at 10:34 AM
Well, again, NYT reporting doesn't have the authority it once did... are they reporting the news or just trying to shape it?
I respect Al Gore, but I somewhat doubt if Hillary's camp is likely to see him as impartial, given the rather chilly relations between him and Bill. I also feel his brand of politics is closer to Obama's than Hillary's, and in fact I'm surprised he hasn't endorsed Obama.
As for superdelegates... it's a stupid and undemocratic institution, but so are caucuses, in a different way. I'm not enthusiastic about the single-primary idea, but the current system is broken.
Michigan and Florida... what an incredible ****-up. I'd agree that those delegate numbers aren't usable as they stand, but the popular vote totals can't be ignored. I just don't see how you fix that, and I think heads--I'm not sure whose--should roll in the party for letting it get to this point.
By
Anonymous, at 2:50 PM
For the sake of this argument, it doesn't matter how the Clinton camp views him, it matters how the body of Dems views him.
Is the Clinton camp going to try and attack Gore? He offers cover for what seems to be the opinion of the majority of supers. There's a reason only about 30% have committed.
Regarding Mich and Fla, the fairest way is to offer them the opportunity to revote. Michigan has been mildly interested, Florida has rejected it.
I think Florida goes Clinton if they revote, but at less than the current tally. The revote is probably the Clinton fallback position.
But it may not matter. If she doesn't surprise in Wisconsin, I have a hunch Texas is going to be very close, and that's going to start the pressure on her to step back. I think she'll win Ohio by margin, but she has to sizably chop into the voted delegate lead to have chance, and I don't think Texas is going to help that much.
By
mikevotes, at 3:36 PM
I really prefer the staggered primary calendar as it gives lesser known lesser funded candidates a chance.
That's the theory, but I don't see that it's ever worked out that way in my lifetime. If you don't have name recognition and you don't have money, you don't have a chance of sustaining a months-long, state-to-state campaign.
I'd rather see a national primary day held after a short (weeks, not months) campaign during which spending is tightly controlled (for example, no media advertising, no spending of personal funds). That way, ideas would hopefully count more than either money or name recognition. But at the very least, our primaries would no longer resemble a season of American Idol.
By
Anonymous, at 8:22 PM
Well, he didn't win because he's a nutball, but Huckabee. Or maybe Clinton in 92?
If you could limit spending and force TV time, yeah, maybe.
By
mikevotes, at 9:11 PM
Don't forget that peanut farmer, Jimmy Carter. And who know Mike Dukakis. outside of New England, before the 1988 primaries primaries.
I think we're seeing something of a phenomenon this year that has little to do with the calendar. I like the four-state early round up, but it would be interesting to rotate out these states every cycle.
By
-epm, at 9:24 PM
It generally serves its purpose.
And, yeah, what we've got going this year is different, but where would Obama be today if he hadn't won Iowa?
By
mikevotes, at 9:41 PM
There's always gotta be a first contest. Is Obama really nothing more than an Iowa win? Who can say.
And it's not just that Obama won in Iowa... it's that Ms. Inevitable came in third. That's the bigger story, I think.
By
-epm, at 10:04 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home