Learn it! Speak it! Live it!
Bring Christmas to a child in need!
An 'urgency': Sensing threats to institutions of society, church leaders make declaration 
Click to Print
Include Comments
It’s unpredictable … it’s up for grabs … it’s a super delegate!
It seems like you can’t turn on the TV or the radio or read a newspaper or a political blog these days without hearing someone talk about “super delegates” and how they could affect the Democratic presidential nomination process. WORLD’s own Jamie Dean was way ahead of the curve in this discussion, writing a cover story about “The Other Campaign” for the current issue of the magazine. (If you’re not a WORLD subscriber and missed it, it’s available for free over on the magazine site for a few more days, so be sure to check it out.)
In addition to providing a timeline on the history of this Democratic Party peculiarity, Jamie profiled Waring Howe Jr., a super delegate from Charleston, S.C. “From his office on Broad Street, Howe readily tells visitors to Charleston what they should eat (She-Crab soup), what they should see (the historic waterfront), and what they should buy (sweetgrass baskets handmade by locals),” Jamie writes. “The chairman of the Charleston County Democratic Party also tells fellow Democrats which candidate he thinks they should vote for: Sen. Barack Obama.”
back to top49 Comments to “It’s unpredictable … it’s up for grabs … it’s a super delegate!”
GMA had a story about this this morning. They showed a college kid who is a super delegate. He’s had breakfast with Chelsea, calls from Bill and John Kerry.
It is so telling about the Dems that they set up a system that can bypass the will of the people. Just like the old bosses in Chicago, and those in my state, the Dems are all about control. All a candidate has to do if find the super delegates’s “weakness” and play to it.
It’s going to backfire on the Dems. This is going to be fun to watch.
Report comment to moderator
Actually, it’s more like having the church board have a say in the congregational decisions (as well as the congregation). The super delegates are generally elected officials. They have a real interest in the party brand so to speak.
And historically, open primaries can result in screwy results — for instance how McCain reaps all the independents but not the Party core. There is lots of evidence that the Senator is not the one that the conservatives in the party would have preferred.
So for both parties, the challenge is how to balance the public preference with the preference of the committed and elected — the ones who are vested in the brand.
Report comment to moderator
You mean like the unpledged RNC delegates:
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/01/02/delegate.explainer/index.html
“The Republican Party has two types of delegates: Pledged and unpledged.
Unpledged delegates comprise 463 of the total 2,380 delegates and are not required to indicate a preference for a candidate.”
So lets see 463/2380 = 19% for Repubicans and 796/2353 = 24% for Demoocrats.
Seems pretty close to me.
Report comment to moderator
and of course, the statement in post 1 opens the question of why the Republican party had so many winner take all primaries and caucuses?
I do seem to hear the Republican conservatives arguing that this is over riding the will of the Republican majority.
Report comment to moderator
You’re correct, NJL. It will backfire, and it will be funny to watch.
Report comment to moderator
outkast post 5,
and you are comfortable with how the nomination process has played out for the Republican party?
I hear Ann Coulter is offerring to campaign for the Democratic nominee.
Report comment to moderator
So I may have some math errors here, but as I look at the Republican primary process, it apear that there are 691 pledged delegates remaining.
The totals to date are:
McCain 723
Romney 286
Huckabee 217
Ron Paul 26
There appear to be 463 uncommitted RNC delegates.
By this logic it would seem:
a) Huckabee can not win the nomination unless he receive significant support from the uncommitted RNC delegates
or
b) Romney throws his support to Huckabee AND the remaining pledged delegates split about 50/50
In short, conservative support for the Huckabee nomination is now dependent on Huckabee being nominated by something other than the Republican primary vote.
You are right, it will be very interesting to watch indeed, unless of course the Republicans:
1) calm down and support McCain
or
2) the Republicans go to a brokered convention with no clear winner
It is an interesting election year!!
Report comment to moderator
Harris, who cares who is “vested in the brand”?! This isn’t about a brand! And I don’t like the idea that there are unpledged Repubs either. Let the chips fall where they may. And so far, whether people like it or not, McCain’s got the lion’s share of the chips. We’ll either jump on board or we’ll vote elsewhere.
But with the Dems and their propensity to go to court (which makes this lawyer laugh a lot!), they are the ones who will be running around like chickens with their heads chopped off. It’s gonna be great entertainment.
Report comment to moderator
Musing – The Ds have more non-elected delegates than just the so-called super-delegates. For example:
Illinois has 185 delegates.
Illinois has 100 elected delegates.
Illinois has 27 “superdelegates.
Illinois has 48 other non-elected delegates (who don’t appear to be bindingly commited either).
That’s 46% free agents on the D side from Illinois.
Report comment to moderator
Musing – Also, Romney can not “transfer” his delegates to Huckabee. A committed delegate must vote for the pledged candidate on the first ballot at the Convention (unless he is released by the pledged candidate before that). After the first ballot – or after release – the delegate is free to vote for whomever he/she wishes.
Report comment to moderator
So has Mitt released his delegates? I hope he releases them to Gov H.
Report comment to moderator
I know there are a few RonPaulistas lurking here on WMB, but where are the McCainiacs? Do they not post on fundagelical theocon websites?
Report comment to moderator
KRN post 9,
se my mathemaitcal comparison of the Republican/Democratic unpledged delegates in post 3.
19% unpledged for Republicans and 24% unpledged for Democrats.
Now look at post 7.
The Republican choices would seem to be McCain or a brokered convention. Huckabbe can’t achieve enough delegates by pure electoral processes, so Huckabee’s continued run is only justified based on trying to drive a brokered Republican convention. If the Republicans do not want a brokered convention, they need to shut down Huckabee’s campaign.
We need to await the outcome of todays Potomac primaries. If they break solidly for Obama, as it looks like they might, then Obama has a chance of winning a non-brokered convention. If it continues as a virtual tie, then the Democratic convention also runs the risk o being brokered.
And in the end, brokered conventions for the parties right now seems to rest on the actions of Huckabee and Clinton.
It will be a fun ride!
Report comment to moderator
krm post 10,
but as you note, Romney could release his delegates, suggesting that they vote for Huckabee.
You say tomato I say tomato.
Report comment to moderator
NJ Lawyer at #1: It is so telling about the Dems that they set up a system that can bypass the will of the people. Just like the old bosses in Chicago, and those in my state, the Dems are all about control. All a candidate has to do if find the super delegates’s “weakness” and play to it.
See Musing’s posts #3 and #4. My math in an earlier thread on this topic found the numbers even closer (19.4 percent unpledged R, 19.6 percent unpledged D.)
Either way, this is a system that both parties use. The only reason it’s not being talked about as a possible factor in the Republican race is that McCain is so far ahead that the unpledged delegates can’t make a difference.
It’s dishonest and unfair to pretend it’s some kind of example of Democratic nefariousness when the Republicans use the same system.
Report comment to moderator
NJL, et. al.
It will be amusing and worrysome to watch.
I find the entire Democratic and Republican slate objectionable (if that’s a word).
However, the Republican is least so.
I think Ann Coulter will not actively campagn for a Democrat, but she makes a good point that the other conservative pundits have not made. Rush has alluded to it, but not said.
John McCain is not a conservative and owes the conservative base nothing.
Not only that, McCain is the personality that will remember and poke the eyes of conservatives each chance he gets.
Illegal amnesty, Fairness doctrine. anyone?
Report comment to moderator
steveg post 15,
given that, as McCain and George Will have noted, the disarray in the Republican ranks right now (I am still trying to integrate the idea of Ann Coulter campaigning for democrats) is extremely demoralizing, looking at the Democratic challeneges provides a bit of emotional relief to a very trying Republican situation.
We will see how it all plays out. Right now no one knows the true end game for either party!
Report comment to moderator
Yes, Chas, objectionable is a word! I will certainly sustain your ojbection! There’s not much to be done with the Republicans. At least McCain said he will be civil to Huckabee. Let’s hope so.
I’ll say it again, the way the Dems behave, the way they sue, theirs will be the more entertaining convention. I’m sorry SteveG can’t face up to his party’s peccadillos. It isn’t the “system” so much, but the way the Dems use it that’s so funny. These are the only people who will sue over a secret, smoke-filled room deal. They just go nuts if they can’t have their way, and now they’re going nuts WITHIN the party, with each other. Not a lot of “dignity” there.
Report comment to moderator
NJL[8]
Well, yes “invested in the brand” is a bit of market-speak. What I was thinking about was what politics means for those who actually campaign. You really do end up pouring out your soul (and soles) into a campaign (not to mention about 6 months of your life). Campaigns are consuming. Not surprisingly parties generally honor those who have made these kind of sacrifices — we elect them party chairs, listen to their voice, and such. Indeed, if you want to to know what it means really to be a Republican or a Democrat, hang around with some one who has run for office.
So I don’t really see why those who have put the time in, put in their own money, and made the sacrifice should not have a say in who carries the party banner.
And fwiw, I’m also in favor of the closed primary. I don’t think it’s any business of mine who the GOP chooses for their candidate (not to say, I wasn’t tempted in our primary..)
Report comment to moderator
. I’m sorry SteveG can’t face up to his party’s peccadillos. It isn’t the “system” so much, but the way the Dems use it that’s so funny.
Oh gimme a break. Republicans have the same system, and if the Republican primary didn’t have a breakaway frontrunner, the party would be having exactly the same kinds of conversations.
You want to maintain the pretense that Republicans are noble and Democrats are base. OK. But it is only a pretense.
Report comment to moderator
No, SteveG, there is no nobility in any of this. Democrats aren’t based — they’re funny, especially when they scurry around. I’m sorry you don’t have the ability to see that. Learn to laugh, for crying out loud!
Report comment to moderator
Yes only the Socialist leadership believes the American voter can’t possibly be suited intellectually in any way to pick who they want to be president so they dream a way to make sure you won’t be able to hurt yourself while making you still think you were in charge.
My goodness, they even discriminate against themselves.
Talk about fear, pride and ego.
Report comment to moderator
Actually, Coulter didn’t threaten to campaign for the Democratic nominee. She threatened to campaign for Clinton.
Report comment to moderator
No, I don’t really find it all that amusing to have someone accuse my political party of “setting up a system to bypass the will of the people,” which is what you said at first. You’ve backpedaled a little bit now that you’re reminded that your party has the very same system in place.
“Oh it’s just like the Democrats to bypass the will of the people,” larf larf, yuk yuk. Very funny.
Report comment to moderator
Coulter didn’t just “threaten” to campaign for Clinton, she made an unswervable commitment that she would campaign for Clinton if McCain got the nomination. There were no qualifiers in her statement whatsoever. She repeated her statement to make sure everyone understood her clearly.
We’ll see whether she’s a liar or not.
Report comment to moderator
Musing – The D “superdelegates” aren’t the only unpledged ones – that can range up to at least 46% (as in Illinois).
A dropped candidate’s endorsement of another might be persuasive on his released delegates, but they can do whatever they want once released (and until then they can only vote for the pledged candidate – until after the first ballot)
Report comment to moderator
Winner take all approaches to the general election and the Republican primaries is the real non-democratic element in American politics.
Report comment to moderator
No no, HRW. Most of the Republican primaries are winner-take-all. It’s only bad when Democrats do it.
Report comment to moderator
You’ll probably find this hard to believe, but I didn’t know that the Repubs had the same system when I made my initial post. But it’s true. I didn’t know. (I’m not as political as you may think. I still believe in the one person, one vote idea. I’m naive that way.)
I don’t think this system is necessary in either party. It’s obviously all about control. I submit to you, however, that the “system” will be put to a test this time around in the Democratic party — and if there is even a perception that either Hillary or Barack has been cheated, the system is toast — especially if it is perceived that Obama has been cheated. Nevertheless, I still think it will be Hillary who will be scurrying around and stomping her little foot like Rumpelstiltskin. And yes, it’ll be funny watching her file her lawsuit.
God wills what he wills, SteveG. It’s only politics, lighten up!
(Maybe the way Coulter gets out of campaigning for Clinton is that Obama gets the nomination.)
Report comment to moderator
NJLAwyer: If we get to the Democratic primary without one of the two being the clear winner — that is, if the margin between them is small enough that the unpledged delegates can make a difference — then of course the system will be put to the test by the Democrats.
But the same thing could happen on the Republican side if McCain isn’t the runaway winner too.
What I objected to was the snark and chortle of “of course it’s the Democrats who plan to bypass the will of the people.” The Republican party are hardly saints. Who was redrawing the district lines in Texas eight years early?
Report comment to moderator
Obviously, “Democratic primary” in the first sentence of #30 should be “Democratic Convention.”
Report comment to moderator
llama post 22,
what an interesting set of statements.
You mean the RNC does not have unpledged delegates?
If you believe this, then you clearly are totally unfamliar with the Republican nomination process, but looking over your posts, this conclusion may be correct.
Now I do find it interesting that it has been conservatives who in the past elections have extolled the virtues of the electoral college. Would you like to expound on the democratics characteristics of the electoral college?
And will you perhaps do some research and support your observations with evidence before you make hillariously incorrect comments in the future?
Report comment to moderator
llama post 22,
the conservatives now must admit that their gerrymandering of the republican primary rules to favor presumably Guliani have backfired and a republican independent has a lock on the republican nomination unless the republican party chooses to execute some very undemocratic processes.
It is a demonstration of a major strategic failure on the part of republican conservatives, and strong indication that the republican conservative movement has now become so far out of tune with the American electorate that it may be moot as a political force (see discussion above).
Now amusingly, that does not mean that Republicans are moot: McCain does have an opportunity to win the election. If he does, however, it will be a very strong repudiation of conservative republicans and a demonstration that only by moving to the center can republicans win nationwide offices.
Good luck, in my opinion it could not have happened to a better movement!
Report comment to moderator
krm post 26,
I provided my math with references.
the number of superdelegates appears to vary by state but my computations for the dmeocratic and republican party in the aggregate wopuld appear to be correct: 19% unpledged delegates for the republicans and 24% unpledged delegates for the democrats.
I would be delighted to see your math for the parties as a whole if you disagree.
Report comment to moderator
njlawyer post 29,
your apology accepted.
Actually the first test will probably come in a showdown over Huckabee in the republican party.
Based ont the math I showed, Huckabee can not win the nomination based purely on pledged delegates.
He has a slim possiblity of winning the nomination based on unpledged delegates.
If the party leaders do not ask Huckabee to stand down, I suggest the most logical explanation is that the republican party leaders want a brokered convention.
If Huckabee stays in the race, I suggest it is a signal that the republican party leaders will attempt to overturn McCain’s successes in the actual primary process.
We need to look at the democratic race as we see Wisconsin, Ohio, Texas, Pennsylvania, and North Carolina vote. If this results in a clear winner, and it looks like Clinton must now win by 60+% margins in Texas and Ohio for Obama not to be the clear winner, then your concern about the Democratic convention being brokered will be moot.
So do watch what happens with the Huckabee campaign. He can not win the nomination without intervention by the Republican leadership.
Report comment to moderator
Musing: “If the party leaders do not ask Huckabee to stand down,”
You think they won’t ask? I think they’ll tell him; they’re telling him NOW. Huckabee is annoying the people, too. The Republican powers will get what they want — McCain. If this goes as far as the convention, it will be because Huckabee is pulling a “Clinton.”
What’s funny about Dems, especially the Clintons, is that they fight like lawyers representing a client, which in this case means they are operating “pro se.” Lawyers who represent themselves,….
Whatever you say about Nixon, who could have challenged Kennedy and may very well have won, Nixon had the brains to swallow hard for the “good” of the country. Dems don’t do that. They’ve never accepted the Supreme Court’s opinion in Bush v. Gore. And now they’re faced with a similar situation within their own party. This mentality has come home to roost.
Report comment to moderator
Well, I for one want a brokered convention on the Republican side–because I don’t want McCain. I personally think “true Republicans” are less likely to vote for him than the rank and file (many of them Democrats and Independents) who’ve been voting in the primaries.
So the idea of having some uncommitted delegates doesn’t bother me, if they truly have the best interest of the party in mind. Now, if the Democrats end up having a winner based on superdelegates, it will be chaos–they have two contenders who are truly Democrats, and it would look like dirty politics to have one of them win by such means. But on the Republican side we have a definite RINO and a still-in-there contender who’s at least a little bit more conservative, and I think a large percentage of the party would rejoice to see McCain tossed out.
But my guess is it will be McCain as an easy winner versus a nasty-to-the-end primary on the Democrat side, with anyone’s guess as to the nominee. (I’m guessing it will end up being Hillary, but I’m rooting for Obama.)
Report comment to moderator
If this goes as far as the convention, it will be because Huckabee is pulling a “Clinton.”
Right. Democrats are always evil, and Republicans are always noble except when they act like Democrats. That about sum up your position?
Who was redrawing the districts in Texas eight years early?
Who has winner-take-all primaries so that the candidate who gets a plurality of votes (not even necessarily a majority if more than two candidates are involved) gets 100 percent of the state’s delegates, and who divides the delegates proportionally to better reflect the will of the people?
And speaking Bush v. Gore, which party opposed recounting the actual votes and called in the Supreme Court instead (because activist judges are bad except when they rule to our advantage?)
The Republicans have turned naked hypocrisy into an art form.
Report comment to moderator
njawyer post 36,
perhaps the simplest way to consider you post is to explore thge details and consider what this suggests for the overall tenor of your statements.
So you stated:
“They’ve never accepted the Supreme Court’s opinion in Bush v. Gore. ”
But of course this is incorrect.
Gore explcitly announced that he accepted the ruling.
The Democratic party did not challenge the ruling.
And there have been no revolutions regarding this issue.
If you complain about the Democratic grousing about the ruling, then perhaps you might consider the conservative grousing regarding Roe vs. Wade.
Democrats accepted, but did not like, the Gore vs. Bush ruling.
Conservatives do not accept the Roe vs. Wade ruling.
And who does not have the grace to concede to the governmental process?
I sense that perhaps you need to reexamine your position here.
Report comment to moderator
Cheryl D post 37,
but you do see the irony in your post when you compare it to llama’s comments in post 22?
The difference appears to be that you are willing to accept leadership interference in the Republican process but you perceive it is “chaos” for leadership to interfere in the Democratic process.
And when I compare this to llama’s comments on the undemocratic nature of the Democratic superdelgates …
I am always delighted to see such moral and ideological consistency among conservatives.
Report comment to moderator
Musing,
I disagree with Llama on a fairly regular basis, so I don’t see any “irony” in stating a different opinion today.
What’s wrong with saying that I personally would rather see the more conservative man win, and that I suspect most Republicans would too? I think it’s highly unlikely we’ll have any result but a McCain win, but I don’t think that expresses the will of the Republicans as a whole. For one thing, there were many legitimate more or less conservative Republicans in the race opposed to just one “moderate.” The others split the vote–partly because none of them was actually conservative enough to form a consensus of support. But I didn’t say it would be wonderful to have the election decided by superdelegates, just that I’m willing to see it happen if it means we aren’t stuck with McCain. And that I don’t think it would be undercutting the “will of the people” if that were to happen.
On the Democratic side, it has been a two-person race the whole way. If Obama were to win the primary delegates, and then lose based on some maneuvering by Clinton, you can bet there will be chaos–lawsuits, race riots, you name it. Part of the difference is simply that people rather expect dirty politics from the Clintons. Nobody would see it as party people voting in an otherwise tied vote; people would see it as the Clintons once again getting something because they’re Clintons. And black people would see it as racially motivated. (A huge percentage of black people in the country think that O.J. was framed. Do you really think they wouldn’t see Obama’s loss in some hitherto-unseen political maneuver as unacceptably dirty politics?)
Report comment to moderator
Musing – I looked at teh CNN site. It is far from complete or fully accurate, and it is bad enough that I wouldn’t rely on it.
FOr example, it seems to say that the GOP side is either winner-take-all or proportional. There is a 3rd option (direct election of delegates that entirely disregards the ‘popular vote’ portion of the primary – Illinois happens to be one of these 3rd option states).
On the Democrat side, the site doesn’t address the non-superdelegate/non-elected delegates (again, using Illinois as an example – it has 185 delegates, 100 pledged ones elected from the Congressional districts, 27 ’superdelegates’ and the 58 other non-elected/non-pledged delegates in a 3rd category that CNN doesn’t account for).
The media people have a very poor grasp of the delegate process.
Report comment to moderator
Cheryl D post 41,
my observations on your position revolve around the clearly undemocratic process which would be involved if the Republican leadership over rode the primary voters. Further, you believe that such a challenge in the Republican paty would not result in significant disruption to the Republicans? You believe that McCain would sit back and accept it? You would seem to have an interesting perspective on McCain!
And given that Huckabee can’t win the nominaton directly and yet is still in the race, it provides a starting point for suggesting that the Republican leadership wants an undemocratic over ride of the Republican primary electoral results.
As I have noted, it looks like Obama has a reasonable chance of pulling off a clean win, even without superdelegates.
You are right, if Clinton (or Obama) were to over ride the primary voters, there would be a major political sturggle, just like there would be in the Republican party were this to occur.
Right now, as exmplefied in your post, I suggest that this scenario is much more likely in the Republican party than the Democratic party, and I suggest it will not be a pretty sight.
Report comment to moderator
krm post 42,
so lets look closely at Illinois to examine your point.
CNN records:
Open primary
185 total delegates*
153 tied to February 5 primary, 32 superdelegates
So the total delegate count matches your numbers (185) and you would seem to be challenging the pledged vs. unpledged delegates.
I went to:
Real Clear Politics Delegate Data
and they give the Democratic primary data for pledged delegates as:
Illinois 02/05 153/total 104/Obama 49/Clinton
This seems to match the CNN data of 153 pledged delegates.
So I am unsure of where you are getting your data.
Report comment to moderator
Musing – I was looking at the “Illinois Delegate Slection Plan for the 2008 Democratic Convention” issued by the Democratic Party of Illinois in April, 2007.
The non-elected/non-super-delegate delegates are nominally allocated to the candidates (on a proportionate basis) but they aren’t really bound to them in any sense. Like much else in these matters, they are rather fuzzy (and my conversations with the party officials don’t seem to clarify them much – the fuzziness seems to be viewed as more of a feature than a bug).
Report comment to moderator
krm post 45,
got it. I will run this down.
Actually if you want to be very precise, as I understand it, no delegate can be forced to honor their pledge (much like in the electoral college). Practically, however, if they want to be given any credence in the future ….
It is the old saw: let it be a fair election and let it be a land slide (then all these fussy details don’t matter
).
Thanks!
Report comment to moderator
But Musing, I don’t understand this:
“And given that Huckabee can’t win the nominaton directly and yet is still in the race, it provides a starting point for suggesting that the Republican leadership wants an undemocratic over ride of the Republican primary electoral results.”
How do you conclude that it is the “Republican Leadership” wanting anything? They aren’t forcing Huckabee to continue on. Nor can they force him to withdraw. Right now, this ball is in Huckabee’s court.
Report comment to moderator
njlawyer post 47,
perhaps because certain portions of the Republican leadership have been expressing concern over McCain’s nomination.
And we can say with reasonable certainty that the Republican leadership wants to win in November, so indeed we can conclude that the Republican leadershp wants something.
And given the increasing number of grass roots level comments about denying McCain the nomination, which would appear to require active involvement of the Republican leadership, my suggestion is far more plausible than the complaint from conservatives that the Democratic nomineee might be chosen undemocratically.
If one is going to make an argumrent about one party, intellectual honesty should also drive you to consider the argument in the context of both parties.
I don’t seem to see the conservatives comments in this blog demonstrating this intellectual honesty.
Report comment to moderator
njlawyer post 47,
so in the interests of intellectual completeness: Romney’s support of McCain and release of delegates to vote for McCain pretty much puts the republican issue to bed (no matter what the conservative wing may prefer).
The democratic challenge is, however, still on the table. Wisconsin, Ohio, and Texas may perchance give us a glimpse for how this will resolve.
Report comment to moderator
back to topJoin The Conversation
You need to be a registered user of WORLDonTheWeb.com to "join the conversation."
If you are not a member yet, what are you waiting for? Register / Login Now!