Superdelegates and Me
I really didn’t want to post but F asked for my response to Super Tuesday II. So, hell…I’ll respond for him. 
What can I say? Hillary's a strong, viable candidate who knows how to play the game. As the media says, don't ever underestimate the Clintons. I don't.
So yeah…let's keep it going. I'm tired of hearing people saying HRC should drop out. Why in the world would she drop out? It won't hurt us anymore than it already has. We want change? Let's see where this takes us.
The exit polls in Texas showed that 1 in 10 voters in the Texas Dem Primary were Republicans who said they were voting AGAINST Hillary yet she still won. Go Dems. TX R’s had nothing to lose by crossing over because all of us knew before the TX primaries that McCain was their man and why not vote against your enemy in the primary? I would be angry, but I've done that before myself. So…moving on…
I’m sorry if I’m the bearer of bad news, but we’ve got a real problem if Obama can't win the swing states. It is one thing to win the Democratic Primary in SC and other red states. The red states don't matter in the general election. Yeah…they COULD swing. Could swing based on what? High turnout? I guess. Do we hinge the future of the Party based on a hunch that SC or other red states might swing in the fall based on people that have never voted/never voted for Dems? Or do we focus on the states that have always been swingers? That is a gamble Democrats will have to take.
The "Big Three" swing states are Florida, Ohio and Pennsylvania. Dems need those to win in November. Can BHO do get them? He failed to get Florida and Ohio in the Dem primary. That worries me. Yeah…you can say all day FLA's vote doesn't matter. Regardless, Can we at least say we all got a glance at how the millions of people there FELT? How's that? One thing I recommend to my fellow Dems…please stop saying those citizens broke the rules and need to ‘punished.’ The citizens had NOTHING to do with what happened in Florida and the last thing the Democratic Party needs to do is NOT stand up for our voters. WE NEED THEM in November. Isolating them in the primary is not a smart choice for either side. Many of those folks could easily go to McCain. Let's not tempt them please.
And YES. Fox News doesn’t want the battle go on because the sooner Hillary loses the happier they will be. Yet, I’m still wondering why they hate her so because they do. But, they are all about offering BHO ‘advice” on how to win. I like how Fox News pundits ‘advise’ BHO NOT to be VP because that wouldn’t be good for him. That’s so nice of them, ain’t it? They know people will be played by that though. Rupert Murdoch has stacked his deck. He thinks we’re stupid and so far, he’s been winning.
Then we have the Superdelegates. Look, the superdelegates were put in place to LEAD not follow. Superdelegates are the LEADERship of the Democratic Party. Not followers. The Democratic Party has our rules to choose the leaders of our party. Love it or hate it…that includes Superdelegates. I know…independents just hate that. But you have to remember…we are Democrats and you have chosen to back a Democrat. We don’t always live our lives worrying about what y’all will hate when you decide to hop on our bandwagon.
But, back to the SD’s.
I see the UNCOMMITTED superdels as the true leaders. You don't carry that responsibility and commit before Democrats have spoken but you also don't simply follow the people. The primary of the Democratic Party is not about the WILL OF THE PEOPLE. The general election is about the will of the people. The Democratic Primary is about the will of the Democratic Party. HELLO. There is a reason why YOU are considered a leader of the Democratic Party.
This seems to be lost on many "super" delegates on both sides of our current dilemma. These folks had best take into account who has funded and supported this Party in the past because when the dust settles…it is still going to be US. I learned that at my precinct meeting two weeks ago (despite all the "new" voters I only had one new person show up and that was my great friend Keith who almost made me cry when I saw him standing there when I walked in!!).
But, Superdels are given great responsibility and this means thinking long and hard about the process, the game, the future, etc. and what it means to the Democratic Party.
Take, for instance, Democrats have a REAL chance to lose California in November. That’s right. They do. CA is a bunch of damn liberals. But they’re also a lot of Hispanics and moderate Republicans that like McCain. They could easily be red. It’s all a gamble and it’s up to Dems to gamble it. Don’t get me wrong…I don’t know if HRC or BHO is better in that regard. What do y’all think? But these are the things Dems had best be thinking about. Hopping on a cloud and floating to victory in November isn’t the reality and fixing the problems in DC? Really not a reality any time soon.
It’s a lot to think about. That’s the Superdelegates job. Can these people shut out the spin and think for themselves? They aren’t the GAP (general American public). They are the Superdelegates of the Democratic Party and need to think as such. THINK.
I am a dedicated Democrat who dreams of being a SD one day. 
I would think long and hard about the duty that has been placed upon me but my commitment would come back to the Party because that would be my charge.
I'm not doing that today because I don't have that charge. I'm simply trying to imagine if I did.
But, I'm glad millions of people suddenly decided to vote. I’m glad they are hopping on the Democratic bandwagon. We have two great candidates and I can’t blame them.
But guess what? I've been voting and been involved FOR YEARS as a Democrat. And I'm not about to say…oh, well joe smith over here decided to vote and wants me to abandon everything I know because he's finally found something to believe in.
Sorry…but I've been believing in it all for a long time and have too much invested.
SO…the SD's have a big job ahead of them and that includes asking the following:
who is the best candidate for our party at THIS time?
Who is electing our candidate? Is it Democrats (the same D's I see at the Beacon one Saturday a month/a precinct meeting or a county convention every once in awhile) or what I call "democrats on rainy days" (i.e. those that know their leftists yet still don't commit to the ideology because they want an "out" when things don’t go their way), independents or disgruntled republicans.
Who can win in November?
And most importantly…who can do do something when they get there?
I don't know. Yes. I have my beliefs. But, I certainly wouldn't bet my life on them. But, at this point, I expect the Party leadership better be sitting these two candidates down and grilling their butts on who is going to produce some damn results. I don't care what the press or blogs say a candidate is "going" to do. We need change come November and I hope the Democratic Party is the Party that will offer that change to America.
There is a lot at play here and all I can say is that I'm glad to see it is still being played. But, as always…I will keep looking at moving what I believe in forward. That never changes. People come and go. Values don’t.
t
SeedingSpartanburg.com
on 06 Mar 2008 at 9:01 am # notverybright
I would have thought as the ultimate party team player, you would be more concerned about the effect a prolonged and bitter nominating fight would have. These attacks from Clinton on Obama are a free manual for McCain in the Fall. History shows intra-party fights hurt the candidate who emerges. That doesn’t worry you?
The polls show that Clinton received a lot of Republican voters crossed over and voted for Hillary, perhaps even giving her the margin of victory. Why do you think Limbaugh and his crowd want Clinton as the nominee?
There’s a flaw in this analysis. It doesn’t work to say that the loser in a particular state contest between two Democrats is going to lose the state if that person runs against a Republican. Obama is actually winning the majority of “swing” states and, if the nominee, would scramble the whole blue and red map by putting the red states in play. Polling supports this.
This is 180 degrees from the truth. Fox, Limbaugh, and other far-right outlets WANT Hillary for McCain to run against. They’ve been pretty open about that.
I’m pretty surprised to read this statement coming from someone who wants to grow the party. How many of these millions of new participants are going to stick around if the party does something to say “Your millions of votes mean nothing in this process?” The party in my opinion wouldn’t recover from that anti-democratic approach. Why not just have Carville and Begala get in a back room and pick someone? Why vote at all?
How is voting for Clinton good for the party? I missed that part.
Hard to argue with that, but which values would support a Clinton nomination at this point?
I respect your choice, and your party loyalty. But there are very few legitimate arguments at this point in favor of Clinton as the nominee.
on 06 Mar 2008 at 9:11 am # F
thanks for the shout out, t.
In today’s post, you did not overtly state who you were backing – but in the past, you have been forthcoming about that? Just wondering…
One thing that I believe is a stregth – the Dems will be in the news because of this tight race. It will be a BIG advantage. McCain will be – ho/humm news. If the two candidates can just not beat each other up – that is the key. The dream – both are on the ticket. It would be better if Hill was the Pres candidate and big O, her running mate. That would be hard to stop, and it would bring all the factions together.
The media lives off controversy – so they want to promote a battle between Hill and Big O. But what a story if they came together. The superdel issue goes away then. That is the smart play, and the timing needs to be Memorial Day (plus or minus).
That is my humble, quick version, opinion.
With kind regards,
f
PS – watch out, McCain picks a woman and/or minority running mate.
on 06 Mar 2008 at 10:32 am # Tammy
NVB,
I never said I would vote for HRC if I were a superdelegate in that post. I simply said I would think long and hard about my decision. (But, since it’s not my decision to make…I will try not to worry too much because it doesn’t do me much good to stress over it.)
The Democratic Party is split right down the middle and if it comes down to it, the Superdelegates have to look closely at their charge. These are the rules of our Party and we are picking our candidate to offer up to the American people. This is the way the Democratic party chooses our candidates. The GOP has a process as well. I understand your frustration as an Independent…but you can’t expect either Party to say ‘oh, let’s just toss our processes aside to get the Independent vote.’
As for “growing the Party” I’m all for that. But you told me yourself that you wouldn’t vote for HRC if she were the Democratic candidate. That you would vote for John McCain. So it’s feels like you are holding that over my head. That if I don’t agree with you, you’re willing to go from a liberal, anti-war candidate to a war loving conservative because your candidate didn’t win. Is this how I can grow my Party to sell out what I believe in simply get votes? No offense…but that’s just not a very tempting offer in my opinion.
on 06 Mar 2008 at 11:36 am # tammy
NVB, wanted to share this article. You said my comment about Dems having a problem in November if BHO can’t win the swing states was flawed. I’m not the only one who thinks this is a problem:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/03/tough_math_on_the_democratic_s.html
on 06 Mar 2008 at 12:59 pm # notverybright
I’m a guy who tries to see both sides of issues, but that realclearpolitics piece is terribly flawed, as the commenters there repeatedly point out. It simply makes no sense to argue that the loser of a Democratic primary in a particular state is more likely to lose the general election against a Republican (or conversely, that the winner is more likely to win).
on 06 Mar 2008 at 1:27 pm # tammy
Just to clarify…Marie Cocco is a columnist for The Washington Post group. I just linked to her column via RealClearPolitics. http://www.postwritersgroup.com/cocco.htm
on 06 Mar 2008 at 3:16 pm # notverybright
I’d be more interested in a defense of her logic than in who else she writes for. The logic, incidentally, is indefensible, as scores of commenters on that site point out.
on 06 Mar 2008 at 3:22 pm # Tim
By and large, rank and file Democrats like both these candidates, and I don’t think any real divisions have been opened up by hard campaigning. In that sense, keeping this thing going for another 7 weeks or beyond isn’t hurting a thing, for the reason F states: there’s extraordinary interest in the campaign, and John McCain, strapped for cash, will be a serious afterthought in the news cycle for a long time to come. Meanwhile, people continue to hear our candidates debate real issues and focus on what a crappy economy we’re in.
I’m with Tammy – I see little benefit to superdelegates committing at this point, and those who have already endorsed haven’t been helpful. Counting just pledged delegates, Obama’s lead is even more impressive.
My personal feeling is that superdelegates – especially those who are elected officials – ought to reflect the will of the voters in their states or districts. Yep, that means Ted Kennedy or John Kerry ought to vote for Clinton and that at least half of SC’s superdelegates should back Obama.
Will it break down that way? Nahhh, everyone will do what’s in their own self-interest, and who can blame them?
Everyone knows the real danger though – a majority of the superdelegates giving the nomination to a candidate that doesn’t have the majority of delegates, the majority of the popular vote and the most states. That, my friends, is tantamount to handing John McCain the presidency – and probably to any other Republican between now and about 2024.
on 06 Mar 2008 at 4:36 pm # Leon
T,
There’s so much to comment on but I’ll try to tackle just a few issues where we don’t agree.
You said, “Hillary’s a strong, viable candidate who knows how to play the game.”
My take?
Hillary has shown she isn’t a team player; she is out for herself and not the betterment of the Democratic Party, which is, in the end, the most important thing if you are a committed Democrat.
You said, “One thing I recommend to my fellow Dems…please stop saying those citizens broke the rules and need to ‘punished.’ The citizens had NOTHING to do with what happened in Florida and the last thing the Democratic Party needs to do is NOT stand up for our voters.”
My take?
All the Dem candidates agreed to the campaign schedule and when Michigan and Florida broke the rules all the Dem candidates agreed their delegates wouldn’t be counted.
Now that Hillary “won” Michigan – the only name on the ballot there was hers, and Florida where there was no campaign, she feels she is entitled to those delegates.
If it’s breaking the rules and if benefits her – she has no problem. One rule for everyone else, but she’s free to change the rules if it doesn’t benefit her.
One other point on this, why have the national Dem party schedule elections? You seem to think it’s ok for the states to do whatever they want. That would lead to chaos.
You said, “I’m glad millions of people suddenly decided to vote. I’m glad they are hopping on the Democratic bandwagon.”
My take?
They aren’t jumping on the “Democratic bandwagon,” they are jumping on the Obama bandwagon. He is the one bringing in new voters and yes, Republicans. I saw amazing signs of that the past two days when I pulled up behind a stereotypical redneck pickup truck that had three political stickers on it – GOP Congressman Bob Inglis, another GOP candidate I don’t recall, and an OBAMA sticker.
The next day at Arby’s I pulled in next to a car that had a Max Hyde sticker (GOP state senate candidate) on the back window and just below it was a Republicans for Obama sticker.
This is in the heart and soul of GOP country, good old Spartanburg! If it’s happening here I can only imagine how many GOPers he’s pulling from other states. I guarantee you one thing; you’ll never see a GOP voter sporting a Republicans for Hillary sticker!
You said, “Superdels are given great responsibility and this means thinking long and hard about the process, the game, the future, etc. and what it means to the Democratic Party,” and “I would think long and hard about the duty that has been placed upon me but my commitment would come back to the Party because that would be my charge.”
My take?
I agree a SD’s commitment is to the party. And, if they think long and hard about it, the best thing for the party is to have Obama at the top of the ticket.
Why?
Obama has shown he pulls in independents and some GOP voters. This will enable Dems in blue states, possibly a red state or two and very likely purple states to have a chance to win up and down the ticket, from Senate and congressional seats, to Governorships, and on down to State Senate, State House, Mayor, and county and city councils across the land.
Hillary will bring out every GOP person in the land to not only vote against her – but also pull the R lever and vote straight ticket causing Dems to lose purple states and some Red leaning states where we may have stolen a seat or two with Obama at the top.
It’s the old “coattails” argument. I believe Obama will have long coattails while I don’t think Clinton will have any.
You said, “Who can do something when they get there?
My take?
It won’t be Hillary. How will she get one GOP senator or congressman to work with her? If they do they’ll be voted out of office. So if you truly want someone who can get something done you must realize it isn’t Hillary.
You rightfully pointed out one person going to Washington can’t make a difference. That’s why it’s important to have others being elected on Obama’s coattails; they’ll owe him and be able to work for change.
Really if you are serious about wanting to revitalize the Democratic Party and to expand it, to put states in play that weren’t before, Obama should be the nominee.
If you want to keep the same old same old, choose Clinton. The country can then be easily divided up into the same old left/right, blue state/red state stalemated politics we’ve had for the past 15 years.
I’d prefer we attempt to change that by electing Obama.
One last thing, T, you know me. And you may be shocked by what I’m going to say, but I don’t know if I could vote for Hillary if she gets the nomination.
I truly believe she puts herself above the party. She agreed to the rule on Florida and Michigan then wants to change them, I expect that from the GOP not Dems.
She has talked about taking the Texas caucuses to court even though strange things happened for both sides there.
You can say that’s politics, I don’t. That’s GOP politics, that’s the politics that keeps 2/3’s of voters from voting.
By the way, two of my neighbors who are good Dems absolutely refuse to vote for Hillary. And they are supposedly her base, women over 60.
I truly don’t see the Dems winning with Hillary at the top.
on 06 Mar 2008 at 5:02 pm # F
WOW!
good post t and NVB. I can’t get this kind of analysis easily from normal news outlets.
Thanks.
F
on 06 Mar 2008 at 6:42 pm # Daisy
I thought she played pretty dirty. Very, very unbecoming, playing right into people’s worst stereotypes about her.
“Lady Macbeth stages comeback!”
on 07 Mar 2008 at 9:41 am # Chris
Well, I for one can say that HRC just lost my vote if she gets the nomination. Not that it will matter much here in solid red SC, but her “3AM” ad was the most disgusting example of fear mongering I’ve seen since Rove’s dirty tricks on Kerry back in 04′. The disturbing thing is that it came from within the party. She has proven that there is no line she won’t cross to get elected and that is not the kind of Democrat I am willing to support. We’re supposed to be the party that’s better than that. I am sick and tired of all this BS about her “experience” she was FIRST LADY. She’s only held elected office for a little better than 7 years. Being in the white house with no official role beyond spouse does not equal experience, and if she thinks she can play the experience card in November against McCain, she’s got another thing coming. He’s loaded with foreign policy experience. He’s wrong pretty much all the time, but he’s got her on raw experience.
What you said about California is absolutely laughable. I lived out there for a while until last year. If you think there’s a chance in hell that any part of it outside of the interior, San Diego, and Orange County is going to swing for ANY Republican that openly supports the war in Iraq you’re insane. They only went for Arnold because he doesn’t talk about the war. He talks about green power, fuel economy, health care, and sends signals that gay marriage would be perfectly ok with him. California on the whole is economically moderate and socially very liberal. Now if McCain wants to support all of those things in order to get the California vote he can be my guest. He’ll just make every solid red state up for grabs in the process.
I’m perfectly fine with the Florida and Michigan delegates being seated if we have REAL primary elections there first. None of the candidates campaigned there and Hillary won both on name recognition alone. Hell she was the only one on the ballot in MI.
I don’t believe that HRC is more electable than Obama. It’s pretty simple really. The conservatives are pretty demoralized right now. They’ve got a candidate they don’t like on their side and that’s good for us. The problem is he appeals to independents. HRC has high negatives among independents and her negatives among republicans are off the charts. If you want to energize those demoralized conservatives to come out and vote for McCain then just make HRC the nominee and you’ll get what you want. Obama on the other hand has high support among independents, and I have no reason to believe that in the GE that the Democrats won’t fall in line behind him.
The simple math on this thing is that Obama will in all likelihood go into the convention with at least a small lead in the pledged (democratically elected) delegate total. I believe that if the Supers swing this thing to go against the pledged delegates, it will tear the Democratic Party apart and crush any chance we have in November. Not to mention what it will do to the young voters and AA voters who are so energized for Obama right now.
I know you’re a big HRC supporter (apparently so much so that you’d have considered Bloomberg if he’d ran and Obama was the nominee and not her), but the idea that she is the stronger candidate with her +1 swing state strategy is just flat out not true. That strategy is dead and if it wasn’t we’d all be in the second term of President Gore or we’d be talking about the reelection of President Kerry. We have to reach out to more people, that’s why the Dean 50 state strategy worked to get us Congress back in 06’, and that’s the same GE strategy that Obama is pushing. I’m not saying Obama will win in 08’. Anything is possible, but I am saying that I’m almost certain that HRC will not.
on 07 Mar 2008 at 10:58 am # tammy
NVB,
the commenters on that piece do nothing but call a seasoned journalist a MORON and her piece nothing more than “Spin” just because she attempts to analyze what she views as a weakness of Obama. Those type of responses don’t devalue her opinion in my eyes.
I would like to say…it’s really tiring to constantly be attacked for merely asking questions about BHO. I’m not questioning if God exists. I was wondering about if he could carry Ohio. Geez.
BHO has weaknesses, as do HRC and McCain and it has become no one can discuss his weaknesses in a rational way because some supporters can’t accept criticism of this guy. The attitude that you either accept him or screw your opinion and that of other Democrats and the threats of “I won’t vote for Hillary” will come back to hurt him in the long run.
It saddens me to think I have become so turned off to BHO because of this attitude from some of his supporters.
The bottom line is this…politics ain’t black and white. There is a lot going on in the middle and I like to talk about it. It not about y’all hating HRC or me not liking BHO. But, some people make it so personal. I simply enjoy discussing politics…I am interested in meat of it…like…I am concerned that Ohio is a swing state that Democrats need to win and that BHO won only 5 of 88 counties. Why did he lose those? Would the people in those counties stay with the Dem candidate or go to McCain? What did the exit polls in those areas say? Are these factors we can address by November?
What the hell is wrong with me asking those questions?!?! I think it behooves the Dem Party to ask these questions and I sure as hell hope the superdelegates are looking into stuff like that.
As for the person with the Max Hyde and BHO sticker on their car…it’s kinda of sad that person obviously has ABSOLUTELY no idea about the platforms these candidates stand for. I know Max and like him a lot, but he’s a conservative…very conservative and BHO is a bleeding heart liberal. I can’t help but think that person is kinda dumb. Unless we are now assuming that conservatives are going to toss their conservative values out the window for good because they like BHO? I wonder if these ‘Republicans for Obama’ are accepting of gay marriage or abortion?
As for knowing someone that won’t vote for Hillary…well, there are just as many people that won’t vote for BHO either. I wouldn’t worry much about those folks. The fact is…millions of people have voted across this country for BOTH of them already.
And Chris, I spent a few years living in Los Angeles myself and yes, CA is very progressive but in my opinion, they do have a political landscape that could easily swing for a moderate Republican (although I admit…I don’t think it would be McCain). Also, Bloomberg was a lifelong Democrat who switched to R, then Ind. So it shouldn’t surprise you that I would share similar views with him. The fact that he doesn’t have a D behind his name today would be the reason I probably couldn’t bring myself to vote for him had he ran.
Also, based on quite a few of the comments here, some of you are obviously not following the FL and MI delegates situation. Both states are currently working with the National party with the support of all of the candidates to a find a resolution…as they should.
on 07 Mar 2008 at 11:37 am # Chris
I never said CA was progressive. I don’t think the state as a whole is. I lived in the Bay Area and it was very progressive on all fronts and as such it was an absolute paradise for someone like me. Lots of times I wish I could have stayed. My girlfriend is from LA and she seems to take LA and the rest of Southern CA about the same as I do. It is socially progressive, and economically moderate. But it’s VERY anti-war and that dooms McCain
on 07 Mar 2008 at 2:19 pm # notverybright
You changed the question on me. The writer wasn’t so much analyzing a weakness of Obama as she was using candidate’s relative positions in a state’s primary to predict general election outcome against the other party’s candidate.
I thought that’s the issue we were debating, i.e., the argument that was made in that article, which is that the winner of a Democratic primary in a particular state is likely to win it in the general. And the loser of the Democratic primary is likely to lose that state in the general.
We’d all be hard-pressed to find anyone to defend the logic of that argument, seasoned journalist or not.
on 07 Mar 2008 at 4:34 pm # tammy
I wasn’t trying to debate. I was just doing an ‘unexpert analysis’ on why Obama has had such a poor showing in the battleground states and if this would affect the outcome for Dems in November. It’s just me speculating. Of course I don’t KNOW. What we do know though is that neither BHO or HRC will carry SC or Texas come November. That we can bank on.
It’s Florida(27), Ohio (20), Penn(21) we have come to watch. They could easily go red or blue. It really comes down to the demographics of the states. I think.
Now, that said, I bet BHO would take Wash state and Oregon for instance…yet Clinton would lose to McCain there. But, being that is only 11 and 7 delegates respectively…we don’t hear as much about those.
THIS IS a amateur political junkie talking…obviously.
ANYWAY, my whole point from the get-go was that THIS is the kind of stuff the superdelegates need to be looking at in MY opinion.
Obviously…we don’t all agree on that.
And that’s okay. Cause it’s Friday. woohoo.
on 07 Mar 2008 at 11:53 pm # Leon
T,
You said, “As for the person with the Max Hyde and BHO sticker on their car…it’s kinda of sad that person obviously has ABSOLUTELY no idea about the platforms these candidates stand for.”
EXACTLY! I hope you understand that the majority of the voters in a Presidential election don’t have a clue about a candidates platforms or what they really will do.
What do they know? They know they like the way he/she looks, they’d like to have a beer with he/she (pretty much why DUH!bya got elected), like their commercials or like the rhetoric that comes when they speak.
This is how the majority of Americans vote, sad to say.
And, if you don’t want the votes of these idiots, then you’ll lose the election.
As for your comment that basically said to hell with those voters who absolutely won’t vote for HRC? I find that astounding. These are TWO WOMEN who have voted for Democratic candidates for more than 40 years – and you simply dismiss them!?
If lifelong Dem’s won’t vote for HRC, our party is going to have a real problem.