A Way Out Of The Superdelegate Mess

From reader Martin Johnson:

Barring a dramatic change in the campaign narrative (possible, but unlikely) the primary/caucus system won't resolve the nomination. The superdelegates will make the decision, which will hurt the Democratic party for two reasons:

1.) The longer the campaign runs, the more likely it is that the
candidates will attack each other, hurting the eventual victor in the
general election. (Particularly a problem because any attack
Obama/Clinton make will then be legitimized so it can be turned against
them in the general election.)

2.) Given the fact that many of the superdelegates owe their political
fortunes to the Clinton's, it's hard to imagine a scenario in which
Obama comes out the victor without major bloodletting. And if Clinton
gets the nomination as a result, it will further damage her general
nomination prospects.

What's the solution? A superdelegate straw poll.

The DNC (or a similar group with some political weight) could require
all superdelegates to vote on an agreed upon date (a few days after
Wisconsin, which has traditionally served to decide nominations, might
be best). While their votes would be non-binding (it could even be
secret if necessary), it would give Democrats a sense of where the party
stands, and will probably make one candidate or the other a real
front-runner, with a 100-200 delegate advantage.

After that vote, the subsequent primaries (Texas/Ohio, Pennsylvania if
necessary) could choose to either accept or reject the momentum produced
by the superdelegate straw poll. So, if the superdelegates break for one
candidate, the other candidate could use those primaries to reject their
vote, and, if necessary, there could be a follow-up poll after March 4
to reassess. Pennsylvania could serve as another referendum, but by that
point one of the two could probably put together enough committed
superdelegates to secure the nomination.

Of course, this isn't entirely democratic, but it seems more so than the
alternative, and given that the superdelegates do represent the
leadership of the Democratic party (particularly those that are elected
officials themselves) this seems to be the way to get to a nominee more
quickly without officially changing any of the rules. Even if Clinton
pulls ahead after the vote because of her institutional advantages,
having at least a few major states (particularly the swing states
Pennsylvania and Ohio) weigh on the decision would go a long way toward
legitimizing it.

What do you think?

Comments

I think this is retarded for reasons that should go without saying. There's a process in place and voters appear to be clearly siding with one candidate.

Posted by Some dude | February 12, 2008 4:36 PM

What do you think?

Thanks for asking. Before I answer, would you please give some indication that you EVER read comments? It's a sincere question, as I've seen purely factual errors go uncorrected in your posts, even after repeated comments have pointed them out. I can understand not getting involved in comment battles (undoubtedly the best strategy), but I don't understand why you wouldn't read and incorporate purely factual feedback.

Posted by Jeff Larson | February 12, 2008 4:39 PM

I agree it's pretty dumb, particularly the timing. If you're going to have that sort of vote, have it after all the primaries. Instead, the intent is to push Texas, Ohio, and Pennsylvania to vote for the person picked.

Posted by Cal | February 12, 2008 4:40 PM

um, I'll second the retarded comment, but use mentally challenged instead.

I have a feeling that if Clinton is down, she'll keep going, and if Obama is down his supporters will rightly say that the "establishment" has kept status quo in practice.

Posted by whoanow | February 12, 2008 4:40 PM

You are getting ahead of yourself. We still have a few more big primaries before anything like this should be done. Correct me if 'm wrong but Obama has more pledged delegates than Clinton. If we want to talk democracy, we should go with that. Just hold your horses and stop trying to push the superdelegates.

Posted by anon | February 12, 2008 4:42 PM

I'm assuming "Martin Johnson" is one of Mark Penn's aliases. That's the only way that "solution" could possibly make sense.

Posted by Mike | February 12, 2008 4:43 PM

What do I think?

I think Martin is trying to find a way for Clinton to overturn the will of the voters wihtout it looking like Clinton is overturning the will of the voters.

This is a standard Clinton camp mo channeled from the great Richard Nixon himself - plausible deniability.

You play the race card in a plausibly deniable manner.

You play the gender card in a plausibly deniable manner.

You play the muslim card in a plausibly deniable manner.

You play the drug card in a plausibly deniable manner.

You lie about Obama's record and statements in a plausibly deniable manner.

And now, they want to overturn the will of the voters ala Bush 2000 in a plausibly deniable manner.

By this reeasoning, the Supreme Court in 2000 should have given us a straw poll about 2 weeks before the election...so that the voters could make an informed decision.

Posted by RKA | February 12, 2008 4:45 PM

Can't believe you would even ask your readers to consider such a transparently half-baked plan.

Posted by horizonr | February 12, 2008 4:48 PM

Uh, no.

"The longer the campaign runs, the more likely it is that the candidates will attack each other, hurting the eventual victor in the general election."

This has already happened. Clinton has attacked Obama as much as she can without sending her negatives even higher. She brought up Rezko in a debate. Can't get much more direct than that. And there isn't much else to attack Obama for, other than being a Muslim or whatever. And Clinton may have even already tried that.

Obama, on the other hand, doesn't need to attack Clinton. He wouldn't have much to gain.

"Given the fact that many of the superdelegates owe their political fortunes to the Clinton's" [sic]

Not really true. Most superdelegates are local politicians. Even if the Clintons helped them raise a few dollars at one point, this is really stretching it.

"Barring a dramatic change in the campaign narrative (possible, but unlikely) the primary/caucus system won't resolve the nomination"

If the current narrative goes on, it's quite likely Obama wins OH, TX, and PA. Mathematically or not, it would be pretty much resolved then.

"What's the solution? A superdelegate straw poll."

What? There is already an means to create momentum for candidate: direct primaries and caucuses. But I get a feeling you're not pleased with the outcome of those so far.

Posted by Noah | February 12, 2008 4:48 PM

The best way to deal with super delegates is to eliminate them all together. The candidate with a majority amongst pledged delegates should be declared the winner, be it Hillary or Barack.

Posted by Ajaz Haque | February 12, 2008 4:49 PM

It also should be noted that the major media organizations are doing running informal straw polls of superdelegates anyway. These polls are the basis of Hillary's so-called (and about to be short lived) "delegate lead." The media and the hillary campaign think they are so clever to use superdelegates to make it look like Hillary is ahead, but all they have done is prolonged the period during which Obama can claim underdog status (after all, he is "behind") and by the time the false media meme is discounted, Obama will probably be up by over a 100 pledged delegates and that just might be sustainable.

Posted by RKA | February 12, 2008 4:50 PM

Before I answer, would you please give some indication that you EVER read comments?

No.

Posted by Cal | February 12, 2008 4:51 PM

I agree with the above comments, it is a profoundly stupid idea.

I think the super-delegates should keep their mouths shut and let the democratic process (such that it is) play out, no unpledged super-delegate should do anything until at least after March 4 (and I think the sups whop have pledged already should not have done so).

If after March 4 the race is clearly over, they can delcare it over and pledge to the winner. If not they can wait until after PA, but then it is done, and they need to end this thing so the party can unify and start working on beating McCain.

Posted by DP | February 12, 2008 4:51 PM

Idiotic. The voters need to decide this election.

And the superdelegates already get a vote -- the one they cast in their state's election. That's the only one that should count.

Posted by evie | February 12, 2008 4:56 PM

Utterly foolish plan. DNC will be better off not following something like this.

Let us see what is the ultimate role of super-delegates:
- to stop an extreme candidate if he or she comes up through primaries and
- to stop infighting at a point when the damage to the party is increasingly irreversible.

Clearly Obama or Clinton are not extreme. So anyone who gets maximum 'pledged delegates' (minus Florida and Michigan) should automatically get the nod of all super delegates. It should be up to Obama and Clinton when anyone of them wants to concede the race. So far the race is not damaging to the party.

Politically it is obvious that if Obama clinches any two of the 3 remaining big states (Texas, Ohio or Pennsylvania); the race is over. Clintons know that. If they continue beyond that; there will be tremendous exodus from their side and yes even Billary will nod. If Clinton resurrects, Obama can fight only so much; say maximum till Mississippi or some other primary.

Point is super delegates better sit on the side and be patient. They should ensure that race is within confinements.

Posted by Umesh Patil | February 12, 2008 4:58 PM

This smacks of a panicked attempt to get the superdelegates on the record while a majority of them are still (presumably) leaning toward Clinton. The idea is to grab them before they've had a chance to leap off the side of the rapidly sinking U.S.S. Hillary.

Posted by EarBucket | February 12, 2008 5:01 PM

How about this for a wild and crazy idea .... you don't change the rules in the middle of the game. Leave Calvinball in the cartoons where it belongs.

All of the campaigns knew and agreed to the rules ahead of time - including the spanking to Florida and Michigan for being naughty states - and we have a perfectly natural way of seeing who wins (i.e., letting all of the people entitled to vote actually vote at the convention).

If the process is unfair, we will have three long years to change it before the next round. But it is what it is for this year, and there is nothing wrong with letting it play out and see who wins.

Posted by Curtis | February 12, 2008 5:03 PM

Appears that I am not the only one to think that is a stupid idea.

Posted by phil | February 12, 2008 5:03 PM

Florida and Michigan NEED TO BE HEARD.

According to Clinton, in fact, these states did not go uncontested. In her interview at politico.com she actually claims--I'm not making this up--that Obama supporters' campaign to get Michigan voters to vote "undecided" constituted his *contesting* that state. In the same interview, she is asked whether it is unfair that she won FL given that, when Obama actually *campaigns* in a state, he enormously improves his percentage. Her response: "In some states that's true and in others it's not." Huh? Non sequitur? Do any Hillary supporters maintain that she's being anything other than ludicrous here?

Posted by wj | February 12, 2008 5:12 PM

The suggestion is simply a formula for Hillary to win. It should be presumed that many of these publicly "uncommitted" party insiders are privately committed -- and that most of them are privately committed to Hillary. If they were required to vote now, she would benefit, because it would make her look like the inevitable nominee again. The only way Obama can break this lock is to win enough votes and delegates in the actual primaries and caucuses, to shame the superdelegates into voting for the candidate who won more votes, and who is playing best in polls for November. It's encouraging that more of the supers have not publicly come out for Hillary -- I hope it's because they want to keep their powder dry, in the event Obama really does pull off a win in total votes and elected delegates.

That said, Hillary really needs to back off on this ludicrous fight about Florida and Michigan. Both states can fix their processes and send valid delegations right now, if they want to. But Hillary doesn't want them to, because she's scared of losing, and would rather cheat by changing the rules after the game has been played.

If the nomination is determined by seating bogus delegates who were elected in violation of DNC rules, it will be a worthless nomination, and the Clintons will have utterly trashed the party in their headlong pursuit of power.

Posted by DT | February 12, 2008 5:25 PM

The plan is insane, or sane only in the sense that it is designed to favor Clinton above all considerations.

How about this instead: Since superdelegates can change their vote at any time, and often do over the course of a nomination contest, we should not pay any attention at all to some sort of non-binding pre-vote where a superdelegate declares for one or the other. Endorsing people is fine, but let's stop considering superdelegates at all in considering who is winning and losing the race at the moment.

Posted by Spenser | February 12, 2008 5:32 PM

Idiotic. The supers WILL make their minds up at some point this spring and come down hard to force a decision. If Clinton takes OH, TX, and PA by more than 15 points to effectively tie Obama, they might side with her after PA since she won all of the big states. If Obama can finish off this month and take either OH or TX, they will come down on his side - see today's NYTimes article.

Posted by John M. | February 12, 2008 5:36 PM

At the risk of repeating sentiments in a healthy stream of dissent here, I'll offer my disavowal of this Martin Johnson character's plan, too.

What's proposed here, unless I am misunderstanding, is essentially asking the Super Delegates to do in late February exactly what they would have to do already, in July or August, in the worst case scenario. For what purpose, exactly? So that one side can feel real momentum headed into two states, Ohio and Texas, that deserv their say as much as anyone?

This is dumb. More than dumb, it puts the power in the Super Delegates hands BEFORE the people, which is never how it should be. If, and let's hope that it does not come to it, but if the Super Delegates play an active role in selecting then nominee lets hope that it is after they have heard, in totality, the voice of America. At this point, nearly 2/3 of the country has voted or had an opportunity to participate in a nominating contest. If this is tossed to the Super Delegates before the country even votes, I see only more revolt, possibly from both sides, depending on the Super Delgates' denouement, and the potential for voters to feel again, like their vote doesn't count.

I agree ... even without offering my own view on who to nominate, this Martin Johnson character sounds like Harold Ickes in disguise.

Posted by Toussant L'Oveture | February 12, 2008 5:40 PM

Man, what a dumb idea. I would assume that it's the usual Clintonista "change the rules/definitions because they aren't favoring me/us today" but this seems even too weird for them to float. Given that no one other than "Martin Johnson" seems to have suggested this, why the hell is it even being discussed here?

I know Marc doesn't read the comments, but now I'm beginning to wonder if he even reads his own stuff before he hits "send." My suggestion to Marc - and Martin Johnson - is to step away from the bong.

Posted by Paul | February 12, 2008 6:07 PM

So I think, should it be feasible, that the best plan is really to hold a national primary at the end of the whole delegate race. All superdelegates should agree to be bound by the vote in this national primary. It mitigates for the terribleness of the caucus system while maintaining a sense of actual democracy. No one could complain, because despite "rules" and "interests" it would be truly democratic and solve many of this problems.

For more thoughts on this: http://airingofthegrievances.blogspot.com/2008/02/slightly-modest-proposal-jm.html

Posted by Jonathan | February 12, 2008 7:45 PM

I'll buck the consensus a little. The idea isn't crazy, but the timing is wrong. If Obama has a solid lead after Ohio and Texas, why would superdelegates want to stick with Clinton and wreck the party? The only reason (outside a handful of deadenders) would be fear of retribution if she succeeded in getting the nomination because other superdelegates stuck with her. Poll them with an assurance that their individual responses would be kept confidential and Obama would get a strong majority. It shouldn't be necessary unless she just refuses to take a hint, but if it comes to that it would be awfully hard for her to continue if the party polled the superdelegates and announced the results.

Posted by Not Prince Hamlet | February 12, 2008 7:49 PM

Right on, Paul.

The superdelegate conflict is a no-brainer. There are only two legitimate routes to go. One is supported by Party Chairman (and superdelegate) John Knutson of Maine: superdelegates should vote with their constituents.

http://openleft.com/showDiary.do;jsessionid=BA554CDF8F430135E9D9BA3506F02FAB?diaryId=3724

The only other legitimate democratic possibility is for superdelegates to cast their vote as a balance in order to bring their state's total delegation into more perfect fitting with the rules of "proportional representation" which the rest of the delegates must follow. For example, if Obama tops Hillary by a 60/40 ratio in a state with 6 delegates and 1 superdelegate, the delegates will go 4-2 Obama and the superdelegate would follow for Clinton, bringing the proportion from 66.6/33.3 to a MORE PERFECT 57.1/42.9

Posted by FibrillatorD | February 12, 2008 8:46 PM

Let me put it this way: if the primary voters and caucus-goers nominate Obama, and that decision is overturned by super-delegates, we will physically march on the DNC.

Posted by goethean | February 12, 2008 11:15 PM

I think allowing the superdelegates to vote in a straw poll only influences the public's vote. Ideally, the superdelegates take a look at who is ahead in the race at give their vote to the candidate who the people have chosen. We can't of course, know who they'll vote for. But why should voters know who the super delegates are voting for? So that they can jump ship to support the candidate that the establishment picks?

Releasing such straw poll votes prior to key states make this primary deason more of an oligarchy than a democracy.

Posted by MsAnnie | February 12, 2008 11:36 PM

MsAnnie, you think the current system isn't representative of the people? My god caucuses leave out seveveral major demographics and aren't closed ballots. Superdelegates are a much better balance to this ridiculous terrible system.

Posted by Jonathan | February 13, 2008 12:15 AM

Hey, I have an idea that Martin Johnson would like: Cancel all results from the primaries and caucuses, and turn the entire thing over to the superdelegates. The superdelegates are wiser than we are, and their decision would clearly vindicate the DLC policy of losing general elections so that members can retain higher-paying jobs on K Street instead of joining some boring Democratic administration. Win-win.

Posted by phillygirl | February 13, 2008 1:52 AM

I think that political bloggers who get paid to write should stop posting idiotic notions from their readers instead of informed political commentary.

Posted by KathyF | February 13, 2008 2:51 AM

What about not permanently alienating the youth vote so they never, ever, vote democrat again? The new generation will not forgive the party if it rigs the nomination. Watch it, or that "young and liberal" stereotype will enter the dustbin of history.

Posted by gorak | February 14, 2008 7:44 AM

Superdelegates are part of the existing (albeit, imperfect) system we have. We should live with it as is--or change the whole shootinmatch. If Clinton has an advantage with the supers, so be it. We can't start changing on the basis of one race. If we change, it's because we simply have figured out that the entire system needs to be overhauled--for EVERYone, now and in the future.

Posted by Leigh | February 14, 2008 8:31 AM

First, I want to thank Ambinder readers for evaluating my idea. I sent it in because I haven't heard anyone propose a solution to what I see as a major problem: the very real possibility that this primary fight could last until June, which will hurt both candidates. Since I wrote the email (reprinted here) last Thursday, a few things have changed:

1.) Obama has won eight states in a row, giving him a momentum that for the moment seems unstoppable.

2.) The Clinton campaign has signaled that they will quit if they lose Texas or Ohio. Although they're up in the polls now, I wouldn't be surprised to see Obama take either state, and at that point I suspect that there will be enormous pressure on Clinton to drop out, ending the fight despite the fact that neither candidate will have clinched the nomination.

At the same time, we still have a few problems:

1.) Just one victory by the Clinton campaign would allow them to claim a "comeback," pushing the contest until Pennsylvania or later. That's six more weeks that McCain has to consolidate his base, raise money and prepare a general election strategy. Campaigns abhor a vacuum, so in that six weeks it's likely that voters will sour on both candidates due to negative attacks and bickering.

2.) Regardless of how Obama or Clinton do in the subsequent races, it's impossible for either to reach 2,025 delegates and unlikely for either to amass a large pledged delegate lead (even a 100 delegate lead, Obama's stated goal, is just five percent of the total). Thus, the superdelegates, whether we like it or not, will decide the nomination. Yes, if we waited until June 7 all the voters will be heard, but we've never used that logic before in a nominating contest, and if waiting just gets us the same result, what's the point?

So, my idea is to for Howard Dean or the DNC to get all the superdelegates on record as supporting one candidate or the other. While the superdelegates likely have very good reasons for staying on the sidelines, forcing them to choose after March 4 (which makes more sense now, given that Clinton has said that's her firewall) will likely end the contest without hurting the party. Given that the superdelegates who have announced their support since voting began have broken two-to-one for Obama, this straw poll will most likely function to end Clinton's run at the presidency, and prevent her from destroying the party in an attempt to achieve a narrow victory (think the impeachment crisis of 1998 writ large).

This might not persuade anyone, but I think the natural inclination of the superdelegates who have yet to commit will be to sit on the fence as long as they can. If pushed by the DNC to show their hand (remember, all the media accounts differ from each other and have many flaws), we'll know who the party supports for the nomination (again, my guess would be Obama) and we would avoid potential nightmares like:

1.) Rules committee fights over the caucuses, the primaries in Florida and Michigan, etc.

2.) Shenanigans at local/state party conventions, where the delegates are actually selected (there are already accounts of Clinton supporters agreeing to serve as Obama delegates, raising the possibility of unfaithful pledged delegates).

3.) And, of course, a drawn-out internecine battle between Obama and Clinton that would almost certainly end up with a Clinton victory and protests at the convention. We saw that in 1968, and the country elected Nixon. Given that McCain is already a popular candidate, we can't afford to help him in any way.

So, I stand by original argument. Thoughts? Are there alternatives that get us a nominee quickly without an Obama blow-out in Ohio/Texas? Clinton will win dirty if she has to, and given the complexity of the system, I think it's necessary for the party to stop her before she has time to challenge every rule and every delegate to steal the nomination.

Posted by Martin Johnson | February 14, 2008 2:44 PM

Sorry, Marc, way too complicated. Mostly we need to pray either Hillary or Obama convincingly pulls ahead before the convention and then gets the nomination.

If that is too passive for you then here is the Solomonic compromise: Re-vote in MI (BHO wasn't even on the ballot), seat the FL delegates, and agree the candidate with the most pledged delegates won.

Hard to say which way that would tilt, which is why it is fair.

Posted by tomtom | February 16, 2008 9:09 PM