Superdelegates Torn Between Voters, Party

CBSNews.com Reports: Clinton, Obama Push Different Visions For Party Leaders Who Could Decide Nomination

(CBS)  This story was written by CBSNews.com political reporter Brian Montopoli.

---

With the Democratic presidential race potentially coming down to the will of the superdelegates - the nearly 800 party insiders and elected officials who can support the candidate of their choosing - the campaigns of Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton are pushing very different visions of how those still undecided should make their choice.

The Clinton campaign has suggested that superdelegates need to take a sober look at who they believe to be the best candidate - regardless of who ends up with an edge in delegates won during the primary and caucus season.

"The whole idea of superdelegates is they are supposed to exercise their independent judgment," Clinton said in New Orleans last month.

The senator insisted it would be a "disservice" to those who "have independent experience with candidates" not to allow them to use their experience as a basis for their judgment.

The Clinton campaign has set up a Web site, complete with embedded video clip of Democratic National Committee chair Howard Dean seemingly agreeing with Clinton, to further make the case.

The Obama campaign, meanwhile, has sent some mixed signals. But for the most part, they have suggested that superdelegates should follow the will of the people.

"We've got to make sure that whoever wins the most votes, the most states, the most delegates, that they are the nominee," Obama said last month. "I think it would be problematic if either Senator Clinton or myself came in with having won the most support from voters, and that was somehow overturned by party insiders. I think the people would feel as if the voters' voices had been discounted."

CBS News estimates that Obama leads Clinton among pledged delegates, 1,362 to 1,210. But among superdelegates, Clinton leads Obama 242 to 201. More than 300 superdelegates have yet to publicly state a position.

The superdelegate system was created in 1982, following a difficult decade for the Democratic party. Ten years earlier, Democrats had nominated George McGovern, who would lose badly to Richard Nixon in the general election. (Sensing that McGovern was too liberal to beat Nixon, many Democratic leaders tried, but failed, to keep him off the ticket.)

In 1976, the party nominated Jimmy Carter, who would go on to victory in the general election after a tough primary fight. But by the early 1980s, many Democratic leaders felt that Carter had been a poor president, according to Henry Brady, political science professor at the University of California at Berkeley. After having to back two straight nominees who many saw as disappointments, party leaders were looking for a way to have more control over the process.

"There was a feeling that they had gone to the extremes of a popular system and ended up with George McGovern and Jimmy Carter, and that was a mistake of the system," said Brady. "There was a feeling it had to be reigned in."

Superdelegates could also help head off ugly nominating battles by uniting the Democratic establishment around a candidate as early as possible. In 1984, when Walter Mondale wanted to make sure he had secured the nomination, he turned to the superdelegates to put him over the top before the party convention.

"The idea was to create a group of independent delegates who were free to coalesce around a nominee after a candidate emerged from the process with real strength," said Democratic strategist Tad Devine, who was Mondale's delegate counter in that race.

But the existence of superdelegates also created a potential perception problem. Democratic voters generally want the selection of their nominee to be as, well, democratic as possible - and the superdelegate system invited images of party bosses sitting in smoke-filled rooms, choosing their preferred nominee.

And even if the superdelegates were to try to follow the voters, it's not entirely clear what that means. Should they follow the will of their constituents, as Rep. John Lewis has suggested? (That might not be terribly democratic in the end, since superdelegates are not evenly spread throughout the country.)

Should they back the candidate with the most pledged delegates, even if the delegate counts don't reflect the popular vote? (It's possible that one candidate could end up with more votes and less delegates because of intricate party rules.)

And how will they factor in the results in Florida and Michigan, where delegates are not being counted because the states held their primaries early, in violation of party rules?

In a Feb. 25th CBS News poll, a majority of Democratic primary voters said that the superdelegates should back whichever candidate gets the most overall elected delegates. But party leaders seem inclined to maintain at least some control of the system, even if it means risking alienating the rank-and-file.

The best hope for Democrats to extricate themselves from the present situation is for one of the candidates to land a knockout punch that would make superdelegates coalescing around a nominee more palatable to voters, Devine said.

"If Obama had won in Texas and Ohio, this thing would have coalesced, and people would have accepted it," he said. Instead, the battle continues for a victory or series of wins that would provide an opportunity for that to take place.

"It has to do with momentum, it has to do with who's peaking," said Devine. "And that's the way it's supposed to be. If Obama looks like he has a glass jaw, he's not going to win."

[jerryz7936]

McCain will win the nomination.

The wisdom of the DNC will let Hillary and Obama slug and bloody each other. Obama has the pledge delegate lead.
When the DNC super-delegates overturn the pledge delegates for Hillary or run to Obama side, one side will not vote, may vote for Nader or McCain.

If they overrule Obama, 90% of the black vote will be gone and all of the first time and young voters will join.
If jumping to Obama, over sixty years old and women will protest. I don''t want to miss the uneducated that Hillary always says she gets. They don''t know better.

[itchyb-2009]

Hillary cares more about winning winning winning at all costs, regardless of the damage that would be done to the Democratic party. The new, energized voters who can and would give Obama a win over McBush would pretty much give up on the party. I would expect a McBush win in November. The Clinton machine is a calculating, self-promoting and mercenary collection of win at any cost toadies.

[omega39-2009]

McCain will win the nomination.

Posted by jerryz7936

You forget one thing, it takes money to win an election. Either Obama or Hillary is going to crush McCain in money raised. Nobody is giving to Republicans anymore, Bush has killed their brand.

[nolalou]

jerryz7936 ,
First of all McCain has already won the republican nomination, as he has more then the delegates he needs.

To your second point , no matter who gets the Democratic nomination, some people will be disappointed, and may feel ''cheated''. It will be up to Obama and Clinton to come together and mend fences to get the vote out. In the end, most Democrats I know , while they have a preference of either Obama or Clinton, will vote for whoever gets the Democratic Party nomination.

[jjp735i]

Superdelegates should follow the will of the people. They should not be allowed to undermine the choice the people will soon make, be it Clinton or Obama.

Should superdelegates even exist? If they are not going to vote with the will of the people, one has to wonder are they voting for who can take care of them later?

[dg0912]

One thing''s for sure: if it''s Hillary vs. McBush, they''ll need every earthmover in the country to shovel the s**t that they''ll be throwing at each other. It''ll be the Ultimate Dirty Politics Cage Match! And here I thought the people wanted to get away from that...

[dslowik1]

If the supers overturn the will of the people, the Democratic party will have committed suicide.

[darrren12000]

What people are forgetting is that it takes over 2000 delegates to win. Neither candidate will do it without the SuperDelegates.

Tru America: Obama has done the same thing. He ran his campaign saying Clinton is "more of the same," "divisive," and that the Republicans will have a "dumptruck of dirt" on her. This is fodder for the Republicans too. Stop acting as if King Obama doesnt do the same thing. You Obamaniacs are frightening in your one-sidedness.

[nolalou]

"Since you can''''t give more to a candidate than the limited amount by law, all that money flowing to the democrats in this primary won''''t be available for the general election." Posted by trapbreak

Actually, I don''t believe that''s quite correct. There are limits as to how much a person can give during the primary, but then they can give again during the general election, up to another limit. For example, I could donate up to $2000 to Obama during the primaries, and then another $2000 if he gets the nomination, for the general election. In addition, an individual can give up to $28,500 to the party''s ''election committee''.

It''s true that McCain will have a head start in raising money for the general election, while the Democrats continue to fight it out, but when you consider a majority of Americans don''t agree with the Bush policies on Iraq, the Economy, and other issues, if the Democrats make the point that a vote for McCain is a vote for ''more of the same'' , they will have a big advantage.

[cbsblogger]

Only if Obama falls apart at the last moment should the super delegates override the people.

It will be very risky for the DNC if it plays politics and back room deals in order to make Hillary Clinton the Dem candidate per pressure from some powerful Democratic Party players such as AIPAC and others.

It would likely risk not only the Presidential election and but the credibility of the Democratic Party and its Congressional candidates.

The Demos better wake up and realize:
1. McCain can beat Hillary!!
2. Her husband is a tailor made issue to re-energize the religious right.
3. If they nominate her, the African American community will stay home on election day.

There is a good reason the Repubs have been encouraging their voters to cross over and vote for Hillary in the primaries... They want her!!

[xlib]

Only the democratic party can get away with rewriting the rules to suit themseleves. If this were the Republicans I can just imagine the msm having a feeding frenzy. So typical. Did I say "rules", my bad. The democratic party has no rules. They make it up as they go along/
Say, no coverage of the rezko trial??? Funny, I would love to hear more about your golden boy and his dealings with this crook. This could rival the shortly covered hsu doings with the madame.
I see obama brought out his grandmother from Kenya. How sweet and touching. Doesn''t he have a white grandma out there somewhere???? Let''s see her.
The cover-ups and panderings by the media fro this guy is amazing.

[omega39-2009]

Since you can''''t give more to a candidate than the limited amount by law, all that money flowing to the democrats in this primary won''''t be available for the general election.

Posted by trapbreak a

Obama''s money has come from millions of people pledging less than $100, by law they could pledge considerably more by the general election.

[xlib]

hadenough43-what''s with the constant references to the "religious right"? Would you believe that not every conservative is a religious zealot or do you just stick to the sites that demonize an entire segment of the American population?
Go on huffinton post or the dailykos to get your fix of hate and vile.
Worked for the nazi''s.

[hungry1968]

The entire "super delegate" system is a fiasco. It basically says, "You''re better than everyone else, therefore your votes counts more than the common people".

If I was a superdelegate, I would either publicly announce that I would vote for whoever had the most electoral votes as determined by the caucus'' or the primaries, or I would abstain completely.

The obvious answer is that the federal election commission should step in and settle the entire process once and for all. They should set dates for the state primaries to vote (not allowing the states to set the dates themselves), BOTH parties should be on the same day for the same state, the states would vote in order BY SIZE OF POPULATION (not tiny non-representative states like Iowa or New Hampshire), and the super delegates would be gone altogether.

[hungry1968]

It''''s "COOL" to have a Black Prez.... but he is NOT the experienced one. NO, CAN''''T DO.

Vote for Hillary, or Democrat Party is set to lose again.

Posted by metroduck75 at 09:54 AM : Mar 07, 2008




So you would rather have a democratic candidate that voted WITH Bush and McCain more often than not? Do you really think that anything is going to change if Hillary is elected? It''s going to be 4 more years of bush-like policies of running this country into the ground.

Maybe you should look at her non-existent record as a NY senator instead of looking at the accomplishments of her husband as both a governor and a president.

Picking out china patterns for the White House dining room isn''t usually considered "political experience".

[destardi]

1. McCain can beat Hillary!!
2. Her husband is a tailor made issue to re-energize the religious right.
3. If they nominate her, the African American community will stay home on election day.

There is a good reason the Repubs have been encouraging their voters to cross over and vote for Hillary in the primaries... They want her!!

Posted by hadenough43 at 09:46 AM : Mar 07, 2008
+ report abuse


Funny, all the Republicans in Ohio that I know (my boss one of them) voted for OBAMA in the Primary, because the fact is that Hillary could beat McCain.

National Security? Obama was "against the war" so yea that plays well with Dems, but in November..we''d *** well better have a strong "national security" option put forth..that leaves Hillary.

Obama has skeletons in his closet that no one knows about; Chicagoans do..but the rest of the country will not like what''s coming. Mark.My.Words.

Further, Obama''s negatives are RISING, not falling. Hillary''s have been constant; and now, Obama''s are 43% to Hillary''s 46%.

HILLARY CAN WIN.

And for the race-baiters...
http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/did_clinton_darken_obamas_skin.html

WHO''S USING RACE in this election? It''s not Hillary.
"New York State Senator Bill Perkins used quite explicit racial stereotyping in a speech aimed at discouraging his constituents from voting for Clinton by saying, Harlem "is not Bill Clinton''s backyard or his plantation. Underscore, plantation."

[humble212win]

Since you can''''''''t give more to a candidate than the limited amount by law, all that money flowing to the democrats in this primary won''''''''t be available for the general election.

Posted by trapbreak a

Obama''''s money has come from millions of people pledging less than $100, by law they could pledge considerably more by the general election.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Posted by omega39

Additionally a citizen is allowed to donate up to $2300.00 for a primary campaign and $2300.00 for a general election. I expect a great number of donators are waiting to see if Obama is nominated and then will donate to the general election.

[chitown639]

Now, Obama is playing DIRTY.

He claimed to be a "different kind" of politician. But now he is sending his advisor out to call Hillary "different kind" names.

Shame on YOU, Osama!!! We do NOT want you EVER.

Fire your advisor!!!


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Posted by metroduck75

Sorry, but did Hillary fire her advisor for calling Obama, ''Ken Star'', let me answer that one, NO!!! So, stop your whining. If Hillary wants the name calling to stop, she could start by apologizing, as Obama did, and then she could stop the name calling coming from her OWN campaign camp....

[mikeant50]

Let''s take this to the convention and let the chips fall where they may. If the party destroys itself by ignoring the will of the majority, so be it. Obama shouldn''t drop out for the good of the party. When Clinton was losing 11 in a row, nobody asked that of her. There a a lot of primaries left and Obama will more that likely finish with the delegate and popular vote lead. If they are going to steal it from him, let them do it in front of his supporters and the national media. Not some backroom at the DNC. If it destroys the party, then we will truly learn how inept our leadership is.

National Security? Obama was "against the war" so yea that plays well with Dems, but in November..we''''d *** well better have a strong "national security" option put forth..that leaves Hillary.
Posted by Destardi1

In the 2004 off-year elections, the repubs got thumped. Why, the Irag war! Any Dem banging the "national security" drum who voted for the Iraq war is running agains''t themselves. Remember, Hillary has never admitted her vote was a mistake. And that is pure "I can do no wrong arrogance". People know that!
In the meantime McCain will not be running agains''t his vote for that Iraq debacle.
It''s a loser issue for Hillary..... The repubs know this.

[chitown639]

Latinos LOVE Hillary.....

If you guys send out Osama, the majority of us will FLOCK to McCain.....

If you think you can ignore our Swing Votes, try it!!!


Posted by metroduck75

Is it that Latinos love Hillary, or is it just good old fashion hatred of Blacks??? Using your logic, why would the Latinos, who love Hillary so much, would abandon her Democratic party and vote for a republican if Obama is the nominee? Let me answer that one, because their votes are based on racial hatred not love for Hillary....

[chitown639]

Hopefully, PA will end the Cult Obama Campaign...

People have to wake up and realize that this guy is a REAL monster, not Hillary.

He divides the DEM party by showing HATES the way Republicans do on Hillary.

SHAME ON YOU, Osama!!!





Posted by metroduck75

Sorry, but did Hillary fire her advisor for calling Obama, ''Ken Star'', let me answer that one, NO!!! So, stop your whining. If Hillary wants the name calling to stop, she could start by apologizing, as Obama did, and then she could stop the name calling coming from her OWN campaign camp....

[liberalvet]

Over and over, Obama has shown incapable of competing in any BIG States except for his own....

Does Democrats really think that they can ignore Reagan-Democrats and Latinos who are the Voters that matters MOST in the SWING STATES????

So far, Obama only got most of his delegates from the RED STATES??? That''''s NOT good enough when it comes to GE.

It''''s "COOL" to have a Black Prez.... but he is NOT the experienced one. NO, CAN''''T DO.

Latinos for Hillary''''''''08!!!

Posted by metroduck75 at 10:09 AM : Mar 07, 2008

LMAO... Hillary has barely ecked out wins in everyone of those BIG SWING STATES. The Latino vote is powerful, but do not over state that power. The Latino vote is strong in only select areas of this country and does not represent the majority of the democratic party.

The RED STATES are exactly where the democratic party needs to gain votes. Obviously you have been in a vacuum for the last 2 elections, for it was the failure to turn out the democratic vote in those RED STATES that lead to those loses.

As far as experience, please explain to all of us with you grand wisdom what exepereince Hillary has. She has no more than Obama. Being a first lady is not count, and her record as a NY Senator is poor at best.

[lorinkundert]

The concept of super delegates is completely unconstitutional by taking away the right of the public to choose the candidate, it''s no different than the Communist party giving you a list of suitable candidates.

We do NOT want an INexperienced guy running the Country. And we are the REAL SWING VOTERS in the BIG SWING States that MATTERS!!!!

Consider that a warning.

Posted by metroduck75

Have you checked out what the "experienced" guys have done lately??

[random_radar]

Probably nothing will alienate voters more than manipulating (or outright changing) the rules so that a particular person gets the nomination.

What better way to lose the general election than to be the nominee who could not even win a majority of their own party''s voters?

If democrats don''t like the results of the democratic process, they should go back to the smoke filled rooms approach to nomination. And they should change their party name, too...

[lorinkundert]

"Obama''''s plan to "change" the Country from capitalism to socialism."

That''s true of any Democrat and especially true of Hillary.

Taxing more of my money to Support more people on WELFARE??? H-E-L-L NO
Posted by metroduck75

Presumably, taking your tax money to support the corporations is perfectly ok, huh?

[chitown639]

We do NOT want an INexperienced guy running the Country. And we are the REAL SWING VOTERS in the BIG SWING States that MATTERS!!!!

Consider that a warning.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Posted by metroduck75

What executive experience does Hillary have? None. Hillary had never been elected to public office until she won a seat in the U.S. Senate in 2000, although she had no prior legislative experience!!! She only been a legislator for 8 years!!! Where is all this experience she is talking about????

[liberalvet]

Please do not insult Latinos.

Don''''t Hate just because Majority of us LOVE Hillary.

If you think DEM party can survive next Election with ONLY the Support of wine drinker and black community.... then go ahead and Challenge us...

We will show how we can swing our VOTES.

Posted by metroduck75 at 10:28 AM : Mar 07, 2008

First off I do not hate any fellow democrats...period.

Second I do not hate Latinos....my wife is Latino...

Third the democratic party has alway had the BIG SWING STATE votes in the GE and lost the past 2 elections. If you think for a minute the democratic party does not need the Caucasian and African American vote to win the GE, then you my friend are the HATER and are unable to see facts for how they are.

[chitown639]

Please do not insult Latinos.

Don''''t Hate just because Majority of us LOVE Hillary.

If you think DEM party can survive next Election with ONLY the Support of wine drinker and black community.... then go ahead and Challenge us...

We will show how we can swing our VOTES.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Posted by metroduck75

YOU are insulting Latinos, grouping them all in one general voting block base on hatred toward blacks....

Presumably, taking your tax money to support the corporations is perfectly ok, huh? - - Posted by hadenough43 at

Corporations create jobs, pay taxes, make toys.

Posted by trapbreak
Well, except for the "pay taxes" part, I would agree with you. They''re doing a very good job of creating jobs in third world countries. And a pretty good job of creating base rate pay jobs here.

[byeneocons]

If the Democratic primaries had been "winner take all" like the Republicans, Hillary would have the nomination already. Likewise, if the Republican primaries resulted in proportional delegate votes, the senile liberal republican war monger McCain would probably be trailing the nutty preacher from Arkansas.

[chitown639]

not that i am a hillary supporter, but someone had to run the white house while bill was busy with monica

GO MCCAIN!!!!


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Posted by clowry123

Thats absurd...fact is, Hillary never held a elected public office until 2000. She only has 8 years experience!!!

[middbrain]

Dems nedto calmdown andthink hard if they dont want to have another Bush term.
Check this out
http://middlebrainedmusings.blogspot.com/

[abbe91]

"The whole idea of superdelegates is they are supposed to exercise their independent judgment," Clinton said in New Orleans last month.

The whole idea of superdelegates is wrong.

[jackfrost99]

Clinton/Obama 2008!

The super delegates shall not decide this. The voters shall. With both candidates having such strong support the only way out is a joint ticket.

That way we avoid a messy convention (with super delegates determining the race + having to deal with FL/MI) as well as months of negative campaigning.

[honestabe8]

nokoolaid: do you really consider that electing hillary or obama would be a change in the status quo, as opposed to just a new party *** us?

[abbe91]

not that i am a hillary supporter, but someone had to run the white house while bill was busy with monica
GO MCCAIN!!!!

Then Laura Bush should be the republican nominee. She had to run the WH while the shrub was busy with Jeff Gannon.

[chitown639]

If the Democratic primaries had been "winner take all" like the Republicans, Hillary would have the nomination already. Likewise, if the Republican primaries resulted in proportional delegate votes, the senile liberal republican war monger McCain would probably be trailing the nutty preacher from Arkansas.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Posted by ByeNeocons

How many states has Hillary won so far??? 16??? Why would we let 16 states chose the democratic nominee for 50 states??? Using your logic, a candidate would only need to campaign in the states with the largest populations. The presidential candidate should represent the voices of every states, not just the big states....

[honestabe8]

since the autosensor made *** of my word (vulgar word for i-n-t-e-r-c-o-u-r-s-e), i will rephrase it to include the words "taking advantage of us"

not that i am a hillary supporter, but someone had to run the white house while bill was busy with monica

GO MCCAIN!!!!

Posted by clowry123

Now Y''see, there it is, right there. Any candidate of either *** with a spouse who has a history of sleeping around is gonna have big problems.
Too many people do not want that person sleeping in the White House.
This is one of the drums that the Repubs are gonna be beating on like crazy if the Dems are stupid enough to nominate Hillary.

[chitown639]

Now Y''''see, there it is, right there. Any candidate of either *** with a spouse who has a history of sleeping around is gonna have big problems.
Too many people do not want that person sleeping in the White House.
This is one of the drums that the Repubs are gonna be beating on like crazy if the Dems are stupid enough to nominate Hillary.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Posted by hadenough43

Why in the world would we want to bring the Clintons disfunctional marriage and soap opera back on the international stage again? Its a distraction to the duties of the president....

[nbknt3g]

I''ve posted this thought on several blogs and NO one has commented on it. It''s actually very telling why.

Since Obama insists that superdelegates should follow their states'' popular vote then shouldn''t he "DENOUNCE & REJECT" Sen. Kennedys'' (D-MA) endorsement???? We know HRC won his state. When Hillary was asked the question I think she gave the perfect answer. I look for great leaders who will listen to me but at the same time I do expect them to have a backbone and voice their opinion. From what I have researched on superdelegates, they worked hard to get that status.

[jesterbelle]

Posted by singingrick at 10:51 AM : Mar 07, 2008
I saw your post yesterday about crickets chirping after I''d answered you,LOL.Never did see you after that.I''m not the speediest of typers,I have never had any formal training.I did take the time to answer you though.

[singingrick]

clowry123


Oh my! Clinton got a blowwjob? Wow! Please keep us informed on this breaking news!

lol!

[singingrick]

jesterbelle


Sorry, I never saw your answer.

[bhw412]

So, as I have said before, you would think the Dems would have learned their lesson from 2000. With Florida and Michigan, the popular vote has gone with Clinton. In fact, already in two states, she won the popular vote, but came out behind in the delegate count (can you say "hanging chad"). Bottomline, if this thing goes on to June, the popular vote, not the delegate count, should be the deciding factor. The SDs however should make their decision based only on one thing - who can win in November!

[jesterbelle]

clowry123


Oh my! Clinton got a blowwjob? Wow! Please keep us informed on this breaking news!

lol!





--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Posted by singingrick at 10:59 AM : Mar 07, 2008

Yeah Rick,clowry couldn''t help it.He starts salivating at the sound of a zipper.