The Voters And The Superdelegates

CBS' Kathy Frankovic: Superdelegates Are Targeted Commodities In The Democratic Race

(CBS)  This column was written by CBS News director of surveys Kathy Frankovic.

---

Americans always want to make decisions themselves - and they tell pollsters they want officeholders to pay attention to them. This year the biggest issue for Democrats involves “superdelegates” - the 796 elected and party officials who are automatic delegates to the Democratic convention. Superdelegates number nearly one-fifth of the delegate total, and they can vote for whomever they wish to, and can even change their minds right up to the day in late August when the roll call is taken.

Superdelegates were created more than 20 years ago for many reasons, one of which was to ensure that Democrats who’d actually been elected to party or government offices would be part of the candidate selection process. This year the superdelegates are being pursued by the candidates and their campaigns and - perhaps for the first time - by the voters themselves.

In this year’s close nomination fight between Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama, superdelegates have become visible - and targeted. Actually, they are not just a shifting target, they are a shifting number. Saturday’s election of a Democrat in Illinois to take the Congressional seat once held by Republican Dennis Hastert adds not just another Democratic Member to Congress, but a new superdelegate to the Democratic Convention. And there may be two more before August, after special elections are held to replace recently deceased Democrats - Tom Lantos in California and Julia Carson in Indiana.

Americans have made clear their desire to have elected officials listen to them, in poll after poll. Just 18 percent answered in a 1987 Gallup Poll on referenda and elections that the public should “trust our elected officials to make public decisions on all issues.” 76 percent said voters should “have a direct say on some issues.” A year ago, 86 percent told Gallup that it was important that the next president “pays attention to public opinion when making decisions.” Forty-three percent said it was “essential.”

One of those decisions on which the public wanted input was the Clinton impeachment debate of 1998. Although Republican Members of the House of Representative voted for the impeachment charges, the Senate voted not to convict. Throughout the process, Americans said that Clinton should not be impeached. A Gallup Poll in September 1998 found 63 percent wanting Congress to “stick closely to American public opinion” when deciding what to do next. Just 34 percent said they should “do what they think best regardless of what the American public thinks.”

Americans claim that elected officials don't care what people like themselves think. In a Pew Research Center poll taken in December 2006, 62 percent disagreed when offered the statement “most elected officials care what people like me think.” In the same poll, 79 percent agreed that “elected officials in Washington lose touch with the people pretty quickly.”

These aren’t new feelings; they have shown up in polls for decades. In 1970, 71 percent told the Harris Poll that “public opinion had too little power and influence in Washington.”

Sometimes the public even says that paying attention to public opinion means paying attention to polls. 61 percent of Americans told a Gallup Poll in 2005 that the country would be better off if the “leaders of our nation” followed the views expressed in public opinion polls more closely. In 2001, the Kaiser Foundation discovered that 84 percent agreed that “public opinion polling is far from perfect, but it is one of the best means we have for communication what the public is thinking.”

So it should be no surprise that the public’s instinct now is to reject the decision-making autonomy of the Democratic Party’s superdelegates. Back in 1984, even some delegates were concerned. ABC News and the Washington Post found 21 percent of Democratic National Convention delegates wanting to “eliminate” the system altogether, and another 28 percent wanting fewer elected officials to be superdelegates. Forty-five percent were content with the number or wanted more of them.

Democratic voters have been very clear on the subject in this year’s exit polls. Last week, although voters in both Texas and Ohio supported Hillary Clinton, six in ten of them said that superdelegates should cast their convention vote “based on the results of the primaries and caucuses.” Obama’s voters were much more likely to say that than Clinton’s voters were, but more of Clinton’s voters thought the voting results should decide how superdelegates vote than believed those delegates should use their own opinions about the candidates and their electability. (In Hawaii’s February caucuses, petitions were circulated asking the state’s superdelegates to vote with the caucuses’ majority - which was for Obama.)

Nationally, voters appear a little more conflicted, though their democratic instincts may be affected by question wording - and politics. So far, only two organizations, the Los Angeles Times/Bloomberg poll and CBS News/New York Times, have asked about this subject specifically. In late February, 45 percent of Democratic primary voters nationwide told the LA Times/Bloomberg pollsters that superdelegates should “be free to vote for a candidate as they like,” while just about as many (45 percent) said they should ” vote for the candidate that won in their state.”

At about the same time, CBS News and The New York Times found 52 percent saying superdelegates “should vote for whichever candidate received the most votes in the primaries and caucuses.” Twenty-five percent thought “superdelegates should vote for whomever they want,” and 20 percent said superdelegates “should vote for the candidate they think has the best chance to win in November.” About a third of those wanting superdelegates to follow the election returns said they should follow returns in their state. The rest favored looking at national results (both positions have been espoused at different times by the Obama campaign; and each would yield slightly different results).

As of now, superdelegates will just have to figure out how to make their own decisions!

[random_radar]

As it stands now, neither candidate will get an outright majority of delegates so they are at the mercy of the superdelegates.

Counting Florida and Michigan would actually be to Obama''s advantage because it will get him closer to a majority and make it harder for the superdelegates to derail his campaign.

Of course, Clinton is rapidly making herself radioactive on the race issues, so I doubt she will be seen as a viable Democratic candidate. I hear the other liberal nominee is looking for a VP, so maybe she ought to switch to the Republican party and offer her services there?

[jockh]

In her 2000 campaign for the Senate, Hillary Clinton''s campaign demanded her opponent release his tax returns and even sent a staffer dressed as Uncle Sam to taunt him during campaign stops. Today she refuses to release hers. Makes you wonder what crooked and shady characters have been contributing to her funds.
Don%u2019t be afraid Hillary, release your tax returns and let us vet you.

Hillary makes ridiculous claims that she is tried and tested in over 80 countries. As the wife of a visiting US President she simply tried and tested various tea and cookie offerings but she never negotiated anything, in fact she did not even have security clearance. By Hillary%u2019s childlike reasoning this means Laura Bush is also tried and tested to be President or that the wife of a brain surgeon is qualified to operate on people!!

Hillary may have answered the White House phone at 3am but I am sure the callers always said CAN I SPEAK TO YOUR HUSBAND PLEASE!!

[cyberus-2009]

superdelegate system = elitism at its worst

[vet_sk]

abnerm. Sounds like you need to be in the republican party if you believe a bunch of party elites should decide the will of the election. This is not even close. Obama ahead by 163 delegates. That''s well about 10%. And Obama is not trying change the rules. His supporters like me are just warning the party that it would be political suicide to go against the will of the people.

[vet_sk]

Laura Bush for President. Yeah, that''s the ticket.
Good analogy - it is totally rediculous.

Obama is ahead by 163 pledged delegates and ahead by 910,000 popular votes. So the people that have said that the caucuses don''t count (which is rediculous), Obama is even well ahead in the popular vote also.

If Hillary does somehow take the nomination via Supers in Denver - I''ll be in Denver along with 100,000 of others. And certainly we would never then vote for her. If she does pull off the delegate lead somehow, then no problem, I''ll vote her way but she''s way behind now. Just ain''t going to happen - even with FL and MI.

[fredgrad2000]

I just hope Barack holds his 100 delegate lead and million vote popular vote lead; and then the mostly white superdelegates throw the vote at the convention to Hillary; the Dems will lose the youth vote today and the Black vote (which they take for granted and hold only by promises they never keep) for a generation; letting African Americans actually choose their representatives rather than just being told to look for a "D". The scenario I describe, Barack Obama leading and superdelgates throwing to polarizing Hillary; that might be the best possible scenario to ensure the best thing possible in November, John McCain elected our next president; a true hero, who has a RECORD rather than rhetoric of working with both parties (Obama has voted against every major bi-partisan compromise since he was elected to the Senate; siding with the far left, not the compromise moderate middle), and who is actually experienced (not just lived with someone with experience). I hope this happens; nothing better than watching libs kill each other; kind of like a *** fight...

[knyghtwolf]

Iraq oil revenue soars, creating huge surplus
But U.S. still investing billions in rebuilding, facing squeeze at home." This was the headline on a Worldnews page. Here is ANOTHER reason we should NOT elect another republican to office. ANY revenue coming from this should go RIGHT BACK TO THE TAX PAYERS WHO WERE FORCED TO FUND THIS IDIOTIC WAR. We are still forced to spend the middle class and lower middle class monies at a rate of $12 BILLION a month, while the rich get the cream of crop profits, OUR money is being USED to fund CHIMPCO profits, with Haliburton in the forefront retaking their cut again and again whenever lil'''' d*i*c*k says to do it under whatever guise works or whatever dung is hitting the fan. When your kids don''''t eat for a week or two, and really start crying for food, then decide action, you need to take. We need our country back and we needed it back 8 years ago.

[tawpdawg1]

Dear superdelegates.... Be patient and Mr. Limbaugh will issue your marching orders.

[omega39-2009]

Posted by jack3213

Jack, the usual Republican fear mongering and swiftboating isn''t going to work this time. The people understand that McCain is just an extension of Bush and his policies. Those policies have rewarded Bush with a ~30% approval rating.

[jockh]

SUPER DELEGATES Please note:
Hillary is tried and tested in over 80 countries. As the wife of a visiting US President she was entitled to and professionally negotiated her way through incalculable amounts of complimentary tea and cookies. Does this mean that by Hillary%u2019s childlike reasoning that Laura Bush is also tried and tested to be President.

Hillary has also had numerous experiences of answering the White House phone at 3am but unfortunately the callers always said CAN I SPEAK TO YOUR HUSBAND PLEASE !!

[cyberus-2009]

-----
Lose the super delegates altogether - they are a powergrab by the establishment. And for people who think politicians ''''lose touch with the people pretty quickly'''' -- TERM LIMITS - The founding fathers never expected serving their country should be a ''''career''''. If we can have term limits for the President, why not the congress??

Posted by oleander8 at 08:48 AM : Mar 12, 2008
-----
Why can''t we have term limits for congresscritters?

Because we the voters never get it together enough force the issue on the national level and the congresscritters will never vote for term limits themselves.
(side note: I''m not sure there is even a way other than a constitutional convention to force it on congress in the first place .. anyone else know?)

[jack3213]

You should vote for whom you think is most qualified & experianced and let the bigots fight it out. Bottome line- alot voted in Dem. Miss. primary and other primaries ( after McCain was chosen) who are Republicans just to go against one Dem or another and justifiably so. In other words, come election time, the landscape will look very differant. The bickering for the next few months will demoralize the Dem Party and the Democrats will no longer will seem credible..then again they never were. To save the party one must bow out. It doesn''t matter who, really, neither will win.

[jsilver2th]

"Ferraro is currently a lobbyist in New York with Blank Rome Government Relations."

Oh I see she''s really a lobbyist for Republican now...

Here''s what Blank Rome''s own web site says about Gerry:

"On a slightly territorial note, however, the Washington Post.com reported, %u201CGeraldine Ferraro is heading back to D.C.%u2014or at least she%u2019ll be spending more time here . . . . The 1984 vice presidential candidate . . . adds a bit of Democratic flava to a firm known for its GOP ties; she also returns to town just in time for the latest round of %u201CIs the nation ready to elect a woman?%u201D interviews.%u201D "

So when she''s out there raising money for the Clintons and being disciminated against because she''s white- is she really on a feminist crusade or is she trying to buy favors for Blank Rome''s big bucks clients?

What a joke- Hillary''s superdelegate Mr. Spitzer isn''t the only NY politician that understands prostitution....

[tibu987]

"NOTICE TO THE DEMOCRATIC SUPER DELEGATES".
My concern now is the course the Super Delegates will take. They had best honor our votes and give their "Super Electoral Votes" to the popular vote of the people. Our voices, our votes, had best be taken seriously or I see a rise in revolt against the electoral system, the Democratic Party, and the politicians that used their votes against our choice.
Should Obama NOT receive the Super Delegates vote if he wins by plurality, I will vote for the Green Party candidate and protest loudly against that obvious lack of honesty with the Super Delegate electoral process.

[random_radar]

The reason the superdelegates exist is to correct the voters mistake if they choose the wrong nominee. What other function could they serve.

Democracy is only acceptable if you vote for the right candidate--the one chosen by the elites who rule.

[craigh9]

I understand it''''s possible and within the available process for Hillary to receive the nomination - my point is that it will fracture the party - the ONLY way I can see the party remaining intact is to honor the pledged delegate total - maening the super delegates should vote in favor of the candidate that carried their state. Even though the outcome will be a huge disappointment to one of the candidates and their followers - the party can hold its head high and say they are following the wishes of the majority. If it goes the other way the only defense available to the party is that they felt the popular candidate could not win - thereby alienating those supporters and risking a huge internal rift.

[craigh9]

I do not believe the Democratic Party could survive not nominating the candidate that wins the most comitted delegates - the only way to keep the party intact is to go with however the voting ends ON COMMITTED DELEGATES. If backroom dealing is done just to get the candidate the party insiders wanted all along it will fracture the party with a high likelihood of creating 2 seperate parties out of the democratic faithful. We are one nation, who cares about who wins the "big delegate" states. We have been based on majority rules in this country - since the majority have stated they want Obama - the party had better honor it or the consequences will undoubtedly be severe.

[oleander8]

Lose the super delegates altogether - they are a powergrab by the establishment. And for people who think politicians ''lose touch with the people pretty quickly'' -- TERM LIMITS - The founding fathers never expected serving their country should be a ''career''. If we can have term limits for the President, why not the congress??

[chad55555]

Think about it,our election process means nothing anymore.Democracy as we knew it when this country started is dead. This is now a *** and race election that will only destroy America,or what we still have.
Christians have proved they hate their God by not following his word,when Martin L King went to Russia 30 times to learn how to take over this country WITHOUT FIRING A SHOT,they taught him well.Christians are voting a Muslim(lived im Middle East and worship Eastern religions) into office.I GIVE UP PEOPLE NEVER LEARN BY THEIR MISTAKES UNTIL IT''S TOO LATE. IF AMERICAN PEOPLE WANT A HUNGRY COUNTRY LIKE AFRICA,LOOKS LIKE YOU''LL GET. SOON WE''LL BE SAYING GOD,NOT SURE THE ON, GOD BLESS AFRICO(AFRICA & MEXICO THE NEW AMERICA) A PRETEND DEMOCRACY.

[jack3213]

HYPOCRITICAL AND DECEPTIVE, CLINTON WILL STOOP TO ANY LEVEL, BE A MONSTER, AND REINFORCE HER SCUM STATUS TO WIN A POSITION SHE IS NOT QUALIFIED FOR. SHE STANDS BY A MAN WHO CHEATS ON HER AND THIS IS A DISGRACE. WOMEN WHO ACCEPT THIS KIND OF BEHAVIOUR SHOULD NOT BE RESPECT ESPECIALLY BY OTHER WOMEN.