CQ TODAY ONLINE NEWS
March 25, 2008 – 12:07 a.m.
Superdelegates Look Down, Look Up for Assistance
By Jonathan Allen, CQ Staff
Most of the superdelegates who have yet to pick sides in the Democratic presidential primary appear to be waiting for another authority — either voters or party leaders — to select their party’s nominee.
With neither candidate in a position to win enough pledged delegates to garner the nomination or enough popular votes to claim a clear mandate, the elected leaders and other party officials who make up the superdelegate corps are increasingly looking farther up the party hierarchy for decisive action.
As the end of the primary season draws nearer — and their role in determining the nominee grows clearer — there is no help on the horizon.
There are 79 members of Congress who are still undeclared despite already having seen the results from elections held in their districts, states or territories, according to a list posted on the Demconwatch Web site.
Democratic voters in John F. Tierney ’s 6th District, along the North Shore of Massachusetts, favored New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton 61 percent to 39 percent over Illinois Sen. Barack Obama in the state’s Feb. 5 presidential primary. But Tierney, one of 794 superdelegates to the Democratic National Convention, hasn’t said whom he will support.
Similarly, Susan A. Davis who represents a San Diego-based district more than 3,000 miles away, is keeping her cards close to her chest, even though Obama won her district 49 percent to 47 percent.
Tierney and Davis are among the 104 House members, delegates from territories and the District of Columbia and senators who have yet to commit their vote to either candidate. Twenty-five of them come from states that have yet to vote, including Pennsylvania, North Carolina, Indiana, Kentucky, West Virginia and Oregon.
Obama and Clinton appear to have won a roughly even share of the districts and states represented by undeclared superdelegates in places where primaries and caucuses already have been held — though the exact numbers change depending on whether superdelegates and votes from Florida and Michigan are counted. The Democratic National Committee stripped Florida and Michigan of its delegates as punishment for holding primaries earlier than party rules permit. The lawmakers who have endorsed have more often than not reflected the voting in their districts. But that has not always been the case.
A CQ Politics analysis using party and state data, as well as information from Dave Leip’s Atlas of U.S. Presidential Elections, has identified 22 declared Clinton supporters whose districts, states or territories tilted toward Obama. The tally includes three Floridians — Alcee L. Hastings , Kendrick B. Meek and Corrine Brown — but does not include John Lewis and David Scott , a pair of Georgia congressmen who supported Clinton but flipped into the Obama column after their districts went for Obama.
On Obama’s endorsement list, there are 12 lawmakers, including Florida Rep. Robert Wexler , whose constituents favored Clinton.
Some of the states that have voted have not reported district-level presidential primary data, precluding the compilation of a complete list of outcomes in all the districts that have voted thus far. Texas and New Jersey, where Clinton won, are the most populous that have yet to report vote tallies by congressional district.
Davis, echoing the sentiments of many of her colleagues, said she would prefer if the superdelegates are not in a position come August to throw the race in one direction or the other.
“I’m hoping we don’t,” she said, noting that the close contest in her district leaves her without convincing direction from her constituents.
“No clear mandate at all in this district, so that makes my job probably tougher not easier,” she said. “It really does come down to who you believe will be the best leader in this country.”
She was one of several undeclared superdelegates invited to meet with Clinton and some of her backers at her home in Washington, D.C., earlier this month.
“I did ask about the tone and ‘How are you going to bring the party together in the end no matter what happens?’ ” Davis said she inquired of Clinton during a question-and-answer session. “She stated very strongly that she would do everything in her power — no matter what happened — to do that.”
The strength of the party in November also is weighing on Tierney as he considers his options.
“A so-called ‘superdelegate’ is, I believe, expected to weigh and balance one’s own preference for any candidate, the preference expressed in a district or state, viability or electability, and the potential of superdelegates to weigh in at a convention in a way that would add to an eventual nominee’s electability by affecting any margin of convention victory,” he said.
But he is not offering much insight into who might benefit from his calculus.
“Massachusetts voters were clearly enthusiastic about their choices this election. I share that enthusiasm,” he said. “The respective campaigns appear to be equally enthusiastic about reaching out to all voters — both directly and through surrogates — and that is to be expected and respected. As I have stated previously, I have not announced my vote, and I have no present plans to do so in the immediate future.”
Many superdelegates hope that party leaders will set up a process — perhaps a “mini” convention before the party’s official convention in August -- in which they can express their preferences and select a nominee without risking an ugly and public floor fight.
“What the politicians want is to not have anybody in the party feel like this thing was stolen, and that’s different from protecting their own hides or being risk averse,” said the top aide to one superdelegate who has yet to back either candidate. “They just don’t want people to go into the general (election) with a bad taste in their mouth, and that may be impossible.”
That aide, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, laid out a labyrinth of intensely political choices: Superdelegates must weigh the possibility of alienating Clinton voters in swing areas of swing states against the possibility of a backlash from the new voters Obama has brought to the polls across the country, the short-term gain of winning the presidency against the long-term loss of faith in the Democratic Party, the expressed will of the voters against the needs of the party, and which of the various questions can be answered definitively before they must take sides.
“Until the elders, until the leadership and until the American people across all levels speak in some definitive way about a process to both be decisive and protective of these two groups, everyone’s holding their breath, and it’s very unsettling and difficult for the party to have this split and it only gets more so the more time goes on,” the aide said. “They are hoping for a process that will either allow the voters to decide or to allow the voters to feel like they have decided after the superdelegate process is born out — if it has to come to that.”
Comments
The Supers keep saying they need guidance and don't want to make the decisions themselves. But everybody knows that neither candidate can reach 2024 without the Supers! The Supers need to stop passing the buck and make a choice already.
Just look to "Billy Flyn" (a.k.a Billary)
Such monumental spinelessness makes it clear why the Republicans have been able to dominate politics for the last eight years, and continue to do so even though Democrats hold the majority in Congress. Leaders? What a friggin' joke. Hopefully the superdelegates won't be stupid enough to overturn the popular delegate vote, or all hell will break lose, McCain will win in November and the Party will be destroyed, perhaps for good. I mean really, can you imagine being an African-American veteran of the civil rights struggle, who - after helping to provide the most dependable base the party has - finally, after 50 years, has a candidate with the prize in hand - not a chance at winning the most votes, but having actually won them - only to see that prize snatched away by a cabal of overhwelmingly white superdelegates and handed to Hillary Clinton? Trust me, the convention would look worse than Chicago '68, and millions of African-Americans would turn their backs on the party for good - and rightfully so. Then, consider the millions of young voters who have been energized by Obama and will be the Democratic party of the future - how many of them would take it as a life lesson that politics is b.s. and the Democratic party in particular can never be trusted? Is this really the result the superdelegates want? Is it really that hard a decision to back the candidate who comes in first? The increasingly desperate and ugly Clinton jihad - which includes Rovian tactics of questioning Obama's patriotism and party-destructive praise of McCain - must be brought to an end. Get off the fence you spineless superdelegates! YOU can end this tragic farce and you don't need any "guidance" from on high to do it!
Balthus - You are right on the money with that comment. If I may add to the sentiment...If the undecided superdelegates need some "sign" they should look to Edwards or Gore. These guys are supposed to be elder statesmen. They have done nothing to stop this madness. Now I can understand Gore not getting involved at this point, but Edwards has no excuse to sit on the sidelines. Shame on this party. If it goes to convention I'll become a registered independent.
I appreciate balthus concern about African-American and young voters being upset should their candidate not win the nomination. The same would be true for democratic women and Hispanic voters. The Obama campaign has not cornered the market on passionate supporters. An Obama nomination would risk alienating the Hispanic voters which is the fastest rising ethnic block in the country and those white women voters who have been the real workers in campaigns forever. Women have also struggle in this country to achieve and the first serious female contender has been throughly mistreated by the Obama campaign and the media. You are not the only group upset with this campaign. Just imagine if the Hispanic vote goes to Mr. Immigration reform John McCain because of this rhetoric. Just imagine that women stop manning the phone banks and stuffing the envelopes and doing all of that campaign work. Each side has reached its tolerance level for the nastiness of both sides. The Clinton side is tired of being called a racist for every remark. Although labeling one side racist did help solidify his African-American support and keeps it riled up, these continual accusations against everyone only serves to alienate the very voters needed to win in November. I have always said that I will vote for the democratic nominee in November no matter who it is but this rhetoric by the Obama campaign and its supporters is causing me to rethink. I am sure this is true for Obama supporters also. So to balthus and others stop
If the SDs ignore the fact that Obama will lose badly in the General just to make the AA and a bunch of young kids feel good, the Democrats are cruising to a General Election defeat. Forget 1968 (how nice though that the followers of "hope" are willing to resort to threats of violence to get their way) the year the Democrats should keep in mind is 1972, when Nixon crushed McGovern.
If they don't know how to make a decision and need such guidance, why not get rid of the superdelegate vote altogether?
Why bother having the superdelegate process in the first place if it's not to overturn the will of the people?
It is time for the superdelegates to step down from the fence of indecision. The party needs to have an intervention for Hillary because she is damaging the party, indeed she has betrayed the Party. It is clear that she would prefer to see her friend John McCain win the presidency so that she could run again in 2012, than to see Obama win. Her strategy is to destroy Obama's candidacy to first, discredit him with the superdelegates and if that fails, destroy his chances in the general election. She has placed her personal ambitions above the Party--in an attempt to hold onto power. The Clintons have held the Democratic Party hostage to their whims and dramas and prevarications long enough. By June, Obama will need only 35 percent of the superdelegates in order to reach 2024, while Hillary will need 65 percent. This we know. If the superdelegates would commit to Obama now, we can avoid the vitriolic disaster that is now splitting the Democratic Party. If the Party is not strong enough to stop this fighting--initiatiated by Hillary's desperate "kitchen sink" strategy--then how do they expect to resolve it later. Gore, Carter, the superdelegates need to show courage now--and out an end to this interparty war by declaring for Obama. If the Democrats want to win in November, they need to show courage and decisiveness now. As Bill Richardson recommended, we need to come together around the presumptive Democratic nominee NOW and prepare to take on John McCain and the Republicans. We have indulged Hillary and Bill long enough. By giving their support to Obama nnow, the superdelelgates will save the Democratic Party from self-destruction--and once aand for all, end the Clinton's strangling grip on the Party. It is time for a new generation of leadership-Obama looks to the future. The Clintons are holding on to the past.
And there it is, the simple problem in the equation. Looking 'up' in this situation is not the answer, looking 'Down' is. Down the ladder to the People you represent, Down deep inside your American self. Here's another one: "They are hoping for a process that will either allow the voters to decide or to 'allow the voters to feel like they have decided' after the superdelegate process is born out - if it has to come to that." Nope, no one wants to simply "FEEL like they decided" and no one wants you to hope for it much less settle for it!
Carrying water for Hillary has been the only inexcusable purpose behind these weeks and weeks of delay and who has it benefited? No one but Hillary Clinton. Shame on the dawdling super delegates, the party and the media, for sacrificing so much, maybe even the election, just to keep her happy and proped up. Cut her loose now!
no guts no glory...that is the core of the superdelegates and the democratic party...they are in this mess because they have no guts...the war is still ongoing....Congress is still a do nothing body....we are now independents and will be voting out ALL incumbents
Would it be too much to hope that they would choose the candidate with integrity instead of the proven liar?
SuperDelegates are BUNK !
The super delegates - a bad idea creating inside dealing and party favors that could potentially over-ride the will of actual voters - was created to protect the party from extremist activists within the party. Now we see a sea change to their role. They could potentially block the vote of republican voters who are switch voting just for the purposes of trying to skew the democratic primary so that it is favorable to them. If super delegates do not stand and make a deicsion, the republicans, who is already high-fiving each and toasting the ludicracy of the current democratic debacle will succeed not only in that skewing but will seat the nation with another republican president for at least 4 more years. The role of the super delegates has taken on a new surprising importance, to protect the democratic party from the republican party with their collective vote switch strategy (voting for Clinton en masse) and watching this prolonged evisceration and cannibalism.
On Morning Joe Thursday 3/27 Ed Schultz gave several direct quotes from anonymous Super Delegates that may explain the foot dragging. Schultz said that Supers had been telling him that Clintons are threatening and intimidating Super D's not to endorse Obama, i.e. "You'll commit political suicide." "We remember who our friends are." "You'll be taken off the president's list." Shultz also said that many Supers remember the scorched earth policy of first Clinton administration when other elected dems didn't fair as well as the Clintons did when it came to re-election.
OKvoter We will vote for McCain if the "Good Old Boys" stick together and leave a capable woman, who they have smeared for years, out to dry. What a disgrace. We hear what a "wonderful speaker" Obama is when recorded in his cadence similiar to MLK, but no mention of Hillary's ability to speak and say something about a plan, usually tweaked by Obama, for health care, education, jobs, and improving our relations with other countries. Obama has not told the truth about abut knowing his "Uncle's" views on America. Notice how the media never refers to Wright as "LIKE AN UNCLE TO ME."Also, his wife is JUST NOW PROUD TO BE AN AMERICAN. Give me a break! Who among you were given a gift of Princeton without Affirmative Action. These two and the Cabinet he will pick are not good for America. As for Rosa DeLora, Dodd, Richardson and the rest they are looking for next years job, not what is good for America.
POST A COMMENT
Oops! The following errors must be addressed: