Howard Dean: Kingmaker?

Just who are the superdelegates? According to Wikipedia:

Superdelegates to the 2008 Democratic National Convention include all Democratic members of the United States Congress, Democratic governors, various additional elected officials, members of the Democratic National Committee, as well as "all former Democratic Presidents, all former Democratic Vice Presidents, all former Democratic Leaders of the U.S. Senate, all former Democratic Speakers of the U.S. House of Representatives and Democratic Minority Leaders, as applicable, and all former Chairs of the Democratic National Committee."[3] There is an exception, however, for otherwise qualified individuals who endorse another party’s candidate for President; they lose their superdelegate status. In 2008, Senator Joe Lieberman was disqualified as a superdelegate because he endorsed Republican John McCain.

(Aside: strange that Lieberman was even considered a superdelegate since he is not actually a member of the Democratic party. But I'm so glad he's been stripped (ewww)).

A list of current superdelegates can be found here.

I did a quick hand count of those superdelegates from the above link (both pledged and unpledged) and divided them by why they have that position (DNC member, Governor, Representative, Senator). Here's what I got:

	pledged	unpledged	total
DNC	157	80	237
Gov	20	11	31
Rep	138	98	236
Sen	27	28	55
Total	342	216

(Note: this was done with a hand count, so the numbers are probably off some (for instance, I know we don't have 55 Senators), but I think the ratios are more important to my point than the overall counts)

Notice that the largest block of superdelgates are DNC members (just after Reps.). Who leads the DNC? Howard Dean. A lot of DNC members really like Dean. They helped elect him three years ago and they, for the most part, really like his 50 state strategy since it gives so many of them money and people that they didn't have before.

My point is this: if this thing comes down to a situation where the superdelegates will decide who goes over the top then Howard Dean could have a HUGE influence over who is the eventual nominee. I think he will try to work towards a deal that gives the majority of superdelegates to who ever gets the majority of elected delegates. I don't think he would abide by an anti-democratic strategy to reverse the popular will.

Dean could very well be the kingmaker in the Democratic primary. And there's no one I would trust more in that role.

"If it isn't Obama I won't vote Democratic!"

This kind of threat that I have heard from some (small minority of) Obama supporters leaves me puzzled as to what they actually hope to accomplish by making that threat. Do they think they are going to make Obama look any better to people who are still undecided? To my mind the only think it does is make Obama supporters look petty and thereby cast a negative light on their guy.

If you make a personal decision not to vote for Clinton if Obama doesn't get the nomination then that is your choice. But it is not going to be a factor in how others will make their decision (and, if it is, it will be a decidedly negative factor).

Almost as bad are those who say I should vote for Obama because it means that their right-wing uncle will vote Democrat in the Fall. I'm sorry, but my personal choice will not be determined by the choices of others, ESPECIALLY the choices of right-wingers. I mean, is it really an endorsement of a "progressive" Democrat to say that they are more popular among people who are decidedly unprogressive? These kind of anecdotes just make me wonder how much of a Democrat Obama is.

I'm leaning Obama btw. I voted for him in the MoveOn primary. But this kind of crap doesn't make me feel good about it.

Stop fretting about super delegates

There has been some significant teeth gnashing of late over the prospect that who will be the Dem nominee may come down to the super delegates. Since it is becoming increasingly difficult for either Obama or Clinton to win the necessary number of delegates simply through the Caucuses/Primaries (At this point one or the other would have to win something like 70-80% of the remaining un-pledged delegates. Given the fact that most of the contests up to now have been effectively draws, this seems highly unlikely.) The concern generally runs along the lines of the Dem nominee being apparently chosen not by the voters but by the party poobahs (governors, legislators and DNC party officials). In other words, it would look like the Democrats don't care about what the people want.

This doesn't make sense.

Think about it this way: the super delegates are professional politicians. They want the Dems to be united going into the Fall as much as anyone. They know that if, going into the convention, candidate A has 200 more pledged delegates than candidate B, they COULD change the difference by simply voting en masse for candidate B. But the resulting uproar would be huge.

So what will really happen in this scenario? It's simple really: most of the super delegates, even many of those who have previously pledged for candidate B, will swing strongly in favor of the candidate with more delegates.

In other words, if candidate A has the edge in pledged delegates going into June then they will get the edge in super delegates as well. So the fact that those super delegates were needed to put candidate A over the hump will NOT negate the fact that the candidate was chosen by the popular will of the voters.

The only way this could be a problem is if the margin between the candidates is minuscule. But that's a scenario that is not a given. I think the calendar and the momentum is such that, if any candidate pulls slightly ahead it will be almost impossible for the other to catch up (currently, I think Clinton will have the harder slog to the nomination, but not as hard as some think.)

Simplified conclusion: super delegates are a problem for the Democrats ONLY if they reverse the pledge delegates. But the super delegates are professional politicians, few of whom have an ideological ax to grind, who simply won't be a party to that.

So let's stop worrying about the super delegates. The bigger worry, in my mind, is that a delayed decision means a delayed launch to the Fall campaign. Which is why I would hope that, if the margins are enough to swing the super delegates to one or the other candidate, that the one with the fewer delegates going into June will suspend their campaign rather than draw out the inevitable. At least I hope that the two contenders are mature enough to realize what a bad idea it would be to keep up a fight they are almost sure to lose (or win pyrrhicly.)

Dear Sen. Obama: Knock It Off!

(This diary started off as a comment on this DailyKos diary about how Obama's campaign was unnecessarily pissing off Hillary supporters. Specifically in reference to his comment that Hillary supporters would easily switch to him but his supporters might not easily switch to her. It gelled in my mind some strong feelings I've been having about the Obama campaign in recent days.)

Dear Sen. Obama,

I really like what you have to say. I want to want to vote for you. I want others to want to vote for you. I want you to win. I want you to bring about the kind of change you are talking about.

But...

You are in real danger of sabotaging your own momentum if you encourage the idea that somehow people who support Obama do so simply because they are better people than those who don't support you.

I like you. There are many reasons I would vote for you. I even voted for you in the MoveOn primary. But there's a general tone in your movement that bugs the shit out of me. It's the tone that says, "If you aren't already swept up by Obama fever than there must be something wrong with you."

I have a real concern that you are undermining your own candidacy by relying to much on the "get on board the wave" approach. The emotional appeal can go a long way towards creating a movement, and lord knows that few Democratic leaders have been very good at the inspiration stuff of late, but if your entire argument becomes "vote for me because everyone else is doing it" than you are going to create a backlash.

This diarist brings up a similar point, but is talking specifically about the impact this approach has on Hillary voters. But I'm here to warn you that it will also hurt you among the undecided. And here's the thing: I don't want it to hurt you. I want you to succeed. We need you to succeed.

But you won't do it if the primary message of your campaign is "your dumb if you don't vote for me".

Please take this as the heartfelt plea it is meant to be.

Yours Truly,

Chris Andersen, Democrat