Published on Alternet (http://www.alternet.org)
Home > Superdelegates Are One Reason Why the Way We Choose Our Presidential
Candidates Is Wrong
________________________________________
Superdelegates Are One Reason Why the Way We Choose Our Presidential
Candidates Is Wrong
By Michael Winship [1] / Moyers and Company [2]
April 1, 2016
Last week, our suggestion that Hillary Clinton call for the resignations [3]
of her pals Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel and Democratic National Committee
Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz got a big response. But a few people
misunderstood what we were saying.
Some thought Bill Moyers and I were calling for Clinton herself to step
aside (we weren't). Others thought we somehow believed Clinton actually had
the power to fire Emanuel (of course she doesn't). Wasserman Schultz is a
different story; the demand for her resignation as DNC chair grows by the
day and Clinton doubtless will have a voice as to whether she stays or goes
(on top of which, for the first time since she entered the House of
Representatives, Wasserman Schultz's Florida congressional seat is being
challenged in a Democratic primary by attorney and former Bernie Sanders
advisor Tim Canova [4]).
Using the rhetorical suggestion that she and Rahm take a hike - each of them
a symbol of the current tone-deaf and corporate-enslaved state of the
Democratic Party - was a way of easing into the idea that the party's elite
is as clueless about the disillusionment of the party's traditional base as
the GOP establishment has been about Donald Trump's ascent. At their peril,
the muckety-mucks of both parties ignore the anger and resist the demand for
change that have fueled not only Trump but the Bernie Sanders phenomenon as
well, albeit the Sanders movement is as progressive as Trump's is brutish.
One of the more troubling aspects of the Democrats and their nomination
process is something we touched upon in last week's piece: the 712 or so
"superdelegates," [5] about 15 percent of the total (and 30 percent of the
majority needed to win the nomination) who will cast ballots at the July
convention in Philadelphia. They include [5] President Obama and Vice
President Biden, 239 Democratic members of the House and Senate, 21 sitting
governors, 437 Democratic National Committeemen and women, and a category
referred to as "distinguished party leaders" - former presidents and veeps,
ex-congressional leaders and erstwhile presidential nominees.
These superdelegate VIPs are chosen not by the voters in this year's
primaries or caucuses but selected by the party solely for their status as
members of the Democratic upper crust. As we wrote last week, Wasserman
Schultz recently told CNN's Jake Tapper [6] that their appointment is
necessary so entitled incumbents and party leaders don't have to run for the
position "against grassroots activists."
(Just a few weeks later, though, in an interview with Maria Bartiromo on Fox
Business News [7], Wasserman Schultz swung her logic 'round 180 degrees. The
superdelegates exist, she now declared, "to make sure that party activists
who want to be delegates to the convention don't have to run against much
better-known and well-established people at the district level." So which is
it? Neither really makes total sense.)
This whole superdelegate thing started back in 1984, when, after the
devastating presidential defeat of George McGovern in 1972 and President
Jimmy Carter's landslide reelection loss to Ronald Reagan in 1980, it was
determined that experienced party stalwarts should be made delegates to fend
off fringe efforts to divert the mainstream. Of course, the introduction of
the superdelegates that year didn't keep Democratic presidential candidate
Walter Mondale from being mauled by the congenial Reagan reelection
juggernaut.
Nevertheless, the perceived wisdom has become that, "Lest those pesky
Democratic grass-roots activists and loser-lover types be inclined to drive
the party over a leftward-hanging cliff, the establishment is supposed to
step in to ensure that we nominate the electable candidate." Those are the
words of Democratic establishment member Susan Estrich [8], who apparently
coined the word "superdelegates" and opposed the idea back when she was
supporting the presidential aspirations of Teddy Kennedy. Now that she's
part of the higher echelon, Estrich has reversed her position. "How time
changes things," she writes. You bet.
Technically, superdelegates are not officially bound to a candidate until
that moment the first ballot roll call begins on the convention floor
although the vast majority of them have announced their support for Hillary
Clinton. (This is why up to now when tallies add up pledged delegates and
superdelegates, Clinton seems to have such an unshakeable lead over
Sanders.)
But as Susan Estrich would say, this can change. So it was in 2008 when
superdelegates who had announced their support for Clinton changed their
minds as Barack Obama notched up victory after victory. And theoretically,
so it is this year as Bernie Sanders supporters, at the start virulently
opposed to superdelegates as an obstacle to the will of the people, are now
pursuing them as their candidate has achieved more success than anticipated.
(Sanders himself has described superdelegates as "problematic" [9] and said
they should vote for whichever candidate has carried their state's primary
or caucus, also noting [10], "I think I am a stronger candidate to defeat
Trump than Secretary Clinton and I think many of the superdelegates
understand that.")
In truth, the existence of the superdelegates is rather like congressional
filibuster rules or other arcane methods of manipulating the system - those
they hurt are against, those they help are in favor - but when the roles are
flipped, suddenly, those who were opposed find something to like in the
rules as the shoe slips from one foot to the other.
But like so many of those rules, superdelegates symbolize something that has
to go: the entrenched, inside-the-Beltway embrace of power and influence by
the Democratic illuminati that does little for the poor and middle class and
everything for the one percent that writes the big checks.
Just last week, Fredreka Schouten of USA Today [11] wrote that through the
end of February, "Fundraising in the presidential contest has zoomed past
the $1 billion mark, fueled by the dozens of super-wealthy Americans
bankrolling super PACs that have acted as shadow campaigns for White House
contenders."
And in late February, Jeff Naft at ABC News reported [12], ". When you
remove elected officials from the superdelegate pool, at least one in seven
of the rest are former or current lobbyists registered on the federal and
state level, according to lobbying disclosure records. That's at least 67
lobbyists who will attend the convention as superdelegates." A majority of
that 67 say they're supporting Hillary Clinton.
Last summer, Wasserman Schultz's Democratic National Committee lifted a ban
on lobbyists making donations to cover the costs of convention-related
events, a precursor to the DNC's February rollback of Barack Obama's ban
[13] on contributions to the party from political action committees and
federal lobbyists.
Anyone who's attended any of the recent Democratic Party national
conventions can attest that amidst all the confetti, assorted hoopla and
solemn testaments of democracy at work, there are outrageous displays of
conspicuous consumption as law firms, lobbyists, consultants and their
corporate clients manipulate the funding rules and compete to see who can
create the swankiest, most excessive shindig. With the lifting of that
lobbyist cash ban, Philadelphia could be bigger than ever.
It will be one giant blowout for sure, and a safe bet that the
superdelegates will be whooping it up with many of their richest and most
persuasive big wheel friends. No need to fight for your right to party,
superdelegates. This is their gift to you. Just ignore the price tag
attached.
Michael Winship is senior writing fellow at Demos and a senior writer of the
new series, Moyers & Company, airing on public television.
Share on Facebook Share
Share on Twitter Tweet
Report typos and corrections to 'corrections@xxxxxxxxxxxx'. [14]
[15]
________________________________________
Source URL:
http://www.alternet.org/election-2016/superdelegates-are-one-reason-why-way-
we-choose-our-presidential-candidates-wrong
Links:
[1] http://www.alternet.org/authors/michael-winship
[2] http://billmoyers.com
[3]
http://billmoyers.com/story/time-for-these-two-democrats-to-go/#at_pco=cfd-1
.0
[4] https://timcanova.com/meet-tim
[5]
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/delegates-superdelegates-explainer-
article-1.2563851
[6]
http://www.salon.com/2016/02/13/un_democratic_party_dnc_chair_says_superdele
gates_ensure_elites_dont_have_to_run_against_grassroots_activists/
[7]
http://www.politifact.com/florida/statements/2016/mar/22/debbie-wasserman-sc
hultz/debbie-wasserman-schultz-says-superdelegates-never/
[8] https://www.creators.com/read/susan-estrich
[9]
http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/273691-sanders-the-co
ncept-of-super-delegates-is-problematic
[10]
http://freebeacon.com/politics/sanders-nomination-fight-convention-win-super
delegates/
[11]
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2016/03/24/presidentia
l-race-surges-past-1-billion-mark/82212000/
[12]
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/reason-dozens-lobbyists-democratic-presidenti
al-delegates/story?id=37289507
[13]
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/dnc-allowing-donations-from-federal-
lobbyists-and-pacs/2016/02/12/22b1c38c-d196-11e5-88cd-753e80cd29ad_story.htm
l
[14] mailto:corrections@xxxxxxxxxxxx?Subject=Typo on Superdelegates Are One
Reason Why the Way We Choose Our Presidential Candidates Is Wrong
[15] http://www.alternet.org/
[16] http://www.alternet.org/%2Bnew_src%2B
Published on Alternet (http://www.alternet.org)
Home > Superdelegates Are One Reason Why the Way We Choose Our Presidential
Candidates Is Wrong
Superdelegates Are One Reason Why the Way We Choose Our Presidential
Candidates Is Wrong
By Michael Winship [1] / Moyers and Company [2]
April 1, 2016
Last week, our suggestion that Hillary Clinton call for the resignations [3]
of her pals Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel and Democratic National Committee
Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz got a big response. But a few people
misunderstood what we were saying.
Some thought Bill Moyers and I were calling for Clinton herself to step
aside (we weren't). Others thought we somehow believed Clinton actually had
the power to fire Emanuel (of course she doesn't). Wasserman Schultz is a
different story; the demand for her resignation as DNC chair grows by the
day and Clinton doubtless will have a voice as to whether she stays or goes
(on top of which, for the first time since she entered the House of
Representatives, Wasserman Schultz's Florida congressional seat is being
challenged in a Democratic primary by attorney and former Bernie Sanders
advisor Tim Canova [4]).
Using the rhetorical suggestion that she and Rahm take a hike - each of them
a symbol of the current tone-deaf and corporate-enslaved state of the
Democratic Party - was a way of easing into the idea that the party's elite
is as clueless about the disillusionment of the party's traditional base as
the GOP establishment has been about Donald Trump's ascent. At their peril,
the muckety-mucks of both parties ignore the anger and resist the demand for
change that have fueled not only Trump but the Bernie Sanders phenomenon as
well, albeit the Sanders movement is as progressive as Trump's is brutish.
One of the more troubling aspects of the Democrats and their nomination
process is something we touched upon in last week's piece: the 712 or so
"superdelegates," [5] about 15 percent of the total (and 30 percent of the
majority needed to win the nomination) who will cast ballots at the July
convention in Philadelphia. They include [5] President Obama and Vice
President Biden, 239 Democratic members of the House and Senate, 21 sitting
governors, 437 Democratic National Committeemen and women, and a category
referred to as "distinguished party leaders" - former presidents and veeps,
ex-congressional leaders and erstwhile presidential nominees.
These superdelegate VIPs are chosen not by the voters in this year's
primaries or caucuses but selected by the party solely for their status as
members of the Democratic upper crust. As we wrote last week, Wasserman
Schultz recently told CNN's Jake Tapper [6] that their appointment is
necessary so entitled incumbents and party leaders don't have to run for the
position "against grassroots activists."
(Just a few weeks later, though, in an interview with Maria Bartiromo on Fox
Business News [7], Wasserman Schultz swung her logic 'round 180 degrees. The
superdelegates exist, she now declared, "to make sure that party activists
who want to be delegates to the convention don't have to run against much
better-known and well-established people at the district level." So which is
it? Neither really makes total sense.)
This whole superdelegate thing started back in 1984, when, after the
devastating presidential defeat of George McGovern in 1972 and President
Jimmy Carter's landslide reelection loss to Ronald Reagan in 1980, it was
determined that experienced party stalwarts should be made delegates to fend
off fringe efforts to divert the mainstream. Of course, the introduction of
the superdelegates that year didn't keep Democratic presidential candidate
Walter Mondale from being mauled by the congenial Reagan reelection
juggernaut.
Nevertheless, the perceived wisdom has become that, "Lest those pesky
Democratic grass-roots activists and loser-lover types be inclined to drive
the party over a leftward-hanging cliff, the establishment is supposed to
step in to ensure that we nominate the electable candidate." Those are the
words of Democratic establishment member Susan Estrich [8], who apparently
coined the word "superdelegates" and opposed the idea back when she was
supporting the presidential aspirations of Teddy Kennedy. Now that she's
part of the higher echelon, Estrich has reversed her position. "How time
changes things," she writes. You bet.
Technically, superdelegates are not officially bound to a candidate until
that moment the first ballot roll call begins on the convention floor
although the vast majority of them have announced their support for Hillary
Clinton. (This is why up to now when tallies add up pledged delegates and
superdelegates, Clinton seems to have such an unshakeable lead over
Sanders.)
But as Susan Estrich would say, this can change. So it was in 2008 when
superdelegates who had announced their support for Clinton changed their
minds as Barack Obama notched up victory after victory. And theoretically,
so it is this year as Bernie Sanders supporters, at the start virulently
opposed to superdelegates as an obstacle to the will of the people, are now
pursuing them as their candidate has achieved more success than anticipated.
(Sanders himself has described superdelegates as "problematic" [9] and said
they should vote for whichever candidate has carried their state's primary
or caucus, also noting [10], "I think I am a stronger candidate to defeat
Trump than Secretary Clinton and I think many of the superdelegates
understand that.")
In truth, the existence of the superdelegates is rather like congressional
filibuster rules or other arcane methods of manipulating the system - those
they hurt are against, those they help are in favor - but when the roles are
flipped, suddenly, those who were opposed find something to like in the
rules as the shoe slips from one foot to the other.
But like so many of those rules, superdelegates symbolize something that has
to go: the entrenched, inside-the-Beltway embrace of power and influence by
the Democratic illuminati that does little for the poor and middle class and
everything for the one percent that writes the big checks.
Just last week, Fredreka Schouten of USA Today [11] wrote that through the
end of February, "Fundraising in the presidential contest has zoomed past
the $1 billion mark, fueled by the dozens of super-wealthy Americans
bankrolling super PACs that have acted as shadow campaigns for White House
contenders."
And in late February, Jeff Naft at ABC News reported [12], ". When you
remove elected officials from the superdelegate pool, at least one in seven
of the rest are former or current lobbyists registered on the federal and
state level, according to lobbying disclosure records. That's at least 67
lobbyists who will attend the convention as superdelegates." A majority of
that 67 say they're supporting Hillary Clinton.
Last summer, Wasserman Schultz's Democratic National Committee lifted a ban
on lobbyists making donations to cover the costs of convention-related
events, a precursor to the DNC's February rollback of Barack Obama's ban
[13] on contributions to the party from political action committees and
federal lobbyists.
Anyone who's attended any of the recent Democratic Party national
conventions can attest that amidst all the confetti, assorted hoopla and
solemn testaments of democracy at work, there are outrageous displays of
conspicuous consumption as law firms, lobbyists, consultants and their
corporate clients manipulate the funding rules and compete to see who can
create the swankiest, most excessive shindig. With the lifting of that
lobbyist cash ban, Philadelphia could be bigger than ever.
It will be one giant blowout for sure, and a safe bet that the
superdelegates will be whooping it up with many of their richest and most
persuasive big wheel friends. No need to fight for your right to party,
superdelegates. This is their gift to you. Just ignore the price tag
attached.
Michael Winship is senior writing fellow at Demos and a senior writer of the
new series, Moyers & Company, airing on public television.
Error! Hyperlink reference not valid.
Error! Hyperlink reference not valid.
Report typos and corrections to 'corrections@xxxxxxxxxxxx'. [14]
Error! Hyperlink reference not valid.[15]
Source URL:
http://www.alternet.org/election-2016/superdelegates-are-one-reason-why-way-
we-choose-our-presidential-candidates-wrong
Links:
[1] http://www.alternet.org/authors/michael-winship
[2] http://billmoyers.com
[3]
http://billmoyers.com/story/time-for-these-two-democrats-to-go/#at_pco=cfd-1
.0
[4] https://timcanova.com/meet-tim
[5]
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/delegates-superdelegates-explainer-
article-1.2563851
[6]
http://www.salon.com/2016/02/13/un_democratic_party_dnc_chair_says_superdele
gates_ensure_elites_dont_have_to_run_against_grassroots_activists/
[7]
http://www.politifact.com/florida/statements/2016/mar/22/debbie-wasserman-sc
hultz/debbie-wasserman-schultz-says-superdelegates-never/
[8] https://www.creators.com/read/susan-estrich
[9]
http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/273691-sanders-the-co
ncept-of-super-delegates-is-problematic
[10]
http://freebeacon.com/politics/sanders-nomination-fight-convention-win-super
delegates/
[11]
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2016/03/24/presidentia
l-race-surges-past-1-billion-mark/82212000/
[12]
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/reason-dozens-lobbyists-democratic-presidenti
al-delegates/story?id=37289507
[13]
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/dnc-allowing-donations-from-federal-
lobbyists-and-pacs/2016/02/12/22b1c38c-d196-11e5-88cd-753e80cd29ad_story.htm
l
[14] mailto:corrections@xxxxxxxxxxxx?Subject=Typo on Superdelegates Are One
Reason Why the Way We Choose Our Presidential Candidates Is Wrong
[15] http://www.alternet.org/
[16] http://www.alternet.org/%2Bnew_src%2B
