History of super-delegates -- not so good for Obama

[pnwmom]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/stephen-schlesinger/obama-and-the-myth-of-ple_b_89977.html

There is no rule in the politics of Democratic Party conventions that says that the contender with the largest number of pledged delegates short of the total required for nomination should automatically, by dint of that achievement, be handed the party's designation. This argument is now being put forth by Senator Obama's campaign.


Such a contention is belied by the modern-day history of Democratic conventions. In 1912, the Democratic Speaker of the House of Representatives, Champ Clark, went to the Baltimore convention with the largest number of delegates, around 440, Woodrow Wilson was second with 324, trailed by a few others -- with two thirds of the convention vote required for nomination. Champ Clark was not then allowed to proclaim himself victorious simply because he led the pack. Rather the proceedings went through almost 50 ballots over a week's period that, after much maneuvering, resulted in Wilson accumulating enough delegates to secure the nomination.

In 1932, Franklin Roosevelt arrived at the Democratic Convention this time with the most delegates -- having won them through some primaries and some Democratic state organizations -- but still short of the requisite two-thirds majority. Despite this lead, the party did not hand him the nomination. He had to proceed through four ballots to achieve it.

Finally in the 1952 Democratic race, Senator Estes Kefauver went through the primary process, beat President Truman in New Hampshire, won Wisconsin, Nebraska, Illinois, New Jersey, Massachusetts and Maryland and entered the Chicago convention with a lead of 257 votes, with four other contenders trailing behind, including Adlai Stevenson. On the first actual ballot, Kefauver held the lead but by now Stevenson had crept up to second place. Then ultimately Stevenson grabbed the designation from Kefauver on the third ballot -- all of this, despite his failure to contest a single primary, with no accumulated Democratic votes compared to those of Kefauver's, and in spite of his late entry into the race. But the party thought he would be the better nominee.

Now today some in the Obama campaign and in the media are dismissing the importance of Hillary Clinton's victories in Ohio, Texas and Rhode Island as unimportant. For they argue that, by any careful analysis of the delegate selection process under the present Democratic Party proportional representation system, whatever delegate totals Senator Clinton wins through the end of this year's primary season, will not be able to overcome Senator Obama's current unsurpassable lead over Senator Clinton and therefore Obama will deserve the support of the so-called "super delegates" and should gain the nomination. But that is not how it works as we have seen in past Democratic conventions. A lead in pledged delegates is not enough. You still have to convince your party that you are the best nominee. That is what the next stage of this election is all about.

[rinsd]

1. I think the pledged delegate lead needs to be 20 or less to make a viable argument to Supes.

[Kittycat]

3. This I agree with.

And I don't see that happening short of a miracle.

[Benhurst]

6. Where did you get the number 20? Why not 30? Or 10?

[rinsd]

10. I plucked it out of thin air as part of my opinion.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

12. I say 5% of the total needed (no less arbitrary than anything else)

That would be 100 delegates

Easy to remember

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

2. No Shit. Problem Is, Trying To Get That Reality Through The Tightly Sealed Minds Of Some Is Next To

impossible.

There are far too many here who are so naive and ignorant as to the process that they are so locked down in their belief that the pledged delegate numbers are all that matters. I feel sorry for them.

[pnwmom]

4. Maybe this is their first election?

Maybe they haven't seen a brokered convention before?

The whole point of requiring a super-majority is so that we don't end up choosing one candidate just because he has a few more delegates than the other. The idea is to end up with someone who can bring people to a consensus, not divide them.

What do you think about Al Gore? Is there any chance he could come back into the mix? Do you know if a brokered convention can only consider the candidates who have been running so far?

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

11. In A Brokered Convention, YOU Could Be The Nominee If They Wanted.

But it is likely that it would be either Hillary or Obama. If Hillary can gain a bit more momentum, close the popular vote gap, and do better in national polls, I think she'll have the stronger case to be chosen as the nominee, with Obama as VP.

[theboss]

21. The Democratic Party is not equipped to handle a brokered convention in 2008

This is not 1960. Do you know how many presidential primaries there were in 1960?

13

The rest of the delegates were chosen at state conventions made up of party big-wigs and loyalists and such. In 1960, Mayor Daley or Lyndon Johnson could cut a deal on the second day of the convention and make Adalai Stevenson the nominee, even though he had barely indicated a desire to be the nominee. This actually almost happened.

And there would have been little backlash, because this is how the nominating process worked back then. You showed up to the convention. And Daley and Johnson and the union presidents would sit around and decide who the nominee was. Everyone basically accepted that.

After 50 years of primary voters choosing the nominee, the public mindset is not there.

[theboss]

22. Duplicate

Please delete.

[gravity]

5. That was over 50 years

While the SD's can technically overthrow the pledges, it is political suicide. Unless there is a close spread between the two (<20), or that something really major occurs with Obama camp (like if he supported al Qaeda), it ain't gonna happen.

This is the reality of the situation. If you expect that the SD's will make up for a 100 delegate deficit, you are the ones who are delusional.

[rodeodance]

26. too bad--History matters.

[theboss]

28. History only matters if the rules are the same

Like I said, comparing the nominating process in 1932 to the nominating process in 2008 is like comparing warfare in 1346 to warfare in 2008. Sure, you can argue that the longbow is a devastating weapon with history as your proof. But I wouldn't recommend using one.

[rodeodance]

29. its the process that is the focus of the article.

[theboss]

30. And the process today is nothing like it was in 1932

Not even in the same ballpark.

[rodeodance]

31. you know the rules??

[theboss]

33. I know that we have primaries and caucuses now and we didn't in 1932

(Well, there were some, but delegates were usually chosen by state conventions).

I know that there are rules regarding the voting behavior of delegates, which did not exist in 1932.
I know that there are rules regarding the make-up of state delegations, which did not exist in 1932.
I also know that there is approximately 1,000,000,000 times more media attention on the process than in 1932.

[book_worm]

7. Super delegates will ultimately support the candidate who has

won 33 or 34 of the contests and has the most pledged delegates from those contests and that will end up being Barack Obama.

[RiverStone]

17. Agreed, better to win with Obama and a majority of voters...

Then lose with Clinton because 1/3 of the party walks away in disgust afer SD's decide the nominee. We would lose the GE - bad!

Late last night - adding up all the states popular votes - Obama is still ahead by about 600K nationally.

That means a lot - all we have to do is remember what happened to Gore in 2000 to know just how MUCH that means to Dems.

[The Stranger]

8. If they don't go with the person who won the delegate race -- I'll tell you about history.

The Democratic Party will be history.

[redqueen]

9. Of course... it's a check against the people's power.

Let them try it. I'd love to see the consequences, in this age of information.

[theboss]

13. There weren't many state primaries or caucuses in 1952

If this was, in fact, 1912 or 1932 or 1952 then the smoke-filled room deciding the nomination would be perfectly acceptable.

But no convention in either party has overturned the will of the voters in 56 years - since, as you show, 1952.. And even then, "the will of the voters" took on a very different meaning as we did not have open primaries in most states. Most decisions were made at state party conventions by the same types who went to the national conventions. It was all horse-trading then.

The rules have changed dramatically with open primaries. You might as well compare modern warfare to the French and Indian War.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

14. Lol.

Other articles by Stephen Schlesinger

The Slant Against Hillary

Why Hillary Clinton Still Matters

McCain Has Some Questions For Obama

Hillary Confronts Bush on Iraq Bases

Hillary and RFK

Obama's Conservative Economists

Hillary's Husband Was Also a Winner

Hillary Clinton Is a Substantive Leader

The Problem With Obama

Hillary, Not Barack, Is The One


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/stephen-schlesinger

[theboss]

15. Just to clarify, there were no super delegates in 1952.

There were just delegates. And they were chosen by a system dramatically different than today's system.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

16. Shhh.

[DemBones DemBones]

18. I remember LBJ and JFK fighting it out at the 1960 convention.

As I recall, it went to at least two ballots.

Here's what I want to know: is it still the case that delegates are only pledged to vote for a particular candidate on the first ballot?

After the first ballot, delegates can vote however they choose, and candidate's reps go out and try to swing votes in their direction.

Is that still the rule? If not, what are the new rules?

It's been so long since a convention has mattered!

[theboss]

20. Kennedy won on the first ballot in 1960

There has not been a second ballot since 1952.

Kennedy had the lead in delegates entering the convention. Johnson made a last second move for the nomination and tried to call in all the favors he was owed. Kennedy held him off and gave him the VP slot as a consolation prize - with the plan that he would essentially never speak to Johnson once they were elected.

And the delegates were not pledged delegates as they are now. They could defect at any time.

Today, they can defect after the first ballot only.

[DemBones DemBones]

24. OK, I remember all the back and forth of that convention,

thought there was a second ballot that led to the deal for LBJ to be VP. Probably Chet and David kept talking about the possibility of a second ballot. JFK should have been nicer to LBJ and other party old-timers, might have lived to see his children grow up.


So delegates CAN defect after the first ballot. . . That should be interesting.

:popcorn:

[theboss]

19. My grandfather used to tell a story of how candidates were chosen in the 50s

He was in the steelworkers union and in my town, the USW was the only endorsement you needed. Once you had that endorsement, the election was essentially over.

So, there was an election for judge coming up and the leadership of the USW had decided who to endorse, but they needed to put it to a vote. So, they scheduled a meeting at the last minute with the intent of only presenting one candidate. And they conveniently "forgot" to invite some members who they knew supported another candidate. So, my grandfather and his buddies found out and managed to get 50 people and the other candidate to the meeting literally five minutes before it started. At first, the leadership tried to ignore the other candidate, but my grandfather and his friends were able to get the floor, present the other candidate, and imply without stating that this meeting was an attempt to rig the endorsement process. The membership caught on and endorsed my grandfather's candidate. He won the endorsment and then easily won the primary and the general.

And that's how elections used to be run, Charlie Brown.

[Jersey Devil]

23. Sure, before TV when voters couldn't see them stick a knife in their backs

They wouldn't have the balls to do it now.

[DemBones DemBones]

27. There was tv in 1952 and earlier. nt

[rodeodance]

25. REC

[Bluerthanblue]

32. according to Hillary' Harold Ickey things became even more sleezy

in 1980- a very contentious meeting- where ANY designation of ANY delegate- pledged or "super" became un-encumbered of having to vote in accordance with any 'popular vote'-

I'm not joking- The guy said it in plain english on NHPR this afternoon. He says the peoples votes don't count-

welcome to Hillary's play house.


:shrug: