I've neglected to mention this in the past, but given last night's contest in PA and the growing importance of the Supers I need to make up for that now. So....
If you aren't already, you really should be reading Mr. Super. Although it is impossible to confirm it, Mr. Super is widely believed to be the blog of an actual, undeclared DNC Super Delegate. As you might expect, he has written quite a bit over the past few days, including several posts that provided some general insight into the discussions his fellow Supers have been having on a private listserv . Here are a few key excerpts:
I'm watching the numbers roll in after Senator Clinton's 10-point win. I've spoken to one network and one newspaper. Some rumors going around about some major Superdelegate shifts on Wednesday morning - that would be something if it were true, wouldn't it? (It's probably not true).
There is a lot of debate going on over on private DNC member listserves tonight. The main issue is a) do we make our leanings known now or b) do we wait until all of the states have had an opportunity to vote?As of this writing, there is not a consensus.
Have Supers in effect have seen their shadow thereby giving the public six more weeks of primaries?
Not likely. Because even though the Clinton campaign scored an impressive 10-point win, no one should have realistically expected that any type of win would force her out of the race. If it did, it might have constituted the first time in the history of presidential primaries that a candidate were to drop out after winning a contest.
As a reminder, I've stated that only about half of those 250 are actually persuadable. You can split that pot of Supers into the "A" group and the "B" group. And the "B" group ain't doing anything until the "A" groups decides. What does this mean? This means we can only realistically look at a group of roughly 125 persuadable Supers up for grabs in this election.
And then an hour later:
The main talk among Supers today is not who to endorse, but when to endorse. Because as much as we want this to be over, there is also a principled position that the voters in these remaining states deserve to have their voices heard.
I've long suspected that was the key divide among the undeclared Supers. On the one hand, given how many states have already participated, why step on the toes of the few that are left? If you happen to be from one of those states, that's got to be a fairly compelling argument. On the other hand, if you already know who you support, your public endorsement would get considerable coverage, a fact that would help both the Super and the candidate they support. Given that there is no personal cost to remaining silent, and given that politicians tend to be cautious about making big moves, it seems to me that it is easier for a Super to continue to delay than to act.
That said, if you are in the group that has already made up their mind about who but not when, I would imagine that the pressure situation is different for Clinton supporters than Obama ones. Clinton needs the public support now more than ever, and the longer they wait, the less impact they are likely to have. You could make the case, in fact, that for Clinton supporters there will be no better moment to move than right now. She just won big in PA. Were 50-100 Supers to announce today that they support her, it would have an enormous impact on the race. But so far today we've only seen one or two announce for Clinton. Unless the remaining Clinton supporters are exercising an overabundance of caution, that would suggest to me that most of the remaining committed but undeclared Supers are Obama delegates who are remaining silent out of the concern that all of the states be allowed to participate. And as I mentioned in my previous post, assuming that they believe this race is doing far more good than harm for both their candidate and their party, that decision makes perfect sense.
I've suggested several times in the past that the Supers would move quickly after various primary nights to bring this thing to a close, and each time I've been wrong. Looking back, I realize that I was allowing the hopes of the Obama partisan in me to overwhelm the more rational thought processes of my inner political scientist. There's been plenty negative in this race, but there has been plenty positive too, particularly for the long-term health of the Democratic Party. Supers that are serious Obama partisans have already moved, so its likely that the ones that remain are focused more on the long-term health of the party than they are on any one particular election or candidate. And so among those remaining, the long-term benefits of continuing the contest are likely to weigh very heavily on their decision-making process. Assuming they are thinking rationally, of course!
And last but not least, these thoughts from Mr Super on FL and MI:
The leadership of these states failed their voters. And it is disingenuous for that leadership to cry disenfranchisement when they knew the rules, they knew the penalties, and they moved forward anyway. Thus we should include the states at the convention, but we should not reward them by granting them leverage during the nomination process. The best solution to this is to seat the delegates and not give them a vote, or to split the vote allocations 50/50 for each candidate - in effect nullifying their votes....
The DNC rules which are currently in place came about from a commission which was created at the urging of the Michigan delegation in 2004. The recommendations of the commission passed with near unanimity in 2006, including support from Florida and Michigan. The law changing the primary date in Michigan was passed and enacted by Democrats, while the law changing the primary date in Florida was supported by nearly every single Democratic member of the Florida legislature...and it was endorsed by the Chair of the Florida Democratic Party.My favorite comparison of the Florida and Michigan situation was made on the "Stumped" blog at the Washington Post:
I have a spirited 3-year-old boy. The other day I told him that if he really wanted to have a big cookie in the middle of the afternoon, he wouldn't be able to have dessert after dinner. Sebastian opted for the cookie, but then still threw a tantrum after dinner, acting as if his human rights were being violated when I told him we'd have to abide by his earlier choice.Leading politicos from Florida and Michigan are acting a lot like Sebastian these days.
If long-term national party strength is driving the decisions of these uncommitted Supers, than rule making and rule breaking would be of enormous concern. This analysis would seem to confirm that.
Will the Supers move soon? If they don't do so within the next 48 hours, I suspect we'll have to wait until after May 6 for them to act. On and on and on it goes....
Subscribe to this blog's feed
