Tad Devine explains the role of Super Delegates... in 2008

[thesquanderer]

Last edited Wed Jun 1, 2016, 09:05 AM - Edit history (1)

ETA: figured out how to embed the video...

In the video, Tad Devine talks about multiple aspects of the super delegate process. The whole interview is interesting, but picking up from an earlier thread, I'll point out this point which he talks about starting at about 1:05.

"to provide some kind of backstop. You know, sometimes in a nominating process, you could have a nominee, for example, who did very well early on, who became the putative nominee of the party, and then suddenly a huge scandal [unintelligible]...so, you know, the Democratic party wanted a mechanism to say, listen, if something happens in this long process which happened over the course of many many months, perhaps we need a mechanism to say, wait a second, this person who won early really shouldn't be the nominee of our party."

So yeah, if Hillary's email scandal gets noticeably worse than it is, that could certainly provide motivation for defections.

The whole interview (only 10 minutes long) is interesting. At about 2:30, he was asked about the criticism of many super delegates pledging very early in the process, which he minimized largely by the fact that it simply doesn't really happen very much. Except, of course, this year, it did.

And at about 6 minutes in, he also said--and again, this is back in 2008--that it would be good to look at ways to change the super delegate system, that it could be improved, but such a reworking should be done outside the politics of an election year.

[Thinkingabout]

1. It is a well known fact why the super delegates was set up. they wanted a safety net to prevent

Hostile takeovers, they now have this. My question is how many here had made a decision to support a candidate before they declared? Probably lots, myself included. Now some wants to hold the super delegates to not having an opinion but it is okay if the rest of us can have an opinion.

[thesquanderer]

4. As the video shows, the super delegates serve multiple purposes. But one of them...

...is to allow the nomination to adjust to changing circumstances. As I put it in the other thread, "to make sure that the Dem nominee is not someone whose candidacy will blow up in their faces."

As for your question, "how many here had made a decision to support a candidate before they declared," I don't know, but the question would mostly apply to Hillary supporters, as she is the only one who everyone basically was certain would be running even long before she declared.

But regardless, I think ideally, one would hope for all voters to be open-minded, and even if they like someone, that they at least be open to looking at other people who subsequently enter the race. Can you really be sure of your preference before you even know what your options are? But what was different about Hillary was that, even before you knew for sure who the other options would be, you already knew she was almost certain to get the nomination, because we knew she had the name and the establishment support. Definitely the 800 lb gorilla, about as close to a sure thing as you could get short of being an incumbent. Which actually makes it even more remarkable that here we are in June and she still hasn't quite wrapped it up. Even despite running against an opponent who has gone pretty easy on her.

[Thinkingabout]

6. The campaign did not wrap up until June 2008. From some post I have read here the

Super delegates should not express an opinion and I say they should be afforded the same liberty of stating whom they support as we are. I have been a strong supporter of Hillary, researched a lot, don't use the talking points to make my decision. I also did research on Sanders and O'Malley and my conclusion to support Hillary. I like her stand on the issues and theyv are more in keeping with my thinking.

[thesquanderer]

7. I know it went to June last time, but this one was supposed to be a cakewalk!

But as to your bigger point, I think it's okay for anyone (including a super delegate) to have expressed their opinion. It might be "good form" for such people of influence to have waited until other people had at least entered the race (say, wait until the deadline for participating in the Iowa caucus) before announcing their support/endorsement, but I think part of the reason so many announced early was specifically to help dissuade others from entering the race, making the obstacles look that much more daunting... and while I may not think that's best for democracy or for the country, it is legitimate under the current rules. I think it would be better if they had waited, but I agree with you at least to the extent that, yes, the SDs were certainly entitled to behave as they did. That said, recognizing that a public show of support long before the convention--some going back at least as far as March of 2015!--cannot be expected to perfectly predict the circumstances to come, equally, they are entitled to look at all considerations before actually casting their vote.

[Thinkingabout]

12. Actually we heard Sanders talking about entering the promariesv in 2012 so having

Sanders declare in 2016 was not a surprise and before O'Malley announced I did research on him also. The agendas sealed my support to Hillary, Sanders has migrated on some issues but some of his positions I do not agree.

[JoePhilly]

2. SDs are not flipping.

[morningfog]

5. Yet. We have about two months of Hillary scandal

between now and when they formally vote.

[RobertEarl]

3. Same as it's ever been

H campers would love to write new rules, and make Hillary math into something worth considering, but I consider all that to be mere rookie mistakes.

The supers are gonna save us a lot of grief and get Bernie nominated.

[Garrett78]

8. "Except, of course, this year, it did."

It happened in 2008, too, which is why he was asked about it. That didn't stop Obama from winning more pledged delegates and becoming the nominee. Sanders won't become the nominee this year, and it has nothing to do with superdelegates.

[thesquanderer]

9. This year was very different.

According to what he said in the interview, in 2008, there were about 100 SD for Hillary and 50-60 for other candidates before the first vote was cast in Iowa, and he was saying that wasn't so out of line with what had happened in prior years. Meanwhile, this year, Hillary had an estimated 440 SD in August of 2015!

[Garrett78]

10. And, still, they have nothing to do with her lead in pledged delegates.

If anything, in an anti-establishment climate, that probably gave Sanders a boost. But I would bet the vast majority of people don't have a clue or care about superdelegates, or even pledged delegates. Most simply don't follow politics all that closely.

[cherokeeprogressive]

11. The role of SDs is to protect the Party Elites and status quo from the Proles and great unwashed.

Anyone who claims it to be anything else is engaging in obfuscation and outright lies.

[thesquanderer]

13. But also to put forth a candidate who will win in November.(n/t)