The Superdelegates

By trying to overturn Obama's victory, Hillary has helped make America a place where elections are decided by lawyers instead of voters

MATT TAIBBIPosted May 29, 2008 12:00 PM

McGovern, who opposed the superdelegate idea in 1968, ended up supporting it after the O'Neill incident. Ironically, one of the reasons he changed his mind was to prevent a situation in which the voters chose a clearly overmatched candidate. "In the event the majority made an obviously stupid decision," he says, "you'd have these party leaders, these experienced people, to help correct that."

The superdelegate system, in other words, was ostensibly designed to create a more politically harmonious balance between the party grass roots and the party establishment. In their first outing, in 1984, the superdelegates handed the nomination to Walter Mondale over Gary Hart — hardly an auspicious debut. Since then, they haven't been called on to decide a close race, but they've kept the deciding vote in their back pockets, just in case — laying the groundwork for the hideous nomination-by-backroom-deal scenario we're threatened with today.

Up until now, the chief issues in this campaign have been a smattering of pointless media concoctions — "working" for change versus "hoping" for change, "pretty words" versus "experience," the Rev. Wright versus Bosnian tarmac, "elitism" versus "political calculation." Determining the winner has therefore been mainly a matter of figuring out which of these hunks of bullshit have had the broadest and most effective stink, a process we media geniuses can track and poll with mathematical precision.

But the dynamic ruling the superdelegates — the race going on behind the scenes, over the phone lines — has been harder to discern. The key to this year's smoke-filled room, it turns out, dates back to 1996, when all Democratic members of Congress were given automatic status as superdelegates. And members of Congress, by design, don't care about how the people of America vote — they care about how people in their districts vote. When it comes to picking a nominee, most congressmen have only one question, a calculation of undiluted self-interest: Which candidate is most likely to help me win re-election?

It's in this area that the math seems to be tilting toward Obama. "It's a question of who's most likely to help the Democrats in November down ticket," Rep. Rick Boucher of Virginia said recently. "Obama generates more excitement than anyone since Bobby Kennedy." In 2006, the Democrats reseized the majority in Congress mainly by winning seats in traditionally Republican districts in red states. To preserve that majority, many congressional superdelegates from red states seem to be favoring Obama, whose demonstrated ability to turn out new voters and independents appears to be a determining factor. "Obama will bring new people into the process in Southern states, there's no doubt about it," said Rep. Jim Clyburn of South Carolina, the House Democratic whip. "In these Southern states, he's bringing out more people, young people, African-Americans. They're being energized by him."

Obama's advantage in states carried by Bush in 2000 and 2004, like Idaho and Missouri, may end up carrying the subterranean superdelegate battle for him. So far, he's racked up 124 endorsements from superdelegates in red states, compared to 88 for Hillary. To confirm the math for worried House members, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee has even begun poll testing to see how the choice of presidential nominee could affect various House races. Many in Congress fear that Hillary is simply too polarizing — especially to red-state residents whose votes will decide the composition of the House.


Comments


Advertisement

Advertisement