Looking through the Superdelegate Transparency Project and the list of superdelegate endorsements at Democratic Convention Watch, I have noticed that Hillary Clinton's current advantage among superdelegate endorsements is not primarily the result of publicly elected officials defying the will of their constituents. Among superdelegates that earned their position through public elections, Clinton holds a 100-81 advantage in endorsements. Most of that advantage can be accounted for in the different number of publicly elected superdelegates from Illinois who have endorsed Obama (11) and those from New York that have endorsed Clinton (27). Among publicly elected superdelegates from outside of Illinois, New York, Michigan and Florida, Clinton holds only a narrow 73-70 advantage in endorsements that is not significantly different from the popular vote thus far.
The overall balance of publicly elected superdelegates actually appears roughly equal to the overall balance of the popular vote so far. In fact, at the rate that Obama is picking up endorsements from publicly elected superdelegates, whatever remaining advantage Clinton has in this area will probably be eliminated entirely before long if Obama continues to win states. While there are publicly elected superdelegates who have endorsed a candidate defiance of the popular will of their constituents, cumulatively superedelgates who are publicly elected officials are not defying the public will to any significant degree.
Instead of public officials, the main source of Clinton's advantage comes from among superdelegates that earned their status through intra-party elections. In other words, the bulk of Clinton's endorsement advantage in this area comes from superdelegates that are either current or former members of the Democratic National Committee. Within this group, which forms the majority of all superdelegates, Clinton holds an endorsement advantage of 138 to 79.5. All of these officials technically represent the entire state or territory in which they live, rather than their local congressional districts. In states where Clinton won the majority of popular support, Clinton leads among party elected superdelegates 55 to 20. In states and territories that have to hold elections and / or announce results, Clinton leads among party elected superdelegates 32 to 19.5.
Here is where things get interesting and eye-opening. Stunningly, in states where Obama won the majority of popular support, Clinton leads the endorsements from party elected superdelegates, 51 to 40, which is the primary source of Clinton's superdelegate advantage. If all DNC members were simply endorsing their state, then the entirety of Clinton's superdelegate advantage would be the results of the difference in size between the New York and Illinois delegations. At that point, her advantage would be reduced to 207 to 191.5, and not a big deal given current popular vote totals. If that were the case, then superdelegate endorsements would, cumulatively speaking, closely reflect the popular vote nationwide.
This is an important finding that should shift the focus of the superdelegate discussion away from prominent public figures like Ted Kennedy or Leonard Boswell who endorsed candidates different from the ones whom their constituents supported. Instead, the balance of power in superdelegate endorsements currently rests with local political activists who have much lower national profiles. There superdelegates will also be more difficult to sway, given that so few people know who they are, and that they have the local organizing ability and connections to be re-elected to the DNC almost no matter what. Further, if my personal experience is any indication, they will also tend to be some of the more strident and abstinent activists you can find.
As a member of a state Democratic committee, I am only one rank below superdelegate in the party hierarchy myself. In fact, I am of the rank that elects many superdelegates. Trust me when I say that these are very easy votes to sway. As just one example, Carol Campbell is on the superdelegates from Pennsylvania, and she has made it quite clear on several occasions that she does not really care if the party does what the majority of voters want it to so. . For an extreme example of how difficult it will be to sway a superdelegate, read this profile of Carol Campbell from a local Philadelphia weekly. She is a local Philadelphia machine boss who was once placed on city council without an election even taking place. After losing her DNC seat because she never attended meetings, and after losing her city council seat in a blowout in the Democratic primary last year, she was also re-elected to the DNC without warning or debate during a state committee meeting I attended. Even though Campbell has not endorsed, goooooood luck with changing her mind once she does. If you really think you can persuade her, click here for another classic Campbell quote that should tell you what she thinks of pressure from the grassroots.
Of course, not all superdelegates are like Carol Campbell. They are also like Jenny Greenleaf, or even like me. As I noted, I am only one rank away from being a superdelegate in the party hierarchy. Further, if I were a superdelegate, I don't think I would accountable to vote the way all Pennsylvanians vote. I would vote my neighborhood (West Philly), vote with the blogosphere, or vote with the national popular vote before I would vote my state. Those are the groups to which I feel accountable, not "Pennsylvania," which does not really mean that much to me. (Three other state capitals are closer to where I live than Harrisburg. Also, I can take the subway to Jersey or light rail to Delaware, but most of Pennsylvania is inaccessible to me. Further, I grew up in Upstate New York where most of my family lives and most of my favorite sports teams still play. I travel from Boston to D.C. all the time, but rarely do I travel west of Harrisburg. As such, why should the concept of "Pennsylvania" by so special to me?). Given the way I parse out my loyalties, it does not seem hard to imagine that other DNC superdelegates would have different and quite varied feelings of loyalty and accountability.
This is a complex problem without simply solutions. I believe that superdelegates should hold off on firm commitments until the voting and caucusing completes on June 7th, or until only one candidate is left in the campaign. If, at that point, more than one person leads in the various ways that pledged delegates and popular votes can be counted nationwide, then I think superdelegates should vote for whomever they like. However, if one candidate leads in all the various permutations of the popular vote and pledged delegate counts, then they should all line up behind that candidate to avoid a brokered convention. That is the principle that I think our superdelegates should all follow, but I also realize convincing them to do so won't be easy. Nearly half of all superdelegates have endorsed, and it is difficult to put the toothpaste back in the tube, to say the least. Further, not only are there competing definitions of the popular vote and pledged delegate total, but there are also competing definitions of what criteria superdelegates should use in making their decision. In such an environment, achieving a shared goal of having a legitimate and strong nominee who can unite the party in the general election will not be an easy task. |
