Ah, the
subtlety. Did you even notice that yesterday’s subheads were green?
And speaking of
noticing things (and speaking of bears) you might want to take this 15-second acuity test.
HOW SUPERDELEGATES SHOULD VOTE
Here’s what I
wrote yesterday:
First, they should
decide whether one candidate, in their view, is more likely to beat McCain than
the other. If so, that’s the one they
should vote for. Period. (And, yes, into this calculus must go the factor of
how the superdelegate vote itself
might affect the chances of one or the other having the best chance to win in
November.) End of story.
If they decide that the
electability difference is minor or impossible to discern (or that it
doesn’t matter because either will
almost surely win), then they should
decide whether one candidate, in their view, would do a significantly better
job as President. If so, that’s the one they should vote for.
If, finally, they think
each is more or less equally electable and more or
less equally likely to be an outstanding President – albeit with different strengths
and story lines – then they should
simply ratify the will of the voters.
If they can determine
what it is.
David: “Is this your
opinion or party policy?”
F Just my opinion! And you did not all share it:
Jacob Roberts: “Your superdelegate voting criterion #1 would, if followed, produce one of the ugliest nominating conventions in recent history. I would forget #1 as a criterion.”
A.K. “As I read your article today, I had a moment
of clarity. You don’t care how many
delegates will vote/voted for Obama or Hillary. You’re so hungry to get a Democrat
back in power that, in effect, ‘Screw the delegates; pick whoever you think
will win, no matter what.’ Am I wrong? I
hope I am. I want to think that you want us to do the right thing, not the
politically expedient thing. By the way,
I’m an Independent and am not sure I’ll vote for.”
F My first premise is that the DNC must not
change the rules – at
least not in any way both campaigns don’t agree to. It’s fundamentally important that the losing
side not feel the DNC changed the rules to favor one candidate or the
other.
So when it comes
to superdelegates – who were written into the rules 35-odd years ago – the standard
is that they get to vote whatever way they think best.
(Consider: if the
standard were that they must simply vote for whoever has the most delegates,
then they have no vote at all. It’s not
a “vote” if it can only be cast one way.)
My second premise is that both of our
candidates would do so much better for the country than John McCain that
it’s far more important that one of them
wins (and, incidentally, stanch the rightwing slide in the Judiciary) than which
of them wins, different though
they are.
(Imagine electing
Senator McCain. There are several
reasons I’d rather not, much as I admire him; but how about just this one: It would send the world a message that . . . after
all this . . . America had
decided to stick with the same Party – “four more years!” – led by the guy whose
photo
hugging George W. Bush will be the iconic image seen across the globe. This may not be entirely fair, any more than
our perception of France
is entirely fair, but it would be the message the world receives.)
That’s why, Jacob
and A.K., I think the most idealistic, high-minded thing a superdelegate can
do, if he or she honestly believes one candidate has a meaningfully better
chance of winning than the other, is pick that candidate – be it Barack or be it Hillary.
That said, I
agree with you: if it’s unclear who has
the best shot of winning, and unclear who would be the most successful
president – and to many superdelegates it may be agonizingly unclear – then they should
definitely go with the will of the voters.
BUT . . . WHAT IS THE WILL OF THE VOTERS?
There are
arguments for why it should be the delegate count, not the popular vote, from
which the superdelegates divine the popular will – and arguments for the
reverse.
Arguments why Florida and Michigan
should count in some fashion, even if they do not revote – and why they should
not.*
Arguments
for overweighting the later-voting states – and for not.
Arguments
for overweighting the primary states versus the caucus states – and for not.
(And arguments
for overweighting the swing states . . . but those arguments belong up above, in step #1: electability.)
Even those
arguments have subarguments. For example, those who conclude the
superdelegates should ignore the popular vote must decide whether it is the
delegates of their state they should
vote with (which would force Senator Kennedy and Governor Patrick to switch sides)
or whether they should look only to the national tally (whatever that turns out
to be).
______________________________
* My Florida plan (though
only, of course, if the two campaigns agreed to it): Each campaign names its
favorite pollster. Then you get those
two, along with the DNC’s favorite pollster, each to
do a poll Florida’s
registered Democrats. Then you average
the results and there you are. Florida would count;
you’d save 20 million Democratic dollars that would have gone to administering
a revote; and, yes, the margin of error might be 3% or 4%, but that could cut
either way – as could the weather on election day. (Both sides seem to hate this plan, which
suggests to me it may be a pretty good one.)
AND EVERYBODY HATES THE . . .
You may be
familiar with Tom Lehrer’s “National Brotherhood Week.” It’s the
lead song on his amazing 1965 album, “That Was
the Year That Was” (lyrics, here). (The last cut is “The Vatican Rag.” Surely you’ve heard
that one – no?)
“I know there are people in the world that do not love
their fellow human beings,” Lehrer intones
in the lead-up to the song – “and I hate people like that.”
I am reminded of this because
of the verse in which “the Protestants hate the Catholics /
and the Catholics hate the Protestants / and the Hindus hate the Moslems / and
everybody hates the Jews.”
All in good fun, of course –
but even as necks get warm among both Obama and Clinton supporters, there’s one
thing, at least, all of them can good-naturedly agree on: they hate the DNC.
My wonderful Clinton
friends want us to stick to the rules on superdelegates – but bend them just a
little to count Florida,
which went 55-27 for Hillary. After all,
it wasn’t the voters of Florida who did anything
wrong. They are furious with us.
My wonderful Obama friends
want us to stick to the rules on Florida
– but would like the superdelegates to follow a new rule: that they should all
vote for whichever candidate got the most delegates. They are furious with us, too.
So it’s a mess; but do not
despair. First, we have two superb
candidates. Second, the DNC has been
scrupulous in sticking to the rules (angering both sides). Third, everyone recognizes how important it is
to find an acceptable resolution by mid-June, if at all possible, and – though
it is way above my pay grade – I
think a resolution is likely to be reached.
Steve: “The DNC has not adequately
‘sold’ the superdelegate system to the country. As such, pressure to vote based on ‘district
popular vote’ will likely prevail. But every
state has different rules, most disadvantaging the bulk of the Democratic Party.
A table measuring the number of votes-to-generate-a-delegate
for each delegate would show a shocking imbalance. The Party created as open a system as it
could, and then created a ‘balancing’ mechanism to assure that those who have
actually been elected to office (federal, state-wide government or state-wide
party) – and who have a very strong incentive to look at the practical world of
politics – would have a say. These individuals, above all else, are required to
win general elections.”
F Please remember; this column reflects my
thoughts, only. I am enthusiastically
neutral between our two superb candidates.
I’d like to find a way both campaigns agree on for Florida to count; I’d like the independence
of the superdelegates to be respected; I’d like the superdelegates to “do the
right thing” – and expect they will.