February 19, 2008 5:59

SwampCast: It's a Bird, It's a Plane, It's SUPERDELEGATES

A field guide to types of delegates.

February 19, 2008 4:31

On the Bus

The New Yorker's precocious Ryan Lizza has nice McCain mash note up this week. I particularly like the cameos by former Bush hand Steve Schmidt:

Steve Schmidt, one of the campaign’s chief strategists, is usually perched on a ledge in a corner of the lounge. He is thirty-seven, has a shaved head, and often wears a Bluetooth earpiece, which gives him a menacing and futuristic look. Schmidt worked for the unflinchingly conservative Dick Cheney in 2005, and for California’s pragmatic, moderate governor, Arnold Schwarzenegger, in 2006. On the bus, his role is to play a sort of Ed McMahon to McCain’s Johnny Carson. ... McCain’s entire conversational style is built on anecdotes, and he often turns to Schmidt to dispense wisdom when the conversation moves into the political tall grass. “Maybe we can get a word of analysis from Sergeant Schmidt?” McCain will say after a question about exit polls or Hillary Clinton’s campaign strategy. Schmidt replies with some banal talking points or an extended soliloquy, depending on his interest in the question. Once, in Florida, McCain asked if the enthusiasm of the final rally of the day, in Lady Lake, was a sign of the campaign’s momentum. Schmidt looked up from his BlackBerry and nodded: “It is.”

Ryan dubbed Steve "Lobot" during the Florida campaign. You can see why:

Now, add the Bluetooth headset (but keep off the baseball cap):

Voila! LOBOT! (Much as with Lobot, Steve is loyal, silent, and relentlessly on message...)

February 19, 2008 3:13

Pledged Delegates Vs. "Bound" Delegates

From an email:

Given the number of calls regarding pledged delegates, I thought this background information might be helpful. As always, please call if you have questions.

Best,
Stacie Paxton
DNC Press Secretary

-------------------

Pledged Delegates Vs. "Bound" Delegates

Delegates to the Democratic National Convention who are elected based on the results of a primary or caucus are "pledged" to support the presidential candidate whom they represent as a delegate.

Under the Democratic Party's Rules, pledged delegates are not legally "bound" or required to vote according to their presidential preference on the first ballot at the Convention. Rather, these delegates are, pledged "in all good conscience [to] reflect the sentiments of those who elected them." [Rule 12.J]

Note: Rule 12J was intended to allow the convention to be a deliberative body. This enables pledged delegates to vote for the presumptive nominee even if they were pledged to someone who is no longer in the race.

Pledged delegates are not "bound" to vote for the candidate they were elected to represent. They can, and have in the past, cast a vote for the presumptive nominee when their candidate has dropped out of the race. As a sign of good faith, most former candidates will "release" their delegates from voting for them; however, this is not required, and only has a symbolic meaning to it. Delegates can vote for another presidential candidate without being "released."

Are delegates bound? Can a pledged delegate change his or her presidential preference?

A delegate goes to the Convention with a signed pledge of support for a particular presidential candidate. At the Convention, while it is assumed that the delegate will cast their vote for the candidate they are publicly pledged to, it is not required. Under the Delegate Selection Rules, a delegate is asked to "in good conscience reflect the sentiments of those who elected them." This provision is designed in part to make the Convention a deliberative body. Delegates are not bound to vote for the candidate they are pledged to at the Convention or on the first ballot.

Do the presidential candidates have a say in who becomes their delegate? What is the presidential candidate right of review?

Yes, presidential candidates have an opportunity to review the list of individuals who have filed to run for delegate pledged to them. In accordance with Party rules, during candidate right of review, presidential candidates may approve a specific number of delegate candidates in order to ensure they are bona fide supporters. These approved delegate candidates must still be elected by the states.

February 19, 2008 12:41

Convention Pledges

First all, the Clinton campaign has said it will not try to poach Obama's pledged delegates.

Second of all: In the whirlwind of research I did trying to figure out how you'd go about poaching anyway, I came across an interesting coda to the true fact that "pledged" delegates can vote for whomever they want. They totally can. But candidates can also "remove delegates who they feel may be disloyal." So.... the system works! Whee!

February 19, 2008 11:02

The Road Ahead

More Hillary's more traditional path to the nomination:

My bottom line take: The turf looks fairly favorable to Clinton, provided she wins Ohio and Texas March 4. [And if she manages to win Wisconsin, something Barone admits is "optimistic" early on. -- amc] Not favorable enough, perhaps, for her to overtake Obama in "pledged" delegates, but enough to keep the overall delegate count excruciatingly close, unless the superdelegates start cascading to Obama. (Maybe they have: Congressman John Lewis has evidently switched.) But if Clinton loses either Ohio or Texas, that's a sign that the ground thereafter will be less favorable to her. Losing Ohio would suggest she can't carry Pennsylvania or Indiana. Losing Texas suggests she can't carry Mississippi, North Carolina, West Virginia, or Kentucky. Losing either probably means the superdelegate cascade starts in torrents, and she falls well behind in total delegate count. In which case her candidacy is probably effectively over.

February 19, 2008 10:02

Nice Little Convention Vote You Got There...Wouldn't Want Anything to Happen to It....

I would really like to know what's involved in "getting pledged delegates to switch sides." Is it intimidation or just bribery?

Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign intends to go after delegates whom Barack Obama has already won in the caucuses and primaries if she needs them to win the nomination. This strategy was confirmed to me by a high-ranking Clinton official on Monday. And I am not talking about superdelegates, those 795 party big shots who are not pledged to anybody. I am talking about getting pledged delegates to switch sides.

Also telling:

Clinton spokesman Phil Singer told me Monday he assumes the Obama campaign is going after delegates pledged to Clinton, though a senior Obama aide told me he knew of no such strategy.

This assumption says a lot about Clinton's "but-he's-JUST-ANOTHER-POLITICIAN" strategy, namely, that the Clinton team knows just what kind of behavior being "just another politician" neccesitates. It's hard to figure out whether their increasingly desperate acts of projection are a cry for help -- or a flourish of self-hatred.

UPDATE: Though this ploy seems perfectly in keeping with every thing else we've heard from the Clinton camp, it's worth noting that Simon's scoop is not exactly the declaration of war it seems to be on first read: "a high-ranking Clinton official" said that Clinton would target pledged delegates "if she needs them." Another (or the same?) official goes on to say that delegate poaching "is not happening now, but as we get closer to the convention, if it is a stalemate, everybody will be going after everybody’s delegates." Unpacked, I think the news here isn't that Clinton will go after pledged delegates, it's that the Clinton teamassumes* one or two people on the Clinton campaign assume that there will be a nasty, delegate-by-delegate fight if she fails to gain the nomination via primary contests.

I have heard that there are elements in the Clinton camp that feel such talk is both damaging her chances in future (legitimate) contests (which, remember, she still can win), and setting up the ugly scenario that has activists worried already, possibly damaging the party for years to come. These forces in the Clinton campaign recognize the essential timidity of super delegates (talk about being "just" politicians!) that will make poaching incredibly difficult and they worry about the legacy for those involved such shenanigans: Who wants to become known as the Katherine Harris of the Democrats?

I think the Hillary message machine is broken; but I suspect there are still adults in the room.

*Caught myself. The whole point of this update was to dial back how much we can really tell about what's going on in Hillaryland from reading Simon's piece. Sorry.

February 18, 2008 3:58

Barack Obama's "Plagiarism"

No one's buying it, not even the Republicans. Also? "Lifting language" only counts if Barack does it:

I asked Clinton communications director Howard Wolfson and Rep. Jim McGovern, D-Mass, if they could assure the public that neither Clinton nor McGovern has ever done what Sen. Barack Obama, D-Illinois, did when he used the rhetoric of Gov. Deval Patrick without footnoting him.

They would not.

In fact, Wolfson seemed to say it wouldn't be as big a deal if it were discovered that Clinton had "lifted" such language.

"Sen. Clinton is not running on the strength of her rhetoric," Wolfson said.

And since Obama's not running on the strength of his experience, that doesn't count, either!

February 18, 2008 11:54

Slinging Cheese Curds

When did Wisconsin get so nasty? In week dominated by tit-for-tat conference calls, mailers and tv spots filled with accusations and counter-punches the Obama campaign said today they expect this is just a preview for the Ohio and Texas contests on March 4.

“I would imagine that what your seeing in Wisconsin is just a precursor to Ohio and Texas,” said Obama campaign manager David Plouffe. “We fully expect them to run a very negative campaign in Ohio and Texas.”

(Case in point: I missed a simultaneous Clinton call this ayem that accused Obama of plagiarizing his rhetoric from Massachusetts Governor (and fellow Axelrod client) Deval Patrick, which the Obama folks countered with examples of Hillary copying Obama's signature "Fired Up! and Ready to Go!")

Clinton, at first, didn’t seem inclined to invest in Wisconsin, buying advertising there a full week after Obama had been up on the air. But last week the Clinton camp switched gears and bought three tv ads – one criticizing Obama for not accepting a debate with Clinton in Wisconsin, another about how she’d rebuild the middle class and a third hitting the Obama campaign for their response to her first ad. Clinton and her daughter Chelsea spent much of the weekend campaigning in Badger state, as did Obama and his wife Michelle.

Obama, though, has spent far more money on Wisconsin tv ads, and though the state’s demographics favor Clinton – rural, primary, large blue collar population – Wisconsin borders Obama’s home state of Illinois and he leads in Real Clear Politics’ average of Badger State polls.

While Plouffe predictably downplayed expectations, he welcomed the fight as one he thought Obama would win. “Whenever they’ve taken this negative tact, it hasn’t worked well for them in the past,” he told reporters on a call. At the same time all of the criticism may be having some affect – at least one poll has Clinton leading in Wisconsin.

February 18, 2008 11:26

The Texas Caucumary/Primacus, Continued

If only Karen had posted her helpful explanation in time for the Clinton campaign to, you know, see if her "must-win state" was, er, winnable.

Supporters of Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton are worried that convoluted delegate rules in Texas could water down the impact of strong support for her among Hispanic voters there, creating a new obstacle for her in the must-win presidential primary contest.

A few questions: What part of the Texas "obstacle" is "new"? And, as Walt Starr at MyDD puts it, "How can a candidate be ready on day one when she wasn’t ready for February 6?"

Jason Zengerle frames it a little more starkly:

So let me get this straight: The Clinton campaign basically decided to bank almost everything on Texas (along with Ohio), without bothering to do due diligence on the delegate apportionment procedures there? If she does wind up winning the White House, who’s the lucky aide who gets to troop into the Oval Office and deliver the shocking news to her that we’ve got troops in Iraq.

UPDATE: It gets worse:

While [the Clinton campaign advisers] were busy “discovering” the rules, however, the Obama campaign had people on the ground in Texas explaining the system, organizing precincts, and making Powerpoints. I know because I went to one of these meetings a week ago. I should have invited Mark Penn I suppose.

Publius via TNR. (Update to update: I see Elvis pointed out the Publius quote as well. Thanks!)

UPDATE: KathyR has a helpful link.

February 18, 2008 8:49

The Texas Primacus--uh, Caucary

The Washington Post has a couple of interesting stories today about Texas' bizarre system for choosing its 228 Democratic convention delegates. It's a combination primary (which Clinton's team says will be good for her, given her longer relationships in the state) and caucuses (which Obama expects to win, if earlier contests in this season are any indication). The caucuses, where 35% of delegates are awarded, begin shortly after the polls close on primary day, March 4. And to vote in the caucus, you have to have already voted in the primary.

The whole system reflects the post-apocalyptic landscape that the state has become for Democrats. It was designed to give a lot of power to party insiders--of whom there were fewer and fewer over the past 20 years. These caucuses have been so sparsely attended in recent elections, I am told by a Clinton campaign strategist who is trying to figure all of this out, that it was not unheard of for fewer people to show up than there were delegate spots being given out, so caucus-goers would be reduced to calling friends and asking them if they were free and wanted to come down and become a convention delegate.

Obviously, with so much on the line in a close Democratic nominating contest, poor attendance is not likely to be a problem this year. But unlike Iowa, which has a long history of organizing caucuses, and Nevada, which had many months to prepare, Texas is just now beginning to grapple with running these caucuses in the face of what promises to be a huge wave of new voters. Meanwhile, the campaigns are making, quite literally, tens of thousands of calls into the state to look for volunteers to be caucus organizers. They have good reason to be scrambling. As the Post notes:

The caucuses have also given rise to a separate concern, according to several top Texas Democrats interviewed last week. Because the state's Democratic Party has been out of power for years, leaders have struggled to find precinct chairs to oversee all of the 8,000 locations where caucuses will be held.

If it is time for the caucus and there is no precinct chair, party officials decided, the task of overseeing the vote will fall to the first person who collects the packet of materials used to run the caucus.

That should be fun to watch.

Confusing enough yet? That is just the beginning. Unlike in other states, where delegates are awarded along congressional district lines, Texas has a system where they are awarded along the lines of state senate districts, but they are far from evenly apportioned. Instead, districts get bonus delegates for heavy Democratic turnout in general election contests for President and Governor--contests that, in recent years, haven't been competitive in Texas, so overall turnout is low. The biggest beneficiaries are places like inner-city Houston and latte-liberal Austin. (The Lone Star Project has this breakdown.) This means that Latino districts of South Texas will get far less than their share. Here's how the Houston Chronicle explains it:

In the heavily urban, African-American districts of state Sens. Rodney Ellis of Houston and Royce West of Dallas, a good voter turnout in the past two elections means a combined total of 13 delegates are at stake in the two districts on Election Day.

Obama nationally has been winning eight out of 10 black voters, according to network exit polls.

But in the heavily Hispanic districts of state Sens. Juan Hinojosa of McAllen and Eddie Lucio Jr. of Brownsville, election turnout was low, and a combined total of seven delegates are at stake.

Clinton has been taking six of 10 Hispanic votes nationally.

So, a big South Texas win might not mean as much for Clinton as a big win for Obama in the two black districts.

Wait, wait, there's more:

An additional 42 at-large delegates are awarded at the state convention in June.

Those delegates are pledged to individual candidates based on participation that begins in precinct caucuses on election night and ends in senatorial district caucuses at the state convention.

The state convention also elects 35 superdelegates and an additional 25 pledged-party and elected-official delegates.

Garcia, the state representative and Obama supporter, said his candidate is bringing in the staffers who helped win the Iowa caucuses, knowing that not all is decided in the primary election.

The only good thing you can say about this system is it beats the old way of doing things. I guess. Wonder how they will be voting in Box 13.

UPDATE: The Lone Star Project has come up with this delegate calculator, which also has demographic information and voting history of the different districts.