Money In Politics, Chapter 1: Superdelegates

[Anung Un Rama]

Like the layers of an onion, the corrosive effects of money in politics continue to reveal themselves.

First, lets define Superdelegate.

su·per·del·e·gate
ˈso͞opərˌdeləɡət/
noun
US​

1. (in the Democratic Party) an unelected delegate who is free to support any candidate for the presidential nomination at the party's national convention. (The Republican party doesn't have superdelegates).​

In United States politics, a "superdelegate" is a delegate to the Democratic National Convention that is seated automatically and chooses who they want to vote for. These Democratic Party superdelegates include distinguished party leaders and elected officials, including all Democratic members of the House and Senate and sitting Democratic governors. Other superdelegates are chosen during the primary season. Democratic superdelegates are free to support any candidate for the nomination. This contrasts with convention "pledged" delegates that are selected based on the partyprimaries and caucuses in eachU.S. state, in which voters choose among candidates for the party's presidentialnomination. Because they are free to support anyone they want, superdelegates could potentially swing the results to nominate a presidential candidate that did not receive the majority of votes during the primaries.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superdelegate

Here is the thing, not only can these Superdelegates vote for whomever they please (regardless of voting results), they can essentially be bribed by the candidates themselves.


This is a story from 2008.

Usually, when journalists look at campaign financing, we look at who gave the candidates money. But here is a twist. Both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton havePolitical Action Committees that have doled out thousands of dollars to the very people who will be voting to nominate them.

These recipients are so called "superdelegates," mostly party insiders who may back whomever they wish. Many are elected officials, such as congressmen, governors and the like. If you look at how candidates spend their campaign funds, you will often see that they help finance their political pals. Just go here and type in a congressperson, then click "expenditures" on the left side of the page. You can see how the elected official spends every dime of his or her campaign contributions.

While it would be unseemly for the candidates to hand out thousands of dollars to primary voters, or to the delegates pledged to represent the will of those voters, elected officials who are superdelegates have received at least $890,000 from Obama and Clinton in the form of campaign contributions over the last three years, according to the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics.

http://www.poynter.org/2008/how-candidates-pay-superdelegates-in-campaign-contributions/87029/

After this, Obama introduced a ban that restricted donations. On Feb 12, the DNC overturned that restriction.

How the DNC Helps Clinton Buy Off Superdelegates
http://observer.com/2016/02/how-the-dnc-helps-clinton-buy-off-superdelegates/

Like Ms. Clinton, DNC Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz also accepts money from super PACs and corporate interests. Given Ms. Wasserman Shultz’s campaign financing strategies—in conjunction with the virtual bankruptcy the DNC is facing under her leadership—the rescinding of the ban on donations from federal lobbyists and super PACs should come as no surprise, but what it demonstrates is still sobering. Special interests have undermined the trust between the government and the American people to the extent that public outcry against corporate influences are resulting in regressing policies for campaign finance reform. As Mr. Sanders leads calls for politicians to ethically rid themselves of ties to wealthy individuals and corporations, the Democratic Establishment is doing everything possible to inoculate themselves from those calls to action.

In short, the Clinton campaign controls the money and decides which states receive it after the campaign and the DNC get their cut. According toBloomberg, New Hampshire received $124,000, where six out of six superdelegates supported Ms. Clinton while over 60 percent of the primary vote favored Mr. Sanders. Nevada and South Carolina also have pacts with the Hillary Victory Fund, where Ms. Clinton has already won support from three of Nevada’s eight superdelegates and three out of South Carolina’s six superdelegates.

 

[SouthoftheAndes]

See no issue. Our system is better than a Parliamentary system in that our vote actually matters. What you want the politicians actually deciding whom among them in their party is to rule over you? But what could be better is more parties and a way to build coalition governments. If only there was some way to combine both systems and the ability to hold no confidence votes in extreme cases.

A reduced role of superdelegates could be nice but as of now they are only 30%. They are only an issue to Dems this year because 2 candidates. But we should remember that Superdelegates cost Hillary the election in 2008 against Obama. That is right she won the popular vote and lost to Obama based off superdelegates.

So if we really think about Hillary should be president now and Obama should be running my against Bernie.

 

[Anung Un Rama]

See no issue. Our system is better than a Parliamentary system in that our vote actually matters. What you want the politicians actually deciding whom among them in their party is to rule over you? But what could be better is more parties and a way to build coalition governments. If only there was some way to combine both systems and the ability to hold no confidence votes in extreme cases.

A reduced role of superdelegates could be nice but as of now they are only 30%. They are only an issue to Dems this year because 2 candidates. But we should remember that Superdelegates cost Hillary the election in 2008 against Obama. That is right she won the popular vote and lost to Obama based off superdelegates.

So if we really think about Hillary should be president now and Obama should be running my against Bernie.

You should see the issue, you mentioned it in your post.

“I think we need to be profoundly worried about money and politics in America,” said Christopher Robertson, a professor of law at the University of Arizona who studies campaign finance -- specifically, how contributions affect behavior. He’s found that if people are given money, they feel like they need to reciprocate. He thinks that could be a factor in a close contest at the party convention.

“In our research from 2008, campaign contributions for Obama and Clinton predicted endorsements for them 80 percent of the time,” said Sheila Krumholz, executive director of the Center for Responsive Politics, a campaign finance watchdog that studied those contributions.

http://www.marketplace.org/2016/03/01/world/power-superdelegates-and-campaign-contributions

or campaign committee since 2005. Of the 81 elected officials who had announced as of Feb. 12 that their superdelegate votes would go to the Illinois senator, 34, or 40 percent of this group, have received campaign contributions from him in the 2006 or 2008 election cycles, totaling $228,000. In addition, Obama has been endorsed by 52 superdelegates who haven't held elected office recently and, therefore, didn't receive campaign contributions from him.

Clinton does not appear to have been as openhanded. Her PAC, HILLPAC, and campaign committee appear to have distributed $195,500 to superdelegates. Only 12 percent of her elected superdelegates, or 13 of 109 who have said they will back her, have received campaign
contributions, totaling about $95,000 since 2005. An additional 128 unelected superdelegates support Clinton, according to a blog tracking superdelegates and their endorsements, 2008 Democratic Convention Watch.

http://www.poynter.org/2008/how-candidates-pay-superdelegates-in-campaign-contributions/87029/

 

[fightfan2355]

See no issue. Our system is better than a Parliamentary system in that our vote actually matters. What you want the politicians actually deciding whom among them in their party is to rule over you? But what could be better is more parties and a way to build coalition governments. If only there was some way to combine both systems and the ability to hold no confidence votes in extreme cases.

A reduced role of superdelegates could be nice but as of now they are only 30%. They are only an issue to Dems this year because 2 candidates. But we should remember that Superdelegates cost Hillary the election in 2008 against Obama. That is right she won the popular vote and lost to Obama based off superdelegates.

So if we really think about Hillary should be president now and Obama should be running my against Bernie.

You're off, as usual. Superdelegates only make up around 15% for 2016. They sure as hell didn't cost Hillary the election as Obama beat her in pledged delegates by 120+.

 

[Madmick]

First, lets define Superdelegate.

1. (in the Democratic Party) an unelected delegate who is free to support any candidate for the presidential nomination at the party's national convention. (The Republican party doesn't have superdelegates).​

Here is the thing, not only can these Superdelegates vote for whomever they please (regardless of voting results)...

See no issue. Our system is better than a Parliamentary system in that our vote actually matters.

 

[SouthoftheAndes]

What?

 

[HunterSdVa29]

at least in many Parliamentary systems, it's not winner takes all w/ the votes, but rather they get portioned out according to results. This can be good or bad (see rise of Nazis in the Reichstag), but makes more sense to me.

 

[Madmick]

What?

 

[SouthoftheAndes]

Still confused. Are you implying the elections are rigged?

I think money is an issue and I said in the ideal democratic system it would be a mix of our system and a parliamentary one. I don't like MP's chosen who leads us but I also dislike only having two political parties and lack of coalition governments.

 

[SouthoftheAndes]

at least in many Parliamentary systems, it's not winner takes all w/ the votes, but rather they get portioned out according to results. This can be good or bad (see rise of Nazis in the Reichstag), but makes more sense to me.

Our system isn't winner takes all either. It varies by state for the Democratic primaries the delegates are awarded proportionally.

 

[panamaican]

It bears repeating that the Democratic Party is a private organization. While it's kind of them to let the people give their opinion on the party's candidate, they are not obligated to follow it.

To use an example: Say I start the "Panamaican Is Better Than You Party" (not a real party although it can seem that way to some) and I can't decide between having Atheist or JVS as my candidate. So I take a Sherdog poll on who I should spend my time and money promoting as President. I rig up some elaborate mechanism that allows me to follow Sherdog's choice or disregard it as I so choose.

If Sherdog commits to my process then Sherdog understands that at the end of the day, it's always been my choice, not theirs.

So this superdelegate thing is a bad example of money in politics because it's really money within a private organization that might influence who they ultimately put into the political space. Now, if they start buying off members of the electoral college - that's a problem.

 

[HunterSdVa29]

Our system isn't winner takes all either. It varies by state for the Democratic primaries the delegates are awarded proportionally.

uh how does the electoral college work? Is it not winner takes all, by state

 

[PRIDEWASBETTER]

uh how does the electoral college work? Is it not winner takes all, by state

Not in Nebraska.

 

[Jack V Savage]

To use an example: Say I start the "Panamaican Is Better Than You Party" (not a real party although it can seem that way to some) and I can't decide between having Atheist or JVS as my candidate. So I take a Sherdog poll on who I should spend my time and money promoting as President. I rig up some elaborate mechanism that allows me to follow Sherdog's choice or disregard it as I so choose.

That's an important point, and I don't think people appreciate how recent "binding" primary elections are. The GOP could just change the rules to not allow Trump the nomination, but that would piss off his supporters and possibly lead to a third-party run. Likewise, while the point of superdelegates is to pick the "electable" candidate in a plurality type situation, if Democrats were to pick someone who clearly wasn't the favorite of most of their voters, that would cause problems. But that's the only thing preventing it. Neither party is under any obligation to have a democratically decided primary. Look at it another way: what if the Green Party decided to have a primary, and liberals just voted for Clinton as their nominee to head off another Nader situation. Would it be a problem if they said, "fuck off, we're going with Freddie deBoer"?

Also, #neveratheist.

 

[VivaRevolution]

It bears repeating that the Democratic Party is a private organization. While it's kind of them to let the people give their opinion on the party's candidate, they are not obligated to follow it.

To use an example: Say I start the "Panamaican Is Better Than You Party" (not a real party although it can seem that way to some) and I can't decide between having Atheist or JVS as my candidate. So I take a Sherdog poll on who I should spend my time and money promoting as President. I rig up some elaborate mechanism that allows me to follow Sherdog's choice or disregard it as I so choose.

If Sherdog commits to my process then Sherdog understands that at the end of the day, it's always been my choice, not theirs.

So this superdelegate thing is a bad example of money in politics because it's really money within a private organization that might influence who they ultimately put into the political space. Now, if they start buying off members of the electoral college - that's a problem.

Sounds like a good reason for people to turn from the party. If it isn't our party, whose is it?

 

[Anung Un Rama]

It bears repeating that the Democratic Party is a private organization. While it's kind of them to let the people give their opinion on the party's candidate, they are not obligated to follow it.

To use an example: Say I start the "Panamaican Is Better Than You Party" (not a real party although it can seem that way to some) and I can't decide between having Atheist or JVS as my candidate. So I take a Sherdog poll on who I should spend my time and money promoting as President. I rig up some elaborate mechanism that allows me to follow Sherdog's choice or disregard it as I so choose.

If Sherdog commits to my process then Sherdog understands that at the end of the day, it's always been my choice, not theirs.

So this superdelegate thing is a bad example of money in politics because it's really money within a private organization that might influence who they ultimately put into the political space. Now, if they start buying off members of the electoral college - that's a problem.

Its a fine example of money in politics, especially when you see Hillary Clinton's Superdelegate lead being marketed for MONTHS.

 

[japman40]

It bears repeating that the Democratic Party is a private organization. While it's kind of them to let the people give their opinion on the party's candidate, they are not obligated to follow it.

To use an example: Say I start the "Panamaican Is Better Than You Party" (not a real party although it can seem that way to some) and I can't decide between having Atheist or JVS as my candidate. So I take a Sherdog poll on who I should spend my time and money promoting as President. I rig up some elaborate mechanism that allows me to follow Sherdog's choice or disregard it as I so choose.

If Sherdog commits to my process then Sherdog understands that at the end of the day, it's always been my choice, not theirs.

So this superdelegate thing is a bad example of money in politics because it's really money within a private organization that might influence who they ultimately put into the political space. Now, if they start buying off members of the electoral college - that's a problem.

I say we nominate dochter instead. No offense jvs

 

[japman40]

Yeah the super delegates skew the numbers and make it seem to the public that Hillary has an insurmountable lead. When in fact, if Sanders wins the majority of the delegates by a solid margin the superdelegates won't go against the wishes of the voters.

They need to decrease the amount of super delegates and have them counted at the end of the primaries not the beginning.

No established super delegate is going to go against Hillary from the start, they're either in her pocket or scared of the repercussions.

http://usuncut.com/politics/vermont-superdelegate/



✔‎@lhfang
Hillary superdelegate Maria Cardona works at Alper's lobbying firm. She, too, is a Hillary superdelegate.

https://twitter.com/download
Lee Fang

✔‎@lhfang
Minyon Moore, Alper's colleague who previously helped News Corp. lobby: also a Hillary superdelegate.

3:42 PM - 10 Feb 2016

• https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?in_reply_to=697566322255790080
  
• 
  241241 Retweets
  
• 
  

 

[panamaican]

Its a fine example of money in politics, especially when you see Hillary Clinton's Superdelegate lead being marketed for MONTHS.

Private organization, not public politics.

 

[Jack V Savage]

I say we nominate dochter instead. No offense jvs

I'm willing to drop out now if it'll consolidate the anti-Atheist vote.