Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Gothmog

(180,658 posts)
67. The press has always counted superdelegates in declaring the presumptive nominee is past primaries
Tue May 31, 2016, 10:08 PM
May 2016

Great article on how in every primary contest since the creation of super delegates, the winner was declared the presumptive nominee based on the inclusion of super delegates. http://www.dailykos.com/stories/2016/5/29/1532358/-What-Does-It-Mean-to-Clinch-the-Nomination-When-Superdelegates-Are-Involved

?1464557557

After reading a number of impassioned defenses of why the Democratic presidential nomination should not be called next week on June 7th, I got curious. What’s the history here, since the superdelegates were added to the process? When a Democratic candidate hits the magic number of pledged delegates plus superdelegates, are they the nominee?

The answer: history says the first person to get to the magic number is the presumptive nominee, and says it unambiguously, even if the losers often disagree.

Here’s how it has gone since the superdelegates were added to the process.....

Summary

Anyway, I started this research 12 hours ago to answer a question for myself, so that as everyone on TV is spinning things this way and that on June 7th I have some context. What, if anything, have I learned?

First, most non-incumbent candidates have needed superdelegates to win, and the history of superdelegates has been that once a Democrat hits the magic number and becomes the nominee, superdelegates are more likely to flow to the nominee than from them.

Also, in the history of the superdelegates, they have always ended up supporting the decision of the pledged delegates, and their most important contribution has been to amplify leads of the pledged delegate winner so that they can be assured success on a first ballot, and avoid the sort of messy convention that harms a general campaign.

The major thing I’ve learned is that the press declares, and has always declared, the winner after they hit the magic number, and has done so in far more nebulous circumstances than this. Even in 1984, in which Hart won by a number of other metrics, in which the delegate count was the arbiter, and Mondale announced himself as the nominee, even with 38 percent of the popular vote to Hart’s 36 percent—even then, Hart may have claimed he still had a cunning plan, but no one begrudged Mondale the fact he was, for all intents and purposes, the nominee.

When you think about it, that simply has to happen. Things need to get done, and they need the nominee to do them. Except for Reagan in 1976, who chose a running mate after Gerald Ford was made the nominee, there aren’t a whole lot of non-nominee candidates going to the convention with their own vice president picked out. You get to do that because the numbers say you’re the nominee.

Meeting this number also allows the nominee to do the work of campaigning before the convention, establishing a message, building capacity on the ground, etc.

The press, for its part, has always understood this, from 1984 onward, and has named the nominee (or the “presumptive nominee”) the minute the candidate crosses the line with their combination of pledged and supers, and usually said something to the effect that they had “clinched” the nomination. They did that when Mondale had won far fewer states than Hart. They did that when Dukakis did not have 50 percent of the pledged delegates. They did that when Obama had not won the popular vote (yes, I know, Michigan—I hope we’re still not fighting this?).

This is a well researched article and confirms that the nomination process will be over on Tuesday June 7, 2016 when the results of the New Jersey primary are announced.

Sanders wants special rules and treatment.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

"Shifted the results in the end"? stopbush May 2016 #1
There were Hillary supporters at the time who claimed it was stolen. Spitfire of ATJ May 2016 #51
That has absolutely nothing to do with whether or why super delegates stopbush May 2016 #62
Really? That's not what I heard.... Spitfire of ATJ May 2016 #68
"Released"? billhicks76 May 2016 #57
released? what were they tied up? JumpinJehosaphat May 2016 #66
From Shaun King - the plagiarist. Gomez163 May 2016 #2
What? I never knew about any plagiarism bravenak May 2016 #4
They fired his editor for not catching his plagiarism Gomez163 May 2016 #7
Whoa!!! Why not him too? bravenak May 2016 #11
No the Editor changed his "quotes." Article Here: KoKo May 2016 #20
Thank you. 840high May 2016 #45
You are Welcome! KoKo May 2016 #47
He was accused of it because of an editor's sloppiness. The editor was fired. MADem May 2016 #9
Ooooooh! That makes better sense! bravenak May 2016 #12
Good catch. I was scratching my head also. He did the proper attribution but the editor removed it. LiberalArkie May 2016 #16
What a terrible thing to do bravenak May 2016 #24
Well, at least the editor got caught. I would imagine that happens a lot. People trying to LiberalArkie May 2016 #26
If I can't take a cheap shot at someone that disagrees with me, Gomez163 May 2016 #34
Post removed Post removed May 2016 #38
Who is Brock? Lou Brock?? Gomez163 May 2016 #40
I don't know about the plagiarism, but what does that have to do with anything? thesquanderer May 2016 #8
It goes to his credibility. Gomez163 May 2016 #13
I don't agree, but you can watch the video for yourself. He is not in it. thesquanderer May 2016 #19
This message was self-deleted by its author mac56 May 2016 #21
But you don't refute the article AgingAmerican May 2016 #25
Simply not true. 840high May 2016 #46
Yes, he got caught on Twitter by a lot of people shenmue May 2016 #53
See #9 840high May 2016 #56
IMO, the DNC waited so long to object that I can't take the "pleas" merrily May 2016 #3
No real objection of their part. DemMomma4Sanders May 2016 #18
Yeah, it just looks like trying to salvage their optics at this point. nt SusanCalvin May 2016 #54
It has always worked that way liberal N proud May 2016 #5
The video had nothing to do with whether or not Bernie Sanders likes it. thesquanderer May 2016 #10
Did You Read The Article? billhicks76 May 2016 #58
There we go another attack on my username liberal N proud May 2016 #61
Um no. The superdelegates are NOT "likely to change their mind." SunSeeker May 2016 #6
not in my state...bernie took every county but one but hrc got the supers dembotoz May 2016 #22
What state is that? nt SunSeeker May 2016 #29
She didn't Lordquinton May 2016 #23
It is Sanders who wants to disenfranchise women and people of color by asking supers to flip. nt SunSeeker May 2016 #28
You mean African American voters of the older generation elljay May 2016 #41
Disgusting Attack billhicks76 May 2016 #59
By flipping superdelegates, Sanders would be negating the votes of women and POC. SunSeeker May 2016 #64
Some claimed support before he announced. Spitfire of ATJ May 2016 #52
It has been common practice to include the SD's in the court. Stop the whining. riversedge May 2016 #14
Superdelegates have been included in media vote tallies since 1984, when the system began. pnwmom May 2016 #15
Shaun King wrote the article, so the outrage and hyperbole are to be expected. annavictorious May 2016 #17
Shaun King geek tragedy May 2016 #27
LOL SunSeeker May 2016 #30
This is not LBN. LiberalFighter May 2016 #31
DNC chair must know the historical data beachbumbob May 2016 #32
Apparently this is not about what Sanders thinks passiveporcupine May 2016 #42
I believe Jesse Jackson among others questioned the wisdom of Superdelegates. Ford_Prefect May 2016 #60
They might be OK if not misused the way they have been passiveporcupine May 2016 #65
Don't touch... jtuck004 May 2016 #33
The pledged delegates don't vote until the convention, either. Does that mean the tally is 0-0? George II May 2016 #35
That's the new meme wallyworld2 May 2016 #36
The other "meme" was that the superdelegates should vote with the people. But now that.... George II May 2016 #37
I still don't know wallyworld2 May 2016 #43
Hello,,,,, Super Delegates can,, Cryptoad May 2016 #39
They pledged wallyworld2 May 2016 #44
maybe u are in need of another Political Party, Cryptoad May 2016 #69
The number of delegates needed to win the nomination includes the super delegates Gman May 2016 #48
Not reporting on the superdelegates who have supported one candidate or another NobodyHere May 2016 #49
Why is this here and not GD-P? N/t JesterCS May 2016 #50
Beats me. I already posted that and nothing happened. LiberalFighter May 2016 #55
The story goes that at least some of the Superdelegates were bought prior to any vote. Ford_Prefect May 2016 #63
The press has always counted superdelegates in declaring the presumptive nominee is past primaries Gothmog May 2016 #67
LOCKING THREAD AS ANALYSIS/OPINION LostOne4Ever May 2016 #70
Latest Discussions»Latest Breaking News»Clinton and media outlets...»Reply #67