Seeking Superdelegates

As the Democratic Party's superdelegates decide whether to support Clinton or Obama, will they take into account the $900,000 they've received from the candidates

Capital Eye reports:

At this summer's Democratic National Convention, nearly 800 members of Congress, state governors and Democratic Party leaders could be the tiebreakers in the intense contest between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. If neither candidate can earn the support of at least 2,025 delegates in the primary voting process, the decision of who will represent the Democrats in November's presidential election will fall not to the will of the people but to these "superdelegates"—the candidates' friends, colleagues and even financial beneficiaries. Both contenders will be calling in favors.

And 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 $904,200 from Obama and Clinton in the form of campaign contributions over the last three years, according to the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics.

Obama, who narrowly leads in the count of pledged, "non-super" delegates, has doled out more than $698,200 to superdelegates from his political action committee, Hope Fund, or campaign committee since 2005. Of the 82 elected officials who had announced as of Feb. 12 that their superdelegate votes would go to the Illinois senator, 35, or 43 percent of this group, have received campaign contributions from him in the 2006 or 2008 election cycles, totaling $232,200. 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 $205,500 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.

Because superdelegates will make up around 20 percent of 4,000 delegates to the Democratic convention in August--Republicans don't have superdelegates—Clinton and Obama are aggressively wooing the more than 400 superdelegates who haven't yet made up their minds. Since 2005 Obama has given 52 of the undecided superdelegates a total of at least $363,900, while Clinton has given a total of $88,000 to 15 of them. Anticipating that their intense competition for votes in state primaries and caucuses will result in a near-tie going into the nominating convention, the two candidates are making personal calls to superdelegates now, or are recruiting other big names to do so on their behalf. With no specific rules about what can and can't be done to court these delegates, just about anything goes.

"Only the limits of human creativity could restrict the ways in which Obama and Clinton will try to be helpful to superdelegates," said Larry Sabato, a political scientist at the University of Virginia. "My guess is that if the nomination actually depends on superdelegates, the unwritten rule may be, 'ask and ye shall receive.' "

Superdelegates will make their decisions based on a number of factors, said Richard Herrera, a political scientist at Arizona State University. Some have long-time political and personal ties to Clinton or Obama, some will support the candidate they think is more likely to beat the Republican nominee and others will commit to the candidate who won their state's support. Deciding whom to support based entirely on contributions from the candidates would be a political liability, Herrera said.

"I think Democrats, both regular delegates and superdelegates, see this year as an opportunity to really take back the White House," he said, "and I don't think there's that short-term political concern that money will play that kind of role. It's a much bigger picture at this point."

The superdelegates themselves say the same thing—that any money flowing from the presidential candidates to the delegates' own campaigns hasn't had any sort of influence on their decisions. Pennsylvania Gov. Ed Rendell received $5,000 from Clinton in the 2006 election cycle and has endorsed her, while he hasn't received anything from Obama, campaign finance records indicate. Policy and a personal relationship with the Clintons, not money, swung his vote into her camp, according to spokesman Chuck Ardo. "The governor has known Mrs. Clinton for 15 years and has certainly had a close relationship with President Clinton as well," Ardo said. "I think those are the factors that are really more relevant, especially given the small fraction of his fundraising that Clinton's contributions made. It'd be ludicrous to tie that contribution to his support."

Yet the Center for Responsive Politics has found that campaign contributions have been a generally reliable predictor of whose side a superdelegate will take. In cases where superdelegates had received contributions from both Clinton and Obama, seven out of eight elected officials who received more money from Clinton have committed to her. The one exception: Sen. Ted Kennedy of Massachusetts, whose endorsement of Obama was highly publicized, received more from Clinton than from the Illinois senator--$10,000 compared to $4,200. Thirty-four of the 43 superdelegates who received more money from Obama, or 79 percent, are backing him. In every case the Center found in which superdelegates received money from one candidate but not the other, the superdelegate is backing the candidate who gave them money. Four superdelegates who have already pledged received the same amount of contributions from both Clinton and Obama—and all committed to Clinton.

In addition to Gov. Rendell of Pennsylvania, at least two other governors who have endorsed Clinton have also received contributions from her in the past. Ohio's Gov. Ted Strickland received $10,000 and Oregon's Gov. Ted Kulongoski received $5,000. New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson, who dropped out of the presidential race in January, has not endorsed a candidate but received $5,000 from Clinton in the 2006 election cycle.

The money that Clinton and Obama have contributed to the superdelegates who may now determine their fate has come from three sources: the candidates' campaign accounts for president and, before that, Senate, and from their leadership PACs. These PACs exist precisely to support other politicians in their elections—and, thus, to make friends and collect chits. Leadership PACs are supposed to go dormant after a presidential candidate officially enters the race.

Contributions to candidates for federal office are relatively easy to track, but money given to state and local officials is harder to spot. Campaign finance reports from Senate candidate committees are still filed on paper, making it difficult to know who is receiving money from them. For that reason it's possible that Obama and Clinton have given superdelegates even more than the $904,200 the Center for Responsive Politics has identified. While Obama has received the support of numerous state governors, state legislators and local officials, it does not appear that his leadership PAC or presidential candidate committee has contributed to any of them. His PAC did make one interesting contribution in 2006: for her Senate re-election, Hillary Clinton received a $4,200 contribution from Obama.

Another senator running for office in 2006, Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island, collected $10,000 from both Clinton and Obama. As a superdelegate, Whitehouse is backing Clinton for the White House. "His decision was based on his relationship with the Clintons. President Clinton nominated him to be United States attorney in 1994, in Rhode Island, and he believes Sen. Clinton is the strongest candidate," said spokeswoman Alex Swartsel, adding that money wasn't a factor in Whitehouse's decision. "We were a top targeted Senate race in 2006 and we received a number of contributions, including those from Clinton and Obama."

Though it might seem undemocratic to allow elected officials who have received money from the candidates to have such power in picking their party's nominee, the process was not meant to be democratic, Arizona State's Herrera said. "If anything, it was meant to take it out of the democratic process. In 1982 [the party] said they needed to have some professionals making decisions here to blunt the potential effects of what they perceived as amateur delegates making decisions—those who vote with their heart and not their head."

Chart: Money to superdelegates

Through Republicans' Eyes . . . .

. . . . White House misjudged how presidential campaign would radicalize Democrats against Iraq war.

For Examiner, Bill Sammon writes:

President Bush’s chief of staff says White House officials misjudged how much the presidential campaign would radicalize the Democratic Party against the Iraq war.

In an interview for the new book, “The Evangelical President,” White House Chief of Staff Josh Bolten said he and other administration officials did not expect the Democratic presidential candidates to pull their party so sharply to the left.

“A lot of us probably underestimated the potency of presidential politics in all of this,” Bolten told The Examiner in his West Wing office. “The need of every candidate to remain in good stead with the Democratic Party’s left wing has pretty dramatically dragged not just the candidates, but the whole party to the left.”

Bolten said the phenomenon has been accelerated by the fact that primary elections and caucuses for the 2008 presidential cycle are scheduled earlier than ever before, creating pressure on the candidates to pacify the party’s liberal base.

“They have to move to the view rapidly that will satisfy the left wing of their party and I think that’s bled over into the approach of the Democratic leadership,” Bolten said. “It shifted more rapidly than I thought.”

Bolten said Democratic leaders in both houses of Congress “moved the party more rapidly and radically to the left on the war than you might have expected.” The leaders themselves are being pulled leftward by their party’s “netroots,” the uncompromising activists who write the liberal blogs proliferating across the Internet.

The resulting political acrimony between liberals and conservatives over Iraq is a far cry from 2002 when the parties agreed that Saddam Hussein should be removed.

“In the ideal world, there would be a consensus, a bipartisan consensus about how to go forward,” Bush told The Examiner in an Oval Office interview. “Whether or not that’s achievable, time will tell.”

Bush expressed sympathy for lawmakers who are being pressured by anti-war forces.

“I’m not going to second-guess anybody’s motives; it’s just a very difficult political environment for members of Congress,” the president said. “They’re worried about the different consequences of different decisions. And we’re constantly listening.”

Vice President Dick Cheney was less willing to give anti-war Democrats the benefit of the doubt.

“There are some who are against it just because we’re for it, who are looking for any excuse they can come up with to try to defeat George Bush and the Republicans. Substance doesn’t have much to do with it,” Cheney told The Examiner in his West Wing office. “I think it’s very shortsighted on their part, because if they prevail, then ultimately they’re going to have to deal with the world as it is, having opposed all of those things that have made it possible for us to be successful.”

These include controversial anti-terror measures such as the Patriot Act and the terrorist surveillance program. Although Bush has been working to institutionalize these programs, they could be undone by Democrats in the future, Cheney warned.

“A couple of possible outcomes here,” he said. “One is, obviously, the Democrats ultimately prevail and implement the policy they claim they support. I think it will do enormous damage. On the other hand, I think, ultimately, the country would look at that and make a decision that the Democrats can’t be trusted with the nation’s security.”

Karl Rove, who until this month was the president’s closest political adviser, said that even if a Democrat wins the White House next year, he or she will find it difficult to reverse Bush’s policies in the war on terrorism.

“What American president in the foreseeable future is going to say, ‘You know what? Let’s not rock the boat. Let’s accept the fact that we have authoritarian regimes that allow their people no means of expression, except through radical madrassas. We don’t need to foster democracy,’” Rove told The Examiner. “It’s going to be hard for any president of the United States to step away from the Bush Doctrine: If you feed a terrorist, arm a terrorist, train a terrorist, host a terrorist, you’re just as bad as a terrorist. It’s going to be very hard.

“People may be able to nibble around the edges, but future presidents — for the foreseeable future — are going to adopt the doctrine that we cannot wait until dangers fully materialize. We must take necessary pre-emptive action. The question is going to be what’s necessary and pre-emptive, but that doctrine is ingrained.”

In addition to being surprised by the impact of Democratic presidential politics on the war agenda, the White House has had difficulty adjusting to the new reality of this year’s Democratically controlled Congress.

“What’s different — and I think something of a shock to the system here — is we cannot control the agenda,” Bolten said. “And so if they want to talk about subpoenas … they can do it. They can dictate what the conversation is about and when it’s going to be.”

Another Bush aide groused that the White House can no longer hold cooperative discussions with the leadership of the House and Senate about the legislative agenda.

“We’ve gone from being able to know and discuss and plan,” the official said, “to basically having to wait for whatever the latest episodic revelation that’s handed down from the mountain.

“It requires you to be reactive, in a tactical sense. The way to sort of get above that is to be more ... strategically pro-active,” he said. “It also requires us to rely more on the Senate than we have. In the past, we used the House to drive action. Now we work with our Senate colleagues to both drive action and redirect action.”

The official, who spoke on condition of anonymity, expressed grudging admiration for the ability of Democratic House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, an unabashed liberal, to control her caucus.

“What’s amazing,” the official said, “is that they have been able to effect discipline on people. You’ll have a conversation and somebody will say, in essence, ‘I’m not for the first measure that we’re using for withdrawal, but I’ve got to vote for it because the leadership has told me I’ve got to. It’s not where I am, but I feel obligated.’ Or, ‘I’m uncomfortable about the budget resolution because it’s got way too much in taxes and not enough in spending restraint, but I’ve got to vote for it.’”

Bolten agreed. “Speaker Pelosi has turned out to be a stronger figure than most people expected,” he said, adding that she “is a tougher disciplinarian on her party than most people expected.”

Democrats Improve Fundraising While GOP Flags

USA Today reports:

This just in from the Federal Election Commission, more hard evidence that Democrats are energized.

Our colleague Fredreka Schouten passes along word that national Republican party committees raised $61.2 million in the first four months of this year while their Democratic counterparts raised $59.4 million.

The figures reflect a 25% decline in receipts for Republicans and a 26% increase for Democrats compared with the same period in 2005.

If you look back to 2003, the last presidential cycle, the trend is even more dramatic. Republicans registered a 21% decrease while Democrats showed a 126% increase.

The new numbers show a shift in where Democrats are putting their money. The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee reported a 45% increase in receipts over the same period in 2005, and the Senate committee posted a 38% increase. The Democratic National Committee, by contrast, registered a 6% decrease.

Contributions to all three Republican committees declined.

The committee receipts mirror activity on the presidential front. First quarter reports to the FEC showed Democratic presidential candidates outraising Republicans by about 3-to-2. Candidates in both parties raised an aggregate $133 million during the quarter, not counting money carried over from Senate campaign committees.

What Role For Democratic 'Super-Delegates'?

Governors, senators, state chairs, and even Bill Clinton get automatic vote

MSNBC.com reports:

It’s called the Democratic Party, but one aspect of the party’s nominating process is at odds with grass-roots democracy.

Voters don’t choose the 842 unpledged “super-delegates” who comprise nearly 40 percent of the number of delegates needed to clinch the Democratic nomination.

The category includes Democratic governors and members of Congress, former presidents Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter, former vice president Al Gore, retired congressional leaders such as Dick Gephardt, and all Democratic National Committee members, some of whom are appointed by party chairman Howard Dean.

The Republicans do not have a similar super-delegate system.

These super-delegates don’t have superhuman powers, but unlike rank-and-file Democrats, they do automatically get to cast a vote at the convention to decide who the party’s nominee will be.

Although dubbed “unpledged” in Democratic Party lingo, the super-delegates are free to come out before their state’s primary and pledge to support one of the presidential contenders.

On Tuesday Maryland Sen. Barbara Mikulski announced she was supporting Sen. Hillary Clinton and three weeks ago, New Jersey Gov. Jon Corzine declared that he's also backing her. These aren't mere endorsements; these are actual votes putting Clinton two steps closer to the number of delegates needed to secure the nomination.
Why the 'super-delegate' system?
Why did the party adopt this partly undemocratic system?

Super-delegates were supposed to supply some Establishment stability to the nominating process.

Before 1972, party elders, such as Chicago Mayor Richard Daley and Charlie Buckley, the boss of The Bronx who helped John Kennedy clinch the 1960 nomination, wielded inordinate power.

But in early 1970’s, the party’s rules were reformed to open the process to grass-roots activists, women, and ethnic minorities.

Sen. George McGovern, the leading anti-Vietnam war liberal, won the 1972 nomination. McGovern turned out to be a disaster as a presidential candidate, winning only one state and the District of Columbia.

So without reverting to the days of party bosses like Buckley, the Democrats decided to guarantee that elected officials would have a bigger voice in the nomination.

On the ballot with the candidate

“There was a belief that they would not want candidates who were dramatically out of sync with the rest of the party — particularly if these were people who were going to have to run on the same ticket with them,” says Northeastern University political scientist William Mayer, who has written extensively on the nomination process.

There were, Mayer says, two motives in giving elected officials a big voice in the nomination.

“One was not to get (ideologically) extreme candidates; the other was to avoid the Jimmy Carter phenomenon — where you had a guy who was not very experienced and not very well regarded by most of his fellow governors, but nevertheless managed to win the party’s nomination,” Mayer said.

“It’s a very important system because you have people who have a serious, serious stake in the outcome participating in the convention,” said Democratic National Committee member Elaine Kamarck, who teaches at Harvard University’s Kennedy School of Government.

Serving as 'safety valve'

Kamarck sees the super-delegates as a “sort of safety valve” so that, for instance, “if the convention’s platform committee is adopting something that would be really detrimental in the general election,” the party leaders can take steps to prevent that from happening.

But “it is very difficult to argue” that the super-delegate system “has consequences, unintended or intended,” said Mayer.

The only year when they may have an impact was in 1984, he said. The loyalty of Democratic elected officials probably helped Walter Mondale survive an unexpectedly strong challenge from Sen. Gary Hart who had beaten Mondale in New Hampshire and other primaries.

“The super-delegates clearly gave him his majority and helped him wrap up the nomination earlier,” Mayer said.

Evidence of momentum

Building the appearance of momentum and inevitability is why Clinton and her rivals will gradually be unveiling their endorsements by super-delegates.

Howard Dean's momentum appeared unstoppable in the first weeks of 2004. Super-delegate Sen. Tom Harkin of Iowa said emotionally a few days before his state's caucuses, "In my entire adult lifetime, I have never seen anyone broaden our party and bring people in and excite young people... like Governor Howard Dean." It was powerful testimony from a hard-nosed politician.

Dean had amassed the most super-delegates before the Iowa caucuses. But many had buyer's remorse and some abandoned him once he finished a weak third in Iowa.

Democratic powerbroker (and super-delegate) Gerald McEntee, head of the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees, who had thrown his union behind Dean in November 2003, announced two weeks after Dean's loss in New Hampshire that he was abandoning him.

Dean loses super-delegates

In the two weeks following the Iowa caucuses, 36 of 132 Dean's super-delegates peeled away from him; while John Kerry's tally jumped from 74 to 102.

Other super-delegates who had delayed endorsing jumped on Kerry's bandwagon.

In next year's contest, could a candidate amass a stockpile of super-delegates, survive disappointing showings in early primaries, and go on to win the nomination? That seems unlikely.

“Do the super-delegates have the capacity to resist the choice of the overwhelming majority of primary voters and caucus participants? The answer, I think, is a clear ‘No,’” said Mayer.

Nevertheless, there’s a romantic streak in some political junkies who fantasize about a scenario in which the nomination could still be in doubt at the end of the primary season.

That hasn't happened in either party in 30 years.

In that scenario, perhaps party heavyweights would line up votes at the convention to swing the nomination to one of the contenders, or to a dark horse.