The exceptionally close race between Senators Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton has pundits buzzing about whether so-called “super delegates” will determine the Democratic nominee for 2008. The fear is that the Clintons’ extensive ties to the Democratic Party will swing enough delegates to win the nomination, undermining the choice of the voters and smacking of old-style machine politics. The idea that the old smoke-filled room makes a comeback and steals the nomination from the people’s choice makes for great political drama. Journalists and pundits certainly love the idea. But it’s an unlikely outcome.
Let’s first step back and think about the original purpose of super delegates and, then, consider the more likely outcomes in the battle for the Democratic nomination.
Super delegates are usually party leaders not pledged to any candidate, so they can support anyone. The Democrats first used super delegates in 1984 in an effort to give party leaders a more active role in the nomination process and in the party’s national convention. They had been marginalized since 1972.
The battle between Gary Hart and Walter Mondale in 1984 was tight in the early stages, and concern rose that super delegates might play a decisive role. It turned out, however, that Mondale pulled away at the end of the primary process, making him the clear winner. There has not been such a close contest until this year.
The logic behind the super delegates is that in a battle where there is no clear winner, party leaders would have the ability to make the call. Why not let them choose the nominee under this scenario? Party leaders have a deep understanding of the candidates’ qualifications and, more important, they have an appreciation for which candidate has the best chance of winning the fall campaign. Besides, who else should break a tie? It strikes me as a reasonable way to proceed.
Of course, the real fear is that Obama will have more delegates, votes, and wins, and yet the super delegates will disproportionately support Clinton and give her the nomination. That outcome would be bad for the legitimacy of the process. It is also improbable.
Remember, these super delegates are informed party leaders who want to beat John McCain, the likely Republican nominee this November. If they “stole” the nomination from Obama, the backlash would surely damage the party’s chances. Moreover, these super delegates are skilled politicians in their own right who are not going to cave to pressure from the Clintons (or Senator Obama). Here in Tennessee, three of our super delegates are former Vice President Al Gore, Governor Phil Bredesen, and U.S. Rep. Jim Cooper. Those delegates are way too experienced and savvy to buckle to political pressure. In fact, it is these kinds of individuals who are well situated to offer a reasoned opinion on what would be obviously a tough decision.
In short, there is far too much worry about the super delegates at this stage. My guess is that the process will yield a clear winner and the super delegates will back the public’s choice. But if there is no clear winner, I am confident that super delegates will make a choice that is in the best interest of the party and the nation.
John Geer is Distinguished Professor of Political Science at Vanderbilt University.
This op-ed originially ran in The Tennessean.
Media contact: Ann Marie Owens, (615) 322-NEWS
annmarie.owens@vanderbilt.edu