Democratic strategist Jim Jordan, who is not affiliated with either presidential campaign, told the LA Times last night, “Anybody who says past this point that this is good for the party or good for the nominee is a fool.” The candidates, he said are “exhausted, they’re more likely to make mistakes, and they’re raising each other’s negatives.”
It’s a common sentiment among party leaders and officials.
Tennessee Gov. Phil Bredesen (D), an uncommitted superdelegate, told the New York Times, “This is exactly what I was afraid was going to happen. They are going to just keep standing there and pounding each other and bloodying each other, and no one is winning. It underlines the need to find some way to bring this to conclusion.”
The irony is, Bredesen is complaining while refusing to take a side in the contest. He wants to bring this race to an end, but by remaining uncommitted, he’s prolonging the contest.
In her victory speech in Philadelphia last night, Hillary Clinton, the Times noted, “used the words ‘fight,’ ‘fighter’ and ‘fighting’ repeatedly — not only to promise financially struggling Americans that she would protect them, but also to convey that she had the resolve and confidence to stay in the race.”
Of course, the more there’s intra-party “fighting,” the more the pugilists will get bloodied and bruised. Superdelegates, especially those 300 or so who remain uncommitted, claim they want the “fighting” to end.
If so, it’s within their power to intervene. So why don’t they?
Matt Yglesias noted last night:
I have to say that I’m getting really tired of this. All the superdelegates should just say who they’re voting for and bring this to the end. If they want to back Hillary Clinton despite Obama’s majority in elected delegates, they should say so. Or if they want Barack Obama to be the nominee, they should say so. The idea that in two weeks we’ll have another inconclusive primary, then another, then another, then another and then the superdelegates make up their mind is inane — everyone else who follows politics can decide.
From a decidedly pro-Obama perspective, he added this morning:
If there’s a large pro-Clinton group out there, fine. So be it. Stand up and let yourselves be counted. If not, if you’re for Obama, then even better — raise your hand. People keep explaining to me that superdelegates have good selfish reasons to avoid declaring and giving us a chance to end this thing. That’s true, but a great many of them also have constituents on whom pressure can be brought to get off the fence without waiting until June.
At this point, we know what we need to know. We know the policy differences between the candidates, we know the “freak show” issues surrounding the candidates, we know the basic shape of each candidate’s core electoral coalition, and we know that in the end Obama will have a modest but real lead in elected delegates. Everyone should declare.
Agreed. I reserve the right to change my mind, but as of this morning, I’m more interested in seeing the race end then who actually gets the nomination. I like both candidates, but I don’t like the idea of months of an ongoing process.
And the only way to realistically end the race is for superdelegates to tip the scales. The New York Times had an item about five weeks ago on how the superdelegates are feeling antsy, but the uncommitted ones don’t want to announce their support for either candidate. Why? Because they’re hoping power-brokers (Dean, Gore, et al) will intervene so they’ll be “relieved of making an excruciating decision that could lose them friends and supporters at home.”
I’m sorry to break it to the superdelegates, but this is in their hands — just as it has been for weeks. Whether they decide in August, June, or April, these insiders are going to deliver the nomination to one candidate or the other.
What are they waiting for? They know they’ll have to make a decision, but they’re still undecided? Still?
One candidate is going to enter the convention with more delegates, more states, and almost certainly more popular votes. If superdelegates find that compelling, fine, back Obama. One candidate will enter the convention with more “big-state” victories and stronger support among the elderly and blue-collar workers. If they find that more compelling, fine, back Clinton. Just do something.
I noticed that publius believes the uncommitted superdelegates have made a choice, but are waiting for “political cover.”
If these people were inclined to support Clinton, they would have hopped on the bandwagon a long time ago. So they’re just waiting for the slam dunk plus foul to jump in and endorse Obama.
Assuming I’m right about the reason for their delay (i.e., the need for “cover”), their line of thinking makes no sense. What exactly do they need cover from? What retribution will meet them if they decide now as opposed to after ten more virtual ties? It’s not like Obama is radioactive in Red states (at least judging by his current superdelegate endorsements). And they no longer have to fear the Clinton “machine” — indeed, getting rid of that power structure is probably the reason they didn’t back Clinton in the first place.
In short, it seems like a combination of vanity and cowardice. Maybe it’s time to focus some of the pressure currently directed at Clinton toward the superdelegates themselves. Enough already.
Note to superdelegates: stop sitting on the sidelines, waiting for a miracle, hoping to avoid the burden of choice. Time to step up, in one direction or the other.