Wednesday, February 6, 2008

See, this is what happens when people don't get statistics...

Diehard Pickle reader Sarah asks why Super Duper Tuesday is for the most part being reported as a marginal victory for Clinton, as opposed to the story that Obama may in fact have edged Clinton in the delegate count for the day.

I think this has a lot to do with the way the evening unfolded. I was watching from 8:15 pm to 12:45 am EST, with one or two bathroom breaks, and my exprience of the evening was that Hillary asserted herself early with wins in TN and NY to overcome his IL and GA victories, and she had big early leads in NJ, MA, and MO. It felt like hse was crushing him in a few places. Then, Obama picked up a handful of wins in states like CT and MN and began to close the gap in NJ, MO, and even NY, and the interior west and southewest was a draw (CO and AZ), and things seemed more even. So when people went to bed and papers went to press with CA looking unexpectedly lopsided, the story gave the edge to Clinton.

But the fact that the actual delegate count hasn't scrubbed that story line completely is a testiment to how muddled this process is likely to remain, and, in fact, how undemocratic it may turn out to be. The big take-away from the night for me, really, was how the state-by-state popular vote is such a beauty contest. I mean, I really understand statistics quite well compared to the average person, and I was really gripped by the drama of who would win MO; but in fact, who ultimately would come out on top was not really important. But nevertheless, winners and losers are easy to understand, and hence the bias in the coverage.

I want to refer Pickle readers to me post from last week in which I urged people to begin to think about writing to their super-delegates. This is looking more and more important, and I expect to write more about it...

3 comments:

Sarah Rotman Epps said...

It's a great point about the superdelegates. So much of what is happening and what is to come is going on behind the scenes, off camera. Not particularly democratic at all.

Regarding your post about Barney Frank already pledging to Hillary, that is shocking and frustrating. Do you have any recommendations for how we find out who are our superdelegates? And no offense to the Pickle, but why is this process so opaque that I have to ask you how to do this?

But I'm with you on the contact-your-superdelegates campaign.

Unknown said...

I have to admit that my knowledge of the whole primary process is VERY general, and I do not entirely understand the role of the superdelegates. For those of us who did not or do not attend Harvard or MIT, would you mind taking the time to explain what role these folks play, please? Thank you!

Dan said...

Well, I think there's a distinction to be made between what piece of this is opaque and what is not. The rules themselves and the philiosphy behind them are actually fairly simple, especially with respect to the apportionment of the popularly elected delegates to the national convention, at which the nominee is chosen.

One quarter of each state's delegates are awarded on the basis of the total popular vote for that state, and the remaining three quarters are awarded on a congressional district by congressional district basis. In both cases, the percentage of the delegates awarded from a given constituency to a given candidate is equal to the percentage of the vote that candidate received from that constituency. It's not a simple popular vote, but it's still fairly straightforward.

Of course, the application of those proceedures can end up pretty complicated - opaque. It's tough to tell who's up and who's down in a snapshot. That's why CNN and others default to the state-by-state analysis. It may not tell us who's winning, but at least we can tell who's winning.

The additional difficulty, of course, comes from the fact that those aren't all the delegates. There are the superdelegates - they are officially called PLEOs - Party Leaders and Elected Officials. They get to do whatever the hell they want.

This system is a product of the reforms of 1968, when we took the power to nominate major party candidates for President out of the hands of party elites, and put it in the hands of the rank and file. The superdelegates are essentially a concession to the party leaders - you will still act as a firewall against the crazy and capricious masses.

Now, we can have a conversation about whether this process is a good one. Why not a straight popular vote? Why the suepr delegates? What are the virtues of winner take all versus this system? And of course, why Iowa and NH? All good questions, but I don't think they have clear answers.

Selecting a nominee is not electing a candidate. I would not argue that the democratic safeguards called for by the nominating process are as stringent as those called for by the actual election. Think about Nevada last month, and how chaotic those caucuses were preported to be. Luvh told me that the Democratic Party offical at his caucus site, where he was volunteering for Obama, was MIA, and the two Party volunteers asked him to run the show. I repeat, he was organizing for Obama. If that were a general election, the Justice Department would be involved.

Should this nominating contest go to the Convention - and I have argued today that it seems likely they it will - I think we will see further reforms in its wake. Ask yourself: If the country picks Barack Obama, and the PLEOs tip the scales to Clinton, what then?