Pelosi: Superdelegates Should Not Overturn Peoples' Decision

Nancy Pelosi, herself a powerful superdelegate, appears to be signalling that she won't abide efforts to use superdelegates to override a popular vote victory.    

Hillary Clinton's campaign has recently made clear that it is going to use any means necessary to take the nomination, even if they come up short in popular support.  The key would be to lean on superdelegates to overrule the decision of the people:

Mrs. Clinton’s aides said they would also argue to superdelegates that they should give less deference to a lead from Mr. Obama because much of that had been built up in states where there were caucuses, which tend to attract far fewer voters than primaries, where Mrs. Clinton has tended to do better than she has done in caucuses.

"I think for superdelegates, the quality of where the win comes from should matter in terms of making a judgment about who might be the best general election candidate," said Mark Penn, Mrs. Clinton’s senior campaign adviser.

But Nancy Pelosi has signalled that this scorched-earth strategy will not be acceptable:

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi of California, who is neutral in the race, said she hopes one or the other of the rivals emerges as the clear winner through the primaries and caucuses.

"I don't think it was ever intended that superdelegates would overturn the verdict, the decision of the American people," she said Thursday.

Pelosi is being subtle about it, but the message is clear.  The party will not allow itself to be torn apart from within.  

•  Period.

  by Junglered1 on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 06:58:44 AM PDT

  •  Exclamation Mark

    by mayan on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 07:04:22 AM PDT

  •  tips

    by gobacktotexas on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 07:10:31 AM PDT

  •  Depends on how she defines "people"

    doesn't it?  Since her state went for Clinton.  Boxer has said the same basic thing (maybe she was more specific regarding People = State, does anyone remember Boxer's quote?)

    This is going to get interesting.

    by ksh01 on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 07:42:16 AM PDT

    •  the American people

      the superdelegates should go along with the overall vote, is what she's saying

      by gobacktotexas on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 07:55:49 AM PDT

      •  I'm not sure it's so simple

        but, well, I said this in another diary on the popular vote (it's position is that since Obama is ahead in popular vote, the superdelegates should heed that number)....

        There are some very big states coming up.  I haven't done the math yet, but if Clinton wins those by a margin to give her the win but not enough to give her the lead in delegates, what happens if she garners enough of a majority of the vote for her to say she's ahead in the popular vote and therefore super delegates should pay attention to that?  And, importantly, what does that do to the system and the 50 state strategy?

        I think therefore, going with majority of pledged delegates is the way to go, no matter who gets them.  If we don't we've yet again subverted a system (I'm thinking Florida 2000) to craft a result.

        by ksh01 on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 08:16:58 AM PDT

•  Hope you're right. If Democrats start

  acting like Republicans and doing everything they can to screw the electoral process, we're way more f**ked then I had feared.

  by real world chick on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 07:01:25 AM PDT

•  But HRC 08 will pick whatever metric

  favors HRC and put that forward as the indicator of the will of the people.

  What we will hear is

  "who KNOWS what the real will of the majority of the democratic voters is?  What we should look to is the big states.  Or the primary states.  Or to the states with 'balanced' demographics.  Or we should just ask the superdelegates what the people really want."

  by Inland on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 07:01:52 AM PDT

  •  Many Measurements have been bounced around

    In the end, the superdelegates are supposed to represent the Democratic Party.  I believe the superdelegates should vote for whoever has the most delegates that were selected in voting by the public, at the end of the primaries, and not just who won their own district or state.    

    by JPZenger on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 07:14:04 AM PDT

•  Thank you Nancy

  it's important that more and more prominent Democrats come out and say this sort of thing so that people continue to go out and vote for their choice.  we need to know the party has the right goals in mind, which is winning the WH, something we won't accomplish with a brokered convention and nominee by technicality.

  by cardinalzen on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 07:02:33 AM PDT

•  hm...

  I've been seeing reports that Nancy Pelosi is more or less signalling that she prefers Obama, but doesn't want to wade into this because it might hurt (Obama and the party generally) more than it helps. However, even her tacit approval might move a few more insiders and superdelegates.

  What I do think is that people like Pelosi (and Dean if it comes down to it) who I assume favor Obama, but can't say anything now, will be at the forefront of making sure everyone enthusiastically closes ranks behind him should he get the nomination.

  by JMS on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 07:02:41 AM PDT

•  This is what it looks like

  When the tide is turning.

  I honestly don't know what the Clinton campaign was thinking releasing those memos outlining their outrageous new "Ignore The Will of the Voters" strategy - an attempt at reclaiming the inevitability mantle, perhaps? - but I am so pleased that we are seeing this movement from TPTB against that kind of party-destroying madness.

  by RidleyGriff on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 07:06:24 AM PDT

  •  They don't have great strategy options.

    She has the (increasingly fading) appearance of institutional support, and she won big states. So, they're trying to leverage those, but it's not much of a structure against a campaign that has all the momentum on its side.

    I think the superdelegate thing was a move to make it clear that all is not lost as she heads into Ohio and Texas. "Look, we could still win."

    But it was definitely a "Hail, Mary" play that could, and did, backfire.

    by Magenta on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 07:11:14 AM PDT

•  I tend to agree...but...

  I could see a scenario where say Obama is ahead by 20 pledged delegates and the Florida and Michigan superdelegates decide to allocate their votes based on the outcome of their primaries that were stripped of delegates...

  Clearly if Obama or Clinton is ahead (more likely Obama than Clinton at this point) by 100+ delegates and FL & MI would  not make a difference then, the superdelegates should not vote to overturn that decision.

  From a practical standpoint many if not most of the superdelegates are elected officials who would likely be severely punished at the ballot box if they voted against how their constituents have voted and will at least abide by the popular vote in their district/state if not the national total which would be fair.

  If Clinton was ahead, I would not ask IL superdelagates to support Clinton when they have been Obama supporters nor would I ask a NY superdelagate to support Obama if he was ahead.

  In the end, I believe it will work out unless Hillary can make it so close that FL and MI would have/could have made a difference in the final outcome.

  by dvogel001 on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 07:08:42 AM PDT

•  Pelosi should do more than talk

  Btw, her daughter is also a super delegate.  

  Pelosi and others need to take an active role and prohibit these super delegates. Today, I heard Sen. Levin on the Bill Press show.  He complained about Michigan not getting counted and how unfair it is.  Even though Michigan did not play by the rules and Obama wasn't even on the ballot, he thinks Michigan should be counted.  Then when asked about ending the super delegates, he blathered on about it being unfair to change the rules in the middle of the game and now is not the time to change the rules concerning super delegates.   Rules apply when convenient for Sen. Levin and Clinton.

  by Sandy on Signal on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 07:09:44 AM PDT

•  Sorry Nancy

  But when you're already overturning the will of the people, why should I believe you about anything else? Nice rhetoric, though.

  by CJnyc on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 07:10:08 AM PDT

  •  I Am on the Table: Pelosi Has a Primary Challenge

    http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/...

    by forgore on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 07:12:46 AM PDT

•  I don't get it

  "I don't think it was ever intended that superdelegates would overturn the verdict, the decision of the American people," she [Pelosi] said Thursday.

  For what other possible purpose were super-delegates created?

  If super-delegates are a bad idea--and I think they are--why don't we get rid of them rather than argue over what they should do?

  by Mosquito Pilot on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 07:32:19 AM PDT

•  Finally.

  Something coming out of Pelosi's mouth that isn't caving.

  by Phil N DeBlanc on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 07:37:09 AM PDT