Extra-Super Superdelegates?

While all of us have become familiar with "pledged" delegates and "superdelegates" and even who the superdelegates might be; tonight, I learned about the super superdelegates.  There apparently are extra-privileges "some" superdelegates have via the ability to name some 76 additional supers who might make an overall difference in whom our nominee might me...

From Findlaw news...

Largely overlooked in the arcane process, though, is the power of a select few to complete the superdelegate ranks by naming 76 newbies, and Clinton and Obama are fighting hard over every one of those from state conventions to back rooms.

http://news.findlaw.com/...

Now, I have to admit that I was just not familiar with the whole delegate process thing prior toward this year's election.  I was familiar with the "electoral college"; but it appears that the Democratic Party had some special democracy in mind when getting rid of smoked-filled rooms, but not really.

Some interesting "news" is that the "super" superdelegates, depending upon whom (where?) they are have special abilities toward naming additional superdelegates who might vote despite whatever the electorate of a party has decided:

Consider Art Torres, chairman of the California Democratic Party. He remains uncommitted, yet he could be the most powerful superdelegate of all. Torres gets to name five additional superdelegates, giving him control over six votes at the national convention this summer.

"I am the super of supers!" Torres proclaims with a laugh.

He and other state party chairmen will appoint most of the additional 76, known in Democratic ranks as "unpledged add-ons."

"They basically are gifts to the state party chairs," Harold Ickes, a chief strategist for Clinton, said of the additional superdelegates.

Ok, so the Party decided long ago we need superdelegates just in case we found ourselves in a a quagmire like we might be in this year, or perhaps to upset someone the Party powers didn't think could win, and I accepted that, but finding out about super-superdelegates just kind of threw me.

The 76 "add-ons" are doled out to each state based on population and Democratic voting strength. Every state but Florida and Michigan, which were penalized for holding early primaries, gets at least one. California's five are the most.

The extra delegates will be selected at state party conventions and committee meetings throughout the spring. In about half the states, including California, Georgia and Ohio, they must be chosen from lists compiled by the state party chairmen. If the chairmen list only one person for each slot, they effectively name the extra delegates.

In other states the additional delegates can be nominated from the floor of the convention or by simply applying, turning mundane state party gatherings into spirited debates about the presidential candidates.

It seems to me that extra attention must be paid to state party gatherings, especially now that Florida and Michigan are being thrown back into the mix.

This article from Politico tonight got me to thinking, as it discusses the "credentialing committee", and how Florida and Michigan members will be seated on it...

http://www.politico.com/...

•  Thoughts and comments welcome...

  did you know about these super-superdelegates?

  by LtdEdishn on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 07:19:16 PM PDT

  •  You're talking about add-on delegates

    Here is a good article to read to learn more about them.

    Add-on delegates are chosen differently in different states. In some states, as your diary says, they are chosen by the chairman of the state party (and possibly confirmed by the state convention) who is him/herself a superdelegate. In other states it will directly reflect the candidate of the pledged delegates.

    by bmozaffari on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 08:14:24 PM PDT

    •  Thanks for this article...

      it explained a bit more, and led more toward a more "hopeful" feeling, but still, shadow votes by shadow delegates that have nothing to do with elections just gives me a sour feeling.  

      by LtdEdishn on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 08:22:12 PM PDT

      •  True, but

        They're actually one level better than regular superdelegates; at least in most states, there is a correlation between their vote and the vote of their state.

        by bmozaffari on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 08:48:26 PM PDT

  •  When they're picked

    A full list of when they will be chosen in each state can be found at 2008 Democratic Convention Watch Add-on Superdelegate Selection Schedule.

    by msn1 on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 09:33:02 PM PDT

•  If I remember correctly

  Obama picked up 2 of the DC add-ons yesterday.  Please correct me if I'm wrong.

  by clonecone on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 07:21:33 PM PDT

  •  I don't know...

    I didn't even know about the add-ons until I read about the extra 76 who could be appointed by the supers...

    by LtdEdishn on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 07:25:51 PM PDT

  •  Slightly wrong

    One for Obama (Yvette Alexander), one for Clinton (Harry Thomas Jr)

    Here is the link to the story:
    http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/...

    by Fairy Tale on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 07:48:38 PM PDT

    •  So...

      in this instance DC got 2 extra "supers" and where Obama received 75% of the vote, Clinton received one extra and Obama received one extra.

      by LtdEdishn on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 07:57:42 PM PDT

      •  Yes

        Apparently that was a mess up by the Obama pledged delegates in DC.

        by Fairy Tale on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 08:08:04 PM PDT

        •  Still doesn't...

          sound very "democratic" imho; but I thank you for adding such valuable information concerning these extra supers...

          by LtdEdishn on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 08:10:48 PM PDT

          •  No problem, thanks for raising the issue

            by Fairy Tale on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 08:23:26 PM PDT

•  This system needs some work,

  but not this cycle.  Some simplification, standardization, and, most of all, transparency would go a long way to restoring confidence.  I truly believe that if our system were simpler we would already have a nominee.  Thanks for pointing this out.  Warmest regards, Doc.

  by Translator on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 07:23:12 PM PDT

  •  I totally agree...

    as a lifelong party member, I never really knew about the primary delegate process, pledged or otherwise, until this year.  Frankly, I was surprised there were even superdelegates who could overturn the process, much less my new surprise at super supers...

    by LtdEdishn on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 07:27:14 PM PDT

    •  You speak the truth. Warmest regards Doc,

      by Translator on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 11:22:49 PM PDT

•  I am not liking this....

  this is , in fact,is bullshit.
  It gives far too much control to big donors and party chieftans...which is of course why they set it up this way.
  Too late to get rid of it this time around...but it is certainly making the "Democratic Party" seem not very democratic...at all.

  by la urracca on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 07:26:02 PM PDT

•  Many things about my party make me proud....

  This delegate, superdelegate, super-superdelegate process does not.

  It reeks too much of a smoke-filled, cigar chompin' screw the little people process.

  We need to modify this process...get rid of the superdelegates and make each state's delegates all or none in my opinion.

  by El Tomaso on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 07:26:41 PM PDT

  •  And as this mysterious process becomes known

    to us, the "little people" who really had no idea...it looks not only worse and worse to us..
    but to those on the other side.

    Why do I care?
    Because it is something that I cannnot defend..or even explain.

    Featured story on RedState

    There are superdelegates, and then there are superduper delegates

    by la urracca on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 07:34:38 PM PDT

    •  Keep in mind why this was done....

      The party convention is two things:

      1. The meeting that selects the Presidential candidate

      2. The quadrennial gathering of party faithful, activists, officials and technocrats to draw up a platform, plan out the fall campaign, and marshal the troops on to victory

      Keep in mind that in nearly every case since the system was put in place, item #1 was a foregone conclusion by March or April.

      The question of selecting delegates, therefor, was not one of smoke-filled rooms and cheating the electorate, but was in fact one of making sure that there was room at the inn for all the relevant players.

      You needed to make sure that folks like mayors and county chairpersons and such, folks who were the lieutenants organizing on the front lines in the coming battles, would be there to coordinate strategy, receive marching orders, and get fired up.

      It's also the biggest Democratic party of the year, and you didn't want anyone to feel like they were the ugly unwanted stepsisters who couldn't come to the dance (and who then might sit on their hands and not do everything possible to ensure the party won in November).

      This year the process might come off as a little stinky... but that's really not the intention.

      by jeremybloom on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 07:44:23 PM PDT

      •  Good analysis.

        Should we little people have hurt feelings that we are not invited to the party?

        The system is flawed.  My understanding of the current system is that it evolved when it was decided that party bosses should not select our nominee.  To assuage hurt feelings and to get something a  little different than party boss selection, the current...do you think Rube Goldberg is a poor description?  Does the expression Rube Goldberg offend my Jewish friends?...system became extant.

        by El Tomaso on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 07:51:53 PM PDT

      •  While it might not...

        be the intention, it frankly, imho, gives off a huge stench.  I tried participating in the "party process" because of Howard Dean, and I realized even then that the "Party" had been overtaken by special interests.  Dean challenged us not only to take our country back, but to take the Party back.  These extra "arcane" processes only make it more difficult...

        by LtdEdishn on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 07:52:47 PM PDT

  •  They may not go quietly

    They consider themselves to be the "grownups" of the party, the "elder statesmen," "supers."

    There should be a process to overturn the Democratic primary voters only in the case of an awful catastrophe, not just because these people think they "know better."

    I'd like them to get the hell out of the way.

    by deben on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 07:35:34 PM PDT

•  Add-on superdelegates

  81 if Florida and Michigan are counted. I would like to know more about them and how they are chosen. But the DNC explanation is very confusing. I think they tend to fall for the candidate that has won the State, in which case Obama would have the majority with them as well.

  by Fairy Tale on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 07:26:52 PM PDT

  •  Here is a link with information

    http://demconwatch.blogspot.com/...

    by Fairy Tale on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 07:31:51 PM PDT

  •  I don't know if the...

    supers will vote with their constituency, and in fact, so far, some of them have not.  Imagine larger states, blue states, the kind one campaign in targeting, having the ability to name more superdelegates than others...how will this affect the overall delegate count?  Findlaw discusses it as an "arcane" process, but it cannot be that old, yet I am just finding out about it...

    by LtdEdishn on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 07:32:48 PM PDT

    •  I agree but

      the add-ons are different from the rest of the supers. The state conventions chose them (I think) and so whoever has more overall delegates in a State tends to get the add-on superdelegates with them.

      The link I posted has the number of add-ons per State. Ranging from 5 for California to 1 for the small States. So I don't think size has such a determinant influence with respect to the add-ons.

      by Fairy Tale on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 07:42:54 PM PDT

      •  Based upon the way...

        the article I read offers it, it appears the State Party Chair actually gets to appoint the extra supers...see the quote from Art Torres of California.  The extra delegates go to states that vote "democratic party" and it appears the extras are appointed at the pleasure of the "chair".  This could mean the chair allows convention delegates to name them, or otherwise..

        by LtdEdishn on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 07:48:07 PM PDT

        •  No, each State has a different system

          It's an absolute mess:

          Some are selected, others are elected.

          Some in the State conventions, others in the State Delegation at the convention, others by the central committee of their State (where I guess the chair would have a dominant influence, hence the article you read).

          The full list for each State selection procedure is here:
          http://demconwatch.blogspot.com/...

          I'm surprised about the California article you mention, in California the add-ons should be selected during the Delegation Meeting, but maybe the information of the 2008 Democratic Convention Watch is inaccurate.

          by Fairy Tale on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 07:58:39 PM PDT

          •  Honestly...

            it sounds way too undemocratic for our democratic party....

            This entire primary battle has proven itself out of the boundaries of anything I would have considered normal, and I suppose that is because it is so close.  

            While I am a lifelong Democrat, I never really became involved in "party" efforts, at least until Dean.  The more I learn, the more it turns me off.  

            Obama should be our candidate this year, and I can already sense the stealing that is coming...

            by LtdEdishn on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 08:05:35 PM PDT

            •  I agree, the system is

              messy and lacks transparency.

              On the other side, my hunch (I'm no expert, of course) is:

              Obama will win most of the add-ons on account of having won more states and being better organised (if they don't mess up like in DC).

              He will win most of the elected super-delegates (Senators, Representatives and Governors) on account of the simple fact that they know their chances of reelection are much better with Obama (and a politician wants nothing more than to remain in power)

              Obama will win among past elected presidents (Carter and Truman are with him) and Clinton is with Clinton (of course).

              But Obama might not win among superdelegates that belong to the Democratic Presidential committee, because the Clintons have a good grip of the democratic party machine.

              But he will of course win the pledged delegate count by landslide, and so there is no wayt he can not be the nominee.

              by Fairy Tale on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 08:21:37 PM PDT

          •  DCW is right, but...

            Delegates may get to elect, but who decides who gets to run? That may be where Torres gets involved. It's been very difficult to get good information on how this works in different states.

            by msn1 on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 09:36:12 PM PDT

    •  Two who have not

      Kennedy and Kerry will vote for Obama although Hillary won Mass.

      by VClib on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 08:45:55 PM PDT

•  This process is like a Kafka novel

  by deben on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 07:28:17 PM PDT

•  Party of the people, huh?

  by Whiskey on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 07:31:55 PM PDT

  •  One can only hope...

    that it turns out that way.  I am not so sure...

    by LtdEdishn on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 07:35:35 PM PDT

•  They are call Add on Super Delegates!

  From looking at all the factors, it looks like Obama will have the upper hand with these delegates.  My best guess is that he will get at least 40 and Clinton will get no more than 36.  One has to look at each state's chair and determine how they will vote.  For example in Texas, our chair's wife has already declared for Obama so I would guess that the chair will vote with her and select the Add ons that would be most likely for Obama.  Obama has 12 state chairs already declared for him and Clinton has only 8.  

  by ajleiker on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 08:11:36 PM PDT

  •  Each state chair...

    doesn't get equal numbers.  Texas votes Republican, therefore is not a "blue" state.  Based upon my understanding this means less extra "supers", who I am not even sure should be involved in the process.  As "Fairy Tale" has explained, the process varies even in how the extras are appointed,  I don't know how many extras Texas gets, and I certainly wouldn't count on a spouse of a "chair" for delivery.  The more I learn about this process for selecting our nominee, the less I like it...

    by LtdEdishn on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 08:16:44 PM PDT

    •  Texas gets 3

      by Fairy Tale on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 08:26:36 PM PDT

•  There is wisdom in the Democratic System.

  The system was created after the McGovern debacle in 1972 where the VP designee was discovered to have had extensive shock therapy for depression.  He was replaced at the last minute and then McGovern lost all but two states.  The whole party suffered a great loss.

  The system is created so that the candidate with the most strength, ie. delegates, and to a certain extent the popular vote, would get the nomination BUT if something awful would happen to the front runner where he/she were very very likely not electable, then the supers could swing the votes to the other candidate or even select someone else totally.  Of course they would not do this lightly as they would not want to destroy the party as their (the super delegates) re-election would depend on them choosing wisely.  This year they would be extremely unlikely that they would take it away from Obama unless some very awful would happen.  Examples would be if he develop a deadly illness or something else just awful.

  The only reason that it is fearful to us is that we are afraid that the super delegates will not do the right thing and I have no doubt that they will vote for Obama.

  When one looks at the undecided, there are about 100 that have either hinted that they will vote for Obama or are in states to where it is in their best interest to vote for Obama.  Add on the 40+ add ons for Obama and he will have 380 super delegates by June 3 or very shortly thereafter.  "We have nothing to fear but fear itself."

  by ajleiker on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 08:27:10 PM PDT

  •  Honestly, I cannot even address wisdom...

    if you had to base wisdom on "shock-therapy", what would the American public have done during the JFK/Nixon election, if they knew that JFK suffered from physical ailments and took pain killers, and further was a philanderer?  

    I actually consider the "supers" a bonus over the old way of doing business, but I don't really consider them a "plus" for our party.  

    You are correct, I fear that the superdelegates will not do the right thing, but it is because I have becone a huge skeptic of not only politics, but our party itself.  

    Howard Dean taught me that, not because he said so but because he asked that supporters like me become involved.  Once I became "involved", I realized what a screwed up "game" government has become, and how politicians for the most part are sell-outs.  When I really became involved locally, I was introduced on a personal level to "corruption".  

    Five years later, and locally, I am tiring of the corruption locally.  Fighting back has almost bankrupted me, has nearly worn me out.  Finding another national presidential candidate to support is wiping me out further, and learning about arcane processes doesn't lend much hope, especially within the party I fought.

    Obama has given me some renewal of inspiration; but I am not feeling comfortable at this point that a win is in the wings...

    by LtdEdishn on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 08:45:11 PM PDT

  •  Someone had a

    treatment for depression?  Then that person should be banished forever.  That is snark.  Why the hell is that a problem?  Warmest regards, Doc.

    by Translator on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 02:11:39 AM PDT