Pragmatism
Back in February 2008, the NY Times looked at data from the Center for Responsive Politics and found that Obama had contributed over $700,000 between 2005 and 2008 to the campaigns of super-delegates. Hillary Clinton contributed over $850,000 to super-delegates between 2002 and 2008. So they ran an editorial titled Superdelegates for sale:
While it might be untoward to suggest that campaign contributions over several years were calibrated to purchase superdelegates’ favor at the 2008 convention, there is a remarkable correlation between the money and the endorsements. The Center found that 82 percent of elected officials who had endorsed by Februrary 25th supported the candidate who had given them more money.
I guess this is one way to define “pragmatism” in politics.
Incidentally, Hillary and Barack also gave to each other’s campaigns. What I find particularly amusing about the 2016 election cycle is that what the NY Times said “might be untoward to suggest”, i.e. how campaign funds influence politicians, is being openly discussed by the candidate with the lead in pledged Democratic delegates today. But that might be nothing more than an artful smear.
The Clinton campaign has gathered the support of over 350 superdelegates so far (though the campaign has claimed over 440). That is fully half the 700 who will attend the convention. Bernie Sanders maybe has 10. Some of the lop-sided support is because a number of seasoned politicians honestly believe that a self-described democratic-socialist cannot win the general election. Others admire the Clintons, or find their own political positions align better with Hillary’s. For some, it might have been the desire to hitch yourself to the inevitable candidate as soon as possible. Whatever it is, the rush towards Hillary among superdelegates started over 2 years ago.
Follow the Money
But, as surely as night follows day, many superdelegates who are looking out for their own campaigns. And somewhere along the line, they made a calculation that no one else could top the campaign cash Hillary could muster. She had deep ties to NY, having lived there since 2000 and served as senator. That gave her access to the largest democratic donor-base in the country (with some global elite thrown in as icing). And the proof was in the pudding, the campaign raised a lot of money, $112 million in 2015. Not included in that total was 27 million dollars raised in the Hillary Victory Fund (a joint-fundraising committee). The Victory funds can be directed to the national DNC and state parties, who can use them to support individual campaigns. It’s trickle-down campaign finance, and is the mechanism that allows a donor to write a single $666,700 check to a candidate. Superdelegates are well aware that Hillary has this cash to distribute, and in any election year, this is a consideration. They also know, that like most politicians, Hillary keeps track of those who have helped or hurt her.
If you doubt the size and power of the Clinton donor network. Here’s how the Washington Post put it:
Two Clintons. 41 Years. $3 Billion.
Over four decades of public life, Bill and Hillary Clinton have built an unrivaled global network of donors while pioneering fundraising techniques that have transformed modern politics and paved the way for them to potentially become the first husband and wife to win the White House.
The grand total raised for all of their political campaigns and their family’s charitable foundation reaches at least $3 billion, according to a Washington Post investigation.
[...]
Separately, donors have given $1 billion to support the Clintons’ political races and legal defense fund, making capped contributions to their campaigns and writing six-figure checks to the Democratic National Committee and allied super PACs.
How could Bernie supporters hope to even these staggering odds? One way is to max out contributions to Bernie’s primary and general election funds and then contribute to his DNC Victory campaign fund. But that is not a realistic possibility for the vast majority. There are pros and cons to voters lobbying superdelegates directly, and it could have mixed results.
Money can’t buy you love
Though money is important, superdelegates have numerous other factors to consider. All the New Hampshire Democratis who endorsed Hillary Clinton woke up to a new political reality today. They have to consider whether they want to continue supporting the candidate who won two demographics in their state (households with incomes over 200k, and those over 65). Back in 2008, a big victory for Obama in his district helped prompt John Lewis to switch his support from Clinton to Obama. If Bernie keeps racking up victories, even if they don’t get him to 2,382 delegates, it’ll become increasingly tough for superdelegates to openly thwart the will of Democratic voters.
The Hill ran a story back in October: 10 reasons Dem superdelegates will choose Sanders over Clinton. Much of the reasoning is a forced attempt to get to ten. That includes speculation about the FBI investigation over Hillary’s e-mail server and liberals who might sit out the election rather than vote for Hillary. But there’s one point worth exploring. Superdelegates are politicians, and successful politicians at that. And to be a successful politician, you need the ability to recognize when the ground is shiftingamong the electorate and skate to where the puck is going to be. The game was changing back in October, and after the lop-sided victory in New Hampshire it may just be a new day. Which is what SC representative James Clyburn (uncommitted) suggested.
Superdelegates have to consider not only who has a better chance of winning the general, but who will be better for down-ballot races. Part of that is the ability to help fund races, but another is the ability to deliver voters. If Bernie demonstrates he can energize new voters and independents, that makes him more attractive. Superdelegates can
I would also argue that Bernie has an advantage over Hillary in two other areas, registering new democrats, and generating more committed volunteers (people power in other words). Superdelegates are acutely conscious of this. Successful campaigns need volunteers, and winning an election in competitive districts/states often requires expanding your support beyond your base.
So what happens now
In May 2008, the Hillary campaign made an appeal to superdelegates based on her higher popular vote totals and numerous other considerations. Eventually though, superdelegates broke for Obama 66% to 33% giving him the edge for the nomination. It’s difficult to see such an advantage accruing to Sanders since Bernie has stayed out of the Democratic party for his entire career. Though in his defense, he has lent Democrats crucial support at various junctures. At most, Bernie could hope for a draw in the eventual superdelegate count. That should be enough to get him the nomination.
Like many other things in this cycle, the decision for superdelegates comes down to making a choice between campaign finance muscle and people power.
In most years, I would have said financial muscle wins. But 2016 looks to me like the year of people power.