Balkinization: Super Delegates Compared to the "Smoke Filled Room"

Super Delegates Compared to the "Smoke Filled Room"

Brian Tamanaha

It increasingly looks like the super delegates will determine who will be the Democratic Party nominee for President. Some observers have suggested that this is a return to the days when party insiders--influenced by personal or special interests--called the shots in a "smoke filled room." For those who don't know, this is a reference to the selection of Warren Harding in 1920 as the Republican candidate, described briefly here (by William Leuchtenburg):

Although little public attention was paid to Ohio's Senator Warren Harding, as early as February his manager, Harry Daugherty, had predicted that the three strong candidates [General Leonard Wood, Governor Frank Lowden, and Senator Hiram Johnson] would kill one another off and that Harding would get the nod from the Old Guard leaders who would dominate the convention. After the convention deadlocked, Daugherty forecast, the winner would be chosen by a gathering of "fifteen or twenty men, somewhat weary" at "about eleven minutes after two o'clock on Friday morning."

The Republican convention came close to following Daugherty's script. On Thursday, when the balloting began, the three leading candidates quickly established a deadlock, and Lodge recessed the convention until the next day. At a suite in the Blackstone Hotel that night, a group of party leaders, mostly senators, debated what to do; although not all agreed, the majority decided on Harding. "This man Harding is no world beater," they told reporters, "but we think he is the best of the bunch." At a little after two o'clock on Friday morning, Harding entered the "smoke-filled room" in the Blackstone and was asked for and gave assurances that nothing in his background would embarrass the Republican party. On the next day, after several ballots, he won the Republican nomination. "Well," said Harding, "we drew to a pair of deuces and filled."

The general impression was that Harding, while an amiable fellow, was not up to the task. [Apparently Harding agreed with this assessment, later lamenting "I knew that this job would be too much for me."].

A Democrat said of Harding's speeches that they "leave the impression of an army of pompous phrases moving over the landscape in search of an idea; sometimes these meandering words would actually capture a straggling thought and bear it triumphantly, a pioneer in their midst, until it died of servitude and overwork." [what a brilliant put down!].

After his election, Harding appointed a group of hometown friends to top government positions despite their lack of qualifications, several of whom went on to engage in blatant corruption on a spectacular scale (later going to jail). Midway through his term, Harding died of a cerebral embolism.

Compared to the good old days of the "smoke-filled room," the super delegates of today seem bland and tame. Let's hope they exercise better judgment (although it must be said that Harding won by a huge margin).

Posted 10:30 AM by Brian Tamanaha [link]

Comments:

What are the odds that Baghdad Bart thinks the Republican smoke filled room would select a better candidate than the Democrat Super Delegates?

# posted by

Bartbuster : 11:43 AM

Bartbuster, you are just a little too obsessed with Mr. DePalma.

You might try developing your own identity sometime.

# posted by

Anderson : 12:15 PM

Given that the super delegates are not committed, there have been and will continue to be back room meetings among the delegates and between the delegates and the campaigns to choose the final nominee.

However, there is no comparison between the old nomination system in the 20s and the months long and very public vetting process of this insane nomination process. A inarticulate candidate like Harding would not have a chance in our TV age.

In sum, the Dems appear to have a hybrid system where the primary and caucus voters weeded everyone else out but two candidates and the party bosses (super delegates if you please) will vet the final two candidates and choose the nominee in back room meetings.

The back room meetings are going to gain increased significance if Hillary keeps winning and comes ahead in the popular vote while Obama keeps a narrow lead in delegates. In that case, there will not be a clear "choice of the People." The fact that party rules have disenfranchised 5 million Dem voters in Florida and Michigan and the true "choice of the People" becomes even harder to discern.

We may have a genuine brokered convention decided by party bosses in smoke free rooms.

# posted by

Bart DePalma : 12:19 PM

anderson:

bb is a cyberstalker who has trailed me here from a previous blog and is a squatter at my blog. I have no idea what his mental malfunction is, but I apologize for his antics here.

# posted by

Bart DePalma : 12:21 PM

Does anyone here know the Dem party rules for delegates pledged to candidates who dropped out?

Are they free to vote as they may?

Are they obligated to vote for whomever the candidate chooses for the first vote at the convention?

It will be interesting to see if John Edwards will instruct his delegates to vote for Obama or Clinton and whether he wants the VP slot for doing so.

The Elephant does not usually watch the Dem convention, but this year I may make an exception. It looks like it could be fascinating.

# posted by

Bart DePalma : 12:27 PM

Anderson, I'm sorry to see that you've had your sense of humor removed.

Baghdad, I'm not stalking you any more than you're stalking the hosts of this blog.

I'd also like to apologize for chasing this lying scumbag out of another message board. I honestly did not intend to send him here.

# posted by

Bartbuster : 12:34 PM

A inarticulate candidate like Harding would not have a chance in our TV age.

And yet Bush has occupied the White House for more than 7 years.

# posted by

Unknown : 12:45 PM

[An] inarticulate candidate like Harding would not have a chance in our TV age.

Harding was soporific, to be sure, but I think no match for our beloved leader's inarticulatatiousness.

# posted by

"Q" the Enchanter : 1:11 PM

My understanding is that Edwards delegates were released when he dropped out. And even delegates who are still pledged (ie, Clinton and Obama delegates) are only bound by honor, not law, to vote for their candidates.

# posted by

mls : 1:19 PM

Conventions have been meaningless for so long I have long since wondered why anyone still bothers. This one will apparently be an exception.

# posted by

Essayist-Laywer : 2:19 PM

Harding? Damn.

And here I was looking forward to a comparison between superdelegates and sfumata.

Apt, no?

# posted by

Harlequin : 5:47 PM

["Bart" DePalma]: bb is a cyberstalker who has trailed me here from a previous blog....

He fails to mention, for some reason, that he ["Bart"] got booted from that blog for much the same behaviour as he shows here, including patent dishonesty.

Cheers,

# posted by

Arne Langsetmo : 5:57 PM

arne:

You are confused...

bb actually came from a Peoples Forum blog.

You are the one who continued our discussions here from Glenn Greenwald's old blog after he banned me for calling him on multiple lies and misrepresentations.

My fan club makes up for its small number by their, shall we say, eccentricities...

# posted by

Bart DePalma : 6:17 PM

There is no "eccentricity" (in fact, no standard deviation) to a big fat zero.

You got banned for lies, "Bart". For making slanderous statements and not providing any evidence to support them. You were warned by Glenn (one of the most permissive hosts around WRT "diversity" of opinion), yet you persisted in your bad behaviour oblivious to anything anyone else said, or to the requests that Glenn made that you "put up or shut up". You joined a very select group there in doing so. Sound familiar?

Cheers,

# posted by

Arne Langsetmo : 6:27 PM

not for nothing guys, but the topic of the post was superdelegates vs. the smoke filled room. if you want to have a pissing contest, do it at your own sites. the rest of us are completely uninterested in why bart is here, and arne or bb's heroic efforts to shield us from him. grow up.

# posted by

phg : 6:56 PM

H.L. Mencken, a great journalist of the day, wrote of Harding's rhetoric:

he writes the worst English that I have ever encountered. It reminds me of a string of wet sponges; it reminds me of tattered washing on the line; it reminds me of stale bean soup, of college yells, of dogs barking idiotically through endless nights. It is so bad that a sort of grandeur creeps into it.

# posted by

Asher : 11:49 PM

@Harlequin: lol. ;)

# posted by

Robert Link : 7:50 AM

blogs that kick respectful posters out (i.e., no swearing name calling, etc.) are totally lame. I think bart is downright silly with his childlike devotion to the right wing, but I don't understand those who think he should be banned. do you want these comments to be a chorus of sycophants? does a differing opinion challnege you that much? Glen Greenwald sucks if he banned Bart.

# posted by

abu hamza : 5:06 PM