What We're Seeing from the Add-On Selections So Far

It appears that a uniform theory on which state's add-on delegates will go with which candidate may need to be complicated a bit.

Several factors are emerging in how add-on delegates are being selected, and how they are making their decision.

(1) Creating a balanced delegation is very important.

fact, if you read through the State Party rules for selecting the add-on delegates, the primary concern is to allow each state to balance its delegation on gender, race or even sexual orientation lines.

This goes to the original point about how add-on delegates were never really intended to decide the nominee for the party--rather, they were given to states as rewards for various 'good behavior' and as a means to provide diversity among the delegation.

New York, for example, has as its goal the following breakdown of its delegation:

28% African-American
18% Latino
7% Asian/Pacific Americans
8% Lesbian/Gay/Bisexual/Transgendered
5% Disabled
At least one Native American

If at the end of the process there is an underrepresented group among the delegates, it is conceivable that the New York process will seek to meet its goal as a priority over weighting its delegation toward one candidate or another. Imagine the irony if at the end of the day the delegation needed to select as its add-on delegates a lesbian, a man in a wheelchair and a Native American...and the only three left were Obama supporters.

This just goes to show you the competing goals within the Democratic Primary process whereby close elections such as this one produce greater scrutiny on what were previously considered symbolic or equity selections in prior elections.

Very interesting.

(2) Keeping the add-on delegate relevant

In essence, a State Party profits from having its add-on delegate remain undecided. Some states will select the add-on based on loyalty to a candidate where the stars align and the decision is made by a body (commitee, district delegates, etc.) that is aligned with one or the other candidate.

When the nominees are selected by a State Chair, and that State Chair is not aligned, then it seems there will be a good chance that the add-on delegate will not be a partisan from the start.

This delay in endorsement by an uncommitted add-on delegate could favor Obama in one sense, if there is pressure from the DNC to bring the nomination to a close. On the other hand, Clinton benefits from having more superdelegates (add-on or otherwise) in play as the nomination continues to bolster her opportunity to sway more votes to her side.

Leveraging an add-on delegate for favors from the DNC may be on the minds of State Chairs that control the process of selecting the add-on delegate.

(3) What will happen in states with multiple add-ons?

This scenario will be a true test as to how much control each candidate has over the state party decisionmakers that will select the add-on delegates.

Since Clinton has won the states that will receive more add-on delegates, for the most part, her ability to make a clean sweep in those states will determine if she cedes more ground to Obama in this phase of the campaign.

Situations like in California where the five add-on delegates will be split 3-2 for Clinton over Obama don't help her. Sweeping all four of New York's add-ons will be crucial for Clinton, but if Obama can steal one there, his net loss goes from -4 to -2.

Similarly, if in states where Obama won handily but where the State Party mechanics favor Clinton, losing one of the add-on delegates will be harmful for him.

Example: Maryland. Maryland has two add-on delegates, and Obama won by a large margin,

Maryland's State Chair controls the nominees for these two positions. Each add-on position must have at least two candidates. The State Central Committee then selects the nominees for each of the two positions.

So, if there is an Obama and a Clinton supporter up for both positions, and the State Central Committee is pro-Clinton, you could easily see Clinton picking up both add-on delegates in a coup. However, if the State Chair is pro-Obama, or respects the fact that Obama won Maryland 60% - 36.5%, then you could see a slate of all pro-Obama names for the two add-on delegates that will force the Central Committee's hand.

The Maryland State Chair is Michael Cryor, who remains an uncommitted superdelegate. Of interest is that Clinton leads Obama in Maryland Superdelegates by a count of 11-5, with 12 remaining undecided. Clinton has Maryland's Governor O'Malley, Senator Mikulski and Congressman Ruppersberger, with the rest being party activists. Obama has Congressmembers Cummings and Wynn and three State DNC members.

As New York and Maryland are the next two states up for add-on delegate discussions, let's keep an eye on their politics to see how these decisions shape up. This should give us a better understanding of how the future states will play out.