Thread by @FHQ

There is an argument that early superdelegate influence may decrease in 2020 following the DNC's passage of this new rules package, but I don't think this is it. 1/

https://twitter.com/DemConWatch/status/1033882208501686272

This idea — that there would be no superdelegate count because of the rules changes — was something I’ve previously countered. 2/
frontloading.blogspot.com/2018/06/third-…

It is also something that got some pushback from some members during the #DNCRBC deliberations on what recommendations it would send to the full DNC.
3/

So long as uncertainty remains as to who the Democratic nominee is and whether there will be a resolution *during* primary season, it is likely that media and others will keep tabs on with whom superdelegates are aligned.
4/

Just can't imagine the AP, for example, is just going to stop that count, particularly if it remains uncertain whether that superdelegates vote trigger has a chance of being tripped.
5/

And it should be said, the earlier it is, the more uncertainty exists around all of this, and thus the more likely it is for media and others to tabulate superdelegate support.
6/

Now, as I said at the top, there is an argument for reduced early superdelegate influence in 2020 because of these rules changes. But I'd argue that has more to do with the environment around superdelegates and these changes freezing superdelegates, delaying decision making.
7/

Those public perceptions affect superdelegate decision making in other words. And some may sit on the sidelines as long as the nomination remains uncertain (or their state has not weighed in) for fear of any perception of putting a finger on the nomination scale.
8/

All of that is further buttressed by the size of the field of candidates 2020 is likely to see on the Democratic side. That, too, drives early uncertainty. But that is a better argument for reduced early influence than folks simply abstaining from a count.
9/9