Feeds: 
symbol identifies content for paid subscribers only.
THE SUPERDELEGATE QUESTION.
I agree with Ezra that it would be unfortunate for the nomination to come down to superdelegates, and I would hope that the norm among many superdelegates would be to support a clear winner. A couple of additional points:
- The decision coming down to the superdelegates may not be quite as dire in practice as it seems. In a case where a candidate has a clear lead but not quite enough to win, incentives are likely to take care of themselves, as it's in the interest of superdelegates to back a winner. If the result of the primaries and caucuses is a near-tie, conversely, the election being settled by the superdelegates is less problematic, since a very narrow lead could be almost entirely a product of arbitrary choices in the primary schedule anyway. I could be optimistic, but the scenario that could produce a really bad outcome -- a clear winner being thwarted by superdelegates -- seems relatively unlikely.
- As Publius says, trying to seat the Florida and Michigan delegates should be -- in absence of a fair election with known stakes being held in those states -- considered the nuclear option, one that would tear the party apart. There's an important distinction between maximizing your advantages within the existing rules and retroactively changing the rules when they don't work in your favor that has to be maintained. It's fair for candidates to fight for superdelegates; it's completely unacceptable for candidates to try for ex post facto rule changes to turn a non-election into an election.
COMMENTS (8)
You forget that a superdelegate can choose to support the overall victor, the victor in his state, or the victor in his district. (And then there are the districts that John Edwards won).
In many cases this will allow any superdelegate to claim to represent the democratic vote while still leaving him free to choose his own favorite.
Posted by: Jinchi | February 7, 2008 12:58 PM
A win by 1 vote is the dame thing as a win by 50. Super Delegates can NOT be allowed to intervene like the supreme court did in 2000. They do not have the right.
We were all promised that these people would NEVER alter the outcomes of an election. They would only ever make the margin of victory larger.
you can argue that a narrow Obama lead would be 'arbitrary' (and that what we're talking about here, nobody believes they would throw it to Obama if Clinton were narrowly ahead), but black America will see it for what it is: A conspiracy to rig an election against the first black President. If you all think it's worth killing the Democratic party to nominate Hillary, those of us who support Obama will be happy to oblige.
Posted by: soullite | February 7, 2008 1:01 PM
SuperDelegates are CRIMINAL !
If SuperDelegates upend this election - the PEOPLE will upend the DNC.
Mark my words.
Posted by: PulSamsara | February 7, 2008 2:35 PM
"It's fair for candidates to fight for superdelegates; it's completely unacceptable for candidates to try for ex post facto rule changes to turn a non-election into an election."
Of course, to many of the Clinton suppporters in the blogosphere, the fact that they don't play fair is one of their best characteristics.
And, what PilSamara said. I find the determination of my fellow Obama supporters to not vote for Hillary if she is the nominee to be somewhat silly; the worst Democrat, is after all, much better than the worst Republican.
My highmindednes will, however, go completely out the window if the Clintons pull some egregious shenanigans to claim the nomination and Obama has clearly won the most pledged delegates.
Posted by: brewmn | February 7, 2008 2:50 PM
The race is over.
There is no way that Hillary can compete when she has unpaid staff and her fundraising will dry up now that people know she has money to put into the campaign.
Why do you think she waited until after Tuesday to announce that she put in $5 million?
So, who will Obama pick as his VP?
Posted by: neil wilson | February 7, 2008 4:07 PM
To answer your question Neil, hopefully Obama does not pick Hillary as his VP. I don't see it!!! Obama/Clinton or Clinton/Obama. And, further, a comment to both PilSamara and brewmn, should Hillary be nomited, I will definitely not vote for her in the national.
Note, I am a moderate republican who voted for Obama (he is all about change). I am tired of the Clintons and the Bushes. It's time to bring change to the White House, whether it be Obama or another party (not Hillary) who can lead us toward that change. I have nothing personal against Hillary or Bill, but I don't like dirty politics, and they have more than enough scandals hidden in their closet.
Obama all the way!!!
Posted by: Eve Juste | February 7, 2008 4:31 PM
Regarding Clinton's attempts to get Michigan and Florida seated, I'm reminded of a classic moment from Cheers. Woody has asked Sam to bet a huge amount of his money on a ridiculously impossible football wager. Thinking he's protecting Woody, Sam doesn't do it. The impossible happens and Woody's choice wins. Sam doesn't know what to do. So Diane suggests that Sam simply go to the bookie and tell him he had honestly *intended* to bet the money, so could the bookie just pay off the bet anyway?
Right, Hillary. Fight like hell to change the rules *after you know the outcome.* Man, didn't they teach sportsmanship in Park Ridge?
Posted by: santamonicamr | February 7, 2008 6:32 PM
The superdelegates situation was ratified by the DNC in August of 2006. The same rules that keep MI and FL delegates out also let superdelegates vote for whatever candidate they prefer. It seems ridiculous (especially the number of SDs) but it is 'playing by the rules.' Superdelegates are a way to protect the Party's interests and seem like a reasonable offset for having open primaries/caucuses. After all the process is about choosing the Democratic Party's nominee.
If Obama is up by more than 5% in pledged delegates he will be the nominee.
Posted by: Hart/Mondale II | February 8, 2008 4:02 AM