Feeds: 
symbol identifies content for paid subscribers only.
OPEN THE BOX.
The news last week about a number of Democratic superdelegates moving toward Barack Obama or, even if ardent Clinton supporters like Joe Andrews of Indiana, admitting they would hesitate to be responsible for the superdelegates overruling the pledged delegates, reaffirms a point I've been making for weeks: All this talk about what the superdelegates "ought" to do is a distraction, part of the "fog of nonsense," to use Josh Marshall's phrase, that is keeping the illusion of a Clinton candidacy alive. The relevant question was always what they will do, and there was never a reason to think that they had any pressing desire to overturn the will of the pledged delegates.
As to the "ought" question, even though the historical record shows that superdelegates were created as a way to prevent nominees who would be abjectly unelectable (not that either George McGovern, Michael Dukakis, or Walter Mondale was thought to be unelectable at the moment of the convention), they were given free will and what they ought to do is, whatever they want. If a superdelegate decides to follow the national pledged delegates, the national popular vote, the popular vote in his or her district, some assessment about electability, or his or her own deep preference about who would make a better president, all those are legitimate reasons. And chances are that various superdelegates will make their choices on any and all of those reasons. As a result, the movement of the superdelegates as a bloc in the direction of Clinton was always unlikely; the qualms expressed by even strong Clinton supporters like Andrews make it impossible.
The Clinton campaign now kind of reminds me of the physics metaphor of Schroedinger's Cat. If you recall, this is a thought-experiment that is supposed to help explain transitional sub-atomic states: imagine a cat in a closed box with a vial of poisonous gas and a geiger counter. If an atomic particle decays, the gas is released and the cat dies; if not, the cat lives. Until you open the box, you have a cat that is maybe dead/maybe not.
I have to admit, I've never really understood this metaphor. It seems like it might be simpler to just explain the physics. There's a box with a cat in it and the cat is either dead or alive. So what? It's not both dead and alive. And that seems to be the state of the Clinton campaign now. As long as they can keep spinning -- e.g. Bill Clinton's new line that it's the delegates elected in primaries that count, not caucuses -- they can keep the box closed. The campaign is both dead and alive. But eventually someone will open the box. I suspect it will happen sooner than we think.
-- Mark Schmitt
COMMENTS (12)
There's a box with a cat in it and the cat is either dead or alive. So what? It's not both dead and alive.
Ummm, that's not the way it's supposed to work in quantum physics. The true state of the world in quantum physics is not that the cat is either dead or alive, it's in what's called a superposition of the state of being dead or alive. When you open the box the superposition collapses to one of those states, but the cat is neither exactly dead or exactly alive until you open the box. I don't completely understand this either.
Anyway, I don't think the Clinton campaign can avail itself of this sort of quantum effect.
Posted by: Matt Weiner | March 31, 2008 10:29 AM
Right, above.
If you are using the metaphor to understand physics, the point is that the particle has/hasn't decayed, and it won't be one or the other until you look. The cat is a dramatization, an index to what's happened to the particle. He didn't mean that a cat could be both alive and dead (isn't the cat observing?).
A political campaign is not a subatomic particle, which can be superposed or whatever. But on the other hand, it is not a cat either. It may be like a neutron in its ability to be many things at once, and to be dead before it has observed itself to be dead. It could be a cat that thinks it's alive, and therefore behaves as if it's alive when it's actually dead. This metaphor is like "dead cat bounce" in stocks. Or the dead cat in the well in the Mark Twain story, where the water tastes good until you learn that a cat drowned in the well yesterday. You can't swing a cat without hitting an apt metaphor.
Posted by: rm | March 31, 2008 10:39 AM
Just for the record, George McGovern was DEFINITELY seen as unelectable at the time of his candidacy.
And you don't want to leave Jimmy Carter out of the figuring which led to the establishment of the super-delegate system. Keep in mind, super-delegates weren't created after the McGovern debacle, but after Carter's disastrous failure at re-election, which wiped out the Democratic party at all levels. At that point, party leaders said, Hmm, this new primary-dependent system opens up the electoral process, but we, the party members, are the ones who suffer when the public makes a bad choice. So they opted to give themselves at least veto power over a demonstrably bad choice. (Of course, their first exercise of this power gave us Mondale, arguably 1984's least electable candidate, so there were still, in the old Doonesbury phtase, "a few bugs in the system").
Anyway, I think veto power is all most super-delegates see themselves as wielding, and for them to step in and reverse the voters' choice would require them to perceive Obama at Mark Foley/Elliot Spitzer/Duke Cunningham levels -- not merely to suspect another candidate might perform somewhat better in certain states. The Clinton folk are asking super-delegates to assert a far greater power than most ever conceived -- one that brings back the smoke-filled room days -- and I don't see them having any success with this strategy in the long run.
Posted by: demtom | March 31, 2008 10:57 AM
"The relevant question was always what they will do, and there was never a reason to think that they had any pressing desire to overturn the will of the pledged delegates."
Geraldine Ferraro certainly insinuated that they could, because that's what they were designed to do. Maybe that's a fair point, although it was seriously unpopular with NY Times commenters.
What's interesting is that she went on to work her angle so hard that she imploded.
No need to point out that this election has not turned out to be the high point in American women's history some had hoped.
I didn't think it would be (and not because HRC isn't winning, either).
"This metaphor is like "dead cat bounce" in stocks."
That's the thing about the dead cat bounce, though-- you don't know it was a dead cat until the chart has moved on and it's been plotted. You might predict that it's a dead cat bounce mid-bounce if you know enough history to think you see the signs but, then again, past performance is no guarantee of future returns.
If they were *really* going to pull the trigger on Hillary wouldn't they have done so by now?
Posted by: Anonymous | March 31, 2008 11:14 AM
The cat is either alive or dead long before you open the box. Opening the box doesn't cause the result, it merely reveals it.
the entire metaphor hinges on you not being bright enough to understand the difference, as does Hillary's campaign strategy.
Every piece of reporting on what the actual super delegates think indicates that it's over. So instead of focusing on what the super-delegates we have say, Hillary and her supporters focus on an abstract idea of what Super-delegates are and what they could conceivably do. It still doesn't have any real bearing on what these suprer-delegates will do, however.
No, anymous, because Hillary has been begging and pleading with them not to until the end of June. Any other candidate? Yeah. The wife of a former President and a respected party elder? They're going to give them a modest amount of respect and let the process play out for a few reasons, not the least of which is that her supporters refuse to acknowledge reality and we still have 5 months. Come June, that trigger is likely to be pulled.
Posted by: Soullite | March 31, 2008 11:32 AM
Mark Weiner and RM have accurately described the consensus quantum mechanical explanation of Schrodinger's cat paradox; Soullite and Mark Schmitt are wrong.
This might be the first time I have ever been able to call Mark Schmitt wrong on anything. On the other hand, maybe the consensus is wrong. Some qualified physicists (albeit a minority) believe so.
If Mark Schmitt says it, maybe I should believe it, and maybe that settles it.
Posted by: Joe S. | March 31, 2008 1:09 PM
Dr. Weiner is right, and the thing about the cat is supposed to illustrate something completely insane that physics seems to suggest, rather than to make something complicated understandable in ordinary terms.
I really hope hidden-variable theories are right and we don't have the cat being both dead and alive until you look. But those apparently aren't especially popular among physicists.
Posted by: Neil the Ethical Werewolf | March 31, 2008 1:20 PM
What Joe S said.
Adding, if I recall correctly the point of the Schrodinger's cat paradox is that it's ridiculous -- the cat isn't in a superposition of states, it's one or the other! Which was supposed to demonstrate that the whole "superposition of states" concept being developed at the atomic level was ridiculous as well. Of course, it turned out that the superposition concept was ridiculous at the scale of a cat but not at the scale of an atom, and that trying to use the former to "demonstrate" the invalidity of the latter was a form of reductio ad absurdum (basically, taking a perfectly good quantitative concept and applying it as a qualitative one in a scale regime which was beyond its range of validity).
Neil -- I'm sorry to have to say this, but hidden variable theories aren't just "not especially popular among physicists," they are demonstrably wrong. A physicists named John Bell was able to construct a theory which had a small number of assumptions, including hidden variables, and use that to develop quantitative predictions of particle behavior. The predictions were contradicted by experiment, which pretty strongly ruled out hidden variable theories as a class. It's been awhile since I studied the exact development of the theory and its predictions, but I'm pretty sure I've captured the gist of them in this post.
Posted by: PT | March 31, 2008 1:55 PM
I think the cat-in-the-box is the wrong metaphor. The dead cat bounce is closer.
Posted by: Anonymous | March 31, 2008 8:45 PM
YOU MIGHT BE AN IDIOT:-)
If you think Barack Obama with little or no experience would be better than Hillary Clinton with 35 years experience.
You Might Be An Idiot!
If you think that Obama with no experience can fix an economy on the verge of collapse better than Hillary Clinton. Whose ;-) husband (Bill Clinton) led the greatest economic expansion, and prosperity in American history.
You Might Be An Idiot!
If you think that Obama with no experience fighting for universal health care can get it for you better than Hillary Clinton. Who anticipated this current health care crisis back in 1993, and fought a pitched battle against overwhelming odds to get universal health care for all the American people.
You Might Be An Idiot!
If you think that Obama with no experience can manage, and get us out of two wars better than Hillary Clinton. Whose ;-) husband (Bill Clinton) went to war only when he was convinced that he absolutely had to. Then completed the mission in record time against a nuclear power. AND DID NOT LOSE THE LIFE OF A SINGLE AMERICAN SOLDIER. NOT ONE!
You Might Be An Idiot!
If you think that Obama with no experience saving the environment is better than Hillary Clinton. Whose ;-) husband (Bill Clinton) left office with the greatest amount of environmental cleanup, and protections in American history.
You Might Be An Idiot!
If you think that Obama with little or no education experience is better than Hillary Clinton. Whose ;-) husband (Bill Clinton) made higher education affordable for every American. And created higher job demand and starting salary's than they had ever been before or since.
You Might Be An Idiot!
If you think that Obama with no experience will be better than Hillary Clinton who spent 8 years at the right hand of President Bill Clinton. Who is already on record as one of the greatest Presidents in American history.
You Might Be An Idiot!
If you think that you can change the way Washington works with pretty speeches from Obama, rather than with the experience, and political expertise of two master politicians ON YOUR SIDE like Hillary and Bill Clinton..
You Might Be An Idiot!
If you think all those Republicans voting for Obama in the Democratic primaries, and caucuses are doing so because they think he is a stronger Democratic candidate than Hillary Clinton. :-)
Best regards
jacksmith...
Posted by: jacksmith | March 31, 2008 11:14 PM
DON'T BE DUPED !!!
Large numbers of Republicans have been voting for Barack Obama in the DEMOCRATIC primaries, and caucuses from early on. Because they feel he would be a weaker opponent against John McCain. And because they feel that a Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama ticket would be unbeatable. And also because with a Clinton and Obama ticket you are almost 100% certain to get quality, affordable universal health care very soon.
But first, all of you have to make certain that Hillary Clinton takes the democratic nomination and then the Whitehouse. NOW! is the time. THIS! is the moment you have all been working, and waiting for. You can do this America. "Carpe diem" (harvest the day).
I think Hillary Clinton see's a beautiful world of plenty for all. She is a woman, and a mother. And it's time America. Do this for your-selves, and your children's future. You will have to work together on this and be aggressive, relentless, and creative. Americans face an even worse catastrophe ahead than the one you are living through now.
You see, the medical and insurance industry mostly support the republicans with the money they ripped off from you. And they don't want you to have quality, affordable universal health care. They want to be able to continue to rip you off, and kill you and your children by continuing to deny you life saving medical care that you have already paid for. So they can continue to make more immoral profits for them-selves.
Hillary Clinton has actually won by much larger margins than the vote totals showed. And lost by much smaller vote margins than the vote totals showed. Her delegate count is actually much higher than it shows. And higher than Obama's. She also leads in the electoral college numbers that you must win to become President in the November national election. HILLARY CLINTON IS ALREADY THE TRUE DEMOCRATIC NOMINEE!
As much as 30% of Obama's primary, and caucus votes are Republicans trying to choose the weakest democratic candidate for McCain to run against. These Republicans have been gaming the caucuses where it is easier to vote cheat. This is why Obama has not been able to win the BIG! states primaries. Even with Republican vote cheating help.
Hillary Clinton has been out manned, out gunned, and out spent 2 and 3 to 1. Yet Obama has only been able to manage a very tenuous, and questionable tie with Hillary Clinton.
If Obama is the democratic nominee for the national election in November he will be slaughtered. Because the Republican vote cheating help will suddenly evaporate. All of this vote fraud and republican manipulation has made Obama falsely look like a much stronger candidate than he really is. YOUNG PEOPLE. DON'T BE DUPED! Think about it. You have the most to lose.
The democratic party needs to fix this outrage. I suggest a Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama ticket. Everyone needs to throw all your support to Hillary Clinton NOW! So you can end this outrage against YOU the voter, and against democracy.
I think Barack Obama has a once in a life time chance to make the ultimate historic gesture for unity, and change in America by accepting Hillary Clinton's offer as running mate. Such an act now would for ever seal Barack Obama's place at the top of the list of Americas all time great leaders, and unifiers for all of history.
The democratic party, and the super-delegates have a decision to make. Are the democrats, and the democratic party going to choose the DEMOCRATIC party nominee to fight for the American people. Or are the republicans going to choose the DEMOCRATIC party nominee through vote fraud, and gaming the DEMOCRATIC party primaries, and caucuses.
Fortunately the Clinton's have been able to hold on against this fraudulent outrage with those repeated dramatic comebacks of Hillary Clinton's. Only the Clinton's are that resourceful, and strong. Hillary Clinton is your NOMINEE. They are the best I have ever seen.
"This is not a game" (Hillary Clinton)
Sincerely
jacksmith...
Posted by: jacksmith | March 31, 2008 11:16 PM
I detect radiation. I think the particle decayed.
Posted by: rm | March 31, 2008 11:50 PM