Super-Delegate Quidditch

The general view seems to be that Clinton needs to gain an edge in either the cumulative popular vote or, less probably, the pledged-delegate count if she is to have a chance of persuading the Superdelegates to give her the nomination (and of course, once you strip independents and other non-Democrats out of the election tallies, Clinton has won a majority of registered Democratic voters). Even so, it's not hard to see how this sort of caper could tear the party apart. Most folk seem to think this would be a terrible, undemocratic way to win the nomination.

Not so fast says a friend:

Don’t hate the player, hate the game.  The rules of the game are that superdelegates matter.  And they won’t be “overturning” anything.  They get to vote for what they think is best for the party.  To suggest that the winner of the pledged delegates should get all the superdelegates is to ignore the rules of the game.  That’s like saying had whoever gained the most total yards in a football game should be the winner, not the person with the most points.  You may not like the rules, but to steal a line from the Big Lebowski – this is not Vietnam, there are rules!

Comments

[dearieme]

The tricky thing is that Clinton could ask Obama to be VP candidate, but O can't ask her. Because if she were his VP candidate, once he'd won office the Clintons would have him assassinated.

[rpm]

This misstates what the Obama campaign's point is. No one wants to change rules. Every time asked, Axelrod says Supers should do whats right for the party. It's just that their argument is that what's right for the party to to affirm and strenghten the vote of the pledged delegates. Everyone's going to have a pitch to the Supers and this is theirs. This a rhetorical, persuasive argument directed at supers, not an attempt to change rules. Changing rules mid-game would be to try to eliminate super delegates, or to try to seat delegations awarded from primaries that all agreed wouldn't count prior to the vote.

[Hal]

rpm is right as a matter of logic. In addition, as a matter of politics, if the superdelegates think that choosing Hillary would be best for the party, they'd be just plain wrong. Who has generated more enthusiasm, raised more money, brought in more new voters? Who polls better against John McCain? Whose image could actually succeed as a contrast to McCain's?

Still, it would really help if Obama can find a way to win in Pennsylvania.

[Dom]

Has anyone else noticed the irony in the fact that Jimmy Carter is a super? Wasn't it during his candidacy that the Democratic Party changed the rules and made all delegates non-Supers? And didn't he insist on this, since it gave him an advantage over Kennedy?

Or am I all wrong?