More on the Smoke-Filled Auditorium
Andrew Sullivan quotes Kos to demonstrate that, barring an "epic collapse," Obama will head into the convention with a lead in states won, delegates, and total votes, and asks:
Andrew Sullivan - March 12th, 2008 Do the Clintons seriously intend to overturn that?
This is a point Sullivan (and other Obama supporters) have been hammering on relentlessly: the idea that the superdelegates are somehow obligated to vote for whichever candidate has a lead in delegates and/or votes.
It's reasonable to conclude that the superdelegates will be loathe to contradict the will of the people, but Obama supporters routinely fail to acknowledge two key points: a) the superdelegates are not required to do anything, and b) the margin of Obama's lead could end up being razor-thin.
Now, a win is a win is a win, and the most sensible thing for the superdelegates to do is, most likely, to back whomever has a lead. But the entire idea of the superdelegates sprung up to stop Democratic voters from nominating candidates who'll get creamed in the general election. So, if they honestly believe Clinton is a safer, more viable choice in November, they're doing nothing more or less than fulfilling their role in voting for her.
Naturally, Obama supporters have a right to be mad should this take place. But when the issue of seating Florida and Michigan's delegates is raised, they are quick to remind us that you can't change the rules once the game has started. Logic dictates that the same goes for the superdelegates. You can rail against them all you want, but you're really railing against their mere existence, because choosing the candidate they believe to be their best choice in November is well within their authority.
The margin, too, should have some bearing on the discussion. While it's always fairer that the candidate with the most delegates and votes get the nomination, the idea that a potentially 1% margin represents some sort of mandate is downright silly. If two candidates enter the convention in a near dead-heat after tens of millions of votes have been cast, any reasonable person has to conclude that Democratic voters are essentially split between the two. And why do the superdelegates exist if not to help decide such things? Why exist at all if they're merely going to vote for whomever has the lead heading into the convention?
Obama backers don't have to like the rules. I sure wouldn't, if I were them. But they are the rules, and they exist for just such a situation.
And, of course, it must be noted that the superdelegates wouldn't exist in the first place if the Democratic party did not occasionally nominate fringe candidates, and had reason to believe it would happen again. A slightly saner Democratic party wouldn't have nominated McGovern, wouldn't have created the superdelegates, and therefore wouldn't have this problem to begin with.
» March 12th, 2008
|
|
Calendar
More Entries
Blogroll
Instapundit
Andrew Sullivan
Tom Maguire
Decision '08
Patrick O'Keefe
Categories
Blogging
Democrats
Economy
Elections '04
Elections '06
Elections '08
Entertainment
George W. Bush
Iraq
Media
Miscellaneous
Republicans
Social Security
Supreme Court
Technology
War on Terror
Email Me
|
