It's going to take more than a marginal argument
I'm going to say this again. In order to get the superdelegates to take on the costs of overturning the pledged delegates (you know, those selected by the voters,) Clinton doesn't just need a better argument, she needs an overwhelming argument, and, thus far, I've seen nothing like that.
The "safe" play for the superdelegates is to simply ratify the pledged delegates. Although the Clinton folks will not be happy with this, it is, by far, the more easily defended position for all those supers who will have to face voters this cycle or next.
Certainly, in many cases, such as in pro-Clinton areas, a super can claim they are just reflecting their voters, but by and large, the Clinton people are asking the superdelegates to politically extend themselves and the party without that overwhelming, easily defensible argument.
My belief is that most of the supers' holding back is not about any doubts about where they they will come down, but more about a fear of the costs of publicly declaring for one side or the other.
The "safe" play for the superdelegates is to simply ratify the pledged delegates. Although the Clinton folks will not be happy with this, it is, by far, the more easily defended position for all those supers who will have to face voters this cycle or next.
Certainly, in many cases, such as in pro-Clinton areas, a super can claim they are just reflecting their voters, but by and large, the Clinton people are asking the superdelegates to politically extend themselves and the party without that overwhelming, easily defensible argument.
My belief is that most of the supers' holding back is not about any doubts about where they they will come down, but more about a fear of the costs of publicly declaring for one side or the other.
posted by mikevotes at
7:19 AM
2 Comments:
I agree - the safest course for the superdelegates is to ratify the public votes (altho do you mean in delegates or in popular vote, where Hillary is spinning the latter her way).
But then why have superdelegates at all? They were created to, when necessary, overrule the will of the great unwashed voters and ensure that the most electable Democrat is nominated.
It's a flawed and undemocratic system, but it is the system we have, and the Clinton's know how to play the system better than anyone. Don't underestimate their ability to spin, deceive, and bribe these people to handing them the nomination.
By
Anonymous, at 12:31 PM
Abi, sorry, yeah, I mean the pledged delegates because they can fall back and say "rules of the game." The popular vote argument is exactly that, an argument, and although it might carry some moral weight, it is an asserted position, not a default one.
I do wonder about the existence of superdelegates, but in this case, I think the question is one of threshold.
Again, all of the arguments being placed against Obama are disputes of opinion, not really a strong statement of fact.
I think if we had pictures of Obama kicking puppies then, yeah, maybe the CW would crystallize, but we don't have that.
(And my reasoning rests on the belief that the supers put their interests and party interests ahead of the Clintons. For a fair majority of them, being perceived as overturning the pledged delegates would have a far higher negative cost than choosing Clinton.
The popular vote might give them some cover if they wanted to do it anyway, but the general flow and my anecdotal observations seems to say they don't want to.)
By
mikevotes, at 1:35 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home