What if the Superdelegates coronate Hillary?

[J. J.]

There would be riots, the convention would erupt in a floor fight reminiscent of Chicago '68, the party would schism, and John McCain would be elected president in a 45-state landslide.

....which is why I predict the superdelegates will have no choice but to ratify the vote of the primary voters. Also, most democratic insiders don't actually like the Clintons, or at least fear them more than they like them. Black polticians who have endorsed the Clintons in particular will be under pressure to switch their support to Obama.

and at the end of the day, remember that superdelegates are just cowardly politicians who want to get reelected. Vetoing the choice of the people to put Hillary at the top of the ticket would not help most them with that.

Not even close, provided the FL and MI are not seated, or that they don't make a difference.

[J. J.]

Will they be in Rome when it happens?

No.  It comes down to this.  Obama has a majority of all delegates, minus FL and MI, or Hillary is the nominee.

[J. J.]

I tend to agree with JJ on what Obama needs to win this thing.  Just because of who controls the Democratic party, and it ain't the Obama people.

Then why has Obama gotten a virtual monopoly on endorsements during the competitive phase of the campaign, why is Hillary hemorrhaging superdelegates, and why are there reports that Pelosi, etc. is leaning toward Obama?

It is a matter of raw votes, including those super delegates.  If Hillary has the votes, she gets it.

[J. J.]

Still not sure I get it.  He's saying that Obama's lead in pledged delegates would have to be greater than any Clinton lead in superdelegates?  Duh.  That's a tautology.  Equivalent to saying that whoever has the most total delegates wins.  Unless you're saying that the argument is that Clinton will inevitably have more superdelegates no matter what.

Ok, here is one of the arguments that can be made by Obama:

"I won a majority of the elected delegates, therefore I should be the nominee."

That argument is false, unless he wins more delegates after the MI and FL delegates are counted, because they are elected, even if not seated.  In other words, assume that , if both delegations were actually seated, Clinton gets a net gain of 100 delegates.  Obama has to have a majority of those elected delegate, plus 100 delegates, to make the argument (without looking like a complete hypocrite).  Obama's condition of victory is now higher than a majority of the elected delegates.

Obama can make this argument:

"FL and MI were not properly elected and shouldn't be seated."

This argument is true, but the same set of rules says that the super delegates get to use their judgment; they were originally designed to let the party leadership have somewhat of a check on the electorate (basically to prevent another George McGovern situation).

So, to make either argument, Obama has to either get a majority, including the super delegates, which is possible, or he has to win a majority of the elected delegates including those from MI and FL.

Now, if both FL and MI, who has the lead in elected delegates?  I think it is currently Clinton, so Obama has to overcome those unseated delegates to make the argument. 

His argument is currently that he has the lead with elected delegates that will likely be seated, but he cannot claim a mandate based on that.  It would be like John Kerry saying, "I can be President of the United states, if the Confederacy agrees to re-secede from the Union." 

[J. J.]

I looked at the numbers and it's around 110 net delegates for Clinton, plus 55 uncommitted in Michigan.

If Obama could get a plurality plus a 55-170 elected delegate lead, he could make the argument that the elected delegates have spoken, including those uncommitted in Michigan.

There are also the Edwards delegates out there, which will further complicate matters. 

It's quite possible for Obama to do as well as he has been overall, and even get a majority of the elected delegates.

[J. J.]

Now, if both FL and MI, who has the lead in elected delegates?  I think it is currently Clinton, so Obama has to overcome those unseated delegates to make the argument.

You're right that if you include FL/MI delegates, then Clinton would currently have a lead in pledged delegates.....though if the MI Uncommitteds break heavily for Obama, then Obama would lead.

I think he'd have to get 2/3 of those uncommitted delegates; it's possible, but I don't think it would be that big.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The most votes argument was tried by Jesse Jackson in 1988; he was laughed off the stage.  #2 is dead; so is #4.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This is basically, "FL/MI didn't follow the rules so F them.  We want to follow the rules."  The problem is, the same rules say, "Those super delegates get to use their judgment."  If you are Obama, you either want to win within the rules or change this rule.

#1 is what forces Obama to have enough elected delegates to counteract FL/MI, even if not seated.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This one works.  The problem is, if August rolls around and Obama is up by 50-110 delegates, he can't claim it.  If he says, "I won more delegates, so I should be the nominee," any super delegate can say, "Well Senator, that's not exactly true.  Hillary won more, but we're just not seating all of them."

This basically raises the bar slightly for Obama.  If on June 15th, Obama is up by 200 elected delegates, he has a great argument to convince super delegates, and the county.  If he's up by 50-75 elected delegates, he doesn't.

And I can't blame anyone really for the box that Obama is now in.  I don't expect him to be up to 150-200 elected delegates by that point, unless Clinton runs out of money.

[J. J.]

So what's your bottom line J.J., that the superdelegates will go en masse to?:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yes, basically if Obama can walk into the convention and say, "Even if you seat the MI and FL delegates, a plurality of the elected delegates voted for me," he can swing most of those uncommitted super delegates.  Basically the larger his elected delegate total, the greater his leverage.  If more than half of the elected delegates are pledged to him, even when counting the FL and MI delegates, he should be able to swing most of the super delegates that are unpledged (and maybe cause some pledged delegates to switch).  Basically, he'll need a lead over Clinton of between 150-250 elected delegates to really sell the argument.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I think that there are other dynamics involved.  If Obama is the clear winner of the elected  delegates, that gives the super delegates a great reason to vote for him; they are not subverting the will of the people.  There is another problem; a lot of those delegates were awarded by caucuses, and will be seen as being of lesser value.  That will give some super delegates some pause.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I think if there is a very clear mandate with the elected delegates the bulk of the unpledged super delegates will go to Obama.  He would need a plurality over Clinton of 150-250 elected delegates (assuming MI/FL are not seated) to get that very clear mandate.  Actually, if both MI/FL are seated, that level probably drops to 50-150.

If, in August, Obama has a lead in the elected delegates of 25, the unpledged super delegates will gravitate to Clinton.

[J. J.]

I mean it's reasonable what JJ says that Obama simply doesn't have a mandate, but what will happen in the minds of the 50% of the party that does think he has a mandate. In theory, Hillary could get it and there would be no problem...but that doesn't perclude the fact that the party could violently split with the democrats being pushed back into their final redoubts in Cali and Southern New England.

Also, looking ahead, even if the delegates were seated, Obama would probably have a few delegate advantage.

The problem is "a few."  I could argue, convincingly, that caucuses are not good electoral tests and that lesser weight should be given to delegates chosen by caucuses (that's a political, not a procedural argument).  Basically, if Obama can walk in to the convention with 150-250 elected delegates (excluding FL/MI) more than Clinton has, he can probably swing the undecided super delegates to himself.  If he can, Clinton is the nominee.

I actually would not be too surprised if Clinton would come out ahead on the elected delegate count.  I think it will be less than 50 either way.

[J. J.]

If Clinton wins the electored delegates fair and square, that's another issue. The point is how Clinton can NOT kill the Democratic Party is she doesn't.

"Fair and square" is not declaring that the elected delegates decide the issue. 

[J. J.]

If Clinton wins the electored delegates fair and square, that's another issue. The point is how Clinton can NOT kill the Democratic Party is she doesn't.

"Fair and square" is not declaring that the elected delegates decide the issue. 

"fair and square" means that the voters got their say....and besides that, can Clinton keep the party together or will this happen-

No it doesn't.  When you use "fair and square" you mean that you want the outcome to be a certain way.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I'm not really interested in anecdotal evidence. 

The particular point is if she can get nominated.  At this point, she has an advantage.

[J. J.]

It's been plotted that even if one of these candidates swept every single primary from here on out they still wouldn't have enough delegates to get them the nomination.  The Super Delegates are going to be the deciding factor.

And there probably will not be an argument that Obama won an overwhelming majority of the elected delegates.

[J. J.]

I just think its kinda ironic how the Democrats oppose the electoral college, claiming to be the "party of the people" and real democracy, but their nomination process is far less democratic than that of the Republicans... at least in circumstances where there is not a bulldozer nominee... which is undemocratic itself.

I will actually defend the Democrats on this.  They basically say, "We want the people have to run on the ticket (down ticket), and the people with experience in contesting elections, to have some input."

I know that in terms of nominating to fill vacancies in the ticket in Pennsylvania, the Republicans are far more democratic than the Democrats.

[J. J.]

"Superdelegates are not second-class delegates," says Joel Ferguson, who will be a superdelegate if Michigan is seated. "The real second-class delegates are the delegates that are picked in red-state caucuses that are never going to vote Democratic."

Straight from the Clinton campaign.

Ironically, a good political argument.  Procedurally, elected delegates and super delegates can vote, excluding MI and FL.  The Obama and Clinton campaigns don't really want that.