The Democrats survived Super Tuesday, or at least Obama did. The party higher ups are clearly chewing their tongues over the possibility of a divided convention, which could spell disaster for the November elections. Possibly no one expected Obama to come out ahead in the delegate count after February 5, and he now has a clear lead.
Which means, oddly enough, that he won't get enough to win the nomination. It has become apparent that the arcane rules for deciding the nomination will leave the superdelegates with the deciding votes. The superdelegates are the party officials--members of Congress, state party chairmen, members of the national committee, and major leaders. There are 796 of them in all, and many have already "pledged" one way or the other their support.
They are not, however, bound by such pledges. Unlike the elected delegates, the superdelegates are not bound even by their own word. They are, after all, politicians. A few have been known, over the years, to change their minds on certain important subjects.
Since this block of 796 delegates hold the key to power, the question is who gets the superdelegates and why? Conventional wisdom would give the Clinton machine the edge. They have the party apparatus and webs of loyalty that suspend many in their net. And even Chelsey Clinton is making campaign calls (most famously, to the women on the View).
But there are good reasons to think of Obama as having the advantage. It is possible that his steamrolling campaign will convince many superdelegates that he is the best shot for president in 2008. He is, after all, the only fresh face in this entire field (Huckabee may protest now). His momentum is undeniable. His fundraising abilities remarkable. Hillary, after all, is busy lending her campaign money.
So what factors really will determine the superdelegates' loyalty? I think the answer may be more cultural and public than Washington insiders would like to believe.
2 comments:
I'm a bit worried about this superdelegate situation. Hillary Clinton recently went on record as saying something along the lines of "Those delegates are independent and should vote their conscience." and Barack Obama says "The delegates should vote in accordance with their states." Either way, I don't favor too much the prospect of potentially selecting the next president. It essentially nullifies the votes of millions of Americans. Furthermore, I'm sensing the possibility of backroom deals, secret handshakes, and a continuation of much of the politics many of the democratic candidates are vowing to change. Hopefully someone will break free after the Ohio and Texas contests.
- Donovan
That's the point. Primaries are not national elections. They are ways for parties to select their candidates. As such, they are famously about back room deals and smoke filled rooms. The odd thing is that at one point, everyone assumed that this gave Clinton the edge. I don't think that's the case any longer.
Post a Comment