What if the Superdelegates coronate Hillary?

[Mr. Morden]

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.

I'm confused.  J.J. said:

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

Isn't that kind of obvious?  Whoever has the majority of delegates wins.  What's the connection between that and who controls the Democratic party?

[Mr. Morden]

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.

I'm confused.  J.J. said:

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

Isn't that kind of obvious?  Whoever has the majority of delegates wins.  What's the connection between that and who controls the Democratic party?

It makes sense if you believe that J.J. meant that Obama's lead in pledged delegates was more than enough to overcome the Clinton bias in superdelegates.

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.

[Mr. Morden]

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.

In any case, I still think your point (if I'm understanding it correctly) is relatively uncontroversial.  You're saying that if Obama wins a majority of the pledged delegates minus FL/MI, he'll try to claim a mandate, but that if the total pledged delegate count *including* FL/MI has Clinton in the lead, then she'll claim that *she* has a mandate, and the supers won't just all fall in line behind Obama.  I think that's right.  In short, there are four different definitions of "victory" in the primaries:

1) Winning the most pledged delegates (not counting FL/MI)
2) Winning the most votes (not counting FL/MI)
3) Winning the most pledged delegates *including* FL/MI (regardless of whether those delegations are actually seated)
4) Winning the most votes *including* FL/MI

If either of the two candidates is the winner according to all four of those definitions of victory, then I can't imagine the supers overruling that choice, and nominating the other candidate.  But if different candidates win according to different criteria, then both candidates will try to claim a mandate, and the supers will split, though it's not obvious to me exactly how they're going to split.  It depends on the circumstances.

[Mr. Morden]

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.

Because I'm still a bit fuzzy on what you're arguing.  I'm suggesting that if one candidate wins according to all of these definitions of victory, then the superdelegates will go with that candidate en masse.  But that if different candidates win according to different definitions of victory, they'll each try to claim a "mandate", and the superdelegates will not necessarily all go in one direction...they'd likely split (largely along the lines of whatever option is most politically convenient for them, since they're mostly politicians).  Whether you or I think that any one of these particular definitions of victory is fair or reasonable is irrelevant.  What matters is what the superdelegates themselves think (which will be driven in large part by what their constituents think).

So are you arguing that the supers will inevitably go with whoever has the most pledged delegates *including* FL/MI en masse, or do you agree with me that they might split (in some not necessarily predictable way) if the two candidates try to claim a mandate by different definitions of victory?

[Mr. Morden]

If Hillary wins the primary by any means, including coronation, she loses to McCain.  So the choice is rather clear for the super-delegates.

opebo, what ever happened to your opinion that "America is too racist to elect a black man"?  Have you changed your mind?