What if the Superdelegates coronate Hillary?

[Person Man]

What could the damage of this occurance cause? The new democratic activist base will be disaffected and the democratic party has been the presidential minority for a long time. Could BO run a third party campaign? Could we see the breakup of the democratic party?

[Stranger in a strange land]

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.

[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.

[Beet]

Will they be in Rome when it happens?

[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.

[Sam Spade]

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.

[Beet]

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?

[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.

[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?

[Beet]

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.

Given that Obama's people have been claiming that the superdelegate numbers have evened up, and given all of Obama's establishment support during the competitive phase of the campaign, I still find it hard to see where Sam Spade's prediction that the superdelegates will somehow stampede to Clinton is coming from though.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[The Hack Hater]

If Obama continues to have victories, than a greater majority of the superdelegates might go for him

[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?

[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.

[Person Man]

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.

[Flying Dog]

MI delegates should not be seated under any means.

[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.

[Person Man]

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.

[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. 

[Person Man]

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-

I mean, if Clinton was nominated, my wife and all of her cousins, all liberals, would vote for McCain, given how Clinton conducted herself and how she may be nominated. Then again, people whined about Kerry, his record showed him as unelectable and he still got to 48% against a not unpopular, albiet not popular incumbent during a war. You could rebut by saying that the worse than could happen is that McCain will win but only if Clinton gets to 49% and wins all the Kerry and Gore states minus Wisconsin, plus Arkansas, giving her 260 votes. Then again, people just don't like Hillary. She makes 55% of Americans angry and ashamed.

[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.