A few thoughts on Superdelegates

Jumping right into things...

Today's RCP blog finds Peter Brown dismissing the historic nature of Sen. Clinton's candidacy, arguing that when the time comes, our fearless super-delegates will refuse to stand in the way of Barack Obama's people-powered money train:

"...there is one good reason why they might not try, even if she is able to string together a series of primary and caucus victories: Call it liberal guilt, or call it fear of reprisal from the party's powerful black base."

Wrong on a couple of levels. Not only does it suggest that African Americans are such irrational voters as to eschew the polls should Sen. Obama's candidacy come undone; it also presupposes that the superdelegates and party activists are willing to throw Union households and working women under the bus in favor of Sen. Obama's supporters. I reply, at length:

- Peter assumes that the "superdelegates", as we're calling them, won't perform the first and most important function of the superdelegate title--that is, to act as a corrective to the (usually) well-intentioned runaway train that is democratic politics. Barack Obama's campaign is somehow managing to sell the notion that Idaho's handful of registered Democrats (to name one of several examples) will somehow manage to turn the entire state blue in November. This is not only false, but dangerous, and it counts for Wyoming, Mississippi, North Dakota, and a host of other states as well. It indicates that Barack Obama's strengths lie in turning out party activists in states that don't tend blue in General elections. He's coasting towards the nom at the expense of the actual election. To whit, I misrepresent Matt Bai in today's New York Times:

"You can already discern the outlines of the argument that Clinton will make to the superdelegates: The contest is basically a draw, and now it’s time to choose the candidate who can be elected. Sure, Barack’s won all those little states like North Dakota and Idaho, but what does that really get you? I’m the candidate who has won all the big states, and that’s what matters in November (emphasis is Bai's--ed.). In fact, Clinton has already declared that Democrats will never carry states like Idaho and Alaska, which sided with Obama an argument that has to rankle Howard Dean, the party chairman, who has been pouring money into rural states as part of his “50-state strategy” for expanding the electoral map."

Now, superdelegates aren't stupid. They recognize things like this, and I'd wager that a fair amount of them won't go as their districts go, but will rather side with Hillary Clinton given her strength among the Democratic base--working men and women, seniors, and Union households. She's turning out the states required to win the general election. This is not to suggest that Obama will not, as the presumptive/potential democratic nominee, carry these states. However, in not choosing the candidate that carried these states by margins such as she has, you run the risk of siding with a candidate that the above constituencies do not prefer, leading to a greater risk of them staying home. This leads to my second, related point:

- Peter assumes that the superdelegates will be reluctant to derail the historic (potential) candidacy of Barack Obama, given the strong position of African Americans in Democratic politics. What of Hillary Clinton's historic candidacy, and the overwhelming numbers of women who wish to see a female president? And, I shouldn't have to remind you, women as an interest group and voting bloc comprise a greater number, if not a greater percentage, of the Democratic electorate than does the African American community. This is not to suggest one will vanish if the other's interests (as we're so blithely defining them) are perceived to have been given priority this fall. They'll most likely fall into line. However, if we're predicating the argument upon the concept of historic candidacies and the wishes of certain numbers of the Democratic party, I'd argue that it would be wiser to take into account the largest and most consistently Democratic of voting blocs--women.

- Finally, Mr. Brown relies on delegate math to guarantee that Hillary won't get the nomination. This is a wrongheaded assumption mostly because it denies Obama the nomination, as well. The choice will depend on the superdelegates, whatever their reasoning. But moreover, it will rely on Michigan and Florida. Those states will not be denied their delegations, no matter what Chairman Dean has to say. It would be a crucial mistake for the DNC to essentially disenfranchise millions of Democratic voters, especially given the increased importance of Florida and Michigan's reliably Blue vote in general elections.

In other news:

FLORIDA IS MAD

I don't know what this means

WOOF!