OK, here are my thoughts on this whole superdelegate rigmarole:
Obama is secretly happy that we're all only talking about delegates and superdelegates because when he splits the vote in WI, TX and OH, but still gets more delegates, it will be reported by the media as a "big win." And this wouldn't be possible if we weren't spending so much time talking about delegates and superdelegates and instead were only focusing on wins and losses.
The result, then, will be that there will be a "feeling" or "aura" surrounding the Obama campaign which will make it even more difficult for superdelegates to support Clinton because then it will look like they're making her the winner when she shouldn't be -- even if their supporting her is totally legit and within the rules.
We shall see...
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
Superdelegates have the right to do whatever they want. It's their right. No one seriously thinks they should be bound by their states or the pledged delegate total.
However, the Democratic Party would be committing suicide if they let the superdelegates crown a candidate with less pledged delegate and popular vote support, whoever that candidate may be. Can you imagine the backlash that would happen if Obama loses his popular vote/pledged delegate lead and is only put over the top by the supers at the convention? The Clintons would scream bloody murder (and rightfully so).
Look, just because the rules may give the delegates the right to do whatever they want, doesn't mean they should. They are politicians. They need to make sure they look like they are doing the right thing, the rules be damned.
Post a Comment