That is the conclusion of Chris Bowers at OpenLeft, after crunching the likely range of numbers after Super-Duper Tuesday:
(I)n order to win the nomination without the aid of super delegates, in her best-case scenario after Super Tuesday, Clinton would need to win 76.2% of all remaining pledged delegates. Given our proportional delegate system, there is simply no way that is going to happen unless Obama drops out.
Bowers then ponders with some degree of horror the questions this will raise about the seating of the delegations from Florida and Michigan:
My instincts tell me this is a complete disaster, since it will shine light on complicated bylaws and the questionable democratic nature of the delegate selection process instead of on voters.
Indeed. Bowers proposes that a majority of super-delegates pledge to support whoever wins the majority of pledged delegates following the final primaries and caucuses in early June, with Florida’s delegates allocated according to the primary vote there, and Michigan’s delegates by the results of the exit polling.
I suspect that scenario — which Bowers admits is not pretty – may not come to pass easily. The Nevada caucus — and perhaps the Super-Duper Tuesday results — demonstrate that the Democratic delegate counts may not match the results of the popular vote (temp WSJ link). The party that has lived on the delusions that Al Gore, Jr. should be president because he won the popular vote and that the people of Florida were somehow disenfranchised may not easily accept the notion that the delegate count should supercede the popular vote. Under a system that awards delegates primarily by Congressional District, super-delegates who are members of the House may see things differently from super-delegates who hold statewide office. And there is the possibility that Clinton and Obama will attempt to buy off super-delegates who are uncommitted, or steal them from each other.
If Bowers is correct, “not pretty” may be the best-case scenario for the Dems, with “complete disaster” a distinct possibility.
(h/t Memeorandum.)
IIRC, the ‘superdelegates’ idea in the Democratic party was a defense mechanism by the more moderate party leaders to prevent a far-left candidate from getting the nomination and then getting destroyed in the general election.
What about potentates?
The superdelegates were never anything more than a mechanism for the DNC to assure that their choice was the nominee, no matter what the rest of the party actually wanted.
That’s what I thought, RTO Trainer: it was to keep the loons in check so the party could actually have a chance at winning a presidential election.
“IIRC, the ’superdelegates’ idea in the Democratic party was a defense mechanism by the more moderate party leaders to prevent a far-left candidate from getting the nomination and then getting destroyed in the general election.”
If this is true, how then do you explain John Kerry?
The real reason there are Superdelegates is to keep black people and other minorities from getting the nominiation by luck of mere votes. Obama’s about to find that out.
The rules of the Democratic party were never democratic. Voting is just the figment given to the people so they won’t be embarassed by how their leaders are actually chosen for them.
It’s not so benign as that Mikey. Even if two “acceptable” candidates are in contention, the DNC elite still get to choose whic one gets the nomination.
I would love to see Obama win the popular vote yet Hillary take the nomination… it would reveal the Dem proces (superdelegates? proportional representation?) for the fraud that it is. Interestingly, one of Bowers’ first commenters notes that he hopes the Dems’ nominatingprocess remains secret. Gnostic knowledge is dangerous, can’t let the proles in on it, now, can we?
Personally I don’t really care a whole lot how presidential candidates get picked as long as the process is honest and capable at some level of being swayed by a given party’s voters. I don’t see the Dems’ process as being really susceptible to voter influence. Seems to me that’s… undemocratic.
I said it was the idea when originally put forth – I didn’t say that was what it is now.
The more moderate leaders in the 1980’s who came up with it are pretty much gone.
It’s a bird! It’s a plane! It’s . . . SuperDelegate Man!!!
I’ll be in my bunk.
</obscure Firefly reference>
Heh. Not that obscure.
I for one look forward to riots outside the DNC convention, loud protests from both camps as the votes are taken to a smoky back room to be counted according to old white men… It should be entertaining to watch.
Darkmage – yeah, I hadn’t thought of that.
Hey, maybe they can bring some retired Chicago Cops, Class of ’68, back from Ft. Meyer FL and Sun City AZ to kick some lefty ass?
One of the really intriguing things is that the process doesn’t have to be democratic at all.
Party nominations are entirely extra-Constitutional. Even the general election is as well. State laws, beholden to the party rules, govern the process (which seems to me to be completely backward) up to the conventions.
The Republican party is better in this regard only in that their rules are simpler and easier to understand.
I’m trying really hard, since learning how the watchworks are constructed, not to become cynical.
I’ve considered this (as you note– ironic) possibility for some time. One of the good things about living to a ripe old age is getting laughs like this.
The political race is like a carnival show: bustling, busy, chaotic. The only difference is, politics is boring.
[…] buzz about the possibility that super-delegates may decide the Democratic presidential nomination seems to be spreading a bit — at least on left-liberal […]
ljhe ovpkucd btiafr udeix vgtoyxrfc rehzcvnp liuh