A hypothetical question about the role of super-delegates

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

This is a hypothetical question, not a prediction or an argument or a question of which candidate is better. The hypothetical lays out a set of hypothetical facts, and saying the hypothetical will not happen doesn't add anything to the discussion about the theoretical role of SDs. The hypothetical would be the same if the names Clinton and Obama were reversed, of course.

___________

Imagine if Clinton did well enough tomorrow to hang around, and stuck it out through the campaign and went to the convention running 200 or so pledged delegates behind.

And imagine that at the time of the convention, all national polling showed Clinton beating McCain, and Obama losing to McCain. I'm not talking about a few sanpshots... I mean that any reasonable person taking in the totality of swing-state and national polling would conclude that, at that point in time, Clinton was clearly favored to beat McCain, and Obama was not.

You are a super-delegate. What do you do?

This is sort of what Ted Kennedy's argument was in 1980, so there's some precedent within the party for SDs facing that kind of decision.

[lapfog_1]

1. If OBama enters the convention with more pledged delegates

and does not come out as the nominee...

it WILL destroy the party. OBama has raised something like $120M or more from over 1M contributors. Do you think that those folks, the vast majority of whom donate $25 or $50 dollars, will simply slink off into the night bowing to the "wisdom" of party insiders and the DLC?

[HereSince1628]

2. Me? I would go with my constituents and start a democratic Democratic party

Which is probably why I've never even been listened to at precinct meetings.

[Exilednight]

3. I'm with you!

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

5. I would be torn, myself.

I hated what Kennedy did to Carter in 1980, but I also hated Reagan winning. (Not that Kennedy would have beaten Reagan, but he would have come closer... would have had at least a chance.)

If I was an SD I think I would vote for whoever I honestly believed was likelier to win, since that's my job as an SD.

But I can see both arguments.

[electron_blue]

4. I maintain that most/all SD's will vote for their personal favorite. I don't think

they will ultimately be swayed by the polls.

[mohc]

6. Not enough information

At the very least I would need to have some measure to gauge the reaction of Obama supporters to superdelegates giving the nomination to Clinton. Just because Clinton was leading in hypothetical match-ups would not mean she would maintain that lead if she had to anger many Obama supporters to win the nomination. Elected superdelegates would also be hard-pressed to go against either the national leader (in this case Obama) or the winner of their local winner (most of which would be for Obama). It also might make a difference if Clinton was narrowing the gap significantly towards the end of the campaign or if they final contests were basically tied.

In the end though the biggest leap of this hypothetical is the most basic part: "You are a super-delegate." Well I can honestly say if somehow I became a superdelegate that I would case my vote for Obama, even if he were behind in pledged delegates and the polls against McCain. I think he would be a better president, and I am willing to bet a lot of superdelegates are going to use the same criteria to make their decision.