Tuesday, February 12, 2008

More on Superdelegates

First, I've noted that the NYTs treats "superdelegate" as one word. I've been treating it as two words but will conform from this point forward.

An interesting sub-text from today's NYTs piece on the status of the Clintons campaign is that despite all the rank and file concern about superdelegates stealing the nomination from the "people" such an outcome is not very likely.

The superdelegates (even those now "pledged" to the Clintons) are poised to act as God intended and bring order to the process by rallying around the candidate winning most committed delegates.
“She has to win both Ohio and Texas comfortably, or she’s out,” said one superdelegate who has endorsed Mrs. Clinton, and who spoke on condition of anonymity to share a candid assessment. “The campaign is starting to come to terms with that.” Campaign advisers, also speaking privately in order to speak plainly, confirmed this view.

Several Clinton superdelegates, whose votes could help decide the nomination, said Monday that they were wavering in the face of Mr. Obama’s momentum after victories in Washington State, Nebraska, Louisiana and Maine last weekend.

Some said that they, like the hundreds of uncommitted superdelegates still at stake, might ultimately “go with the flow,” in the words of one, and support the candidate who appears to show the most strength in the primaries to come.
There is nothing the media would like more than a convention brawl with the Clintons on one side. However, the party has other ideas.

There is no stomach even among the Clintons supposed pledged superdelegates to steal this nomination. This is of course why media outlets should not be counting these delegates in anyone's total. They are not bound by any commitments.

No comments: