Fellow Virginia blogger Vivian Paige approvingly links to an Associated Press report that many Democratic superdelegates have said that they don’t feel bound by the results of the primaries in making their decision:
Most of the more than 100 undecided superdelegates who discussed their decision-making with The Associated Press in the past two weeks agreed that the primaries and caucuses do matter — whether it’s who has the most national delegates or the candidate who won their state or congressional district. But few said the primaries will be the biggest factor in their decision.
“I think it’s really important that we keep our eye on the prize, and the prize is the win in November,” said Gail Rasmussen, an undecided superdelegate from Oregon.
Yes, well that is the general idea, and the superdelegates were originally created by Democratic insiders to head off disasters like the 1972 election, when the party nominated a guy who had no chance of winning in Middle America.
But the situation this year is especially complicated.
Yes, the superdelegates could ignore the fact that Barack Obama has won more primaries, pledged delegates, and popular votes than Hillary Clinton, but, in doing so, it seems fairly clear that they would create a political firestorm that would doom the party’s chances in the fall.
Can you imagine what would happen in Denver if the guy who got the most votes according the rules was denied the nomination ? It would be Bush v. Gore all over again, and I think it’s inconceivable that the people who’ve been supporting Obama all the way through would simply sit back, accept what happened, and campaign as enthusiastically for Clinton as they would have for Barack.
It’s not going to happen.
Yes, Hillary Clinton can win the nomination if she convinces the superdelegates to vote for her. In doing so, however, she’s going to have to rip her party to shreds.
