One of the more bizarre aspects of how the nomination battle between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama has evolved is the extent to which the candidates are playing as much to the superdelegates at this point (perhaps even moreso) as they are to voters. The Richardson endorsement, for example, coming as it did so long after it could have done Obama any electoral good, was clearly valuable to him as a vote of confidence after a rough couple of weeks. The message being sent from one of the most prominent superdelegates out there to the rest of those who are still undeclared: don't give up on this guy. And take the California Democratic Party convention this weekend. Why else would Bill Clinton be attending other than the fact that it offers a rare opportunity to address a concentrated gathering of California superdelegates.
The Clinton camp has clearly been more aggressive about making a case to the superdelegates but while before it may have been under the surface, via conference calls and dog whistle messages, now they're not even trying to hide it. Take Evan Bayh's appearance on Late Edition yesterday:
Senator Evan Bayh of Indiana, who backs Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton for president, proposed another gauge Sunday by which superdelegates might judge whether to support Mrs. Clinton or Senator Barack Obama.He suggested that they consider the electoral votes of the states that each of them has won.
"So who carried the states with the most Electoral College votes is an important factor to consider because ultimately, that's how we choose the president of the United States," Mr. Bayh said on CNN's "Late Edition." [...]
So far, Mrs. Clinton has won states with a total of 219 Electoral College votes, not counting Florida and Michigan, while Mr. Obama has won states with a total of 202 electoral votes.
This is essentially a variation on the big state argument the Clinton camp has been making for a while now, which boils down to "because Hillary Clinton has won the big states that the Democrat needs to win in November, she is the more electable Democrat against John McCain in November." I wonder if the superdelegates be moved by this argument. The problem with it is that it implies a correlation between primary performance and general election performance, which is hardly a proven correlation. Take the latest Rasmussen poll general election match-up poll out of Nevada. While more voters caucused for Hillary Clinton in Nevada in January, Barack Obama is currently polling 3 points better against John McCain than Hillary Clinton does. Obviously a poll taken this far in advance of the general can not be seen as having 100% predictive value, but I do think the insistence that Clinton's strength in certain states in the primary will carry over into the general would be a stronger argument if it were backed up with polling.
A far more compelling argument to superdelegates, I would think, is to constantly remind them about Michigan and Florida. Not because they're "two of the big four" necessarily but rather because had they moved to legal dates they would have represented two additional early Clinton wins, likely big ones, and the mere fact that Obama would have had to compete there would have meant fewer resources for him to expend in other states. In other words, Obama's pledged delegate and popular vote leads, such as they are, have an unavoidable asterisk next to them, one that may not pay dividends for Clinton in the official tally, but one that absolutely would factor into my decision if I were a superdelegate.
|
|
|
Permalink :: 106 Comments :: Post a Comment
|
