Of Superdelegates and Winner Take All

Today's Times article about the jousting between Obama and Clinton for superdelegates is a very worthwhile read. I know a lot more about superdelegates than I did a few hours ago.

Republicans generally have winner-take-all caucuses or primaries, which is why John McCain is unstoppable now [he's picked up Mitt Romney's endorsement, making him even more formidable.] Since the Democrats assign delegates proportionately to how candidates do in a primary or caucus--democratically, you might say--neither Obama or Clinton is likely to have enough delegates to carry the day by June.  Obama will probably be around 100 delegates ahead, like now, and they'll both be short of the 2,025 pledged delegates needed to secure the Democratic nomination.

Enter those "superdelegates"--party officials and other leaders who are free to vote however they choose. Clinton tends to do better in larger state primaries; she says the superdelegates should support her because she wins in states that are more representative of the nation.  Obama says fair is fair--the superdelegates should support him if he earns more pledged delegates.

Although I support Obama, Clinton has the better case here.  If she wins in Ohio, Texas, and Pennsylvania, after taking California and New York, that has more meaning than Obama's carrying Utah, North Dakota, and Idaho.  The whole point of being a "superdelegate" is that you are at liberty to think beyond simple accounting of states won and lost.

Nevertheless, it would be unsettling if superdelegates actually swung the election to Clinton even though Obama  had more pledged delegates (which is not necessarily the same as more votes). The Republican winner-take-all method avoids this  problem, but  is anti-democratic in smothering all complexity.  I like the Democratic way better, as maddening as it is.  With that said, all of Obama and Clinton's fighting for these delegates will be a great distraction that presents a golden opportunity for John McCain. 

Two months ago, a Republican president in 2009--especially one who has fervently supported the Iraq war like McCain--seemed impossible.  Now it's looking much more likely.