According to all of the major news services, with only 12% of the vote in, Hillary Clinton has won the highly anticipated battle over Pennsylvania. Although Obama has an insurmountable lead over Hillary in pledged delegates, there are still a significant fraction of uncommitted superdelegates. The argument from the Obama camp is that the superdelegates should vote the way of the pledged delegates. But, that argument is faulty, for the entire reason that the superdelegates were put into place were to exercise their own judgement and vote that way. In this regard, Hillary has won some of the larger states, and a win in PA coupled with wins in either Indiana (possible) or North Carolina (doubtful) would give her tremendous momentum. Thus, if the superdelegates feel that she has the better chance of winning the general election, they should vote that way, irrespective of the pledged delegates. Of course, this would lead to complete mayhem and cause a wild Democratic convention, and I love chaos.
3 comments:
Steve - I like your acknowledgement of why the super delegates are there but you say Hillary won 'some of the larger states'? She won all the top 10 except Illinois and Virginia as I see it. MI and FL didn't count ... imagine if they had -- there'd be calls for Obama to quit I'd imagine
correction: the top 10, in order, are CA, TX, NY, FL, IL, PA, OH, MI, GA, NC. Obama won 5, 9 and will likely win 10.
And how about Florida and Michigan? Dems are so stupid for how they are handling this whole thing...I hate Howard Dean. And if the superdelegates try to make to will of the people argument, it is still faulty as these the will of ALL the people should be considered.
Post a Comment