RALEIGH – As both anti-Clinton Democrats and anti-Clinton Republicans celebrate Barack Obama’s solid primary win in Wisconsin, I feel compelled to observe that the presidential nomination is not yet settled. It will last at least another couple of weeks, and possibly all the way through North Carolina’s May 6 primary and the Democratic convention this summer.
Discount the bloggers and columnists pronouncing the race over. The Clintons are not going to throw in the towel, despite Obama’s impressive Wisconsin showing among nearly all of the voting constituencies of the Democratic coalition. It’s not in the Clinton’s nature, and in their own minds there are still factors in play that could win them the game despite the current odds.
First, they believe — and I think they are correct — that by talking up Texas, Ohio, and Pennsylvania for weeks, they have reduced the political value of Obama’s February wins and programmed the mainstream media to wait until next month to call the nomination race (it helps matters that the media wants a live race to attract audience and sell to advertisers). Admittedly, the Clintons must win all three states for this “February didn’t happen” strategy to work, but they still think they can do this.
Second, they believe — and I’m not as sure about this one — that they can woo our old friend John Edwards to endorse Hillary, perhaps after wins in Texas and Ohio on March 4. Such a move would snag them a couple dozen delegates, which in the Democratic proportional-vote system would be like winning a couple of primaries, plus perhaps give them a leg up in the next big prize after Pennsylvania: North Carolina’s 115 delegates in May.
Third, they believe — and I haven’t seen enough reporting to know whether they are right about this — that there will, in the end, be large delegations seated at the convention from Michigan and Florida, where she won hundreds of thousands of popular votes (some but not all by default). If the January primary results are used to apportion the additional delegates, they are willing (and they believe quite able) to weather the resulting political storm. If the Democratic Party uses some other means to award the Michigan and Florida delegates, such as a hastily called caucus or state convention, the Clintons still think they can prevail. Haven’t they always?
Fourth, the Clintons believe that if these events occur and Obama remains ahead in the delegate count (because the Clinton victories turn out to be too narrow to erase the gap), it would be by the tiniest of margins, so it wouldn’t be seen as illegitimate if superdelegates put her over the top.
While the specifics of the Democratic superdelegate system are certainly debatable, it is far from obvious to me that the concept of superdelegates is inherently suspect. As Real Clear Politics writer Jay Cost explained Tuesday, the Republicans have an informal but comparable means of settling their presidential race should no candidate achieve a clear and convincing majority. When Democratic leaders – including key North Carolinians – set up the system, they could only have intended to give party elites the ability to second-guess primary and caucus results should they promise to lead the party to ruin in November. I don’t happen to think that nominating Obama qualifies as ruinous, far from it, but then again I’m not (yet) a Democratic superdelegate so perhaps there are some esoteric truths about the party that I just don’t grok.
If Obama keeps winning through March, April, and May, yielding a still-larger margin in the pledged-delegate count, it is inconceivable that superdelegates would deliver the nomination to Clinton. The forecast civil war would become a real and disastrous one. But what if he loses most or all of those remaining big contests?
Sure, the odds are against the Clintons. Call them delusional if you wish, but that makes them no different from many other politicians, D and R. Ego is a prerequisite.
Hood is president of the John Locke Foundation.