Here’s a piece in the Post [ht Rich Lowry in The Corner] suggesting that the main criterion for the remaining uncommitted democratic superdelegates will be electability. One can debate which democratic candidate is more electable, but implicit in that assumption is that a marginal lead among pledged delegates will not account for much.
A couple of Pennsylvania’s remaining uncommitted superdelegates include Democrat party-liner Mike Doyle, and Senator Bob Casey. The former was harassed on Super Bowl Sunday by a call from Bill Clinton, showing the GOP is not alone in being out of touch with the priorities if the average American.
Bob Casey shows his characteristic inability to lead anyone, or say anything of substance, when he says “When you have that much at stake and you have two historic figures, it’s going to be difficult to unify the party, and I think we’re going to need people in the middle who can bring people together.”
As Oregon Secretary of State and superdelegate Bill Bradbury said in that piece , “I just believe that the determining factor for superdelegates shouldn’t be, ‘Well, 49 percent voted for Hillary and 51 percent voted for Obama, and that decides it for us.’ Sorry, but that’s not how it works.”
Or, how Sen. Bingaman of New Mexico put it: “If superdelegates were just intended to automatically vote for the preference someone else expressed, there wouldn’t be any purpose…”
So, here we have the leaders of the Democrat party being rather insouciant about the will of actual democrats. Of course, they could also argue that will is impossible to divine, as many of Obama’s pledged delegates are from caucuses rather than primaries. A process like this makes elections in Pakistan, Russia, and Guatemala seem bursting with rectitude by comparison.
Mike Doyle from Pennsylvania channeled the spirit of this blog: “You’re going to see a lot of delegates remaining uncommitted…There’s a sense that this is going to Denver not resolved.”
People: This is how the leader of the free world is elected.