I’m Super, Thanks for Asking!

Before the conclusion of the voting on Super Tuesday, Howard Dean said the following in an interview on NY1 television:

"The idea that we can afford to have a big fight at the convention and then win the race in the next eight weeks, I think, is not a good scenario,"

"I think we will have a nominee sometime in the middle of March or April. But if we don't, then we're going to have to get the candidates together and make some kind of an arrangement, because I don't think we can afford to have a brokered convention -- that would not be good news for either party."

Of course, he’s right. Brokered conventions are bad. They tend to weaken the nominee, as they weren’t directly elected by the people. Brokered conventions need to be avoided.

However, Dean now faces the very real possibility that neither candidate earns the necessary 2025 delegates to win the Democratic nomination outright. So, what’s Dean thinking when he says that he may have to get the candidates together to make some kind of an arrangement? The possibilities are as follows:

1. One of the candidates steps aside. (not a very likely possibility)

2. Seat the delegates from Florida and Michigan or possibly re-run those races (which the Obama campaign would not agree to as it would stack the deck for Clinton).

So knowing that both of these options are essentially non-starters, I’m guessing that Dean’s intent was to rally the superdelegates to pick a candidate.

I believe that both the Obama and Clinton campaigns made the same interpretation and reacted.

Clinton’s campaign (through it’s surrogates … I said cynically) started to argue for a re-do or delegate seating of Florida and Michigan. The argument was made by pointing to the standing positions of the DNC and the respective state democratic committee– DNC has requested that Florida and Michigan re-do, the state committees have said “seat our delegates”.

But is a fight over seating these delegates really what Clinton wants? First of all, deadlock between the DNC and state Democratic Commitees would have to be broken and could get ugly. Along with that, Obama’s supporters would cry foul and there would probably be a legal challenge. It’s hard to believe that all that could happen without substantial damage to Hillary's general election campaign.

So what's the thinking of the Clinton camp? My guess is that the argument they'll be making to the undecided superdelegates will be: If Florida and Michigan had had a voice, I would have been elected. Therefore, I'm really the people's choice.

Meanwhile, the Obama campaign “accidentally” let a spreadsheet slip that supported the Howard Dean nighmare scenario where no candidate has the delegates for nomination. Basically, I interpret this as ... "yeah, Howard Dean is right! You superdelegates can't let this happen!"

See the following article for the details:
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=a9T3ToQrPGqc&refer=home

“Coincidentally”, Obama is openly lobbying for more superdelegate support:

"If this contest comes down to superdelegates, I think we're going to be able to say that we have more pledged (earned) delegates, meaning that the Democratic voters have spoken," Obama said.

"And I think those superdelegates who are elected officials, party insiders, would have to think long and hard about how they approach the nomination, when the people they claim to represent have said, `Obama's our guy.'"

Thus the Obama campaign likes the idea of virtual brokerage. Furthermore, they are making the case for a rally to their side. But obviously a Clinton argument which included Florida and Michigan would weaken and possibly trump the delegate count argument.

So, Obama may be counting on another rationale to sway the superdelegates: Obama's electability in the general election. The case is made today by columnist George Will (again I said cynically … not coincidentally):

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/06/AR2008020603943.html

So what’s going to happen here? The most likely scenario is that the election will be decided by primary voters.

If neither candidate can get enough delegates, I expect that the superdelegates will decide matters. Or at least with that premise, I can manufacture plausable rationale that might explain why all the players did what they did.