The "how does Obama win the white vote?" may be the most pressing and practical, but at least of equal value in terms of intellectual curiosity is, "Why hasn't Clinton conceded yet?" The theories range from the benign assumption that she simply wants to ride it out, to conspiratorial notions that she wants to destroy the Democratic Party.
CQ Politics' own David Corn and the Huffington Post's Thomas Edsall both look at the possibility that Clinton is staying in the race to best set herself up for a 2012 run should Obama lose to John McCain.
The thing I've been wondering is, are there really Clinton supporters who, thinking rationally, would support a scenario in which she loses the popular vote and the pledged delegate count, but "wins" the nomination by capturing a necessary amount of superdelegates?
Taylor Marsh argues for just such a scenario:
It's time for superdelegates to think long and hard about who can win in November. Clinton keeps winning states Democrats need against John McCain. Obama's way to victory in November depends on reinventing the electoral map. It's risky at best.
Jerome Armstrong, a Clinton supporter, doesn't quite call on superdelegates to overturn the election, but does seem to make a VP argument by highlighting Obama's "serious problem" with voters:
Obama may not even break 30 percent, despite being practically anointed with the nomination?!?! Look, this is a partisan blog. Nearly everyone will come around to supporting the nominee here, but if Obama doesn't recognize the serious problem this presents in the world offline, and his supporters as well, I am speechless (which may not be a bad thing considering).
Post A Comment