I'm curious as to why you are so confident that Obama's speech on race won't matter. I mean, he's going to have the majority of pledged delegates and a lead in the popular vote, so isn't the superdelegate vote the more important factor in assessing the import of his speech? A certain segment of the public just isn't going to vote for him anyway, and his speech may have swayed some superdelegates. Also, rising above cynicism, isn't it possible that Reagan Democrats could hear his message of redemption and, as they did with Reagan's similar optimism, respond to that?
-- MaryEllen Kersch
Dear MaryEllen,
You are right that it is virtually impossible for Clinton to overcome Obama's lead among the pledged delegates, making the superdelegates so important. But the margin of Obama's lead by June, when Puerto Ricans close out the primary season, will be significant in determining how much latitude superdelegates feel they have to make an independent choice. And in this sense, if working-class white Democrats start viewing Obama as the "black" candidate who is all about race rather than a compelling candidate who happens to be black, they could give Clinton a greater margin of victory in Pennsylvania, and could even help her prevail in Indiana and North Carolina.
For the sake of argument, let's say Clinton wins Pennsylvania by 25 points and chalks up wins in the other nine remaining contests, closing the gap in pledged delegates to a few dozen out of several thousand. At that point, couldn't a superdelegate in good conscience opt for Clinton because of her momentum and strength in big states? And if any superdelegates still had qualms, they could always invoke Florida and Michigan.
The underlying point is, how real voters react to campaign developments is still all-important -- even when it comes to influencing those superdelegates still on the sidelines. |
