Superdelegates, Obama/Bloomberg, Clinton's Campaign
- There's been endless TV chatter regarding who Democratic superdelegates should vote for in the Clinton/Obama nomination battle.
I agree that generally speaking the superdelegates should support the candidate that gets the most votes in the primaries. However, there is no requirement--as some have suggested--that the superdelegates vote in accordance with the primary results in his or her home district. If that's a rule then there's no reason to have superdelegates. We just need regular delegates.
The reason superdelegates exist is to override voters in extreme cases when the party machinery determines voters have chosen a bad candidate. That being the case, most of this "horse race" tracking of superdelegates seems premature and misplaced. For now, we should be focusing on the committed delegates. If it gets to the point where superdelegates necessarily come into play (i.e., a convention fight), we'll deal with it then.
- This is one of the more fanciful things I've read today:
The word on the street is that the Obama campaign and New York Mayor Mike Bloomberg have already met and devised an incredible plan if Clinton wins the nominee. Mayor Bloomberg would give nearly $1 billion to Obama's campaign after which Obama would bolt from the Democratic Party and run as an Independent candidate with king-maker Bloomberg as his running mate. The Obama campaign realizes that Obama is too new at this game and doesn't have the political weight of the Clintons to bring in the true heavy-hitters of the party's hierarchy. So, according to sources it was Bloomberg himself who suggested this cunning strategy. It's mind boggling that the Clintons are willing to destroy the entire Democratic Party, and potentially in the process lose the White House and seats in Congress, for their own selfish thirst for power and glory.If Bloomberg doesn't want to self-finance his own run, why would he pay to be someone else's running mate? $1 billion, no less. I know the man has a lot of money, but who would pay $1 billion for that?
An illustration of great sourcing there--"the word on the street," whatever that means. Apparently it's solid enough rumoring to be repeated to hundreds of thousands of listeners on right-wing radio.
- I agree that a necessary prerequisite for Senator Clinton's claim that she is ready to lead on "day one" is for her to run a good campaign. Thus far the evidence for that is mixed at best. I'm baffled how a campaign which is spending $10s of millions has, according to reports, failed to map out an effective strategy to win a majority of delegates in a must-win state.