The Democrats' super-dilemma: there must be some way out of here

As I said early last February:

It strikes me that there’s something of a prisoners’ dilemma coordination problem here. These [superdelegates] are motivated primarily by political gain rather than by principle. Indeed, that’s why they were given this power. The career pols are playing a long-term game and they want to be on the winning side. This involves a guess as to what their fellow prisoners delegates will be doing. And this stategic guessing game is likely to take some time. . . . Anyway, watch for this story to keep getting bigger.

Well, of course, it’s huge now. By way of doing some academic research (actually, by way of avoiding real work) I watched the candidates’ speeches last night, trying to see the superdelegates’ perspective. Here’s what I saw.

First Clinton: a poorly delivered speech, evidently read from notes, offering the usual chicken-in-every-pot.

Then Obama: a rousing yet carefully crafted stem-winder. He not only told the believers that he was going to deliver, but told the thinkers how: by changing politics as usual, letting the people speak not the lobbyists. Very effective.

Yet despite Obama’s manifest political skills, huge war chest and massive spending against a maladroit opponent who often looks and sounds ridiculous (Bosnia, shot-and-a-beer), at the end of the Pennsylvania campaign Obama found himself with: Philadelphia. Take away Philadelphia and a couple of suburbs, and Clinton’s win was massive. She was beating Obama 70-30 in the parts of the state where the fall election will be close, while a Democrat Donald Duck could probably take Philadelphia against a conservative Republican.

What’s going on here? I (the superdelegate) am figuring, there’s just too much we don’t know about this guy. He’s high variance as the finance types would say. Given our lack of background with him, each piece of news sharply changes his value, like some dot com stock. He thinks that ordinary people “cling” to religion? He likes this guy Wright? And what’s the story with this guy Rezko, and the whole Chicago thing? And anyway, I don't really believe in this change message.  After all, I'm part of the system, and the system basically works.

And yet:  look at Clinton's negatives, and all the bad will from the Obama folks if we hand the nomination to her after his supporters' expectations were so high.

So here I am (the superdelegate), a prince keeping the view.  There must be some way out of here. There’s too much confusion. I can't get no relief. But the hour is getting late. Two riders are approaching. The wind’s beginning to howl.

Maybe there is an answer.

Comments

[Bill Henderson]

Larry,

I think you have this exactly right. These dynamics are on the brink of destroying the Democratic party (highly regrettable from my perspective). The prisoners dilemma is an apt characterization.

I my opinion, what will be most interesting about this process is that the superdelegates will be forces to reveal their true preferences; in hindsight, they would have been better off (personally) forcing Clinton out of the race earlier. Alienating the youth of the Democratic Party is potentially disastrous long term.

[Nelson Lund]

Larry--

Do the superdelegates have Bob Dylan or Jimi Hendrix playing in their heads?

[Chris Murphy]

Who is the joker? Who is the thief?