Your logical conundrum of the day
Over the past few days, the Clinton campaign has made the following two arguments: a) Caucuses don’t really count as much as primaries because, “the caucus system is undemocratic and caters mostly to party activists.” b) The superdelegates — which consist only primarily of party activists — should not follow the primary results but instead, ...
Over the past few days, the Clinton campaign has made the following two arguments: a) Caucuses don't really count as much as primaries because, "the caucus system is undemocratic and caters mostly to party activists." b) The superdelegates -- which consist only primarily of party activists -- should not follow the primary results but instead, "should make an independent decision based on who they thought would be the strongest candidate and president." In the comments, someone please logically reconcile those two statements. [But isn't Obama equally contradictory by making the reverse of both arguments?--ed. Actually, no. I think the Obama campaign's argument is that because of turnout, the caucus states have largely reflected the will of the voters -- and therefore superdelegates should simply follow suit in making their decisions. I think that's consistent -- but I'm willing to be corrected in the comments.] UPDATE: It's been pointed out in the comments that a lot of elected officials are also superdelegates. I was assuming that any elected Democrat is a de facto party activist (they're not mutually exclusive categories), but others might not make the same distinction. That said, looking at this list of superdelegates, I do believe a healthy majority of them consist of party activists of one stripe or another. ANOTHER UPDATE: Over at Slate, Christopher Beam takes a closer look at the superdelegates: Clinton and Obama are fairly close among governors (10-10, respectively), senators (12-9), and congress members (71-58). It?s among DNC officials that Clinton really takes the lead, with 125 to Obama?s 57.5. In other words, Clinton?s sway appears to be much stronger among party hacks than among elected officials (emphasis added). This reinforces the logical conundrum -- is there any way Clinton can reconcile her spin on the caucus states and the superdelegates? Hat tip: '08 Guru
Over the past few days, the Clinton campaign has made the following two arguments:
a) Caucuses don’t really count as much as primaries because, “the caucus system is undemocratic and caters mostly to party activists.” b) The superdelegates — which consist
onlyprimarily of party activists — should not follow the primary results but instead, “should make an independent decision based on who they thought would be the strongest candidate and president.”
In the comments, someone please logically reconcile those two statements. [But isn’t Obama equally contradictory by making the reverse of both arguments?–ed. Actually, no. I think the Obama campaign’s argument is that because of turnout, the caucus states have largely reflected the will of the voters — and therefore superdelegates should simply follow suit in making their decisions. I think that’s consistent — but I’m willing to be corrected in the comments.] UPDATE: It’s been pointed out in the comments that a lot of elected officials are also superdelegates. I was assuming that any elected Democrat is a de facto party activist (they’re not mutually exclusive categories), but others might not make the same distinction. That said, looking at this list of superdelegates, I do believe a healthy majority of them consist of party activists of one stripe or another. ANOTHER UPDATE: Over at Slate, Christopher Beam takes a closer look at the superdelegates:
Clinton and Obama are fairly close among governors (10-10, respectively), senators (12-9), and congress members (71-58). It?s among DNC officials that Clinton really takes the lead, with 125 to Obama?s 57.5. In other words, Clinton?s sway appears to be much stronger among party hacks than among elected officials (emphasis added).
This reinforces the logical conundrum — is there any way Clinton can reconcile her spin on the caucus states and the superdelegates? Hat tip: ’08 Guru
Daniel W. Drezner is a professor of international politics at the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy at Tufts University and co-host of the Space the Nation podcast. Twitter: @dandrezner
More from Foreign Policy
Can Russia Get Used to Being China’s Little Brother?
The power dynamic between Beijing and Moscow has switched dramatically.
Xi and Putin Have the Most Consequential Undeclared Alliance in the World
It’s become more important than Washington’s official alliances today.
It’s a New Great Game. Again.
Across Central Asia, Russia’s brand is tainted by Ukraine, China’s got challenges, and Washington senses another opening.
Iraqi Kurdistan’s House of Cards Is Collapsing
The region once seemed a bright spot in the disorder unleashed by U.S. regime change. Today, things look bleak.
Sign up for World Brief
FP’s flagship evening newsletter guiding you through the most important world stories of the day. Delivered weekdays.
By submitting your email, you agree to the Privacy Policy and Terms of Use and to receive email correspondence from us. You may opt out at any time.
