I agree with Ezra that it would be unfortunate for the nomination to come down to superdelegates, and I would hope that the norm among many superdelegates would be to support a clear winner. A couple of additional points:
- The decision coming down to the superdelegates may not be quite as dire in practice as it seems. In a case where a candidate has a clear lead but not quite enough to win, incentives are likely to take care of themselves, as it's in the interest of superdelegates to back a winner. If the result of the primaries and caucuses is a near-tie, conversely, the election being settled by the superdelegates is less problematic, since a very narrow lead could be almost entirely a product of arbitrary choices in the primary schedule anyway. I could be optimistic, but the scenario that could produce a really bad outcome -- a clear winner being thwarted by superdelegates -- seems relatively unlikely.
- As Publius says, trying to seat the Florida and Michigan delegates should be -- in absence of a fair election with known stakes being held in those states -- considered the nuclear option, one that would tear the party apart. There's an important distinction between maximizing your advantages within the existing rules and retroactively changing the rules when they don't work in your favor that has to be maintained. It's fair for candidates to fight for superdelegates; it's completely unacceptable for candidates to try for ex post facto rule changes to turn a non-election into an election.
--Scott Lemieux
