CONVENTION RULES FAVOR CLINTON

||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||

REAL CLEAR POLITICS - There are two features of the Democratic
nomination process that could help Hillary.

First, Democratic primaries and caucuses allocate delegates
proportionally . Candidates win "pledged" delegates based not on whether
they win a state - but on how many voters support them. So, for
instance, even though Clinton and Edwards lost Iowa, they still won a
few delegates.

Second, about 20% of all delegates to the Democratic convention are
"super" or "unpledged" delegates. This quirky provision - which does not
have a corollary on the Republican side - has its origins in Chicago,
1968. In the wake of that disastrous convention, the DNC formed the
McGovern-Fraser Commission to recommend improvements for the nomination
process. McGovern-Fraser suggested that the process be opened to
rank-and-file Democrats on the principle of "one Democrat, one vote."
The reforms contributed to George McGovern (the same McGovern from the
commission) winning the nomination in 1972. The party establishment did
not like this. So, it added the super delegate provision to serve as a
check on the party rank-and-file.

This year, according to the indispensable Green Papers , there will be
798 super delegates at the convention in Denver. They include all
elected members of the Democratic National Committee, all current
Democratic members of Congress (including non-voting delegates), all
sitting Democratic governors, and past party luminaries (e.g. former
presidents). Unlike pledged delegates, who are bound to particular
candidates, super delegates are free to vote their consciences.

Here is how these rules could help Clinton.

Suppose that Clinton stumbles early, but rebounds later. By the end of
the nomination period - she draws even with Obama in the primaries. She
wins 45% of the aggregate vote. He wins 45%. Edwards, who in this
scenario dropped out some time before the end of the season, wins 10%.
That could yield the following count among pledged delegates:

Obama: 1,464 delegates Clinton: 1,464 delegates Edwards: 325 delegates

This leaves the 798 super delegates, who can support whomever they
choose. Let us suppose, in this scenario, they divvy up the way the Hill
reports declared members of Congress have so far split their support
between the three major candidates: 62% for Clinton, 25% for Obama, and
13% for Edwards. That would change the delegate count to:

Clinton: 1,967 Delegates Obama: 1,664 Delegates Edwards: 420 Delegates

A candidate needs 2,026 delegates to win the nomination. In this
scenario, Clinton goes from being tied for first to having a solid lead,
and just 58 delegates short of the nomination. If she could persuade
about three-fifths of the Edwards' super delegates to back her, she
would win.

Now, this is not a prediction about what will happen. It is simply meant
to illustrate that the rules of the nomination process give Clinton two
advantages.

First, the proportional allocation rule buys Clinton time to get her
campaign back on track. . .

Second, a tie between Obama and Clinton would probably be broken in
Clinton's favor, thanks to the super delegates. . .

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/horseraceblog/2008/01/clintons_plan_b.html


||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||