The coming superdelegate backlash?

With Hillary currently leading the delegate tally on the strength of her margin among superdelegates, a backlash seems inevitable. Discuss...

Update 2/6 3:38 PM: The prospects of superdelegates deciding the nomination makes the backlash even more likely, particularly if Democratic incumbents bail out Hillary. See Ezra Klein for early criticism.

Comments

[Mark D]

Mike Allen at the Politico has an interesting piece where Obama's people and NBC are projecting the numbers into the 800s (just based on yesterday's pledged delegates.) http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0208/8358.html
They're suggesting Obama won yesterday's delegate count. As for the superdelegates, how firm are these numbers? These delegates have strong incentives to get behind the winner, and should one candidate start to break into a lead in the upcoming weeks, I think those numbers might change, no?

[SteveW]

Isn't Clinton also leading among the pledged delegates?

[Ben]

Isn't this what political scientists have always wanted? To strengthen the political parties by letting active inside leaders decide who their nominee will be? Given that Democratic party elites may get to choose their nominee, while the primary system is giving the Republican party a nominee who many elites seem to not like, this election could be a good test of that argument.

[Jinchi]

I always thought the electoral college would be scrapped the next time the winner of the popular vote was denied the presidency. I didn't realize that those who voted for the victor would be perfectly happy to accept a win despite being in the minority.

I even remember George Bush's supporters suggesting Al Gore should refuse the presidency if he lost the popular vote but won the delegate count.

I expect if Clinton wins using superdelegates, her supporters will cheer a victory by the rules of the game and won't worry too much that the game is undemocratic, while Obama's voters will cry foul.

The reverse is also true, of course.