On Fri, 7 Mar 2008, Charles Brown wrote:
> > Like revoting the Florida and Michigan primaries, which hadn't
> > occurred to me, and now seriously seems to be being considered...
> > Clearly then Clinton could cherish hope of a legitimate victory and
> > would have every reason to fight on.
>
> >http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/07/us/politics/07delegates.html
>
> From the article:
>
> "Even if Florida and Michigan conduct new elections, it is unlikely
> that either candidate will have enough pledged delegates to win the
> nomination outright, advisers to both campaigns say."
That's the not the point. The point is that they could give her enough to have a majority of the elected delegates. That is what most primary voters consider the sine non qua of a legitimate election. Her legitimacy could then be strengthened through the magic of superdelegates, properly applied, i.e., to overwhelming support the winner and give them the supermajority you need under the rules to win. The magic of the trick is that the superdelegates get legitimated by confirming the voters choice, and they in turn add legitimacy to who they vote for, by making the majority large and beyond dispute.
And the reverse would then apply to Obama -- if the superdelegates gave the election to him in those circumstances, they would delegitimate the whole party. The legitimacy amplification trick only works if you've got legitimacy to amplify to start with.
Michael