The Logic Of Clinton's Argument To the Superdelegates

The normally sharp James Joyner plays dumb in order to take a swipe at Hillary Clinton:

The “Electoral College” argument, though, is interesting. On its face, it’s silly. The Democratic Party has a set of rules in place for how it selects its nominee. Those rules don’t at all resemble winner-take-all model mirrored on the Electoral College. Consequently, her opponents didn’t run their campaigns as if that were the case. To now claim that this is how the race should be decided is brazen.

Joyner's point is silly. Clinton is arguing to the superdelegates who can vote for whomever they like. Clinton is arguing she has a better chance to win in November. It is silly to argue that this argument is somehow out of bounds. She may be wrong. You can argue against her points. But to call the argument silly is, well, silly. Joyner himself seems to recognize this:

[S]ince Clinton’s argument is intended to sway unpledged superdelegates, whose job it is to decide which candidate will represent the party best in the general election, it’s a defensible point.

Of course it is a defensible point, rendering Joyner's previous pronouncements in the same post inoperative. Strange logic from the normally astute James Joyner.

Add to del.icio.us

Digg this

Post to Furl

Add to reddit

Add to myYahoo!