Superdelegate Game Theory

Why haven't a critical mass of the remaining superdelegates yet swung to Senator Obama and ended this destructive internecine battle?

Consider:

• It is virtually certain -- regardless of Pennsylvania -- that Obama is going to end the primaries with the most pledged delegates.
• It is exceedingly unlikely that Hillary will be able to make up the pledged delegate deficit by swinging superdelegates to her side.
• Even if Hillary could poach the nomination, no one wants that to happen; as everyone knows, this would tear the party in two.
• It is overwhelmingly to the Democrats' advantage to end this dispute quickly -- to avoid sending a crippled nominee into the general election.
• Obama has proven, through his deft handling of the Rev. Wright matter, that he is not easily swiftboated and not going to spontaneously self-destruct. That is to say, this is emphatically not an instance where superdelegates are needed to wrest the nomination away from a sure loser of a candidate.
• The uncommitted superdelegates alone have the power to avert an (even more) toxic nomination fight by breaking in significant numbers toward Obama. Indeed, if 50-100 superdelegates broke for Obama tonight, we would be dealing with Huckabee Rodham Clinton. The pressure for her to quit would be overwhelming.
• These superdelegates are savvy, politically sophisticated people who fully understand all of the above.

Therefore I ask: Why are the super delegates not moving decisively -- right now -- to support Obama and end this destructive fight?

I believe the answer may have nothing to do with good faith deliberations regarding who is best to lead the party. The ultimate outcome, as noted above, is a fait accompli.

Rather, I fear what we may be seeing is game theory playing out.

I have no doubt that influential superdelegates (by which I mean individuals who have the power to bring a block of superdelegates with them) fully understand their value to Obama. They know -- and Obama knows -- that every week Hillary is allowed to take pot shots at him, Obama's chances of ultimately winning the presidency are marginally diminished. Therefore, Obama has every reason to want this nomination fight to end. A timely end is worth a lot to Obama.

I suspect these influential superdelegates are holding out because they know they would be fools to give away their support when they can sell it. Sell it for a promise of a nomination to a high level cabinet position, a judicial appointment, etc.

Interestingly, however, while the value of superdelegate commitments is high right now, once 50-100 more superdelegates move to Obama, the race will truly be over, and those who have not yet made their deal will be left holding the political equivalent of Bear Stearns stock. Indeed, once a sufficient number move to Obama, the others are likely to follow quickly so that they can claim to have been critical to putting the next President "over the top." No one wants to be the 2,027th delegate.

Thus, I believe the game theory right now boils down to this question: How much is it worth to Obama to avoid absorbing below-the-belt shots from Hillary for the next five weeks? Take that quantum of political utility. Divide it by 50. That is the market price of a superdelegate vote.

I propose a parlor game. Make a list of the next 50 superdelegates to support Obama, and then watch their political fortunes starting in January 2009.

Comments

[heather]

Hmm. This is very insightful. My husband has very similar views of the situation and ironically reads many of the books that you have listed. I am on a scrapbooking forum with Julie and I tend to share these sentiments myself. I plan to pop in from time to time.

Cheers!

[Meghan]

I didn't know you had a blog!