The first time I saw this nonsensical phrase--"Coup by Superdelegates"--I naturally assumed it would collapse into oblivion upon first contact with the mildest bit of rational thinking. The fact that it continues being bandied about despite it's logically broken foundation, has inspired me to examine this phrase a little more closely.
Before I overanalyze this fearmongering and hyperbolic phrase, let's accept reality #1: barring a concession, neither Democratic candidate currently running in 2008 will win without the votes of superdelegates. Hence, whichever presidential candidate goes on to represent the Democratic party in the Fall will do so through a so-called "coup by superdelegates."
From wikipedia:
"Politically, the coup d’état is a type of political engineering, generally violent (hence "strike", "blow"; French "coup"), but not always, yet differing from a revolution (by a larger, armed group to effect violent, radical change to the political system) in that the change is to the government...
Also from wiki:
"Superdelegate" is an informal term for some of the delegates to the Democratic National Convention, the presidential nominating convention of the United States Democratic Party.
Unlike most convention delegates, the superdelegates are not selected based on the party primaries and caucuses in each U.S. state, in which voters choose among candidates for the party's presidential nomination. Instead, most of the superdelegates are seated automatically, based solely on their status as current or former elected officeholders and party officials. Others are chosen during the primary season. All the superdelegates are free to support any candidate for the nomination."
You will note the rules for superdelgates: they're free to support any candidate. Thus, Senators Kennedy and Kerry and Gov Richardson can vote for Sen Obama despite the fact that their constituents selected Sen Clinton. That's their right as superdelegates. And Rep John Lewis can support Sen Clinton--and freely switch to Sen Obama under political pressure from his own constituents.
According to Slate, Gov Howard Dean actually had more delegates than Sen John Kerry after Kerry's victories in the Iowa caucus and the New Hampshire primary in the last presidential election cycle. But I certainly don't remember all this fearmongering and whining about a "coup by superdelegates" going into 2004. Strange. Now it's an issue!
Reality #2: Sen Obama will finish ahead of Sen Clinton in pledged delegates.
Sen Obama currently has 1628 pledged delegates to Sen Clinton's 1493. That's a separation of less than 135 delegates with about 500 still up for grabs. The same proportional delegate system that allowed Sen Obama to survive losing California and New York will prevent him from securing the nomination through pledged delegates. These are the rules the Democratic party set up for primaries.
Look on the GOP side--Sen John McCain has virtually secured his party's nomination despite having only 1 win out of 12 caucuses, largely on the strength of wins in big states like California an New York. Those are their rules (and Republicans have done pretty well in general elections over the past 40 years, by the way). Obviously, Democrats put more emphasis on caucuses then Republicans do. But why wait until now to complain about a possible "coup by caucuses"? And why wait until now to complain about a possible "coup by superdelegages"? The Democratic parties rules have been in place for decades.
There are a lot of reasons superdelegates might choose to support Sen Obama, and there are likewise good reasons why some might choose to support Sen Clinton. But there are still 10 more states due to vote. Let the voters have their say. Talking about a "coup by superdelegates" is at least premature, and at worst simplistic fearmongering. Superdelegates seem to take the path of least resistance--they're followers in this process, not leaders. But they are not bound by pledged delegates, and are meant to break the tie in close races.
That's not a coup, that's their job. Quit yer whining!
Let's work to change the rules after the election if you really think they're unfair--complaining about them now only serves to out you as a whiner and diminish your preferred candidate.