Another reading of the delegate story

The panic induced by the story in The Politico is, I think, unwarranted.

The whole story is based on the following quote:

"I swear it is not happening now, but as we get closer to the convention, if it is a stalemate, everybody will be going after everybody’s delegates," a senior Clinton official told me Monday afternoon. "All the rules will be going out the window."

The key parts, to me, are these:

1. If it is a stalemate...

2. I swear it is not happening now...

If it's not a stalemate, well then, no worries.

And if it's not happening now, well then, no worries.

But if neither candidate has the 2025 delegate votes required to secure the nomination all sewn up, then there's not going to be a nominee. Those are the rules. It doesn't require a numerical tie for it to be a stalemate. It just requires that no candidate gets 2025 votes.

We'll know several months in advance of the convention whether anyone has some combination of pledged delegates and "superdelegates" that gets them to 2025, and we'll know just as far in advance if no one does. And if no one does, it will be the responsibility of the candidates to get themselves there, and in all likelihood, the sooner the better.

That will require courting any delegates available, pledged or unpledged. While we might prefer that the candidates limit themselves to courting only the unpledged delegates, the reality is that the rules permit all delegates, pledged or not, to cast their votes any way they like.

But again, let's look at what triggers this alleged plan: a stalemate.

As unlikely as it might be for us to get close to the convention actually still sitting at a stalemate, it's not completely out of the question. If superdelegates fail to commit in sufficient numbers and a stalemate persists, the candidates really don't have many choices. You can sit on your hands for three or more months, while the country wonders why Democrats can't get their act together, and make the race into a four-day sprint for delegates scrounged up behind closed doors, or you can try to settle the issue ahead of time by recruiting more delegates to your side.

Either of the above options would give you the choice of pursuing solely unpledged superdelegates or both pledged and unpledged delegates, of course. And you might even opt to start with the unpledged delegates, first. But the rules are the rules, and if any delegate is eligible to switch, it'd be awfully unwise not to both shore up your hold on your own delegates, but also to put out feelers to see if there's anyone who, for whatever reason, would consider switching.

Again, though, we have to go back to the one and only quote we have to go on, and that says:

[I]f it is a stalemate, everybody will be going after everybody’s delegates..."

If.

If it's a stalemate, there's just no other way to get to the nomination.

So, is a situation in which no candidate has 2025 pledged delegates, and neither has enough superdelegates committed to them to get there a "stalemate?" Or is it only a "stalemate" if neither has 2025, and all remaining superdelegates formally swear a blood oath that they will not commit to one candidate or another before the convention? At what point is it fair game for one or another of the candidates to decide they need to do something they weren't originally planning on and start working to secure the nomination for themselves? And what's fair to do if the superdelegates just aren't moving?

Unlikely?

You bet. But then again, the less likely it is, the less you need to worry about delegate poaching, because the plan only becomes operative in the event of that unlikely stalemate.

We only have this one quote to go on, and it seems a stretch to read the part about the existence of the plan as gospel truth, but the part about it not happening now, and it only happening in the event of a stalemate, as if it had never been said.

UPDATE: The Clinton campaign e-mails with a statement from spokesman Phil Singer:

"We have not, are not and will not pursue the pledged delegates of Barack Obama. It's now time for the Obama campaign to be clear about their intentions."

UPDATE 2: The Obama campaign has its response out now, too:

"We would absolutely not use these sorts of tactics. Senator Obama is focused on winning contests and earning the support of pledged delegates."

Had to go to TPM to get that response, though. Not that I'm on anyone's list or anything. But a hat tip to, well, Peter Daou at the Clinton campaign for pointing me to it.