Mathematically, Barack Obama is set to win the Democratic nomination even if Hillary Clinton wins both the Indiana and North Carolina primaries. But Senator Obama’s nomination will come as a shock to some.

Despite the fact that Senator Clinton has been surging during the last two months and Mr. Obama has been flagging, party rules and the superdelegates’ preference practically guarantee that Mr. Obama will be the nominee. This will come as a surprise to white blue-collar voters, who support Mrs. Clinton.

Going into today’s primaries Mr. Obama leads Mrs. Clinton by 154 delegates, which gives him an all but insurmountable advantage. The conventional wisdom is that the superdelegates won’t wrest away the nomination from a black candidate who has won the most elected delegates.

The Democrats cannot afford to alienate African Americans, a constituency that votes for the party’s nominee at rates of 90% or better in general elections. Smart politics dictates keeping loyal voters happy. But nominating Mr. Obama will come at a cost.

The overwhelming fear is that these blue-collar voters will stay home in the fall if Mr. Obama is the nominee. When superdelegates rally to support Mr. Obama, Democratic white blue-collar voters will pull the lever for Mr. McCain in November.

The often unsaid reality of the 2008 campaign is that the deck is stacked against white, working class voters due to the Democratic Party’s distribution of delegates. In Pennsylvania, Mrs. Clinton rode the support of these voters to a victory by a margin of 214,224 voters. Despite her win there, she gained only 10 more delegates than Mr. Obama.

Mr. Obama, by contrast, won by a sounder margin in the Idaho caucuses. He defeated Mrs. Clinton: 16,880 to 3,665. Thanks to this 13,000-vote margin, Mr. Obama garnered 12 delegates. Although Mrs. Clinton won Pennsylvania by a margin that is 16 times greater than the margin by which Mr. Obama won Idaho, she received two fewer delegates. Mr. Obama won more delegates in Idaho because of the high percentage of his victory there, although the state is practically irrelevant to a Democratic win in November. In Pennsylvania, Mr. Obama’s losses were mitigated because his success came in urban areas, which carry more delegates than less populated and less Democratic areas.

An analysis of Ohio demonstrates analogous results. In the Texas primary, where Mrs. Clinton won the popular vote by more than 100,000 votes out of almost 2 million, she ended up losing five delegates to Mr. Obama. Again, this was due to Democratic delegate apportionment and Mr. Obama’s success in a caucus there when less than 43,000 participated.

The Illinois senator deserves credit for targeting delegate rich, but voter-poor caucuses throughout the Midwest and the Mountain states. While Mr. Obama’s supporters are quick to emphasize his advantage among elected delegates, earned primarily in caucuses, these victories carry an aspect of fundamental unfairness. Since caucuses are held during the evening, they exclude those who work the night shift, service men and women, and the elderly, many of whom can’t make it out at night to vote. Caucuses favor passionate zealots who have the time and leisure to participate in one.

Moreover, party rules have disenfranchised voters in Michigan, another important swing state filled with blue-collar workers. Thus, Michigan’s votes, which would hurt Mr. Obama and help Mrs. Clinton, will not be included in the final tally of Democratic votes.

Ultimately, it looks like Democratic Party leaders are arranging the distribution of delegates to reflect the future of the party. This future consists of an alliance between minority voters and educated professionals and academics.

The party leaders are sending a clear message: they want more weight and more delegates to be given to Democratic districts in voter rich metropolises. In turn, this gives less of a voice to blue-collar workers who inhabit decaying medium size cities and their environs and rural areas.

Perhaps party leaders think that with the decline of the manufacturing and industrial industries, there will be fewer and fewer blue-collar voters in the years to come.

Mr. Gitell (gitell.com) is a contributor of The New York Sun.