My very politically astute mother urged me not to write this article, deriding it as mere 'common wisdom' and perhaps beneath the high quality of punditry which I aspire to maintain. But I'm afraid the thought keeps nagging at me and I can't resist, even if I'm stating something which may seem a bit facile and even obvious to some.
The thought occurred to me looking at the results from Super Tuesday and has been reinforced in the week since then — and with the outcome of subsequent primaries. The dynamic of this primary election for the Democrats seems inexorable. It's like watching a trainwreck in slow motion, knowing that disaster is coming but also knowing that there's nothing which can be done to sway the juggernauts from their track towards destruction.
In the aftermath of the Bush administration and with the hostility which so many on the right feel towards John McCain, it would seem obvious that any reasonable candidate nominated by the Democrats would have a clear path to an easy victory and probably two terms in the White House. Something truly disastrous would have to take place to negate that obvious outcome. The interesting thing is that as the primary is shaping up, disaster seems not only likely, but inevitable.
The root of the problem is the practice of the Democratic Party of giving a huge number of party luminaries positions as 'superdelegates' with a vote in the outcome of the primary at the convention. Almost a fifth of their total delegates are picked this way, chosen by the party rather than by the people. This creates the possibility for the catastrophic scenario we now see unfolding.
In primary after primary we see Barack Obama winning by a small margin and gradually advancing his delegate count ahead of Hillary Clinton's. As it stands right now Obama has a lead of fewer than 100 voted delegates, a margin which will likely widen but probably never to more than 300 delegates out of a total which will eventually be around 2000. Clinton leads substantially in support from superdelegates, and with about 400 of them as yet unpledged, many of those are likely to go to her, preferring someone who is more predictable and more of a party insider. Clinton is also already campaigning to have the punishment which banned Florida's delegates lifted or to have that primary revoted, bringing her another nice chunk of additional delegates.
So at the Democratic convention we're quite likely to see Obama with a majority of the delegates voted on by the public in primaries and caucuses, going into the convention looking like a winner, and ultimately not getting the nomination after a bitter floor fight in which superdelegates and reinstated Florida delegates give the nomination to Clinton instead.
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Baronius
Dave, there's a lot of grim humor in this article. You don't mention the one position that Hillary would accept in exchange for an Obama Presidency, but I'm sure that you can figure it out.
Does anyone remember why the Dems have superdelegates? I seem to remember it was to make things fairer, to give the people more of a say. It was a table scrap tossed to Jesse Jackson, I think.
2 - JustOneMan
Dave,
Gee...sounds like another job for the Supreme Court! I could see either Obama or Billary going that route---
Wouldnt that be a grand finale!
JOM- "For Change,singles and twenties"
3 - Darren
DAVE:
Why do you believe that the candidate that Dem voters select will beat McCain? The Dems have been selecting losers for decades (Clinton winning only because of Perot's presence). I do not like the Superdelegate situation, but it has been there for years; we just have a close race now, so it is more discussed. The other thing -- if you count Fl and Mich -- then the "rank and file" Dems probably wanted Hill (popular vote AND delegates combined). I think McCain would beat either candidate at this point. The Dems are classic losers.
4 - Roger Choate
Interesting commentary, Dave.
It sounds as though the snowballing momentum of the Obama campaign may well lead some Super Delegates to think twice before selecting Hillary: they have their own future political careers to consider
5 - JustOneMan
The Super Delegates will also have to deal with their local and state elections...the impact of voting politcally rather than where the local constituents may come back to haunt people when they are running for reelection...
JOM- "For Change,singles and twenties"
6 - Dave Nalle
Darren, I don't know that the democratic candidate will beat McCain, but I do know that if they shoehorn Hillary into the front slot of the ticket then the democrats definitely WILL NOT beat McCain.
Dave
7 - Jon Sobel
You make a good point, but I think you've overstated it a bit - there are other scenarios that could result in a peaceful conclusion and a decisively chosen nominee. Obama could win nearly all the remaining primaries and rack up so much momentum that Hillary's team has to back down and sacrifice some of her ambition for the sake of party unity.
8 - Clavos
Dave, you say:
"Clinton is also already campaigning to have the punishment which banned Florida's delegates lifted or to have that primary revoted, bringing her another nice chunk of additional delegates."
I believe she's making a big mistake offering the "revote" option. Based on my (admittedly small and totally unscientific) sampling poll of Democrats I know personally, a significant number that voted Hillary the first time around, are re-thinking that vote as they watch Obama sweeping state after state.
She should stick to the seating of the delegates already elected option; she could lose a revote here in Florida..
9 - Dr Dreadful
Wishful thinking, Dave?
John Zogby pointed out this morning that a lot of the superdelegates remain uncommitted. A month or two ago, yes, they probably would have gone for Clinton, no question. Now, they're hedging their bets. Their own political nuts are, after all, in the cracker as well.
We'll probably have a better idea after Texas (yay Dave!) and Ohio.
10 - zingzing
i wonder if the superdelegates would take this kind of thinking (i.e. don't fuck with your voting public) into account when they cast their votes...
wouldn't that be smart?
11 - Baritone
I think that Dave's suppositions are not out of the question, but they also amount to a bit of wishful thinking.
What he doesn't consider is the similar disaray of the Reps AND the very real possibility that McCain may crash and burn as well. McCain's propensity for blowing a fuse could well, and once again send his campaign into a tail spin. While he is certainly more articulate than the current WH resident, he, too, tends to have lapses during his speeches, and he has all too often made thoughtless utterances which have come back to haunt him.
He is obviously very resilient for a man of his age, but his age, could still become a factor as the campaign wears on.
And, at this juncture Hucklebean is not dead in the water. Stranger things have happened. Gosh works in mysterious ways, don't you know?
Things may well work out as Dave predicts, but I don't believe he is any more prescient than the next guy. The Dems just may surprise those who feel so superior and confident that they will be unable to get out of their own way. If the current trend of Barack gaining both delegates and popular momentum continues through to the convention, I don't believe that the super delegates would be so out of touch or audacious they would ignore the will of the voters. Clinton pressures notwithstanding, the Dems want a victory in November more than they are determined to have Hillary as their standard bearer. If their best chance lay with Obama, then that is the direction they will go.
And Dave, along with most of the commenters here, assume to know the mind of HC when in fact, you know little or nothing. I don't claim to know her mind either, but she is intelligent. She didn't rise to prominence by being stupid. It may be a hard pill for her to swallow, but if the party opts for Obama, she may indeed swallow it and move on without taking the revenge that most of you predict, because she is also a realist.
Baritone
12 - Clavos
OTOH, she has also revealed herself to be a vindictive wench when crossed.
Can you say Travelgate?
13 - Michael J. West
I think that Dave's suppositions are not out of the question, but they also amount to a bit of wishful thinking. What he doesn't consider is the similar disaray of the Reps
The disarray of the Republicans is much more serious, actually, B-Tone.
Contentious though the Democrats are right now, it is NOT an actual ideological split. You are not hearing major segments of the Democratic base threatening to sit out the election if one candidate or the other gets the nomination. You don't have high-profile Dem pundits suggesting they'll defect to the other team, either.
I kinda suspect Dave's not so much thinking wishfully, as he is projecting.
14 - zingzing
pulling a trick out of moonraven's basket! what ever happened to her?
15 - JustOneMan
Clavos...I see the "Kerry Syndrome" (medical term - Flip Flopus Stupidus) effecting some of your Dumbocrat friends... "re-thinking that vote as they watch Obama sweeping state after state."
So they "voted for her before they would vote against her"...gee so much for loyalty..
JOM
16 - JustOneMan
West...you are in denial "it is NOT an actual ideological split"????
Obamas story - "I am new"
Clinton - "I am old"
JOM
17 - Dr Dreadful
JOM again demonstrates his Dick and Jane grasp of American politics.
Pledging to sweep with a new broom is not the same thing as an ideological split. Both Obama and Clinton remain basically true to core Democratic values.
The problem with the Republicans at the moment is that there is a big row over what the party's core values actually are. There's the faction that thinks Republicanism means steering the nation on a Christian-based path, with all the moral regulation that entails. And there's the faction that advocates fiscal responsibility, an end to big government and greater social inclusiveness.
It's a fundamental schism, and... oh wait, this is JOM I'm talking to. Why do I even bother?
Come to that, why is he even allowed to vote?
18 - zingzing
because it's illegal to kill him.
19 - zingzing
what?
20 - handyguy
I don't know that the democratic candidate will beat McCain, but I do know that if they shoehorn Hillary into the front slot of the ticket then the democrats definitely WILL NOT beat McCain.
Malarkey. You don't know that a bit more than anyone else does or can.
Here's my prediction: HRC will withdraw if she loses by significant numbers in Ohio and Texas. Part of being a skillful politician is knowing when to fold 'em. And there are no more skillful and smart politicians than the Clintons.
There is an outside chance that she will stage a comeback in Ohio and Texas comparable to her New Hampshire, California and New Jersey wins. If that happens and the race goes on past the morning of March 5, then "shoehorn" is not the appropriate verb. It would make a Clinton/Obama ticket more likely, and also more acceptable.
HRC still has a lot of fervent supporters. And not nearly all HRC supporters dislike Obama, or vice versa. A lot of Democrats, such as moi, like both candidates enormously.
In other words, none of this has to be bad news. Of course it is self serving for Dave to paint it so. But it is true that the Dems have a long sad history of proving their skill at losing presidential elections that they should win.
21 - Baronius
Dread, there really isn't a fight over the core values of the Republican Party. Republicans believe basically the same stuff they always have. The trouble is, they didn't get a nominee who represents them well.
Dave will no doubt disagree, but for the last dozen elections there have been two stages in the GOP nomination. (Not every time, but usually.) The moderates and conservatives coalesce around their respective best candidate, then those two slug it out. This year, no one was sure which candidate was which. There was the religious conservative (Huck), the newly-minted conservative (Romney), the generally conservative guy who hates conservatives (McCain), et cetera. There was no more grappling with the GOP identity than usual.
I've already speculated that the Democratic Convention could be a fight between freedom rider Clinton and Jim Crow Obama, where she tries to depict him as disenfranchising the poor people of Florida and Michigan. If she succeeds, there would be scorched earth even before the general election (which would feature the two nastiest candidates in history).
That's what I keep thinking about. McCain and Clinton are like two kids on the playground who reach the slide at the same time:
"My turn!"
"No, my turn!"
"NO! MY TURN!"
22 - Dave Nalle
Pledging to sweep with a new broom is not the same thing as an ideological split. Both Obama and Clinton remain basically true to core Democratic values.
Actually, I'd suggest that they both subscribe to different neo-democrat values. Obama is a populist/socialist while Clinton is an international socialist. Both pay lipservice to the traditions of the party, but are actually radically different from what the democratic party was even 20 or 30 years ago.
The problem with the Republicans at the moment is that there is a big row over what the party's core values actually are.
You've totally misread this. There's no argument over the actual core values. There are arguments over whether any of the candidates really follow those core values and there are those who would like to ADD new core values.
There's the faction that thinks Republicanism means steering the nation on a Christian-based path, with all the moral regulation that entails. And there's the faction that advocates fiscal responsibility, an end to big government and greater social inclusiveness.
The first group would mostly be former democrats who are past due for a boot out the wide open door to starting a new party.
Dave
23 - Dave Nalle
As for my supposed 'wishful thinking', it doesn't really factor in here. I'm just observing things as they are.
I'll now officially admit that I plan to vote in the Democratic Primary and vote for Obama. I'm doing it because it will put Hillary an extra step away from the presidency and because I have a great desire to vote against a particular candidate in our local democratic primary.
Dave
24 - Dr Dreadful
You've totally misread this. There's no argument over the actual core values.
What those values are rather depends on who you ask. Confusion, then, if you don't like argument.
The RNC's website isn't very edifying either.
I'll now officially admit that I plan to vote in the Democratic Primary
You might as well make your vote count, Dave. The Republican primaries are basically a procession from here on in. McCain won't miss one less flower thrown from the crowd.
I have a great desire to vote against a particular candidate in our local democratic primary.
Good God, MCH isn't running, is he?
;-)
25 - JustOneMan
Dredge again demonstrates his “Bill and Hillary” grasp of American politics.
Pledging to “change the foundation of the way politics are conducted in Washington” is about a big an ideological split as there can be. Both “the old coot” MCcain and Jerkabee remain basically true to core middle of the road (wimpy) non-conservative Republican values.
The problem with the Dumbocrats at the moment is that the racism in the party's core DNA is hanging out there for the whole world to see. “Cant let the black man get too much power now can we Bill and Hill??” There's a faction of the DUMBS that think the races are equal and there is another that believes that “black folk” aren’t ready to come into the White House.
It's a fundamental schism, and... oh wait, this is Dredge I'm talking to. Why do I even bother? He’s one of the guys with the white sheet in his closet supporting the old-line racists in the Dumbocratic Party
JOM “Change is good as long as it doesn’t effect me”