How to destroy the Democratic Party

As the Democratic primary wears on, it is becoming more and more likely that it will not be decided until the superdelegates cast their 700-odd votes on the convention floor in Denver. There is now a battle being waged for the hearts and minds of these party elites, each candidate trying to demonstrate that he or she is the true choice of the people and most capable of bringing victory to the Democratic Party in November.

The Obama campaign knows that if it can finish the race with more delegates, more states won, and more popular votes, then it will be virtually impossible for the superdelegates to side with Clinton without acknowledging that they are overturning the will of the people and risking widespread outrage and disillusionment within the party. Many ordinary Americans have spent lots of money, time, and emotional energy supporting either Obama or Clinton--they will not be too pleased of their hard work is overturned by a handful of party fat cats all Tammany Hall style. And so Obama will continue to vie for this most-delegates/most-states/most-votes trifecta.

The Clinton campaign, of course, is aware of the situation and is trying its hardest to prevent Obama from doing this. Obama has already clinched the battle for most contests won--he has 28 compared with Clinton's 15, with 12 remaining. Not all data is available for the popular vote, but at this point Obama leads by about a half million votes, roughly 13 mil to Clinton's 12.4. And there is now widespread agreement amongst election mavens that, due to the proportional way that delegates are awarded, Clinton would need to win by unrealistically high margins in the remaining contests in order overtake Obama in pledged (i.e., non-super, or democratically earned) delegates. For example, this last Tuesday, even with the big win in Ohio Clinton still only netted about a 4 delegate gain on her rival.

She's getting good press right now and has been awarded the status of "having momentum", but the picture for Clinton is still bleak--which might explain why she is openly pursuing the nuclear option of trying to get the delegates from Michigan and Florida seated. For those not abreast, Michigan and Florida broke party rules and held their primaries early this year in order to protest the primary schedule. In solidarity with the Democratic National Committee's decision to follow the rules and ban these states from the convention, all the major candidates--including Obama and Clinton--signed a pledge that they would not "campaign" in those states or "participate in any way" for the primary. Though candidates did raise money in the states, there was no actual campaigning (no calls, no ads, no speeches, etc.).

Hillary Clinton won both states handily, but the contests were hardly legitimate. In Michigan, Obama wasn't even on the ballot--Clinton won 58%-37% against "uncommitted". In Florida both candidates' names were on the ballot, but due to her name recognition, Clinton was able to coast to an easy 16-point victory (indeed, Obama's pattern has been to start from behind in a state and close the margin with Clinton rapidly as his campaign picks up steam and he becomes more familiar to voters). In both contests, many supporters for both sides didn't show up to the polls because they were told that their votes wouldn't count anyway.

Before the results of these so-called "beauty-contest" primaries, there was not a peep from the Clinton campaign as to the fairness of the DNC ruling to strip the states of delegates--certainly, the fact that she signed the pledge and didn't campaign there seemed to be indication enough that she agreed with the DNC's decision. However--and with a degree of chutzpah that is rapidly becoming par for the course in the Clinton campaign--after the contests resolved in her favor, she suddenly began to question whether voters in Michigan and Florida were being disenfranchised, and openly requested that the delegates be counted at the convention. From the New York Times:

Ever since it became apparent that Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton would win the primary vote in Florida on Jan. 29, when she took nearly 50 percent of the 1.7 million Democratic votes to Mr. Obama’s 33 percent, she has insisted that the state’s delegates be seated at the convention....Phil Singer, spokesman for the Clinton campaign, said today that the senator stands by her wish — restated as recently as yesterday — to have the delegates seated.

Not only is such a position blatantly self-serving and unfair, but it would require the Democratic Party to effectively change the rules midstream in order to help a specific candidate.

It is hard for me to believe that Clinton is unaware of how damaging this is, and possibly will be, to the Democratic Party. If her gambit fails, then she will have needlessly dragged out a long and bitter primary, giving McCain time to consolidate his base as well as ammunition to use in the general election (McCain can now quote Clinton as saying that, whereas McCain has a lifetime of experience and is therefore qualified to be commander-in-chief, Obama has nothing but a speech in 2002 under his belt--ouch). If she wins, she will have alienated the largest and most motivated youth vote in decades, and will have appeared to the African American community to have viciously stolen the nomination from the first viable black Presidential candidate in history. Moreover, the conservatives and independents that Obama has drawn to the Democratic side will flock to McCain. In short: she will have gained the nomination at the expense of hobbling her party.

If Obama secures his most-delegates/most-votes/most-states trifecta and he still loses the nomination based on the whim of the superdelegates, I will be angry and disappointed--but ultimately I will still probably soldier on through to November and cast my ballot for the Democratic side. However, if Clinton only pulls off the superdelegate coup because she was able to reinstate Michigan and Florida, then I am going to have an awful difficult time voting for her in the general election. There are simply limits to far how you can go to secure the nomination, how vicious the internecine battles can get. For her to steal the nomination from Obama in an eerie echo of Bush-Gore 2000 would be too much for me and many other Democrats to bear; it would destroy the party.

As a final note, I will mention that it looks like the DNC and the outlaw states are trying to hash-out a do-over scheme of some kind--there's been talks of holding primaries or caucuses in the two states. This might be a good compromise: even though the rules are the rules and Michigan and Florida willfully broke them, some magnanimity on the issue might be wise so as not to alienate Democrats in these states come general election time.