First and foremost, the only thing of which I'm absolutely certain is that I have no idea how this is going to end, and I wouldn't turn my back on anyone who says they do. CNN has Obama with 1321 pledged delegates to Clinton's 1186. MSNBC scores it Obama-1307, HRC-1175. And AP's calculations show Obama with a 125 delegate lead, 1275 to 1150. I mean, these organizations have reporters, pundits, researchers, interns. They've got the internet. They've got Chuck Todd, for chrissakes, and they can't agree on a number. Agree? They can't even come close. Given the variables in play -- the Clintons' inexorable refusal to to lose, the whims of the super delegates, Obama's reluctance to enter the fray, HRC's decision to go dirty, the closeness of the contest, the nature of the states she has won vs. those he has, the Michigan and Florida balls still waiting to drop -- it seems improbable that this doesn't carry forward to the convention in Denver.
Second, it's at least as easy to see this ending badly for the Democrats as it is to picture Obama or Clinton raising a hand in oath on the steps of the Capitol next January 20th. Fractious conventions don't bode well for the party doing the arguing. 1952 was the last truly brokered Democratic Convention. Adlai Stevenson defeated Estes Kefauver, Avril Harriman and Richard Russell in three rounds of voting. Stevenson went on to lose to Eisenhower in the general. As the Real Clear Politics article I linked to points out:
Both the Democrats (1952) and the Republicans (1948) lost after their last multi-ballot conventions. Similarly the GOP lost presidential elections in 1912 and 1940 after bitter convention fights, while Democrats lost after multi-ballot conventions in 1920 and 1924. More recently, the 1968 debacle in Chicago, featuring riots outside the convention hall and near riots inside, showed just how difficult it is for a badly divided party to win.
What may take place this summer won't technically be a brokered convention. The party slapped a coat of whitewash over that seedy image of fat, old, white guys sitting around in back rooms, smoking cigars and drinking whiskey as they trade political favors back and forth like so many baseball cards. Now they're called super delegates and they are distinguished party elders, looking out for the good of the Democratic cause. Make no mistake about it, though, it would be a veritable auction to see who could sell their vote to whichever side offered the most pork.
Kathy Gill, at About.com, wrote an excellent summary of the path the Democrats have taken to arrive at whichever circle of hell they currently inhabit. Super delegates were created, in theory, to nudge the nomination towards the candidate with the best chance of winning the general election. To take it out of the hands of the unwashed masses, so to speak, and let more sophisticated heads prevail.
It's ironic, isn't it, that it was the Democrats who were so unhappy with their constituents' preferences, the likes of McGovern, Mondale and Carter, that they devised a way to make the process less democratic?
Like it or not, this is the game as the Democrats have designed it. It appears increasingly probable that neither Obama nor HRC will arrive in Denver with the required number of delegates to claim the nomination. They will need the backing of the super delegates to reach the magical 2025. The arguments for how a super delegate should cast his super vote are old hat by now. Obama backers insist he must echo the wishes of his constituents and Clinton fans think he would be better advised to vote his "conscience" and back whichever candidate would best serve the party going forward.
Both sides act like this matter is up for debate. It's not. Super delegates, also referred to as unpledged delegates, are clearly free to cast their support to whomever they choose. The only incentive to mirror their constituents' votes is that what goes around, comes around. Most of them will presumably have to answer to those voters the next time they run for office. And, being politicians, it stands to reason that most of them will find that argument persuasive.
But, I say, if you're going to have the damned toys, you might as well play with them. What's the point of reserving a hotel room for the guy if he's just rubber-stamping the people's will? Either get rid of them and select the nominee on the basis of the way the people voted or use them as they were designed, as DNC member Elaine Kamarck called, "a sort of safety valve," to protect us from ourselves.
It might all be moot, anyway. A few more months of Hillary driving up Obama's negatives (along, ironically, with her own) and it won't matter which Democrat emerges in August.
I know. It's crazy. The process is akin to turning the wheel of the RV over to your four-year-old as it barrels down I-95 and going in back to lie down and take a quick nap. But this is what Democrats do. Hey, if you enjoy the lockstep, become a Republican.
No comments:
Post a Comment