Hello again,
Thank you to everyone who gave positive feedback and constructive criticism in my first diary here. Every day, I grow more and more impressed with the balance of viewpoints I see on this site. So I'm going to write a little bit more.
There's something about this primary that has been bothering me a lot recently, and I cringe everytime I see it. It's the recurring notion that this primary is "over," that Hillary only has a "5% chance to win," or, as stated prematurely by partisan Obama supporter Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT), that his nomination is a "foregone conclusion." I have to disagree.
These memes about an inevitable Obama nomination are repeated in the blogosphere as though they are incontrovertible facts. Yet they are not. The truth is actually quite far from the distorted predeterminations that Obama supporters would like to insinuiate stealthily into the media, the popular narrative, the voters, and uncommitted superdelegates. I'll start with a near verbatim quote from Hillary Clinton as she spoke to a televised audience two weeks ago in Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania:
"My opponent has compared this primary to a movie that has gone on far too long. Well, I happen to like long movies, and we haven't even gotten to the part where he loses Pennsylvania."
The audience cheered. I smiled too. Not only did she touch upon this festering issue with direct candor, but she did it with her signature panache of cleverness and good humor that has been surfacing in all of her speeches recently.
Right now, Barack Obama has a modest lead in pledged delegates and 10 contests have yet to weigh in. With the exception of Guam's caucus (9 delegates), all contests will be decided by primary. The majority are predicted to elect Hillary (Pennsylvania-158, Indiana-72, Puerto Rico-55) and in some cases, by very broad margins (West Virginia-28, Kentucky-51). Barack Obama is optimistic about North Carolina (115) and there's some chatter to suggest he will win Oregon (52), although the basis for that assertion is not beyond debate. South Dakota (15) and Montana (16) are anybody's guess--a Great Plains state and Rocky Mountain state voting by primary. To date, the only state in either of those regions to hold a primary was Utah; everything else was a tailor-made-Obama caucus (Kansas, Nebraska, Minnesota, North Dakota, Wyoming, Idaho, Iowa, Colorado), so it is difficult to infer how a primary will unfold in a region that has thus far only produced caucuses. Moreover, hundreds of superdelegates remain uncommitted, the results of these final ten contests presumably being intended to serve a probative function in tipping the scale of an undecided mind.
To prematurely proclaim victory now would be like having John Kerry leading George Bush by 25 EV's on election night 2004, with the stunning caveat that Texas (!), Georgia, Colorado, Massachusetts, Tennessee, and five other small states have yet to report. Of course Kerry supporters would delight in calling on Bush to concede, much as Obama's fan base has predetermined his own victory and made similar solicitations to Hillary. "Please concede before we hear from your most favorable populous states! Otherwise, our candidate might lose!" Oh, the horror. They might even point to Massachusetts' outstanding EV's, much as Obama supporters rely on the upcoming North Carolina primary, to spell imminent doom and force a concession. But in either case, concession would be premature.
As I see it, Hillary's nomination is just as viable a possibility at this point as Barack Obama's. She will likely not close the gap in pledged delegates, but contrary to popular dogma, pledged delegates are neither the lynchpins to securing the nomination nor are they the most convincing metric to consider for undecided superdelegates.
1. Superdelegates, not pledged delegates, are going to decide the nomination.
It was initially branded a nightmare scenario and it's well on its way to fruition. Originally, it was thought that one nominee would accrue insuperable momentum in the early primaries that would create the usual tidal wave of unanimity in the following contests, molding a clear front-runner. That hasn't happened.
Any way it's sliced, and whether it's done at the convention or by agreement in June, the superdelegates hold the only key to elevating either nominee over the decisive threshold of 2025. The appearance of usurping the will of the people will inhere in the process regardless of which nominee they choose. The real question is:
Will they usurp the choice of the raw popular vote, which is almost inevitably going to anoint Hillary?
or
Will they usurp an obscure mathematical apportionment calculus that portrays an Obama advantage, even as it contradicts the actual tally of votes cast?
One would think it beyond peradventure to pose that the popular vote is a more reliable indicator of people's will than an arbitrary assignment of delegates based on districts' past voting behavior. Nevertheless, "counting people's votes" is not likely to be a point well received by followers of the "new" and "elevated" Obama style of doing politics. I would anticipate that we will hear ad nausem, "rules are rules and numbers are numbers."
It's then important to remember that yes, rules are rules. And these sacrosanct rules do state that hundreds of superdelegates are automatically entitled to a vote. There's nothing illegitimate about that, in terms of pure rules-speak. What should be done with that vote is the real issue here.
Although it would be very difficult for a conscientious member of the left to embrace the idea that bizarre calculations should trump actual votes, I am confident the Obama proponents will hold their noses and do so, even while knowing full well the deeply undemocratic and chicanerous nature of their position.
2. Obama's nomination rests upon silencing two of the nation's largest states.
Think about that.
I'm fully aware of the rules and policy concerns involved in setting up a proper primary schedule, but what could cast more doubt or illegitimacy on a nomination than having it require the exclusion of two major battleground states?
"We lost Florida. We lost Michigan. We lost the nation. But luckily for us, we managed to squelch those two states, so we won."
I mean, from a purely Democratic Party self-interest perspective, it would be awesome if they never had to count votes from Texas or Idaho, but let's get real here. That's anathema to the very idea of Democracy. I disagree with their electoral choices wholeheartedly but would never argue against their fundamental right to vote.
Punishing and silencing the people of Michigan and Florida is misplaced aggression for a coup performed solely by both states' Republican legislatures. Despite the guise of "wanting to gain more prominence and attention," it has never been a secret that the primary legislative intent in transplanting the Democratic primary dates was to screw with... you guessed it: the Democratic party. Lo and behold, they succeeded, brilliantly.
3. There is no basis for excluding Florida's votes from a popular vote consideration.
While the rules may contain a clause allowing for a discretionary disqualification of Florida's delegates, there is no comparable reason to believe a popular vote tally should not include Florida. Objectively, there is a stronger albeit not infallible argument for mincing Michigan because only "Uncommitted" appeared on the ballot there, but the voters of Florida clearly expressed a heavy preference for Hillary Clinton in that state. This is not to suggest Hillary should concede factoring Michigan into a popular vote tally, but some dare-I-say "creative" arrangement will probably be needed to extrapolate the measure of persuasiveness from her victory against an anonymous opponent there, even despite the unofficial Obama-as-Uncommitted campaign.
4. Other factors.
A boatload of relevant questions remain percolating regarding the mercurial nature of determining our nominee. For superdelegates, there is also the issue of electability. The concept of a candidate appealing strongly to the leftmost wing of the party while wholly alienating the center and then losing a General Election is not novel. It needs no elaboration how Obama's recent Gary Hart moment exacerbates these concerns. Polls showing him struggling in New York state (Marist), Ohio, Pennsylvania, Michigan and flailing in Florida do not serve him well. This is especially true when campaigning in the latter two states will require an approach a la "I didn't want count your vote then, but please vote for me now." Given how sensitive the issue self-identification & pride in one's home state can be vis-a-vis assaults launched from out of state (witness PA small town debacle), this won't likely be a concern that disappears after the convention.
Then there is the question of John Edwards, his influence, and his remaining delegates. We have three indicators of where his intent may lie. His wife Elizabeth recently expressed agreement with Hillary's health care plan. Edwards was reportedly disturbed at Obama's aloof and detached demeanor the day he dropped out of the race. And now we have the mangled trivialization of impovereshed small town Americans, the very people that Edwards has been championing for all of his adult life. Both his influence over superdelegates and his own pledged delegates are relevant here.
There is also a "change in momentum" factor that remains to unravel. A resounding Pennsylvania victory will open a cornucopia of advances for Hillary, in terms of pledged delegates, popular vote, persuasiveness for supers, momentum, and the concerns that Obama cannot win outside of enthusiast-dominated caucuses or states with disproportionately high African American populations. The fact that it will also reinforce the notion that his San Francisco gaffe has irreversibly wounded him also bears noting. Further, the change in media tone after Pennsylvania can only help Hillary in places she will need it subsequently: Indiana and North Carolina. It never hurts to have the "momentum" on your side. As the viability of her candidacy grows more and more apparent, I'd expect renewed faith to translate into better voting returns.
For all of these reasons, I cringe when I hear that she only has a 5% change of securing the nomination. Given all of the above, her chances are actually quite good. And after Pennsylvania, this will grow increasingly evident.
So if you support Hillary and have been feeling that nauseating pit in your stomach everytime someone mentions what a "long shot" her chances are as though it's gospel, remember, it's just spin. The facts tell another story.
Thank you for reading.
|
|
|
Permalink :: 49 Comments :: Post a Comment
|
In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.
If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.
