Academic

DYSFUNCTIONAL DEMOCRATS? HOW THE PARTY COULD SNATCH DEFEAT FROM THE JAWS OF VICTORY

By dhutchinson

Florida and Michigan (But Especially Florida) 

The Democrats have a reputation for being dysfunctional.  The party expertly snatches defeat from the jaws of victory.  There are two looming issues that the party faces, which could potentially cement its reputation for the next century or two. 

 First, let’s consider the Florida and Michigan delegate/revote situation.  I started an apparently uninteresting thread on this issue recently, but the situation is rather important and delicate (and I’m on Spring Break, so I have time to preach even to the uninspired).  Both candidates know that Florida and Michigan are important to any Democratic victory.  They are not “throw-away” states.   But both sides are locked in a battle to protect only their interests.  I have heard team Clinton say “seat the delegates” based on the earlier votes, which seems very unfair.  But Obama’s side has said just split the delegates evenly, but this accomplishes nothing.  Mathematically, it is the same as awarding each candidate zero delegates, which is where we currently are.

The austere and tone-deaf Howard Dean seems unconcerned, at least in his public statements, about the potential nightmare this situation could cause.  As a native Floridian, I find it difficult at times convincing non-Floridians that this matter needs resolution sooner than later.  Even likening the potential explosion to Elian, Schiavo, and Bush v Gore seems unconvincing.   But the public sentiment among Floridians suggests that concerned Democrats nationwide should take heed.  Recently, a poll found that 6% of state Democrats would refuse to support the eventual Democratic Presidential nominee, while 14% would consider voting for Republicans up and down the ballot, if their primary votes do not count.  This might reflect temporary anger, but we should remember how ”purple” Florida is and that the Florida Nader crowd probably helped secure Bush’s victory in 2000.

Also consider that Florida loves the limelight, and this issue could ultimately bite the Democrats if something is not worked out soon.   Corrine Brown, a U.S. Rep. from Florida, ominously stated that ”Florida is a big dog. We are not puppies, and we are not going to be treated this way.”  Imagine Cudjo storming Denver.  It would not be pretty. 

Super Delegates

As the nominating process marches on, many rank and file Democrats are ignoring the reality that neither candidate will reach the magic number of delegates needed to win the nomination under the DNC rules.  Perhaps it is too painful to think about, but that is the reality in this close contest.  Realizing this, both candidates have floated narratives, which  seek to re-define “win” and to influence and mobilize voters.  Obama has an extremely powerful narrative: if he continues his streak, he would win more popular votes, states, and delegates.  Democracy would seem to support his side.  Clinton counters by noting which states she has won and says that her victories in swing-states should move the Super Delegates to her column.  Although many people legitimately protest this argument, at the end of the day, both candidates realize that they will need Super Delegate support, which is why both of them have been quietly paying them for votes.

Because of the stalemate, the Clinton and Obama camps are debating whether the Super Delegates should just vote with the “public” or “exercise independent judgment.”  Both arguments present problems. What does it mean to vote “with the public”?  Should a Super Delegate vote the way his or her district voted or the state in general?  The results would be mixed.  Should Deval Patrick, John Kerry, and Ted Kennedy follow Massachusetts and vote for Clinton (although they are deeply connected to Obama’s campaign)?  Should Clinton-supporters Maxine Waters and John Rangel follow their districts and switch to Obama (even though their states heavily favored Clinton)?  Is independent judgment inherently anti-democratic?  Is it any more anti-democratic than caucuses, which disadvantage the poor, working class, elderly, disabled, and persons with poor English skills and (consequently) have very low rates of participation?

It would be interesting to hear the negotiations behind the scenes on the Super Delegate issue.  Many commentators have argued that the Super Delegates will look at “electability”; accordingly, “electoral map” arguments have received a lot of recent attention recently (see, e.g., Realclearpolitics.com and NYTimes.com).  Favoring Clinton are her victories in New Hampshire, Nevada, Arkansas, Tennessee, Ohio, “Florida,” and presumably Pennsylvania.  If Gore had won just one of those states (in addition to his win in Pennsylvania), we would not have heard of “pregnant chads.”  If Kerry had won Ohio or Florida, he would have defeated Bush.  Kerry also lost Nevada and New Mexico, although Clinton has won both; but even if Kerry had won these states, he would have still trailed Bush in electoral votes.  Obama’s strength in the upper-midwest and northwest and in Colorado are important as well, given that these states, though blue with the exception of Colorado, are increasingly purple.  How the Democrats deal with these looming issues will determine how “sane” they look in Denver and whether the party loses to the Republicans at one of latters’ lowest and most weakened points in history.

ShareThis

Full post as published by BlackProf on March 13, 2008 (boomark / email).