The Democrats’ dilemma: what’s a Party leader to do?
What is it about Florida and voting? The state seems cursed. Along with Michigan, it’s become the center of a Democratic political firestorm because of an earlier decision by national Party leaders to disallow its primary due to violations of rules about when it was allowed to be held.
The decision was made by the DNC and head Howard Dean back when it all didn’t seem quite so important. One irony of the decision is that this move by the Democrats has made them arguably less “democratic” and populist than the Republicans—at least in Florida. The Republicans addressed the same issue by allowing the two states involved half their usual delegate number rather than the total.
Now the DNC decision has come back to haunt the Democratic Party, in part because of another problem—the extreme closeness of the race between Obama and Hillary. By most calculations, neither will have the votes to win outright (and probably wouldn’t have even with Florida and Michigan fully participating), and those superdelegates will come into play. Will they follow the will of the people, whatever that is deigned to be? Or will they go with that will-of-the-wisp, “electability,” and risk an insurrection from supporters of the other candidate, who will feel cheated?
But it may be too late, in a way. Many Floridian Democrats are feeling cheated already.
One can hardly blame them. The decision to disallow the primary there was short-sighted even back when it was made, before the tightness of the race was known or predicted. The ruling risked irking a powerful and very important population: the Democrats of Florida. And if the Democratic leadership has forgotten how very important their support can be, they only have to look back on the election of 2000 to remember it.
Another event Dean and the others never could have foreseen is that the Republicans would have the wisdom (or luck—or stupidity if you ask many conservatives) to nominate John McCain, a true crossover candidate for whom many Democrats could vote without feeling it to be too much of a stretch.
The idea of voiding the Florida primary was to make the state pay a price for setting its primary too early and violating the rules. This ignores the fact that it was the Repulican-controlled legislature that actually came up with the idea, although in the end the Democrats in that body also voted for it (see this for the very complex reasons why).
Yes, Florida has been punished. But the Party itself, and the eventual nominee, could be the big losers, according to a recent poll that indicates “one in four [Floridian Democrats] would not vote for the Democratic nominee for President if Florida was disenfranchised.”
People don’t like being spit on—sometimes they tend to spit back. The Party was shortsighted in not figuring this out, but I figure that they figured it wouldn’t matter in the end. Right now it looks as though it stands an excellent chance of doing so.
But the Democratic Party has even larger worries this campaign season. As Charles Lipson writes:
If Obama gets clobbered in Pennsylvania, which certainly could happen, the Democrats are going to be in deep trouble. They will fear they are stuck with a candidate who cannot win the general election but who cannot be denied the party’s nomination. If the Super Delegates try to give that nomination to Hillary, the Party would shatter.
It’s not all that far-fetched a scenario. Such a possibility is part of the problem with reliance on a primary process that can lock in a nomination before a candidate is properly vetted, and that is remarkably nonresponsive to changes in circumstances. The old system of the smoke-filled room, for all its top-down non-populist machinations, at least allowed the Party to make a decision about a candidate much closer to the time of the election, and to respond to new developments.
Now, however, people don’t like to be dictated to by Party leaders. They’d rather have a more direct say in who is to be their Party’s nominee. But yet another irony of what’s happened in Florida and Michigan is that, although it’s the Party leaders who have disenfranchised the voters in each state and incurred their wrath, those same Party leaders leaders seem unable to fix the problem.
They have enough clout to have disallowed the primaries in order to penalize the states, but not enough to deal with the negative repercussions of their decision—or to override the will of the people in selecting a candidate, if need be. Right now it appears to be a mathematical impossibility that either candidate will go into the convention with enough delegates to win outright. Technically, the superdelegates are empowered to deal with such an eventuality by making their own decisions and voting on the basis of who they think is the best (or most viable) candidate.
But that’s de jure. De facto it would be very difficult for those superdelegates to buck the “will of the people” by voting for a candidate who is not already leading in the delegate and popular votes—and the candidate in the lead is almost certain to be Barack Obama. And, unless—in the phrase of Jim Vandehei and Mike Allen at the Politico—-Obama is “hit by a political meteor,” the Party will not be forgiven by his supporters for overturning their will.
Party leaders had enough power to disenfranchise the voters of two states for breaking a procedural rule through no fault of their own. But those same leaders don’t seem to have the ability to go beyond the Party’s voters in an extremely close primary process (really, almost a photo finish) to choose whichever candidate is perceived at the time of the convention to be the strongest candidate in the general election, without angering a large portion of their membership. In the process of doing all of this, they have already managed to alienate a substantial and important group of voters in their own Party—and stand to alienate a good many more, no matter what decision they make come convention time.
I read that because of the circumstances surrounding the MI primary that a lot of Democrats decided to vote in the Republican primary instead.
Now because they have done that, that disqualifies them from being eligible to particpate in any re-vote the Democrat party might hold.
Im not sure what the rules are for FL.
This whole primary thing has gotten completely out of control. In the rush by inidividual states to have more influence, the primaries have been creeping earlier and earlier, as states leapfrog over each other. The net result is that the candidates are routinely determined eight or nine months before the actual election and six months before the conventions.
It’s simply ridiculous to lock things in that long before the election. Too much could happen in the meantime. Any one of the candidates could get a fatal disease and be dead by then. World circumstances could change immensely. It just makes no sense.
I saw a proposal a few months ago saying that rather than putting the primaries earlier and earlier in the year, they should actually be moved later. Super Tuesday should be in June rather than March (or was it February). All the other primaries could be adjusted to suit. That way the candidate selection would happen much closer to the conventions and the actual election. And current world events would play a more meaningful role in the selection of the candidates. It would also give us all a break from this obnoxiously long and drawn out process.
I’m a bad prognosticator, yet: I still believe Hillary can shatter the Barack facade into a thousand pieces. Hillary needs to get back on a message of mockery:
1. Barack is running on one speech in 2002.
2. “the skies will open up, a light will shine down, angels will sing, and everything will be wonderful.”
Barack is RIPE for mockery. He is BEGGING for mockery. Hillary needs to get on message: i.e. Barack is a poseur with delusions of grandeur. (It’s a French-influenced message) Hillary needs to stay aggressively on message all the way to the convention. Everyone understands poseur + delusions of grandeur. Hillary needs to aggressively get on message, and stay on message.
Barack is a poseur with delusions of grandeur.
They’ve been pushing this meme ever since the election began, and it’s taken them straight into a distant second place. Obama has shown the country a lot of substance, and Hillary has been taken by surprise.
Im not sure what the rules are for FL.
Yah, lets get Zbigniew Brzezinski’s “militant Islamic groups” to vote in US!!
http://winterpatriot.blogspot.com/2008/03/horrifying-obamas-brilliant-speech-of.html
What are the examples of the substance Obama has demostrated?
Talk about “chickens coming home to roost”….
The irony is that the Democrats disdained the Electoral College, which among other functions is designed to sharpen decision-making over that achieved by direct popular vote.
Proportional representation tends to cause these kinds of impasses because the popular vote in most elections is fairly close (a 55/45 split would be a landslide). “Chunking” the vote into winner-take-all blocs sharpens the differentiation.
But now the Dems face a situation in which the aggregate popular vote might turn out one way, but the delegate count another way, and they’re on record as advocating the primacy of the former over the latter.
If you listen very carefully, you can hear God chuckling…
Obama has shown the country a lot of substance
???
You’re mistaking the word substance for the word superficiality? They both start with the S sound. Or is this a deliberate doublespeak?
Many democrats simply are not that stupid and gullible, which is actually a refreshing sign of hope for liberalism, at least in the spirit of competition.
We’ve seen Obama’s substance even if the lids on tight, valves are bursting, time is not on his side, and there’s to much time between now and November.
Occam’s Beard I think has the root of the problem. The Democrats are obessed with democracy, which can be a very bad form of government. In their obsession, they partitioned the delegate count based on the popular vote. Like Occam said, they ignored the idea of the Electoral College method, now look at the mess they have. They compounded that mistake by disenfranchising FL and MI.
Thank God the Founders recognized the inherent problem with a pure democracy and set up and republic with the Electoral College. Anyone who wishes to get rid of the EC should just look at the Dem’s little experiment in a pure democratic partitioning of votes.
The division of the multi-cultural union of the Democratic Party will atomize until only the untakeable aficionado remains, like the garde impériale at Waterloo.
Sit back and break out the popcorn. Summertime is the time for reruns on TV. Maybe we will see a rerun of Chicago in 1968, in Denver in 2008. Don’t be late: for that very important date.
Such as rules and regulations used to select convention delegates: throw them out! Storm the Convention Centers! CHANGE the world! How many times in the last 40 years have the Democrats CHANGED their rules for delegate selection? It would not surprise me that number would correspond to the number of fads adopted, and later rejected, in the education field during that time. After all, there are a lot of teachers among the Democratic delegates.
CHANGE CHANGE CHANGE CHANGE CHANGE….CHANGE OF… I am getting breathless. Was that CHANGE OF FOOLS, OR CHAIN OF FOOLS? Aretha? What was that you said?
Obama has shown substance? I don’t think that word means what you think that word means.
But then again I guess I am just a typical white person, so maybe it is over my head.
I get such a hoot out of listening to the Democrats talk about Bush’s lack of planning in the war etc, and yet these guys can not even run their own party without it turning into a freak show.
“There’s something happening here
What it is ain’t exactly clear
There’s a man with a gun over there
Telling me I got to beware….”
I have yet to get O N E obama supporter to go into detail of any sort.
My mother has moved off the Obama wagon in a move that seems pretty permanent. I have a brother though who has always been an anti-authorty kinda of guy who will vote Obama becuase he is viewd by so many like my brother, as the “anti-Bush”. No other details are needed.
I just had a staunch Democrat tell me she is voting for McCain, neither Obama or Hillary are good for the country. I am in shock, she was against the war but now understands we should, and will, be there a long, long time.
Vince:
I have yet to get O N E obama supporter to go into detail of any sort
Obama is GOOD. Billary is BAD.Republicans are BAD. Send them back to their caves. What more detail do you need?
The only trouble with using mockery against Obama is that Hillary is so un-funny. She’s not just un-funny, she’s anti-funny. Funny things get less funny when she’s nearby. For her to try to use humor as a weapon would be like asking her to use sex appeal or boozy cameraderie. They aren’t part of her makeup.
Obama can use wit, and McCain can be pretty good with a one-liner. But Hillary?
The dimocrats definitely deserve themselves… and on another note, this is funny, check out the article from Drudge/Australia today which might be a bit
disappointing to the chicken little/Al Bore crowd out there: http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23411799-7583,00.html
I’ve got a word or two
To say about the things that you do
You’re telling all those lies
About the good things that we can have
If we close our eyes
Do what you want to do
And go where you’re going to
Think for yourself
‘Cause I won’t be there with you
I left you far behind
The ruins of the life
that you had in mind
And though you still can’t see
I know your mind’s made up
You’re gonna cause more misery
Do what you want to do
And go where you’re going to
Think for yourself
‘Cause I won’t be there with you
Beatles
Darkest of night
With the moon shinin’ bright
There’s a set goin’ strong
Lotta things goin’ on
The man of the hour
Has an air of great power
The dudes have envied him for so long
Oooh, Superfly
You’re gonna make your fortune by and by
But if you lose, don’t ask no questions why
The only game you know is “Do or Die”
Ah-ha-ha
Hard to understand
What a hell of a man
This cat of the slum
Had a mind, wasn’t dumb
But a weakness was shown
‘Cause his hustle was wrong…
Ruth:
I have heard more than one Democrat I know say the same thing. And they are not bit shy about it either. They are voting for McCain and the idea does not seem to bother them all that much.
In this long campaign season we are seeing the candidates season. It does not look good for the Democrats. If you believe, as I now do, that the problems we are seeing with their candidates are the natural ills of their party philosophy and that the corrupt has almost completely driven out the good, then this long campaign is a good thing that may help them get their act together.
Whether that will be a good thing (getting rid of the Pelosi-Reid style of unthinking leftism) or a bad (giving the likes of Pelosi and Reid a larger constituency) is not clear.
They had to disallow Michigan because Obama and Edwards were not even on the ballot. There is no way you could give the state to anyone. Michigan had a chance to consider a revote but they chose not too. Blame Michigan.
As for Florida…who knows why they broke the rules and why Dean didn’t try to bend them a bit. But, again, the state was off the table so you cannot give it to anyone [or Clinton].
I would call this a foresight issue. But few believed it would be this close. Most felt Clinton would have won it all by Super Tuesday.
I suspect we’re in for interesting times come August-November.
It looks as though the Dems will lose, pretty much regardless of what they do, ultimately as a result of who they are and what they believe. Specifically, they advocate identity politics, demonization, and grievance nurturing, which worked fine until they had two Dem candidates use the strategy on each other in a fratricidal primary campaign. The ugliness and negativity of such campaigning has become apparent even to lefties now that they’re on the receiving end of it.
My guess: the Democrats will calve off the far-left contingent, who, abandoning electoral politics as pointless, will resort to “direct action” (aka terrorism) much like the Weathermen and SDS of 40 years ago.
The good news is that that schism may ultimately make for a sane and sensible Democratic Party like that of Truman, JFK, Scoop Jackson et al., that can again be entrusted with power. In this sanguine take, we may be watching the death throes of sixties-style liberalism as its intellectual and moral bankruptcy is revealed for all to see.
We can only hope that a similar transformation simultaneously takes place in black culture, thanks to Wright. Comes a time when providing intellectually tortured excuses for blaming the other for all shortcomings just won’t wash any more, and people begin recognizing that that they’re only hurting themselves by indulging in such excuse-making (Palestinians, listen up. This applies to you, too.). I hope that that time has now come.
Occam’s Beard
Just how far left do you think the left is?
The weather underground!
That would be like someone painting the far right as a bunch of racist imperialist warmongering militias. Neither is true to today’s political positions.
Today you have a good number of people opposed to war. You can oppose that position but how do you equate those opposed to war with being potential ‘terrorists’? I think you’re stretching. More importantly, what politicians would you clump into this category?
[Democrats] ignored the idea of the Electoral College method, now look at the mess they have.
This is untrue. Like the Republicans they have the delegate system. It is very similar to the Electoral College. Meaning a candidate needs to win the delegates but not the popular vote. You could lose the popular vote but win the delegates – thereby winning the nomination. Hillary is hoping to get the popular vote, which she would use to sway the super delegates.
Those who have basic reading comprehension skills will appreciate that I was not implying that ALL of those on the left will be joining the Weather Underground, but rather than AMONG those on the left there are those who will do so. Not nearly the same statement, and the latter is clearly true, considering that animal rights and environmental “activists” – all lefties – already resort to terrorism.
In essence, I’m positing a repeat of the 1968 convention and its aftermath. Surely we can agree that the Weather Underground, SDS, Symbionese Liberation Army, etc. all came from the left, yes?
You also missed the point regarding the Electoral College approach.
The point did not pertain to the formal selection structure used by the party, but to the fact that in the 2000 election the Dems publicly disparaged the Electoral College in favor of the popular vote. That was the basis of their bleating that Gore should be President, the Electoral College notwithstanding.
Now, however, within their own party they’re faced with a disparity between the delegate count and the aggregate popular vote, so they’re screwed either way.
If they plump for the delegate count, Dem “activists” (how I hate that word) will bleat that they should have used the popular vote, and trot out the same arguments Dems generally used in 2000.
If they go for popular vote, other Dem “activists” will (this time with justification) howl that they’re not following the rules set up before the primaries.
So it’s not the legal structure that matters, but that by opposing the Electoral College in 2000, the Dems have effectively placed themselves on both sides of this issue for their convention, and almost inevitably will infuriate a significant fraction of their constituency.
That was the point.
Those who have basic reading comprehension skills will appreciate that I was not implying that ALL of those on the left will be joining the Weather Underground, but rather than AMONG those on the left there are those who will do so.
yeah . i had a good laugh at that. Talk about missing the point.
Well what do you expect when leftists refuse to do any retrospection. When have you ever seen a Leftist concede that perhaps they or their allies were ever wrong about anything.
So of course when he’s reading your comments, he’s not thinking about actually evaulating the left against what you said.. he’s looking for any little oppurtunity to point out where you are wrong.
he did it with the voting process too.
Iraq: Horrible truth
What’s not being reported
Sometimes the truth is horrible. This video contains disturbing scenes of American troops sadistically taunting Iraqi children, randomly throwing grenades at sheep herders and the infamous puppy toss with David Motari.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tq5_vG3cYGM
http://www.iranian.com/main/singlepage/2008/iraq-horrible-truth
Got a link to video of Daniel Pearl being beheaded?
In any case, so what, mnb? Should we surrender to the terrorists because of some bad apples? WTF’s your point?
mnb apparently subscribes to the “one bad apple has already spoiled the barrel” belief.
Don’t confuse him/her with the difference between statistically minor affronts to dignity and entrenched, system-wide policies of profane torture and executions.
I’m not too surprised the democrats are blowing this election. Hasn’t demonizing all success and achievement been their meme for quite a while now?
Please pardon the intemperate nature of my earlier post. Despite having lots of practice in dealing with militant stupidity on the march, sometimes it still gets my goat, for which I apologize.
trimegistus: you’re so right about Hillary. She’s so scripted and prepared and coiffed, so focused on her goal (which anyone can see she wants so very, very much, not for the country but for herself), anything she could say about Obama would not be perceived as mockery or a pointed comment, but a shrewdly manufactured political attack, one Obama could instantly decry as “the old way of politics” or whatever he’s calling legitimate criticsm this week.
Regarding the main thread, it sure is nice to see the Democrats who posture and primp about being the party of emotion and feeling, of mercy and “social justice” continually hoist by their own petard. In my opinion, they’re also the party of wonkish and obsessive attention to the political process. There’s nothing inspirational about their eternal campaigning (this cycle seems to have lasted an eternity) or their consistent House and Senate investigations. Also, they’re always trying to write new laws to add to the Byzantine thickets of them we have already. They shake their heads at phrases like, “Why don’t we enforce the gun laws we have already?” No; we need brand new ones, again and again, so legislative resumes can be padded.
But for all their feelings and emotions and all their processes ensured to promote their true faith, “fairness,” they’ve painted themselves into a corner trying to be fair to everyone. They can’t follow their own rules or they’ll disfranchise millions of Dem voters and look like the very Republicans they demonize. They can’t break their own rules or they’ll appear weak and disorganized, able to be pushed around. They’re destroying themselves before our eyes. To solve their problem, they’re diving into process, thus turning off regualr citizens who don’t have the time to spend on the nuts and bolts of politics.
John McCain must be smiling. He knows Republicans will come home and he’ll bleed off many Democrats who disdain their own party’s agressive self-imposed stasis.