![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Entry tags:
Chaos at the Convention
It occurs to me that the Democratic Convention this year is likely to feature fireworks -- and not good ones at that.
The numbers at the moment are interesting. If you look at the CNN Delegate Scorecard, as of right now Obama holds a slender lead in terms of the "pledged" delegates -- the ones who were chosen due to the primary process. But Clinton leads overall, because she has promises from more of the "superdelegates" -- the party honchos who get a vote because of their position in the party.
So let's look at a moderately likely scenario. The convention rolls around, and the race is still too close to call. Obama still holds a lead in the pledged delegates, Clinton in the superdelegates. Things begin to solidify towards Clinton *because* of the superdelegates. What happens?
Hard to say -- not riots, because people generally need better reasons to riot nowadays, but massive and vocal unhappiness among the party. The convention itself turns into a huge scandal, as the pundits talk up the anti-democratic nature of the superdelegates. The superdelegates come under *enormous* pressure to swing their votes to match the popular vote, and people start talking loudly about eliminating the superdelegates entirely. And the whole thing does a fair amount of damage to the Democrats, who look chaotic next to the coronation of McCain (with the hardcore conservatives quietly holding their noses) happening over at the Republican convention.
I do hope the party leadership is ready for this, and thinking about how to react, because it looks to me like it has a fair chance of playing out just this way. They will undoubtedly make lots of noise about how the system is so much better than back in the days of backroom deals, but I don't think that the modern electorate is going to have much sympathy for that. The superdelegate system has continued for many years precisely because it hasn't mattered much. If it *does* start to matter, I think it's going to turn into quite the national stink...
The numbers at the moment are interesting. If you look at the CNN Delegate Scorecard, as of right now Obama holds a slender lead in terms of the "pledged" delegates -- the ones who were chosen due to the primary process. But Clinton leads overall, because she has promises from more of the "superdelegates" -- the party honchos who get a vote because of their position in the party.
So let's look at a moderately likely scenario. The convention rolls around, and the race is still too close to call. Obama still holds a lead in the pledged delegates, Clinton in the superdelegates. Things begin to solidify towards Clinton *because* of the superdelegates. What happens?
Hard to say -- not riots, because people generally need better reasons to riot nowadays, but massive and vocal unhappiness among the party. The convention itself turns into a huge scandal, as the pundits talk up the anti-democratic nature of the superdelegates. The superdelegates come under *enormous* pressure to swing their votes to match the popular vote, and people start talking loudly about eliminating the superdelegates entirely. And the whole thing does a fair amount of damage to the Democrats, who look chaotic next to the coronation of McCain (with the hardcore conservatives quietly holding their noses) happening over at the Republican convention.
I do hope the party leadership is ready for this, and thinking about how to react, because it looks to me like it has a fair chance of playing out just this way. They will undoubtedly make lots of noise about how the system is so much better than back in the days of backroom deals, but I don't think that the modern electorate is going to have much sympathy for that. The superdelegate system has continued for many years precisely because it hasn't mattered much. If it *does* start to matter, I think it's going to turn into quite the national stink...
no subject
First: I think that the game will be sewn up before the convention begins. There are tons of super-delegates, and many more that are not bound in the first vote. I doubt very much that the convention vote will go past one round.
And I agree with
Hilary is, of course, angling to "now count" those delgates she otherwise could not get. She is a fool to do so in such a naked manner. The ONLY thing that can lose the Democrat's the coming election (other than some nasty surprise) is if the party fights itself to death. Winning the convention WITH those "tainted delegates" is a kiss of death, and there will be blood on the convention floor.
Hilary would be smart, very smart, to stop now and say "We can't count them in the first round, unless they re-schedule a primary, but they can vote in any subsequent rounds". She might still win (I give good odds, although I'd rather she didn't) and if so: it's one party, minus some very angry FL, MI and SC Democrats (of which, FL is the big one that really matters.) If she gets them in, win or lose, the party is wounded going into November.
(Look for a lot of this text to recycle into a post of my own. I've been thinking about this for a while...)
no subject
That's possible. In particular, if Clinton has the edge in the pledged delegates, however slight the margin, I expect her to calmly coast to the nomination. But in most other scenarios I'm seeing, things are likely to get pretty ugly, with a lot of nasty infighting and recriminations no matter how quickly it goes. A single-round victory isn't necessarily a *good* victory, if it winds up with the party bitterly divided...
no subject
I agree that, if I were a DNC major-person, I'd be worried about two things: party unity, and whomever can kick McCain's buttocks. :-)
I don't see how those goals can be met with any division over the 3 unseated states, or multiple rounds of voting.
The power is there to prevent it, with unpledged and super-delegates.
no subject
Now that the whole farce has been enacted, I think it would be outrageously two-faced of the party to turn around and say "oops, we didn't mean it, sorry." Because we didn't get a fair election - we never got to hear the candidates, we never heard them speak to us about our issues. I tend to favor Obama. He's not well know in the state and never had a chance to be known. So Clinton won easily on the little old lady and cracker votes. But it doesn't really matter in the general election because after this debalce the Dems sure aren't going to take FL. Hell, I'm a flaming liberal Dem and if Clinton gets the nomination, I'm considering voting for McCain. And if she succeeds in getting away with taking the FL delegates without us, I'm bloody well doing so.
Clinton may get the nomination. But she'll lose the general election. (Think Dukakis. Or Mondale.) You can't win on just the Democrats, you've got to get the swing voters and too many people hate her guts. And her conduct in the primaries isn't helping her image. Too bad the party honchos owe her and Bill their superdelegates because they've got to have some idea about this. Or maybe not. After all, they're the ones who fell for this whole Florida primary set-up.
no subject