Chaos at the Convention
Feb. 6th, 2008 10:57 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
jducoeurIt 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...
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2008-02-07 04:37 am (UTC)I'll be very surprised if this gets out of hand. Right now, it's all great shtik: everyone is waiting the their seats' edges over the Democratic primaries. By the time the convention rolls around, I'm sure Dean and the DNC will have made sure the candidates and delegates all know where they stand, and the loser will throw all his/her support to the victor with a smile (and I think both Obama and Clinton are good enough players that they will do that).
(no subject)
Date: 2008-02-07 04:04 pm (UTC)Could happen, yes. He doesn't have a *lot* of votes relative to the total, and has vastly fewer than the number of superdelegates, so I think this is mildly unlikely. But if he plays his cards right, he could find himself with an unusual amount of influence at the convention, especially if he is smart about using that influence to sway superdelegates.
the loser will throw all his/her support to the victor with a smile (and I think both Obama and Clinton are good enough players that they will do that).
Oh, yes -- they've pretty clearly signaled their intentions in that regard. The whole "I was friends with Hilary before, and I'll be friends with Hilary after" speech last week was a very explicit sign that both of them understand the stakes, and that the party expects a measure of unity.
Indeed, I think the single thing that has most doomed Romney, over on the Republican side, is that he does *not* understand this. He's been burning bridges left and right, and all reports indicate that the rest of the candidates (and their staffs) hate him with a burning and abiding passion. Hence, you get the interesting sight of McCain and Huckabee -- arguably the most moderate and conservative of the Republicans -- teaming up pretty explicitly to destroy him...