After the last debate, Rachel Maddow, commenting on on MSNBC statement, to the effect that the "fun" part of Democratic nominating race had ended and the candidates had now started a grim slog to the nomination.
At the time, I was still hugely enjoying the race and wondered what the hell she was talking about. Now, however, I see that she was prophetic. The heady days of savoring soaring rhetoric and inspiring You Tube videos deciding WHICH universal health care plan would be best for the nation, are gone. In their place, has come fretting over theoretical general election match-up polls, anger over outrageous campaign tactics and unfair ads; and obsessive counting and recounting of the delegate tallies. Worse yet, hanging over this desperate fight, is the specter of a "stolen" election, where after all this, a cabal of un-elected delgates ends up deciding the nomination
But Yesterday, and idea sparked by a fascinating paragraph in an article in Washington Post's Style sectiony; suggested a way back to the good old days , and ironically, it involves using the Superdelegates as a force for good not evil:
I suppose it’s not surprising that the original hint of the idea comes from a guy with experience trying to settle possibly the only conflict more acrimonious than that between Clinton and Obama:
Dennis Ross ...was the top Mideast peace negotiator, during the presidencies of both George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton. Drawing on that experience, he says, "If I was looking at this from the standpoint of a mediation, you start with: What do the two sides have in common?" He answers that (1) neither Clinton nor Obama wants to tear the party apart, and (2) neither of them wants to lose a key Democratic constituency that will be needed to win in the fall.
Well. Duh. Neither one wants to lose the chance of winning the general election while wining the nomination. And while that seems obvious, it is a VERY important point that, in the heat of battle is easy to lose sight of. While they are both fighting hard for the nomination, what they REALLY want is to win November, and they have to realize that its not worth getting the nomination if it costs them a chance at that.
OR as another young, inexperienced and very articulate senator running for president once said:
"We would not willingly pursue a war, in which even the fruits of victory would be ashes in our mouths"
And while this is subconsciously understood by all concerned; They have a problem that young charismatic president also faced: He knew war was stupid, but he also knew that unilateral disarmament would only help his enemy. In Dispute resolution and Game theory circles we’d call this a classic "prisoner's dilemma" problem:
The nomination is a "zero sum" game, one person will get it and the other will not . Therefore even if both sides were to agree to abandon the use of certain effective, but damaging tactics, the agreement would almost certainly collapse the first time it was tested since the person who cheated gets a massive advantage over the one that doesn’t; and there are no do-overs, nor a long term relationship between the parties to discourage the cheating behavior for fear of longer term consequences.
So both sides may want to lay down their arms, but neither is willing to do it for fear of what the other might do. This is what playgorund theorists and water balloon-battlers would call the "you first" problem. This is where the Super delegates come in.
They were supposedly created so that the elder statesmen of the party could safeguard the party's interests when threatened by the heat of a moment. Well, it seems to me that the paramount interest of the party right now is that SOMEONE with a D after their name gets to the Oval Office in ’08. Therefore, it should be their #1 priority to ensure that WHOEVER get the Nomination, does so while intact enough to win in November as well. That's where Ross' suggestion get interesting:
Ross says it is probably better to build a mediation around the superdelegates, who are even more vested -- and clear-eyed -- than the candidates about ensuring party unity and expanding their voting base for a fall victory. A core group of superdelegates and party leaders -- he mentioned former vice president Al Gore, former senator John Edwards and New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson -- could come to the candidates and try to establish ground rules of decorum for the remaining contests
So far so good, But what Ross DOESN'T say is how to enforce and agreement made at such a meeting. But spring-boarding off his suggestion and drawing on my own, far less illustrious career as a mediator, I see a way to do this :
What these Power- Superdelegates really need to do is corner their fellow supers and use their powers of persausion, poltical clout, and whatever else is necessary to arm twist their current undecided colleagues into a two part pledge:
#1 These are the Rules we expect of the Candidates, their surrogates, spokespeople, and ad-men from here on out. (Basically a codified version of Reagan’s Famous 11th commandment) If EITHER of you break these rules, the signatories of this pledge commit to to vote en masse for the other guy.
#2 Assuming neither of you cross these lines, We hereby commit our votes to whomever has garnered more popular votes throughout the primary process.
And UNLIKE nearly every other use of their voting powers, this one would actually make people respect, and possibly even LIKE the Super-delegates. After all, this is what they are FOR. Not to act as some sort of Olympian veto of the Vox Populi, but as enforcers of party decorum and a Bulwark against underhanded tactics and demagoguery.
By spelling out precisely how they will vote under specific circumstances , in advance they will remove much of the objection the party faithful have against their very existence. Moreover, it would safeguard against the very real danger that THEY themselves, as a class could be the ones who take the action that alienates the base, and ensures the fall Republican victory.
It would take probably a block of 100-200 supers to sign this pact to make it stick.. However, if they did it and MEANT it; there is no question that it would make both camps get religion awful damn quick.
The Tone of this campaign would go from its current D-flat to a High (minded) C almost overnight. Faced with the possibility of potentially losing the nomination overnight, due to bit of careless campaigning, the internal policing of both camps would get instantly and dramatically better. Loose cannons would get muzzled, nasty Surrogates would be aborted, and race baiting would get the hook in a New York Minute (No pun intended). And despite how frustrating it might be to the media, how cool would it be to see the home stretch of this campaign be all about issues and ideas?
And lest you think this is idea is somewhat unworkable, I’d respond that it has a long and venerable tradtion in politics. I refer you to the well –known political treatises The Godfather and the Sopranos . Look up the term "Sit-down. Now think of the Obama and Clinton camps as The Corleones and the Tattaglias and The Super-delegates as The Commission.
The Commission is saying to them they understand they are at war; and they even understand WHY. However, war is bad for business, and business (in this case winning the general election) MUST come before personal feelings. Therefore, these two have a choice: tone the fight down and get it off the front pages, or the Commission will have no choice but to pick a favorite and have the other side whacked, capice?
If the Supers convinced the Candidates they were serious, and that they’d carry out their threats, despite any previous history or loyalty they may have with a certain candidate, I believe they could make this stick and do this campaign a world of good.
I want the Fun back; for purely selfish reasons but for many sober political ones as well. not the least of which because inspiration and excitement beats ennui and weariness every time when trying to drive turnout in November.