This is my first diary and probably my last considering the rules and the way different opinions often get bashed here. I HOPE it won’t be.
Before I go into why I think the division within the Democratic Party may be good thing let me say a few things. I am a 33-year-old second generation Hispanic American and I’m very proud of my citizenship (I wear a pin). I consider my home to be Hawaii but currently reside in New Mexico. I have never participated in any election because I have always felt that neither party’s nominee ever felt like my Hawaii vote matter to them. I have a firm understanding of how the electoral system works and I don’t blame them for not putting more importance on Hawaii’s votes but must add, imho, that it is this type of mentality that keeps America from moving in a positive direction. Obama’s 50 state strategy has shown me that maybe someone cares about everyone vs. the majority. With that being said, it is Obama that has persuaded me to vote this year, not for the Democratic Party but for America.
Like my understanding of the electoral vote, I too understand your needs for a united party for the general election. It is imperative that your particular party wins as many seats as possible including the Presidency. So common sense says the divided party is bad.
I think something that most politically affiliated people assume is the rise in numbers of registered Democrats is because of the party and those people somehow will remain and vote like loyal Democrats. Unfortunately like me, many (my assumption) newly registered democrats did so just so they can participate in closed primaries like the one held here in New Mexico. If I wanted to have my voice heard I was FORCED to join. I didn’t join because I wanted to be a Democrat I did so because I wanted something better for America. CHANGE
These types of voters, the individuals that joined up to vote for either candidate should count as a third party vote when trying to calculate your parties chances of winning the general elections. It is these types of voters that are more than likely the ones that saying stuff like "I will vote for McCain or stay home if my favorite doesn’t win." Again my assumption is that the Democratic Hardcore will vote Democratic no matter what and that voting against the party would mean they were never really down with the Democratic Party’s views thus providing a bit of evidence that your party may not be divided but liquid in nature.
To assume citizens that joined the Democratic Party cause they like what you guys have to offer more than the Republicans do is being exactly what Obama has been falsely accused of being. Elitist. To assume they won’t just fall back into the fold of non-voters if the super delegates overturn the pledged delegate leader is also committing the same offense. To assume they consider themselves Democrats could also leave you looking a bit elitist.
So more than likely, the predicament you have in your party isn’t a divided party; it’s one where your party needs to figure out how to keep the large number of newly registered voters in your column in order to not have what happened in 2004 occur again
It is my firm belief that Obama isn’t running for the Presidency for the good of any party but for the good of America. So a divided party means zero from my point of view. If the math is correct the probability of Clinton to win the nomination hinges completely on the shoulders of the super delegates.
If the super delegates were to overturn the pledge delegate leader then how is that good for America? How is voting for the recipient of the super delegate coup good for America?
It’s not good for America. It sets a precedent much like the impeachment of Bill Clinton. It says no matter what the situation, the government (powers that be) can do what ever they like if they want to. For example why has BUSH not been impeached or imprisoned? Voting for Clinton in this type of situation is only good for the Democratic Party not for America or for America’s future generations. Doing so would go against everything Obama is trying to CHANGE. Party Politics.
The CHANGE Obama speaks of won’t happen over night. It probably won’t even fully be realized by the end of his second term. CHANGE is an evolutionary type process and I think one of the first steps is happening because of peoples (unaffiliated voters, some registered Democrats and some Republicans too) willingness to embrace it. The ways things evolve are often times unpredictable. Perhaps this implied division within your party is the first step in people believing in the importance of CHANGE versus the same ole same ole. Perhaps this CHANGE coming may be the end of political parties, as we know them. If CHANGE is good and something people want, then maybe people need to embrace the effects created during the process rather than pushing them away as being bad.
When it’s all said and done maybe this perceived division within your party will be the catalyst to bring about the CHANGE America is so desperately in need of. If that is the case then perhaps your divided party perceptions may actually be good for America.
That is if what you truly want is what is best for America. CHANGE.