I'm not talking about the diary you are currently reading. Instead I'm talking about a diary by wmtriallawyer that has profound implications for the viability of the Democratic nominee in November. The link to the diary can be found here.
http://www.dailykos.com/...
The money quote from his piece is:
It's simple math, really. Of ALL the remaining contests on the Democratic side, there are only 1,378 more pledged delegates to be had. Again, doing the math, with 2,025 delegates needed to nominate, that means that Obama or Clinton need to get roughly 900 to 1000 more delegates to sew it up.
Of the remaining delegates up for grabs in primaries and/or caucuses, that means that one of the candidates needs to win two-thirds of all the remaining delegates up for grabs to win it outright.
Follow me below the fold.
If this is correct then the potential consequences of this could portend serious problems for the Democrats retaking the WH in November. In order to avoid this it is best that Democrats start giving some serious thought to both what is fair and just and how to best avoid fracturing the party.
Below are some thoughts and questions to help begin the internal dialogue that each person is going to have to go through and which the party as a whole will have to deal with.
The reasons for the prediction of a likely Republican win in November may not be entirely obvious but are two fold:
- Pledged delegates will in all liklihood not decide the convention.
- The issue of MI and FL delegates will create huge fault lines along racial and gender lines.
The first reason follows simply from wmtrialawyers analysis. Superdelegates will, almost of necessity, select the nominee since it is unlikely that either candidate will be able to win 2/3rds of the remaining pledged delegates. Here are some things to think about should this happen:
If Obama has a lead in pledged delegates but the superdelegates select Clinton what is the likely effect on the youth voters and the african american voters come November?
If Clinton has a slight lead and the superdelegates go for Obama what will be the likely impact on HRC's biggest supporters ie. white women and seniors come November?
These two scenarios would aptly be described as "worst case" scenarios and it may be more likely that the superdelegates would go with the candidate who has the most pledged delegates. But even in this situation it is likely that emotions would be running very high and could cause some Democrats to not support the nominee in November.
Each of us would have our own opinion on these potential outcomes and, unfortunately, they would largely be shaped by our preference for Obama or HRC. My personal take, FWIW, would be that either of the first two scenarios would cause enough Democrats to peel off as to make a McCain win in November probable. While not as bad, the third scenario may also significantly impact the chances for a November win especially if HRC would be the nominee. I admit it may be my Obama bias but I do believe that an HRC nomination would demoralize both the youth and african american voters to such an extent that HRC will not beat McCain.
Based on this analysis the logical solution would be to have one candidate win the nomination based on pledged delegates which brings us back to the MI and FL question. This has been belabored on this site but the fact remains that there are two very compelling arguments for and against seating the delegates that are basically mutually exclusive:
HRC supporters are right in that it is inherently unfair to disenfranchise millions of voters in MI and FL.
Obama supporters are right in that for the integrity of a democracy you can't change the basic rules that govern selecting a nominee during the nominating process itself.
Unfortunately, where we stand on these issues largely depends on whom we support and not necessarily due to a reasoned and thoughtful analysis of what is right and wrong.
So what is to be done to reconcile the potentially irreconciliable?
This is something that Democrats will have to start grappling with now rather than later if an ugly internal rift is to be avoided.
A solution that I do see, although I don't necessarily support, would be for MI and FL to have their voices heard by scheduling another delegate selection day for both states. This would violate the rules of nominating process and Obama and his supporters could be right in objecting to this situation since it inherently favors Clinton since she "won" both states. As a compromise, it may be wise to accept a caucus format that has thus far favored Obama.
While this compromise is far from perfect it may be better than to risk dividing the Democrat party by race, gender and age.
I don't proclaim to have many answers (and given background you may want to ignore the issues I bring up) but I do know that how the Democrats resolve this issue will say alot about who they are, what they stand for and their chances for short term electoral success or failure.