My first one ...
On the night of March 4th, perception may be more important than reality. For us folks who are Obama supporters, we are well schooled in the mathematical impossibilities of Sen. Clinton overtaking BO, unless she has big wins in Ohio and Texas, not to mention a subsequent series of improbable events. The polls would seem to show that it’s going to be a very close race.
To me, Texas, with its hybrid primary/caucus system, would strongly favor Sen. Obama if the primary vote is close. Even if he is behind slightly in the popular vote, the caucus would likely put him over the top in delegates. This has me worried ...
As soon as the networks achieve their divine wisdom, we’ve all seen the flash of stars and stripes, bright lights, and the declaration of a winner before the vote is final. In a world where the MSM continually needs to feed the beast, will there be a rush to declare Sen. Clinton the winner if she is ahead in the Texas popular vote, by say 2%-5%? (Don’t get over-confident, depending on turnout and the number of undecided voters out there, this is a possibility.) The subsequent caucus and delegate count could end up a footnote.
If this happens, we’ll hear a lot from the Clinton campaign that this is a "win", and it’ll be very difficult to paint the real picture if the media goes along with it. It’s not out of the realm of possibility. One of Gore’s great disadvantages in 2000 was that Bush had been declared the winner by Fox after Florida, and everyone fell in line. Gore was always seen as the guy trying to unseat Bush, and in many peoples’ minds, a sore loser.
Is this reckless paranoia? I know many people on this site have read the stories about the Clinton team threatening legal action against the caucus process [link]. I think the reason isn’t to reject the caucus process, but delay its implementation so that the "We won Texas" mantra can gain traction. If their campaign is to maintain life, it needs to control the message coming out of March 4th. (And I don’t assign too much animosity to this fact, campaigns are run to win.)
My point is this: KEEP THE MEDIA HONEST! Make calls, send e-mails, do whatever you can to ensure that Texas’ process is respected. And do it in advance. This is one of the true strengths of a community site like DailyKos, where the collective voice can make a difference. Give the MSM a hand. I’m not one of those who think they are evil, just lazy sometimes ... which brings me to Part II.
The Super-D’s
The idea of super-delegates is starting to grow on me. What seemed undemocratic on its face, does have the ability to serve an important purpose, especially where we have a proportional delegate system. At its core, their function is to do what’s best for the party, which can be read to unify around a candidate. As an Obama supporter, it’s difficult to make this as an altruistic argument, but the facts are clear:
- For Clinton to even gain delegate parity with Obama, it’ll take a rough and tumble campaign by the convention that’ll leave both candidates quite weak.
- A protracted battle between Clinton and Obama will widen divides between the supporters making reconciliation much more difficult at the convention and in the general election.
- We’re seeing the effects of having a frontrunner with the Republican race settled. Obama is taking hits on 3-fronts (Clinton, McCain, and Bush). Even the strongest candidate can’t survive this, and polling has shown some dips or leveling off for Obama. The Democratic race so far has been aggressive which is healthy, but to-date has provided enough toughening of Obama to have served its purpose.
- Obama has a unique opportunity between now and the convention. McCain, having subjected himself to campaign finance rules by taking public money, will be nearly depleted for a few months and Obama, with his strong fund-raising ability, can continue running a robust "pre-campaign" against him up to the convention.
- And no cries of denying states who haven’t voted yet of their right to help select the candidate. No one showed much concern for us in California when we had our June primaries and were basically ignored, except for fundraising.
Tying it all together...
A lot of this is based on conjecture, but I think a realistic possibility for which we should be prepared. In my gut, I have a feeling Sen. Clinton pulls out Ohio, which means an Obama Texas victory, that is, the one with the most delegates, could effectively end the campaign, and serve the best interest of the party. With a Texas victory, the Super-D’s would have the political cover to pull rank and urge Clinton to drop out. They would simply be playing by the rules her campaign set, which is win Ohio and Texas, or it’s over.
However if Texas is seen as a Clinton "win", then this could get difficult for the SD’s because it would look like they’re pulling the plug prematurely, and it could get ugly.
Just some thoughts, but hopefully we can keep the media honest, and have them accurately report the Texas results, even if it takes a day or two to sort out. At least from my perspective, all eyes will be on Texas!