Shenanigans at Democratic Convention Could Hurt Party
By Erik Schulwolf, Managing Opinion Editor
Two weeks after Super Tuesday and eight and a half months prior to the general election, the Republicans find themselves in far better electoral shape than they could have dared hope. The GOP has a nominee who is all but crowned and—due to an act of collective intelligence wholly out of character for GOP primary voters—is actually a viable candidate for the fall. Almost alone among the Republican hopefuls, Senator John McCain of Arizona has a relatively positive reputation among moderate and independent voters, a demographic the Democrats won by a landslide in the 2006 congressional elections. Due to his image as a pragmatic political maverick, McCain runs level with both of his possible Democratic opponents in potential general election match-ups. According to the Real Clear Politics poll average, he loses to Barack Obama 47.7 percent to 44.1, but beats Hillary Clinton 47 percent to 45.3. Given the rabidity of the anti-Republican political climate, McCain’s strong poll performances show him to be a formidable foe for the fall.

The Democrats, meanwhile, find themselves in the midst of an even and lavishly funded political tussle between Clinton and Obama. The race has swung back and forth throughout the early primaries, and Super Tuesday ended up deciding nothing. At this point, Obama leads the former first lady in delegates, 1,262 to 1,213, according to CNN. Significantly though, Obama has a much wider lead, 1,102 delegates to 978, among those delegates awarded based on performance in the primaries. Clinton makes up most of Obama’s margin among so-called “superdelegates”—Democratic elected officials and party officers who have a vote at the convention based on the office they hold. They can cast this vote for any candidate they see fit, irrespective of the preferences of their constituents. Superdelegates came into being because of strong primary challenges from the Left to candidates from the party’s establishment. They would serve as a useful stopgap if, say, Congressman Dennis Kucinich was performing well in Democratic primaries. Their utility lies in stopping the Democrats from committing political suicide by nominating an unelectable candidate, who would then drag down other Democrats. Usually, the convention is a coronation and the superdelegates have no effect.

This year promises to be different. According to CNN, 2,080 pledged delegates have been awarded so far, leaving 1,173 to be decided in future contests. In order to win a majority at the convention, a candidate must win 2,025 delegates. To do this without the help of superdelegates, Obama will have to win 79 percent of pledged delegates in the remaining contests, and Clinton will have to get almost 90 percent. Barring the withdrawal of one of the candidates from the race, it is a near certainty that superdelegates will hold the balance of power in Denver this August. This would leave the Democratic nomination in the hands of party bigwigs in proverbial smoke-filled rooms, an undemocratic and undoubtedly unpopular reversion to the bad old days of machine politics. Having staked their fortunes on the message of reform in 2008, this is hardly the sort of change with which the Democrats want to associate themselves.

The nightmare scenario for the Democrats would have Obama entering the convention with a lead in pledged delegates, then losing the nomination to Clinton on the votes of the superdelegates. The possibility of Democratic insiders thwarting the voters’ will to sabotage the candidate who has become synonymous with change in favor of the ultimate insider would do irreparable harm to Hillary’s chances of winning in November, and probably to the immediate future of the party. It would infuriate young and black voters, many of whom would stay home rather than vote for Clinton if she were chosen in this manner. Male voters, moderates and independents, who already have a healthy distrust for the New York senator, might be sufficiently disgusted by the process to cast their ballot for McCain, considering him a more palatable alternative. If Democrats do not win independents and moderates by at least 10 percent, they have no shot to win, and this sort of under-the-table Clinton victory is one way of ensuring this outcome. Additionally though, a backroom victory for Clinton would split the left wing of the Democratic Party, aiding Green Party hopefuls like Ralph Nader and Cynthia McKinney, which would increase the likelihood that the Greens could play spoiler as in 2000. Even if that doesn’t come to pass, a convention win of this nature for Clinton would be a Pyrrhic one; her fall campaign would be continually mired in controversy, her base would be unenthusiastic and centrists would be downright hostile. For McCain, who will be able to spend the next few months shoring up his conservative support and taking potshots at the Democrats, this is the perfect recipe for victory. For the Democrats, a loss in this most favorable of election cycles would be an unmitigated catastrophe.

Manifestly, the usual excuses will not work if the party pooh-bas end up swinging the convention to Clinton. While The National Journal rates Obama as the nation’s most liberal senator, he does better than Clinton in general election match-ups with McCain. Obama also demonstrates an appeal to independents that Clinton lacks. According to CNN, he routinely beats her in that demographic by an upwards of 10 percent in Democratic primaries. In fact, Obama is the only candidate in the race who appeals as strongly to independents as McCain, meaning that Obama is better suited to compete with the Republican nominee in that critical category. For that reason alone, he is more electable than Clinton. Obama’s campaign has also garnered far more enthusiasm than Clinton’s, and the Democrats will probably enter the fall with more energy if he is the nominee, better preparing them for a brutal struggle with a desperate GOP foe. Obama, clearly, is no Kucinich or Mike Gravel. His candidacy is every bit as legitimate as Clinton’s, and if Democratic voters choose him as their nominee, their wishes should be respected.

To avert the calamity of such a divisive and undemocratic selection process, the superdelegates need to resist the temptation to use their power to sway the convention. They should promise to support their leader in the pledged delegate count, regardless of their actual preferences, ensuring that candidate of a majority on the first ballot. Such a commitment would greatly benefit the Democrats. It would allow the nominee, whether Clinton or Obama, to accept the nomination as the legitimate choice of the Democratic Party. It would go a long way towards healing the divisions wrought by the nomination slugfest and ensure that the Democrats enter the general election campaign with a modicum of unity. Finally, it would represent the firm adherence of the Democrats to our party’s founding principle—that of the primacy of popular will. As the “party of the people,” we Democrats should resolve the convention in this way to affirm our determination to act on our core beliefs. This is an instance where principle and pragmatism are perfectly aligned. If Democratic leaders do the right thing this August, the party’s chances of victory will markedly increase. Let us hope they have the wisdom to see this clearly.

Issue 17, Submitted 2008-02-20 02:09:55