The Obama Phenomenon and the 2008 Presidential Campaign

[Primula Baggins]

tinwë, you're right: we don't vote until May 20th. Phoo.

Cerin, the scenario I put forth was a case where the clear momentum and voter enthusiasm was behind Obama, not just a majority of the non-super delegates. That's the case where I think having the superdelegates hand Clinton the nomination could be disastrous.

If there's no such clear "people's choice," that's different.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

In preparing a reply, I think I figured out the problem. The problem is that the super delegates were not chosen by the voters, is that correct? So each super delegate is really just representing their self and their interests, rather than having been chosen because they reflect the view of a certain number of voters? So as individuals, they are wielding personal power that the other delegates are not.

Yes, that is it exactly. Well said.

Given the unreliability of polls, how would you want the super delegates to make their decision in the case of a very close delegate count, apart from voting for the person they personally favor? Is it your view that the super delegates should (ethically speaking) cast their vote for the person ahead in delegates when the convention rolls around, even if ahead by a small amount, and even if no one has accumulated enough delegates for the nomination?

I don't really have an answer to this question. I would rather not have the super delegates at all, frankly, but it is the system that we have. I am not so much commenting on what I would like to see the super delegates do as I am speculating about what may happen. I do agree with you that given the system that is in place, the super delegates should be free to vote for the candidate that they personally favor. But I think we may be headed for a brokered convention, which could turn very messy.

Those delegates that Edwards won early on could turn out to be crucial.

[Cerin]

What I don’t like, what I am dismayed about, what I do in fact hate, is the prospect of having four more years of the same divisive politics that have plagued this country for the last sixteen years. Yes, I realize that electing Obama would not guarantee an end to that, I realize that there will always be some Republicans who will never accept a Democratic president, just as there will always be some Democrats who will never accept a Republican.

But at least with Obama there is some chance for something different, some possibility that this country could rise above the rancor that has plagued our public discourse for so long now.

The unfairness of this is one of the things that has me instinctively rooting for Hillary (which I discovered last night as I was watching the returns, much as I discovered I was rooting for the Patriots as I watched the football game). By unfairness, I mean that the Clintons aren't the ones responsible for the divisiveness. There are people who hate them passionately, who hated them in Arkansas, and whose hatred followed them into the White House. Would anyone dispute that?

That's why I said that I felt a clear Clinton defeat last night would have signalled a victory for that hate. Because that's the big reason people don't want her -- because of the hate (not necessarily their own), and I don't believe the hate is her fault. It just makes me so sad that an extremely capable and qualified candidate should be disqualified in people's minds because of hate. It seems to me that is something people of good will would want to stand up against.

And then there's the fact that the hate game isn't only about the Clintons. Do you all think that if both Clintons disappeared tomorrow, that Rush would go out of business? I don't.

[tinwë]

The super delegates are party leaders and elected officials, in other words they are politicians and will most likely base their votes on political expediency, which for them means “what will I get out of it?” I see a tremendous amount of political maneuvering between the candidates to get those votes, and I think Clinton will prove much more adept at that. The Clintons (Bill and Hillary) have a substantial political apparatus in place, especially among other politicians, and I can see many of the super delegates wanting to be part of that, so I think it is more likely they would vote for Clinton, regardless of the polls.

[Ellienor]

I'm in Colorado. So I go to the Democratic caucus last night. Apparently in 2004, 12 people showed up to our precinct, and last night, 134 people showed up. It was standing-room only! They could barely control it. We had to count votes several times because there were so many people, it was hard to get an accurate count.

We went: 89 for Obama, 23 for Clinton, 22 for uncommitted. I thought that the overwhelming support for Obama was an Boulder county (Berkeley of the Rockies) oddity but the whole state went overwhelmingly for Obama. Wow!

It was pretty kewl.

tinwë, if the party feels that Obama is more electable than Clinton, do you think the "superdelegates" will still go for Clinton? It could be win the battle, lose the war (November). I think McCain has pretty good support among independents, as does Obama. I think the independents are turned off by the Clintons and their machine and she would do far less well among them in Nov., to the party's great detriment.

I'm reminded of Ang's comment: "never underestimate the Democratic party's ability to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory".

Voronwë: Maggie Fox (wife of Mark Udall, who is running for senate seat vacated by Allard) who was at our precinct caucus last night said that she expected a brokered convention. Udall is my neighbor.

[tinwë]

That's why I said that I felt a clear Clinton defeat last night would have signalled a victory for that hate. Because that's the big reason people don't want her -- because of the hate (not necessarily their own), and I don't believe the hate is her fault. It just makes me so sad that an extremely capable and qualified candidate should be disqualified in people's minds because of hate. It seems to me that is something people of good will would want to stand up against.

I’ve been standing up against that hate for sixteen years now. I’m tired. That’s all. I want something else. I don't think I can do it for another four (or eight) years.

If there wasn’t anything else than I would be right there beside you, cheering on Hillary to the end. But there is something else, there is another capable and qualified candidate, someone who has the potential at least to offer us something better than what we’ve had for the last sixteen years.

No, I don’t think the divisiveness will go away, and I said as much in my earlier post, but I do think there is a better chance of it decreasing under Obama. I don’t think there is any chance at all of it decreasing under Clinton, and there is a distinct chance it will get worse. And as I said, the fact that it is not necessarily her fault (it’s not necessarily not her fault either, though) doesn’t make me feel any better about it. I’m tired of it, just tired.

[Cerin]

To be perfectly honest, part of me thinks the country would be better off with McCain in the office, and I say that despite the fact that I disagree with him on just about everything. I just think that he would do a better job of bringing the country together and ending the divisiveness. Mind you, I most likely will not vote for him, the issues mean to much to me, but that doesn’t change the way I feel.

I wonder what makes you think McCain could bring the country together any better. He favors continuing with the Bush policies, and wouldn't you agree that those policies have created a sharply divided nation?

Cerin, the scenario I put forth was a case where the clear momentum and voter enthusiasm was behind Obama, not just a majority of the non-super delegates.

Yes, that's why I mentioned the unreliability of polls. How would you be guaging 'clear momentum and voter enthusiasm' if the delegate count remained fairly even? Given the talk I'd been hearing in the last few days, the clear momentum and voter enthusiasm last night was supposed to be with Obama, but the results seemed to show both candidates' generating quite a bit of enthusiasm and momentum. So I think trying to guage momentum and enthusiasm would be problematic, and rather ephemeral things on which to base the choice of a nominee. Especially given the track record of the pollsters and punditry this season!

But I think we may be headed for a brokered convention, which could turn very messy.

Those delegates that Edwards won early on could turn out to be crucial.

Brokered means one going beyond the first ballot? The Edwards delegates would be independent after the first ballot, is that correct?

[Maria]

Huck hasn't won Georgia or Missouri yet; in fact, McCain currently leads in Mizzou.

Huh? "Mizzou" is the term used to refer to the University of Missouri, Columbia. It has nothing to do with the state at large. I've heard Missouri called "Mizzoura" "Misery" and "MO" but never "Mizzou". That's the university.

[Ellienor]

Supposedly Missouri is a bellwether state and Obama won it.

[tinwë]

tinwë, if the party feels that Obama is more electable than Clinton, do you think the "superdelegates" will still go for Clinton? It could be win the battle, lose the war (November). I think McCain has pretty good support among independents, as does Obama. I think the independents are turned off by the Clintons and their machine and she would do far less well among them in Nov., to the party's great detriment.

I'm reminded of Ang's comment: "never underestimate the Democratic party's ability to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory".

The fact that the super delegates are politicians is what worries me. Politicians will do what is best for them personally, not what is best for the party or the country or the people. I think that most of them will be foaming at the mouth at the prospect of getting into the Clinton machine. And I don’t think too many of them are worried about losing in November. McCain does have crossover support, but he is despised among conservatives, many of whom would rather see a Clinton presidency they can spoil (much like they spoiled the first Clinton presidency) than a McCain presidedncy they would have to hold their nose for.

Oh, and by the way ...

Hi Ellie! Been a long time.

[Ellienor]

Nice to see that the twins again seem to think alike.

I believe that Mark Udall (soon to be the 2nd Democratic senator from Colorado) may be our president one day. Mark my words. They're neighbors and are really nice people. Their daughter is a great babysitter.

[Maria]

bell·weth·er /ˈbɛlˌwɛðər/
–noun 1. a wether or other male sheep that leads the flock, usually bearing a bell.

[tinwë]

To be perfectly honest, part of me thinks the country would be better off with McCain in the office, and I say that despite the fact that I disagree with him on just about everything. I just think that he would do a better job of bringing the country together and ending the divisiveness. Mind you, I most likely will not vote for him, the issues mean to much to me, but that doesn’t change the way I feel.

I wonder what makes you think McCain could bring the country together any better. He favors continuing with the Bush policies, and wouldn't you agree that those policies have created a sharply divided nation?

I think it goes way beyond the policies. Look, Reagan espoused many of the same policies (heck, Reagan invented many of the policies) but he was able to largely unify the country despite the fact that many people strongly disagreed with him. What has driven the divisiveness, I think, has been the hate, not the policies. Especially given that Bill Clinton actually co-opted so many of the Republican’s causes (go back and read the article that talked about Dick Morris’ strategy of triangulation that worked so well for Clinton in the latter years of his administration).

McCain may support the same policies, but he doesn’t carry the same baggage as the Bush or Clinton dynasties do. And I can’t help but think that, despite his brown-nosing Bush for the last eight years, he has much more integrity than Bush did. That would, I think, be a factor in uniting the country.

Plus, the fact that conservatives hate him is a good thing, imo!

Ellie, so you will be able to say that the president’s daughter babysat your kids? Cool!

[Padme]

Nice to see that the twins again seem to think alike.

I believe that Mark Udall (soon to be the 2nd Democratic senator from Colorado) may be our president one day. Mark my words. They're neighbors and are really nice people. Their daughter is a great babysitter.

And his brother Tom from New Mexico can be the Vice President.....

[Cerin]

Speaking of conservatives, and particularly those represented by the radio talk show hosts, what will they do with a McCain/Huckabee ticket? They wouldn't actually vote for the Dems, would they? Perhaps they'd mount a write-in or third party candidacy. Dobson has said he will not vote for McCain under any circumstances (which puzzles me, since I believe McCain is strong on those 'values' issues).

[Primula Baggins]

I have trouble imagining a real conservative voting for a Democrat rather than McCain because McCain isn't ideologically pure enough. (I frankly don't get this going the other way, either; how is McCain better than even a second-choice Democrat, from a progressive's perspective? If we supposedly want change? I don't believe for a second that his "different" sounding ideas would last beyond the inauguration. Continuing Business as Usual pays too well, at least to the ones who matter to Republicans.)

The real impact of conservative lack of enthusiasm would probably take the form of voters staying home.

[Ellienor]

The real impact of conservative lack of enthusiasm would probably take the form of voters staying home.

But if Hillary was on the ticket that might galvanize them.

I have nothing against Hillary, but there's no one better to get the conservative radio hosts foaming at the mouth.

[Cerin]

I frankly don't get this going the other way, either; how is McCain better than even a second-choice Democrat, from a progressive's perspective? If we supposedly want change?

I don't get it, either. McCain is enthusiastically promising to continue the Bush policies that have the country going in a direction that the overwhelming majority of Americans think is the wrong one.

[Primula Baggins]

This election seems so important. We already have so much to dig out from. Four or eight more years of the same will bend this country's social and political structure into some pretty ugly shapes. Four or eight more years of the middle class and poor people losing ground (real income went down again last year). I don't think the "let them eat cake" types at the top of the Republican party have any idea how deep this goes, how strongly people feel about it.

My hope is that November 2008 will provide them with an indication.

[Padme]

Speaking of conservatives, and particularly those represented by the radio talk show hosts, what will they do with a McCain/Huckabee ticket? They wouldn't actually vote for the Dems, would they? Perhaps they'd mount a write-in or third party candidacy. Dobson has said he will not vote for McCain under any circumstances (which puzzles me, since I believe McCain is strong on those 'values' issues).

Ann Colter would vote for Hillary over McCain.....Don't know if that is all that important, since she is a nut case anyway and so far right that most people with a brain point and laugh.


Oh and what Prim said