John McCain has finished second or lower among Republicans in all five states that have held a Republican presidential nominating contest so far. On the other side of the aisle, Barack Obama has finished first, or tied for first, among projected delegates to the Democratic national convention in all three states that have held nominating contests for Democratic national convention delegates so far. Despite this, John McCain is considered the frontrunner for the Republican presidential nomination, while Barack Obama is not considered the frontrunner for the Democratic presidential nomination. Why is this?
The reason is because the reality agreed to by virtually all participants in American presidential nominating contests--almost every reporter, pundit, candidate, campaign staffer, donor, volunteer and voter--is an arbitrary construct not in line with the by-laws of the political parties that will actually nominate candidates. Instead, nominees are determined by a reality that operates by the following rules:
- Top-tier candidates for presidential nominations are determined by a combination of national polls, early state polls, fundraising prowess, and endorsements.
- All top tier candidates will be described by a tag line that, at most, is one sentence in length. As much as is possible, the tag lines will not refer to policy proposals.
- The winner of the early nominating contests will be defined as the candidate who receives the closest approximation to the popular vote in a given state. This could mean delegates to county conventions, delegates to state conventions, popular vote totals within certain partisan groups, or overall popular vote totals, depending on the state in question.
- Candidates that win early state nominating contests in the manner defined in point #3 will receive an overwhelming amount of extremely favorable free media as long as those nominating contests are vigorously contested by more than one top-tier candidate.
- The free media defined in point number #4 will always be based upon, and ultimately justify, the description of the candidate in point #2.
There is nothing natural about these rules, but they do provide the basic outline for how both Democrats and Republicans arrive at their presidential nominees. Then again, while it is an arbitrary reality that is not in line with the by-laws of either the Democratic or Republican parties, it is also a broadly accepted reality by virtually all participants in Democratic and Republican nominating contests. In fact, I pretty much accepted those rules during most of 2007, and as such I shouldn't go crying about them now simply because they appear to be leading to nominees that are not among my first three choices from either major party. Like pretty much everyone else involved in the nominating contest, I was part of this community of arbitrary, but accepted, reality.
I guess the only point I want to make is that there are standards of candidate performance that are in line with Democratic and Republican party by-laws, and that those standards would currently show Barack Obama and Mitt Romney to be the frontrunners for the nominations of their respective parties. One of these standards, known as projected pledged delegates to the national convention, is far less arbitrary than the standard we currently use because it follows the by-laws of the parties that are actually nominating people for POTUS. However, it also isn't a standard that I, or pretty much anyone else, worked to adopt in 2007 or earlier.
Changing the realty in the middle of the process just isn't something that is going to happen. That is unfortunate, because a general election between Barack Obama and Mitt Romney would almost certainly lead to a more progressive presidency than can a Clinton vs. McCain matchup. An Obama vs. Romney matchup would be fought on relatively progressive rhetorical ground and lead to an overwhelming Obama victory based on a very progressive coalition, even if the candidate himself might be flawed on some points. In other words, the result would be a progressive president with a mandate for progressive change and a victory delivered to him by a grassroots, progressive coalition. Instead, we seem to be headed toward an election between the ultimate Democratic establishment candidate and the ultimate media elite anointed candidate that will be fought on relatively conservative rhetorical grounds, and which right now favors the more conservative, media anointed candidate. And if McCain wins, he will owe his victory to the likes of Joe Lieberman and a cadre or Lieber-punidtry that backed him along the way. Just think of it: an entire presidency of high Broderism.
So please, when I spout off about Barack Obama winning Nevada in this environment, forgive me if I long for a reality that is less arbitrary than a media driven, Baudrillard-esque construct that makes our work in the progressive movement so much harder and our goals so much more difficult to achieve. When a better outcome is just a different, less arbitrary, interpretation of reality away, it is hard not to hope, and hard not to see how things could have been much, much better.
Update: I should note that, if I could only choose one, I could much, much rather see McCain lose the Republican nomination than see Obama win the Democratic nomination. As I see it, watching the anointed candidate of High Broderism and the Lieber-pundits lose, combined with virtually assuring a Democratic win in the general election, is way, way more important than the differences between Clinton and Obama.
Update 2: Breaking! Obama actually won New Hampshire, and Clinton and Obama were tied in both Iowa and Nevada! These things keep changing all the time. Too bad the winners have already been projected according to the rules of a different reality.
|
STATE BLOGS
