let's just wait (0.00 / 0)

to see how, if Obama actually wins the nomination, he fares in the general election, shall we?

Does anybody believe that, if in this election cycle, more favorable by far to a Democrat than any in recent memory, Obama is the nominee, but goes down in something resembling and electoral vote landslide because he can't appeal to, say, Reagan Democrats, that the pro-Obama activists will have any more credibility than the McGovern activists in their day?

You see, Obama supporters don't want any superdelegate to pay attention to electability when it comes to choosing the nominee, and express outrage that anything other than the pledged delegate count should be considered. But if Obama loses bigtime, or even if he just loses this election, which a Democrat most definitely should be able to win, and for precisely the reasons many superdelegates were fearful of selecting him as a nominee, it's going to be over for the clout of those activists in the Democratic Party.

So let's just say you guys had better goddam pray that if Obama is selected the nominee, he wins. Otherwise, it's going to be over for you.

---

by: frankly0 @ Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 17:42:25 PM UTC

I think the best measure of electability.... (0.00 / 0)

is whether that candidate has proven they can actually WIN hard-fought and close elections.

I don't get where the Clintonistas are getting off thinking she is so much more "electable."

End this war. Stop John McCain. Cindy McCain is filthy rich.

---

by: wiretapp @ Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 18:02:06 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Stop concern-trolling (4.00 / 2)

a) Activists will not lose their clout. Who do you think the party's footsoldiers are? Who is responsible for the record amounts of small dollar donations? Stop being ridiculous.
b) If you want to postulate an electoral landslide, you're going to have to back it up with good evidence. I'm talking polling trends going back months showing that he'll lose battleground states and even some relatively blue states to McCain. And you can't do that. So stop pulling hypotheticals out of your arse.
c) Substitute Obama for Clinton. Your predictions make no more and no less sense that way. So stop pretending you're making a substantive point.

So please, just stop. It's not big, it's not clever and it certainly isn't convincing.

Forgotten Countries - a foreign policy-focused blog

---

by: Englishlefty @ Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 18:16:17 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Do you really not (0.00 / 0)

get the point that what I'm saying has nothing to do with what polling today seems to say, and has to do only with what will actually be true, come November?

I repeat my point, since you don't seem to grasp it: if Obama is the nominee, then, if he loses in November, and most especially if he does so by something close to an electoral vote landslide, the entire Obama wing of the party, which has insisted that superdelegates pay note ONLY to pledged delegate count, and not electability, will suffer a massive loss of clout. In fact, they would pretty much suffer that loss even if they had not made that insistence, because that's what happens with losers, especially when everything favored that their side should win.

What I'm saying here is that there will a day of reckoning for the Obama wing, if Obama wins nomination. That day will be election day in November. Unless Obama wins, they will be in disgrace, and the recriminations will be endless.

I'm sorry to report to you, but reality does eventually happen, and you do eventually have to deal with it.

Point is, be careful what you wish for.

---

by: frankly0 @ Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 18:43:11 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I get your point... (0.00 / 0)

Obama if he is the nominee needs to be destroyed anyway he can... hence HRC dirt tactics... because IF he DOES win the nomination and the election -- the DLC wing of the party will be buried...

The DLC wing is fighting for its credibility, relevance, very existence at the moment.

---

by: SandThroughTheEyeGlass @ Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 19:16:33 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

and if he wins... (0.00 / 0)

that means Hillary will almost certainly not get another chance to run for President. (/me crosses fingers)

End this war. Stop John McCain. Cindy McCain is filthy rich.

---

by: wiretapp @ Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 21:47:32 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

You didn't listen (4.00 / 2)

You have suggested without evidence that Obama may get destroyed in November and that as a result everybody associated with his campaign will lose out.

Wow, that's a great insight. Whenever a candidate loses, their particular faction tends to lose some power. But this is no less true of Clinton than of Obama. Pretending otherwise makes you a concern-troll.

Forgotten Countries - a foreign policy-focused blog

---

by: Englishlefty @ Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 19:58:30 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I won't deny (0.00 / 0)

that it will hurt Clinton and whatever she represents if she loses.

But it's going to hurt Obama and his wing far, far worse if he loses, because it is he and they who have insisted that superdelegates ignore the electability issue, and in particular the importance of the major swing states, and his refusal to be loud and clear in a defense of allowing the will of the voters to be expressed in MI and FL.

If Clinton were to lose, the degree of recrimination would mainly hang on how she lost. If it were close in the major swing states, and close in the electoral vote, the recriminations would be considerable, but she might manage some ongoing credibility if her loss seemed close but along conventional lines.

If Obama loses because he loses OH, PA, MI, and FL, and so, as anyone who understands these things realizes, loses the electoral college vote, the former threat by Obama supporters of a major temper tantrum if the nomination was not handed over to Obama despite his known vulnerabilities in those major swing states is then going to come back to haunt him and his entire wing of the party. If in fact he is obviously hurt too by the Reverend Wright business, as so many people predict, and does the Democratic brand itself damage by making Democrats appear less patriotic, that will add to the loss of clout. And if he loses FL and MI in part because many voters in exit polls expressed anger that Obama refused to fight for their votes in the primaries (a sentiment I'm sure McCain will exploit), that too will add to the bitterness.

Basically, the only way Obama and the Obama wing of the party is likely to come out of Nov 2008 with any clout left is if he wins, and these things don't come to pass.

---

by: frankly0 @ Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 23:05:24 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Simplistic (0.00 / 0)

Clinton gets blamed too, because if Obama loses it'll be due to many of her supporters not voting Dem in the general, and her attitude will be blamed for that.

She'll also get blamed pretty horribly if she loses the general, because she'll have won the nomination at a divisive convention.

You aren't providing any evidence that these events you suggest are likely and your rationale as to why Clinton won't suffer is suspect.

If either Democrat loses in the general, Hillary Clinton will lose large amounts of what influence she has left. That may not be entirely fair to her, but I can't see her not being blamed for dividing the party.

Forgotten Countries - a foreign policy-focused blog

---

by: Englishlefty @ Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 23:23:31 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

But then what happens if... (0.00 / 0)

What happens if the supers go for Clinton who didn't win the most pledged delegates and then goes on to lose the election in a landslide?  The only positive that might come of that is that the rules creating superdelegates would likely not only be scratched from the record but Democratic Donkey would probably be burned in effigy from all the many foreclosure ghettos that will crop up after another 4 years of Bush-style economic rape.  And what of the Clinton wing of the party?  I would love to see them marginalized and pushed aside, but losing the election to see that happen is just too depressing to consider. Clinton is no more electable than Obama and until you can prove that you're just pulling the future out of your ass.

The current rules have made this campaign drag out and we as members of the party share the blame.  Hopefully we will win the election and then revamp the rules to get our nominee in place earlier with more representative contests and with less backroom deals or superdelegate coercion.    

---

by: Ricky @ Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 20:29:29 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Being careful goes 2 ways (0.00 / 0)

And the very same is true for the Clintons were they to win.

Really, your point is not clear to me.  Losing is bad. There will be consequences.  Winning is necessary.  We agree on that.

However, your use of the blanket, "Obama supporters ____"  

Jeebus, generalize much?   No candidate's supporters are monolithic.   This is blogosphere talk/think at its worst.  

---

by: Crab Nebula @ Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 21:21:26 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Interesting point (0.00 / 0)

Certainly the caucus totals inflate to some degree the difference in activist support among the two candidates, since the caucus states overall were more favorable to Obama and since the Clinton campaign had such a poor caucus strategy.

But I do think there is a growing disjunct between increasingly important and salient elements of the Democratic base and the DNC.  Whether such a contradiction will inevitably lead to a changing of the guard in the DNC seems less clear.  There are many, many examples of instances where the leadership of political parties were at odds with bases of key activists for long periods, and these contradictions have not always ended in the top changing to reflect the base.  I think progressives would be best to consider this as a challenge and a continuing fight, rather than to assume any element of inevitability.  For those reasons, it would be great if you (and others like yourself) ran for the DNC.

(Written by a lonely Dem activist supporting HRC!)

John McCain: Health insurance for low income children represents an "unfunded liability."

---

by: FuzzyDunlop @ Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 17:46:58 PM UTC

If that's your conclusion, that's ok. (4.00 / 1)

As far as I'm concerned, given the number that you provide, there are two thinga we must do.

1) FLUSH OUT caucuses from the system: It's difficult but it has to be done. Caucuses are the worst.

2) Get rid of the superdelegates: easy

---

by: TaiChiMaster @ Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 17:57:20 PM UTC

I agree with both (4.00 / 2)

I'm fine with doing away with both. However, when one goes, they other must go at the same time. Otherwise, it tips the balance of power in the party too far in one direction too quickly.

---

by: Chris Bowers @ Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 18:01:16 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

the social dynamic of caucuses (4.00 / 1)

I think one of the better aspects of caucuses that is lost in their vilification is their social dynamic. that they can be like a town party. I know public voting has problems, but that caucuses get people out to actually see and interact with each other in a community and share ideas and perspectives is a pretty cool thing.  

Michael Bloomberg, prince of corporate welfare

---

by: Will @ Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 18:20:05 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

A bright picture you are painting here (0.00 / 0)

very very very bright.

I could point to many facts that make caucuses bad, but I'm tired. Besides, I suspect you know them already.  

---

by: TaiChiMaster @ Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 18:32:08 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Ill remember not to point out anything interesting or positive (0.00 / 0)

I was highlighting something that is interesting about caucuses. I didn't endorse caucuses or not endorse caucuses. Jeez lighten up.

Michael Bloomberg, prince of corporate welfare

---

by: Will @ Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 21:08:47 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

What constitutes an activist? (4.00 / 2)

Obama inspires many people.  I'm not convinced that the inspiration for all of them extends to political activism generally, as opposed to belief in Obama and his message.  If Obama loses, perhaps many of them will be gone.

Obama's support in the caucuses is not necessarily equal to support among "activists who keep the party engine running."

Clinton's lead among supers who hold public office could be due to her husband having a larger network in the party and greater ability to deliver favors, as opposed to a split between the old and new guard.  

---

by: kanzeon @ Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 18:01:19 PM UTC

at first... (0.00 / 0)

I was about to troll-rate this comment then I realized how insightful it actually is. For real.

End this war. Stop John McCain. Cindy McCain is filthy rich.

---

by: wiretapp @ Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 18:03:44 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

that's possible (4.00 / 1)

You point to a way that this split might not be a deep one, but instead is simply specific to the two candidates in the campaign. I admit that is certainly possible.

However, consider that many activist organizations that were around well before the Obama campaign lean heavily in his direction. MoveOn.org, most progressive blogs, Take Back America, etc all endorsed Obama. These people were activists since before the Obama campaign, and will be so afterward.

As far as the Clinton's go, even if the leadership leans toward Clinton because Clinton helped put them there in the 1990's, it still means that Clintonistas hold a lot of power in the party.  And, I think it has been shown, between 60%-70% of party activists don't see eye to eye with the Clinton wing of the party.

Or, maybe I just like the idea of a party takeover so much, I'm willing to see it in everything.  

---

by: Chris Bowers @ Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 18:09:18 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Chris ... (0.00 / 0)

I think part of it is .. the activists see what little Clinton ended up doing for the Democratic "brand"(as has been hashed over many times .. see the losing of both Houses two years into Clinton's first term) ..  and as Kos and others now come to realize .. it was always about the Clintons ... Notice the "Yes we can!!" vs the "Yes, she can!!" thing .. that is not an accident .. also .. look at the Clinton money men sending that later to Speaker Pelosi .. it is the different approaches of the two candidates .. why do you think Obama has gotten so many more small donors? ... think of it this way .. the Carville's and Saban's are standing in the middle of the railroad track .. and the locomotive is coming .. are they gonna move .. or are they going to get steamrolled? ... I think we know which one they seem to be choosing

---

by: Calvin Jones and the 13th Apostle @ Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 18:24:14 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I started as an anybody but Clinton, and (0.00 / 0)

I am going to end up there for the very reason you site.   This is "what little Clinton ended up doing for the Democratic brand" in my state.  We are still dealing with Bill's gift to globalization.  

---

by: dkmich @ Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 10:16:40 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Please run for DNC Chris... (4.00 / 3)

I found myself wondering just the other day "why isn't Chris Bowers a super-delegate?" At least for his home state.

Anyway I think you being a member of the DNC would be even more helpful and good for that party.

I say go for it!

End this war. Stop John McCain. Cindy McCain is filthy rich.

---

by: wiretapp @ Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 18:04:59 PM UTC

My support for Chris (0.00 / 0)

as super delegate is the whole reason I came into this thread.  Go Chris!

---

by: dkmich @ Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 10:21:22 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

How do the undecideds break down along these lines? (0.00 / 0)

Are most of the uncommitted superdelegates DNC, or elected officials?

---

by: corax @ Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 18:12:50 PM UTC

Look here (0.00 / 0)

http://demconwatch.blogspot.co...

---

by: The Animal @ Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 18:59:12 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

You proved a point you were unaware of (0.00 / 0)

Consider the current delegate counts from primaries, and from superdelegates who currently hold public office:

Primary delegate totals: Obama 1,081.5--1,063.5 Clinton
Supers who hold public office: Obama 99--96 Clinton

Tight as a glove. The "public" portion of the Democratic nomination campaign shows Obama only narrowly ahead of Clinton, and the campaign in a virtual tie. However, now look at the delegate totals for caucuses and for supers who do not currently hold public office:

Supers who do not hold public office: Clinton 150--110 Obama (58%-42%)
Caucus delegate totals: Obama 334--190 Clinton (64%-36%)

While publicly elected officials and primary voters are virtually split between the two candidates, the Democratic Party leadership heavily favors Clinton and the highly engaged activists who keep the party's electoral engine running heavily favor Obama

I have said all along that Obama's lead in pledged delegates is from caucus states...which I contend are less representative than primaries becasue it favors those very people you think are more important ansd discriminates against those people you think are less important.  But it also shows that primaries let everyday, ordinary voters with jobs and kids and other responsibilites who aren't part of th ecreative class...and I know you put them into the rubric of Reagan Democrats that you are so annoyed with...so in your mind...begone ...good riddance....Let the creative class, activists make the decsions for everyone else...after all they must have better what...judgemnet, sense, better somthing because it matters more what they think than ordinary folks thinks.

It is not the party leaders vs. the activists....it's the everyday folks versus the activists...and while I consider myself an activist, I think the other folks matter a lot...especially as they aren't as good at making themselves loudly heard...except in November.

Well you may not realize it but that's attitude that some of us from the 60's also shared. It was an idea that certain elements of a party was in the lead or what they called The Vanguard as derived from New Left discussions of the Old Left and the socialist/communist left ...it fits your idea that the creative class activists are inherently better is another version of that idea.  I don't think it did us much good back then either...indeed I think it was a very unproductive attitude in terms of creating meaningful partnerships and alliances across all the spectrums that make up the party and the country.

"Incrementalism isn't a different path to the same place, it could be a different path to a different place"
Stoller

---

by: debcoop @ Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 19:58:51 PM UTC

But caucuses were known, Super Tues was new. (0.00 / 0)

I'm open to args that caucuses should not be held in the future.      I knew I was against Super Tuesday this time.   It proved not to be the end-all though.   Without Obama it would have been game over, HRC in the bag, and then I doubt we'd have heard about how lame caucuses are.

The caucuses were a known quantity I think, Super Tuesday was the innovation.

This year a candidate had enough steam to play a 50 state game vs a 50% +1 game.   It was a year where the grassroots fundraising and campaigning matured well enough to allow Obama to use it well, and he did it early.   HRC found out too late that it was there for her too, if her camp had given it a real go.

If the Clinton campaign wanted to, it could have run away with the caucuses too.   But they rolled the dice on Super Tuesday, which was new and favored huge name recognition and early deep pockets.    

It became clear that once Super Tuesday did not wrap it up for HRC, they had no Plan B.   No money and no strategy.   It reminded me of a "Mission Accomplished" kind of mindset.  Caucuses themselves were not a problem.  Ignoring them was.    From what I've seen here whether you like them or not, each side's activists would have chewed off a leg for his/her candidate.

And your activists vs regular folks talk should maybe get its own diary but I remember when HRC seemed genuinely shocked and honored to raise money so quickly over the net after Super Tuesday, and she had no donors to turn to.   She hadn't done that previously.   She corralled the fat money donors one day one and made them max out early.  It was a top down scenario, as elitist as they come.  It would have worked too if Obama was not it the race.

When I saw her face as she talked about the regular person bailout, I thought to myself that if she had discovered this earlier she would have mowed everyone down.  

---

by: drowsy @ Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 20:35:43 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

But the problem is... (0.00 / 0)

The caucuses represent those states for better or for worse.  You should have fought harder and organized better to let the DNC know you think the caucuses are undemocratic.  Of course, if Clinton had won many or most of the caucus states, I am sure this argument wouldn't cross your keyboard.

The more troubling aspect of the caucuses for me is it just shows how callous the Clinton campaign was in their approach to the nomination.  They didn't seem to do their homework in the caucus states or they just decided to ignore them.  To me that is about as damning an indictment as one can make when you are trying to show yourself as being worthy enough to represent all the people in this country.

While I find Obama's hewing a little to strictly to the rules when it came to brokering revotes in the illegitimate FL and MI elections a bit galling, Clinton's complete disregard for organizing in most states even worse.

---

by: Ricky @ Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 20:39:14 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Caucuses = Democracy? (0.00 / 0)

Importantly, it should be noted that whoever can win caucuses also has the ability the take over the party from the inside. If most DNC members are at such great odds with the most dedicated, highly engaged Democratic activists, before long there is going to be a new generation of DNC members. In fact, after watching this election cycle, I am strongly considering running for a DNC spot myself. If the leadership is out of touch with the activists, then it is time for a new leadership.

And caucuses are sodemocratic. Give me a break! If caucus results are the equivalent of democratic, then I'm seriously in the wrong country (or the wrong universe).

Caucuses represent, at most, 3-10 percent of registered voters in a state. They're democratic alright: whoever can yell, push and shove the most comes out the winner. This is how Barack Obama's "supporters" (a loose characterization, I assure you) behaved at many caucus locations in Washington State. Small reason that WA results are being investigated for fraud and undemocratic shenanigans.

Frankly I prefer the primary process to assess voter participation. Unlike caucuses, primaries actually are representative of registered voters, if it do ya. It seems to have served our country pretty well over the centuries, too.

And on a new DNC: let's see, that would be Obama Rules DNC? Small difference, as far as I can see. When the left and the right start looking this similar, democracy is in deep shit.

---

by: mabelle55 @ Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 22:15:47 PM UTC