Why Obama and Clinton Are Debating Voter Suppression

They aren't just fighting for delegates anymore. Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama are now battling at the boundaries of democracy, trading allegations of voter suppression from the Nevada fallout. Look closely, though, and much of this boils down to turnout.

Clinton now leads most of the centrist coalition that her husband built. That includes working class moderates, pro-trade centrists, liberal hawks, Latinos and most of the traditional Democratic-progressive establishment - an alliance that delivered two winning pluralities for Bill Clinton. Obama is trying to build a new, bigger coalition on the fly. His success depends on mobilizing largely untested voting blocs, such as people under 30, apolitical independents and cross-over Republicans -- those "Obamacans" -- while consolidating his base of affluent liberals and Blacks.

The first three contests suggest that either tack can work.

Clinton can (narrowly) win a traditional Democratic electorate, like New Hampshire and Nevada. She won 51 percent of Democrats in Nevada this weekend, compared to 39 percent for Obama, who relied on independents for the rest of his support. But Obama can triumph in a higher turnout universe, such as an Iowa Caucus flooded by new and young voters, who comprised a third of his backing there.

So based on the results so far, lower voter turnout portends a Clinton nomination. And lately, Clinton supporters have tried tactics to limit turnout. There was that last-minute lawsuit to restrict voter access in Nevada, which Bill Clinton staunchly defended. A court rejected the controversial ploy. In a conference call on Sunday, the Obama Campaign alleged that Clinton supporters suppressed participation in 200 incidents at Nevada Caucus sites on Saturday afternoon, in violation of party rules. The Clinton Campaign denied the charge and criticized the Obama campaign for peddling "false claims," and there were also reports of Obama backers pressuring voters in Nevada.

Modern Democratic presidential primaries do not usually devolve into allegations of voter suppression. And it's particularly rare for a former U.S. President to flatly defend a lawsuit designed to disenfranchise voters - a nasty tactic so baldly undemocratic that it is usually pushed solely by lawyers and surrogates, while the potential beneficiaries remain silent.

But at bottom, these disputes also reflect the campaigns' drastically different orientations. Clinton's winning formula is to unite the traditional Democratic electorate, assuming traditional turnout. Obama's path to victory is bolder but more improbable: Leading the party past pluralities to a new, post-partisan true majority. Maybe these suppression disputes will push voters to think about which course is more appealing, or more inspiring, or just more likely to work.

--
Ari Melber writes for The Nation, where this post first appeared.

Follow Ari Melber on Twitter: www.twitter.com/AriMelber

Comments

[andy65]

in late january 2001, i with many others protested the inauguration of an unelected president on the freezing streets of washington dc. as per michael moore's video, the president unelect was forced to give up the traditional walk down pennsylvannia ave. he had to take refuge from the protest in his limo. we saw what was happening but not enough americans were as alarmed as we were. did bill clinton use his bully pulpit as the president of the united states to prevent this disaster or at least speak out against it? no, he was too busy at that moment writing presidential pardons for criminals who had given him lots of campaign cash. the idea of him charging the obama campaign with voter supression in nevada is deeply insulting to me. when we needed his leadership during that agonizing two months between nov2000 and jan2001 he was awol. he was using the presidency for his own corrupt and petty personal reasons. i ask all supporters of this man, did his pardon of marc rich assist the progressive movement at that time?

[Trace8089]

Everyone is entitled to their opinion but not their own facts. If the Clintons tried to suppress the vote in Nevada they did a piss poor job. Over 100,000 people showed up compared to 9000 the last election cycle.

Clinton wins self described democrats,women and hispanics. She's winning the poor and less educated. She's winning the elderly. She's ahead among white votes.

Obama is winning younger,higher income and better educated. He will carry high numbers of blacks 80 plus percents.

The problem is there are more reliable voters in clintons demographics. The only states Obama has a chance are open primaries where independents and republicans can vote. He stands a good chance in some southern states by getting a huge black vote and republicans . While Clinton and Edwards split her demographics.

The only problem with Obama's strategy is in the fall the votes from republicans will not be there.

[bvb720]

Let us face the facts. Bill Clinton should just stay home and let Hillary Handle her campaign.

He is not the one running, but has this illusion he is.