Close Contest Is Jackpot For Dems

Now that Hillary Clinton has finally taken some primary wins--3 of 4 (OH, TX, RI) in yesterday's 'Special Tuesday' (not quite 'super')--the pressure to spin bad results shifts from her to Barack Obama.  So far, the keyword in the Obama spin seems to be 'dangerous,' as in : 'it is dangerous for the Democratic Party if Hillary Clinton stays in the race.'

Spin from the Obama camp is understandable.  But the close contest is not dangerous.  It is a gift.

The Obama camp has brought many new people into the election, true.  But the bigger story is that the close primary battle has become the biggest, most exciting story in town--as in, every town in America.  This contest-that-never-ends has given Democrats everywhere a chance to stand up, speak out, and feel that their voices really matter in precarious times.   The close primary is an unexpected boon for the Democratic Party that will keep paying off until the Democratic Convention this summer.  It's an election year jackpot.

'Danger' If She Stays In
The 'danger,' according to Obama spin that will get repeated in the media this week, is of a split in the Democratic Party, a crumbling of the base brought on by mass cynicism. 

The potential for collapse is there,  so the argument goes, because super idealistic new voters may turn against the Democratic Party if their candidate--Obama--does not end up at the top of the ticket.  That's the spin, anyway. 

Princeton Professor Melissa Harris Lacewell unfolded the 'it's dangerous' argument during the Charlie Rose Show that followed the primary results from Ohio, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Texas.  At first, Lacewell seemed to suggest that if Obama did not get the nomination, the result would be a massive turning against the party by African-American voters.
Lacewell went on to qualify that argument by saying that the 'danger' stems from the risk of several groups of party loyalists who may finally throw in the towel.  Environmentalists, young voters, and African-American voters.  Each of those groups, according to Lacewell, have shown signs that they may 'stay home,' if Clinton gets the nomination. 

Is this true?

Well, nobody can predict the future, but it seems very unlikely that this kind of mass cynicism will happen.

Democratic voters are concerned about which candidate ends up on the top of the ticket, but voters can walk and chew gum and the same time.  Democrats can be passionate for their candidate in the here-and-now and at the same time stay focused on keeping a Republican out of the Oval Office.  Coming in second will not mean walking away from the game altogether for more than a small handful of Democrats, which will hardly be enough to trigger some catastrophic collapse in the party base.

At this stage of the game, hurt feelings are unavoidable whether the nominee is Clinton or Obama.  But 'danger' to the party if Clinton stays in the race?  Nope.

In fact, the opposite is true.  The longer both candidates stay in the race, the more participation, enthusiasm, and media coverage the Democratic Party will generate.  And there is no end in sight to that payoff.   Whatever mud gets thrown around in the process pales in comparison to the sheer numbers of people being drawn into the election by the close contest.

Democrats are loving this primary season like never before and it is not just the rhetoric of 'hope' or the promise of 'experience' that's doing it.  It's the competition.  Americans love it.

 

Close Contest Captivates Nation
Unlike the Republican contest which was just a standard race with modest drama, the Democratic primary has become one of the greatest political roadshows in American history.  Huge amounts of resources are being invested to bring the Presidential debate to every state.  Every state has enjoyed the spot light. Every voter has felt their choice matters.

In last night's coverage of the primary, the news networks reported record turnout in Texas and Ohio.  At caucus stations in Texas, where only 30 or 40 Democrats had turned out in 2004, the number of participants had increased to 300 or even 400. That means increased participation for Democrats by a factor of ten!

Not only are the networks reporting the story of the ongoing, close Democratic primary race, but they are talking about how unprecedented the enthusiasm for it is--and how exhausted the newsrooms are keeping up with it.

Given those statistics, it seems foolish to send either Clinton or Obama away from the table.  The longer they stay in the game, the more voters turn out in every state, the more coverage the Democratic Party gets, the more John McCain and the Republican party is forced to gasp for what little air remains.

Amidst all that the Obama spin--that Clinton staying in is 'dangerous' for the party--will seem a bit silly to most.   But such is the nature of campaign spin.

Meanwhile, an ongoing close contest is the Democratic Party's lucky number, and as long as it keeps going Democrats are likely to keep winning all the way to the White House.

(cross posted from Frameshop)

Comments

[PhDiva]

Only somebody out of touch with today's youth would support this argument. YOUNG PEOPLE ARE REJECTING THIS CONFLICT, AND THEY WILL REJECT HILLARY CLINTON IN NOVEMBER. This is the kind of conflict that potential young voters hate. I work with a lot of young people and almost all are very attached to Obama. The more conservative ones like McCain, not Clinton. This includes young feminists. Many of them will not vote for Clinton in the general election if she does not win the popular vote in the primaries regardless of superdelegate picks. More importantly, many will drop out of the political process completely. I have never seen this kind of excitement from young voters before, and it has ALL been inspired by Obama, not by Clinton. Even young Clinton supporters have been motivated by the excitement around Obama. The democratic party WILL LOSE MANY YOUNG VOTERS FOREVER IF OBAMA IS NOT THE NOMINEE, ESPECIALLY IF HE WINS THE DEMOCRATIC POPULAR VOTE. I'm not saying it's right or wrong. It's just the way it is.

In the long run, this is BAD FOR THE FUTURE OF THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY because it will destroy the relationship between democrats and youth (not to mention African Americans of all ages)

[danceswithyids]

Interesting point about the youth. Interesting, but entirely untrue. The statistics are out. Iowa, the first primary had a higher than normal turn out for the youth vote. Guess what, since then the numbers sank back to the average. Thus one can logically conclude that the youth vote, though talked about a lot, is not actually engaging in the most important part, the part that is required to win the general election. I am not saying that the young people you have spoken to are in the same boat. I am just saying that the information about Obama's effect on the youth vote is fatuous. And no one can say it was negative ads or something else that turned them off, because the numbers went back to the average after the first primary.

[danceswithyids]

OOOOOOOPS. Talk about beating a dead horse, I apologize for the above going through as a reply twice. FYI...there is no echo on this page.

[danceswithyids]

Interesting point about the youth. Interesting, but entirely untrue. The statistics are out. Iowa, the first primary had a higher than normal turn out for the youth vote. Guess what, since then the numbers sank back to the average. Thus one can logically conclude that the youth vote, though talked about a lot, is not actually engaging in the most important part, the part that is required to win the general election. I am not saying that the young people you have spoken to are in the same boat. I am just saying that the information about Obama's effect on the youth vote is fatuous. And no one can say it was negative ads or something else that turned them off, because the numbers went back to the average after the first primary.

[danceswithyids]

I am very confused by the Obama campaigns stance on super-delegates.
It is completely illogical to have super-delegates, if they are supposed to do what the Obama campaign wants.
If a super-delegates job is to reflect or mirror what the members of their state or district decide, than why are there super-delegates. Why wouldn't the party just appoint more delegates to each state/district.
Thus the super-delegates job can be only one thing, to vote for whomever the want.
People may not like it, but those very people are the one's saying Hillary doesn't play by the rules.
Obama is playing this exactly like every other politician would. Again showing he is not above politics. And also showing his campaign speaks of things as if they are cold hard facts, when with the super-delegates it is anything but the case.
If someone has a logical arguement against this, I would love to hear it expressed here.
Thanks

[WaveFunction]

Good question. Why are there superdelegates?

I think that in reality, the purpose of these delegates is one thing and one thing only: to 'clarify' an 'ambiguous result' of pledged candidates, or to strengthen the lead of the front-runner when neither candidate has obtained the magic number of delegates to win the nomination. What do I mean by ambiguous result? I mean a couple of possible situations:

1) a result where one candidate ends up winning both the popular vote and the delegate count by a very small margin. In this situation the superdelegates should vote with the person who won to show that the party establishment is behind popular winner no matter how small the margin of victory.

2) a result where one candidate ends up winning the popular vote but due to strange apportioning rules loses in the number of pledged delegates. In this case I believe the superdelegates should step in to "correct" the delegate count so that it lines up with the will of the people.

I don't think the purpose of the superdelegates is to somehow overturn or overrule the decision of the pledged delegates. And even if this possibility remains open, it would be tantamount to political suicide for the party if the superdelegates did this, and would definitely anger the half of the party that ends up losing. It might anger them to such an extent that the party would be torn in half, or some sub-optimal deal might result in which our prospects for the general election are diminished. Thus it is unrealistic that the superdelegates would be voting only with their personal preferences in mind, even if they are completely free to do so within the rules of the party.

[danceswithyids]

I like your points but the bottom line is if they just added more delegates to the states than there is the opportunity for a bigger win. And why would you need to make a winner, a bigger winner? I mean it doesn't matter if you win by one delegate, that is considered winning.
Your second point about strange apportioning rules is also a good one, but again that is how it is set up, those are the rules in those states. I have yet to hear a cogent logical arguement for why the super-delegates must vote the way the Obama campaign says they should.
If the party tears in half, great. We would all be at fault. And I'm convinced that this party has become too diverse. There is a vast difference between a moderate democrat and a very liberal democrat. I am not saying there is anything wrong with either, but the are going to disagree on things regardless, and fear of hurting the party is no reason to give up on the very things you believe you should stand for.

[RedRooster]

"The close primary is an unexpected boon for the Democratic Party that will keep paying off until the Democratic Convention this summer. It's an election year jackpot."

Exactly!

More free media for our Democratic candidates and for our solutions to America's problems...

More Democratic candidate participation in states previously neglected...

More interest in civics and the presidential nominating process...

More new voters drawn into an exciting Democratic race...

More, More, More!!!

[Cathexis]

I wish I had your optimism, Mr Feldman.

I worry that supporters of each camp will ossify and bad blood will come about. Large numbers in primaries doesn't guarantee that disaffected supporters will stick around and support the eventual nominee.

IMO, the longer Dem fights Dem, the better off the GOP is.

[syllepsis]

After Hillary said McCain would keep America safer than Obama would, she made it clear that there is only one Democrat running for President this year.
And it isn't her.

[sarafina49]

This is not good for the party. To think that we could even crack the door to let Bill anywhere near the white house does not bode well for the nation. This was the man championed the idea that oral sex was not sex. It is amazing to see the number of young people today who still believe that oral sex is okay because it is not really sex. And Hillary stood by her man. As for her experience, Laura Bush can make the same claim. She has worked with young people; she has headed committees; she has traveled abroad in the interest of the U.S.; she has been in the white house for 8 years; and both had husbands who are embarrassments.

[RexTC]

Hillary Clinton is the most hated woman in America, and Barack Obama is barely ahead of her in the nominating process. How is Obama going to beat McCain?

[belicheat]

Because the 50% of the country that hates her doesn't vote in the Democratic primary. duh

[seejake]

PennP is on point. This primary will do little to help the Democratic Party if Obama is not the nominee, because his base is less about Democrats and more about Independents and Republican cross-overs (to not know this, you're ignorant).

Obama was right - and was not being coy - when he said he could get Clinton supporters but she couldn't get his. Because he is a Democratic candidate, the party loyalists and the pundits all accuse Obama of blasphemy for having said this, but they deny the very truth that more party loyal Democrats support Hillary, and the reason Obama is ahead is because of the Independents and cross-overs that bolster his Dem support. The only reason why any larger number shows as party loyalists is related to the newer, younger, first time voters he is bringing into the party, and those of the indies and cross-overs who have been forced to claim party affiliation in those states that mandated this in order to participate in their primaries. Hillary cannot make this same claim justifiably.

It is very likely that this massive increase in Democrats voting has just as much to do with Independent and cross-over voters participating in the Dem primary. While it appears that the party base is growing, this is a myopic view of what is really happening, which is that Obama and his message transcends party lines, and in doing so he has broader support. Again, Hillary cannot make this claim, nor anything similar, without sacrificing credibility.

So as a word of warning to any Dems who think that a protracted primary race will help the party, think again. Once the indies and the cross-overs grow tired of the bickering amongst Democrats, they'll jump ship and float over to McCain.

Imagine that!

[RedRooster]

seejake,

The Germans have a word, zeitgeist, which roughly means "spirit of the age"...but the thing about zeitgeist is that we generally identify it only AFTER the age has passed. I think this is recognition of the fact that we often lack an ability to characterize the nature of some people/things/events as they are happening.

It seems to me, Barack Obama could easily represent the zeitgeist of our age but we may not come to appreciate that until decades from now. For those of us enthusiastic about his campaign, it isn't necessary to over-analyze the phenomenon - it's simply necessary to recognize it for what it has the potential to become and to encourage that eventuality.

Having said that, I cheer and criticize BOTH Senator Clinton and Obama equally, because I want them to be better, stronger Democrats. It's impossible to know what the outcome will be for either candidate just as it's impossible to know the motivations of those who support them, but whatever the outcome, it seems we're looking at something historic. My few, rare zen moments surfing in the Pacific Ocean simply tells me to "go with it".

[danceswithyids]

Ahhhh an independent thinker, like finding a diamond in the rough here.

[DRHoen]

Perhaps you failed to notice that Clinton is attempting to rip Obama's off? How can that be good for the party?

[Zanti]

"Perhaps you failed to notice that Clinton is attempting to rip Obama's off?"

Hillary is attempting to rip Obama's off. Ohhh-kay. Could you be more specific?

What of Obama's is Hillary trying to rip off? Or do we want to know?

[PennP]

The problem with all of these Dem-party-centric equations is that they're Dem-party-centric equations. You seem to think the gains and life being brought into the party on behalf of Barack Obama will accrue permanently to the party, regardless of outcome. I think you are dead wrong

The Democratic party has always been there, yet apparently a lot of people didn't want to become Democrats or bother voting until Barack Obama made becoming a Democrat the easiest way to support his candidacy, and voting the wonderful privilege it's always been but has seldom felt of late. If he'd been with the Purple Pants Party, we'd all don awful trousers in solidarity with him and go to the polls and vote under that banner. If Obama is not the nominee, I think the party will be looking at, if not active defections, a fallback into the nonvoting, nonparticipatory shadows by masses of new and recently activated members, and the Democrats will again claim title as the party of hopelessness.

[AnninCA]

Well, I think this may be a wierd year where the very nature of the Democratic party will change in the Fall.

I don't the older registered Democrats will stay with the Democrats. They'll shift to McCain. I think he'll lose Independents who lean more toward Republicans. He may have trouble holding Jewish voters. He'll lose a portion of women.

That's offset by new voters, but in terms of numbers, it could be a wash.

[Zanti]

"I don't the older registered Democrats will stay with the Democrats. They'll shift to McCain"

Why?

[plooger]

A long primary season would be FANTASTIC for the Dem Party... and the public... if the campaign weren't devolving into a smear-fest. Have you not been paying attention? Let the campaign go on for months, with a contemporary equivalent of the Lincoln-Douglas debates (except where both sides agreed that slavery was bad, m'kay?; okay, more of a Lincoln-Lincoln debate series, really)... but the dishonest negativity of the last week must be minimized.

[MrWinky]

Mr. Feldman,

You are obviously of the school of all publicity is good publicity. I would respectfully disagree. If the media covered the story responsibly, then that might be true, but we know that is not going to happen. Yes, the Demo primary has garnered hours of coverage, with such hot topics as:

- Is Obama a muslim (and ergo a terrorist)?

- Is Clinton dirty and lacking of dignity for slinging mud?

- Did Obama lie about NAFTA?

- Did Hillary lie about NAFTA?

- Is Obama in bed with Rezco?

- What is Hillary hiding on her tax returns?

and so on, and so on.....

Meanwhile, McCain is sitting ringside, throwing in grenades during the entire process, jotting down notes on which barbs really seem to get some traction with the public. Why you think this is a great thing, I can't even imagine.

Don't get me wrong, both candidates are raising plenty of money and can continue as long as they wish, but you can't convince me its a desirable situation.

While I think many of the people that threaten to abandon the other candidate should theirs not get chosen is mostly blather, some might. In any event, look at some of the commentary going around between the camps of supporters. It has gotten ugly, and will get even uglier. Certainly many of us will kiss and make up afterwards, but that's no reason to wish it continue. Not only the presidency is at stake, but also all the other Demos on the ballot that need a huge demo turnout. If the fight becomes too ugly between the candidates and their supporters, why would we not slip back into the usual apathy associated with having to support candidates and campaigns that bring out the absolute worst in us?

[joebhed]

Dear Wink

ALL of the questions you have posited SHOULD be answered right NOW in front of ALL the American people before we decide which candidate shoud be supported.
Why do you fault the media for raising the NAFTA and other issues?
It's not Democrats that are raising the lies about Obama's muslimism, in case you haven't gotten the email.
And, pray tell, what could possibly be wrong with wringing a little more truth out of each candidates position on a number of important issues between now and Denver?
Should this tiny semblance of democratic action be sacrificed on the altar of getting the job done for the good of the party?
I think not.
For the future of the country, we will be better off finding out what kind of people we REALLY are.
John Edwards !

[research]

Candidates:

Attack McCain!

Show us you can beat McCain, not each other!

[AnninCA]

I completely agree that it is, indeed, a very exciting process this year with strong loyalies on BOTH sides and sheer competition that is fabulous for getting people involved.

As for who stays home, who gets hurt? I know as a Hillary supporter, my own feelings were assuaged when the press finally ask Obama something other than how much money did you raise this month. My "feelings" were that the competition was not fair. I still believe that she would have knocked him out by now had the playing field been fairer.

I am STILL angry that the "talk" is all about the Independents. Excuse me. Are the registered Democrats being taken for granted or what? This type of ignoring is JUST why people jump parties. I have found myself much more loyal to my candidate than to my party.

Just reading about the "secret" gang of Super Delegates who are ready to gang up and knock her out of the race makes my blood boil. Absolutely boil. That is completely out of the spirit of their role, and obviously they were given that role erroneoneously, since nobody with an ethical bone in his or her body would be use their power in such a manner. They do so, clearly, with the false idea that her supporters will overlook that and vote for the Democratic nominee, even if he does so by avoiding the hard work of winning. How this isn't just the same behind-the-door kind of act that he supposedly denounced is beyond me. It most certainly IS exactly that.

And I personally see even threatening voters with that was as divisive and nasty as it gets.

You know, I made calls for Hillary to Ohio and Texas. I don't even live in those states. I'm from CA. How do you think it struck me when I saw that news yesterday?


Well, my reaction was not positive. I saw that he was going around the voters.

I am very unimpressed with Democratic Leadership. This type of backroom stuff should not be happening and just letting the voters know that it happened at all is appalling.

So if the Party is concerned about the election, I would be, too. But it's not due to my candidate. It's due to the Party itself, it's erroneous assumptions, and going around Voters.

That will be why I leave the Democratic Party.

And if they prefer the Independents? okie dokie.

[IndependentMeans]

B.S., you are nuts. HRC is being a nasty bottom sucker witch. And I really liked her until the McCain plug. Screw her.

[Zanti]

Thank you! Great piece.

[webmaker02]

Amen, Amen, Amen. Great article and very intelligent on your part to notice.

[Zanti]

I assume that what you just offered is the usual junior-high sarcasm. I thought he wrote a great piece, and I told him so. Live with it.

Such a civil site we have here....