The Democratic Party's Clintonian Rules
On the surface, it is easy to dismiss the Democratic Party's current nomination struggles as a mix of incompetence and bureaucratic procedure gone mad. There is some of that, of course, but it is mostly there to hide the fact that Democrats, like Republicans, have designed a system that will strongly favor the establishment candidate. The result, for both parties, is that the nominee is nearly always the next in line or the institutionally preferred one (in recent decades this has included Walter Mondale, Al Gore, John Kerry, both Bushes, Bob Dole and John McCain).
The way Republicans pick their presidential candidates is notorious for its brutal emphasis on selecting the anointed nominee as early as possible, thanks in great part to its "winner take all" system. On the surface, the Democrats' rules, including some form of proportional representation, would seem to open up the contest to outsiders by allowing them to rack up delegates even if they don't win a state outright.
In fact, the Democratic Party has structured its system in a way that thwarts insurgency. It promotes secrecy (thanks to the presence of superdelegates who are free to strike deals with any candidate at any time without any formal scrutiny), creates the need for vast amounts of money because of the complexity of competing for every pledged delegate in every state, and sustains the legal and ethical uncertainty that comes from a near-incomprehensible set of rules.
The process, while not created by the Clintons, is perfectly Clintonian, and it is no coincidence that Bill Clinton is the only recent exception to the rule of the party-anointed favorite gaining power (he was hardly an outsider, even in 1992, but certainly not at the top of the list of establishment-preferred candidates, especially after the Gennifer Flowers scandal in the middle of the campaign -or was it Paula Jones?).
It is also no surprise that Hillary Clinton holds out hope for the nomination despite the long odds: she combines an insider-chosen status with the Clinton skill at working the system, any system, and this one was essentially designed for her. It also explains her camp's occasional outbursts of rage at the upstart Barack Obama's success in outwitting her so far.
There is no clear path to the nomination for Clinton except through convoluted challenges to rules that she has previously embraced or through a series of 20-point defeats of Obama in every upcoming contest (for some perspective: this has only happened once for her this year, in Arkansas, and not one poll shows her at that level in any remaining state). Even with retakes in Florida and Michigan, Clinton will not win the pledged delegate race.
It is likely that the Clintons simply never envisaged this situation. That it didn't occur to them that Obama would raise so much money and otherwise manage his campaign so brilliantly that he'd become the frontrunner and probable nominee. They certainly underestimated him, but perhaps even worse for her, they misjudged the mood of the country for change and Obama's crossover appeal. This wouldn't matter enormously if it didn't threaten her ultimate cushion against failure, the superdelegate vote. As Obama crushes Clinton in state after state in which there are critical congressional races in November, and as polls show him far stronger than she is in a general election, the likelihood that she can secure enough additional superdelegates is dwindling very fast.
In the Senate alone, there are more than half a dozen seats at stake in states which strongly favored Obama in the primary, and/or give him a far better chance than Clinton against McCain in November: Virginia, Colorado, Alaska, New Mexico, Oregon, New Hampshire, Minnesota and North Carolina. In the House, dozens of Democrats are competitive as incumbents or challengers in districts won by George W. Bush in 2004, many of them in places that are likely to favor Obama this fall (the recent Democratic special election victory in IL-14, a GOP stronghold in which Obama campaigned for his party, was just a taste of the possibilities that await the Democrats this fall with the right candidate in charge). With that in mind, it is not difficult to understand why Obama has recently been ratcheting superdelegate endorsements at a far higher rate than Clinton has (she went for a month without one new addition to her list, actually losing a few). And why most Democrats in swing states and districts will be praying for Obama to be at the top of the ticket, especially if a filibuster-proof majority of 60 is within reach in the Senate.
Of course, the Clintons are not concerned about the down-ticket effect of a general election Hillary candidacy: they invented triangulation in the 1990s, undermining the Democratic Party in Congress and shutting it out of power for 15 years. It is ironic that just as the party has regained its Senate and House majorities, a Clinton is lurking in the background, hungry for the kind of power that is likely, once again, to return Congressional control to a national GOP that was all but left for dead until recently.
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
Are you just making this up as you go along?
"It also explains her camp's occasional outbursts of rage at the upstart Barack Obama's success in outwitting her so far."
It's his camp that has the outbursts of rage and Obama certainly has never outwitted Hillary.
No he certainly has never outwitted Hillary. That's why she is leading in Pledged Delegates by 160 delegates. Why she is leading in the Popular vote by some 700,00 votes, and has won twice as many states than he has. That's why she had a strategy post Super Tuesday to actually win the Nomination "Fair and Square". That's why he had to loan his campaign $5M. You are right, he has never outwitted Hillary.
Well, the power hungry and selfish Clinton will make sure to destroy any chances for the democrats. In her rage she is determined to destroy the party and Obama. Why the party doesn't pull the plug on her fruitless quest is beyond me and it is putting everything at risk.
It is obvious that Obama is the nominee and the party needs to pull the plug on the Clintons. They have kept this party down and out and weak for 20 years. Time to send them back to Arkansas or New York or better yet, a desert Island.
If Hillary is the nominee and not only loses the election to McCain, but causes the Democrats to lose seats in Congress, she will be hated by Democrats forever. Why do you think so many red-state superdelegates are endorsing Obama? It's because they know they'll lose their elections if Hillary Clinton is at the top of the ticket.
What a load of conspiracy-theory drek. The Democratic nomination process is undecided at this point for the simple reason that Sen. Obama has won 13,854,586 primary votes and Sen. Clinton has won 13,775,505. Duh.
You are absolutely correct in your assumptions. The superdelegate system is nothing but a moat around the castle of the Democratic elite. Its very purpose is to thwart an Obama or similar candidate.
However, with their lackluster history of mediocrity in the leadership pool, NO ONE saw this coming. Not only was Senator Clinton taken by surprise, but the entire party leadership was also. Who would have ever thought that a relative unknown could awaken the largest grass roots movement EVER in the Democratic Party?
A new party will emerge from this election one way or the other. The old guard has shown themselves to be EXACTLY what their detractors have always claimed, an elitist clique posing as populists. As Bob Dylan sang,
Come senators, congressmen
Please heed the call
Don't stand in the doorway
Don't block up the hall
For he that gets hurt
Will be he who has stalled
There's a battle outside
And it is ragin'.
It'll soon shake your windows
And rattle your walls
For the times they are a-changin'
Ladies and Gentlemen, your attention please! Thanks to Billary, & the Florida Republican Party we proudly bring you: The Death of Democracy! Not satisfied with a bogus (and legally un-countable) win here in FL, Mizz Clinton has now managed to get herself a 100% friendly (no indys, no repub crossovers) re-vote! Our Guv'nor, The right honorable Charlie Crist, and all the old fat white boys in the Republican Legistlature are right this minute laughing their asses off. As for this scam being honest, fair, or even, god help us, Representative of the People of Florida: Puh-Leez!
We're any of you paying attention in 2000?? 2004?? This is that same state, same people in charge, same 75-or-over Cold War Dem relics running the Party (such as it is; Florida Dems make Kim Jong Il look like a responsible manager).
So, congrats, Clintonistas! Keep storing up that goodwill. You'll need for your next round of scandal-dodging!
P.S.- Has anyone in Clitnon's corner thought about what kind of Congress she's gonna have to deal with if she gets to the White House this way?
Prolly not...she'
Hillary has made it clear to all that she will do anything, walk on someone, lie, misrepresent and manipulate staement so the sound bite isn't the real contect just "fixed". If she finds a way to steal this nomination I will not vote. My vote will have meant not one thing along with all of those who has voted for Barack. The word disenfranchise has been batted around about MI and Fla but what about all of those who decided not to o vote because they knew it would not count? Hillary had people campaign in her stead and she did breeze in the day before and then claimed her "win". When people claim the voter amounts show everyone who should have voted did because of the record turnout. Just think if people knew their vote counted and voted how many would that count be? Hillary is on hell bent destruction to win what she decided was her rightful place. She will kill off the party if she bends the rules and promises cabinet jobs etc so our administration under her would be just another cronyville call Washington DC. Do you all remember "Brownie" her whole administration will be filled to the brim with all of those secret deals she's making. But of course the clintons have called in all the favors for what Bill did while president and the pardons etc he gave on his way out the door. There was some big slime and sleeze on his pardon list that we know about. So I wonder why Bill told the archivists to block the release of all of that information. And just what is in Hillary and Bill's tax returns that she won't give them up? Must be really good shit for her to hold them until after the nomination when the voters cannot change their minds.....
Great post, sir.
Prior to Howard Dean's 5-State Strategy, McAuliffe and the party only cared about the top-tier states (a guarantee toward eventual extinction). With the congress finally regained, I would hate to return to 1994.
"Of course, the Clintons are not concerned about the down-ticket effect of a general election Hillary candidacy: they invented triangulation in the 1990s, undermining the Democratic Party in Congress and shutting it out of power for 15 years."
That pretty much sums it up.
And there are a lot of us Democrats out there who won't ever forget that.
In the end it will be about money, which one can shower the party with the most money, that is what will attract the super delegates. The Clintons know this, and they don't have enough of it, the Campaign isn't generating it at the rate that Obama's is, and in the end that will be what decides this thing.
In the end, the nomination will still go to Obama, but the party will be in a shambles by then.
The establishment does not like to be challenged in any arena. This is true whether you are talking about the institutions of government, business, faith, or academia, etc. In Washington, turning the page takes a certain amount of disgust to be present outside the beltway, and by all accounts - the country's mood is there.
Good article, Paul.
To clarify the delegate math, if Michigan and Florida are allowed to re-vote, then there will be 932 pledged delegates up for grabs after today's Mississippi primary. According to realclearp
As an Obama supporter, I actually don't mind Clinton stubbornly remaining in the race or even the fact that she's gone very negative. The Clinton smear machine is good practice for what the Republican smear machine will throw at him.
According to Democratic Convention Watch's summary his advantage, pre-Mississippi, is somewhere between 142 (AP) and 170 (CBS). With another 10, perhaps, tonight, that would bring him to a conservative estimate of 160. On top of that, a less than 60% win has typically translated to a smaller delegate haul because of the allocation system (I don't have exact numbers overall, but in Alabama, for instance, Obama received 56% of the vote, but only 52% of the delegates). Thus my estimate that Clinton would need 20+% wins.
The Clintons are just like that monster that you think is dead but right before the credits it opens it's eyes.
He was hardly an outsider, even in '92? He was the governor of a small backward state in the middle of flyover country, a state which had its greatest 20th century moment in the public eye in the form of a cracker governor refusing to allow Black children to go to white schools until federal troops persuaded him to another course of action. As for Bill Clinton himself, apart from boring the paint off the walls at the previous democratic convention with a speech that seemed to take a week to deliver, nobody anywhere knew very much about him.
I know you have nothing good to say about the Clintons, having read most of your previous blog entries, but this latest line of argument is way past overmuch. The Clintons may well be beneficiaries of the rules in place for the party's nominating process, but nearly all of them were written before they Clintons got to the white house. And like you admit, Bill Clinton himself is an 'out of nowhere' candidate who campaigned his way past them. Perhaps Obama will be the next.
So, as you dislike the rules and the Clintons, you have decided the rules in themselves are 'Clintonian'. This may well open a broad vista of writing opportunity for you--- anything you don't like can be compared to anything else you don't like. Think of the possibilities! You step in a pile of dog droppings climbing into the cab... the offending matter? Clintonian!
I agree. There's a lot of spillover in the commentary lately. People are having trouble focusing. I think everyone's upset.
Very true, Nellie. We're all so busy pointing to the bias of the other side, we fail to see it in ourselves.
BRILLIANT.
Loading comments…
Posted March 11, 2008 | 11:16 AM (EST)