It Takes a Democrat

A friend of mine thinks that there is no way that the Republicans can with the Presidential election but the Democrats can lose it. The surest way to do this will be for one candidate to be perceived as steeling the nomination from the other. This will cause a big part of the party to stay home in November which, in a tight election, would be enough to swing it.

Both Hillary and Obama are working hard at this.

Hillary is trying to have the delegates from Michigan and Florida seated at the convention. She won both states by a huge margin, mainly because she violated, in spirit, a pact with the other candidates not to campaign in these states. Now that she needs every candidate she is trying to get the DNC to reverse itself. Since she never said a word about her deep concerns for the disenfranchised voters in those states, one can only assume that her move is totally self-serving.

Obama is taking his own shot at changing the rules to help his campaign. He is arguing that the superdelegates should all vote for the person who has the most regular delegates, in effect doing away with the superdelegates. Again, he didn't worry about their undemocratic influence until it looked like they could cost him the nomination.

Both candidates have strong arguments in favor of their positions. There are financial benefits to being the first states to hold a primary and there is no reason that these should always go to the same states. Michigan and Florida are large states and denying them any delegates it pretty harsh (the Republicans halved these states' delegate count which seems much more fair). On the other hand, a lot of Democrats didn't bother to vote since they knew it was a waste of time and Hillary's name being the only one on the ballot gave her a huge advantage. The only really fair (but expensive) resolution would be to insist that these states vote again. Hillary has not mentioned this.

While Obama can make the case that, as front-runner, he is the choice of the people, Hillary's campaign has pointed out that his biggest wins were in caucus states which are the least democratic. The superdelegate system was originally set up just for a situation like this. If neither candidate can get enough delegates then both should be scrutinized carefully. In the absence of an overwhelming victor, the candidate who is slightly ahead may not be the strongest candidate in the general election. At the very least, it gives the party a chance to select the candidate who best represents the party.

This happened in 1984. Walter Mondale was supposed to be the candidate but Gary Hart was doing well. The unions who had endorsed Mondale called in favors from superdelegates and Mondale clinched the nomination (they should have reevaluated this process after Mondale lost to Reagan in an historic landslide). Obama may be the strongest candidate but there are several factors working against him. His youth and enthusiasm is easily countered by McCain's experience.

Of course, the real purpose of the superdelegates was to allow party leaders to cut deals with the candidates. For minor party members this means pork, for major ones it means cabinet positions. It is backroom dealing at its worst but forcing these party leaders to give up this power will anger many of them. Obama needs an enthusiastic party behind him, not a party lead by people he already slighted.

At the least, both candidates should distance themselves from these efforts to change the rules after the fact. There are plenty of people willing to fight these battles independent of the candidates. That would let them take the high road. This is especially true for Obama. There is a lot of pressure on the superdelegates to vote for him. By entering this fight he tarnishes his image as a new-style candidate.