Sean Wilentz in Salon: The Case for Clinton

[PalJoey]

Posted: 4/7/08 at 10:43am

Sober, clear and without hysterics.

===

SALON.COM

If the system made sense, Clinton would be far ahead

Under a winner-take-all primary system, Hillary Clinton would have a wide lead over Barack Obama -- and enough delegates to clinch the Democratic presidential nomination by June.

By Sean Wilentz

April 7, 2008 | The continuing contest for the Democratic presidential nomination has become a frenzy of debates and proclamations about democracy. Sen. Barack Obama's campaign has been particularly vociferous in claiming that its candidate stands for a transformative, participatory new politics. It has vaunted Obama's narrow lead in the overall popular vote in the primaries to date, as well as in the count of elected delegates, as the definitive will of the party's rank and file. If, while heeding the party's rules, the Democratic superdelegates overturn those majorities, Obama's supporters claim, they will have displayed a cynical contempt for democracy that would tear the party apart.

These arguments might be compelling if Obama's leads were not so reliant on certain eccentricities in the current Democratic nominating process, as well as on some blatantly anti-democratic maneuvers by the Obama campaign. Obama's advantage hinges on a system that, whatever the actual intentions behind it, seems custom-made to hobble Democratic chances in the fall. It depends on ignoring one of the central principles of American electoral politics, one that will be operative on a state-by-state basis this November, which is that the winner takes all. If the Democrats ran their nominating process the way we run our general elections, Sen. Hillary Clinton would have a commanding lead in the delegate count, one that will only grow more commanding after the next round of primaries, and all questions about which of the two Democratic contenders is more electable would be moot....

[remainder of article at link--here are the last two grafs:]

Obama has tried to reinforce his democratic bona fides by asserting his superior electability, and by claiming that Clinton's supporters are more likely to back him in November than vice versa. The polls, however, show otherwise. And even more important, the polling data on the electoral vote totals show an outcome very different from the one suggested by Obama. The latest state-by-state figures (as of late March) updated from SurveyUSA, indicate that if the election were held today, Clinton would defeat McCain in the Electoral College because of her lead in big, electoral-vote-rich states such as Florida, Ohio and Pennsylvania -- and McCain would beat Obama.

In the final analysis, though, the fights inside the Democratic Party aren't really about either an ideal American democracy or the American democracy that actually exists. According to the Obama campaign, democracy is defined as whatever helps Barack Obama win the Democratic nomination. There is nothing intrinsically wrong with a candidate arguing this way. But everybody should see it for what it is -- not something new or transformative, but one of the oldest ploys in the playbook of American politics.

About the writer

Sean Wilentz teaches history at Princeton University.
If the system made sense, Clinton would be far ahead

[Unknown User]

Posted: 4/7/08 at 10:47am

I hear President McCain is seriously considering Condoleeza Rice as his Vice President! Isn't that exciting?

[artscallion]

Posted: 4/7/08 at 10:48am

"According to the Obama campaign, democracy is defined as whatever helps Barack Obama win the Democratic nomination."

Haha! No, she's not biased.

[cubanpab]

Posted: 4/7/08 at 11:14am

"If, while heeding the party's rules, the Democratic superdelegates overturn those majorities, Obama's supporters claim, they will have displayed a cynical contempt for democracy that would tear the party apart."

um, this is not an opinion shared exclusively among obama supporters... this is something most democrats agree on... including most political pundits and even the speaker of the house...

the article is about as unbiased as Billy O.
Updated On: 4/7/08 at 11:14 AM

[PalJoey]

Posted: 4/7/08 at 11:15am

He.

[jrb_actor]

Posted: 4/7/08 at 11:34am

Like it or not, these are the things that superdelegates will be thinking about when they decide.

The other key factor is the popular vote. That's the will of the people. Whoever wins the popular vote is likely to be the nominee.

[artscallion]

Posted: 4/7/08 at 12:12pm

Here's what one super delegate's thinking...


Former Chairman of the Democratic Party speaks out

[jrb_actor]

Posted: 4/7/08 at 12:21pm

I'm curious how many people wailed on and on about how unfair that the antiquated electoral college decided the 2000 election against the popular vote/will of the people and NOW feel that the antiquated delegate system should triumph over the popular vote in this primary. VERY curious who all is flip flopping.

It's ok if you want the result to be whatever as long as it gets your candidate elected. Just be honest about it.

I want the candidate who is the true result of the will of the people and who will win in November.

We will find out IN JUNE who that person is.

[PalJoey]

Posted: 4/7/08 at 12:39pm

The fairest solution is to divide their delegations equally between the two candidates.

I don't understand how that is fair.

The vast number of citizens in each state voted for and wants Hillary.

That would mean that the DNC turns my vote for Hillary into a vote for Obama.

How is that fair?

[mejusthavingfun]

Posted: 4/7/08 at 12:48pm

"The vast number of citizens in each state voted for and wants Hillary. "

Could you be a little more specific?

[Unknown User]

Posted: 4/7/08 at 1:13pm

I've never understood how "Winner takes all" is somehow fairer than apportionment. If someone wins 51% of the vote why is it fairer to give them 100% of the electors?

I will agree there should be consistency- all states should award them the same.

[jrb_actor]

Posted: 4/7/08 at 1:18pm

Absolutely. Winner takes all is what's wrong with the electoral college.

Popular vote should be the decider in November. And it should be in June.

[mejusthavingfun]

Posted: 4/7/08 at 1:25pm

I agree Jrb. The Democratic leadership is responsible for all of this nonsense. Two stolen election and you think they would have learned something. Some democracy.

[Calvin]

Posted: 4/7/08 at 1:33pm

Even my parents have turned on Clinton now and are converting to Obamism. She's losing the Texas senior citizen vote!

[The Boy From Ohio]

Posted: 4/7/08 at 1:57pm

I thought the article was right on the money. Clearly I am a biased Clinton supporter. If Obama does get the nomination, just about everyone (but me) in my long standing Democratic family will vote for McCain. I might be able to get my Mom to vote for Obama, but the rest of my family has made their positions more than clear.

[YouWantitWhen????]

Posted: 4/7/08 at 2:02pm

I honestly think with FL and MI that they should split half of the delegates, and then apportion the other half based upon the votes.

Clinton did have an advantage based upon name recognition, but I honestly don't think Obama would have taken those two states.

[artscallion]

Posted: 4/7/08 at 2:15pm

I agree, YWIW. It seems like a good compromise to me. I believe that's the proposal MI has placed on the table. We'll see what happens.

NEW GALLOP POLL

Updated On: 4/7/08 at 02:15 PM

[YouWantitWhen????]

Posted: 4/7/08 at 2:20pm

Really, and I was so proud of thinking that up myself!

[artscallion]

Posted: 4/7/08 at 2:26pm

Actually, let me correct myself. It seems MI wants to take half of its delegates and split them 60/40 in Clinton's favor to approximate the actual voting results (assuming 40% for Obama who was not on the ballot but is considered to be what's reflected in the "uncommited" vote they received) They would then divide the other half of their delegates based on the total, national popular vote results in June.

Updated On: 4/7/08 at 02:26 PM

[Unknown User]

Posted: 4/7/08 at 2:50pm

Too bad for Hillary they didn't just assign all delegates a year ago. They could have just given them all to her as that is what would have "Approximated actual voting results"-- or so they thought.

[PalJoey]

Posted: 4/7/08 at 4:06pm

The Michigan plan makes a certain sense for Michigan but not for Florida. Both candidates were on the ballot there, Obama did national advertising that played all over Florida, Hillary did two closed-to-the-public fundraisers and a record turnout voted overwhelmingly for her.

A 50/50 split is nonsensical.

Updated On: 4/7/08 at 04:06 PM

[Unknown User]

Posted: 4/7/08 at 4:24pm

[The Boy From Ohio]

Posted: 4/7/08 at 4:26pm

Why did Obama leave his name on the FL. ballot if the votes didn't count as in MI? Just curious.

[artscallion]

Posted: 4/7/08 at 4:51pm

Under FL law, you cannot withdraw from the FL ballot without withdrawing from the race entirely.

John Edwards, Barack Obama, Bill Richardson and Joe Biden all withdrew their names from the MI ballot.

[Unknown User]

Posted: 4/7/08 at 4:54pm

They all took their names off the ballot? And one candidate didn't, even though she said she would. Hmmmm. She should be rewarded for her honesty and given those delegates, for sure.