Why should the Democratic presidential nominating contest go all the way to the August convention? There is really no good reason, considering the last primary is in June. The idea of choosing a party’s candidate in a country that purports to be a democracy should not be complicated – just nominate the person who gets the most votes from citizens who go to the polls or caucuses. Instead, somehow, the Democratic Party has inserted so many rules and intricacies into the process that there are a number of ways to subvert the will of the people and nominate the loser of the popular vote.
So why won’t the contest be over in June? Because this year the millions of votes that take place before the convention will scarcely matter. This year the votes of 796 people are the ones that will really count.
The Democratic Party’s superdelegates have gone largely unnoticed in past years, when the nominations have been wrapped up long before the convention, so voting against the people’s choice would have been essentially fruitless. But this year could be different. If Hillary Clinton pulls through in Texas and Ohio on March 4, the delegate count might be so close in June that superdelegate votes will be the only way for one of the two candidates to get the 2,025 delegates needed to capture the nomination.
The superdelegate voting bloc, or Democratic Party insiders who can vote for whomever they want at the convention despite the popular vote or the vote of their constituents, sounds like a reasonable concept. Created in 1982, they were designed to protect party voters from themselves. The superdelegates were given the final say after all the primaries were over, in case the people chose someone who they deem unelectable, or someone these party insiders didn’t want to see running the country. But there is a serious flaw in the logic – do Democratic leaders really think the party’s voters are going to come out enthusiastically to the polls in November for a candidate they didn’t really want, for a candidate who got the nomination only when the party elite played a trump card? Superdelegates act as parents, telling voters, “You can nominate whomever you want, as long as we approve your choice.” It is so inherently undemocratic that it’s shocking Democrats have gotten away with it for more than 25 years.
But never before has the absurdity of superdelegates been so stark. In previous years they have operated much like the Electoral College – essentially going in the way of the popular vote and therefore not garnering enough attention to warrant a demand for change. But this year, with the Republicans’ having already essentially chosen their nominee, the national spotlight is on the Democratic Party’s nominating system, and it’s not a flattering illumination. Why is it that when the Republican voters have spoken and been heard, when they have a candidate the people wanted, the Democratic voters are waiting to see if they will be stifled, knowing that party bosses must approve or deny their choice?
Complicated policies and innuendos of party-elite rule are turn-offs to voters. People want a candidate they can reach out and touch, not one who they can only see through a veil of party bosses and insiders who are doing the real choosing. For all the populist chords the Democratic campaign has struck this year, the party shouldn’t discount the little man, the individual voices. Democrats need to adopt a system people are excited about participating in, one people feel like the have an impact on. The party has made so much progress this year – so many people are excited, energized, inspired, and that’s why the are coming the polls in record numbers. All of that will be stripped away if there is even the appearance that party insiders have decided the primary election. The chant of “Yes we can” will technically become “Yes they can,” an invariably less inspiring and empowering slogan.
It’s too late to change the rules this election cycle – to do so would be to nearly admit chaos and failure, not to mention accusations of favoritism by the losing side. But all the attention on superdelegates has serious potential consequences as voters can plainly see the anti-democracy of it all. The nomination of the candidate who lost the popular vote will be a write-off of a significant number of voters in November, and could help give John McCain the presidency, which would long be remembered as one of the darkest days in Democratic Party history. This convention should be like a scientific experiment to prove that superdelegates serve no practical or positive purpose – except, perhaps, to Republicans, who can use the arcane policy to turn off independent voters and even some Democrats.
Monday, February 25, 2008
Sunday, February 10, 2008
GOP...unitied?
After Mitt Romney dropped out the presidential race on Thursday, it became essentially inevitable that John McCain would be the Republican nominee. His nearest competitor, Mike Huckabee, would need to win more than 90 percent of all remaining delegates in order to be the GOP’s choice for president, and stories abound about how the once-fractured Republican party was coalescing around him (except, of course, Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter). But even though winning for Huckabee is a near impossibility, he still insists on challenging McCain until the Arizona senator gets the 1,191 delegates required for the nomination. Normally at this point Huckabee would be looked upon as a fool. However, the events since Romney’s withdrawal have transformed Huckabee into a fierce reminder of the remaining riff within the Republican Party and puts into doubt McCain’s appeal as the electable candidate.
First, there was prominent evangelical Christian leader James Dobson’s endorsement of Huckabee. This was both a big deal and a bit of a surprise because Dobson had remained uncommitted to any candidate up until Thursday. Why, as a part of a united party, would he endorse Huckabee on the night McCain became the all-but-certain nominee?
Second, there were Saturday’s primaries and caucuses; Huckabee trounced McCain in Kansas, beat him in a close race in Louisiana and narrowly lost to him in Washington. If the party were so united, why would voters hand such convincing victories to Huckabee? At this point, they can really only be seen as symbolic victories, as a way for voters to express their discontent and to say that everything in their party is not as its leaders would have it seem.
First, there was prominent evangelical Christian leader James Dobson’s endorsement of Huckabee. This was both a big deal and a bit of a surprise because Dobson had remained uncommitted to any candidate up until Thursday. Why, as a part of a united party, would he endorse Huckabee on the night McCain became the all-but-certain nominee?
Second, there were Saturday’s primaries and caucuses; Huckabee trounced McCain in Kansas, beat him in a close race in Louisiana and narrowly lost to him in Washington. If the party were so united, why would voters hand such convincing victories to Huckabee? At this point, they can really only be seen as symbolic victories, as a way for voters to express their discontent and to say that everything in their party is not as its leaders would have it seem.
Thursday, February 7, 2008
Races to Watch
If you’re not from the area, you probably didn’t pay much attention to Missouri before Super Tuesday. Maybe it didn’t have enough delegates to matter, or you simply forgot this fly-over state existed. But, for anyone who wanted to see a political showdown that night, the Show-Me state delivered; both parties had very close primaries in this bellwether state that for nearly 100 years – with just one exception, in 1956 – has voted for the general-election candidate who eventually won the presidency.
The Democratic field is now narrowed down to just two candidates, and the race could scarcely have been closer. After the polls closed at 7 p.m. central time, Hillary Clinton had a slight edge over Barack Obama. Around 11 p.m., the Associated Press called the state for her. But it soon reneged that projection and labeled the race too close to call. Then, at 11:40 p.m., MSNBC and the AP named Barack Obama the “apparent,” and not projected, winner. Twenty minutes later, the network the wire service went ahead and officially projected the victory for Obama, and it stayed that way for the rest of the night, with the final count coming in at 49 percent for Obama and 48 percent for Clinton. The numbers are so close that Clinton can call for a recount.
On the Republican side, John McCain and Mike Huckabee were battling it out neck and neck after the polls closed. At first the GOP maverick trailed behind the bona fide religious conservative, who was leading 33 percent to 32 percent. But then the numbers flipped, and McCain ended the night with all of this Midwestern swing state’s 58 delegates.
The close divides in both parties represent opposite trends. On the Democratic side, people seem torn about whom to vote for, as most would be relatively happy with either candidate as their nominee.
“I voted for Obama, but then I felt awful,” my 60-year-old mother, who is demographically a shoe-in for Clinton, said. “Afterward I got a call from Hillary. It was the best tone of voice she’s ever used…I just wanted her to be my girlfriend and call me any day. She just sounded like a sincere, wonderful human being, and I felt bad that I had forsaken her.”
And where did the John Edwards vote go? Samantha Olds, a former Edwards volunteer, said she and her friends from the campaign aren’t breaking definitively either way.
“I decided finally to vote for Obama,” she said of her labored decision after she was dismayed by Edwards’s withdrawal. “At the end of the day, Obama captures part of the appeal that Edwards did…He has a similar fire.”
But, she said, many of her co-workers have decided to go for Clinton, and she couldn’t point to one feature that divided the Obama and Clinton groups.
In the end, Democrats who had trouble making up their minds won’t have to feel guilty; the delegate count from Missouri will hardly differ between the two candidates. Right now, Obama has 13 pledged delegates and Clinton has 12. Another 47 have yet to be divided based on the votes in the state’s nine congressional districts.
“We expect to announce that at the end of the week,” Jack Cardetti, a spokesman for the Missouri Democratic Party, told me Wednesday. Sixteen super delegates will go to the convention unbound by the state’s popular vote.
Conversely, among Republicans, going to the polls for most meant standing up for one of two starkly different candidates. Mitt Romney, who has both conservative and moderate credentials, didn’t get enough votes to significantly rival McCain or Huckabee on Tuesday, and the stiff competition between the latter two represents the riff within the party – to choose a more electable but moderate candidate or a candidate who represents the conservative religious values that have so helped the GOP in recent decades.
Kathy St. Clair, 47-year-old mother of two who attends a Baptist church every Sunday, voted for Huckabee and was frustrated and disappointed when he didn’t win the race.
“I have read [Huckabee’s] views on the subjects and the issues that are very important to me, and he aligns best with values,” she told me in a passionate and genuine voice. “I vote based on my values, and there would be no one upholding my values if McCain is the nominee.”
The Kansas Democratic caucus was less exciting and probably warranted the small amount of attention it got. Obama’s mother was born in the state, and the governor, Kathleen Sebelius, endorsed him last week, after she gave the Democratic response to the president’s State of the Union address. And surely enough, Obama came out way on top, beating Clinton 74 percent to 25.8 percent – which gives Obama 23 delegates and Clinton nine, with nine super delegates unpledged until the convention.
But Democratic-only caucuses did produce one exciting thing in the traditionally Republican stronghold – a high number of voters. For example, Johnson County, a relatively wealthy suburb of Kansas City that borders Missouri, could not be more demographically Republican – rich, white and religious. But, precincts in the county had lines out the door because they didn’t prepare for the volume of Democratic voters that showed up.
There is at least one thing to take from these two states’ nominating contests – start paying attention. While the Kansas caucus may not have been particularly exciting, the enthusiasm and high number of voters could make for an interesting general election if Obama is the Democratic nominee. The governor’s endorsement combined with Obama’s family ties to the state and fire shown by voters on Tuesday could shade this deep-red state at least a little bit purple, and perhaps even blue, by November. And be sure to keep an eye on Missouri – the diversity of this bellwether state’s population makes it a good sampling of the country, and in about 100 years its voters have only failed once at picking the next president.
The Democratic field is now narrowed down to just two candidates, and the race could scarcely have been closer. After the polls closed at 7 p.m. central time, Hillary Clinton had a slight edge over Barack Obama. Around 11 p.m., the Associated Press called the state for her. But it soon reneged that projection and labeled the race too close to call. Then, at 11:40 p.m., MSNBC and the AP named Barack Obama the “apparent,” and not projected, winner. Twenty minutes later, the network the wire service went ahead and officially projected the victory for Obama, and it stayed that way for the rest of the night, with the final count coming in at 49 percent for Obama and 48 percent for Clinton. The numbers are so close that Clinton can call for a recount.
On the Republican side, John McCain and Mike Huckabee were battling it out neck and neck after the polls closed. At first the GOP maverick trailed behind the bona fide religious conservative, who was leading 33 percent to 32 percent. But then the numbers flipped, and McCain ended the night with all of this Midwestern swing state’s 58 delegates.
The close divides in both parties represent opposite trends. On the Democratic side, people seem torn about whom to vote for, as most would be relatively happy with either candidate as their nominee.
“I voted for Obama, but then I felt awful,” my 60-year-old mother, who is demographically a shoe-in for Clinton, said. “Afterward I got a call from Hillary. It was the best tone of voice she’s ever used…I just wanted her to be my girlfriend and call me any day. She just sounded like a sincere, wonderful human being, and I felt bad that I had forsaken her.”
And where did the John Edwards vote go? Samantha Olds, a former Edwards volunteer, said she and her friends from the campaign aren’t breaking definitively either way.
“I decided finally to vote for Obama,” she said of her labored decision after she was dismayed by Edwards’s withdrawal. “At the end of the day, Obama captures part of the appeal that Edwards did…He has a similar fire.”
But, she said, many of her co-workers have decided to go for Clinton, and she couldn’t point to one feature that divided the Obama and Clinton groups.
In the end, Democrats who had trouble making up their minds won’t have to feel guilty; the delegate count from Missouri will hardly differ between the two candidates. Right now, Obama has 13 pledged delegates and Clinton has 12. Another 47 have yet to be divided based on the votes in the state’s nine congressional districts.
“We expect to announce that at the end of the week,” Jack Cardetti, a spokesman for the Missouri Democratic Party, told me Wednesday. Sixteen super delegates will go to the convention unbound by the state’s popular vote.
Conversely, among Republicans, going to the polls for most meant standing up for one of two starkly different candidates. Mitt Romney, who has both conservative and moderate credentials, didn’t get enough votes to significantly rival McCain or Huckabee on Tuesday, and the stiff competition between the latter two represents the riff within the party – to choose a more electable but moderate candidate or a candidate who represents the conservative religious values that have so helped the GOP in recent decades.
Kathy St. Clair, 47-year-old mother of two who attends a Baptist church every Sunday, voted for Huckabee and was frustrated and disappointed when he didn’t win the race.
“I have read [Huckabee’s] views on the subjects and the issues that are very important to me, and he aligns best with values,” she told me in a passionate and genuine voice. “I vote based on my values, and there would be no one upholding my values if McCain is the nominee.”
The Kansas Democratic caucus was less exciting and probably warranted the small amount of attention it got. Obama’s mother was born in the state, and the governor, Kathleen Sebelius, endorsed him last week, after she gave the Democratic response to the president’s State of the Union address. And surely enough, Obama came out way on top, beating Clinton 74 percent to 25.8 percent – which gives Obama 23 delegates and Clinton nine, with nine super delegates unpledged until the convention.
But Democratic-only caucuses did produce one exciting thing in the traditionally Republican stronghold – a high number of voters. For example, Johnson County, a relatively wealthy suburb of Kansas City that borders Missouri, could not be more demographically Republican – rich, white and religious. But, precincts in the county had lines out the door because they didn’t prepare for the volume of Democratic voters that showed up.
There is at least one thing to take from these two states’ nominating contests – start paying attention. While the Kansas caucus may not have been particularly exciting, the enthusiasm and high number of voters could make for an interesting general election if Obama is the Democratic nominee. The governor’s endorsement combined with Obama’s family ties to the state and fire shown by voters on Tuesday could shade this deep-red state at least a little bit purple, and perhaps even blue, by November. And be sure to keep an eye on Missouri – the diversity of this bellwether state’s population makes it a good sampling of the country, and in about 100 years its voters have only failed once at picking the next president.
Monday, February 4, 2008
Hottest ticket in Hollywood
Everyone prepared for John Edwards’s participation in the Democratic presidential debates on Thursday. CNN had built a desk with three places for the candidates to sit while on stage, and the California Democratic Party had Edwards’s silhouette, along with Hillary Clinton’s and Barack Obama’s, on their credentials for the event. So before Wednesday, when Edwards, the last white male left in the Democratic race, dropped his bid for the presidency, it seemed as though it would be just your average debate – except for the fact that it would be held in the Kodak Theatre in Hollywood with A-list stars in attendance.
Steven Spielberg, Diane Keaton, Stevie Wonder, Rob Reiner and Pierce Brosnan were among those on the glamorous guest list – and they all had fabulous seats. So naturally CNN’s camera people couldn’t help themselves, and, as a story on MSNBC’s Hardball with Chris Matthews pointed out the next day, the show’s director cut away from the candidates on stage to the faces of celebrities 19 times and only showed elected officials who were in attendance four times. (Aside from Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, most politicians had seats in the balconies, while stars mainly occupied the front-and-center section.) One can imagine it was hard for many viewers, who may have tuned in during this Thursday night primetime broadcast in lieu of their favorite shows that are on hold due to the writers’ strike, to concentrate on listening to the candidates drone on about health care and the Iraq war when images of their faces were alternated with those of America Ferrera and Jason Alexander. Many news stories on Friday, if they weren’t about how nice Clinton and Obama were to each other, were full of famous names, along with their corresponding pictures. Instead of focusing on the impact of the loss of Edwards in the race, people joked that the Kodak seated more stars for the debate than it will for the Academy Awards later this month.
But it seems CNN set it up this way, for the network missed the chance to capitalize on selling the debate in a way that no other debate can ever be sold: for the first time in presidential history, no white male would be on the stage telling the American public why he would be the best man to serve as the next president of the United States. And even when the event was upon him, Blitzer made no attempt to seize the historical moment. Standing on the stage that has been the site of the Academy Awards since 2002 and speaking to the star-studded audience before the event went on the air, he took a stab at being an entertainment, instead of a news, host. “I’ve always wanted to say this,” he said in the midst of light and seemingly rehearsed conversation that was void of talk about the upcoming debate, “and this is the place to say it: and the Oscar goes to…”
His script once the show started, which will forever introduce the first time a woman and an African-American have alone gone head to head for a presidential nomination, fell just as flatly frivolous: “…And here inside we’re at the Kodak Theatre in the midst of glamour on this stage. This is one of the great stages of all time. It’s where the Oscars are awarded, but get this, right now this is the hottest ticket in town.” Granted, he did note that “what happens here tonight could change the course of this presidential race and the nation,” but he failed to point out that just by walking onto the stage and taking their seats, Clinton and Obama would already be changing the course of our nation.
Perhaps Edwards dropped out too soon before the debate, and CNN didn’t have time to fix Blitzer’s script amidst making sure Leonardo DiCaprio had a fifth-row seat, but it is sad that the network, along with many other media outlets, missed the historic significance when faced with all the glitz the location brought. A contemporary viewer may find it hard to revel in the excitement of the debate’s impact when the images of Clinton and Obama cut to the faces of Topher Grace or Bradley Whitford, but perhaps the memories of these actors will fade, their popularity will die out, and we will be left with a portrait of a moment of progress in our country.
Steven Spielberg, Diane Keaton, Stevie Wonder, Rob Reiner and Pierce Brosnan were among those on the glamorous guest list – and they all had fabulous seats. So naturally CNN’s camera people couldn’t help themselves, and, as a story on MSNBC’s Hardball with Chris Matthews pointed out the next day, the show’s director cut away from the candidates on stage to the faces of celebrities 19 times and only showed elected officials who were in attendance four times. (Aside from Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, most politicians had seats in the balconies, while stars mainly occupied the front-and-center section.) One can imagine it was hard for many viewers, who may have tuned in during this Thursday night primetime broadcast in lieu of their favorite shows that are on hold due to the writers’ strike, to concentrate on listening to the candidates drone on about health care and the Iraq war when images of their faces were alternated with those of America Ferrera and Jason Alexander. Many news stories on Friday, if they weren’t about how nice Clinton and Obama were to each other, were full of famous names, along with their corresponding pictures. Instead of focusing on the impact of the loss of Edwards in the race, people joked that the Kodak seated more stars for the debate than it will for the Academy Awards later this month.
But it seems CNN set it up this way, for the network missed the chance to capitalize on selling the debate in a way that no other debate can ever be sold: for the first time in presidential history, no white male would be on the stage telling the American public why he would be the best man to serve as the next president of the United States. And even when the event was upon him, Blitzer made no attempt to seize the historical moment. Standing on the stage that has been the site of the Academy Awards since 2002 and speaking to the star-studded audience before the event went on the air, he took a stab at being an entertainment, instead of a news, host. “I’ve always wanted to say this,” he said in the midst of light and seemingly rehearsed conversation that was void of talk about the upcoming debate, “and this is the place to say it: and the Oscar goes to…”
His script once the show started, which will forever introduce the first time a woman and an African-American have alone gone head to head for a presidential nomination, fell just as flatly frivolous: “…And here inside we’re at the Kodak Theatre in the midst of glamour on this stage. This is one of the great stages of all time. It’s where the Oscars are awarded, but get this, right now this is the hottest ticket in town.” Granted, he did note that “what happens here tonight could change the course of this presidential race and the nation,” but he failed to point out that just by walking onto the stage and taking their seats, Clinton and Obama would already be changing the course of our nation.
Perhaps Edwards dropped out too soon before the debate, and CNN didn’t have time to fix Blitzer’s script amidst making sure Leonardo DiCaprio had a fifth-row seat, but it is sad that the network, along with many other media outlets, missed the historic significance when faced with all the glitz the location brought. A contemporary viewer may find it hard to revel in the excitement of the debate’s impact when the images of Clinton and Obama cut to the faces of Topher Grace or Bradley Whitford, but perhaps the memories of these actors will fade, their popularity will die out, and we will be left with a portrait of a moment of progress in our country.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)