Greg ([info]dancingguy) wrote,
@ 2008-05-01 13:58:00
Previous Entry  Add to memories!  Tell a Friend!  Next Entry
Current mood: thoughtful
Current music:Billy Joel: Big Shot

What's on the minds of the "super delegates"
If you're trying to figure out how the "super delegates" are going to vote, the first question you have to ask yourself is "what do the 'super delegates' want?"

To answer that you have to answer the question "who are the super delegates?"

And the answer to that is that the vast majority of them are Democrats currently elected to publish office. Many of whom are people who are up for re-election this year, or who have colleagues up for re-election in November.

So, what do they want? They want to get re-elected. If they're not up for re-election (or if they're not in a seriously contested race), they want those Democrats who are in tight races to win. Which is to say: they'd like to see the Democrat Party retain control of the House, Senate, and all the State Legislatures that they currently control, and they'd like to defeat Republicans in tight races where control can be affected.

If they could win the Presidency, too, that would be nice. But if you're a Democrat in Congress (esp. if you're chairman of a committee), keeping Democrat Party control of your chamber is a hell of a lot more important to you than the Democrat nominee winning the White House.

So, from that perspective: what will the super delegates do?

Frankly, i can't envision them doing the Republican Party the huge favor they'd be doing by giving the nomination to Clinton.

John McCain is not popular with the Republican Party base. At all. For a lot of really good reasons. He's going to have a good deal of work cut out for himself trying to get them motivated to go to the polls and vote for him.

OTOH, the Republican base hates the Clintons. Especially Hillary Rodham Clinton. Before the voting started, polls consistently showed that 47 - 49% of voters would not vote for Clinton, no matter who she was running against. As far as I know, those numbers haven't changed.

If you want an energized, active Republican base, that's eager to get out and vote, make Clinton the Democrat Party nominee for President.

IF you want a depressed, apathetic Democrat Party base, "steal" the nomination from Obama and give it to Clinton.

Clinton's been running for President since 2000. She (and everyone else) figured that her name meant she had the Democrat Party nomination sewed up, and so she needed to focus on winning the general election. Which meant she needed to stay towards the center, and work to decrease the intensity of the hatred that built up against her in the 1990s.

As a consequence, the party (non-union, non-black) base, which never trusted the Clintons after Bill's "triangulation" as President, doesn't like her. Which is why they flocked first around Edwards, and now Obama. These people are not going to be pleased if the Party Establishment overturns the will of the voters, and choses Clinton.

Then there are the black voters, who give the Democrats 90+% of their votes. How do you think they would react to the white Party Establishment stealing the election from the black candidate, and giving it to the white one?

Now, imagine you're a Democrat member of the House or Senate, or a Governor, up for re-election. You won your last race by 5 - 10%. Or your a Democrat member of the House or Senate, who likes being in the Majority party, and are aware of how many of your collegues won their last election in a close race.

Are you going to chose Clinton over Obama?



(Post a new comment)


[info]lwj2
2008-05-01 10:18 pm UTC (link)
Good analysis, Greg, and one I agree with (not that you need my agreement).

It would be nice to see a shift toward centre in both the parties, the division between liberals and "conservatives" -- I put that in quotes because I don't consider most of those who call themselves conservative to be such -- has grown too great over the past decade and, IMO, ignores those of centrist leanings.

lwj

(Reply to this)(Thread)


[info]dancingguy
2008-05-02 04:43 am UTC (link)
Well, the last time a Republican won the Presidency running as a moderate was 1956 (Eisenhower). (GHWB governed as a moderate (and lost in 1992). He ran as a small government conservative.)

The last time a Democrat won the Presidency running as a lefty was 1940? Earlier?

So if your goal is for the Republicans to lose, that's a great plan. If not, not.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)


[info]chuckles48
2008-05-02 06:02 am UTC (link)
I have to agree with Leon. Is the issue about winning the election, or about doing what's right for the country?

I'm trying to remember the last time a Republican _ran_ as a moderate in the national election. 90s? Nope. 80s? Nope. 70s? Ford was appointed, as a bipartisan moderate, and lost to Carter... but not entirely surprising, given the circumstances, and especially given the pardon. And even then he lost by a swing of about 25,000 votes total. 1960s? Nope. Ah, here we go. Thomas Dewey, 1948, against Truman.

I think you can reasonably say that we don't have enough useful data to make the argument. Sorry, but that's the way I see it.

And, honestly, I still think the California model has a lot more bearing than you realize.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)


[info]dancingguy
2008-05-02 06:36 am UTC (link)
In 1988, GHWB ran on "Read my lips, no new taxes." He ran as the consolidator of teh Reagan Revolution. IOW, he lied. And he won.

GWHB ran as a moderate in 1992, because that is what he was, and by then everyone knew it. He ran on "hey, I'm better than the other guy." And he lost, after having had 90% approval ratings a year or so before the election.

Dole, 1996, was a moderate, and everyone knew it. He also ran on "hey, at least I'm better than the other guy." He lost.

As for "doing what's right for the country." If there's anything you can do better for the country than cutting taxes, and the size of government, I've never encountered it.

And if there's a Republican politician who claims to be a "fiscal conservative, and social moderate" who, when push comes to shove, is actually fiscally conservative, I've yet to see him or her, either in CA or on the national stage.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)


[info]chuckles48
2008-05-02 07:26 am UTC (link)
GWHB ran as a small-government conservative, then tried to run things as a moderate.

You might note that he lost because he had a raging recession _during_ the election. Nobody, but nobody wins an election when the economy has gone into the tank.

Dole? Moderate? That's like calling David Duke a flaming liberal.

And as to the last... obviously you didn't vote in California's 14th District during the 1970s, 80s, or 90s. I give you Pete McCloskey, Ed Zschau, and Tom Campbell. There are others - you might want to look at our current Insurance Commissioner, for example.

(Reply to this)(Parent)


[info]lwj2
2008-05-03 03:28 pm UTC (link)
Don't really have a goal, per se, Greg.

I'd prefer someone in the WH with sense enough to pour piss out of a boot w/o needing to see the directions on the heel. Preferably someone a tad to the right of centre.

I'd like to see the feds dis-engage from things and the states take some responsibility.

I'd like to win the lottery too.

(Reply to this)(Parent)

Interested Canadian Observer
[info]cyber_pilgrim
2008-05-04 08:27 pm UTC (link)
One of the things that turn me off a candidate is when they try to make their opponent look bad, thinking it will make them look good; that is a loosers tactic. I don't trust Hillary. It sure is going to be interesting to see how the current battle for president turns out.

(Reply to this)


Create an Account
Forgot your login?
Login w/ OpenID
English • Español • Deutsch • Русский…