|
There has been some discussion of the prolonged and often negative primary process and its positive or negative effects on the Democratic Party going forward, especially on down ticket races.
Most agree that this primary race, along with major dissatisfaction with Bush and his party, has galvanized more people than ever to participate in the Democratic primary, especially the young and so-called minorities. The youth vote is very important because research shows people tend to stick with the party they chose as young adults, whether Democratic or Republican. I know more than one elderly Republican whose views tend more Democratic these days, but will not change party registration.
There is a real chance, in my opinion, for the Democratic party to lose the potential for new members, fresh ideas and new energy if there is a "coup" of super delegates or some other smoke filled room scene a la 1968. The story is as old as Chronos eating his own children for fear they will usurp his power.
But what of the youth, many of whom are involved in their first political campaign? Will they stay with "the party" if they perceive the nomination being stolen somehow? Do they accept the "politics ain't beanbag" meme?
There's an interesting take on this from Elizabeth Drew on Politico.com
Drew cites three reasons why super delegates will not be rushing to abandon Obama:
(a) Hillary Rodham Clinton is such a polarizing figure that everyone who ever considered voting Republican in November, and even many who never did, will go to the polls to vote against her, thus jeopardizing Democrats down the ticket - i.e., themselves, or, for party leaders, the sizeable majorities they hope to gain in the House and the Senate in November.
(b) To take the nomination away from Obama when he is leading in the elected delegate count would deeply alienate the black base of the Democratic Party, and, in the words of one leading Democrat, "The superdelegates are not going to switch their voter and jeopardize the future of the Democratic Party for generations." Such a move, he said, would also disillusion the new, mostly young, voters who have entered into politics for the first time because of Obama, and lose the votes of independents who could make the critical difference in November.
(c) Because the black vote can make the decisive difference in numerous congressional districts, discarding Obama could cost the Democrats numerous seats.
Furthermore, the congressional Democratic leaders don't draw the same conclusion from Pennsylvania and also earlier contests that many observers think they do: that Obama's candidacy is fatally flawed because he has as yet been largely unable to win the votes of working class whites. They point out something that has been largely overlooked in all the talk - the Ohio and Pennsylvania primaries were closed primaries, and, one key congressional Democrat says, "Yes, he doesn't do really well with a big part of the Democratic base, but she doesn't do well with independents, who will be critical to success in November."
"We may have to go to June, and whoever ends up with the most delegates wins," a key Democrat says. "Meanwhile, the attention will be on the battle she can't win, so why is she doing this - from here on out she's only bleeding the party. The right way to put it is, 'This is a war of attrition and it's obvious that the numbers aren't going to add up, so what's the point?'" He added, "The hope is that at some point the superdelegates will get frustrated and join the Obama bandwagon."
The question is why doesn't this happen sooner rather than later?
Another perspective on the same theme from a Daily Kos blogger.
That's why Obama is the right nominee for Democrats in 2008. Not just because he is winning by all real measures, including actual delegates and the popular vote, nor because he is just as electable as Clinton if not more so. All of these are true, but it wouldn't matter if they were not.
Obama is the nominee who can literally lock in structural advantages for Democrats for the next forty years (to say nothing of Obama's downballot advantages today). Clinton is the nominee who will wage an increasingly futile battle to bring back the lost Democratic coalitions of yesteryear.
Win or lose in November, the right choice for the Party and the country is obvious: Barack Obama is the candidate who will secure the future of the Party--win or lose. Just don't expect pundits, prognosticators and consultants still stuck in the realignment patterns of 1968 to understand that.
They just don't get it--and they probably never will.
This primary is more than just to see which candidate gets the nomination. It is for the future of the Democratic party. I believe there are times in history when a window opens and real change can occur. If that window shuts, the opportunity may be lost for another generation.
|
