The Democratic Party created super-delegates in the wake of Jimmy Carter’s crushing defeat in 1980. Combined with the Mcgovern debacle of 1972, it seemed to the Democratic elites that the party’s nomination process had been hijacked by radicals who could not settle on a nominee within the mainstream of American politics. Thus, the party bestowed upon each significant elected official a vote in the process to keep the primary voters from nominating someone with no hope of winning. Today the Democratic party again finds itself standing on the edge, staring down into the abyss.
To give you a sense of how acute the crisis is, consider this, I am seriously considering sending a check to Barack Obama’s campaign. No joke. If he is nominated the man will be remembered as a conservative hero. For the last two election cycles Democrats have counted on Pennsylvania and Michigan while competing in Florida and Ohio. Obama will not be competitive in Florida, and he will have to fight hard to hold on to the 25 percent of Clinton voters in PA who said they would vote for Mccain rather than Obama. Bear in mind, that was before Rev. Wright’s latest outburst. Of the most important swing states in November; Ohio, PA, Florida, and Michigan, Obama has lost all 4 to Clinton. People seem to think that the Rev. Wright controversy is behind him now, I disagree, but either way, just wait until the Rezko scandal hits the news cycle. Obama bought his house on the same day that this typical Chicago mobster hack bought an adjacent lot, no problem there, except Obama paid 300,000 dollars less than the market price. The extent of his ties to ’60’s radicals whom he considers his friends are also still unfolding. Its unclear whether they attend the same church.
If super-delegates are to serve any purpose at all, they need to intervene on Clinton’s behalf. Obama’s strange collection of angry black liberation theologists, SDS terrorists, and Chicago Mob Dons is just not going to sell come November. With all the failures of the Bush administration you would think that even the Democratic party wouldn’t be able to screw this one up. They may yet avoid disaster, but only if the super-delegates take the initiative to save the party’s electoral chances. Here’s to hoping that they don’t.
9 responses so far ↓
1 Aaron Nathan (anathan10) // Apr 30, 2008 at 7:29 pm
Can I ask this one? Why is Mike Huckabee still getting votes in the double digit percentages in a primary that was decided two months ago? Could it be that the winner-take-all Republican system left unresolved some unification problems with the Republican nominee? Ones that might show their ugly head in turnout numbers to the same tune of whatever scars remain on the Democrat from this airing of grievances?
2 Sam Rudman (srudman09) // May 1, 2008 at 10:58 am
Problems? Sure. Scars like the Dems? No way. Take a poll of those Huckabee voters and tell me what percent of them will vote for Obama or Clinton over Mccain? In a nightmare scenario some of those voters might stay home, though I suspect they will be energized by your party’s nominee. On the democratic side we are talking about 25 percent of Clinton voters in PA saying they would vote for Mccain over Obama. There is a world of difference there. I get downright giddy reflecting on this. HOPE AND CHANGE, HOPE AND CHANGE!
3 Max Suechting (msuechting11) // May 1, 2008 at 11:49 am
As is becoming a theme with my posts, I have nothing to say about the article’s topic itself (…because I’m voting for Nader anyway), except that it is pretty sad that the only thing the conservative blog has to write about is the electoral politics of the Democratic party.
Anyway, I had the impression that the purpose of amhpub (and the staff blogs specifically) was to have a place reserved for intelligent discussion. We use our names specifically so that discussions don’t devolve into pointless name-calling, such as implying that Obama supporters are “black liberation theologists, SDS terrorists, and Chicago Mob Dons.” It sounds awfully to me like you have little experience with both the Obama supporters on campus, many of which are none of these, or the “SDS terrorists” on campus, including myself.
4 Sam Rudman (srudman09) // May 1, 2008 at 1:19 pm
Max, I think you misunderstood me. I was describing three individuals with whom Obama has potentially damaging associations. They are, respectively, a Reverend whom by his own admission subscribes to black liberation theology, a 1960’s radical who planned bombings against American citizens for political purposes, and Tony Reszko, who is a criminal and a hack. By no means was I suggesting that all or even any other Obama supporters fit into these categories.
As far as your thoughts on the topic; you find an interesting angle on the Republican primary and I will be happy to write about it.
5 Max Suechting (msuechting11) // May 1, 2008 at 2:30 pm
I did misunderstand you, and that’s totally my fault for not keeping up with the politics of who’s endorsed who (just not interested enough, I guess). My apologies.
In my defence, you did refer to them as “Obama’s strange collection,” which I fail to see any other way than “Obama supporters are…” And what’s more, in talking about his “sixties radical ties,” apparently you imagine that it is actually important that “it’s unclear whether they attend the same church.” (As a sidenote, if knowing and sharing opinions with 60s radicals discounts you from being an elected official, we have some serious purges coming our way.) What exactly are you attacking when you say these things? It’s not Obama - it’s people that agree with Obama. You’re not calling out his politics, you’re calling out the politics of people he knows. Which has nothing to do with it.
I had not heard of this house deal. It seems like there’s nothing really to say about it right now, except let’s wait and see what else comes to light. If the evidence comes out to show that Obama had something fishy to do with this house purchase, then it will be an issue.
In terms of the republican primary, you could actually address why people are still voting for a guy who’s not in the race instead of dismissing it as meaningless and gloating over the democratic primaries.
6 Elspeth Hansen (evhansen10) // May 1, 2008 at 3:01 pm
I don’t think you’re giving enough credit to the Democrats. Sure, tensions are running high right now, and I certainly agree that Hillary is more likely to be able to beat McCain, but I think the party will be more unified by November. People will take a look at McCain and his stances on issues like Iraq, health care, the economy, etc. and rally around the Democratic nominee.
7 Sam Rudman (srudman09) // May 1, 2008 at 3:33 pm
To be fair its not just “people he knows.” These are friends, a man whom he described as his spiritual mentor, and a business associate, which all contribute to what I am calling into question, which is Obama’s judgment. I don’t think that Obama actually believes any of the non-sense espoused by Rev. Wright, or in the legitimacy of the terrorist tactics employed by the SDS. What I do think is that Obama has proven to be a very poor judge of character in terms of people whom he has had serious, extended dealings with in the past. The last thing the Democratic Party needs is to waste its huge advantages, courtesy of the Bush debacle, on a candidate who has such a sketchy group of friends and is so thorougly untested.
8 sklanfer09 (sklanfer09) // May 2, 2008 at 3:17 pm
Sam, I wonder why a blog supposedly dedicated to conservative thought has yet to have a post on anything other than the Democratic primaries. Certainly conservatives have better things to say than point and laugh at Barack and Hillary?
9 Sam Rudman (srudman09) // May 2, 2008 at 11:23 pm
Fair enough, it has been a rough couple of years and a good news cycle felt so fun and new but you guys are right. Enough triumphalism, next column is Mccain’s problems on the right, on everything from taxes to gay marriage to campaign finance reform and why half the base, including a majority of voters who identify as conservative, didn’t vote for him in primaries and are unenthusiastic about his candidacy.
You must log in to post a comment.