PhotoDude.com

Absolutely devastating analysis.

Thank you, but you did not answer my final question.

What will Hillary’s legacy be? That of the self-entitled candidate who would not give up in the face of defeat, tearing the party asunder, or that of the candidate who was big enough to step aside when the choice of party voters became undeniable?

Because current trends and the overall math suggest we’re getting really close to that point.

I can tell you what kind of loser she’ll be- she’ll be the type that will claim voter disenfranchisement led to her defeat, that there was some ‘vast (fill in the blank here) conspiracy’ arrayed against her, that someone else did her in and that if the world was right, she’d have won. She’s lined up to be a caricature of the stereotype produced after the Florida mess that lost Gore his shot.

One way or another, there’s going to be a lot of screaming in this election, and even though I’m not that sympathetic to Clinton, I’ve got to admit there’s a lot to scream about. Florida voters get no say? Michigan gets no say? What party is this, that after whining for eight years about the disenfranchisement of Florida’s voters, took all their votes away? Huh? Trouble is, we can’t go back now and hand them back their delegates, because the candidates all agreed early on to not campaign there. Now Clinton wants to scrap that agreement, and why? Because she won. Reminds me of kids at the playground who want to change rules after it becomes clear they’ll win with retroactively revised rules.

The big sticking point is going to be the fact that the superdelegates will get to decide this. The entire concept of the superdelegate system is so flawed it’s insane- they should rename the party the ‘Plutocratic Party’, because that’s really where it is. Do the math- here in Georgia there were 1,046,485 votes cast in the Democratic primary, to decide the sway of 87 delegates. That means each delegate is, to put it simply, representative of 12,028.6 voters (votes divided by delegates). So tell me, why is it that ‘party activists’ get a vote in the convention that’s 12,028.6 times as powerful as my vote? It’s just like giving one person that many votes at the voting machine, really, and why? Because they’ve been a politician, or worked for the party? Quite thin qualification to be 12,000 times more influential than your run-of-the-mill peasant (that’d be me).

Well, it could be worse than we have it in Georgia – Ted Kennedy gets 13,377.8 votes.

Todd, I’m afraid you’re probably right about the path Hillary will choose. I think the best way for her to restore her image and cement her legacy would be to … right now … say “I’m stepping aside so that the party can rally behind a candidate, because winning in November is that important.”

It’ll never happen, of course. It seems perfectly logical for them to play out the string in Ohio and Texas, and assuming they survive those favorably, push it to Pennsylvania. But the math just isn’t happening.

Unless, as you note, you throw 796 superdelegates into the mix. The recent trend seems to be that they will vote as their state did, which seems the only “democratic” thing to do, in my view. But they are a potential battlefield where I expect the Clinton camp to dig trenches. And, indeed, if the superdelegates overturn the margin of “earned” delegates, you can close the door on the Democratic Party. No need to run out the lights, they will already be in the dark.

As for Florida and Michigan, I have mixed feelings. I can understand people from those states feeling disenfranchised, but whose fault is it? Their own state party’s fault (both Dem and Repub), as they were abundantly warned exactly this would happen if they followed their greed. The only demi-fair thing to do, it seems to me, is to set up two more expensives primaries in late May, let both candidates campaign, and let the voters in those states have their say.

My guess is that The Powers That Be are hoping one candidate or the other will drop out before late May, and then they can seat the existing delegates of those states at the convention, as it will no longer matter in the delegate total.

But, yes, if I was a citizen of Florida or Michigan, I’d be pissed. And also arguing you can’t count the old vote, you have to have a new one, simply because many citizens likely didn’t bother to show up the first time, after being assured it would not count.

What will Hillary’s legacy be? That of the self-entitled candidate who would not give up in the face of defeat, tearing the party asunder, or that of the candidate who was big enough to step aside when the choice of party voters became undeniable?

Her legacy will be neither of those. The Clintons have been so successful over the years because they understand something that many other Democrats never really got: There are no moral victories in politics, there are only electoral victories. A candidate doesn’t have a legacy, you have to be an office holder. For every Goldwater that might break this rule, there are hundreds Dukaki that prove it.

Also, unlike Obama, she doesn’t have a 2012 or 16 to look to. This really is her only shot. So she’ll fight like hell to the bitter end. Anybody that expects Hillary Clinton to cave has been living in a cave for twenty years.

And, even though I’m supporting Obama now, I really don’t have a problem with that. It’s not Hillary’s job to decide when she’s lost. It’s the party’s. And if the party hands her the nomination after she’s lost the popular vote, then it deserves whatever disaster ensues. But I don’t think it will. Especially if she has to go super-negative just to keep it close.

But that’s just my take. I actually think these intra-mural battles are a good thing. Indeed, that’s a big reason that I’m a Democrat. If I wanted a party where everybody fell into line on command, I’d join the GOP.

“If I wanted a party where everybody fell into line on command, I’d join the GOP.”

You mean, the way they are all falling in line to support the presumptive nominee, John McCain? The Republicans sure seem to be the more fractured party this year. I mean, Dems are split between two personalities who largely share the same policies, whereas the Repubs have major disagreements on policy.

This time, there’s no Reagan. There’s not even a Rovian Beast that the various blind men can lay their hands upon and believe, “yes, this is exactly what I want.”

So I suppose you could consider the Dems to have a plethora of electoral riches by comparison. But it all still makes me nervous about the outcome. Because we’ve already got one party that held power long enough to drown themselves on their own gluttony. If the competing party manages to self-combust before they can even get fully out of the gate (and that’s what a superdelegate toss would be)...

...then I guess we can all become Whigs.

Look at it the other way.

Yes, they’re infighting. But over real, quite severe, policy disagreements.

We, by contrast all agree on most things, and are kind of just fighting for the hell of it.

Fighting for the hell of it? If that was the case, it would be relatively easy for either of them to drop out. And you know it ain’t.

Rather than a platform fight, the Dems may end up fighting a procedural battle over superdelegates and the FL and MI delegations, which will go over like a lead balloon with those who actually voted, and, as Todd noted, had it count for Just One Vote.

But then again, they may not. We’ll have to reconvene after Ohio and Texas, and see what the numbers say then.

Sorry, it’s been a couple of days. I forgot which sides we were arguing.

Go Ron Paul!

We were arguing about competence. Are you fer it, or agin it?