Senator Clinton And The Democratic Party, Where Now?

***Crossposted from Chuck for... This article has now had three days of play on Reuters through Blogburst/ so I'm not stepping on them posting it here now.***

Before the Texas and Ohio Primaries I stated that without a convincing win in one or both states Hillary should quit. She got that type of win in Ohio, ugly, but she got it. I stated afterwards that she should stay in because there is real value in a contested primary, the voters get a chance to measure judgment and character as well as policies; all the while allowing candidates to grow. A certain nasty undertone had followed the Clinton campaign since South Carolina, it flowered before Texas and Ohio and is now in full bloom. It is the ugliness of political opportunism. I suppose you're ready to read a call for a Clinton withdrawal.

You won't get that. I am sincerely disturbed and angered by the recent tacks taken by Hillary. They are an aspect of politics I'd much rather left to the Republicans, who have worked hard for and earned the disrespect of a large segment of society. They have the potential in this year, of all years, to splinter the Democratic Party and blow away gains in a large non-participatory piece of our electorate. There is a very real chance of serious damage to the DNC and the Dean vision of how to expand the Party's numbers and strength. Democratic dialogue has coarsened and lies and misrepresentations have been validated as strategy. This climate of opportunism run rampant occurs in a year where a campaign of principles and cool judgment and behavior could result in the gutting of the Republican machine. All these negatives outcomes and I'm not calling for a withdrawal or cease-fire?

It is absolutely necessary that this contest goes all the way to the Convention floor and the super delegates hands, with the States of Florida and Michigan right in the mix, however resolved or unresolved. The entire sack of dynamite goes to Denver, with the fuse lit. This is not a horrid foretelling, it is absolutely required by the state of the Democratic Party. We are going to have this out. We are going to use the process for what it was intended, to determine who and what the Democratic Party is. The process of proportional delegate apportionment is going to finally come into its own. The smaller pieces of State Parties are going have a say, the ability of underdog campaigns to flourish in that environment is going to come to pass, we are going to find some things out. We are going to find out where the Party officials and the elected Democrats want to go. We are going to find out what works and does not work in Democratic Party politics. The Howard Dean and the Terry McAuliff visions of the DNC are going to collide. This is going to be a brawl and it will go to the final round and end in a knock out. Sending the doctor into the ring will be pointless, because one is not going to get back up, ever.

That is exactly right. This time the fight is to the end. Some version of the Democratic Party is dead and done in Denver. November has ceased to be more than a coda in this work. The conductor has been chased from the podium by the percussion section and this song is driving hard and fast to the final crescendo. We are going to learn how the notes are strung and the result may be the end of the Democratic Party as we know it. This is the process, this is what all these years of political wilderness and dramatic and slight return of 2006 have been about. The fates of downstream candidates are going to be determined in Denver and the public perception of this latest Congress is going to play larger than anyone may have thought. The dynamics of an explosive confrontation have been building since the Clinton administration.

The elements are nearly worthy of a work of fiction. The victim hood of Hillary, the Bush destruction of what good came of Clintonism, the electoral career of Hillary, the ouster of the McAuliff faction at DNC and the Dean vision engaged. Swirling around these characters was the atmosphere set by an out of control Republican Congress rubber stamping an out of control President who bulldozed a Democratic Congress and there was fear. Fear and naked blatant fear mongering. Narration was provided by the Machiavellian Rove and the politicization of government to its bowels. And there was a new and charismatic black Senator. The mood is set, the characters in place, and the conflict defined.

There are four main actors in two separate and yet linked conflicts. The Dean version of grass roots small money all states bottom up responsibility against the McAuliff autocratic big money 50%+1 wins and consultant driven corporatism is the underlying conflict. The really visible actors are Hillary and Obama, two different visions of political practice. Both are politicians, no mistake, but Hillary offers up a school of political thinking that sees the vote margin gained now, through whatever opportunism, as the end political capital, one vote margin, however gotten, allows the political agenda to go forward with its ends justifying its manner of achievement. Disaffected voters for the opponent are dispensable, the purpose is the win. The Obama campaign predicates its win as based on the enlargement of the electorate and its activation as a political force, and not only its win, but its hopes of governing. It is the philosophy of inclusion to the extent of creating a public force for its agenda surpassing that of the opponent in the General Election. Such a campaign is restricted in scope in a Democratic Primary, it must by definition not be perceived as divisive or opportunistic and it must project an aura of reasonableness and concern for the opposition.

These conflicts would be explosive taken singly, they are not separate but linked and more than that they are each catalysts for the other. The Obama campaign set out on a 50 state strategy, mimicking the Dean operation and built solid and successful organizations everywhere it went. Along with that strategy was the idea that every voter counted and the creation of new voters counted and the only way to get there was to bring them something new and different. Proportional awarding of delegates rewards that strategy, losses are minimized and gains maximized. There is no base, there is the creation of an entirely new base, but this base is deeply skeptical of the old order. They are brought to belief reluctantly and once activated relentless, the fire of converts. They are a dangerous force, almost as dangerous to their creator as the opponent; a single instance of opportunism by their champion laid bare and they're gone. They are fierce in their opposition to perceived opportunism in their opponent.

Hillary was schooled in the nastiness of politics, what lessons of selective ethics she had not already learned before the White House were driven home there. Her hate driven persecution by Republicans over small time ethical lapses and her recovery from it with an ardent base taught the lesson that gains taken through virtually any means are only meaningful if you win. The shady dealings not only resulted in profits but were wiped out by surviving an all out assault. The Republican failure to achieve criminal prosecution became a success, it all went away except with the people who hated her for it and they were just short of a majority. (I am neglecting, deliberately, the skeptics) The strategy of 50%+1 is validated, you need only barely win and everything works out - your husband is reelected, you are a hero with book deals, and afterwards a Senate run. The woman the nasty Republican men tried to crush is victorious. But care must be taken to stay safe and unassailed, the 50%+1 means you are always walking a political tightrope, 50%-1 will not work and you've been a part of a Democratic bloodbath, already. Here is Terry McAuliff, the architect of 50%+1 and big money and master of DNC's string of losses and the evaporation of that money. Congress is a touchy deal, normally incumbency is a safety mechanism, but it you've widely depended on narrow support and the public mood shifts a little, you will be wiped out. Neither Party has sufficient registered voters to count solely on them for a win. The 50%+1 strategy counts on getting your members out, picking up some Independents and suppressing the turn out of the other guy and his piece of Independents. The Republicans have run this one hard. It depends on an enthusiastic base, a partial appeal to the middle and the demonizing of the opposition. The lower the general turnout the larger the effect of your base. The Hillary campaign knows this and runs with near 50% negatives, additional voters are only a threat, unless they fear the demon.

Where this contest has gotten was predetermined as soon as Obama started winning. The McAuliff strategy came up short and the inevitable candidacy had turned into a bust as the 50 state every delegate strategy rolled. There was only one alternative and that was the kitchen sink, suppress turnout and demonize the opponent while scaring the base. The party regulars must be appeased so the opponent's successes must be minimized, despite alienating voters. Illegitimate contests are touted, no matter the damage to the Party machinery - it already isn't in line with the campaign's strategy.

One of these philosophies is going to succeed and the linkages between the conflicts means that one or the other is dead as a candidacy and as a party methodology. If the divisive opportunistic philosophy wins, the Party will explode. The Dean and McAuliff models cannot coexist and the scorched earth strategy will not keep the activist new comers and idealists and may drive out long time loyalists who were not in the Clinton base. With the DNC already unfairly stressed by the Michigan and Florida debacles it will only take a little of Terry McAuliff to set off a wholesale exit and loss of income following the loss of reputation. A blown apart Party will not win in November and the chances of putting the wreckage back together will be small, downstream candidates will have suffered and no one will trust the Democratic Party with their visions again for a very long time. The destruction wreaked by an unreformed Republican Party over the next 4-8 years with an ineffective Democratic opposition will be fearful. The numbers of disgruntled Obama supporters who will bail in November is steadily climbing from the initial low numbers and there will be scant arguments to be made to them.

Within the Democratic Party this is a fight to the finish and there are two endings, and one really stinks. The entire Party from voters to super delegates needs to look carefully at where it wants to go and to remember that there are two potential victims in this, the Party and the Nation. The lines are clearly drawn, now.

Dems breaking the 50% mark?

As if the news for Republicans wasn't bleak enough this election season, a new AP poll has produced what appears to be an unusual benchmark.

AP Poll: More say they're Democrats

WASHINGTON - More people say they are Democrats than said so before voting started in this year's presidential contests while the number of Republicans has remained flat, a survey showed Thursday.

The poll showed 52 percent call themselves Democrats, up from 45 percent in an AP-Ipsos survey in mid-December. Thirty-five percent say they are Republicans, about the same as December's 37 percent.

I can't remember this happening before, and a quick Google search isn't giving me any good background. But in general, both parties tend to take numbers well below half with independents, moderates and third party voters making up the middle ground which both need to fight for. Coming into a hotly contested campaign, having more than half of the nation identifying with your opponent's party is troubling to say the least.

The linked article also touches on what I still feel is the bigger, but most under-reported story of this season.

There has also been far higher turnout in Democratic presidential primaries this year than in GOP contests, in part reflecting that Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama continue grappling for the nomination.

There are a number of districts in various states reporting primary turnouts for the Democrats more than 500% above the levels seen in 2004 or 2000, while Republican turnout remains relatively flat. These numbers, according to exit polls, include unprecedented rates of new voter registration, with many of these being people who have never registered to vote before.

Particularly in some of the purple - formerly red - states, GOTV could be the real "shock and awe" of this election. Enough new voters for one party can swing a state over which was formerly considered "safe" for the Republicans. It would be nice to see a presidential candidate carry the 271 electoral vote barrier by more than single digits for a change, providing more of a real mandate from the electorate going into their first term.

This is all, of course, still too early to call conclusive by any means, but the trends certainly look interesting. Then again, the Democrats are nothing if not famous for their ability to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory, so we'll need to see how the primary battle plays out before drawing any more solid conclusion.

Hillary's Ongoing Campaign

There are those who believe Hillary should get out, I advocated that in absence of wins on March 3rd. She got those wins, not by margins that would make her particularly likely make the large changes in delegate total required to win, but she carried those states. What this says is that there are a significant number of voters wanting a choice. I don't like Hillary one bit, but I like voters and I like choices. Yes, I'd prefer better choices than those available, but these are the available choices. Democratic Party unity is not the question, this Party can take a campaign.

The Democratic electorate deserves a chance to look at candidates and make decisions. Decisions based on policies, judgement, and campaigning. The campaigns might take this as a shot across the bow, you are performing before a Democratic electorate, you disregard that at your peril. I loath the Clinton 3:00AM ad, if I'd been in doubt regarding my vote, this would have finished the decision. I cannot imagine that I am alone in this regard. At the same time, the Clinton baggage from Bill's Presidency needs to be addressed carefully, there is a significant difference between what the Republicans made of it and what was there. I don't expect the gloves to be pillows or even stay on, but the blows still need to stay above the belt.

Ron's analysis of the benefits versus drawbacks of a continuing campaign strike me as accurate. What this gives to the Democratic Party is the ability to keep what its values are in comparison to the Republicans' and particularly McBush out in front. This is important, BushCo and its successor McCain need to be held to public scrutiny for as long as possible. The current uncertainty of the identity of the Democratic nominee also plays in favor of the Democrats. The Republican smear machine is unable to focus on one and its smears about any particular candidate do not look particularly intelligent with two running. The only real access they have to the media is through Pres 27% and when they do something particularly stupid or nasty, such as Hagee or Cunningham. McCain is now strapped firmly to BushCo, he can make statements about his opposition to them, but they ring very hollow in the face of events and his Bush kisses. When BushCo criticizes either or both Democratic candidates it does no more than validate them in the minds of a large percentage of voters and strongly contrasts McCain as the standard bearer of losers.

Besides all this, I'd like to see Oregon play in this election in May.

Let's Fix the entire thing

The current method of selecting a presidential candidate can at best be described as byzantine:

• Of, relating to, or characterized by intrigue; scheming or devious


• Highly complicated; intricate and involved

Donna Brazile and Chris Bowers are concerned about uncommitted "super delegates". Others are concerned about the un Democratic caucus system where a very small percentage of the electorate makes the decision. Here the candidate with the most enthusiastic supporters is likely to win - not always the candidate with the most support. Even is states with a primary election byzantine methods of determining delegates can result in the candidate with the greatest popular vote receiving fewer delegates.

Rather than attacking parts of the flawed system it's time to fix the entire system.

1. Do away with the "super delegates"


2. Do away with the caucus system and replace it with elections


3. Award delegates based on the state wide popular vote

What To Make Of Democratic Super Tuesday

The winner is....a tie.

For delegate count with the Congressional Districts factored in it looks like essentially a tie. If that were all of it there'd be little point chiming in.

I'll state my bias up front, I do not like Hillary Clinton and it has nothing to do with the reich noise machine's hate bias. If most of what they hate were actually Hillary I'd like her more. Oh well, she's not and I don't.

Starting where things seemed to stand a week ago and Hillary was unstoppable something is becoming clearer, and it is something I've said before. Hillary does not wear well. If voters are exposed to her for sufficient amount of time, her so-called advantages don't impress. When she has to answer questions her tendency to try to play all sides to the middle is more obvious. When something is called into question she ducks, it is not her fault and everybody is just being mean. Made and broken deals are suddenly a matter of principle and the manifest unfairness lies with those she made the deal with to begin with. Most insultingly she claims power where she has none, though that may be evident only to those who work inside the system. People begin to notice that she claims credit for the good of the WJC administration and ignores or denies the shortfalls.

Obama on the other hand seems to spend little time blaming or ducking, some of that is because he sticks pretty closely to the Unity theme. The policy differences between them on domestic issues seem to come down to pretty negligible details none of which will survive Congressional messing about anyhow. The most striking policy differences are in foreign policy and that seems to come down to his lower level of bellicosity. Where there is outstanding difference is in tone and point of view, Obama's message of unity and looking forward is greatly emphasized by his relative youth and oratorical skills.

The demographics of votes seem indicative of a trend toward Obama, youthful voters favor him, men favor him, and he seems able to capture a near split of the white vote while heavily carrying the black vote. He seems weakest among Hispanic, older voters, and women, pretty much in that order.

While it will require care, some of the upcoming states should be receptive to his approach and some could easily be resistent to "Clintonism." Ohio has a sizable black population and was poorly served by the off-shoring that accelerated under Bill Clinton and was abetted by his trade policies. Care would need to be exercised in regard to that, swinging an axe at a fellow Democrat is not good politics. (it should be noted, it is a large and sharp axe and statistics hone it) Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Texas have all been home to some incredibly divisive politics, and that can be played to, particularly in regard to their failures to respond to very real problems.

Campaign funds will play largely and Obama seems to have an edge in that regard. His great improvement in vote gathering over previous polling should give him additional credibility and Hillary's slide from previous standing makes her look vulnerable. The inevitible candidate isn't. Obama's strong showing in some very white states begins to take some of the steam out of the can't win with whites argument, Bradley (??) effect or some such. Areas that tend to be forward looking, such as the West, broke pretty strongly for Obama.

I believe there exists a hard-core Clinton constituency that has some historical or gender loyalty to Hillary that will not be budged and it seems to be mostly rooted within the Democratic Party itself. There has been an element of polling support that seems to have been more rooted in name familiarity and media inevitibility mantra than actual enthusiasm and these appear to be wandering off. The media is currently enthused with the Obama come-back story and his "newness" which could evaporate if not fed. Possibly the greatest threat to Obama is a potential one rather than one extant and that is a slip up on his part could have huge repercussions. He absolutely cannot damage his image of Unity and forward looking.

My guess is that this race is not going to get settled soon or quickly, and I also sense that it is shifting in Obama's direction. I believe that the map is favorable to him, the decrease in pace and up-coming demographics are in his favor. My sense of a Clinton wear and tear effect may be more subjective than the rest of my analysis, but if it holds as seems evidenced that may be the biggest factor.

Obama supporters had best not rest on their laurels, this thing is still early days and Hillary Clinton has shown an ability to shift ground in a hearbeat and she has a good campaign. A year ago I predicted that Oregon's May Primary might count largely in this election, events are beginning to make that a better bet.

Thanks, Ron, I've owed you one for some time.

Clinton Poll Slide

A recent Zogby Interactive poll shows Hillary has slid in polls matching her with possible Republican candidates in the Nov 08 election, and the slide is bad enough that she' behind the top 5 Republican candidates. Reuters reporting also shows Edwards and Obama (I alphabetize because I haven't picked -other than not Hillary) still leading all Republicans. There are those who will wail right wing demonizing, that's not the case, the harm is two fold, the left base is gagging and the Independents want something new. It isn't the dirty stuff the Republicans pull on Democrats; if it were, the Edwards and Obama polling would show it, and both have been Republican targets, some of it darn dirty. Hillary's high negatives are no secret and quite frankly some of those in that group aren't there for good reasons, but she is not something new, she is DC central all over again. She keeps stating that her positions for years make her a good progressive, the problem is that when it was just talk as First Lady that's what we heard, but when it was 'real' as a Senator, things changed.

I don't dislike Hillary because the Republican dirt machine convinced me of anything, it may have increased my affection for her, her record and her associates persuade me she's old bad news. The media in their frenzy to have a horse race analysis of the Primary and to anoint a Hillary presumptive failed to look at the numbers in an analytic manner. Yes Hillary has led the Democratic field, but not with majority numbers, rather a "horse race" first which looks at politics as though highest number means winner. First in the 40% bracket with 6 other candidates doesn't mean you win, it means 60% back somebody else, even when that person is lagging and written off by the media. Looked at from the Democratic electorate position rather than the 'neutral' media position that means that a large piece of the 60% are in the anybody whatever other than Hillary. Looking at the high negatives that may mean that almost the entire 60% will go elsewhere. Her slippage against the other Democrats bodes ill with these numbers coming up, enough Hillary supporters are only there due to her perceived strength against a Republican and her name recognition that slippage may turn into plummet.

The Hillary inevitability looks even worse with the delegate apportionment of the Democratic Primary, she can't take the convention without 50+% and that leaves those left standing to horsetrading and Hillary even without these kinds of H/Republican numbers might not have any trading goods with these folks. Edwards would not trade delegates for another VP slot, I don't believe he much liked it the last time and certainly not as Hillary's VP, Obama might think about it, but teaming with Edwards would probably be more attractive, even as a higher delegate count VP in the face of Hillary VP. Richardson is a huge question mark, but he's staying in at this point despite lagging badly and Hillary's best offer may not be able to best E&O. The very bottom tier will have its desires to be met, and in their case Hillary is the least likely to have what they want to offer to them.

I've been saying this stuff for some time, these new poll numbers make it look a bit more likely. I'm no seer and I'm also not some nationally recognized political analyst but I think there's not much wrong with this.

DNC, Candidates, States

There is a Primary problem for DNC, the candidates, and potentially the state's delegations. Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina, and Nevada were designated as the first Primaries by the DNC and February 5th as the next date. Florida's legislature has moved its primary ahead of that date and Michigan just did so in the face of DNC stating that Florida would lose its delegates.

The Democratic candidates have signed a pledge refusing to campaign in states holding early primaries other than the designated ones. While states have the right to hold their elections when they desire, the political parties control their conventions and are in no way bound by what state legislators decide. There is a difference between what states see as their interest and what the parties see as their national interests. Michigan says that its failing economy deserves and needs attention from the candidates. The Party's interest is in having the campaign season build over time allowing less well financed candidates an opportunity to get their messages out and build support and allowing smaller population states influence in the process.

The DNC and the states will probably have to work out some method of dealing with this mess. The DNC will not disenfranchise states, but their punishment may sting, they could easily find their early primaries no more than a beauty contest with the real action happening in party caucuses and if the candidates stick to their pledges those state's hopes for early influence may be blasted.

So far, despite some talk, Oregon is sticking with its May primary date and that can play two ways. Either the contest is over, which one blow out candidate could manage or Oregon becomes very important. In a field as wide as the current one there is a good chance that no one will have locked this up. It is very early days for anointing a winner and there is a good bit of jockeying that could occur and there is quite a bit of money going into Democratic hands.

I do not believe it is in the interest of states to crowd together in early primaries, if the crowd gets sufficiently large candidates will have neither the time nor the money to actively campaign in all those states and some candidates with messages that might truly resonate with a state's voters will be priced out. This is not in the interest of Democratic Party politics and it is not in the interest of having an actual debate before the voters.