Democracy and Democrats

[Tigermike 3,040]

Democracy and Democrats

February 13, 2008

For seven long years, many Democrats have fumed that Al Gore was elected president in November 2000. Gore won the popular vote, only to have George W. Bush wind up in the Oval Office. Long story there. But how will those aggrieved Democrats react if, say, Sen. Hillary Clinton emerges as her party's nominee -- even though Sen. Barack Obama attracted more votes in primaries and caucuses nationwide?

As Wednesday dawns, Democrats face the possibility that the primary season will end in June without either candidate amassing the 2,025 convention delegates he or she needs.

Consider: Tuesday night's results from the so-called Potomac Primary brought Clinton more dyspepsia than a serving of spoiled crab cakes. Obama's victories in Maryland, Virginia and the District of Columbia push his winning streak to eight straight contests since last week's Super Tuesday extravaganza. Hawaii and Wisconsin voters speak next Tuesday -- quite possibly leaving Obama with 10 victories in a row over Clinton.

But there are (at least) three ways Clinton can thwart Obama and his momentum:

- She can defeat him by winning enough delegates in states still ahead on the primary calendar: Ohio, Texas, Pennsylvania and so on. Fair enough. Obama's loyalists then would choose to rally 'round her. Or not.

- She can negate Obama's small but growing lead in the delegate count by persuading enough of the 796 superdelegates -- elected officials and other Democratic insiders -- to ignore the popular vote from all the primaries and caucuses. Obama has a widening lead in votes cast. But Clinton and hubby Bill hold great sway with many of these party pooh-bahs. The opposing pressures on the superdelegates -- to declare Clinton the strongest candidate in November; to honor Democratic voters' wishes and bolt en masse to Obama -- will only intensify after Tuesday's Obamarama in three more primaries.

- She can pressure the party to recognize hundreds of delegates from Florida and Michigan. The two states currently are excluded from Democratic convention math because they violated party rules, advancing their primaries into January. Although the candidates agreed not to campaign there, Clinton "won" both non-events. Surely she's wishing she hadn't dismissed Michigan's Jan. 15 primary by stating on New Hampshire Public Radio: "It's clear, this election they're having is not going to count for anything."

Former U.S. Solicitor Gen. Theodore Olson, writing in Monday's Wall Street Journal, noted that three factors -- the superdelegates, the reliance on caucuses (rather than primaries) in some states to pick delegates, and the Democrats' "Byzantine, hyper-egalitarian" formulas that involve proportional allocation of delegates -- could leave one candidate with majority support from voters but a minority count in convention delegates.

That's essentially the same dilemma, albeit in a new setting, that bedeviled Democrats in 2000: More Americans voted for Gore, but by the rules of the game -- the role of the Electoral College, and the U.S. Supreme Court decision that halted a constitutionally unfair Florida recount -- Bush won the presidency.

Will the Democrats' primary process similarly produce a nominee who finished second in the primaries and caucuses? That is, second in the hearts of Democratic voters?

Could happen, which argues that the wisest course for superdelegates is to follow the lead of Democratic voters nationwide.

If the superdelegates deny the nomination to the candidate who wins the most primary and caucus support, rank-and-file Democrats will know whom to blame. And it won't be the Supreme Court.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion...0,3014592.story

And no runinred63 this is not an attack on your enthusiasm.