First Read has a piece up noting the Clinton campaign’s approach to the possible convention fight. Some choice excerpts below:
Ickes argued the “superdelegates” should be called “automatic delegates” instead, because the former makes it sound like they have “superpowers.” The DNC itself refers to them as “superdelegates” and as “unpledged” delegates.
On Florida and Michigan, the campaign again said voters in those states should not be “disenfranchised” and that the states were important to the Democratic Party’s fortunes. Ickes also said Clinton didn’t vote on the DNC rules.
Ickes repeated earlier contentions that there was no reason to “re do” the votes in Florida and Michigan and didn’t directly answer if they would participate in a re-vote in Michigan. Ickes also acknowledged that it would be possible for Clinton to lose pledged delegates but control a majority of the credentials committee, which ultimately decides if and how Florida’s and Michigan’s disputed delegations would be dealt with.
This leaves me wondering whether or not the Clinton campaign is actually willing to do this. If the convention comes down to them being able to seat Florida and Michigan (which is more ridiculous, in my mind), through a rules coincidence giving them control of the credentials committee, would they go through with it? It would widely be seen as stealing the nomination infairly, and would no doubt lead many democrats to lose respect for her.
After a huge number of people have come out to vote in every primary/caucus, is she willing to offend so many of these new voters, who will probably then be more reluctant to vote in November? If she does do this, expect her to get blamed for giving John McCain the presidency.
4 comments ↓
There’s a lot that has happened with your buddy since Febuary. I just read quite a bit of your stuff, and its a lot to take in. Do you really think that this guy has what it takes to run a country? He has not even run a campaign. The media has been doing it for him since his trip to Kenya in 2005. Now all the sudden people are begining to wake up to the fact that he is actually not any different than any of the other politician that speaks out of both sides of their mouths. I think it will be interesting to see how the Dem nomination will wrap up. It kind of seems lose/lose for them whether Clinton or Obama gets it. Why? Well, the media has made it seem like Hillary is only barely in the race when in reality neither of them can mop up enough delegates for a rocksolid nomination. However, because of the media’s farce, they have cast a huge shadow of gloom over her campiagn and truly made her to look like a poor sport when in reality she still has just as much reason to stay in as does Obama — BUT, if she gets the nomination… there goes the black vote, and it’ll be made out as if she stole it from him. In contrast, if Obama gets the nomination, He keeps the black vote, the hardcore moveon.org types, and all his ‘hope movement’ supporters. Truth will start being reported about him. He has so much baggage that our mainstream media is not even been bothering to report as of now, that he is certainly doomed. He is still a political unknown to most Americans. Once the truth about who he really is gets out, he will be toast. Either way, there will be insormountable democrats that will feel completely disenfranchised by their own party and probably vote for Nader or McCain if they even vote at all. Just my theory as of right now. What do you think?
I think you are overestimating the role of the media in his rise. There was a lot more happening on the ground in Iowa that led to his victory. The grassroots organization by the campaign was at levels nearing best-ever (if not past that level).
Clinton has no real avenue to a pledged delegate lead. That’s not media spin, that’s plain math, and leaves her in a very weak position, as she tries to get the elite to overturn the position of the elected delegates.
I also think that you are erroring in thinking that Nader could possibly be someone voters turn to. His negatives are sky high and McCain is a moderate that those who turn away from Obama won’t mind too much.
Iowa was a long time ago. As far as caucuses go, I will definately agree with you that he had a lot going on at the ground level for him in most of the caucus states. Take a look at the amount of stories that even talk about Clinton and McCain. Then look at the stories that talk about Obama. First,compare the volume. Then compare what light they are shed in (positive/negative). That is what I mean by the media running his campaign for him. I am not saying that the caususes were flukes. But you cannot deny the power of the press on people who are more or less apolitical.
As fas as Clinton’s being behind in delegates, I never said she would surpass Obama, I only pointed at that neither of them can lock up the nomination. That is also plain math. That being the case, Obama does have the stronger position (obviosly, he is in the lead). It does not make Clinton’s a weak position. Weaker, yes, but not weak. The broker convention it will be. Unless she concedes to be his VP. I have a difficult time seeing her accept that, but nothing is impossible.
As far as Nader goes… you’re probably right.
It is weak. Thinking anything else is just flat out wrong. If the superdelegates overturned a pledged delegate lead of Obama’s (and it will probably be around 100 delegates if things go well for Clinton) there will be a huge backlash. Which is why it won’t happen. These are party people and don’t want to see it ripped apart.
There is also a lot of data that points to Obama being a better candidate for downticket races, as he drives hordes to the polls. A lot of superdelegates are going to want his help in winning.
For more convincing of how much he is ahead by, check out this Politico article: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0308/9149.html
A 10% chance of winning is weak.
You must log in to post a comment.