Superdelegates Should Pick a Winner (Guest Post)

By Bud White, originally posted at No Quarter (April 21, 2008)

The superdelegates are going to pick the next Democratic nominee. Winning the General Election against John McCain should be their primary concern.

Let’s assume Hillary wins tomorrow in Pennsylvania. Regardless of her margin of victory, superdelegates are still tasked with picking the Democratic nominee. A post by Jeralyn on TalkLeft argues convincingly that Obama would face almost insurmountable odds against McCain. Jeralyn uses William Arnone’s analysis of the electoral landscape.  Jeralyn says:

"First, we need to figure out which of the 20 states are vulnerable to McCain and decide whether Hillary or Obama has a better chance of carrying them. Mr. Arnone says those states are: Pennsylvania, Michigan, Minnesota, New Hampshire, Oregon and Wisconsin, which have a total of 68 electoral votes."

As I’ve written before, Kerry won Pennsylvania by only 2% in 2004. Obama’s inability to carry large states besides his home state does not bode well for his candidacy.

What is more troubling is that Kerry won Wisconsin by a mere .5%. Also, if Michigan is lost by selective disenfranchisement, then the Democratic Party should go into another line of business.  Jeralyn continues:

"Next are the ten states the Dems didn’t win in 2004 that there’s a chance of winning in 2008. They are: Arkansas; Colorado; Florida; Iowa; Missouri; Nevada; New Mexico; North Carolina; Ohio; and Virginia. Of these, all but North Carolina have already voted. Mr. Arnone says: 'The winner of the popular vote in the Democratic primary or caucus in each of these key states will have a higher likelihood of carrying that state in November. This is a critical consideration in determining who is likely to be the Party’s most successful Presidential candidate in the general election.'”

Obama would be certain to lose Florida and it’s hard to imagine him winning any of the states above, regardless of how much the so-called “progressives” wish it. Jeralyn tracks Arnone’s argument that the Democratic candidate will have to pick up four crucial constituencies: women, Catholics, the elderly, and Latinos. Obama is very weak with all four groups while Hillary is remarkably strong with all four. While Obama would likely lose ALL swing states, Hillary would probably win Arkansas, Florida, Iowa, Nevada, New Mexico, and Ohio. In other words, a landslide.

The Obama campaign has argued that the superdelegates should pick the person with the most delegates at the end of the primary season, but of course that’s without counting Michigan and Florida. Selective disenfranchisement is the name of their game. But that’s precisely NOT the role of superdelegates. Their role is to exercise independent judgment and pick the strongest candidate, the candidate that will most likely win in the General Election.

There are rumblings that a group of young militants are recruiting African Americans and others to riot at the August convention if Obama is not selected as the nominee. This may be true as Obama’s surrogates have used strong-armed tactics to sway the caucuses and it is well known that many of his young followers see themselves as part of a radical movement. Some people feel that the superdelegates are afraid of these consequences if they don’t nominate Obama.

However the threat of rioting is a manipulation by Obama’s overzealous youth movement (they’ve been seen posting pictures of Che Guevara in Obama offices) and it has been intentionally overstated and exaggerated throughout the blogs. Moreover, the superdelegates are much more concerned about the Democrats winning the General Election than they are about the threats made by Obama’s young followers. And as much as Hillary’s supporters may cringe at the thought, Hillary will likely pick Obama as her running mate. She has stated so publicly and her former campaign manager, Patti Solis-Doyle, is running a campaign she calls voteboth.org, an operation, I believe, to assure the superdelegates that Hillary will select Obama and bring his troops into the fold. Think Kennedy-Johnson 1960: two warring factions of the Party must be united to win. Or as President Johnson said: It’s probably better to have him inside the tent pissing out, than outside the tent pissing in.

With only a hint of sarcasm, I accept Obama and Howard Dean’s word that Michigan and Florida will be seated. Therefore, Hillary is currently 9 delegates behind Obama today and will likely be ahead tomorrow. A stolen nomination is a lost election, and superdelegates cannot allow that to happen.

The superdelegates are at a crossroads: they could placate Obama’s wing of the Party (and the ObamaMedia) and accept certain defeat, or they can select Hillary and win a victory and usher in a historic era of activist government.

Thanks to Mary Jo Kopechne, PhD, for her assistance with this essay.

Comments

[Adam]

"Obama would be certain to lose Florida and it’s hard to imagine him winning any of the states above, regardless of how much the so-called “progressives” wish it."

This statement is pretty much unsupportable, which is sort of a big deal, since your ENTIRE argument hinges on it.

There are significant demographic differences between Florida and Colorado/Iowa/Nevada/New Mexico. Obama has polled below McCain consistently in Florida, but above him consistently in those four, as well as New Hampshire, which Kerry also lost.

Take Colorado for instance (a finer state, I do not know). Obama was +9% and +3% against McCain in the most recent polls done by reasonably reliable sources (Rasmussen and SUSA respectively). Hillary was -14% and -6% in the same polls. Projections based purely on demographics of their supporters compared to state demographics put Obama at +4% and Hillary at -10%.

Pennsylvania is a state where Clinton does better. Nobody is arguing otherwise, least of all the Obama people. PA will be the most critical swing state for Obama. But that's just because he will already have safer leads in New Mexico, Iowa, Nevada, and Colorado.

[Adam]

Or take Iowa, another state you list as a sure Hillary winner and a sure Obama loser.

Here's the last 7 Iowa polls, all after Super Tuesday, mostly Rasmussen and SUSA:

Omama +7
Omama +4
Omama +6
Omama +17
Omama +9
Omama +3
Omama +10

... and the same ones, now Hillary vs. McCain:

Hillary -6
Hillary -15
Hillary -4
Hillary -9
Hillary -5
Hillary -10
Hillary -9

Again, this is over a spread of two months. Every survey done shows Obama winning and Hillary losing. And yet, you state with confidence that the November results would be the opposite.

You don't like going by polls? Fine. Then explain to me why two states with high levels of education, with high percentages of young voters, and states that Obama won in the primary, are so obviously slanted toward Hillary in the general election. I'd appreciate some basic regression analysis of the demographics to bolster your argument, too.

[Adam]

Slight correction: Kerry won New Hampshire in 2004. I meant to say, "which GORE also lost".