Posted on 04/22/2008 5:35:56 AM PDT by shortstop
The Democrats did this to themselves.
The whole mess with Hillary and Barack, the division between their supporters, the hard feelings that have built up between Hillary's feminists and Barack's African-Americans, the Democrats brought this all on themselves.
They are reaping a harvest of their own foolishness.
How so?
By using a fundamentally flawed and crooked system to pick their presidential candidate.
This isn't Barack's fault, this isn't Hillary's fault. This is the fault of a party hierarchy that was too stupid to devise a system that would actually pick a candidate. Instead, a byzantine mechanism was constructed that promoted division and factionalism.
The consequence of that could be the loss of a presidential election that seemed fated from the earliest days to be a Democratic landslide.
The root of the problem was the party's rejection of the constitutional principle of the electoral college. When the Constitution was written, the Founding Fathers knew that conclusive victory in presidential elections was essential to the unity and survival of the country.
Unfortunately, Democrat leaders couldn't see that the same principle was essential to the unity and survival of their party.
In the electoral college, each state is winner-take-all. Each state has a certain number of electoral votes – based on population – and whichever candidate gets the majority of the popular vote gets all of the electoral votes.
That's how the Republican Party does its presidential primary. That's why John McCain long ago locked up the Republican nomination. Under the Democratic system, Mitt Romney wouldn't have dropped out and Mike Huckabee would probably still be in it.
On the other hand, under the Republican system, Barack Obama would have have put Hillary Clinton away a long time ago. Under the Republican system, the Democrats would have a clear candidate and a unified party.
But they don't.
Because the Democrat system for awarding delegates is proportional. For each state, generally, candidates receive delegates proportional to their popular vote. That leaves no clear winner, for any particular state, or for the campaign as a whole.
To make things worse, the Democrats also have a state-by-state variability that includes the occasional caucus. That is the result of state party leaders not wanting to entrust grassroots Democrats with the power to pick a candidate. Caucuses allow state party bigwigs to rig things the way they want.
And superdelegates allow national party bigwigs to rig things the way they want.
For a party whose name is based on “democracy” -- and which makes such a pretense of caring about marginalized folks – the Democrats have gone to great lengths to make sure that the regular people have as little to say about who their presidential candidate is as possible.
And this chaos is the result.
From a liberal Democrat standpoint, the party produced two very good candidates, and they passed over a few other good ones to select these two. From a liberal Democrat standpoint, this should be a slam dunk.
But from a practical standpoint, the Democrats could be in big trouble. They have wounded one another, divided themselves almost irreparably, and given their Republican opponent a second chance he probably wouldn't otherwise have had.
From the standpoint of the Democrats, things have gone about as bad as they can. That cheats rank-and-file party members, who don't want another Republican president. It also hurts Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, two historic candidates whose lives and careers have climaxed in this train wreck. All of these people were done wrong by party leaders who crafted this corrupt and failed system.
They sought to suppress the popular will. They sought to empower minority factions. They sought an inappropriate hand in picking a candidate.
And this is what they have.
It may not prove fatal to an ultimate Democratic victory, but it certainly won't help. It certainly has derailed a supposed Democrat juggernaut.
As a Republican, that makes me very happy. I love it when opponents are run through with their own sword.
But I feel bad for grassroots Democrats who have been betrayed by their party leaders and the system those leaders created. Whichever way this election turns out, the Democratic Party needs to completely reform its primary system.
Because this has been an absolute disaster.
We Republicans appreciate it, it's very entertaining and it sure helps us.
But fairness and common sense demand something better.
The leaders of the socialist Democrats are doing a great job with their party. They shouldn’t change a thing. Keep up the good work commies!
Kucinich will ride into the convention and unify the party, and save it from electoral disaster...
Chickenzzzzzz:
Training your entire constituency to think/vote as victim groups and then putting a system into place that can invalidate the votes of those groups by people who “know better”.
are coming HOOOOOOOME.... to ROOOOZZZZT:
Dhimmirat primary 2008.
Or not. We are now being told that "committed delegates" really aren't. So, there's yet another scab to peel off (maybe). That is the lot in life of all who insist on seeing everything in shades of grey, or, worse yet, they see justice as "evolving".
The Dems have pandered to every minority in this country telling each that they are the most important part of the mix. Thusly when a woman seemed a shoe-in, another minority ran against her and has half the Dem party genuflecting before him.(Remember when he blew his nose into the microphone? EEEEEWWWW). They are reaping what they have sown and the spectacle isn't over yet. More popcorn please!
Too bad there’s no “stock market” where you can short sell the dhimmirat party.
Yeah, but when a party does devise a system that picks a candidate, such as the Republican primary system, people wail that it picked a candidate.
Be very afraid.
I notice he doesn’t list devine retribution as a possible reason for the democrats’ current woes...
I’m stocking up on popcorn as this summer’s Democratic convention will be better than a professional wrestling double header.
This a is what happens when you for years sell the notion of “popular vote wins” when it isn’t true, not even for the DemParty.
Are you saying the republican primary system is reflective of the votes and will of the people???
It’s beyond reform. It’s a failure. Time to pull out.
In the electoral college, each state is winner-take-all. Each state has a certain number of electoral votes – based on population – and whichever candidate gets the majority of the popular vote gets all of the electoral votes.
Not all of them.
The only thing wrong with the GOP primary system is the order of states which vote and the use of open primaries. I think the order of primaries should be based on the "redness" of state in previous general election, coupled with the population size. All primaries should be closed, and any state with an open primary should lose half of its delegate allotment, with the remaining closed primary states getting a boost in delegates.
With that in mind, I think Wyoming should be first for the GOP. It is solid red and has a handful of people so that even a no-name candidate can get his or her message out at little cost. If you have a series of small red states go first, then even a poorly-financed GOP contender would have a good chance to make a showing.
Blue states like NH should be at the end of the line, not the beginning.
GOOD IDEA!!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.