Posted on 02/11/2008 12:22:06 PM PST by 2ndDivisionVet
People worldwide -- and indeed, most Americans -- are under the impression that whichever party candidate has the most delegates at the end of the primary elections is assured the party nomination for president. And who can blame them?
In a typical year, one candidate will emerge from the primary campaign with a majority of the delegates, and he will have the nomination secured. But this year's race is unprecedented; a woman and black man, running neck to neck against each other to try and reach the magic number of 2025 delegates to lock the nomination.
There are 4,049 total delegates to the Democratic National Convention (DNC) -- 3,253 pledged delegates (to be won in the state primaries and caucuses) and 796 superdelegates (consisting of party bosses, sitting governors, former governors, big city mayors, US Senators and congressmen and former presidents). Superdelegates are free to vote for a candidate, and withdraw their votes anytime.
Of the 3,253 pledged delegates, over half are already split between Clinton (944) and Obama (1009), with Obama holding an unsteady lead of 65 delegates (as of 11:30 am EST, Feb. 9). With the race being so close, it appears impossible for either candidate to get 2025 delegates after all the primaries and caucuses are over.
This scenario empowers the superdelegates to decide on the nominee -- a doomsday spectacle of a brokered DNC in Denver, Colorado (August 25-28), reminiscent of the 1968 Chicago convention, with its violence in the streets and vitriol inside the hall. The images of a fractured, out-of-control party helped sink Hubert Humphrey in 1968 and McGovern in 1972.
Make no mistake; this spectacle could unfold at the DNC in August. Under this scenario, should the superdelegates support Clinton unfairly, they would risk alienating millions of young Americans whom Obama enthused with his message of hope and change. Should they shift their alliance and back Obama instead, it would be interpreted as a betrayal of long-term friendship with the Clintons.
The consensus solution to this dilemma would be to nominate the candidate who appears to have the best chance to beat the Republican nominee John McCain in the general election.
Pundits and latest nationwide polls tilt towards Obama when pitted against McCain (48% vs. 41%), as opposed to Clinton against McCain (46% vs. 46%). But both Obama and Clinton come with "warts."
Clinton, on her part, carries considerable baggage from her eight years as first lady, including the stigma of the Monica Lewinsky scandal that plagued her husband's presidency -- and then there's the substantial block of voters who consider and see her as the most polarising public figure in the American political landscape.
What has McCain to say about Clinton? In a November rally, John McCain and the Republican audience laughed when a voter asked him how he planned to "beat the bitch." McCain replied: "I fully understand why many people don't like Clinton. I don't much like her myself. She seems calculating, cold, and overly ambitious." (The Week, November 30, 2007, Page-14).
Ryan Sager in the New York Post argues that McCain would be hard-pressed to steal centrist votes away from Obama, while, in a McCain – Clinton duel, most moderates and independents would gravitate towards him, leaving Hillary with little more than the Democrats liberal base. The prospect of another Clinton presidency will bring together the McCain hating conservatives because "there are fates worse than John McCain."
Obama, on his part, is a liability of a different dimension -- not only because he is black, but also because his middle name Hussein, taken from his Muslim Kenyan father, is the last name of Saddam Hussein.
The question many people are already grappling with is: "Is America ready for a black president, who also has a Muslim middle name?"
This dilemma hasn't yet caught up with the white Americans. Once nominated for the presidency, however, one thing is all but guaranteed -- that the Republicans' "dirt digging" and "mud slinging" machines will blitz the digital space and the news media with a relentless series of vicious and personal attacks against Obama, designed to arouse the latent prejudices of American voters.
Despite being 50% black and 50% white (American white mother), Obama is classified as black. He would still be classified as black if his parents' races were reversed.
Prior to 1960, different states followed different rules, including the 25% blackness (that would be Obama's grand children) rule, to classify people as black. The identifying criterion now is "one drop rule" -- one drop of black person's blood in your veins. Some Republican (religious extremists) internet bloggers and mainstream ultra-conservative columnists are already identifying him with Muslims because of his father, who was a non-practicing Muslim. So he has to overcome triple jeopardy -- black blood, Muslim blood, and his middle name.
The question remains: "Will Americans elect a woman, or a black man, as president?" According to a recent Gallup poll, Americans are much more likely to elect a woman or a black man as president than a Mormon or an old man. More interestingly, they'd rather be governed by a homosexual than an atheist.
These statistics, obviously, are prospective. People know, for example, that John McCain at 71 is not young; yet, his nomination for the presidency from GOP is all but a formality now. He has already announced that, if elected, he would serve only one term -- a self-imposed limit out of self-consciousness of old age.
Will the wave of youthful enthusiasm and passion, which has buoyed Obama's campaign to date be enough to propel him to the White House? It certainly seems possible. "Obamamania," however, reminds many seasoned Democrats of the tidal rushes of youthful energy that marked the McCarthy campaign in 1968, the McGovern campaign in 1972, the Jerry Brown campaign in 1992, and (to a lesser extent) the Howard Dean campaign in 2004.
Polls often reflect voters' attitude and sentiments, which can change in a split second at the instant of voting. Had this not happened in the New Hampshire and California primaries, Obama would have been well ahead of Clinton in delegate counts, with a momentum on his way to secure the nomination.
And therein lies the uncertainty -- the curious perversities of American elections in which young voters have, historically, shown uninhibited enthusiasms in primaries, but have neglected to vote in general elections. Their disillusionment with the candidates -- who focus more on mutual diatribes and negativities and less on policy differences -- may be the reason. Whatever it is that generates their apathy to voting, the trend is indisputable.
If Obama is the consensus nominee of the Democratic Party he will have to succeed in keeping his young supporters, disillusioned Republican crossovers, Reagan Democrats, and above all, the great majority of the independents, on board with his inspirational message of "hope and change" to win the race for the While House.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The authors are, respectively, Professor (economics) and Adjunct (college of technology) at Eastern Michigan University, USA.
Yes, and who cares?
No.
I SEE A RED STAR SOCIALIST !!!
Half-black President
We already did..William Jefferson Clinton...
With the help of all the conservative “Suicide Voters”, Obama stands a good chance.
And how do the authors think that can be determined objectively?
I’ll speak simply so that the college lib arts “professors” can understand.
1. I’ll vote for someone who is conservative, regardless of race.
2. There are plenty of conservative blacks.
3. If they would run, I’d vote for them.
4. Obama is black, but is a liberal...a far left lib.
5. I won’t vote for him.
Clear?
The idiotic notion that we are a racist "NATION" is completely unwarranted and stated as fact ONLY by 'racists' themselves.
What scares me all to h.11 is that our nation is on the verge of electing a "SOCIALIST" as POTUS!!
That is SCARY!!
hmmmm, empty suit commie versus crusty suit commie
That’s the choice I see.
Is Obama Quadra-Lingual? I bet he speaks Indonesia, Swahili, and don’t forget Ebonese.
“Is a black guy running?”
Do halfricans count?
Good question, Hillary says yea, but her campaign says no.
What has stopped the caring sensitive civil-rights supporting affirmative action liberals from nominating a black person in the past?? No one was stopping them. Of course, I’m sure we’re all going to be racist if we don’t vote for “Barry”.
“But this year’s race is unprecedented; a woman and black man, running neck to neck against each other to try and reach the magic number of 2025 delegates to lock the nomination.”
This is almost an exact repeat of what happened in our 2006 election for Governor in Massachusetts. A black man with zero experience in politics versus a white woman with some experience in politics.
The man with zero experience won, and it’s been an umitigated disaster so far.
Any criticism or disagreement with Obama will be casually dismissed as underhanded and racist. Heaven help us if he doesn't win. It will be characterized as evidence that Jim Crow is alive and well in John McCain's America.
“I don’t much like [Clinton] myself. She seems calculating, cold, and overly ambitious.”
Compared to McCain, who is calculating, cold, and not very ambitious.
If conservatives refuse to vote for McCain because his election would be even worse for our country than Obama or hillary, how is that their fault?
Conservatives were also blamed for not turning out in 2006. At LEAST half the blame was due to Bush and the Republicans for discouraging their base. But in those races, there were some good candidates who lost, like Rick Santorum, and that was indeed stupid of the voters who stayed home.
In this race, there is NOT a good candidate who will lose. There is a truly lousy candidate who would be able to put even worse things through congress than hillary, and who could not even be voted out of office for a Republican.
No, sorry, the Republican Party has made this mess, because they thought they could force the unacceptable on us. They will find that they cannot.
He don't look black.. He talks white.. What is he?..
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.