There is alot of talk these days about what would happen if Hillary Clinton somehow got nominated without actually receiving the majority of the nominees (I believe the most common way cited for how she might do this is with so-called “superdelegates”). If this happens, many people believe there might be a civil war, a schism in the Democratic Party. My question is, would this necessarily be a bad thing?
Follow my logic. The far-left wing of the party is where most of Obama’s support comes from. If it left the party, in the future, more moderate candidates would be nominated. And more moderate candidates (1)would have a greater chance to win, and (2)would more accurately represent the country anyways. The only negative consequence would be some African Americans might leave the party too. But actually, there might be a positive side of this too. As I understand it, African Americans make up a disproportionate part of the party in some states, anyways at least when it comes to the nominating process. If some of them left, their remaining numbers might more accurately represent how many of them are really in these states and in the country. And most African American voters would probably still support Hillary come November anyways.
Btw, in case any of you are wondering about my political beliefs, according to systems like the Nolan Chart, I am a “Libertarian Liberal” for the most part. But as I have said in the past, I am all over the spectrum politically. And I usually support moderately liberal Democrats for the two reasons I have given above.
I reject your basic premise that Obama’s base is necessarily the far left wing of the part. Since Obama and Clinton are very close ideologically, it does not follow that the far left would go en bloc to either one.
Demographically a permanent schism would be a disaster. The Democratic base consists of blue-collar labor, the “elite,” poor people, old people and people who live in the old core cities. The five blocs can just about stay even with the Republican block of suburbanites, social conservatives and people in rural areas. Any Democratic split that doesn’t result in drawing a significant portion of the Republican base pretty much guarantees Democratic oblivion.
Party splits based more on personalities than ideology are never good in the long run. Just ask Gerald Ford and Ronald Regan (1976), Jimmy Carter and Ted Kennedy (1980) and George Bush and Ross Perot (1992).
1.) where do you think the “far-lefters” would go if they left the party?
and
2.) how would the democratic party make up for the lost numbers come November, when they’re going to need those voters back? I’m not so sure how your idea draws swing voters (especially with Hillary as the nominee), at least enough to cover the losses.
What far left? There’s no more liberals left in American politics. The Republicans have taken over the right and the Democrats have moved to the center. The left backs people like Dennis Kucinich and he got about a hundred votes in this campaign.
I also reject the assertion that Obama supporters are the far left. I am not sure how you define the far left but what is currently considered the far left used to be much closer to the center. The nation seems to be moving to the left and the center is being redefined– thank og. Both Obama and HRC are trying to win voters with a populist message. And, John McCain has had to adjust his message to appeal to the mood of the country.
And therefore we should seek to adopt these policies?
53% of Americans feel that same-sex marriages should not be legally recognized. Do you have an equal reverence for this position?
Or are you simply saying that Obama’s positions are close to centrist, and not advocating them? In rereading this, I’m not sure if you’re reporting or advocating…
I am saying that Obama’s platform is not far left. His policy ideas are not contrary to the attitudes held by mainstream America. The press wants to paint Obama as a leftwing out of touch liberal when in fact he seems more in touch with voters than the media.
I don’t think attitudes towards gay marriage are germane to my point or this discussion, but I did find the Gallup poll interesting. It shows a significant change in attitudes towards same sex marriage. People in favor of same sex marriage increased from 39% in 05 to 46% in 07, another indicator that attitudes are shifting to the left.
You are right Carol. This is definitely a mistake. I misread or skimmed…err, or something. I would edit but too late. Maybe a mod will have mercy and allow me to correct it.
No one can win without 2,204 delegates. No one can currently get 2,024 delegates without SuperDelegates. If winning by SuperDelegates is “stealing” then *neither *can win legit. In other words, The Obama-ites who claim that winning by gaining superdelegates would be going against the “will of the people” and there’d be a rebellion or rioting in the streets or whatever :rolleyes: have just said that if their Candidate wins, he’s doing so “against the will of the people”.
The chance to win the Nomination at the ballot box has passed. Neither Obama or Hillary can possibly do so.
That’s not my impression, but I must admit I don’t know how one would prove such an assertion. Other than anecdotal information, which I hope we can dismiss is inconclusive, how did you come to that conclusion?
Are you serious? Theres a HUGE difference in superdelegates giving the win to the candidate whos behind in every conceivable way vs giving it to the one thats been chosen by the people.
Why? The system was freely set up by the Democratic Party. If they wanted the superdelegates to simply mimic the popular vote, they should have just chosen their delegates by a straight vote like the Republicans do. They chose instead to create a system that gives various party leaders a say in who is nominated. It’s the same system that existed back when Clinton and Obama and all the other candidates started running. Whoever wins under the rules of that system is the legitimate nominee.
Internal party politics, the perception of the Democrats in general.
Legally, and by the rules perhaps. That doesn’t mean that the general membership of the Democratic Party will look at it that way. It’ll just be seen as using the rules to cheat them of the candidate they wanted, and they won’t care if the rules say doing it is OK.
If people are determined to consider themselves cheated then no amount of sense is going to stop them. And there are certainly Obamaphiles who would fit that profile; they’re complaining about being cheated now and they’re winning.
And in what way would it not be sense for them to consider themselves cheated ? And no, if the rules say it’s OK to hand the victory to the side with less votes, that doesn’t mean it’s unreasonable to feel cheated. Fairness isn’t about rules; unfair rules are still unfair.
Who is “chosen by the people”? Obama? You do know that Obama and Hillary are in a virtual tie for the popular vote, don’t you?
And other than “total delegates” what other way could be “every conceivable way”? You can’t mean meaningless crap like “most states won”? :dubious: That’s as meaningful/less as “most big states won”.
Hillary is behing in exactly one way- less total delegates. Now, that’s the only way that counts, for sure. But once they get to the Convention, and it’s still deadlocked, then it can go either way.
Obama? You do know that Obama and Hillary are in a virtual tie for the popular vote, don’t you?