It's a Bird, It's a Plane, It's a...Superdelegate!

The big discussion in Democratic circles is what will the superdelegates to the convention do. It seems apparent that neither candidate will have the nomination locked up before the convention, or even have a substantial lead. So that throws the ultimate decision to the superdelegates, a collection of Senators, Congressmen, Governors, and party officials. This has been decried as undemocratic. Donna Brazile has threatened to quit her party position if they act badly – like anyone would give a shit. Others, including Obama himself, have suggested that SDs follow their district/state’s voting preference – which enabled Hillary to get off her best response of the campaign, saying how she would welcome Ted Kennedy and John Kerry’s votes at the convention. Of course, that would cause an amusing situation in the Clinton camp as well, with Charles Rangel, a Clinton surrogate, whose district (not to mention his wife) supported Obama.
All of this ignores why they exist in the first place. Back in 1980, people realized that in a contested race, it was possible for a lot of office-holders, big ones even, to not even be delegates to the convention, since they might have been on the losing side of a primary contest. More and more people felt that the party was becoming leaderless, with experienced politicians left out of deliberations, and with the real risk of nominating a candidate who might not be the one that local candidates would want at the top of the ticket. If there is a Senate race in North Carolina or Virginia, who is at the top of the ticket could determine the winner of that seat. Certainly the coat tails are very important when you get to House races. This system was designed to give the experienced pols a shot at fixing a mistake, especially with most delegates selected months in advance of the convention.
Rampant democracy and the 24-hour news cycle has made it seem outdated. This is the first time they will clearly have the say and they are frightened by it. In a race this close, this divisive of interest and demographic groups within the party, it’s not going to be easy. Obama running the table would solve their problem, but that doesn’t figure to happen. How can they make a decision?
After this week, after Obama’s 8 wins (and a Grammy), he will be referred to as the frontrunner. Next week in Hawaii and Wisconsin will probably reinforce that – although Hillary’s new team may well decide to try and slow his momentum in WI, risking money and time in what might be a lost cause. Still, she figures to come back in March, focusing on Texas (a likely significant win because of the large Latino vote) and Ohio, which will be the first of two showdown states, with Pennsylvania following seven weeks later. Here is the Clinton scenario: Obama piles up delegates in caucuses and smaller, mostly African-American dominated states, then she takes Texas, Ohio, and Pennsylvania, giving her a virtual sweep of every major state except for his home state. With the delegate totals close, the SDs have no choice but to turn to the person who wins the major primaries. It might work, since Texas is naturally hers, and she has a big polling lead in Ohio, which looks a lot like all the other states where Obama starts from way behind and closes fast at the end, ultimately falling short. That means the seven-week campaign in PA could be decisive. Where the SDs really have trouble is if Obama ends up with more delegates, more total votes, and loses all the big states decisively. I think if he stays close in OH and PA, they’ll go with him, but the entrails of birds would be just as likely to give us the likely outcome of this race as any reasoned analysis.

Numbers and Notes -- When Do Things Really Start?

We’re less than five months from SuperDuper Tuesday, when, to all intents and purposes, the Democratic nominee will be decided. The big question is who it will be. The key question which may determine the answer to the big question is: when will people start to focus on the race? Most polls show that most of the voters are not paying much attention to the race and therefore are not ready to decide on who they’ll vote for. The problem is finding the moment when they will engage. Historically, voters have waited until Iowa and New Hampshire do their thing, vetting the candidates in a personal way, narrowing the field to a manageable size. Then with their own primaries weeks or even months away, they can get down to business. Even leaving out the MI and FL silliness, there won’t be much time between NH and the big ones. Add to that the nature of voting in CA, where nearly 30% of the votes will likely be cast before the NH primary and confusion must be rampant within the campaigns. Where and when to spend advertising dollars is key. Do you start your spending in December, hoping to get the momentum rolling early? Or do you wait until after the holidays, when people’s minds are ready and compete among what will surely be an avalanche of ads from both parties. Here in CA, there will be several key initiatives on that February 5th ballot, adding even more political advertising to the clutter. Will anyone be able to get traction amid the noise?
On the Democratic side, the numbers indicate that Hillary has a substantial lead, with her numbers generally in the forties, while Obama has settled in the mid-twenties, and Edwards in the low teens. The only thing that has changed over the last couple of months is that Hillary has added somewhere near ten percent. That addition is a dangerous omen for the others, since it would seem to indicate that people have made a choice. It’s the reason for the escalation in attacks on Clinton from both Edwards and Obama. They understand that there is a danger in letting it look like Hillary is going to win. People start jumping on the bandwagon, start to feel that they need to sign up.
I think there is one person with the ability to start the campaign on his own – Al Gore. Gore has said that he intends to endorse a candidate before the primaries. His endorsement would be the lead story on every news report, his reasons would focus the campaign light on something, either positive or negative, and begin the national conversation. There is one thing we can be confident of, he’s not going to endorse Hillary. After that, it’s anyone’s guess. Edwards might be more in tune with his current thinking, but would his endorsement of the white Southern guy look like a circling of the wagons? Other than electability, it is hard to find the easily stated reason for an Edwards endorsement, without getting into a policy-wonkish discussion (not that Al has ever been averse to those). On the other hand, an endorsement of Obama as “the future” rather than the Clinton-Edwards revivals would be very effective coming from Gore. Speak up, Al, you’re holding the green flag on this race.

Numbers and Notes - Perception is Reality

In electoral politics, perception is reality. It did not matter whether George Bush was a “Compassionate Conservative” or not (Heartless Fascist would be a more accurate description), the belief that he was one helped him in the election. It doesn’t matter whether Hillary is a Left-wing Witch or not (Moderate Witch is probably more accurate, but perhaps she’s really a sweetheart), the public perception of that drives her high unfavorability ratings. The nature of a race, especially a primary race, where the candidates do not have bold policy differences, can easily be determined by the public’s perception of the race itself. No perception is more important under those circumstances than the inevitability of victory.
While those who analyze polling data professionally constantly point out that relatively few voters are paying attention to the campaign and that history tells us that once things intensify with actual votes being imminent there is a large change in voters’ allegiances, even fewer people are hearing those admonitions than are paying attention to the campaign. The news media, in particular, tend to treat polling numbers like they were handed down from Mt. Sinai, rather than just acquired by minimum-wage callers or zero-wage computers. A two-point shift is a trend, a four point drop a collapse, and a marginally significant lead is considered insurmountable. The media also enjoys the horse race far more than it does the underlying issues. And they are very bad at covering a whole field of horses, so they narrow it down as much as possible. In the Democratic primary race, that last part has become Clinton vs. Obama. Yes, they mention Edwards, but he’s clearly the third guy, and because of his lack of movement in the numbers, he’s actually less interesting to them than Richardson.
The Gallup Poll, along with being the most famous, is also the most widely quoted. In that poll, Hillary’s lead over Obama is over 20 points. More important, she is at 48%, which, for those of you who are numerically challenged, is very close to a majority. Rasmussen’s daily tracking poll has Hillary’s lead about half of that. Even worse for those men in the race, Hillary’s state-by-state numbers, especially in the big February 5th primaries, are even better. Combining these elements, there is a growing sense of inevitability to Hillary’s nomination.
We can point out forever that no votes have been cast (true), that little advertising money has been spent (also true), and that prior year frontrunners in the Democratic Party have a spotty history of success (true again). The fact still remains that while we are still five months from any votes being cast, we are only six months from the race being over. That last fact changes everything. The February 5th frontloading has changed the entire process. When exactly is the public going to focus on the race, between Thanksgiving and Christmas? There is little reason to believe people focus on anything but family and shopping in that timeframe. In fact, family gatherings could be interesting conversation areas, with those who have opinions formed convincing those who don’t, and could be more important than subsequent commercials.
The aura of inevitability helps raise money and just as important, dries up money for others. Nobody wants to endorse a loser, if the bandwagon is about to leave, you’d better be on it. Notice how organized labor didn’t endorse anyone. Hillary Clinton may be anathema to the AFL-CIO, but they don’t dare oppose her.
A month ago, Obama staffers told The Politico that the polls didn’t bother them, that they were planning on winning Iowa and New Hampshire and turning things around then, so they would be patient. The first time Hillary went over 40% in the Gallup Poll, that all changed. Obama got more aggressive toward Clinton, publicly fighting with her and drawing very public distinctions. Unfortunately for him, the numbers didn’t move. Make no mistake, they know they can’t wait until January to break down her numbers. There are already signs that more Democrats are feeling positively toward Hillary. I interpret those as the feeling that she is likely to be the nominee, so people guess they should start looking at her positives. As for me, I may be pregnant, but I refuse to pretend I’m in love. I believe Hillary will be a disaster for the party and a disaster for the country. The aura of inevitability surrounding her means she must be attacked directly. The lesser candidates can play a part here, but Kucinich, who could easily play a big part in this, is intoxicated with himself. Biden and Dodd are big on Senatorial courtesy and Biden probably has a cabinet position in mind. I believe something big has to happen before January or Hillary will win. Patience may be a virtue, but in this case, it could be fatal.

Making a Choice

Polls of Democrats show that people are generally satisfied with the field of Democrats running for President. I admit that I am not among them, as I see serious weaknesses in all of them, either in experience, leadership, or judgment. In some cases, the problem is more difficult, with electability being the key problem, which seems unfair, since these are experienced men and woman who have won multiple elections and perhaps it would be better to not jump the gun on the impossibility of victory for some of them. Unfortunately, this is not the case, since there is less time for these campaigns to catch fire than in the past. Let’s take a look at the second (and maybe third) tier candidates.

Joe Biden: Totally qualified. Has shown no ability at all to get support outside of Delaware. In Gallup polling he is locked in a battle with Al Sharpton and Wesley Clark. As for his judgment, I don’t trust him at all – he was a strong supporter of the war, has a “solution” which while it sounds reasonable, has no support either within Iraq or in any neighboring country. His vote on the bankruptcy changes two years ago was morally reprehensible and to me, renders him unfit to be President.

Chris Dodd: Totally qualified. Seems more anti-war than most at the moment. Has even less support than Biden, although he seems to have raised a decent amount of money – it’s good to chair the Banking committee. This seems utterly quixotic.

Dennis Kucinich: Frankly, I think he’s right about most things. Unfortunately, there is little realism in either his hard-line positions or his campaign. I wouldn’t mind looking at his wife for the next four years, but unfortunately, he comes with her.

Bill Richardson: Totally qualified – has the best resume since George H. W. Bush. Stunningly dull, seems to have no base or electability. While he seems like a good VP candidate, his dullness may even hurt that.

Mike Gravel: If we change the name of the party to the Slightly Loony Party, he’s our man.

On to the real race – and in one case the unreal one.

Al Gore: Gallup has been including him in their polls and his numbers, so he has to be looked at. Easily the most qualified, in a better world we’d be in the seventh year of the Gore administration. Right on the war and on the environment, he seems very comfortable with himself and I would love to see him in the race. I don’t think he’s going to run. He doesn’t want to discuss ethanol in Iowa and whatever other crap will get votes in various states. His disinterest in joining the fray reveals the biggest weakness of our system, wherein the best-qualified are forced to compete for votes on a demeaning level and forced to beg for money for hours a day. This is not a good way to pick a President.

Hillary Clinton: Sort of qualified – has been in the halls of power, has seen how the executive branch works up close, has met world leaders, has worked effectively in the Senate. Of the top tier candidates who are running, is easily the most qualified. Her stance on issues has been troubling. Her Iraq stance was awful, has tried to join the opposition, yet it seems, like everything else she does, thoroughly calculated. Says she will end the war when she takes over, yet hasn’t given the slightest indication of how, which seems thoroughly Nixonian to me. I hate comparing someone whose positions on many issues parallel mine with Richard Nixon, yet I feel comfortable with it. A Clinton administration would take on an unpopular war which she had supported, then promised to end. Like Nixon, she would enter office with remarkably little good will and trust. It’s not just that you’re either with her or against her – many who would be with her don’t much like or trust her. Like Nixon, she seems driven by a lust for power more than a vision. Because of the front-loaded primary structure, featuring many states where she has a big advantage, combined with her being strong among the most-likely primary voters (women and the elderly), she has to be considered a serious favorite to get the nomination. I would vote for her in November, of course, but I would be holding my nose while I did it.

Barack Obama: Here’s a man with a vision. He has no real qualifications, only two years in the Senate with no leadership demonstrated on any issue. In many ways, he’s the anti-Hillary – he’s warm, visionary, with a charisma which makes you think he could be the one to both lead the country and maybe even unite it. In his writings, the man emerges as thoughtful and knowledgeable. Yet he still speaks in generalities, seems careful on everything, and doesn’t seem to want to lead on issues of substance. I’m not sure what we get with him – his best chance is for it to narrow down to him and Hillary in time for him to get the anti-Hillary vote. Head-to-head matchups with her seem to favor her at the moment, yet that could easily change if he can make that the race.

John Edwards: Like Obama, it’s hard to see his qualifications. Six relatively undistinguished years in the Senate doesn’t exactly prepare you to run the country. What must Biden and Dodd think when they see these two “back-benchers” walloping them in the polls? In no other country in the world would this sort of thing happen. He was a lousy VP candidate in 2004, with a deer-in-the-headlights performance in the debate with Cheney being the most egregious example. He seems to have learned from that experience, seems tougher and maybe better prepared for the battle. He is driven to be President, yet it seems to come from a different place than Clinton’s drive. He has things he wants to do, people he wants to help. Talking about the poor and forgotten of society is not the best way to get votes, yet he does that. This is a good man, with the ability to admit mistakes (Iraq) and the vision to see the problems that face us, not in electoral terms, but in people terms. You may not agree with his position on trade, but he at least understands, as more and more economists now do, that free trade is not a panacea and that more and more Americans are being hurt by it. The first step towards tackling a problem is seeing that it exists. Unlike Clinton, he has talked about ending the war and how it should be done – he’s been derided as naive by Biden, but he’s at least shown the leadership to have a plan. Speaking of which, go to his website, johnedwards.com, and read his health care proposal — if the Democrats were smart, we would adopt it as the official party position.
Of the three front-runners, Edwards would be my choice. He has thought about the problems and has taken the risk of making actual stands on them. I have no illusions here – his lack of experience will not help him get things done. Even more important, his poll numbers are troubling. We are still a long way from the voting, yet when I step into the voting booth on Feb. 5th of next year, I expect I will have a tough choice. Do I vote for the person I want to be President, or the person best able, based on polling data, to beat Hillary Clinton? For now, I will take the high road and hope for the best.