The Pennsylvania Democratic primary happened pretty much as I – and many others - thought it would. A Clinton victory, but not one that really means anything. All it did was give her reason to drag an unwinnable race along much longer than she should.
Upcoming Primaries
The race will now continue through another series of primaries. Those contests include:
May 3rd: Guam caucuses. I honestly have no idea how these will go. I have not heard any info on which candidate is doing better in Guam. I honestly think it's bizarre that the primary contest has gone on long enough for "Guam," of all places, to have a vote that matters. Anyone with information on how the Guam caucuses might roll is welcome to share their thoughts.
May 6th: North Carolina and Indiana primaries.
Obama will win easily in North Carolina. Indiana is where the real fight is. That state is too close for me to call. The eastern part of the state resembles the areas of Ohio that Obama didn't fare very well in. However, the western part of IN is becoming a suburb of Chicago. Obama benefits there, because that portion is heavily influenced by IL (the state that he represents in the U.S. Senate), and is in the IL media market.
Right now, I'd say that Clinton has a slight lead, but IN is winnable for Obama, if he puts up enough of a fight. Keep in mind: Obama has not yet lost any state that borders IL. Indiana will be a real fight, but a winnable one for him.
May 13th: West Virginia primary. This state will be a huge Clinton victory. The demographics there just do not favor Obama, and he has not been polling well at all. For the Obama campaign, West Virginia will be more about not losing quite as badly as expected, rather than winning.
May 20th: Kentucky and Oregon primaries. Clinton will have a victory in Kentucky about as large as the one she will have in West Virginia, and for the same reasons. However, Obama will win Oregon comfortably, as this is a state where demographics and polling trends favor him.
June 1st: Puerto Rico primary. There’s a small chance Obama could do well here, but Puerto Rico is another likely Clinton victory.
June 3rd: Montana and South Dakota primaries. Obama has done well in the mountain west and plains states, and he will win both of these primaries comfortably.
So, in summery, for the rest of the primaries, we are looking at:
Likely Obama victories: North Carolina, Oregon, Montana, South Dakota (4 total)
Likely Clinton victories: West Virginia, Kentucky, Puerto Rico (3)
Tossups: Indiana (1)
I have no idea: Guam (1)
Some History
If the race is not decided after June 3rd, we have a problem, because all the states and U.S. territories have voted. A worst case scenario would have the fight continuing through the summer, to the Democratic National Convention in August, where it would have to be resolved via a (likely nasty) convention floor fight.
Such a situation would probably be quite bad for the Democrats. It would mean an entire summer of Obama and Clinton hammering at each other, while McCain gets mostly a free pass. It would also mean the party would likely come out of the Democratic National Convention divided, rather than united. With only three months between one of the two candidates gaining the nomination, and the general election, I also have to question whether or not supporters of the "losing" candidate would have enough time to "heal," and get completely behind the Democratic nominee.
Of course, these extended nomination contests were once normal in presidential politics. Remember, for example, that Robert Kennedy died while campaigning for the Democratic Presidential nomination in 1968 – and he wasn’t assassinated until June. The nomination was still not decided at that point, which was considered "normal" for the time.
Prior to the 1970s, presidential nominations were determined via backroom politicking at the national conventions. While there were primaries, they awarded only a small number of delegates. Running in a large number of primaries was viewed as a sign of weakness. As the line of thought went, "strong" candidates didn’t need to enter primaries, because they had enough of an insider advantage to work the establishment, and just take the nomination at the national convention.
This situation changed because of the 1968 election. That year, Vice-President Hubert Humphrey won the Democratic nomination, despite the fact that he didn’t enter a single primary contest. Humphrey, who backed President Johnson’s pro-Vietnam War position, was incredibly unpopular with the more liberal activists in the Democratic Party, and his nomination helped fuel many of the anti-war protests at the Democratic National Convention in Chicago that year. Humphrey’s perceived illegitimacy as the nominee also divided the Democratic Party enough to help Richard Nixon win the general election.
Following the 1968 debacle, the Democratic Party decided that it was time to take a serious look at how presidential elections were run. A committee – the McGovern-Frasier Committee – was formed to investigate the process, and suggest changes. The current presidential process is a result of those suggestions. While it remained theoretically possible for a nomination contest to go to a national convention, primaries and caucuses were changed so that they awarded much higher numbers of delegates. The end result was that it became possible – indeed, the norm – to win a majority of the delegates you needed via primaries, and come to the national convention with the nomination clinched. The kind of inside politics and smoke filled room deal making that produced presidential nominations in the past simply phased out of existence. Via the suggestions of McGovern-Fraiser, presidential nominations were now primarily in the hands of the people, rather than the insiders.
Although the system established by McGovern-Fraiser has been modified slightly over the years (the Democrats added Super Delegates at one point, and made other slight cosmetic changes) its still pretty much the system that we have today. At no point, in 30 years, has a national convention been held without knowledge of the nominee. In 2008, however, this system seems to be unraveling. Although it has worked in the past, we have, quite simply, never seen two candidates with such equal, and long-term, levels of support. More recent changes (after the 2004 elections) that were made to how the Democratic Party awards delegates, I am told, may have also helped contribute to the extended Democratic primary this year.
A Return to Earlier Times?
The thing is, though... No matter how much support Senator Clinton may have, and no matter how many of the remaining states (and territories) she may be capable of winning, the math does just not favor her. Obama has such a lead in pledged delegates, and the popular vote, that Clinton will not be able to catch up, even with the states that she wins. Her entire strategy is based around dragging Obama through the mud enough to get Democratic Super Delegates to line up behind her.
In other words, Senator Clinton is, in a way, looking for a nomination more similar to the kind produced by the pre-1970s system: Of allowing the nomination to be decided through inside politicking, rather than the will of the people. I would currently question whether or not such a nomination is ideal today, and what it might do in terms of harm to the party. If Clinton does manage to win that way, I’m certainly not looking forward to the fact that it would mean that a white candidate will have convinced a bunch of insiders to give the nomination to her, rather than the African-American candidate who won a majority of delegates, states, and the popular vote.
I, along with many others who have been quite vocal about this, would also question whether or not Clinton’s strategy is going to work for her. Democratic Super Delegates are not stupid, and will be hard pressed to do anything that could be seen as overturning the popular will. Indeed, Senator Clinton has been seeing a recent net loss of Super Delegates, while Obama has been seeing a net gain. In other words: This strategy does not seem to be working for her.
Some are predicting that Obama will have enough delegates to clinch the nomination after he wins in Oregon, and that this might be enough to force Clinton to drop out. While I hope this happens, I am pessimistic.
In all honesty, any person other than Clinton would have been pressured by the Democratic Party establishment into dropping out long before now. She is in, primarily, because of her last name, and the fact that the Clintons have amassed enough clout inside the party to keep it from forcing them from doing anything, even if they can't force it to give her the nomination. She seems unwilling to face the fact that it is now all but impossible for her to win. And, more disturbingly, she, and her supporters, seem committed to keeping her in the race as long as possible, regardless of the damage it does to the Democratic Party at large.
It may soon be up to Howard Dean, the Chairman of the Democratic National Committee, to find some way to prevent the contest from dragging on through the summer. Although he is prohibited from endorsing any candidate, he has stated that he thinks the Super Delegates should all declare sometime soon, preferably before June. Some have also proposed the idea of a "mini-convention" that the Super Delegates would attend, and cast their votes at the same time, as a way of preventing this thing from dragging on.
Time to Unite
One thing is for certain: John McCain must not be allowed to win the White House this fall. The Democratic Party must united, and soon, behind one of the two remaining candidates. If Senator Clinton is, somehow, the one who gains that nomination, I will willingly vote for her, campaign for her, and contribute to her campaign. Any Democrat is light years ahead of John McCain.
I would argue, though, that it would be best to unite behind the candidate who has clearly won the primaries, in terms of delegates, states, and the popular vote. Nomination by "inside politicking" is an undemocratic dinosaur, unsuited for the current age of politics. Given that the last Democratic nominee produced without the clear will of the people behind him helped create a party so divided that it gave us a Richard Nixon presidency, should produce further pause at the idea of any candidate picking up an "insiders" nod.
I am a Democrat. I belong to the Democratic Party, not the "Clinton" Party. A race as important as the one in 2008 is not the time for Senator Clinton, her husband, and their supporters, to be playing the politics of vanity - which is, frankly, the only reason I can think of for her to remain in the race.
Even though Senator Clinton may be able to squeeze out the occasional statewide victory, the fact remains: She has fought the good fight, and she has lost. Wouldn’t it be better to now bow out gracefully, allowing the Democratic Party to heal, and move on to the general election?