While each candidate's partisans are focusing on individual states, delegate math, momentum, and each's path to the nomination, I think there is a broader discussion to be had over the worst case scenario for all Democrats. Prior to the PA primary, I remember reading through a thread (can't find which one), where a response predicted that Hillary would win by 8-10 because that was the result that, arguably, would not change the dynamic of the race. The prediction was true on both accounts; Sen. Clinton won by 9, and maintained her argument for momentum and Sen. Obama's inability to "close the deal." The win was not large enough, however, to change the "math" and pick up a significant net gain in delegates.
My worry is that, what if this scenario continues. Exact numbers aren't really pertinent (and each side would likely quibble with which states assigned to each), but a scenario likely exists where Sen. Clinton wins a majority of the states left to vote, and keeps the margins close in others (North Carolina, Oregon), which, coupled with a strong showing in the remaining superdelegates, could lead to a chaotic situation.
This scenario would get worse if the campaigns compromise on the Florida and Michigan situation, and Sen. Clinton picks up a measurable gain in delegates. The scenario doesn't have to be a "perfect storm" for several reasons.
(1) Nothing can force Super Delegates to endorse before the convention. If a significant number decide not to endorce (for fear of alienating various constituents, or just out of an inability to decide), then there is a change neither can reach the magic number (2024, or whatever it ends up being).
(2) What happens if Sen. Obama passes the "magic number" by 1 delegate...by 5...by 10? Sen. Clinton has said before (correctly) that theres no such thing as a pledged delegate. Many delegates, especially super delegates, can (and have) changed their minds. Is Sen. Clinton going to conceed if she only has to convince one person to change their vote?
This brings my to my doomesday scenario? If we have to go to the convention and literally do not know who is our nominee, what is the options for running an effective campaign? Do both candidates set aside their differences and create the much discussed unity ticket (with the problem of who gets the top slot)? Do the candidates agree to a cease fire until the convention and direct their efforts toward McCain? Does Howard Dean have the influence to force uncommitted superdelegates to endorse? Do we, as democrats, donate to the DNC/527s so we can focus our efforts on Nov? Can we survive the attack of "Democrats shouldn't be allowed to run the country; they can't even run their own party?"
My point in discussing about this issue is not that I think any particular candidate should drop out "for the good of the party." We lose sight of the fact that all our candidates this year are both outstanding, and possess flaws. The final question is whether the party, and particularly, the blogosphere aspect of it, will survive the summer? Tenions are already high, with an Us v. Them mentality. Imagine that multiplied if each candidate was within 25-50 delegates of the nomination, and no resolution until the convention in sight. With each delegate holding the potential to make or break each candidacy, what happens to the allegations of misproprieties in voting/caucusing in various states?
Murphy's Law states that anything that can go wrong, will go wrong. Personally, I think the scenario is remote. IMHO, I think Sen. Obama's lead is fairly insurmountable. I also think, however, that you cannot and should not count Sen. Clinton (or any Clinton) out. Ever. Her supporters (as are Sen. Obama's) are deeply committed to her, and will see this through to the end. The question is, what if the end is not June, but August?
|
|
|
Permalink :: 33 Comments :: Post a Comment
|
In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.
If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.
