Time magazine's 2006 "Person of the Year" (![[info]](http://p-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif){kind=small} the_lance) wrote,@ 2008-05-09 10:17:00 |
|
| Entry tags: | 2008 election, politics |
Primaries versus Elections
Originally published at blog.lancehaun.com. You can comment here or there.
There is a very distinct difference between primaries and general elections that people continue to ignore and it is simply unacceptable at this point in the game. It is simply a tiring argument that I just have to make at least one more time here while I have the opportunity.
Nominating Contests Explained
Caucuses and Primaries are selection methods for the party. Within its bylaws and rules, primaries and caucuses are generally free to be run as the party decides (yes, there are significant exceptions to this but let’s simplify the game). This is why some state parties choose a primary and some state parties choose a caucus and some state parties inexplicably choose to do both. Okay, so it isn’t inexplicable but it is still really stupid. Then there are open and closed primaries that either allow anyone to vote or closes it to declared party members only. Ultimately, if the party allowed, it could pick its candidate without any external influence at all. There is no law that states a person has a right to vote in a primary and for it to count in any way (i.e. there might be a law saying that a primary must be done and that people must be allowed to vote but the party doesn’t have to take the result for anything). And while it is generally good to get the opinions of your party, it isn’t necessary. Since there was no right to have your voice heard, the people of Michigan and Florida were not disenfranchised. Saying they were disenfranchised implies that they were entitled to a meaningful vote regardless of party actions. That never was the case.
The winner of the nomination contest (under party bylaws) is the party nominee. This is formalized at the convention. That’s it. It says very little to the strength of the nominated candidate in relation to the general election. Since there are naturally more losers than winners, this should go without saying but it doesn’t seem to be obvious to a lot of people.
The argument of the Obama campaign is that he has more delegates for the Democratic nomination and that makes him the strongest and most able to win the general election. This logic seems tortured at best on at least two fronts:
- The delegate difference is fairly small. When it comes down to it, the delegate difference isn’t going to be that significant. If it is simply a matter of winner versus loser, that would be one thing but that simply doesn’t jive with the results.
- More delegates does not mean better electoral success. Using that formula, Kerry should have had a better chance of winning in 2004 than either Obama or Clinton would have in 2008 and that doesn’t seem plausible. Kerry, by the numbers, was a nearly consensus candidate (especially after second place Edwards joined his campaign).
Democrats “Turning Their Back on Obama”
Those who would accuse Hillary Clinton supporters of not being logical when they think that McCain would be a better choice than Obama are missing a few things. One being that not all Hillary Clinton supporters are party Democrats. Open primaries guarantee that. Clinton has also clearly been positioning herself as a centrist in her Senate career. Given the priorities of voters, it is likely that those who are turning their back on Obama are the ones doing so because they are following their centrist tendencies. I know as a more centrist, non-party conservative, I’d rather support a moderate centrist Democrat than a hard right religious conservative. I would vote in the Republican primary though for who I thought should win and if someone who I found more counter to my centrist views won it, I would switch in the general (or vote third party). People who are loyal to the Democratic party will vote for the Democratic party. People who are loyal to people will pick their next candidate based on a litany of criteria. It isn’t far out, illogical or “moronic” and it seems insulting that people still go down that road.
The Superdelegate Math
If superdelegates were simply supposed to confirm the will of the people, then the Democrats should get rid of them. The purpose of superdelegates was to correct the people whenever they went too far left to win. It was to bring a centrist bias to the organization. If you’re a Democrat and can’t stand this process, then rewrite the bylaws. Democratic leaders believed that this would help preserve the party’s place in American politics.
Now we could argue all day on the impact of superdelegates if they did in fact reverse the will of the people (regardless of the small margin by which it would be). But the fact that Clinton has been so harassed about her position that she is best able to beat a Republican, I am starting to wonder if Democrats are losing sight of the big picture. If Hillary is the best person for the job and she still has a chance and you are a Democrat, I think you support that until that is no longer the case. I would hope that Obama supporters would make the same argument. The point is to field the best candidate, period.
If you can’t argue your candidate on that basis without resorting to party intimidation/unity bullshit, then don’t bitch when people who grow tired of party politics leave you behind (which is one of the reasons I am non-party now). I am not going to make the argument that McCain should be elected because he has an “R” next to his name. You need to consider him, along with the other options for president, based on criteria that is important to you. If that D or R is the most important, then fine. Just don’t be surprised when someone else happens to think differently.
