Kevin Sullivan

Sour Grapes on Day One

Posted by Kevin Sullivan under Uncategorized

There is so much that’s terribly wrong with Sean Wilentz’s Salon piece on why Clinton should supposedly be winning the Democratic nomination.  Here is the basic crux of his argument: 

If the Democrats ran their nominating process the way we run our general elections, Sen. Hillary Clinton would have a commanding lead in the delegate count, one that will only grow more commanding after the next round of primaries, and all questions about which of the two Democratic contenders is more electable would be moot.

Unlike the Republicans, the Democrats in primary states choose their nominee on the basis of a convoluted system of proportional distribution of delegates that varies from state to state and that obtains in neither congressional nor presidential elections. It is this eccentric system that has given Obama his lead in the delegate count. If the Democrats heeded the “winner takes all” democracy that prevails in American politics, and that determines the president, Clinton would be comfortably in front. In a popular-vote winner-take-all system, Clinton would now have 1,743 pledged delegates to Obama’s 1,257. If she splits the 10 remaining contests with Obama, as seems plausible, with Clinton taking Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Kentucky, Indiana and Puerto Rico, and Obama winning North Carolina, South Dakota, Montana, Oregon and Guam, she’d pick up another 364 pledged delegates. She’d have 2,107 before a single superdelegate was wooed. You need 2,024 to be the Democratic nominee. Game over. No more blogospheric ranting about Clinton “stealing” the nomination by kidnapping superdelegates or cutting deals at a brokered convention.

I believe this is kind of like me retroactively demanding a lucrative baseball contract were I capable of throwing a nasty splitter today.  Shorter shorter shorter Sean Wilentz: “If we could change the rules of the nomination process today, we would totally be winning this thing.”

The problem with this argument is that it assumes the Obama campaign would’ve run the exact same campaign were the delegates in each state decided in a winner-take-all setup.  They obviously would not, as their strategy clearly would’ve adjusted to the bigger states, and away from the caucus states that Hillary has otherwise ignored.  Money and manpower would’ve been utilized differently; the targeting strategy would’ve looked different.  The northeast–considered an acceptable stronghold for Clinton under the current proportional rules–would become crucial.  Thus it’s safe to assume that Obama’s team would’ve dumped more energy into these states, directed more advertising there, and probably would’ve lobbied harder for endorsements and support there.  A voter miscount favoring Senator Clinton in Harlem would have been national news; as opposed to the slight blip on the radar it received following Clinton’s commanding win in the state.  If the delegates were winner-take-all, Senator Obama would’ve likely camped himself out in strongholds like New York City; turning the race for the state into a defacto mayoral race moving borough-to-borough.  The GOTV operation in New York alone would’ve looked very different.  And that’s just New York.

This is yet another example of Clintonian entitlement and indifference.  Everyone loves the rules until the rules screw them, and that’s pretty much all Wilentz is saying here.  His theory that Hillary is running a winning general election strategy assumes that Hillary Clinton would still be a ballot factor in an Obama/McCain match up.  She won’t be, and many (if not most) Democrats will come home to their party in the face of a McCain presidency.  Those who might stray will be targeted and cajoled into voting the right way.  Obama’s campaign staff is probably flexible enough to adjust their strategy in the general.  I’m assuming, dare I sound too presumptuous, that the campaign understands the differences between the two races.  But that’s just a guess. 

More at memeorandum