Matt Bai: Playing by Party Rules

[babylonsister]

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/02/21/playing-by-party-rules/#more-4309

Playing by Party Rules

By Matt Bai
Primary Argument - Matt Bai - The Caucus - Politics - New York Times Blog



When Bill Clinton ran for president in 1992, he talked, memorably and incessantly, about protecting those families who “worked hard and played by the rules.” Sixteen years later, it appears ever more likely that the outcome of this year’s Democratic nomination fight will rest, in the end, on how party leaders interpret the rules. As I’ve written here before, there is no real ideological divide in the party; most Democrats would seem to be satisfied with either Hillary Rodham Clinton or Barack Obama, so there’s no reason to think either candidate’s followers will automatically revolt if they lose. But no matter who wins, if the process itself ends up confirming the growing suspicion among voters that the rules are only there to be rigged, then the outcome could devastate a party whose central argument is all about fairness.

Much has been written about the possible permutations in the Democratic race from here on out, but at this point it’s fairly simple. After his victories Tuesday, Mr. Obama now has a slim but hard-to-surmount lead in “pledged delegates” — those awarded in state contests. If Mrs. Clinton were to win the trio of Texas, Ohio and Pennsylvania by huge margins, then she might be able to overtake him, but that doesn’t seem terribly likely, given the dynamic of the race right now. Even so, neither candidate has much chance of emerging from the primaries with the 2,025 delegates needed to lock up the nomination, which means that even if Mr. Obama maintains his lead, Mrs. Clinton can—and probably will—fight on.

There are only three ways in which she would probably be able to alter the outcome in that event, and all of them involve manipulating arcane rules. First, there are the 366 delegates from Florida and Michigan, most of them won by Mrs. Clinton, that the party threw out because those states held their primaries earlier than allowed. (None of the candidates campaigned in Florida, and Mr. Obama wasn’t even on the Michigan ballot.) The Clinton team is exploring a compromise that might pass the party’s rules and bylaws committee and that would reinstate at least the Florida delegates, perhaps using some new formula to divvy them up. They have until June 29; after that, the whole issue becomes the province of the credentials committee, which will likely be controlled by Mr. Obama’s delegates. It’s significant that Mrs. Clinton’s camp is now saying that a candidate needs 2,208 delegates to win the nomination — a figure that takes account of Florida and Michigan.

Second, Mrs. Clinton advisors are pointedly noting in private that “pledged delegates” aren’t really pledged. That is, according to the rules, a delegate elected on the Obama slate in any given state can, theoretically, decide to change his mind and vote for Mrs. Clinton, if he gets enough of an enticement. So Mrs. Clinton is likely to try to flip some delegates from one side to the other. If that sounds a little desperate, that’s probably because it is; it’s hard to imagine too many elected delegates abandoning their candidate when he’s winning.


snip//

This is where our evolving notions of fairness really come into play. The party’s superdelegates or its committees would be entirely within their rights to intervene in a way that decides the nomination; no one can seriously argue otherwise. And yet, if they did, then the impenetrable rules to which few people paid attention 25 years ago might become the latest evidence for a lot of Americans that you can’t really can’t expect to play by the rules of big institutions, because the rules are bogus. And this is the real, more lasting danger for Mr. Dean and the Democrats right now—not that they will select the wrong candidate, or that they won’t have a unified party in November, but that if they don’t handle this process carefully and transparently, they might deepen the cynicism of a new generation of voters. Bill Clinton chose to make fairness a central theme of his political life. Perhaps, if this campaign continues on its current trajectory, his wife will ultimately make the same choice.

[Bread and Circus]

1. and that's why I posted this yesterday:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=4686726&mesg_id=4686726

Unfortunately despite the topic being highly relevant, the thread died without much interest.

But who wants to talk about our core values when we can talk spin?

[babylonsister]

3. You're so right; I was just walking back to the 'puter

and thinking that unless something is posted that brings one or the other down, it doesn't/won't get a lot of play. So thank you for responding! :hi:

[UALRBSofL]

5. Bread and Circus that is part of trying to get the voters out for a candidate

But, Obama sent out fliers stating to republicans and independents to take one day and caucus for him since it's an open caucus. I mean whether calling or sending fliers thats part of working the people to vote for you. It's not illegal and it's been done for many years.

[rpannier]

7. If you had started your article with something like...

"Obama has delegates in a Cult-like Spell." That might have gotten more response

or

"Clinton going Delegates Homes and Holding them Hostage!"

You'd have gotten more attention.

Or, mention a missing white girl -- for all the bitching that goes on here about those stories they still get a lot of replies.

[babylonsister]

8. You're right! The more flashy the topic, the more attention it gets.

That's always been the case around DU, not just during primary season. Oh well...

[UALRBSofL]

2. babylonsister I kind of have a good idea what will happen with the delegates

After speaking to Thurman's office several times the past couple weeks. I was told the delegates will be seated so it wont disenfranchise the voters and so in the GE we don't lose these states. They didn't say it but the impression I got was they are waiting till the majority of the states primaries are completed and they are thinking Obama will have enough seated delegates that the FL/MI delegates wont be enough to make a difference in deciding the nominee. I mean, she didn't come out and say that but reading between the lines, she implied it. That's what I got from the conversation.

[babylonsister]

4. I agree; if Obama keeps racking up the wins, those delegates won't

push Clinton over the top either way. But I don't think that's the issue. Will there be a fight, and more importantly, what can be done in future so there isn't even a question about delegates. This has given our party a black eye imo. I'm not going to hurl around accusations regarding who is at fault, but it does need to be addressed and resolved.

[UALRBSofL]

6. I agree because it's basically penalizing the voters

And in future voting cycles it might hurt our party. Will FL/MI be penalized in 2 years or 4 years because the republicans moved up the primary? Will our vote count in 4 years? Our primary has been moved up and I don't think the republicans are going to change the date.

[Cha]

9. Rec'd There's no way bil

clinton wants to play by any rules. It's good enough for the families but not for him.

[babylonsister]

10. I dunno; he did say yesterday that unless they win by large margins

in TX and OH, they're toast. I wonder if Hillary gave him permission to say that? :freak:

[Cha]

11. Hmmm..that's not sounding

like wolfson at all. Mixed messages?

[babylonsister]

12. I think Bill was trying to impress on those listening that they were all

DOOMED if they didn't vote for Hillary. ;)