Faithless Delegates, or what would happen if The Denver Group/PUMA got their way?

[PatGund]

This is based on part of a discussion I had with a PUMA on another political blog. I've expanded it somewhat from the original there.

So, the primaries are over. At this time Sen. Obama is the presumed nominee, based on pledged delegates and pledged super delegates.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/democratic_delegate_count.html

In terms of pledged delegates (3434 total)
Sen. Obama - 1766.5
Sen. Clinton - 1639.5
Winner of pledged delegates - Sen. Obama

Then there is that oddity of the Democratic party, the Super-Delegate (823 total)
Sen. Obama - 463
Sen. Clinton - 257
Winner of pledged delegates - Sen. Obama.

So Sen. Obama has 2229.5 delegates to Sen. Clinton's 1896.5. This means that Sen. Obama has 333 more delegates than Sen. Clinton.

As such, under normal circumstances, he is the de-facto nominee for the Democratic party. At this time support is grouping around him, and the DNC infrastructure is working to support him in this.

The only three ways this changes are:

1) The unthinkable happening, i.e. the assassination of Sen. Obama

2) Sen. Obama withdrawing from the race.

3) A "faithless delegate" situation in which the will of the voters is questioned or overthrown.

The third choice is what "The Denver Group" and some of the PUMA-types are hoping for. In some of their boards, they're already claiming more than five delegates have done just that and "flipped" to Sen. Clinton.

So, let's say, for the sake of arguement, that they flip 334 or more delegates, switching the presumptive nominee from Sen. Obama to Sen. Clinton. PUMA and the Denver Group get their wish. They cheer, believing their faith and the rightness of their cause have led the day, and that the Democratic party will now unify behind the chosen nominee, Sen. Hillary Clinton.

And the convention explodes.

Such a thing would be political suicide for ANYONE who got the nomination.

Right off the back, you have the very real anger of Sen. Obama's supporters, the vast majority of whom would have supported Sen. Clinton if she had won the primaries. This would smell of back room deals, and most of them would rightfully feel the nomination was stolen from Sen. Obama. Charges of racism would rear their ugly heads, but this time in a way the party could not contain.

You know everything the PUMA groups claim about "Party Unity My Ass"? In a faithless delegate situation, there would be NO party unity. According to PEW research, 69% of Clinton supporters are supporting Obama. If Sen. Clinton had won the primary, I suspect between 69% and 79% or more of Sen. Obama's supporters would have supported Sen. Clinton if she had won.

But in a faithless delegate enviroment, toss those numbers out the window - 50% might be too high due to complete destruction of party unity and the perception that the primaries were overturned. And the effects on down-ticket races would be devastating - literally any elected official who switched their vote could find their chances of re-election impossible at best. A large number of voters would stay home in November, convinced their votes don't count. And they would be right in feeling that way.

And there would be a number of Sen. Clinton's voters in the primary that would reconsider their support. Remember, the PUMA types count for less than 10% of Sen. Clinton's voting block, Sen. Clinton would be looking at a situation that she wouldn't have the full number of people who voted for her in the primaries, would have a significant number of Sen. Obama's supporters, (17-18 million voted for him), that would feel his nomination was stolen and withhold their votes. It's doubtful she could pull together enough independent and crossover votes to make up that loss.

Logistically, there would be no time for the new nominee to try and unify the party, behind the new nominee. There would be no time for fundraising, no time to put anything back together. DNC infrastructure that has been assembled since the primary would be disrupted and torn apart. It would not be surprising for any Obama supporter that helped pay down Sen. Clinton's campaign debt to ask for their money back, as well as asking the DNC for any donations back. The well of small dollar supporters would dry up, and it would take time they don't have to develop new funding sources. Many of her elected supporters will also pull away for fear it would bring them down as well.

Less than three months from November, the Democratic party would be in complete and utter chaos. Not to mention financially broken.

Meanwhile, the GOP would be having a field day with stories about Democratic chaos, and stolen elections. The corporate and right-wing media would be dusting off and using the narrative that the Clintons will "lie, cheat and steal" to win. The GOP base would be energized, and many who would have sat out the race would come in to vote against Sen. Clinton. And to a lot of independents, this would prove the GOP narrative that the Democratic party is without ethics or principals. And I suspect they would play the race card even more to try and paint the Democratic party as racist. "See, the voters chose an African-American to be their nominee, and it was stolen from him! Can any minority trust them now?"

You would not only hand the White House to McCain on a silver platter, the chances are very good you would hand the house and senate to the GOP as well.

Sen. Clinton isn't good enough to pull up from that disaster. NOBODY is good enough to pull up from that disaster. 2008 would be a complete and total write-off for the Democratic party. And her political career would be over, as would the careers of any elected official who flipped their delegate votes to her. The DLC may very well find it's back broken for good, but it would take years for the DNC and the Democratic party to come back from such destruction, and you could write off key voting blocks for a long time to come.

I think Sen. Clinton knows this. I don't think she would accept the nomination under such circumstances, and I suspect she would squash any attempts to overthrow the primaries. She is doing her part to help unify the party behind Sen. Obama, and deserves both honor and respect for that.

The problem is some people who claim to be her supporters have such a blind, unreasoning hatred of Sen. Obama that they would rather destroy the Democratic party AND the political future of the woman they claim to support if it means denying Sen. Obama the nomination - or the White House.

[lojasmo]

1. Absolute disaster.

Regarding PUMA etc. I wasn't aware there were so many semi-literate morons out there.

[rox63]

4. There aren't - Just a few delusional people with a lot of sock-puppets

and too much time on their hands.

[PatGund]

6. I'd add...

Very Vocal to delusional and sock-puppets.

I've read on a couple of their sites the claim that Sen. Clinton knows and suports them. Well, ignoring the fact that would make her one of the biggest liars around if it was true, I suspect it's far more likely that the version of Sen. Clinton they're talking about is the version that appears at their breakfast table every morning and talks to them before disappearing in a puff of fairy smoke.

In other words, the support is only in their heads.

[jody]

2. That's absolutely evil, a person solemnly promising to do one thing and then doing the opposite. n/t

[GarbagemanLB]

3. pumas = functional morons. Possibly some of the dumbest people I've ever seen.

[Tom Rinaldo]

5. I agree, with one minor addition

Call it the "Near unthinkable happens", which would be some really really major scandal or otherwise electorally disqualifying event swallowing up Obama's campaign, leaving him physically in good health but politically mortally wounded.

In my opinion that is the only way Clinton could now be given the nomination instead of Obama, and it would have to be somethiung very very damaging to Obama, quite obviously so, in a way that pretty much everyone (including most Obama supporters) would then have to admit that it blew him out of the water. There is no hint of anything that would qualify for that scenario anywhere on the far political horizan. Unless that extremely remote possiblility comes through in the next few weeks, there is no way on Earth that anyone can persuade enough SD's to flip from Obama to Clinton to stop Obama,no matter how hard they tried, especially since top ex Clinton staffers are now working for Obama and Hillary Clinton herself is making a visible effort to rally her funders and supporters behind Obama.

[PatGund]

8. I had considered it

And decided that fell under number 2 on my list.

Sen. Clinton is not stupid. Both her, her former staffers, and many of her supporters know that overturning the primaries is political suicide. They won't do it. And 69% of her supporters in the primaries have given their support to Sen. Obama, with no reason to believe that number won't go up more.

The breakdown from PEW on 10 July of Sen. Clinton's supporters was:

69% supporting Sen. Obama
17% supporting Sen. McCain (figure this includes GOP disrupters that may not have voted for Sen. Clinton in the general election)
12% undecided
2% not voting

If Sen. Obama manages to get the undecideds, that could go as high as 81%. Significantly more than the percentage that makes up PUMA and their crowd.

[sufrommich]

7. Wouldn't the fact that Sen. Clinton would have no part

of those shenanigans kind of negate your concern? She is campaigning for Obama ,you know.

[PatGund]

10. She is indeed.....

Which is why I said I don't think she would accept the nomination under those circumstances. I wouldn't be surprised if she moves to squash those attempts at the convention as well.

She KNOWS it would be political suicide, and she's not stupid. Right now her political future is based in part on getting Sen. Obama elected, and I have no reason to believe she wouldn't act in good faith towards that goal.

[endarkenment]

9. Why even bring this crap up?

They have no real hope of changing the outcome. All they want is to defeat the Democratic nominee in 2008, and their strategy is to spread disinformation, uncertainty and doubt in order to increase divisions within our party. Your bringing their crap up furthers that effort. Put them on ignore.

[Name removed]

11. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[wvbygod]

12. If Hillary comes out of the DNC as the nominee she has my vote

Hopefully Obama supporters vote for her too.

[sufrommich]

15. Hillary has no intention of "coming out of the DNC as the nominee"

please don't ascribe the intentions of a small internet group playing at being movers and shakers to Hillary Clinton, she's campaigning for Obama,she's already decided who the nominee is.

[PatGund]

19. If there had been a primary win....

Then I believe strongly the vast majority of Sen. Obama's supporters would rally behind her as much if not more than Sen. Clinton's supporters have rallied behind Sen. Obama. (and I'm one of those.)

In a faithless delegate convention though, I strongly doubt she could get that level of support. I don't see Sen. Clinton allowing it to get to that point.

[AtomicKitten]

13. After waiting these eight long years,

it is breathtaking to see the nominee being fire-bombed by a faction plotting sabotage they pray yields a coup at the convention.

Another faction yelling the loudest about Bush II now proudly proclaims they will withhold their vote from the nominee that stands between them and Bush III.

Herding cats. Feh.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

14. This post should be pegged as a standing example of flamebait

[sufrommich]

16. No kidding, another open invitation to the Hillary Bash. nt

[PatGund]

17. Why

I certainly didn't intend for it to be "flamebait". More why overturning the primaries would be a Very Bad Idea.

I'm not attacking Sen. Clinton at all in it either. (speaking as someone who would have voted for her if she had won the primaries, and donated to help pay down her campaign debt)

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

18. I apologize then.

[PatGund]

20. Not a problem

And again I'd like to make it clear I'm NOT bashing Sen. Clinton. I do not believe she has any role or dealings with the Denver Group or any PUMA group, and believe she would take steps to prevent them from interfering with the convention and nomination process.

I have no complaints with her support of Sen. Obama, and I'm happy to see her doing such.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

21. PS: To answer the OP question...

If Hillary Clinton emerged from the convention as the nominee she would win the presidency handily.

That is because we cannot assume a hypothetical in a vacuum.

If you postulate that she got the nomination because several hundred delegates suffered a psychotic break simultaneously, that would be one thing.

But any practical scenario other than that where she got the nomination would be in the context of extraordinary events.... Obama would have to spit on the flag or strangle a kitten or convert to Islam or something equally unlikely.

And if that happened, it would be quite obvious to even most Obama supporters that he couldn't be elected, so the controversy wouldn't be as controversial as the OP presumes.

When I say extraordinary events, I mean something beyond any sort of normal political consideration. Even if Obama was well behind in the polls it wouldn't matter. I have watched two Democratic conventions where the majority of delegates in the room KNEW the guy they were nominating would receive fewer votes in November, but voted for him anyway. (Carter/Kennedy 1980, Mondale/Hart 1984)

So the whole scenario is too fanciful to be meaningfully discussed without specifying what dramatic change in events could make such a thing possible.

[PatGund]

22. That pretty much falls under number 2

Obama withdrawing from the race. If something happened to the point that it was obvious he had a snowballs chance in hell, then I think strongly he would withdraw his name and release his supporters and delegates accordingly. In which case, not only would Sen. Clinton be the nominee, she would win easily.

My OP was if we have a "faithless delegate" situation. And I don't see 333 delegates flip-flopping that quickly, especially since they know it would be political suicide.

[Tarc]

23. I would cheer such a scenario

[AtomicKitten]

24. of course you would cheer that kind of upheaval of the party

and that's the point, really

[Egnever]

25. Seriously?

Why in the world would you cheer that? Are you a freeper or something?

[GarbagemanLB]

26. and you are no Democrat. Pathetic.

[Name removed]

28. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[GarbagemanLB]

32. and a campaign that was 20 million dollars IN DEBT is? Clearly you don't know what

you are talking about. Sad.

[Tarc]

34. Mr. Apple? Meet Mr. Orange

Quit embarrassing yourself by speaking, please.

[lojasmo]

27. Wow. A real live PUMA here?

Stellar.

[PatGund]

29. Really????

Knowing that such a scenario would:

1) Result in Democratic loss of the White House, House, & Senate

2) Completely cripple fundraising and campaigning for the replacement nominee

3) Spell complete political suicide for the replacement nominee

So knowing all of that, you would cheer it? Why??

[Tarc]

30. Your bullet list is absurdist fantasy

Read #28 for an explanation of my position.

[PatGund]

31. I read that post

And I fail to see how the cover of New Yorker magazine negates the bullet list I made - or my original post for that matter

[Tarc]

33. Your assumption rivals Chicken Little's in absurdity

That such a scenario would cost the Democratic Party the Senate and House is, quite frankly, fucking retarded. The GOP is reeling from Bush fatigue and scandal and many, many seats being vacated with longshot GOP newbies trying to retain them. Nothing at the national party level short of the proverbial "live boy, dead girl" situation can or world trickle down to affect all that.

[PatGund]

38. And I think you underestimate the results of an overturn.

It wouldn't be "Oh, we gave the nominee to someone else instead of the primary winner, so lets' all get behind that person and it will all be sweetness and light and puppy dogs."

Even discounting the massively bitter feelings and anger such a thing would create, the fact of the matter is that is would completely distrupt both the party and fundraising for the general election. Infrastructure that was developed to interface the DNC with the Obama campaign would be ripped out, the new nominee would be at a major disadvantage in both fund-raising and campaign time. Logically, there's replacing the campaign staff already in place, setting up new operations, all of which would have to be done yesterday if not before hand.

So even if you discount the bitterness and anger, even if you discount the ways the GOP would use this to their advantage, even if you discount the complete destruction of any form of party unity, logicially speaking, it would be a handicap that almost nobody could recover from.

Sorry, I strongly believe you're underestimating the destructive effect that such an 11th hour change would cause.

[Forkboy]

36. Yes, we know you would.

[blogslut]

37. Let me get this straight

You would cheer such a scenario. Did you read #1 of the possible scenarios? Are you saying you would cheer that on?

[SidneyCarton]

35. Is today Doomsday Scenario day?

Read Shadowknows69's journal, he's a ray of sunshine today too. I actually don't mind, dystopian scenarios make me all the more grateful when things end up boring.

That said, I think your analysis is spot on, and accurate, may it not be so!

K&R

[PatGund]

39. From your lips to the Gods ears!!

I sincerely hope none of this comes to pass, and the convention ends up unifying us rather than destroying us.