March 4 Muddle

As the Democrats lurch towards March 4 and the primaries in Ohio and Texas at least the questions, if not the answers, are becoming clearer.

Obama: Will he continue to be able to appeal to independents and conservative Democrats in the upcoming primaries, as has been the trend, and, if so, will these groups vote for him in November if he is the Democratic Party’s nominee?

Clinton: Will she withdraw gracefully if she loses Ohio and/or Texas, or even basically plays Obama even in these states, or push her campaign beyond this, perhaps even to the convention?

First, Obama. If he continues the trend and is able to appeal nearly across the board to all constituencies in Ohio and Texas, where independents can vote in either the Democratic or Republican races, there is nothing to indicate that he will maintain these voters in November. Common sense would suggest he will have problems maintaining these voters after the Republicans go after him but this can’t be measured either. As tantalizing as it is to plug in the demographics of a state and “compute” a winner, the promise of advance and exit polling and the relative successes there have been in identifying voter allegiance based on demographic information may be more like chasing a will ‘o the wisp, or a receding horizon than providing a satisfying metric for a candidate’s strength in November. Would be “scientists” are now reduced to humble prognosticators and shameless speculators when it comes to assessing November.

And Clinton? If she continues the campaign after losses or even lackluster victories in Ohio and Texas she is in serious danger of entering the quagmire that has sucked in so many politicians unable to accept the inevitable, whether enmeshed in a sex scandal as a congressman in a Bible Belt state or a Chief Executive burglar ransacking the Watergate. If Clinton does soldier on she could take the Party with her submersing it in the muck with legal battles over seating the delegates in Florida and Michigan and procedural and cultural battles over what to do with the Superdelegates.

We owe both questions to the convoluted, confusing, and inefficient system that is the Democratic nominating process, a hybrid of democratic elements such as access and transparency, and old-style party politics that are anything but. Many Democrats were praising the process when Clinton came roaring back in New Hampshire, opining that the process was intended to draw things out, ensure the vox populi would be heard, and that the best candidate to beat the Republicans silly would ultimately emerge. Now that its groaning superstructure has been thrown into relief, I doubt anyone is so sanguine about the process with its inaccessible and undemocratic caucuses, fickle superdelegates whose votes are greatly magnified over the hoi polloi, non-sensical state Democratic party rules for awarding delegates, and the DNC’s bright idea to disenfranchise voters in Florida and Michigan for thwarting its will.

And so after all this, we are not one bit closer to knowing who is the better candidate to take on McCain in November, whether Obama’s ability to attract independent and even conservative voters will carry into November. The caucuses, arcane methods of awarding delegates, and permitting independents to vote in some primaries but not others have helped make a nearly complete muddle of this. Neither do we know that Clinton or Obama, for that matter, will do if neither can establish a commanding lead in delegates. Will she battle to seat the delegates from Florida and Michigan, or wrest away his pledged delegates? Will he demand that the Superdelegates vote for him because he has the popular vote?

This time around, at least, the Democratic nominating process has neither ensured that the will of the people will prevail in determining the Party’s candidate or that the best candidate will go forward in November. It’s just created a lot of uphill slogging for the candidates, and is raising more questions than its answering.

It sure is exciting though.