Political Algebra--Obama, Clinton, and the Democratic Ticket

It almost reminds me of one of those word problems from algebra class: if Hillary Clinton leaves New York seeking the Democratic Party nomination, traveling west at such and such a speed, and Barack Obama leaves Illinois seeking the Demoncratic Party nomination, traveling east at such and such a speed, how long will it be before they crash, lose the general election and, in the process, destroy the Democratic Party?

 

 

Obama and Clinton have been in a statistical dead heat since the Iowa Caucuses. This Super Tuesday–the Super-est Super Tuesday of them all–was designed to create a clear front runner in both parties and generate momentum toward a nominee (which simply translates as generating much needed funds for both prospective nominees).

 

Well, the Super-est of all the Super Tuesdays is over. The votes have been counted--and in many places are still being counted–and the results are in: more of the same for the Democratic Party. No clear frontrunner for the Democratic Party has yet to emerge, albeit Hillary Clinton has a slight advantage in terms of both delegates and polling figures.

 

Clinton–I will not call her Hillary because I am neither on a first name basis with her, nor do I grant her rock star or pop culture icon status that often results in the use of a single name, i.e Madonna or Jewel; plus, I always want to remind myself that she is a Clinton and is rightfully subject to all of the baggage that goes along with that name–I digress, Clinton, who was once considered unbeatable and the presumptive nominee for the Democratic Party has since discovered that voters will not simply entitle her to that position, but will instead make her work for it. And, if the words “honest” and “Clinton” were not antonyms, one could make the case that it is the first honest day’s work she has done in her life.

 

Obama, on the other hand, who was once not taken seriously at all before Iowa by the Democratic elite, has emerged as a viable candidate for the Democratic nomination, each day growing in popularity and in polling figures. His viability has frustrated, and continues to frustrate both Clintons, Hilary and Bill, causing the latter to take up the role of attack dog–a role no other President has ever taken in the history of the republic. Granted, that role has been toned down the last week or so since many Americans cannot figure out which idea they find more appalling, a Bill Clinton roaming the White House with nothing to do except get into trouble like some presidential Dennis the Menace, or having Bill act as co-president for the entirety of Hillary Clinton’s presidency, reviving the almost forgotten phrase, “Billary.”

 

The overall moral of the Democratic nomination story seems to be this: the longer the process takes, the more it benefits Obama; the shorter the process takes, the more it benefits Clinton. So what happens when we get a Democratic nominee? There has been a lot of talk about the possibility of an Obama/Clinton ticket or a Clinton/Obama ticket. In fact, many political pundits (the same pundits, mind you, who have gotten everything about the election process wrong up to this point) are saying that the Democratic party has become so divided that it would only take something like an Obama/Clinton or Clinton/Obama ticket to reunite the party.

 

The political pundits are once more incorrect–or at best, partly incorrect. The only way that Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton appear on the same ticket is if Clinton gets the nomination. She needs Obama and Obama does not need her; and quite frankly, would probably be better off without her.

As popular as Hillary Clinton is among Democratic voters, she is also as equally unpopular among them. Democrats, like America in general, are split on Hillary Clinton. Roughly fifty percent of Democrats will vote for her and roughly fifty percent of Democrats will not. Incidently, translate “will not” as meaning “will not under any circumstances ever vote for her and would rather vote Republican than to see her elected president.” This simply translates as this: many, if not most, Democrats who did not vote for Clinton in the primaries will not vote for her in the general election.

 

Barack Obama, however, is a different story. Most of the Democrats who did not vote for Obama will vote for him in the general election should he become the nominee. He may not have the positives that Clinton has but he certainly does not share her negatives. Polling shows that out of those people who did not vote for him in the primaries, most of them like Obama and admit that he is their second choice. In addition, independents, especially young independents, love Obama. (Having no official party affiliation is, for lack of a better term, the fastest growing party in American politics and it is the factor that wins or loses modern elections.) In addition to that, there are also a lot of moderate, even liberal, Republicans who vote for conservative Republican candidates because they don’t like, or don’t trust, the Democratic candidate more than they don’t like or don’t trust the Republican candidate. Polling shows that many of these Republicans would vote for Obama in the general election.

 

So what does all this mean? It means simply this: an Obama nomination does not ensure a Democratic victory in November, but a Clinton nomination ensures a Republican victory. Why? Because if Clinton gets the Democratic nomination, nearly half of all Democrats stay home or vote for a non-Democratic candidate, most independents will vote Republican (especially if McCain is the nominee), and Republicans will vote their party as a block, all of which will ensure a Republican win in November. If Obama is the Democratic nominee, most, if not all, Democrats vote along party lines, many, if not most independents will vote for Obama, as well as some of those moderate-to-liberal Republicans, creating Obama Republicans much as Ronald Reagan created Reagan Democrats.

 

So all that is to say this: if Clintion wins the Democratic nomination, the only chance that she has of becoming president is to have Barack Obama as her running mate. Granted, the conventional wisdom is mixed. On the one hand, people vote for the president, not for the vice-president; but on the other hand, Obama would have to campaign for Clinton if he shared the ticket with her and would conceivably bring along many of his supporters who would otherwise never vote for her.

 

If Obama wins the nomination, he would be better off without Clinton. She brings a lot of baggage to the ticket (including one giant piece of luggage labeled “Bill”), not to mention, his “outsider running against the Washington establishment” message would be undermined by having Clinton on the ticket. He would be far better off having John (always bridesmaid never a bride) Edwards as his running mate. If he does feel the need to balance his ticket with an establishment politician, he should choose someone like Bill Richardson, who is so insanely qualified and experienced in all levels of government that it was actually physically painful to watch him not get any votes.

 

It is almost difficult to remember that it was not very long ago that it appeared that there was no greater gift for the Democratic Party than the 2008 presidential election. Americans were so dissatisfied with Republican rule that the Democrats could have run Daffy Duck against any Republican nominee and win by a landslide. Today, this is no longer the case. The Republicans, though not passionate about any of their choices for the nomination, are passionate about their dislike of Hillary Clinton. To complicate matters, nearly half of the Democrats are as passionate about their dislike for her as well. Add to this an impotent Democratic majority in both houses of Congress and the Republicans are not as weak as they once appeared to be.

 

If Obama and Clinton continue at this statistical dead heat all the way through the primaries, the convention this summer has the potential of making the 1968 Democratic Convention in Chicago look like a campfire sing-along. The Republicans have two great hopes in the coming months should they settle upon a nominee: the first is that Clinton so alienates Obama that he will never agree to be her running mate; the second is that the Democratic National Convention turns out to be a brokered one, leaving any nominee that emerges so badly beaten and bruised that the all the Republicans have to do is sit back, watch the Democrats devour one another, and then pick off the pieces as they emerge, allowing Democrats to once more do what they seem to do best–seize defeat out of the jaws of victory.

 

So what is the answer to that algebra problem about the Clinton train and the Obama train leaving their respective stations and traveling toward each other at excessive speed? Train wreck!

Reviews

[richard hurndall]

Hi- first of all, I like the fact you have 'monkberry moon delight' on your playlist. Ram by Paul Mccartney is in my opinion, the best of all beatle solo albums. And the worst is 'wings at the speed of sound'. Or one of Ringos albums. I enjoyed reading your opinion on the presidential primaries. As a brit with a keen interest in the american political situation, it can be difficult to get an overall view of what is going on without some form of bias from the american news stations. I agree- 2008 was supposed to be the democrats year, and who would have thought the most viable presidential nominee would come from the same party that has alienated anyone it has come into contact with. I am not surprised such an important issue is influencing your writing.