So, I have a few new thoughts.

[gcomeau]

A little over a week ago I ventured back into these forums after an extended absence to see what was happening in DU with the primaries raging on as they were, and found vitriol and irrationality ruling the day while two factions did their best to rip each other to pieces. At the time I had a few observations to make about the state of the race as I saw it. Those haven't changed, but I'd like to add some new observations to them now.

GD:P has been flooded with polling numbers all week with people going into a frenzy over every shift and fluctuation. Some are absurdly over-hyping every little shift, some are bending over backwards to refuse to acknowledge they have any meaning at all. If we want to get realistic about the situation however let's just try looking at the situation objectively and dispassionately.

First, are the polls meaningless? No, they are not. They do illustrate trends and opinions that should be paid attention to. However, the polls taken today are being conducted in an atmosphere very different from what will be present once the nomination is settled. Currently I have absolutely no doubt that when questioned by the various polling firms there are a great many supporters of both Clinton and Obama that cannot help but to think "If I answer I won't vote for that other person, or will vote for McCain if they win, it'll help my candidate's numbers now." even when they have absolutely no intention of really doing such a thing. Anyone who thinks differently is being naive. That will be skewing the results a bit in the direction of "Oh my God, panic!" Once a nominee is decided and the other candidate throws their support behind them a lot of that sentiment is going to suddenly and magically vanish. It's not quite as bad as it looks.

"But Grant!!! You just said Obama supporters were going to walk if the super delegates picked Hillary! Now you're saying they're faking it!"

They're not all going to walk. That's just stupid. A lot of them are faking it. But what will happen is that if Hillary wins the nomination through the super delegates without winning the pledges delegate race (and winning the pledged delegates is practically impossible at this point, math doesn't lie whether you want it to or not), a much higher percentage of Obama's supporters will really truly walk than the percentage of Clinton supporters who will really truly walk if Obama gets the nomination after winning the pledged delegate vote. Obama's supporters are highly passionate, so are Clinton's. But Obama's supporters to much larger degree are highly passionate newly introduced members of the Democratic party who are only out and active at all because of him, and they're candidate is going to WIN the pledged delegate race. They're not firmly entrenched party members, their allegiances to the Democrats are still freshly formed and tenuous and reliant to very large degree on Obama personally, and they are not going to just forgive and forget if the super-delegates choose to go against that and send them the message that all their efforts in coming out got them nothing even when they were successful in winning the vote in the primary races. Over time and given the opportunity those allegiances can be solidified, but they're not there yet. Clinton supporters on the other hand are to much larger degree old hands at Democratic politics. They're coming out against the Republicans either way when push comes to shove. They'll get mightily upset when their candidate loses as well, and some few of them really will take their ball and storm off home, but many more of them are simply not going anywhere. They've probably been through their chosen candidate losing a dozen times before and will live through it this time.

So, to return to that point that not ALL of that sentiment is an artificial product of posturing supporters of either faction. To blame all of it on such a factor would be as naive as to believe it's all real. There is a very real and very concerning polarization occurring among the supporters of both Democratic nominees and it will continue to get worse as long as this campaign continues. The results lately in favor of McCain are exaggerated because of the side products of the internecine warfare in the Democratic primary competition, but they DO still show real trends which will cause a problem in the GE if they are permitted to continue. And the observation I made over a week ago remains unaltered... Clinton cannot win the nomination in a non-destructive manner for the Democratic party. There is no path open to her that leads to the nomination that does not absolutely require the party shooting itself in the foot with an entire up and coming generation of young voters, and she should recognize this and concede.


Now, that's part one of my new thoughts... the cold, logical, cynical side. Here's part two.


As I've been browsing these forums the last week and a bit what I have begun to pick up on a pattern. There is vitriol flying from both sides. Ridiculous attacks and mis-characterizations of the other candidate have been flung left and right. But interspersed through it all you find the positive arguments. The pleas for why a person's chosen candidate should be voted for instead of why the other side should be voted against. And I have noticed a pronounced difference in that area.

The majority of arguments from the Clinton side always seem to take one form. "Our candidate is more electable". "Our candidate is more experienced". "Our candidate can strategically take state X and Y". "Our candidate is more politically savvy."

What I see far more of from the Obama side is "Our candidate is a great man." "Our candidate inspires me to be better and try harder". "Our candidate is someone we can unashamedly admire as a person and not just as a politician".

I'm quite sure everyone has their take on which of those two approaches indicates a positive and which a negative, but this is my post so you get to hear mine. I have watched the political discourse among Democrats for quite a while now. Not for a generation or a lifetime, I am 30 years old, but for the last decade and some I've been paying more than a bit of attention. And what I have heard throughout that time is the endless complaint that our politicians are cynical, manipulative, disingenuous pieces of the political machinery. I have seen Democrats spend the last ten years in anguish over the lack of ethics and integrity and character among the leadership of the country.

On Tuesday, I saw a politician truly lead. I saw a politician speak to the American people with candor about one of the most deeply divisive and emotionally charged issues this nation has ever dealt with when the politically safe, politically experienced thing to do would have been to take a path that has become so well established as the "proper" approach to such issues it has it's own universal catch phrase to describe it. "Throw him under the bus". It's the exact kind of cynical, manipulative, shallow, dishonest tactic that the people of this party on on this forum have spent untold hours raging against.

And then I saw many of those same people try to vilify that man for not perpetuating the conduct they despise in others, in the name of expediency, just because he stood in the path of their preferred candidate. To demean him as having taken "insufficient action" to address the issue because he didn't take the easy road out of a controversy and instead placed a bet on the ability of the American people to act like grown ups and treat a complex issue like a complex issue instead of the caricature of it the media is constantly constructing with 15 second sound bites and out of context snippets of statements. Just like the people on this forum have been begging for a politician to do for so very long.

And frankly, that settled the issue beyond hope of reconsideration for me. Prior to this I admired Obama for his capability and potential, but I tried to keep my arguments in his favor objectively grounded in the figures and the analysis because I thought that was the best way to avoid contributing to the increasing division and rhetoric being thrown around these forums, and you may see that reflected in the opening of this post as well. But this is not just about the numbers, though the numbers are in his favor. This is not just about electoral college strategy, though there is support for him in that argument as well. On Tuesday I saw a President, for the first time in a long time, and supporting anyone else for the office at this point would do violence to my conscience. There will still be those who insist on continuing the line that it's all "just words", that Obama is an empty suit, but no empty suit has the strength of character or the personal integrity required to have spoken those words under those conditions and to have done it in such a manner that inspired so many under circumstances so poisonous and hostile. Anyone who can't see through to that simple point has my sympathies.

[phrigndumass]

1. K+R

Thanks for posting this.

:thumbsup:

[babylonsister]

2. Rec'd, and you are right! I can't do violence to my conscience either. nt

[toys4kitty]

3. Thank you

If only people will read this in the spirit of what you meant instead of seeing it as an attack against one side or the other.
I applaud you. :toast:

[JimGinPA]

4. Great Post!

K&R

[grantcart]

5. I am firmly against violence against your conscience

"On Tuesday I saw a President, for the first time in a long time, and supporting anyone else for the office at this point would do violence to my conscience."


The compelling argument of your OP is not in its conclusion but the journey. You start from logical premises and slowly, incrementally build a pyramid and a conclusion that I agree with.


There are those who are Hillary supporters who do not agree. Frankly I admire them for being passionate and committed. The sometimes absurd positions they take are the result of defending a campaign that has a robust penchant for the absurd.


The ones that I have increasingly difficult time with are those who are on the fence. Some like both. Some don't care for either. Some are pulled back and forth. Some are narcissists that want to be the final arbitrators and stay above the fray.


The time has come for people to make a decision for Hillary or Obama. No one can make a better case for the neutral observer deciding for Obama than you just did. Thank you.

[roguevalley]

6. excellent post. nice to see a leader again doing something because

its right.

[cbayer]

7. Well Grant, I like them both and for very different reasons.

I can see the advantage and disadvantages of both candidates in terms of their going up against McCain and their ability to be the President. I do get pulled back and forth, but I truly am inspired by them both and would be happy to have either one. I do not think I am a narcissist.

As the OP so nicely lays out, this is about personality and style at this point. Their policies and records are not different enough to really make a strong case for either one. But their personalities and styles are quite different. Does that matter? Possibly. But for me personally, not so much.

I sat out the primary because I could not make a decision. I am content with allowing those that have made a decision to fight this fight and will be content with the outcome. I don't need to make a decision and I am not sure why you feel that I must. What if I made it for the candidate that you do not endorse?

[gcomeau]

8. Well...

"I sat out the primary because I could not make a decision. I am content with allowing those that have made a decision to fight this fight and will be content with the outcome. I don't need to make a decision and I am not sure why you feel that I must. What if I made it for the candidate that you do not endorse?"

I think I laid out the case for this in the OP actually. If this were still earlier in the primary process and both candidates had a legitimate and realistic shot at winning the nomination in a non-destructive manner for the party then you'd have a perfectly legitimate point that there was no reason for you to rush a decision. But that time has come and gone. There is only one candidate left who can win in a manner that does not involve sending a strong message that the party leadership will place it's own preferences ahead of the will of the party membership. And I am perfectly well aware that the reason super-delegates exist is to moderate the primary process to some degree and step in to shift the balance if it looks like for some reason the outcome of the votes for the pledged delegates is steering the party towards disaster or something, but that simply doesn't apply here when we're dealing with two candidates with statistically comparable levels of support in the GE. and add on to that that the candidate currently winning by an almost insurmountable margin in the pledged delegate count is also the one who has brought in a voting bloc the party has been desperately pursuing for years and considering having the supers vote to overturn the results of the pledged delegate race is like entering into a suicide pact. And I think that also speaks to "what if I made it for the candidate you do not endorse"... you can... but why?

Meanwhile, as long as we continue to pretend as if this is an even race and keep having both sides fighting desperately against each other and allow the campaigning to drag on the real component of that polarization being shown (and exaggerated) in the polls continues to grow and presents more and more of an actual risk in the GE.

[cbayer]

10. You make a good point, but

there are things that make me uneasy with your argument.

The will of the current party membership is very closely divided, Obama has more pledged delegates, but it is not overwhelming. In fact, he can't get obtain the nomination with what he has. That's a problem.

However, I agree that Obama supporters are more likely to walk away. I don't think it will be in droves, but it may well be significant. I wonder, though, whether those that would so easily walk away are really the voting bloc that the democratic party wants. Those are the "my way or the highway" group and bowing to them because they might leave feels a little like giving into bullies.

You are not really making the case for choosing a side, you are making the case for Clinton bowing out.

I would be very happy to see the two candidates get together and hash this out. I believe they are capable of doing that. They should do it for the good of the party and the country. Forcing either one to concede in this close a race in very un-democratic.

[gcomeau]

11. See...

...I don't think this is an entirely accurate depiction of the situation:

"I wonder, though, whether those that would so easily walk away are really the voting bloc that the democratic party wants. Those are the "my way or the highway" group and bowing to them because they might leave feels a little like giving into bullies"

We're not talking about them packing up and going home just because their guy doesn't win. Will there be some of that involved... sure, and that would be regrettable but not something I'd be nearly as worried about as what we're facing here.

We're talking about having these young new voters come out for the campaigning, work their tails off, have millions of voters participate in the process and go in favor of their candidate by a significant margin, have him showing every indication that he can win the presidency as the nominee, walk into the convention with every right to expect to be nominated... then have him not win because a couple hundred party leaders get together in a back room and decide against it. That is a far harder thing to ask a group of young and idealistic people to swallow than just having their guy 'not win'. And telling them it's within the rules won't matter one little bit to how they view it, nor could I honestly argue it should. If Clinton just won the nomination flat out with pledged delegates I think most of the new young Obama supporters could have swallowed it. If she went to the convention winning in delegates and the supers just rubber-stamped it I think the same applies. If she went in effectively even and the supers swung it her way I think that would have been more problematic but probably survivable. But if she goes in down a hundred or more pledged delegates and wins purely because the supers go against that trend that's a whole other ballgame, and a hundred pledged delegate differential is what we're looking at here easily, even if we're quite generous to Clinton in projections of the remaining primaries.

And yes, you have a point that this is probably a stronger case for having Clinton bow out than for having your average individual voter line up behind Obama, but that doesn't mean it doesn't also apply to a degree on the individual voter level when the pledged delegate equation is pretty much finalized barring something absurdly momentous completely altering the final closing stages of the campaign. (And the indications are becoming pretty clear now that Wright didn't do that, not after the speech. If Wright didn't do it, what do we really think could?)

[cbayer]

12. I can not disagree with the case you are making.

If this goes to the convention, the super-delegates, a very diverse group in some ways, will have to make a very hard decision. Your argument about the fall-out if they over-ride the pledged delegates in a back room are compelling. They are elected officials, for the most part, and will have to consider the personal political ramifications as well as the impact on the party and the country. I can see how this could significantly harm the bloc of newer participants.

For me, still sitting on the fence, joining forces is the most powerful move. I have heard arguments as to why this is not ideal and could lead to overall failure, but have not been swayed much by those arguments.

That's the idealist (and Mom) in me.

It's been an interesting discussion. It's nice to communicate with someone who actually has something to say.

:hi:

[gcomeau]

14. Yes, it was enjoyable...

....to have an actual calm and reasoned discussion with someone for once. Who knew it was possible in GD:P? I'm just waiting for someone to come along and tell us we're being "sick" for doing it. That's what happened in my last thread when I asked for any explanations of the mechanics of how Clinton could still reasonably be expected to win the nomination... apparently such a thing is considered unacceptable behavior by some around here.

I think a joint ticket was sunk when Clinton actually offered Obama the VP from second place in the campaign. It may have been possible before then, but by turning the offer into a political maneuver to try to portray herself as the frontrunner and undercut the perception of Obama's position she forced Obama to shoot it down hard, and now it would be pretty difficult for her to accept VP after he becomes the nominee after offering it to him in that manner already. That would involve a pretty big heaping of pride swallowing for her even if he was inclined to make the offer in the first place. It may be possible, but I don't see it as likely.

[grantcart]

17. he took all the good points lol

[cbayer]

9. Excellently done.

And recommended.

In particular, I share your concern about many Obama supporters being new to the party and more likely to walk away if he is not nominated. I also have concerns that these relatively new and very enthusiastic supporters often do not appear to use critical thinking in making their decisions. They appear to accept what they are told, as long as it bolsters their opinion, and ask very few questions. You clearly do use critical thinking and my opinion is based primarily on what I see some others at DU exhibit.

This concerns me because I think that's how we got Bush. A lot of people did not ask any questions - they went with their gut.

I would like to see more people really explain, as you have so well, why they support one candidate or another. The "Our candidate is a great guy" and "your candidate is trash" really exemplifies this lack of critical thinking, because, honestly, they are not that different. Having to explain why you choose one over the other forces you to think about what differences there are.

Thanks for your post.

[applegrove]

13. You make some great points.

[Mother Of Four]

15. Excellent thread with wonderfully thought out OP---

And some good comments/discourse

Happy to K and R-
Keep it up we need more threads like this one.

[grantcart]

16. kick

[grantcart]

18. Bill Richardson saw your post

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=5179635&mesg_id=5179635

[gcomeau]

20. Ha! If only...

You had me going for a minute there... "What? Really?!?!? Did he say something!?!?!"

Now that would be something to take credit for. :)

[BringBigDogBack]

19. K&R'ed