2008 Democrat Convention Rerun of 1980
They reap what they sow.
At the 1980 Democrat convention, Jimmy Carter survived a very close nomination battle with Ted Kennedy, only to lose the general election. Rather than accept the truth, that Ronald Reagan was an immensely capable politician while Carter an immensely incapable one, Democrat Party officials jumped to a very undemocratic conclusion: you just can't trust the voters to do the right thing.
And so, determined to increase the odds that the party chooses an electable nominee, the party bigwigs created superdelegates, who comprise approximately 20% of the people who will choose the Democrat nominee this year. These 800-odd individuals have the power to overturn the votes of millions of Democrat voters spread over all fifty states. Who are these superdelegates, these undemocratic party elite?
According to The Politico, half of the superdelegates are white men, which is surprising given that white men only comprise 28% of the Democrat Party. Men overall make up 64% of the superdelegates, again surprising given that only 45% of the party membership is male. This, from a party that trumpets with pride and smug superiority that its leading contenders this cycle are a white woman and a black man, as if race or gender are better qualifiers than character and experience.
Now, with it clear that neither Obama nor Clinton will earn enough pledged delegates in the remaining contests to lock up the nomination, the choice will lie in the hands of these 800-odd party elite, each of whom holds a vote equivalent to roughly 10,000 actual Democrat primary voters. Delegates will go into Denver with teeth set on edge, and the opposing campaigns will be there with plans and maneuvers aplenty. The Democrat convention will be, for once, must-see TV.
All hell will break lose in Denver. The superdelegates will be told by the Clinton campaign that she is the most electable candidate because she has been vetted, because she won the big, important states, because she might well have the delegate and vote leads if Michigan and Florida delegations had been seated, because she has more experience, and because the "Republican attack machine" will go after Obama for his past drug use and his allegiance to a pastor who hates white people. The Obama campaign will answer that he holds the lead in pledged delegates and the popular vote, that being First Lady is less valuable experience than being a state senator, that he is much more talented at using lofty, inspiring rhetoric, and that Clinton is a proven liar who often seems to be handling the gears of the so-called Republican attack machine.
And the difficulty is that they will both be right. While they are attempting in good faith to ascertain the best nominee for their party, delegates will be reminded that being "pledged" doesn't really mean anything, and now that they are actually at the Convention they are capable of doing absolutely anything they want. They will then be barraged with a series of manipulative floor maneuvers designed to sway delegates away from one candidate and towards another. The very party platform will likely face upheaval, as various resolutions and planks are proposed that blatantly pander to key Democrat constituencies. To attract women delegates, the Obama campaign may call for the long-dead Equal Rights Amendment. To attract minority delegates, the Clinton campaign may introduce a resolution calling for a national apology for slavery. And, pressed to deny their opponents a victory at all costs, each campaign will instruct their loyal delegates to vote down the proposals.
Stressed by these obvious attempts at vote-buying and constant lobbying, bothered immensely by being told to vote down proposals they usually strenuously defend, and secure only in the knowledge that the elitist superdelegates will just make the decision for them, the regular delegates elected by the little people back home will be very, very unhappy. Emotions will be raw and nerves on edge. Tempers will rise, and more than one fight will likely break out on the convention floor. At the end, women will head for Clinton, blacks will head for Obama, and it will be the white male superdelegates who make the final determination.
Women and blacks are the two biggest constituencies of the party, and one of those groups is all but certain to be alienated in Denver. Significant percentages of the supporters of whichever campaign loses in the end will either stay home in November or vote for McCain, and that's especially true for fans of Clinton. Further, this will represent the greatest opportunity for the GOP to expand its registration in nearly thirty years, as resentful, angry Democrats turn away from the party that spurned the candidate that looks and sounds most like them. If Clinton is the nominee, swing states with significant numbers of blacks will move towards McCain. If Obama is the nominee, as appears nearly certain, every large state will go Republican as women vote GOP.
This exact scenario happened before with different players, with a different dynamic. It was between a northern Democrat, part of the party elite and from a well-known family, and a southern good 'ol boy who turned the establishment on its head. The southerner won the nomination, the northerner literally turned his back to the nominee on stage, the resulting split did not heal for a decade, and the Republican won 44 states in a landslide.
The year was 1980. The candidates were Jimmy Carter and Ted Kennedy, and the Republican was an affable westerner named Ronald Reagan. This was the situation that superdelegates were supposed to fix, were supposed to ensure never happened again. Just as the Democrats place inordinate faith in government's abilities to make better decisions than individuals, they have placed inordinate faith in their party elite to make better decisions than their voters. Between their superdelegates and their absurdly complicated proportional delegate assignments, they've set themselves up for a disastrous convention and a likely loss in November.
They reap what they sow.

Reader Comments (6)
Yes, gas has increased in price from 1.69 to 3.15 per gallon in the past seven years. This 86% price increase happens to be just barely the rate of inflation. In other words, the price of gas relative to other goods in the consumer price index really hasn't gone up that much. Generally the value of your money is cut in half every ten years. Inflation is really, really a bad thing, and it's caused by federal manipulation of the money supply. It essentially is a massive, hidden tax on people who save, and it's a major cause of the current economic issues.
As bad as inflation is, it is nothing new. It has existed, and been getting worse, ever since the US dis-engaged the dollar from precious metals. As much as George Bush should be blamed for - and as a traditional small-government Republican I blame him for a lot - you can't really blame him for inflation. It's been happening for nearly a century.
By the way, if you really want to reduce the price of gas, and thus the price of all transported goods and services, the one way to do that is to increase the supply. There happens to be a huge pile of oil in Alaska that the Democrats won't let anyone touch. They say, with the sort of emotional illogic particular to Democrats, that drilling for the oil will destroy the environment there. But there's one fact that should shut them up:
In a state half of the size of the continental US, the drilling site will be about the size of the Manchester airport.
As we head into the summer vacation season, and the supply of gasoline goes down and the price correspondingly goes up, increasing the supply to bring down prices will become more and more important. I don't expect most Democrats to get that, because most Democrats are amazingly poor at understanding essential economic principles.
As the oldest of five children of a single mother, and as someone who has worked since age 14 for everything I've ever had, your class-warfare BS is something I've learned is a load of garbage. The Republican Party is not perfect. It has a lot of people whose only principle is retaining power for as long as possible, just like the Democrats, and many of its members are logically inconsistent, just like the Democrats. But it is closer to being the party of free markets and a let-and-let-live philosophy, and those are things that are good for people of all income levels.
PS: It's the republicans who have been trying for years to increase the oil supply by drilling in Alaska. It's the democrats who have made the discovery, transfer, and refining of oil much more expensive.
Quick economics quiz: which party really does more to raise gas prices? Hint: It's not the Republicans.
And more nuke plants! If we all end up glowing in the dark we'll be able to read by the light of ourselves! No need for mercury-laden flourescents then!
Let me throw out some basic points I hope we can both agree to:
1) We are both good people, with good intentions.
2) Neither of us wish for tarred beaches or raped forests.
3) Both of us wish for a limitless supply of environmentally-neutral renewable energy.
If we cannot agree on that, then our time is wasted here, because it is not possible to debate reasonably with someone who deems me to be downright evil. I don't think you're evil, just very misguided.
If we can agree that we both have good intentions and wish no actual harm to things that are important, like the environment, then I would ask you to consider the following:
1) Again, the ANWR site requires a drilling installation the approximate size of the Manchester Airport, in a state half the size of the continental US. Drilling sites like this already abound throughout the Gulf of Mexico and across the southwest. Do you really, really believe this would result in tarred beaches and raped forests?
2) You started by complaining that higher gas prices are the fault of the Republicans. I refuted this by pointing out that the increase in prices is pretty much in line with inflation, and that prices are a function of supply and demand. The supply of oil is being artificially constricted by several means, notably OPEC, as well as by marking huge oil fields as off-limits.
If you want gas prices to fall, as you indicated is the case, you must increase supply. There is no other way. Therefore, you are contradicting yourself when you argue for constricting supply (by not drilling in Alaska) yet demand lower gas prices.
3) Higher gas prices, which you've already decried, are exactly what will make the development of alternative fuel sources economical. If you truly want the market to spur the creation of clean sources of energy, then you should be celebrating higher fuel prices.
Again, your positions are contradictory. You seem driven more by blind partisanship than by a real search for solutions. Partisanship is a disease caused by a lack of understanding of history, philosophy, and human nature. I wish you well in your search for a cure. Start with an open mind, and all else will follow.