In every election cycle, it seems that one or two previously unimportant procedural terms enter the popular lexicon. In 2000, it was “hanging chad” and “butterfly ballot.” In 2008, “superdelegates” have become one of the most talked about factors in the contest for the Democratic presidential nomination.
Because neither Hillary Clinton nor Barack Obama can mathematically win the Democratic nomination with purely pledged delegates, the 795 unpledged party officials and representatives known as superdelegates will make the difference.
In addition to independent voters, swing states, a slam-dunk in the general election, and relationships between political operatives, one of the biggest casualties of the Democratic primary contest has been substance.
Although Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton differ only narrowly on policy, there was a time when nuances in health care and the economy were the focus of the campaign. Now, with a few months and many miles left to go before we might finally have our nominee, the contest has turned into just that, a contest.
With students now back from spring break, we can re-focus our attention back onto the campaign for the presidency. But first off, what was accomplished last week besides the consumption of large amounts of mixed drinks? Short of a few small scandals and one big one involving a certain governor from a certain Northeastern state, not too much.
This morning, the Clinton campaign came out with their most ridiculous line of reasoning yet. The campaign released a memo saying that Barack Obama should sweep the March 4th primary states (Ohio, Texas, Rhode Island, Vermont), and if he doesn’t, “there’s a problem.” Thus the Clinton team has begun their next, and perhaps last, political strategy: raising expectations for their rival campaign to unreachable heights.
Although Obama holds a lead in the polls in Texas and Vermont, Ohio will be much tougher for the Senator. One should remember that Clinton held huge leads in states like Texas and Wisconsin (which recently went for Obama by 17%) until recently, and the fact that Obama is within 10 points in Ohio, a state which matches up very well for the Clintons, is a testament to the strength of his campaign.
With Senator Barack Obama being called the “Democratic front-runner” more and more frequently these days, the question now turns to when he will be able to call himself the Democratic nominee. March 4th’s contests in Ohio and Texas may help to edge Obama closer to the title, as anything short of a resounding victory would essentially be a loss for Senator Hillary Clinton.
If Clinton doesn’t make a stand in Ohio and Texas, I think that she should consider bowing out of the race. Increasingly it seems that the Democratic Party is uniting behind Barack Obama in the form of 26 states, 1,202 elected delegates, the endorsement of key party officials, and the support of the country’s biggest labor organizations.
On the eve of the Wisconsin Democratic primary (and with Ohio and Texas in the near future), the leading Democratic candidates for president have begun to hit each other hard. One of the biggest debates this cycle has been about the difference between “going negative” and simply differentiating the records of the two candidates.
In presidential primary politics, almost equally important as actually winning primary contests is spinning the results to look like you have won. If you didn’t win the contest, it’s because the other side was forced to put more time and money into it.
Another trick of the trade is lowering expectations before a primary contest. If you win, it’s a huge victory. If you lose, it’s what you expected and had prepared for.
Although the race for the Democratic nomination has not been the friendliest contest, one thing is fairly certain: the Democratic Party will be able to unite behind its nominee. When it comes down to it, Senators Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama differ more on style than on policy, making it fairly easy for supporters of each candidate to come together once the nominee has been decided.
On the other side of the aisle, the Republican Party can look forward to months of infighting about its presumptive nominee, Senator John McCain. In the past weeks, many prominent conservative commentators have come out hard against the senator from Arizona, with one blond-haired, fire-breathing commentator even going so far to say that she would support Hillary Clinton in the general election if McCain is the Republican nominee.
When former senator John Edwards announced his candidacy for president on December 29th, 2006, he was asked by the press how he would dispel the notion that senators Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama are the Democratic front-runners. Rather than take an early shot at his competitors, Edwards’ response range with a tinge of populism that would become a central focus of his campaign. He said: “The change I want to see happen… has nothing to do with the candidates. It has to do with getting Americans involved and engaged in changing their own country.”
When it comes to Republican presidential politics, there is no harsher word to use when describing your opponent than the “L” word – liberal. In a recent ad, former Massachusetts Governor and occasional front-runner Mitt Romney described Arizona senator and pseudo front-runner John McCain’s positions on energy, immigration, and campaign finance reform as “liberal.” (more…)
Columnists at The Emory Wheel, Emory University's student newspaper, provide up-to-date news and commentary on the presidential campaigns. Click here for information on the blog's three contributors.
