Can an Outsider Win Over The Inside of His Party?
This is the primary season that never ends, yes it goes on an on my friends. Yet we seem to have reached a point where it seems impossible for Clinton to overtake Obama in pledged delegates. The hope that she'll tip the scale with super delegates is the obvious reason she continues, but why would they subvert the apparent will of the people? Well I can think of at least two reasons:
1) The fact that Hillary won the primary in Texas, but decisively lost the caucus says a lot about the skewed results caucuses can produce. Eliminating this voting method has long been tauted as a way to improve our presidential primary system, and the behind closed doors secret ballot is undoubtedly more democratic. Caucuses are way too public, allow for too much pressure, and take so much time that they likely cause potential voters to skip them. Hillary thus far has won the primaries in all the big states, except Illinois.
2) Money. Money. Money. Both campaigns have raised massive amounts of money. Obama has shown great skill in collecting smaller donations over the Internet, but will his donors shell out as much money to other parts of the party, or will they only pay up for rock star "outsiders"? Hillary's donor list and influence may pay off bigger for the party as a whole. In fact many Obama supporters probably aren't all that big on the party. Obama is sending a message of change against the establishment, and super delegates are undoubtedly the establishment. Though the downside is that Obama supporters are less likely to show up at the polls come November if Clinton is atop the ballot.
Almost no one agrees that the system for picking the nominee is perfect, so do they resign themselves to its outcome? I think it may be easy ignore for many super delegates, the real question is down to the decision between someone who has shown great power in stirring up younger voters and disillusioned liberals that can campaign hard, but may not care much about the rest of the party or do they choose the former First Lady who has won the key democratic states in primaries and whose supporters are more likely to pay out for the entire democratic ticket.
1) The fact that Hillary won the primary in Texas, but decisively lost the caucus says a lot about the skewed results caucuses can produce. Eliminating this voting method has long been tauted as a way to improve our presidential primary system, and the behind closed doors secret ballot is undoubtedly more democratic. Caucuses are way too public, allow for too much pressure, and take so much time that they likely cause potential voters to skip them. Hillary thus far has won the primaries in all the big states, except Illinois.
2) Money. Money. Money. Both campaigns have raised massive amounts of money. Obama has shown great skill in collecting smaller donations over the Internet, but will his donors shell out as much money to other parts of the party, or will they only pay up for rock star "outsiders"? Hillary's donor list and influence may pay off bigger for the party as a whole. In fact many Obama supporters probably aren't all that big on the party. Obama is sending a message of change against the establishment, and super delegates are undoubtedly the establishment. Though the downside is that Obama supporters are less likely to show up at the polls come November if Clinton is atop the ballot.
Almost no one agrees that the system for picking the nominee is perfect, so do they resign themselves to its outcome? I think it may be easy ignore for many super delegates, the real question is down to the decision between someone who has shown great power in stirring up younger voters and disillusioned liberals that can campaign hard, but may not care much about the rest of the party or do they choose the former First Lady who has won the key democratic states in primaries and whose supporters are more likely to pay out for the entire democratic ticket.
posted by Kyle at
3:24 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home