Dean: Democrats contest should be wrapped up by July

Denis Irwin

US Democratic Party chairman Howard Dean has said he would like the party's presidential nominating contest decided by 1 July to avoid bitter in-fighting. Mr Dean told US network ABC he did not want rivalry between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton to "degenerate into a big fight at the convention" in August....

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7319027.stm

is_that_so

Interesting piece in the Independent on Sunday on this, much of which I agree with. Were the positions reversed I have no doubt that the Dems would be asking Obama to do it for the good of the party.

GUBU at work is all I can say. The Dems seem to have rightly screwed this one up. Somewhere along the way they have managed to come up with a system that , in effect disenfranchises a large group of voters; "49.8%" as Dean has pointed out.

The other disturbing factor from their point of view, according to the piece, is the large numbers from the Dems camp who say they will vote for McCain if their nominee is not chosen.

Article

The question on every Democrat's lips: should she stay or should she go?

Many fear that, by prolonging an increasingly bitter nomination battle, Hillary Clinton is putting her own ambition ahead of the good of the party

By Rupert Cornwell
Sunday, 30 March 2008

In the garden across the street from where I am writing, in this overwhelmingly Democratic city of Washington DC, stands an oddity. It is an election poster for Hillary Clinton, outnumbered 10 to one in the neighbourhood, I would guess, by signs for Barack Obama.

Tiny samples do not a trend make. But the disparity is a reflection on the mood in the party. For the Democratic establishment, the once exhilarating struggle for its 2008 nomination has turned into a brutal, protracted and demoralising brawl, from which even the winner will emerge a loser.

The dread is palpable. Are we going to mess up and yet again snatch defeat from the jaws of victory? Is this historic contest, that we thought would move America into a new era by propelling either a woman or a black man into the White House for the first time, turning into a nightmare that re-opens America's ancient wounds of race and gender? Please, they beg, let it end soon. And many then turn towards Clinton and ask: please do the decent thing, place the party ahead of personal ambition and withdraw, to ensure victory over the real enemy – the Republicans – in November.

But why, one might wonder, is she being asked to fall on her sword, when nothing has been decided? Mainly, of course, because, after primaries and caucuses in more than 40 states, she trails in the number of pledged delegates to the convention (by roughly 1,480 to 1,590), in total votes won, and in the majority of preference polls among Democratic voters. Moreover, by a margin of almost two to one and regardless of personal preference, these latter expect Obama to be the party's nominee.

...

Full story here

bonkey

is_that_so wrote: »

Somewhere along the way they have managed to come up with a system that , in effect disenfranchises a large group of voters; "49.8%" as Dean has pointed out.

I believe they call that system "democracy".

People seem to forget that before it was Clinton vs Obama, there were other candidates in the race. It is naive in the extreme to believe that no-one voting for one of the two remaining candidates would not have voted for other candidate had they remained in the race.

Similarly, the numbers of Democrats who have been polled as being happy with either candidate is (from memory) quite high...but they'll still be included in Dean's "disenfranchised".

The other disturbing factor from their point of view, according to the piece, is the large numbers from the Dems camp who say they will vote for McCain if their nominee is not chosen.

This is the same every election. It would make no difference if either Clinton or Obama were not in the race. If X% say they will vote Republican over Obama, then it doesn't matter that its a close race with Clinton....the same X% would vote Republican over Obama if he had run away with the vote. They don't exist because they love Hilary. They exist because they will not vote for Barack. Same for the Y% that say they'll vote Republican over Clinton....they don't exist because Obama is in the race, but rather because they will not vote for Clinton.

snow scorpion

If you ask me the ones who should be blamed for this are the king-makers within the Democrat party. They should never have let the situation come to this. But they did let it come to this and now when November rolls around the Democrats nominee will either be the most polarizing figure in all of American politics or a woefully inexperienced cypher with no apparent knowledge of economics who calls America's most famous racist his spiritual adviser.

is_that_so

bonkey wrote: »

I believe they call that system "democracy".

I think you'll find that it's called "party election rules", which are subject to whims and changes as happened with Florida and Michigan.

bonkey wrote: »

People seem to forget that before it was Clinton vs Obama, there were other candidates in the race. It is naive in the extreme to believe that no-one voting for one of the two remaining candidates would not have voted for other candidate had they remained in the race.

Of course they would, however having two candidates so closely matched when the GOP have a candidate that can potentially beat either is not what the doctor ordered. Whatever about the "democracy" of it, hard-headed politics is only now rearing its head with their anxiety to wrap it up.

bonkey wrote: »

Similarly, the numbers of Democrats who have been polled as being happy with either candidate is (from memory) quite high...but they'll still be included in Dean's "disenfranchised".

Yes they will and IMO reflects the catch-all make-up of the Democratic party.

bonkey wrote: »

This is the same every election. It would make no difference if either Clinton or Obama were not in the race. If X% say they will vote Republican over Obama, then it doesn't matter that its a close race with Clinton....the same X% would vote Republican over Obama if he had run away with the vote. They don't exist because they love Hilary. They exist because they will not vote for Barack. Same for the Y% that say they'll vote Republican over Clinton....they don't exist because Obama is in the race, but rather because they will not vote for Clinton.

Again no dissent here. In another year this would have been a dull, dull step on the way to the eventual GE campaign. Not really sure in all of this where we disagree tbh other than the fact that I think the Dems have made an unholy political mess of a situation they were perfectly primed to exploit, McCain or no McCain.

Manic Moran

which are subject to whims and changes as happened with Florida and Michigan.

In fairness, the rules didn't change. FL and MI broke the rules, and complained when the Party had the audacity to punish them for it.

NTM

kerry4sam

Manic Moran wrote: »

In fairness, the rules didn't change. FL and MI broke the rules, and complained when the Party had the audacity to punish them for it.
NTM

I think it will come down to one of those two states but as Florida and Michigan did knowingly break the rules, i'm not sure how their votes would come into effect this race as both parties will be angry over the addition especially after being ruled out before things got so close between the candidates ... Don't see how this will be solved by July being honest

lisbon_lions

Had to post this little gem for your amusement:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SkzV5AIK8iM