Why Obama will be the nominee

I had lunch today with Michael Hart, who said that it’s assured that Barack Obama will be the nominee. His reason is simple, though based on a point that had not occurred to me. As everyone knows, Hillary Clinton can only win the nomination if the super delegates vote for her notwithstanding the fact that Obama has won more of the popularly elected delegates. The blacks in the Democratic party will see this as a total outrage, taking away from them what they earned fair and square, a black nominee. They will threaten to keep the black vote home in November or otherwise sink Hillary if she seizes the nomination by such means. The super delegates, recognizing the seriousness of the threat, will give their votes to Obama.

It’s a good argument and a reasonable prediction.

Mr. Hart also says that if Hillary got the nomination through the votes of the super delegates, it would stir up blacks to mutiny and rage, not just against the Democratic party, but against the whole society, and so would be very bad. But, again, he thinks that this will not happen, because the super delegates will vote for Obama.

- end of initial entry -

In a comment that came in just before I posted the above entry, Richard B. writes:

Here’s my prediction: Hillary will win the nomination. When it comes down to it those super delegates will vote for their own self-interests and who best to reward them, the proven politician or the upstart newcomer? She can’t have it any other way having fought so hard, made so many alliances, so many promises and having her reason-for-being threatened by a young black politician when she is, along with her husband, the embodiment, if not the co-creationists, of the modern Democratic party! The altruistic card is not on the table. No price is too high because the ends justifies the means.

LA replies:

Up to now, my own thinking has been similar to Richard’s. However, the Hart logic makes a lot of sense.

M. Jose writes:

I have to toot my own horn here. The idea that you discusss in this post, about how using shenanigans to get Hillary nominated would hurt the Democratic Party with blacks, is one that I thought about back in January.

Paul K. writes:

This afternoon I listened to a political discussion on the “Faith Middleton Show” on Connecticut Public Radio. The three Democrats participating said, to my surprise, that there’s no chance of a fusion ticket with Hillary on the top and Obama as VP because blacks won’t stand for it. Perhaps they would have three months ago, but now they consider him a top-ticket candidate and if he ended up as the vice-presidential candidate they would stay home or bolt the party. The host of the show said she had been told this by a black friend, and the two guests, a reporter and a political science professor, agreed it was likely.

I called into the show and politely asked the guests to please stop saying that McCain was opposed by “far right” and “ultra-right” Republicans when it’s his commitment to the war and to open borders that make him unacceptable to a Republican like myself.

Mark K. writes:

Yes, I think that Obama will win the Democratic nomination if Hillary loses it. Conversely should Obama lose the nomination, I’m quite certain Hillary will win it.

With respect to McCain, I’m not sure he can win the presidency if Obama wins the presidency. But I’m fairly certain McCain would lose the presidency if Hillary should win the presidency.

Looking at the odds, I’m convinced that all three cannot win the presidency—it would have to be one of them. The question is which one, which eliminates the other two.

LA replies:

Hear, hear!

However, Mark’s comment has a serious message between the lines, which is that we are becoming progressively frazzled trying to follow the multi-dimensional complexity of this race, and the prospect of its continuation for the next how many months promised collective mental distraction. Maybe we should reduce the whole thing to Mark’s self-evident certitudes and turn our attention to other subjects for the duration.

… As if that were possible.

Emily B. writes:

I don’t know who will be the nominee, but to me Michael Hart’s logic seems somewhat sound only if he is talking about how the super delegates themselves perceive black attitudes, not what black attitudes actually may be, and then I’m still skeptical. [LA replies: Mr. Hart’s scenario is that black leaders will openly make this threat (Al Sharpton, he says, has already done so), not that the super delegates will have to guess at the threat.] My bias in evaluating this is thus: I have a very low opinion of the average black Democrat. I believe that social and civic concerns are such a low priority for them as to be negligible—wealth redistribution trumps absolutely everything. Further, and in keeping with this bias, I’ve always believed what John Derbyshire voiced recently: blacks need the Democratic Party more than it needs them. And in my opinion, the Democratic Party knows it.

P.S. I used to believe the excuse from pro-life leaders that blacks, the group who is most anti-abortion according to every poll ever done, didn’t show up at marches or protests in numbers remotely relative to beliefs because “they didn’t have time”. Why they voted the way they did could be plausibly explained, but their lack of vocal opposition was quite a bit harder. I had to grow up and live amongst them to discover that raising taxes to pay for government services was what really stirred their blood and got them to find time to march, wave signs, and speak out.

LA replies:

Emily’s making a really interesting argument. The Hart theory will fail because, more than electing a black, blacks care about electing a Democrat because that represents expanded state-provided goodies. So they are not going to threaten to sink Hillary if she grabs the nomination from Obama by rough means. Further, when we remember how blacks’ contentment soared during the Clinton administration, it’s hard to imagine them turning how harshly against Hillary Clinton.

Well, Mr. Hart is a scientist, and his theory is eminently testable and will be tested.

Adela Gereth writes:

Emily writes: I believe that social and civic concerns are such a low priority for them [American blacks] as to be negligible—wealth redistribution trumps absolutely everything.

Having, like Emily, grown up and then lived among American blacks, I agree that social and civic concerns are a low priority for them. But I can’t quite agree that wealth redistribution trumps absolutely everything. Recognition (“respect”) , regardless of achievement, seems to be nearly as important as wealth redistribution. The sense of entitlement to both is rife within the community.

I think the black community takes it for granted that the liberal whites are going to continue with the current policies, programs and racial placating. They aren’t worried about rushing to the polls to vote so that their entitlements continue. What the black community has not yet had is having “one of their own” as POTUS. I suspect many think it’s way past time, that they’re long overdue for this recognition. They may well turn out in record numbers to vote for Obama, not so much due to civic engagement as to racial pride.

I am reasonably sure that if Obama is not the next POTUS, we will be hearing plenty about how Hillary stole the nomination from him or how McCain stole the election from him.

P.S. I realize this may be too inflammatory to post. But all the news and op-ed I’ve read online as well as my personal observations and experiences living among blacks back in the 1990’s lead me to these conclusions.

LA replies:

In the Clinton years, blacks were very happy, not because they were getting new material goods, but because they were getting new spiritual goods—a kind of symbolic recognition and stroking they had never had before. Symbolically they were placed at the center of American life. This was deeply rewarding to them.

(I realize how in my last two comments I’ve just argued both sides of the issue. What can I say? I’m just an insubstantial person who is swayed by the last argument I’ve heard.)

Chris L. writes:

I am not going to attempt to guess what will happen. I will say that Mr. Hart’s observation does point out the stupidity of Rush, et al calling on Republicans to cross over and vote for Hillary. All this did was provide Democrats with a scapegoat for why Obama didn’t get the nomination. At the end of the day, blacks are not going to remember that the super delegates were the reason Obama lost. They are going to remember that Republicans crossed over and helped to deny him the crucial delegates he needed to put Hillary away. Even if Obama wins, they are going to remember Republican attempts to deny them their “rightful” place. Instead of taking an intelligent, principled, and neutral stance, the stupid party has once again shown their ability to think only one move ahead. When your enemy is in the process of tearing himself apart, you do not insert yourself and give him something to unify around.

LA replies:

That’s a great observation, tying together Mr. Hart’s theory with recent events. Yes, not only was Limbaugh’s action unethical, it could have a disastrous effect he didn’t even think of. Because all today’s “conservatives” care about and can think about, their sole good, is Republican victory, as in the John Podhoretz article in the March Commentary that I mentioned in another thread.

Geoffrey in Connecticut writes:

There’s always a third way….

Hillary exposes the Obama/Rezko/Saddam* connection and suddenly he is damaged goods. The super delegates have plausible deniability to vote against Obama.

Add in Florida and Michigan re-votes and seat those delegates and Obama is just a one year wonder.

Watch out for him in the future though, he is not just a “nice guy” with an angry wife (kind of a black version of the Clintons). No, he is a product of the Illinois political machine and is not going to give up as long as there is one vote left to buy and one more sealed divorce record left to unseal.

Alex H. writes:

Hillary’s hypothetical cross of the blacks (by ousting Obama), reminds me of McCain’s actual cross of conservatives on (e.g.) free speech and immigration. If she and/or her party are ultimately deterred by the prospect of actual retaliation, maybe there’s a lesson for us?

David B. writes:

Last night I talked to my liberal college professor friend. He is pro-Hillary in the nomination battle, and follows it very closely. He remarked that Obama was 6 points ahead in Texas going into last weekend, but ended up losing there and decisively in Ohio. My friend predicts that Hillary will win most of the primaries left and especially Pennsylvania. He has always been somewhat dismissive of the black vote in general elections. “It’s not as high as people think,” he says.

I used to work with a lot of blacks and I can confirm that they see the government as a distributor of money. Also, a Democratic presidency pays a lot of attention to them, which the previous Clinton Administration did. I predict that if it turns out to be Clinton-McCain, McCain will make a major effort to court the black vote. Blacks, of course, will see McCain as an old white man from Arizona. My liberal friend hopes that Hillary will pick the Ohio Governor, Strickland, as her VP. This ticket would beat McCain handily, he thinks.

Emily writes:

I agree with the poster who “disagreed” with me. It was a stretch for me to say wealth redistribution is everything. I don’t think it is much of a stretch and I actually do believe that respect is extremely important. I tend to think Black Democrats value it less, than other groups. Also, should Barack lose, I absolutely believe they would rise up and make deafening noise, perhaps even riot some, I’m not kidding. But they would get over their anger and end up voting for Hillary with turnout not being that depressed. On the other hand, should Barack win, the defections from the Dem party on election day of many working class whites will be quietly done, only seen in polls, and will actually materialize.

Mark Jaws writes:

I must disagree with Emily, who cited the Jon Derbyshire belief that “blacks need the Democratic Party more than it needs them. And in my opinion, the Democratic Party knows it.”

About 15 years ago I attempted to count the number of Democratic senators who owed their electoral victories to blacks. I believe I came up with about a dozen or more. Many states have big blue cities surrounded by fairly red rural counties. Take away the urban black vote in Philadelphia, New York, Cleveland, Miami, Phoenix, Los Angeles, and the Democrats would lose lots of Senators. No, Emily. Forget John Derbyshire. The Democrats must kow tow to the likes of Jackson and Sharpton, not because they are particularly likable fellows—but because their political survival depends on the urban voting bloc turning out in droves.

Kevin V. writes:

Regarding the discussion in this thread, back on February 8 Lisa Schiffren, posted the following at The Corner after watching a CNN interview with Howard Dean and Donna Brazile:

Yesterday Party Chairman Howard Dean reassured Democrats that, if there is no clear winner, the party’s superdelegates—elected officials—would make sure things were sorted out. Nancy Pelosi would run that show, which is quite a bit of power for the somewhat ineffectual Speaker to be handed. That possibility led major political strategist Donna Brazile to (be the first to) threaten, on national TV, that she would leave the Democratic party, if “insiders pick the nominee.” I guess she doesn’t think her man would get the nod.

I was struck by that because I had happened to see the same interview. Brazile was very adamant on this point. When a major Democratic Party insider like Brazile is threatening not just to sit out or to oppose, but to leave the party should her candidate be denied the nomination by super-delegate vote, one can only conclude that Mr. Hart is exactly right here. Unless Clinton is able to demonstrate a decent delegate and popular vote lead by the time of the DNC, she is sunk.

LA replies:

Yes, and Brazile is actually among the more rational and respected Democrats, she’s no Al Sharpton, who made a smilar threat. If she said this, then it’s real.

Posted by Lawrence Auster at March 06, 2008 10:38 PM | Send