IT WAS late August, 1968, and the streets of Chicago had the look of a war zone. Protesters, police, and the Illinois National Guard clashed everyday for a week, resulting in hundreds of injuries. Thanks to a budding national media, millions of Americans watched the drama unfold from their living rooms. Regardless of what happened inside the convention center, this was the way America would remember the 1968 Democratic National Convention.
With a heated and stunningly close nomination battle between Senators Barack Obama (D-Ill.) and Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y.), the 2008 Democratic Convention risks becoming another debacle. No, there probably won't be intense protesting or violence in Denver this year, but the Democrats still risk facing a major image problem if the contest is not resolved in a way the public perceives is fair and justifiable. With this possibility in mind, the Democratic Party needs to ensure that the candidate who claims the most pledged delegates is in fact the chosen nominee.
While this move might seem obvious, and party leaders do seem to be moving in this direction, it is still far from a foregone conclusion. Sen. Clinton is currently trailing in pledged delegates, and her campaign has naturally made quite a few arguments -- some of them quite plausible -- as to why she should be the nominee anyway. She has, after all, carried more large states than Sen. Obama, in terms of both their electoral votes and populations. She also claims that she is the candidate most likely to beat Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) and win the general election for the Democrats.
Let's assume she is right; suppose she is the strongest candidate for November. It simply doesn't matter. That is, rank-and-file voters will still feel betrayed if their voices are ignored, even if it is done for practical reasons. If Sen. Obama wins both the popular vote and the pledged delegate count, as is likely, the choice should be simple for superdelegates. Of course, if Sen. Clinton manages to edge him in both those categories over the course of the final nine primaries, she should be the choice. A real dilemma arises if they somehow split up the two. If one carries the popular vote and the other claims more pledged delegates, a good case could be made either way. The party might even want to consider setting a precedent of selecting the popular vote winner when no candidate wins the needed 2,025 delegates required for nomination.
This shouldn't be an issue, though. Most projections, such as that of RealClearPolitics.com's Jay Cost, have the same candidate (in this case Sen. Obama) leading in both votes and delegates at primary season's end. If that holds true, there should be no controversy for party officials. No matter what case the loser makes, however strong, the public's wishes need to be honored.
Principles aside, the Democrats will suffer down the road if they don't listen to their voters. This is especially the case with Sen. Obama's supporters. Many of the people who take to his message are from groups that have felt marginalized in politics for many years. Many African-American and youth voters, in particular, would feel a great injustice if party leaders decided against the popular will. By empowering these groups, the Democratic Party can energize its base and probably ensure long-term support from new voters. By silencing them, the party will risk creating a new generation that is apathetic to politics and cynical about the system. Granted, Sen. Clinton's appeal to women voters is also important for the party. The main difference is that her base tends to come from older voters, ones who aren't as likely to turn their back on the party establishment if she were to lose to Sen. Obama in the end.
The 1968 convention ended with the nomination of Hubert Humphrey, a man who had participated in and won zero primaries. The ensuing uproar from liberal voters led to a reformed nomination system, one that valued primary and caucus results.
Regardless of what happens this August in Denver, things won't get nearly as bad as they did forty years ago. The Vietnam War was responsible for most of that upheaval, and the party was much more severely divided than it is today. Still, there are some striking parallels: a contentious nomination battle and an unpopular war, for starters. This year's schism between Senators Obama and Clinton might not result in the same disorder that followed the 1968 convention, but it could nonetheless cost the Democrats the White House if it is resolved poorly. Following the last catastrophe, the party didn't manage a presidential win in 1968 or 1972. If Democratic leaders are smart this time around, they'll remember those trying times, and they'll give the people what they want. Their hopes of taking back the presidency depend on it.
Ross Lawrence is a Cavalier Daily associate editor. He can be reached at rlawrence@cavalierdaily.com
Read More
COHEN: Charlottesville must embrace a comprehensive solution to homelessness
By Ryan Cohen | 18 hours agoThe city has made several past efforts to reduce homelessness, but the growing number of unhoused people suggests that these temporary solutions are simply not enough.
WILLIAMS: The future of Virginia is on the ballot this fall
By Ryan Williams | 4 days agoHence, voters must make it their top priority to think critically and closely as they decide who their ballot will support this fall.
PARTING SHOT: On the art of walking and chewing gum
By Nathan Onibudo | 6 days agoStudent journalism, and maybe even life more generally, is about holding space for multiple conflicting truths.
