The Great Disconnect

I don't but all of this "I'm-a gonna leave the party and vote for McCain if my candidate loses" stuff. It's something people say in the heat of battle but rarely is there actually follow-through. I don't remember a ton of reporting about George Bush's nasty primary campaign causing McCain voters to switch to Gore, which was picked up in some post-primary polls, so this is also a media creation, something to pontificate about. And for her part Hillary Clinton is not interested in doing that kind of damage to the country. After the primary it'll be both the nominee and the loser's job to unify the party against the Republicans, and I have little doubt that they'll be able to do it.

Clinton was asked by a questioner in the audience here what she would tell frustrated Democrats who might consider voting for McCain in the general election out of spite.

“Please think through this decision,” Clinton said, laughing and emphasizing the word “please.”

“It is not a wise decision for yourself or your country.”

The crowd applauded loudly.

At the rank-and-file supporter level, I think the damage will eventually be minimal. At the fat-cat big-money boy and girl level, I think they will consider an Obama nomination something of a betrayal. The Clinton campaign did not disavow their big-money donor "shakedown" letter to Nancy Pelosi because they really do think they own the party, as some rich people tend to think about a lot of things they try to purchase. These are people who enjoyed the DLC types in the party helping them out with their businesses and their taxes, and they remain loyal to even the Lieberman fringes because they've paid for those types of politicians for years.

Chris Bowers had the sharpest post I've seen on the primary in quite some time. While it's not perfect (I think a lot of the unelected superdelegates are merely activists, using my experience in California as a guide), I think he's hit on something.

The 2008 nomination campaign has generated quite a bit of talk about internal divides in the Democratic Party: young vs. old, wealthy vs. working class, African-America vs. Latino, male vs. female, etc. However, for my money, the most interesting divide by far remains the full-blown activist class war that the nomination has revealed. A changing of guard is taking place in the Democratic Party, and it might not be long before the entire Democratic Party leadership is transformed.

Consider the current delegate counts from primaries, and from superdelegates who currently hold public office:

Primary delegate totals: Obama 1,081.5--1,063.5 Clinton
Supers who hold public office: Obama 99--96 Clinton

Tight as a glove. The "public" portion of the Democratic nomination campaign shows Obama only narrowly ahead of Clinton, and the campaign in a virtual tie. However, now look at the delegate totals for caucuses and for supers who do not currently hold public office:

Supers who do not hold public office: Clinton 150--110 Obama (58%-42%)
Caucus delegate totals: Obama 334--190 Clinton (64%-36%)

While publicly elected officials and primary voters are virtually split between the two candidates, the Democratic Party leadership heavily favors Clinton and the highly engaged activists who keep the party's electoral engine running heavily favor Obama. This divide between the party leadership and the rising, activist base points strongly toward an ongoing battle in the party that online we have deemed "the silent revolution." While the other demographic divides listed above have longstanding cultural legacies that go well beyond a single election or political party, it is truly shocking to see such a huge gap between a party's leadership and that party's most dedicated activists. At least in theory, these are two groups of people who should be on the same page.

They're not because for too long, the Democratic Party's leadership was defined by past victories from the Clinton years. And that leadership is simply wrong for the historical moment. The Obama ground campaign, like the Dean campaign before it, is going to bring in a whole new class of leaders and activists who will be able to outwork and outmaneuver an ossified leadership class. The fat cats with the $10,000 checks for the DCCC are irrelevant in this environment. Obama raised $175 million or something and barely touched them. A more informed, more engaged political culture is going to demand transparency and put an end to unelected elites controlling the party. It's not going to happen overnight, but like Bowers said, this disconnect is both striking and untenable.

It's pretty gratifying to be on the right side of this for a change. Tomorrow I'll be driving up to San Jose for the California Democratic Party convention to witness the silent revolution in action. I ran for and snagged a spot in the DSCC in 2007, and I see a concerted strategy by the progressive grassroots to make more inroads into the party leadership. This includes running progressives in seats where they will be able to appoint party officials, which accounts for about a third of all delegates. This is nuts and bolts kind of stuff and the progressive grassroots is really thinking this through.

Despite the pie fight primary, I'm optimistic about being a Democrat. I think the dinosaurs' time has passed. A new era is dawning.