Why Clinton's argument to Super delegates are deeply flawed.

Senator Clinton's argument to the super-delegates is deeply flawed at best and complete rubbish at worst. Her campaign maintains that Clinton is the stronger of the two Democratic candidates; therefore the super-delegates should overturn the will of the voters. She has won the "big states" like California, Texas, New York, Florida, Pennsylvania, Michigan and Ohio by rather convincing margins. She argues that if one was to translate her primary wins in California, Texas, New York, Florida, Michigan, Ohio and Pennsylvania to electoral college votes, she would already be the nominee. Furthermore, no Democratic candidate can afford to lose traditional strongholds like California, New York and Massachusetts; or the critical swing states like Florida, Ohio and Pennsylvania in November. She also argues that Obama is incapable of winning the white blue collar voters.

This entire line of argument is absurd on several fronts. Firstly, after former Senator John Edwards dropped out following the rather disappointing performance in South Carolina, it became a case of personal preference between Clinton and Obama. Furthermore, after Gov. Mike Huckabee conceded the nomination to Sen. John McCain after Texas and Ohio, the Republican electorate was free to vote in the remaining Democratic races and, in the process, reap havoc. She seemingly has the impression that all her supporters would automatically defect to Sen. McCain in the event of Obama being the nominee. She has an even more absurd impression that the Obama nation would automatically support her candidacy. I may have late breaking news for the Clinton campaign, there is a phenomenon called staying home on election day. That is precisely what I would do if I live in a solidly Republican or Democratic state and Clinton gets the nomination. Otherwise, I will vote for McCain. Clinton cannot win a general election by alienating the African American vote. By arguing that the will of the people should be overturned she is effectively saying that the Party elders should not count the votes of the young people, the educated people, the African American community or people making over $100,000.

This is a brilliant idea. The core supporters in a Democratic Party under Hillary Clinton are people over 65, people with little or no college education, the Hispanics, people making under $50,000 and the rural voters. There are major problems with this coalition. Firstly, white blue collar voters are more liberal economically, but tend to cling to the past. This means they see their current lifestyle as the only kind of lifestyle their children or even grandchildren will have. As a result, they seem unable to see their children, at least, having a different lifestyle from the previous generations. I think they have a very hard time seeing their children going to college, much less having some kind of high paying white collar job after graduating from college. Even among the white blue collar voters that Clinton and the pundits call vital to winning a general election, the Republicans have owned the white male voters since Richard Nixon's election in 1968. Both Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton lost it in their victorious years. Hillary Clinton's claim of winning the white blue collar voters is questionable at best. The rural voters hold more traditional social values, which mean in a general election, they tend to go Republican. Clinton's most reliable electorate would be the Hispanics because the Hispanics have a lot of social and economic conflicts with the African American community. Furthermore, they are very fond of Bill Clinton's presidency. As for people over 65, they tend to be more risk adverse and go for the sure thing. Again, a fairly reliable Clinton electorate given that they are prone to scare tactics. Remember, in the 1996 election, then-President Bill Clinton used the Republican endorsement of privatisation of Social Security to scare the seniors into re-electing Bill Clinton for a second term. As for Sen. Clinton's Catholic votes in Pennsylvania, they are responsible for putting Rick Santorum, an ardent arch-Conservative, into the Senate. That should be anyone's tell-tale sign as to their reliability. Furthermore, the Catholic Church openly opposes any pro-choice candidate, like Clinton, given the endorsement from organisations like the National Organisation of Women for her pro-choice stance. Her Catholic support in Pennsylvania would probably go Republican in November.

In short, Hillary Clinton's appeal is very narrow and, in some cases, belongs on the economically endangered species list. In contrast, Obama appeals to the young colour-blind voters, the affluent voters, the African Americans and the liberals. His candidacy has disproved, to a very large degree, two widely-held beliefs. Firstly, most young people simply do not participate in politics. In the process, he has created a new class of white voters - the white college kids - for future Democratic candidates. The appeal to college kids certainly has that belief turned on its head. Second, the affluent tends to vote Republican. Many exist polls in most states seems to suggest Obama a firm grip on it. It is not just Berkshire Hathaway's Chairman Warren Buffet, the billionaire investor, who is supporting both Clinton and Obama. In Obama's case, people making over $150,000 a year is flocking to his banner.

At the end of the day, Sen. Clinton's politics as usual approach cannot carry the college kids in the sort of numbers to offset her traditional social value blue collar Democratic votes, should they go Republican in November. Worse, her comments about super-delegates overturning the will of the people simply because she is the candidate who can carry the "critical" white blue collar voters will alienate African Americans and the college kids en mass, which may result in Republican control of both the White House and Capitol Hill for the next 100 years. I mean who will vote for a Party which allows elected officials and Party activists to overturn the will of the people whenever a Clinton wishes to run for office. In this case, the Democrats might as well just tell African Americans that no African American can be a Presidential nominee if a white American is interested and until and unless the Republicans have successfully put an African American in the White House.

Welcome to the New Democratic Party.