Now What?

Well, after weeks of buildup, the vote this past Tuesday (supposedly such a giant win for Clinton) really amounted to a whole lotta nothing. There were about 390 delegates up for grabs on Tuesday, and Clinton netted a grand total of nine -- count 'em, nine -- delegates.

So what does all this mean, where does it stand, where is it headed? Down to the bitter freakin' end, that's where. One fact that's clear is that neither Obama nor Clinton can reach the "magic number" of 2025 delegates needed to win outright. Unless one of them starts consistently winning states with 75% victories, no one between now and the Denver convention in August will be able to claim victory. So now what? Here's what to look for over the next couple of months.

1) Florida and Michigan -- One of the main reasons that neither candidate will be able to reach 2025 delegates is because the Florida and Michigan primaries don't count this time. Why? Because the states decided, in spite of warnings of consequences from the Democratic National Committee (DNC), to arbitrarily move up the dates of their primaries to make their states more "relevant". So, the DNC decided that their primary votes would not count, and their delegates would not be seated at the convention. All candidates mutually agreed not to campaign in those states as well. In fact -- and this is important -- the only name even on the ballot in Michigan was Hillary Clinton's. No Obama, no Edwards, no anybody. All the names were on the ballot in Florida, and Clinton won there with about 55% of the vote.

Florida and Michigan have 366 delegates up for grabs between the two states. Now that Clinton is behind in the delegate race, and has no chance of overtaking Obama, she and her camp are fighting tooth and nail to make the DNC change the rules and allow the Florida and Michigan delegates to be seated, as the vote currently stands. Howard Dean, the head of the DNC, has said that's not going to happen, since that would mean changing the rules midway through the election process. They have slightly considered just calling it a wash and splitting the delegates 50/50 between the two candidates, but that's probably not going to happen either. There's the possibility of a "do-over", just holding new elections in those two states sometime in June. But that would cost about $25 million per state, and now they're arguing over who would pay for it. The states want the DNC to pay for it, which the DNC doesn't feel is their duty since the states themselves chose to break the rules. The DNC wants the states to pay for it (if the DNC agrees to it at all), but Gov. Crist of Florida has said they can't afford it, and is pushing for the Clinton argument of seating the delegates as-is (he's a Republican, and therefore wants Clinton to win) . One more strategic detail is whether the new elections would be caucuses or primaries -- so far, caucuses have favored Obama, and primaries have favored Clinton. So, as it stands, Clinton wants the delegates seated as-is, since she (technically) "won" both states, and none of the other scenarios distinctly favor her. Obama wants things to stand they way they are, with no delegates from either state being awarded, following the agreed-upon DNC rules.

Rest assured, if Clinton was ahead in the delegate count right now, she wouldn't be pushing for any mid-stream rule change. I'm on the DNC's side on this one -- the states chose to break the rules, and they have to pay the consequences that everybody already agreed upon. The Clinton people are saying that it's "unfair to the voters" of those states, that they should "have their voices heard", and all that. But the fact that Florida voters were so uninformed that they didn't know their votes weren't going to count (and some people actually showed up on Super Tuesday to vote, two weeks after their primary... numbnuts) isn't the DNC's fault. Also, if the DNC gave in to this, it would completely emasculate any future rules they make -- "Hey, you changed the rules in '08... are you saying this 2012 election isn't as important as that one?" The Democratic officials in Florida and Michigan are beholden to their citizens, and vice versa -- they knew better, they broke the rules anyway, and now the Clintons want to whine (and sue) their way into changing the rules to suit them.

By the way, I would feel the same way if Obama was behind right now. Changing the rules in the middle of the game is just sneaky and wrong. One word to say to the Clintons and their Florida and Michigan cronies -- TOUGH.

2) Superdelegates -- If you've been paying much attention to the race at all, you probably know by now that the Democrats have a system of about 795 "superdelegates" that are part of the process to decide a presidential nominee. They consist of Democratic party bigwigs -- party elders, elected party officials, and other general party poobahs, from Ted Kennedy to the young 20-something-year-old leader of the College Democrats whose name I can't remember. What's different about these people is that they can vote for whomever they want -- they don't have to vote for the same candidate their constituents elected, and they can change their mind at any time until the convention in August.

Most people find the whole superdelegate issue unsavory because it means that a close race, like the one we're in now, can be ultimately decided by a bunch of arbitrarily selected yay-hoos, through backroom deals and political promises of mutual back-scratching and hand-washing (yes, it's just as obscene as it sounds). This is in direct contrast to the truly democratic ideals of the creator of the Democratic party -- Thomas Jefferson -- who said that (and I'm paraphrasing here) even if an election is won by one single vote, then that person should be the winner, and if you select the winner any other way, you suck.

I used to think that the reason the superdelegate system existed at all was for this specific purpose, to cast final votes on close races. WRONG. The superdelegate system was put in place in 1982, after controversial primary election seasons involving McGovern in '72, and subsequent races with Ford and Carter. They basically put the system in place to keep "rogue elements" from winning the nomination through pure popularity or some other political coup. Basically, it was put in place to keep people like Stephen Colbert, for example, who ran a mock candidacy last year, from actually getting elected. It was NOT put in place for party poobahs to have the final word on the nomination, possibly going against the will of the voters, to decide close races.

Which is why there's talk of "political mutiny" if Obama wins the delegate race and Clinton steals the nomination from him through backroom deals and lawsuits. There's even the possibility of the approximate 2000 delegates that Obama will have won by then staging a complete walkout and boycott of the convention if this happens, which will cause unprecedented chaos in the party just 3 months before the general election.

On the front page of the DNC website, it says "To beat John McCain we have to be unified." Good luck with that, if the superdelegates go against the voters and decide this election for themselves.

3) Howard Dean -- How funny that Howard Dean, the guy who lost the nomination to Kerry in '04 (after his "YAAAA!!" meltdown), may be the one guy to decide who is the next President of the United States. He is the chairman of the DNC, and he will be the ultimate decision maker about the Florida and Michigan situation, as well as refereeing the superdelegate situation. He will have to broker what is fair, just, and in the best interest of the party (and ultimately the country), dealing with an extraordinary amount of pressure from many sides for the next 6 months. Does he want to deal with the possible "Obama mutiny" if he lets the superdelegates overrule the voters? Does he want to incur the wrath of the Clinton machine by sticking to the rules they already agreed upon and refusing to seat the Florida and Michigan delegates? Besides the fact that I generally can't stand Howard Dean, I really, really would not want to be Howard Dean right now.

Roger