A lot of people around the country have stood in long lines, in the rain and snow and wind and cold, to have their chance to vote for the Democratic Party's presidential nominee. A smaller (but still sizable) number of people have attended speeches and rallies and debates, or watched them on TV, or have volunteered to work for various campaigns. And everywhere, interest and participation are up, enthusiasm is high.
All of that could be undone in a single day.
The problem is the superdelegates, and the possibility that they may use the weighty power of their votes (currently running about 9300:1 to the popular vote if my numbers are in the ballpark) to overrule the popular vote. Because if that happens, then this statement by Mark Penn (senior strategist for the Clinton campaign):
"Whoever the nominee is, the party will come together behind that nominee."
(from Clinton counts on superdelegates)
is dead wrong.
It's dead wrong for two reasons: first, it's relatively unimportant if the "party comes together" -- the party has come together before and managed to lose elections. Sheesh, they lost to Bush after he spent four years proving that he's a first-rate moron. So "coming together", while a very nice friendly sentiment, doesn't really mean squat when it comes to winning the presidency.
Second -- and this is way more important -- all those people out there who have been energized by this campaign, and who are either participating for the first time, or the first time in long time, might stay energized even if their candidate comes out with fewer delegates at the end of the primaries. They understand that if you lose fair and square, then...you lose. But they will not understand if their candidate comes out with more delegates yet loses the nomination due to the superdelegate vote.
Because they're not -- yet -- part of the Democratic party. They may never be. They are, however, voters. And if they think their vote -- the vote they cast after standing in line for hours in the cold -- counted for nothing, then they will stay away in droves. And they will not join the party, figuratively or literally. And they will not listen to parliamentary justifications and protestations that it didn't involve back-room deals. And the repercussions of this will be felt way beyond November 2008 -- the Democratic party could lose an entire generation of voters.
I know this not because I've been reading the blogosphere; I know this because I've been doing a little work here in Maryland. Among other things, I was out in that storm last night until after 7, walking (actually sliding) the streets trying to get the vote out. And in the process of doing this, I talked to a LOT of people who are discovering or rediscovering their political selves -- especially people 18-25. I haven't seen this much interest since I fell into that demographic -- and we were trying to bring down Nixon. So this represents an incredible resource, but one that could evaporate just as quickly as it's coalesced.
Don't screw this up, Mr. Dean et.al. Because the record turnouts you've been enjoying (in MD yesterday, Clinton came within 3500 votes of accumulating more than all Republicans combined -- 278K vs 281K. And Obama crushed that with 457K) are not being generated by "the party", and they will not "come together behind the nominee" if their choice loses the wrong way.