Pandering Still Works for Democrats
Hillary’s 50-point win in South Carolina illustrates the point.
Democrats witnessed the most effective tool of their political party’s existence work its magic Saturday night in the South Carolina primary as Hillary Clinton rolled to a near-50-point shellacking of the “revolutionary” Bernie Sanders. All this while another trove of her emails was released Friday, as was a document discovery regarding her role in Benghazi. Lesson learned: identity politics draped in pandering works for Democrats.
We’ve all heard it before when Hillary has campaigned in the South — her lilting, sing-song verbal attempt to be a cross between Rev. Al Sharpton and one of the Hee Haw gang. Poor Sanders knows only one tune, regardless of audience. For the old socialist, it’s always “free stuff” and “income inequality” with broad strokes of oppression, versus the skillful application of the politics of racial division that fuel the engine of the Democrats. And Clinton is a master of divisive pandering.
Despite her insanely high negatives that are anchored with identifiers such as “liar,” “dishonest,” “untrustworthy” and even “criminal” in a recent poll, Clinton has the black vote locked up. In the South Carolina, the black turnout in the Democrat primary increased from 55% to 61% according to exit polls.
But what a difference two election cycles make. In 2008, Barack Obama won 78% of the black vote with Clinton getting only 19%. Hillary bested Obama’s take by winning 84% of Saturday’s black vote compared to the measly 16% garnered by Sanders.
Bernie’s winning crowd remains the under-30 demographic, but the entire voting bloc for the South Carolina Dems included only 15% of that youthful group. Not only is “The Bern” a cult following of the youth, there’s no argument: Bernie Sanders doesn’t speak Southern. But, astoundingly, Hillary won 51-49% in exit polling among voters voting for the “honest and trustworthy” candidate. In what alternate universe do they live?
With the popular vote clearly swinging to Clinton’s column in South Carolina, and with other southern states expected to mirror this performance, the delegate count is seriously hampering Sanders’ hopes. Part of the problem is the Democrats’ rigged use of “super delegates” to favor the “Establishment” pick.
Democrats award 80% of their 4,050 convention delegates through the primary and caucus process. These delegates arrive at the DNC convention pledged to a candidate. The remaining 20% are super delegates, or party bosses and elected elites whose power is entrenched with protecting the partisan Establishment from “outsiders.” To become the nominee of the Democrat National Committee, a candidate must win a minimum of 2,025 delegates.
Introduction of “super delegates” came into the Democrat Party in the early 1980s to “balance the wishes of rank-and-file voters with the party’s need to nominate electable candidates,” as noted in a February review from Democracy Now! More directly, Dr. David Rhode of Duke University observed, “The reason that the Democrats adopted the super delegate plan was really because of the possibility of insurgent candidates, not for their own sake, but insurgent candidates who might not be successful in general elections.”
Clearly, if pandering to the electorate through identity politics and division happens to be unsuccessful, the DNC has crafted its nominating process to be heavily influenced — if not outright controlled — by the party bosses whose vocation it is to reign, not serve.
This practice is pretty distasteful to some within the party. Just Sunday, Hawaii’s U.S. Representative Tulsi Gabbard resigned her elected party position as vice chairman of the DNC. Gabbard declared, “I am resigning from the DNC so I can support Bernie Sanders for president” after months of internal strife that exposed a very concerted and coordinated effort of the national political organization to coronate Clinton.
Bloomberg Politics has an ongoing scorecard of the Democrat Delegates that features an embarrassing caption that sums up Hillary’s propped-up lead, as of Feb. 29. The description under the graphic reads, “Hillary Clinton: 542 (includes 452 superdelegates) Bernie Sanders: 85 (includes 20 superdelegates).”
Let’s translate. Hillary has won 90 pledged delegates. Sanders has won 65 pledged delegates. Yet, the headlines after Saturday evening’s quick pronouncement of Clinton’s win declared that her campaign was now a “national campaign” with a sense of “inevitability.” Yes, again. The runaway win of Clinton is fueled by the super delegate activity, not the actual support of the grassroots of the political Left.
Sure, Hillary Clinton excels at preaching about the contrived “war on women” (“special place in hell” and all that), complete with abortion on demand and wealth inequality. She also blames America for the problems in the world — neglecting to mention her own role in the Democrat administration that still holds the White House. Never mind all that, more specifically, the real blame for all of our nation’s problems falls on Republicans.
Sanders’ path to victory is completely dependent upon a voter base who believes the Democrat Party has betrayed them and failed the working class. Ironically, the Republican front-runner is winning on this very same pathway (without super delegates).
With the momentum in Clinton’s favor heading into Super Tuesday, “The Bern” may have cooled. Let’s see if the Republican field figures it out that voter anger is still the issue and that Obama’s third-term is a growing reality if they blow it.
Start a conversation using these share links: