Staking a 'moral claim'

In the wake of Hillary Clinton's victories in the Ohio and Texas primaries, which stymied Barack Obama's hopes of clinching the Democratic presidential nomination last week, the campaign faces a long pause before the next significant primary in Pennsylvania next month.  But another crucial, more sotto voce contest will begin this week, as both candidates seek to convince party leaders that they have a superior 'moral claim' to the nomination.

These appeals are driven by the fact that neither candidate will win enough of the delegates elected (via state primaries or caucuses) to the party’s Denver national convention in August to win the nomination.  Therefore, the battle will be decided by 'superdelegates' -- current and former politicians and other members of the party elite -- who account for just under 20% of the floor votes at the convention.  There are 794 Democratic superdelegates, but only approximately 430 have indicated which candidate they are likely to support.  The remaining 350, who have deliberately remained aloof from the primary campaign, are now the key to the nomination.

Therefore, to some extent the remaining primaries and caucuses are now merely a 'beauty contest' designed to convince this elite constituency that one candidate is clearly stronger than the other.  Most superdelegates have two overriding concerns: 'electability' and the strength of a contender's support within the party:

• The candidates must convince the superdelegates that in November they have a better chance of defeating the Republican nominee, John McCain.
• They must also reassure the party elite –- many of whom hold elected office -- that selecting them will not alienate their opponent's core supporters or fracture the Democratic coalition.

Clinton's case

Despite her victories on March 4, Clinton will likely face a more difficult task in making her case to the uncommitted superdelegates.  Barring a major electoral upheaval or implosion by Obama, she will trail her opponent by at least 100 elected delegates at the convention.  Yet she will emphasise that her 'moral claim' to the nomination is stronger, for two reasons:

• Her state election wins were 'superior' because they largely occurred in primaries (where voter turnout is much higher than in caucuses) and in large, closely-balanced swing states that the Democrats must take to capture the White House (such as Ohio).  Crucially, the validity of this argument turns on securing victory in Pennsylvania on April 22.  And it becomes more difficult to sustain the larger Obama's advantage in elected delegates becomes; he is also certain to counter by citing his victories in Missouri, Wisconsin, and Virginia.
• Her victories on March 4 have brought her within 300,000 votes of catching up with Obama in the popular vote (assuming, generously, that the unsanctioned Florida primary is eventually acknowledged by the party).  If she can overhaul him -- a difficult, but not impossible task -- her moral claim to the nomination would be much stronger.

However, barring a major reversal in current political trends, Obama is likely to enter the convention with a stronger case for the nomination, centred on his popular vote and elected delegate advantage.  Yet he will still need to go to party leaders, 'cap in hand', and actively solicit support. 

This process is laced with danger for the Democrats, particularly the eventual nominee.  For it is easy to imagine the core supporters of one of the contenders becoming outraged and alienated by the process.  The party has a suicidal affinity for 'identity politics', which is anathema to US moderates and independent voters.  Blatant appeals for gender or racial solidarity are likely to be savagely punished in the November election, as are efforts to drum up support by emphasising 'relative victimhood' of one's group.  Moral claims couched in such rhetoric will simply boost the Republican nominee, John McCain.