By David Avella | Fox New Opinion
March 2, 2020
Democrats are on the verge of a lose-lose situation. And, it’s one that they are bringing on themselves. Democratic socialist Bernie Sanders is both the front runner and the focal point for what is likely to transpire.
The question for Democrats is: Just what can be done to keep both the activist base and the Party elites and establishment happy? Not much, it would appear.
On March 3, also known as “Super Tuesday,” voters in 14 states and one U.S. territory will elect their choice for the Democratic Party’s nominee.
More than one-third of the delegates to the Democratic Convention will be decided on Tuesday. Is there a single person who believes anyone other than Bernie Sanders will be solidly in first place after the votes are counted on Tuesday night?
There is no question that former Vice President Joe Biden won an impressive victory in South Carolina on Saturday night. Yet, it remains to be seen if Biden can build on that win in any meaningful manner. At this point, would you truly rather be Biden than Sanders?
The New York Times reports that “interviews with dozens of Democratic Party officials, including 93 automatic delegates, formerly known as superdelegates, found overwhelming opposition to handing Mr. Sanders the nomination if he fell short of a majority of delegates.” Overwhelming opposition? Remarkable.
More than once in this election cycle these voters have made known their contempt and disgust for how insiders operated in 2016 when they did all within their power to block Sanders and nominate Hillary Clinton. At least, in 2016, Clinton received more primary votes than Sanders.
Democrats have roundly and consistently denounced the Electoral College as being unfair because it allows for the possibility that the winner of the raw vote in a presidential election will not ultimately prevail.
How ironic would it be for Democrats to now turn to their automatic delegates in the second round of voting at the convention to overturn the will of their own voters?
The Democratic nominee would then be the choice of the Party’s elites and establishment — everyone from former presidents and federal politicians to big-money donors, mayors, labor bosses and longtime local party officials – not voters.
On the first ballot, only the 3,979 pledged delegates will get a vote. If nobody has a majority on that ballot, 771 superdelegates become part of the process, starting with the second ballot. That means this more than 16 percent of the new total of 4,750 delegates will become a noticeable factor in deciding who wins the party’s nomination.
It would be wrong to view this dilemma as somehow revealing a character flaw on the part of Democrats.
They simply have no good choices.
It is hard to argue that the self-interest of Democrats fighting for their own political lives in congressional districts across the country is unreasonable or without logic.
“Medicare-for-all,” no repayment of college debt, and the Green New Deal might thrill the party’s activist base, but for someone representing a district in Pennsylvania where fracking has generated jobs, hope and a future, these ideas are dead losers.
At the same time, pretending that individuals, who have expended a huge amount of time and effort to put their candidate in first place as measured by every standard that ordinarily counts, will not be outraged if the very definition of the inside establishment undoes their victories at the ballot box is simply folly.
Having their benevolent betters decide they know better than all those who took the time to attend caucuses or cast a ballot is bound to result in hard feelings.
Whether those who are disappointed will return to the fold and vote for the party’s nominee in November or decide they have no desire to support what they view as a corrupt process by staying home is a legitimate and open question.
For Democrats, there just might not be any good options available on the best way forward in the months ahead.