They reap what they sow.

At the 1980 Democrat convention, Jimmy Carter survived a very close nomination battle with Ted Kennedy, only to lose the general election. Rather than accept the truth, that Ronald Reagan was an immensely capable politician while Carter an immensely incapable one, Democrat Party officials jumped to a very undemocratic conclusion: you just can't trust the voters to do the right thing.

And so, determined to increase the odds that the party chooses an electable nominee, the party bigwigs created superdelegates, who comprise approximately 20% of the people who will choose the Democrat nominee this year. These 800-odd individuals have the power to overturn the votes of millions of Democrat voters spread over all fifty states. Who are these superdelegates, these undemocratic party elite?

According to The Politico, half of the superdelegates are white men, which is surprising given that white men only comprise 28% of the Democrat Party. Men overall make up 64% of the superdelegates, again surprising given that only 45% of the party membership is male. This, from a party that trumpets with pride and smug superiority that its leading contenders this cycle are a white woman and a black man, as if race or gender are better qualifiers than character and experience.

Now, with it clear that neither Obama nor Clinton will earn enough pledged delegates in the remaining contests to lock up the nomination, the choice will lie in the hands of these 800-odd party elite, each of whom holds a vote equivalent to roughly 10,000 actual Democrat primary voters. Delegates will go into Denver with teeth set on edge, and the opposing campaigns will be there with plans and maneuvers aplenty. The Democrat convention will be, for once, must-see TV.

All hell will break lose in Denver. The superdelegates will be told by the Clinton campaign that she is the most electable candidate because she has been vetted, because she won the big, important states, because she might well have the delegate and vote leads if Michigan and Florida delegations had been seated, because she has more experience, and because the "Republican attack machine" will go after Obama for his past drug use and his allegiance to a pastor who hates white people. The Obama campaign will answer that he holds the lead in pledged delegates and the popular vote, that being First Lady is less valuable experience than being a state senator, that he is much more talented at using lofty, inspiring rhetoric, and that Clinton is a proven liar who often seems to be handling the gears of the so-called Republican attack machine.

And the difficulty is that they will both be right. While they are attempting in good faith to ascertain the best nominee for their party, delegates will be reminded that being "pledged" doesn't really mean anything, and now that they are actually at the Convention they are capable of doing absolutely anything they want. They will then be barraged with a series of manipulative floor maneuvers designed to sway delegates away from one candidate and towards another. The very party platform will likely face upheaval, as various resolutions and planks are proposed that blatantly pander to key Democrat constituencies. To attract women delegates, the Obama campaign may call for the long-dead Equal Rights Amendment. To attract minority delegates, the Clinton campaign may introduce a resolution calling for a national apology for slavery. And, pressed to deny their opponents a victory at all costs, each campaign will instruct their loyal delegates to vote down the proposals.

Stressed by these obvious attempts at vote-buying and constant lobbying, bothered immensely by being told to vote down proposals they usually strenuously defend, and secure only in the knowledge that the elitist superdelegates will just make the decision for them, the regular delegates elected by the little people back home will be very, very unhappy. Emotions will be raw and nerves on edge. Tempers will rise, and more than one fight will likely break out on the convention floor. At the end, women will head for Clinton, blacks will head for Obama, and it will be the white male superdelegates who make the final determination.

Women and blacks are the two biggest constituencies of the party, and one of those groups is all but certain to be alienated in Denver. Significant percentages of the supporters of whichever campaign loses in the end will either stay home in November or vote for McCain, and that's especially true for fans of Clinton. Further, this will represent the greatest opportunity for the GOP to expand its registration in nearly thirty years, as resentful, angry Democrats turn away from the party that spurned the candidate that looks and sounds most like them. If Clinton is the nominee, swing states with significant numbers of blacks will move towards McCain. If Obama is the nominee, as appears nearly certain, every large state will go Republican as women vote GOP.

This exact scenario happened before with different players, with a different dynamic. It was between a northern Democrat, part of the party elite and from a well-known family, and a southern good 'ol boy who turned the establishment on its head. The southerner won the nomination, the northerner literally turned his back to the nominee on stage, the resulting split did not heal for a decade, and the Republican won 44 states in a landslide.

The year was 1980. The candidates were Jimmy Carter and Ted Kennedy, and the Republican was an affable westerner named Ronald Reagan. This was the situation that superdelegates were supposed to fix, were supposed to ensure never happened again. Just as the Democrats place inordinate faith in government's abilities to make better decisions than individuals, they have placed inordinate faith in their party elite to make better decisions than their voters. Between their superdelegates and their absurdly complicated proportional delegate assignments, they've set themselves up for a disastrous convention and a likely loss in November.

They reap what they sow.

The Republican candidates are all promising to cut taxes, and the new leader of the pack, John McCain, is also promising to do what George Bush didn't, and cut spending.  Meanwhile, the surge in Iraq that McCain pushed for last year is undeniably working.  Sectarian violence is down, American casualties have become much less frequent, and the Iraqis are slowly but steadily taking control over their own country.  Though I still believe the war to have been a tremendous error, I am relieved to see a safer environment for our troops and for the Iraqi people, and the light seems to be visible at the end of the tunnel. 

The war in Iraq is going well, and the economy is hitting the skids.  The campaign plan the Democrats used so successfully in 2006 is no longer valid, as the political ground is shifting beneath them.  It now appears very likely, though far from inevitable, that the Democrats will nominate the candidate surest to drive Republicans to the polls in droves.  Later this summer, then, history may well repeat itself in the form of a Mondale moment: a Democrat will take a stage and either contradict all statements she's made to this point, or be forced to admit she intends to raise taxes.  A Republican will promise to cut spending and let taxpayers keep their money.  And the voters will respond as they should: in their best interests.