Last night was bad news for the Democratic Party. This isn't because Obama lost, or because Clinton won. It has more to do with McCain winning. The Republicans are done. Those that don't like McCain are coming along, and starting to cope with him as their candidate. Their table is set.
The Democrats, though, are in turmoil. They are divided right down the middle. And the bickering is going to continue for seven weeks, leading up to Pennsylvania, and probably beyond. The party is going to stay divided all the way to the convention, giving the Democrats four months to get past the nominating process and rally behind the nominee.
The Republicans, though, have begun their healing. They are getting behind their man. The Republicans will be unified, and the Democrats will be split.
The news this morning isn't bad because Clinton won or Obama lost. The news is bad because, for the first time, it is clear to me how the Republicans win in November, but I don't see how the Democrats do it.
3 comments:
JFK didn't clinch the nomination until the convention, and never had the support of great party leaders like Harry Truman and Eleanor Roosevelt (because he was "untested"). And JFK had to run against the VP of a popular administration. McCain supported W's war and economic policies down the line (ok he fussed a little about Congressional earmarks) and will have to defend the results against either Clinton or Obama.
If Obama doesn't rebound, the Democrats could win with Obama as vp on Hillary's ticket. Unlikely but....
It seems to be received wisdom that a protracted nomination fight is bad for the Democrats, but I'm still not convinced. Why should the party be united behind a nominee in March? Isn't it sufficient to be united behind the standard that the eventual nominee will bear? Even if it gets drawn out to the Convention, there will be something like 10 weeks for the nominee to go one-on-one with McCain, which is an awfully long time when you consider it's only been 8 weeks since Iowa. As of now, the eventual Democratic nominee will be getting free press through the summer, while McCain will be brushing off cobwebs and trying to figure out ways to remain relevant without spending any money. Is it so far-fetched to imagine the rusty McCain of November '08 going down like the Colorado Rockies of October '07?
The reason this race is close is because most Democrats (not me!) like both candidates, so the notion that the eventual nominee will be limping into the general election campaign strikes me as absurd. Democrats are hitting the polls in record numbers (e.g., a million more Dems voted in the TX primary than for Kerry in the 2004 general election) because the race is interesting and they really don't want another Republican administration; do we really think everyone's just going to channel A-Rod and drop the ball in the Fall?
To the extent yesterday was bad for the Democrats, it *is* because Obama lost and Hillary won. (Obama being imminently more capable of beating McCain). But as long as Obama wins the war, I'm not convinced that the Democrats suffer from it's being drawn out.
Post a Comment