The problem facing the Democrats isn't exactly the one raised by Kevin Drum and debated here and here and here - the problem of 1968, that is, in which a long and nasty intra-party battle fatally weakens the eventual Democratic nominee going into the general election. It won't: There's just too much going for the Democrats this year for the election not to remain eminently winnable no matter what happens (well, within reason) between here and the convention. Rather, the problem is that the party is losing a golden opportunity to try to put the race away early, the way Bill Clinton more or less did with Bob Dole in 1996 - by using their enormous fundraising advantage to rebrand John McCain as a Dole-style loser while he's still struggling to get his money-raising operation up to par. As Patrick Ruffini suggested earlier this week, if Obama had finished off Hillary last night he could have been up with anti-McCain ads all over the country immediately, forcing the GOP to play defense in places it usually owns all through the summer. Whereas the longer the race goes on, the less leverage the Dems' fundraising edge gives them, and the lower the chances that they can make it get late early for McCain through sheer dollar-power alone.
« Point-Counterpoint | Main | Strategery »
'68 or '96?
05 Mar 2008 04:27 pm
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://rossdouthat.theatlantic.com/cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.cgi/19763
Comments (14)
Good question Noah!
Noah: shhh!
Yeah and there's nothing stopping the DNC, Moveon.org, etc. from starting the process of rebranding McCain right now. And in fact they are beginning to do so.
Unfortunately the "change" candidate did not "finish" her , as you so politely put it. Deal with the here and now not the "if only".
Noahs got it right, but maybe after Pennsylvania.
If the Clintons steal the election at this point a whole lot of Dems can just pack their bags when African Americans stay home in November.
Obama would be smart to claim victory soon, but April may work.
How wrong you are. This, if anything, is far worse than 1968. We have a situation where the party's two most reliable constituencies are on the cusp of long-held ambitions. There's also essentially no way Obama can end the race with fewer delegates than Clinton or fewer votes for that matter.
So if you go into Denver with Obama 50 delegates ahead and 150,000 votes ahead, many in the country will see that the dream could be achieved. But then the Clintons--the powers that be--come in and steal the nomination with Super Delegates. This unleashes a three fold problem.
Blacks feeling taken for granted. Even if Obama is put on the ticket--and he'd be a fool to accept that--blacks will hear this as being told to "shut up and go to the back of the bus." Many will respond by saying, "I'll just walk instead." If the race deck hadn't be thrown, maybe you'd be right, but Clinton has napalmed bridges in the black community. And turnout will be extraordinarily low for her if she's the nominee.. You can't win OH and PA without black support. Second, it unleashes the problem of cynicism in young voters--who poured their hearts and soul into Obama's campaign to have the party say, "Sorry, change will have to wait 8 years." Their activism and their donations will go down the drain. Many of both groups will either vote for McCain or stay home--because McCain's not that scare and because they know Obama would be the nominee in waiting if Clinton loses this time.
If Obama wins, we've got similar problems. Feminist women feel that it should be their turn first. And they'll be disheartend. Obama needs a person with military experience. But the obvious choice--Jim Webb--is hated by feminist groups. Perhaps he could put Sebelius on the ticket with him, but that still doesn't solve his national security problem. (This is how Clinton IS destroying our chances).
So no matter who wins, we've got a situation where one of the two most important constituencies in the party is feeling peeved and aggrieved. It's a disaster of profound proportions. Especially with Obama, you cannot have a candidate receive the most votes, win the most states and win the most delegates and then be thrown the bone of being VP by party insiders and being told to wait for 8 years. That's completely ridiculous, and it'd cause a mass walk-out in Denver. The only thing that MIGHT placate the party is a public one-term pledge from Clinton. That MIGHT work, but I doubt it.
Leave it to Democrats to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. Our only hope: Hillary Clinton realizes that she can't win, cuts a deal with Obama, and drops out on Tuesday.
The first commentator hit it right on the head. Obama should go after McCain in *response* to Clinton's 3 AM add. He may be able to attack Clinton without appearing to do so, by contrasting his own position and judgment to McCain, and by taking McCain to task for his double-talk on lobbying interests, etc.
Ross,
You may be right, but there's another dynamic to consider. Senator Clinton needs a knock out, and she can't do it at the polls. That means she has to play dirty. Will she? Probably. Can she succeed? We'll see. And she's got to do it sooner rather than later. If the war drags on into summer, both will be badly damaged.
Look- Obama's going to win if he finishes with the most Pledged Delegates, which he will, because the Supers understand that nominating the person with less polular vote and pledged delegates will be a disaster, not only at the top of the ticket, but ALL THE WAY DOWN THE TICKET. Look, this nasty fight could cost us the Presidency, but it won't cost us the House and Senate if no one thinks it was "stolen". After all, a lot of the Supers ARE on the ballot down ticket. They ain't gonna want to surpress turnout in their own race that way.
Blacks feeling taken for granted. Even if Obama is put on the ticket--and he'd be a fool to accept that--blacks will hear this as being told to "shut up and go to the back of the bus." Many will respond by saying, "I'll just walk instead." If the race deck hadn't be thrown, maybe you'd be right, but Clinton has napalmed bridges in the black community. And turnout will be extraordinarily low for her if she's the nominee.. You can't win OH and PA without black support.
As a Black woman, thank you for pointing this out, because I read folks like Harold Ickes, spouting delusions that ' well, there will be hurt feelings, but it'll be made up by November', as well as the Governor of Maryland.
They are in a word, DELUSIONAL.
Barack Obama has played by the rules.
IF
At the end of this,
1. He has more pledged delegates
And, they STEAL it for Hillary Clinton,
The damage between the Democratic Party and the Black community will be of catastrophic proportions.
I have an immediate family of 12. All of us loyal Democrats who have only missed elections due to illness. We vote primaries and generals, no matter what.
ONLY 2 will vote for Hillary Clinton.
2.
I do not believe my family is ordinary.
The Superdelegate situation is being discussed in the barber shops, the beauty shops, the coffee shops, and after Bible study - i.e., the common man and woman on the street - the ones who never get the headlines but do most of the working and living in the Black community. And, those dependable votes that no Democrat can win without.
If this is stolen from Obama.
You better get used to saying President McCain.
"And in fact they are beginning to do so."
They're beginning to *try.* We'll see how well it works.
hkyzco dkrwot spuzcbgv kzhitxry tzlwkis uzjshi rvkondai
hkyzco dkrwot spuzcbgv kzhitxry tzlwkis uzjshi rvkondai
| 
Grand New Party: How Republicans Can Win the Working Class and Save the American Dream
Privilege: Harvard and the Education of the Ruling Class
Why doesn't Obama go up with anti-McCain ads now anyway?
Seriously: he's got the money. He's got the time. And to the extent that Clinton is using the same talking points as McCain (red phone and all that), it doesn't even take him particularly off-message. Indeed, to that extent that McCain responds, it provides him multiple "teachable moments" to point out how similar McCain's and Clinton's attacks on him are. That's not good for Clinton, I should think.
Moreover, the biggest Democratic Party concern about Obama has got to be: how does he play in the general? If he can draw some McCain blood between now and the convention, that should help him win over superdelegates more than attacking Hillary Clinton will. And if he can start shaping the general election message in ways that suit him more than Clinton, that should similarly make it more natural for on-the-fence superdelegates to ratify his candidacy rather than listen to Clinton's moral claims.
Seriously: what else is he going to do with the money? Buy a new car for every superdelegate?
Posted by Noah Millman | March 5, 2008 5:07 PM