Doom and gloom
March 5, 2008
It’s hard to see how the results last night aren’t a unmitigated disaster for the Democratic Party. Having previously lost eight hundred primaries in a row, there’s no way that Hillary Clinton can win the nomination. Having won Ohio and Texas last night, there’s no way that she can plausibly drop out of the race.
Given those constraints, the option most conducive to success in the fall would be for Obama and Clinton to run exclusively positive campaigns, emphasizing the benefits of their own policy proposals, and contrasting them with John McCain’s. Generate a few more months of positive press coverage and free media, and then go to the convention after a close-fought contest in which Obama is the clear winner.
The option we’re most likely to see, though, is a barrage of negative campaigning. More of the fearmongering, more attempts to contrast McCain favorably to Obama, more of the “can’t be trusted” stuff.
From Clinton’s point of view, it’s perfectly understandable. She wants to be the president, and the only way she can get there from here is by destroying Barack Obama. The likelihood of success is very close to zero, but if she drops out, the likelihood of success is zero. So she keeps going.
From the point of view of those of us primarily concerned with electing a liberal president, however, the likelihood of success decreases the more Clinton keeps attacking Obama, not on policy differences, but on character issues. Thanks for nothing, Ohio.
If there’s any way to lose an election when the opposing party’s president has an approval rating of 19%, and the opposing nominee is a grumpy old man whose only policy proposal is to keep his predecessor’s war going on forever, you can count on the Democrats to figure it out.
March 5th, 2008 at 5:31 pm
While I agree with most of what you said, I think Obama is mostly to blame for his losses. Pull up the youtube videos in Ohio and Texas since the Wisconsin primary, and things pretty much sound the same. I’m all for change, and having someone who’s not entrenched in party politics in the White House, but he really has to put a little more meat on his bones. She’s been talking about specifics (not many, but more than him) and then criticizing him for not having much. When he doesn’t respond to that criticism, which isn’t like totally out-of-bounds, I think it hurts him. He could do both, have sound political goals and soaring oratory, and he’s certainly got the money to hire smart people who can come up with those things.
Oh, and in response to your last post, she does have an annoying habit of dismissing the states she didn’t win as irrelevant. The one thing she has is that the states she won were big ones, states you need in the national election.
Personally, I’d be fine with Hillary in the White House. What scares me is I don’t think most of the country is with me on that. From that point of view, I really hope Obama can punch it up a little bit. Though if he does, where does he do it? Pennsylvania? Wyoming? I agree with you, how can this possibly end?
March 6th, 2008 at 9:57 am
I get the sense that Obama’s been off of his game since Wisconsin. Obviously, losing primaries will make it look like you’re off your game even if you’re not, but the Obama campaign — even leading up to Tuesday, when they were persistently closing the gap in the polls, albeit by not enough — didn’t really have an effective response to the NAFTA thing, or the phone call thing, or the McCain-is-better thing, and he looked pretty ineffective.
I noticed in the run-up to Wisconsin that he was putting a lot more policy substance into his speeches, but (maybe it’s because I haven’t listented to the speeches themselves lately, and only seen the press coverage) he seems to have trimmed that back lately. I’m not sure why.
He needs to get back on the horse.
March 6th, 2008 at 8:00 pm
Hillary is the one candidate who could get me to vote for Nader, as I don’t see much substantive difference in actions between her and McCain. Different rhetoric, but that’s not enough. On the other hand, the thought of her as veep has a certain vindictive satisfaction. It wouldn’t make up for Cheney, but it would still be a dirty little pleasure.
March 7th, 2008 at 4:45 pm
What Scott said. Her Iraq vote lost me any chance of support in the primary. Her campaign, if she succeeds, turns me toward Nader in the general.
March 7th, 2008 at 5:20 pm
The shortcomings and illiberalism of her campaign notwithstanding, I would much prefer HRC to Nader, who would seriously contest George Bush’s title of Worst President Ever. Stubborn, monomaniacal petulance is as damning on the left as it is on the right.
March 7th, 2008 at 11:10 pm
I don’t know but I think any one of them three will definatly challenge Jimmy Carter for the Title you just gave President Bush but then again we do look at things differently.