Dems have a damaging, protracted fight on their hands
By Soren Dayton Posted in 2008 | Barack Obama | Democratic Party | Hillary Clinton — Comments (9) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
I have a couple of thoughts about the impact of yesterday's blowout by Barack Obama over, primarily, Hillary Clinton. The Nutroots, who hate Clinton anyways, are already touting Obama's win as a "new generation tak[ing] charge". And there's some logic to that. As if to emphasize that point, Hillary was standing there with Madeline Albright, Bill Clinton, Terry McAuliffe, and Wesley Clark, all Dem leaders from the 90s, almost a decade ago. The Dems picked generational change, and Hillary is touting "back to the future." The establishment wants their power, and they are going to fight for it. Both the length and the brutality of the fight help the GOP in November.
More after the jump.
This morning I talked to Danny Diaz, the RNC's Communications Director and he correctly pointed out that there aren't that many differences between the Democrat candidates on the major issues. They are "all for higher taxes, a huge government healthcare plan, surrendering in the War on Terror, and defunding our troops."
The upshot is that the Dems are going to have a long primary with two very well funded candidates. The Clintonistas will only give up their power when it is taken from their cold, dead hands. I mean, can you imagine her losing one more race and dropping out? They will tear up Obama, and he will respond tearing her up. And everything that they do will reinforce why Democrats and independents don't like her. At the same time, both are going to have to run to the left. As Danny pointed out, "the longer it goes on and more liberal positions that they are forced to embrace, the better for us in the general."
Regardless of the question of who we face, our chances in the general just got a lot better. In all cases, the Democratic base will be more split up, and the candidates will be damaged by the nastiness.
Good analysis, as always , Moe..but you neglected to take it to the logical conclusion..
Obviously, the majority fo the anti-Clinton Dems have coalesced around/embraced Obama..therefore Hillary has to take him out, by any means necessary, in the next 30 days. So she'll pull out all the stops...She may fail, which gives Obama the nomination..but if she succeeds, or even manages to weaken him..then Edwards can pick up the pieces. He is relentlessly on his message..and it plays to the Dem base. I look for him to ignore both Obama and Hillary..
Further benefit..Hillary may well fatally wound Obama for the general election..
...if we want to have any serious chance. Barack Obama would be an absolute disaster for us.
“.....women and minorities hardest hit”
Are you just thinking that he's got "it" more than anybody else -- and we all know what "it" is, though we'd have a hard time defining it.
He's got that emotional connection thing going on -- the same thing we've seen from the likes of Reagan, WJC, JFK, etc.?
I'm not saying you're wrong, necessarily. It could well be that Barack Obama is our worst nightmare. But the number that most jumped out at me last night (although I think it can be dangerous to read too much into any of the results from Iowa) is that Obama's strength was primarily from young voters. HRC and Edwards both did better among older voters.
Well, he'd really have to make history to ride a wave of youth all the way to the White House. Because, typically, those voters will leave you at the alter. They just don't show up in terribly strong numbers on election day.
But, you say, "They did in Iowa!" And you're right about that -- but do you realize that the Iowa caucus only gets about 20% participation? And that's in a high year (which this one was). How many more young voters will show up when participation is in the range of 55% of voting age population, as it is on presidential election days?
Obama may well get elected -- but he's going to have to defy history to do so. For starters, the winner of competitive Iowa caucuses almost never goes on to be president. Two, we all know how rare it is to elect sitting legislators to the presidency -- and how much more rare to elect somebody who's never held an executive position of any kind. Three, HRC could (if she needs to) get awfully nasty. And she will do it, if it comes to that.
If she does, it will harm the Democratic Party in general. And does anybody doubt that she'd put her own interests above those of her party?
I tend to think that Barack and Hillary are probably on par as far as competitiveness in the generals. Edwards would be easier to beat as he is so far to the left.
Adam B.
The upshot is that the Dems are going to have a long primary with two very well funded candidates. The Clintonistas will only give up their power when it is taken from their cold, dead hands. I mean, can you imagine her losing one more race and dropping out? They will tear up Obama, and he will respond tearing her up. And everything that they do will reinforce why Democrats and independents don't like her. At the same time, both are going to have to run to the left. As Danny pointed out, "the longer it goes on and more liberal positions that they are forced to embrace, the better for us in the general."
I'm not confident that this is correct: Thus far, Clinton's attacks have been met with Obama's redirection -- a kind of political aikedo that really hasn't been seen in a (winning) campaign before. It's not clear that, having found a tactic that works, Obama would shift gears. After all, he's selling himself as something other than politics as usual. And he's using right-wing talking points to sell his left-wing agenda, which is why it has been difficult to show that he is a very liberal Senator.
Obama is a truly dangerous candidate for the Republican party, simply because of who he is, the campaign that he's run, and how he presents his policies. He has yet be susceptible to the ordinary attacks. That may change, of course, but there is no guarantee that it will change.
Republicans have spent the campaign thus far assuming that, somehow, Hillary will be the opponent. It's a different ballgame if Obama is the candidate. If the nominees are Huckabee and Obama, who wins (other than the government)? Where do fiscons shake out in such a race? How does Romney shake out against Obama?* What about the tired old men of the party (Fred and McCain**)? And what happens if Rudy is the nominee, and is forced to go (very) negative on Obama to get out the conservative base? (Obama has been making those types of tactics backfire.)
The race in '08 just got a lot more interesting. And, per the ancient Chinese curse, that's not necessarily a good thing.
von
*I will tell you, quite candidly, that this particular fiscon really likes Obama, despite huge policy differences.
**The "tired old men," McCain and Fred, are my 1-2 choices, and (FWIW) I think that McCain has the best chance against any D nominee -- particularly if he implies a one term limit.
For we have a peculiar power of thinking before we act, and of acting, too, whereas other men are courageous from ignorance but hesitate upon reflection.
and it not have consequences. If there were any lesson from last night, their standard M.O. may not work this time. Obama, so far, hasn't taken the bait. If he can continue to do so and still pull out a victory--which I still think unlikely although it is possible--we have trouble on our hands. The best case scenario from the GOP standpoint is that Clinton uses her trademark dirt to snatch a narrow victory that leaves the Democratic Party crippled. It very well may happen.
I half heard Obama's speech last night. What did he say abotu 9/11.somehtign that "no longer will we use the mention of 9/11 to scare us"
anyone catch it..or have access to a transcript. He's nuts...
not use 9/11 to scare us but (IIRC) unite us against the threats of the 21st century - nuclear weapons, terrorism, climate change, poverty, genocide and disease.
I had the same reaction- what exactly does 9/11 have to do with climate change for example.
But hey- be happy for small progress, at least he made it through without harping about Katrina.
It's self-evident that whoever the eventual Democratic candidate is will have to make a sharp turn to the Right on national security in the general. At what point will it be cost-effective for Clinton to it in the primaries*?
Moe
*We will dispense with humoring the netroot superstition that their antiwar views are the default opinion of the American people; if their own politicians refuse to take that seriously then I see no reason why we should.
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC.I've been usurped!