There is one huge conclusion to draw now that the 2008 Democratic Primary Season is over. And I'm bolding this for emphasis, because I believe it's the starting point of any Post-Primary, Pre-Gen Election analysis going forward...
THE ESTABLISHMENT CANDIDATE LOST
Why am I emphasizing this? Because it never happens. Here are the establishment candidates and some of the insurgents of the last 25 years...
1984 EST: Mondale INS: Hart & Jackson
1988 EST: Dukakis INS: Jackson, Babbitt & Gore
1992 EST: Clinton INS: Psongas & Brown
2000 EST: Gore INS: Bradley
2004 EST: Kerry INS: Dean
2008 EST: Hillary INS: Obama & Edwards
Note, the establishment candidate is usually defined very early in the race and almost always is very pro-business (think DLC or the Massachusetts Miracle), or a longtime pol such as Mondale and Gore. They have the money and organizational advantages early in the race, and once they have the winning imprimatur, they attract even more money.
Follow me over the fold for the implications of this conclusion...
So... we're in new territory. An insurgent candidate has won the Democratic Primary. What does it mean? I will try to break this down into a few different points.
- The establishment candidate is the inevitable candidate. When the establishment candidate wins, everyone agrees that it was inevitable. The advantage of this is that it removes uncertainty. Uncertainty is a contributing factor to dis-unity.
- This point follows from (1), but when there is little or no uncertainty, there is little or no Monday morning quarterbacking. Not a lot of "what if's" or "what happened's". Again, this allows Democrats across the spectrum to move relatively quickly in sizing up their own support for the establishment candidate. Everyone's favorite insurgent did a helluva job, but it was a Sisyphian task to begin with so let's not waste time looking backward.
- The establishment candidate is the most electable candidate from the get-go. When he/she wins we can put aside all arguments of electability because the most electable won. When an insurgent wins, we're bound to get stalled wondering if we did, indeed, select the most electable candidate.
- The establishment candidate is the best known candidate. Most of the time he/she had the highest name recognition at the beginning of the Primary season, and definitely is the most known by the end of the Primary season. When an insurgent wins, many are still left with a vague sense that they still don't fully know the nominee.
- Following from (4), Democrats have gotten to know the insurgent nominee, but it's very likely that name recognition and knowledge amongst Independents and Republicans will remain lower. Generally, the opposition knows the establishment candidate quite well, and often doesn't fully know the insurgent even after the full Primary season.
Okay... so what can we glean from these points. First, we'll never remove all uncertainty. Hillary supporters and even some Edwards supporters will never be convinced that we selected a nominee who can win in November. To go forward with the assumption of certainty is pure folly. We have to fight for Hillary and Edwards voters all of the way to the end.
Second, some National and State polls will undoubtedly continue to show stronger support for the defeated establishment candidate, due to continuing higher name recognition and knowledge, as well as the aforementioned uncertainty. We can pretty much bank on a much higher level of "undecideds" amongst self-identified Democrats, in every poll, all of the way until the General Election. More uncertainty. Get used to it.
Third, attention to the needs of traditional and hard core Democrats will need to be addressed going forward. They cannot be forgotten at any time, as the insurgent goes head to head with the Republican in attracting moderates and independents. By selecting the insurgent we made a trade off. Yes, we attract many new and young voters who are highly motivated. But we cannot assume that we have all traditional Democrats. Obama supporters need to understand that his selection was not all good from an electoral standpoint. He is not afforded the luxury of running to the middle that any establishment candidate has after winning the Primary.
----------
I conclude this with the rationale for my diary in the first place. If you listen to folks at TalkLeftand MyDD, you will see much concern around electability, uncertainty, and recent polls showing Hillary has a better electoral map.
Listen to these folks! Their concerns are real.
But I hope in starting this Post Primary Analysis, we can look at why these things are happening. What's the logic behind these things? How do we best approach electability arguments, electoral maps and uncertainty? How do we best approach unity?
The first step is to recognize that we did something entirely unexpected. We picked the insurgent. Let's not make the mistake going forward that this selection puts us on easy street in the general election.