Are you worried about a divisive primary? I am.
Are you fearful about the opposition getting a head start when our guy/gal should be running away with this? I am.
Do you think we are in serious danger of losing what we should otherwise be winning? I am.
But before we hit the panic button and start cussing out our primary rivals (ahem..the Clinton campaign). Let's take a short trip (16 years to be exact) down memory lane courtsey of the NY times
POLL SHOWS PEROT GAINING STRENGTH TO RIVAL CLINTON'S
Highlihts from article below
Asked how they would vote if the election were held today, 23 percent of registered voters said they would back Mr. Perot, 28 percent Mr. Clinton and 38 percent Mr. Bush. A month ago, Mr. Perot was at 16 percent, Mr. Clinton at 31 percent and Mr. Bush at 44 percent. Mean Season Favors Perot
In one month George HW Bush lost 8 points, Clinton lost 3 while Perot gained 12. Since we don't know the undecided/refused to say/other category, it should not be a stretch to say that Bush I had taken a hit, Clinton maybe not so much and undecideds were gravitating to Perot.
In March, Obama went from about competitive with McCain to a bit behind. Obama's voters seemed to have returned after Wright but presumably he lost some soft independent support. Clinton on the other hand has lost whatever Wright gain she got on Obama w/o making much of an improvement against McCain. So for March, I'd say McCain gained the most, Obama lost a bit but not enough and Clinton flatlined.
Now combining Spring 1992 with Spring 2008, Obama is in no worse a position than Clinton was in 1992 except that he still has a so-called "credible" alternative (soon the media will get bored knowing the math has not changed since Feb) to his path to the nomination. OK next analysis
The poll suggested that the Perot phenomenon was broad and diffuse, as befits a candidacy rooted in a series of television interviews earlier this year. His support cut across the lines of party, political philosophy, age and income. In many cases, it seemed to have little to do with Mr. Perot himself; 28 percent of those who said they would vote for him were unable to say whether they had a favorable or unfavorable opinion of him. Perot Support Has Breadth
OK. Such a candidate does not exist today (Bloomberg is out and even if he was in, I doubt he would have Perot like numbers). I think the driver in 1992 was that the unpopular incumbent was on the ballot while in 2008, Bush is indirectly on the ballot but McCain, not being an incumbent VP, has a bit of distance from Bush. Yet note that breath does not equal depth of support. If Obama's support were wide but shallow, he'd have hemorrhaged more votes during Wright than he did (he has suffered in the Midwest & South but more on that latter). McCain has only benefited because independents don't like the confusion on the Dem's side (and were turned off by Wright), but I would hypothesize that once the Obama is officially in (80% likely per Intrade), independents will once again start shopping around. Why? See below
Fifty-nine percent of the registered voters surveyed said they were dissatisfied when their choices were confined to Mr. Bush or Mr. Clinton. When Mr. Perot's name was added to their options, only 36 percent remained unhappy
Mr. Bush's job approval rating remained stuck at 39 percent among all adults, statistically unchanged from his showing in March and February. Even his conduct of foreign policy, once a sure winner in public opinion polls, got favorable marks from only 44 percent, while 46 percent disapproved of his performance there
The President's personal image has also worsened over the past month. Thirty-five percent of those polled said they have a favorable opinion of Mr. Bush, while 44 percent reported an unfavorable opinion. This is the first Times/CBS News poll this year that showed Mr. Bush's negative ratings exceeding his positive.
As Mr. Clinton wraps up a brutal primary season, 40 percent of the registered voters said they had an unfavorable opinion of him, as against 26 who viewed him positively. In comparison, at this point in 1980, Ronald Reagan was viewed unfavorably by 34 percent, and favorably by 43 percent
Mr. Clinton, in the aftermath of New York, consolidated his standing in the party; 64 percent of the Democratic primary voters said they preferred him as the nominee, compared with 24 percent who backed former Gov. Edmund G. Brown Jr. of California...only 22 percent of Mr. Clinton's Democratic primary supporters described themselves as "strongly" favoring him for the nomination
So bitter primaries leave bitter primary voters. Duh!! However, notice some interesting highlights. Clinton was not only lukewarmly supported by Dem primary voters AFTER THE PRIMARY HAD EFFECTIVELY ENDED, the general electorate liked him less than the incumbent (35%-Bush vs. 26%-Clinton)!!! Obama has about a 50-50 fav/unfav give or take some points post Wright, Clinton on the other hand has yet to even cross into positive territory in 2008 and seeing how she has run her campaign post Super Tuesday I, I'm not sure she will ever get there. If this Dem nomination gets "officially" wrapped up (hopefully sometime in April), I seriously doubt Obama would be anywhere south of 75%-80% support of Dem primary voters, putting him in a much stronger position than Clinton 1992.
Now I will concede that McCain has net positives in the low 50s and is not an unpopular incumbent, but given that, shouldn't he be farther ahead Obama or Clinton in the popular head to heads? But he's not which tells me that while many voters may like McCain personally, there is some strong resistance to having him as President (age, Iraq war, Republican...who knows!). And as a member of the status quo party, that is not a good sign.
And finally this
It was not all bad news for the President, who maintained a lead over Mr. Clinton. In a two-way race, Mr. Bush was preferred by 46 percent of the registered voters, while Mr. Clinton was the choice of 40 percent. And more than two-thirds said they expect Mr. Bush to win this fall, compared with only 19 percent who cited Mr. Clinton and 7 percent who cited Mr. Perot.
Yep, the very unpopular Bush I was ahead of then Gov. Clinton by 6 points similar to the McCain spread over Obama in Rasmussen (just picking worst national poll out there for Obama). Worse, a majority of voters in 1992 expected Bush to be re-elected, just like some pointing to polls saying...if HRC is not nominated, McCain will win...nah nyah nyah!!. Well y'all know what happened afterwards right? Bush & Perot went into a kamikaze death match ignoring Clinton who quietly crept up in the summer until kaboom convention and debate time came and he never looked back in the polls. Granted there is no Perot of 2008 (Nader is a dung maggot whose access to fresh media poop is less forthcoming cos the Press wised up with Imodium AD to stop their diarrhea).
So where is this all going you ask? Well 2 things
(1) Obviously, Hilary knows if she does not get the nomination now she can never be elected President (not now or ever!!). More importantly (think about this carefully guys), if she believed McCain was unbeatable would she risk all she has now to try and overtake Obama? No. Therefore, because she (and Obama) know that McCain is BEATABLE, she is trying to bring down the house to get the nomination. She's literally waiting for some shoe (any shoe) to drop and hope Obama sinks like a rock so she can overtake him. First it was the causcuses, then it was a delegate race, then it was the big states, then FL & MI, then Wright and now it’s who knows what...). Obama literally game-changed her and she’s stumped and cannot reconcile in her mind how to reverse what for all intents and purposes has now been set in stone. As Kos previously implied, the old ways aren't working anymore. So she is threatening to go all the way but that ain't happening cos it’s a sure fire nuclear bomb that will effectively render her worse than Connecticut for Lieberman...she may be desperate but she is not stupid.
(2) Obama will be behind McCain in the polls for spring and early summer but he will (just like Clinton did) be underestimated and treated as some juvenile nonentity by this supercentenarian named McSame. Problem for McCain like Hilary is that they both have no message yet have the same message: experience and preparedness in a change election (how is that supposed to help?). Except of course, it did not work for Hilary cos she seriously underestimated the mood of the democratic electorate writ large and it won't work for McCain (though he is a more credible messenger) because he is unprepared for the economic recession that will officially hit main street in July when the official 2 consecutive quarters of negative growth confirm that the recession is more real than Britney Spears lack of child rearing abilities. Provided Obama has been talking about issues and forcefully outspending GOP smears and McCain's drone, he'll game change him just like he did Clinton and come convention night he will give a speech (yeah he does it better than any politician has ever done) that will ring out for years to come. I also expect McCain to run into some troubled waters in mid to late summer and to the false amazement of many, the GOP base will start grumbling and bickering among social conservatives who have NO motivation for this guy and economic conservatives fighting for tax cuts and deeper domestic spending cuts when folks will be hurting. McSame will become a stale McSandwich between these guys and independents will once again go shopping, GOP base voters will threaten to bolt, he'll give a "call to arms" speech at the GOP convention, half the country will wonder if they are about to enter WW III and beg to differ. The debates will show a contrast that will be so clear, it will be future vs. past and you guessed correctly which one America will take.
Why do I think this could be the same? Well look no further than across the pond to merry old British politics....Unpopular Blair left in June 2007, Gordon Brown who had been itching to come in took power, his popularity soared and he was ready to call an early election to wipe out David Cameron (an Obama type Tory); Cameron gave a speech about vision, overnight the polls LITERALLY reversed; Brown panicked called of the election, Labor’s ratings fell like a rock, the economy got worse, Labor ratings fell even further to 1983 levels and come May or June 2009, Brown will be out of No. 10 with the dubious badge of being an unpopular unelected Prime Minster.
Obama will win in Nov...not by Clinton ’92 or Reagan ’80 margins...more like Kennedy ’60 wins by holding Kerry ’04 blue states at 252 EVs (he won’t lose PA regardless of how long Mark Penn masturbates on that idea); add in NM and IA for 12 EVs to 264 then add VA and NV for a total of about 280+; he may get CO and unlikely MO and OH but not impossible.