Rope A Dope
Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 10:13:25 PM PDT
We are seeing a repeat in many ways of 1968 when the Democratic Party establishment was overthrown by a bunch of mostly white and affluent draft age college students who had made common cause with the civil rights people over the Vietnam War. The result was McGovern and the largest landslide loss in history.
Obama has brought the same two coalitions together, and I believe they are making the same mistake that was made back then in assuming they represent the majority of the country or even of the Party. This is simply not even close to being true. If one looks at the demographics of each candidate's base, Obama's is affluent white young and black, while Hillary's is blue collar, white women and older voters. Hillary has won in most of the solid Democratic states while Obama has won through motivating energized islands of activists, progressives and blacks in smaller and largely conservative Republican states.
Either I'm missing something, or the demographics of a Democrat election victory would have had to change beyond recognition by the Fall in order for Obama to win.
We are seeing a repeat in many ways of 1968 when the Democratic Party establishment was overthrown by a bunch of mostly white and affluent draft age college students who had made common cause with the civil rights people over the Vietnam War. The result was McGovern and the largest landslide loss in history.
Obama has brought the same two coalitions together, and I believe they are making the same mistake that was made back then in assuming they represent the majority of the country or even of the Party. This is simply not even close to being true. If one looks at the demographics of each candidate's base, Obama's is affluent white young and black, while Hillary's is blue collar, white women and older voters. Hillary has won in most of the solid Democratic states while Obama has won through motivating energized islands of activists, progressives and blacks in smaller and largely conservative Republican states.
Either I'm missing something, or the demographics of a Democrat election victory would have had to change beyond recognition by the Fall in order for Obama to win.
The combination of the two of them on a common ticket would likely be unbeatable. At present, although I wouldn't be surprised if some serious negotiation is going on behind the scenes, this prospect looks unlikely.
If this goes on until the Convention and a deal is not made (which appears at this point unlikely) whichever one wins will have to do an awful lot of fence mending. As a Hillary supporter I think that if the party is to win in November it can better risk losing the young first time elite voters than it can win if it loses touch with its blue collar base. I believe that much of that base, namely white males and older white females will in the event off an Obama candidacy in the general election be more likely to vote Republican. In either case, blacks and Hispanics are likely to vote Democrat. If the young progressive activists are pissed off and alienated they are more likely to either not vote or to vote for a minority candidate like Ralph Nader. I believe that this would be a less serious loss to the party, as there are much less of them, even though they are louder and more visible on the Internet and in the media eye. I don't think their loss will throw the election one way or the other.
In other words, I think Obama has much more to lose in a brokered convention than Hillary does. You can see this reflected in the attitudes of surrogates toward the process. More of the Hillary people appear content to let this thing play out, while the Obama people are practically jumping out of their skins in distress over an impending train wreck. Moreover I believe that Obama, who has more on the ball than most of his followers, has is aware of what he is facing and would be more inclined to deal if his 'movement' would permit it. Personally I think that a campaign made up of true believers is likely to go where it will go with no one really at the wheel.
If I were the Hillary campaign I would just press on, knowing that everything I say or do will irritate the hell out of the opposition, perhaps causing them to stumble and make mistakes. While Hillary looks more and more like the more confident candidate Obama and his people appear more and more reactive as they spout an increasing volume of less than rational invective all over the media. As they call Hillary every name in the book, blaming her for every bump in the road they begin looking more and more like victims, even when they are in the lead.
The shadow of every idealist and zealot wears the mask of a victim.
It takes nothing to piss Obama people off. All one has to do is suggest that your candidate won't quit the race and kiss the feet of the Messiah. It's almost amusing to watch, as all of the Hillary Haters get flushed out of the closet and flock in rank behind Obama, taking their turns accusing Hillary of everything just short of the Holocaust. I haven't heard some of this language since back in the old Gingrich/Lewinsky/Tom Delay days, and that was from Republicans. Some of Obama's surrogates actually seem sort of unstable. Just look at Bill Bradley, the official Obama campaign 'heavy'. His palpable hatred for everything Clinton, obviously carried simmering from some long ago defeat or humiliation, practically oozes out of every pore until he resembles one of the obsessive manipulators of tragedy and revenge in a drama by William Shakespeare.
We live in an ironic age, when the very people who claim to be "uniters" are the ones who are instrumental in bringing about the most division and alienation among the very people who need to work together.
Of course this is all Hillary's fault.
Permalink | 26 comments