(this is my first diary! yay!)
Looking at the Rasmussen tracking reports for the general election matchups, there's clearly been an effect of the past two weeks of sparring between Obama and Clinton:
Rasmussen general election tracking polls
One company's poll does not a trend necessarily make, but I think it's quite clear that despite our optimistic talk that "having a real hashing out of issues on the front pages can only make us stronger," the continuing nomination fight is kneecapping Obama for the general election.
It is extremely worrying that Obama has clearly gone from beating McCain in the general election to falling behind, not only in Rasmussen but also last week's LA Times national poll. While some may argue that this sort of examination would happen anyways if Obama were the general election candidate and finding his "negatives ceiling" is preferable now to after the nomination, I disagree for a couple reasons:
- NAFTA. Regardless of your views on it, the liberal intelligencia is clearly appalled at the bashing of NAFTA over the past week (see NY Times, Washington Post and Economist editorials ... and yes the latter is still "liberal" in some sense). Also, many moderates across the nation are solidifying their image of Obama as "just another unionist trade protectionist Democrat." While it's important to stand up for what you believe in, NAFTA is a train that has left the station, and crucifying fellow Democrats over a decade old trade pact is not worth losing the general election over. Clearly a fight over NAFTA that in its current strokes consists of a beeline to the left, complete with guaranteeing Russert that we'd renegotiate it, would be unfathomable in a general election debate.
- National security. The fight over Iraq between Obama and Clinton allows McCain to stand back and appear to be a default "experienced choice" on foreign policy when the other party can't come up with a consistent narrative on its opposition to the war between its two leaders. Having fellow Democrats criticize each other is different than facing incoming fire from a Republican. You can't paint the other sides' claims of inexperience as an excuse for Iraq as typical Republican warmongering and partisan rhetoric when that messenger is from your own party. My opinion is that the net effect of Democrats attacking each other over the war and foreign policy is to let swing voters default to their historically typical choice on foreign policy: Republicans.
- Health care. Obama's message that "we can fix health care by bringing people together" is being undermined by Clinton attacking him on health care non-stop. This isn't just about this very important issue - it goes to the heart of whether Obama's candidacy can truly unite people, and if he can't unite the party, how can he expect to unite Americans against lobbyists in Washington? This is where I fear the biggest rift will remain, because at this point I cannot imagine Clinton backing in full a plan that doesn't require mandates, both because she's incredibly stubborn and because she cares about these issues so much, to the point where she has torpedoed plans in the past that she deemed insufficient. That is admirable on her part, but in the meantime she is destroying not only the perception that Obama can bring people together to fix this, but the actual literal chance that he could unite the Democratic party to drive this home as a defining issue in the general election.
The net result is that while I believe that Hillary Clinton as an individual is entitled to do whatever she wants as long as people will support her (and clearly they might in Ohio and Texas tomorrow), I truly hope that unless both elections are a blowout and there's a clear chance of her being seated as the nominee without the ambiguities of Michigan and Florida, she steps aside for the good of the party. Two weeks of this has already been damaging enough. Imagine what six weeks of it until PA will do to our party.