http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9A02E3DD1539F93BA15751C0A9669C8B63
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Above link from February 28th, 2000 NY Times.
Bush and McCain were duking it out in roughly the same time frame Obama and Clinton are going at it. They were in the party out of power, attempting to retake the White House. It was a nasty nomination battle. Yet Bush went on to "win". Analogous? Seems so to me, at least a bit. Having to fight for the eventual nomination didn't seem to ruin Bush's November prospects, even as late as late February.

In the case of Ford in 1976, and Carter in 1980, the primary challenge occurred because the sitting president was unpopular. It wasn't the primary challenge that caused the division, it was the reverse: the incumbent was unpopular with his own party.

Oh, and I'm old enough to remember that election, and I don't think that Ford lost the election because he "freed Poland". There were so many other factors, like the Nixon pardon, Whip Inflation Now, and the fact that they guy never won an election to anything larger than one congressional district. It was close because the guy on the Democratic side was an unknown peanut farmer from Georgia who called himself Jimmy.

Joe Buck is right. An incumbent getting in a major fight is not the same thing as an open fight.

Also, the Democratic Primary this year is not really drawn out. Obama already won in the sense that we already know he will get more delegates. What are they still fighting over?

I said this in your first thread, but I'll repeat it here, because people don't seem to be grasping a distinction that needs to be made:

Serious/long intra-party battles in the INCUMBENT party have a near-perfect correlation with election loss -- 1912, 1952, 1968, 1976, 1980. If the Dems held the White House this year, such a protracted fight would be a crippling development.

But they don't. And the history of extended intra-party primary fights in the out party shows essentially no correlation to the election outcome -- leading to as many wins (1932, 1952, 1960, 1992) as losses (1964, 1972, 1984). Alan Lichtman, in his Keys to the Presidency book, specifically notes the difference between the two: the former is a lethal negative key; the latter plays no part.

And it makes sense: a battle in an incumbent party suggests serious party disunity, given the obvious rewards for keeping in line when you hold power. But a battle for the out-party nod could as easily suggest it's a promising political environment for a challenger, with many strong candidates going after it.

No one listens to me on this, but keep your eye on the main principle: an incumbent party whose president has had a 30% approval for two years -- a party forced to defend a despised war and a cratering economy -- is deeply vulnerable, regardless of which candidate they face and how long it took him/her to get the nomination.

"the relative divisiveness of the two parties primaries is not related to the general election outcome, once other factors, namely the state of the economy and the popularity of the incumbent president"

Um, mightn't this suggest that when the economy is in the crapper and the incumbent president is unpopular, there is an especially rough nomination fight for the simple reason that the incumbent party is likely to lose?

Two things about looking to past elections for guidance -- (1) you have a very small number of samples so it's really hard to draw out meaningful big principles, and (2) you have a REALLY different media environment now than in any pre-2000 electionso again it's very hard to draw meaningful conclusions from how things played out in the past.

Not very satisfying points, but true ones I think.

George Wallace! How many times do I have to say it?

George Wallace! George Wallace! George Wallace! George Wallace! George Wallace! George Wallace! George Wallace! George Wallace! George Wallace! George Wallace! George Wallace! George Wallace! George Wallace! George Wallace! George Wallace! George Wallace! George Wallace! George Wallace! George Wallace! George Wallace! George Wallace! George Wallace! George Wallace! George Wallace! George Wallace! George Wallace!

There, I'm done. Next crappy historical analogy from Kevin Drum expected in 2.5 hours.

Horse hockey!

The Washington Post poll (reported yesterday, before the primary results came in) indicated 2/3 or so of Democrats want the race to continue.

Democrats are excited because we have two outstanding, history-making candidates. The more they run, the more people learn about politics and government and the choices to be made.

Obama supporters are trying to paint Hillary as a spoiler. I think she is giving average Americans a valuable civics lesson.

Antiwar advocates need to make the Minneapolis streets rage in September.

I think it is important to talk about who won the divisive primaries and how, before we assess the effect. I agree that a serious primary fight in the incumbent party is almost always a bad thing. For the out-party, though, I think the end of the game is very important. Do you get a petulant, prideful Jesse Jackson in 1988, going out of his way to make Dukakis look weak long after Dukakis had the nomination (even at the convention)? That's very different from, say, a George Bush-Ronald Reagan love fest in 1980. It was not just a function of RR sewing up the nomination earlier than Dukakis, but also the efforts that RR made to heal the breach between his wing and the Bush moderate wing.
I agree with Kevin, though--the latest Hillary comment about Obama's foreign policy experience consisting of "one speech" is going to be used against him extensively in the general. What a dumb ass thing to say. It reminds me of 1960: reporters asked Ike to give an example of Nixon playing an important role in an Eisenhower decision. Ike said "If you give me a week, I might think of one". JFK's people took that and put it into a very powerful TV commercial against Nixon. Dems tried to do that in 1980, when Bush called RR's plans "voodoo economics" but it didn't work in part because Bush was then on the ticket.

In general, though, I think Dems should relax--a long primary process will garner media attention and excitement. The turnout in Dem primaries lately has been even more overwhelming compared to the Repubs. People who vote for the first time in a primary are more likely to vote in the general. I just don't think many discouraged Hillary voters are going to go with McCain because their gal lost.

Sometimes you can win the battle and lose the war. Maybe some of the residual hatred of Mccain in the GOP can be traced back to the fratricide back in 2000? In eight years do the Dems want their own version of talk radio kneecappers eating their own? Whatever.

Fools paradise.

While the demoncrats squabble over who will

run in November, the Repugnacans have mcCain raring to go.

Yes, it would be nice to see a woman president, but could she disable mccain?.

Yes, it would be nice to see a man of color, but I'm afraid the country is too full of idiots who'll do anything to enable mccain.

But what it suggests is that primary divisiveness just isn't a major factor once the primary is over. I doubt that the current Obama/Clinton nastiness will prove any different.

Except that in the past the division has been over issues, "My opponent would do..." This division is one of qualification and character, "My opponent is..." I have concerns that there is significant difference.

Kevin, I'd be more convinced if you could find a candidate who actually won after a divisive primary. Repeatedly coming up with guys who overcame long odds to still lose isn't encouraging. I don't want to come close, I want to win.

Difference here is that Bill & Hillary have pretty much lost the African American vote for good. If she is the nominee there will be alot of independent/progressive dems staying home (e.g. me) as well as a dienchanted African America community.

Sure, Hillary can win more of the big states in the Dem primary - but this will *not* translate to a win in most any of these states in November. Also, her and Penn's whole strategy is the same Blue State / Red State/ only states that matter strategy that has made the Democratic Party as spineless and sucky as it is right now.

Nope. I'm not voting for Hillary. I'll be writing in Al Gore is she is the nominee. Or, maybe as Hillary suggests, pull the lever for John McCain...

"Ford should have lost the 1976 election in a landslide"

And, we should win this year by a landslide.

On the other hand, I think this is more like Carter's re-election. My mom loved Carter, and my dad voted for Reagan. "I thought the Democrats were fired," he said. I think that's how people view the GOP today.

I agree with Marcus... It's notable that both examples ended up losing the general election.

Nonetheless, this is the game we got.

Kevin, I'd be more convinced if you could find a candidate who actually won after a divisive primary. Repeatedly coming up with guys who overcame long odds to still lose isn't encouraging. I don't want to come close, I want to win.

Posted by: Jon Marcus on March 5, 2008 at 3:41 PM
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Uh, Jon, see post #1.

If Hillary somehow wins, she'll have an uphill battle in the fall. Not only will she likely unite a Republican crowd against her, somehow she will be stepping over Obama to get there. The black vote in the fall will be again reliably Democrat, but it won't be enthusiastic, meaning she won't get the turnout needed to win.

Obama on the other hand, didn't need to piss off the other sides' identity strength, ie women, to win the nomination, would it happen for him.

The party at this point stays much more united in the fall with Obama rather than Hillary.

On the other hand, if Hillary brings Michigan and Florida into play, insisting their delegates get seated, Obama cries foul, it was against the rules but it pisses off those states if they aren't seated potentially weakening the ability for Obama in the general election.

Couple of tough pickles here.

Well, Jon, you can reference my post above: Franklin Roosevelt (battled at the convention; had to swallow hard and take John Nance Garner as running mate); Dwight Eisenhower (only prevailed over Taft at the convention); John Kennedy (was widely despised by the Stevenson forces; had to make peace with Eleanor Roosevelt after the convention); and Bill Clinton (a nasty NY primary battle with "who cares who I'm hurting" Jerry Brown left Clinton double-digits behind GHWBush in late Spring).

In all cases except Ike, deep unpopularity of the incumbent overruled intra-party squabbles among the challengers. (With Ike, he always held onto his personal popularity, but the circumstances of his second administration -- U2 spy debacle; Sherman Adams scandal; sluggish economy hitting recession in Fall '60 -- never boded well for a successor to be elected)

What screwed Democrats in 1968 was not the squabbles of their idiot candidates, but the demonstrators and the rioting of the Chicago police. If antiwar advocates can do the same thing to the Republicans in Minneapolis, it will not matter who the Democratic nominee is.

The DLC considers losing close a win.

You continue to assert there is not much difference between the two. For most of us who were castigated for opposing the Iraq War, Hillary's vote is huge and cannot be overcome. At the time it seemed to be nothing less than a cynical manuever to position herself for a run a the presidency. Further, unlike edwards and others, she has refused to disavow her vote. She exacerbated the matter by recently voting to authorize similar action against Iran. What is more, Bill gave Bush and Hillary cover for this travesty during the first couple of years.

For us, these are no little things. Thousands of soldiers and hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians have died. Many Democrats who are not politicians were initially fooled into supporting the war. I suppose this issue will not stick in the craw of those who did not.

Clinton likes to make a case for her electability. I can assure you that if Hillary W. Clinton gets the nomination and runs against John W. McCain, Nader will get more votes in 2008 than he did in 2000.

Anyway, that is the cause for the vitriol from one side of the issue regarding two candidates who are so much alike.

If I had to hazard a guess, I would assume that women of my age (baby-boomer) see Hillary as the only viable woman candidate for another 20 years. I think they are correct in their calculations. Too bad this woman sold out her country to position herself for this opportunity. Just imagine if she had voted with Kennedy, Graham and others. She would be on a roll.

I agree with Demtom on 1952--there's lots of parallels between then and now. Taft was the establishment Rep leader, the heir apparent; Ike was the charismatic outsider with little or no political background (or so it seemed). Taft knew the issues, Ike didn't. They battled all the way through the primaries and into the convention--remember the fight over seating the Texas delegates?

But the party got together--the idea of winning after years in the wilderness and after losing a previous election they should have won was sufficient to reconcile the factions, at least for election purposes. Either Hillary or Barack is smart enough to initiate the reconciliation and to respond to it.

I agree with what Demtom says.. also, by September/October/November, Dems will be so focused on fighting McCain that most of the intra-party issues will have disappeared..

Does it seem at all strange to anybody else that McCain, who, according to several sources, is 5'7" tall looks just about as tall as Bush's 5'11" in this photo-op picture of Bush endorsing him today? That means that he must be wearing close to 4" platform shoes. Wow!

Photo:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=87919320

Height:
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2007/10/11/head_and_shoulders_above.html

I recently e-mailed this to Kevin, but I'll post it here so others can respond:

A few thoughts on long, divisive primaries. The first is that--and this is just a guess, but I think it's fairly logical--if the party cannot win in the end, no matter how long and nasty the primary is, it probably only had a minor shot at winning in the first place. Exactly what sort of divide are we expecting the Democrats to have? Short of Clinton having no legitimate claim at all for the nomination but still being the nominee because of backroom dealings (the most likely scenario I can imagine where the party really is divided), I don't see what's going to happen that is going to make huge sections of the party stay home. Even with so many bloggers seemingly down on Clinton at the moment, I expect, or at least hope, that they will come around in November, should she be the nominee.

Second, we need to consider fund raising as it relates to McCain. Somebody made the point on TV last night--on either MSNBC or CNN--that McCain's ability to organize and raise money for the general election is greatly weakened, at least right now. He essentially needs time to try to play catch up with the Democrats. So with our party being without a nominee for the next three months, he has that...or at least more of an opportunity to get his act together. Perhaps it was the late hour, but the idea didn't seem so ridiculous. If come July or August, he's still behind by tens of millions compared to either Clinton or Obama, like he is now, it might not make a difference how much time he had. But like I said, the thought isn't so ourtrageous that it needs to be rejected outright. That's why I hope both Clinton and Obama spend a lot of their time attacking McCain and the rest of the Democratic party and its allies pick up the slack until the primary process is settled. I respect Clinton's right to stay in the race, but I have to say, I'll be kicking myself if we realize in hindsight that we blew the enormous advantages we had early on the race.

Your thoughts?

Catfish wrote: "I can assure you that if Hillary W. Clinton gets the nomination and runs against John W. McCain, Nader will get more votes in 2008 than he did in 2000."

I doubt it. A major reason that Nader got so little support in 2004 compared to 2000, is that in 2000 Nader was the nominee of the US Green Party. That gave Nader the benefit of the Green Party's organization and the permanent ballot access achieved by several state Green Party affiliates.

In 2004 Nader did not even seek the nomination of the Green Party, and ran as an independent. As a result, he was not able to get on the ballot in nearly as many states. The Green Party nominated long-time Green organizer/activist David Cobb, who was on the ballot wherever the Green Party had ballot access.

This time around, Nader has again announced that he is running as an independent and will not seek the Green Party nomination. He will thus have difficulty even getting on the ballot in a lot of states.

There are currently 46 state Green Parties affiliated with the national Green Party, of which 19 have ballot access. The national Green Party has committed resources towards obtaining ballot access in all 50 states plus the District of Columbia for the 2008 general election.

Nader will not only be competing with the Democratic nominee for votes, but with the Green Party nominee.

In my opinion, the Green Party is much more worthy of support than Nader, because the Green Party is a long-term, serious effort to build and organize a strong progressive political constituency in the USA. The Green Party is primarily focused on electing Greens to local and state offices, and to some extent to Congressional offices, and they wisely use their presidential campaign as an organizing and party-building tool to advance the Green Party on the local and state level. In 2004, the Green Party presidential and vice-presidential nominees avoided campaigning in the "battleground" or "swing" states to avoid taking votes from Kerry.

In contrast, Nader is a dilettante who appears every four years to make some noise, and in between does nothing to organize or build anything, and sometimes seems to be driven more by personal enmity towards the Democratic Party than anything else.

Does anyone else remember what the Reagan delegates were chanting at the Convention in 1976 after Ford had sewn up the nomination? "Four more months! Four more months!"

On the other hand, I confess I don't remember the battle over the Texas delegates in 1952. But I do recall, from second-hand sources, that Ike promised to appoint Earl Warren to the Supreme Court in return for the California delegation's support. It will be interesting to see if this Convention produces anything of the sort.

1968 is the parallel thread. The youth movement was at a crescendo--Johnson had thrown in the towel, Bobby had combined the anti-war and change movements to overcome McCarthy, and early in June we were ready to "go to Chicago." The assassination just months after MLK,Jr. crushed many, the convention soured everyone. The political wing of the youth movement dissolved, and too many boomers live with the bitter memory that they did not vote for Humphrey, a good man who deserved better.

Still the counting went into the next day, and George Wallace and the whiny many who refused to vote for Humphrey gave us Nixon and the rest, my friends, is history. Many thought that it couldn't get worse than Johnson. A Hillary candidacy, without Obama on the ticket, and Nader will once again spoil it all, and we will see whether it couldn't get worse than Bush.

Brian wrote: "Your thoughts?"

Most of the tens to hundreds of millions of dollars that the major party presidential nominees raise is spent on TV advertising.

McCain doesn't need to spend as much on TV advertising as the Democratic nominee, because the corporate-owned mass media from which the vast majority of Americans get the vast majority of their information will be waging a campaign of character assassination against the Democratic nominee, while simultaneously shilling for McCain. And it won't cost him anything.

That's what happened in 2000 and 2004, and it largely determined the outcome of those elections (namely, the Democrat won, but the election was close enough for the Republicans to steal it through voter disenfranchisement, intimidation and fraud).

And it's what will happen in 2008.

Lmao, only an idiot would count nomination battles prior to 1972 in the same number as those outside of 72.

Since we have been holding primaries to determine this, No Democrat has ever won the Presidency after a close nomination battle. That completely contradicts all information regarding Primaries prior to 1972 (with a few exceptions). In other words, people didn't give a fuck what happened before they were allowed to vote on it, and started caring after they did.

In my opinion, the Green Party is much more worthy of support than Nader

Are you familiar with the concept of "damning with faint praise"?

Only if someone digs up something the GOP can use.
IN the meantime, the story sucks up all McCain's oxygen. Still, I'm SO ready for it to be over.

SecularAnimist >"...the corporate-owned mass media from which the vast majority of Americans get the vast majority of their information will be waging a campaign of character assassination against the Democratic nominee, while simultaneously shilling for McCain...."

I have no doubt that is true given recent history. However this is NOT 2000 nor is it 2004. The economy is crap, the WofTerror is a laughing stock, people are really hurting financially for the first time since the late 70s-early 80s & many young people are involved.

I`m old enough to have lived, as an adult, through the 1968 cycle and this cycle is nowhere near as chaotic despite what the fear mongers would like you to believe. This cycle is a quiet struggle compared to 1968.

Should the Democratic Party who hahs screw it up by selecting a candidate not perceived as the true winner by the public then it is certainly possible there will be a President McCain. If this happens then the world and the U.S. deserves what happens.

Sometimes you have to whack the mule more than twice upside the head to get its` attention. I hope this is NOT the case this cycle but it certainly could be.

Either way, it is NOT the end of the world for anyone so get over it and move forward.

"If you don't deal with reality, reality will deal with you" - C.J. Campbell

I think that the 'divisiveness' and the 'nastiness' we're experiencing now are about 70% hype. The people (on the Democratic side) don't seem that anrgy for all the media/blogosphere's talk about nastiness and divisiveness. The Democratic voters just want a Democrat to win in the general, and aren't going tooth and nail for one or the other; the candidates just each want, or wanted, to be the president a lot, and that's what's passing for 'division.'

Once again, any attempt to make a historical comparison is weak because of the small sample size and the obviously different media/communication environments today.

The problem for democrats is that there are two modestly qualified candidates who are going to be very critical of each other for the next five or six months. The criticism will be repeated non-stop on cable and the internet. The fact that it will diminish the attention on McCain should not hurt him, and, I think, it may help him. He already is well known, respected and liked by the electorate. He does not need a campaign to introduce himself to voters. The passage of time without him being the prime target of democrats, plus the dems attacking one another, is a windfall for him. The lost opportunity to effectively attack McCain cannot be recovered, but the effect of the dems attacks on one another could be ameliorated by Hillary and Obama joining together. That would be the likely result if Clinton was slightly ahead and everything then would have fallen in place for democrats. But she is not, and it is hard to see Obama taking her as VP. Absent a major problem for Obama popping up, I don't see how the dems can get through this without signicant damage.

I also think it's important to remember that if Hillary keeps closing the gap of delegates and if she ends up becoming the clear leader over Obama in the national polls, she's going to win. All it will mean is that for some reason, voters weren't considering issues that are important for making their ultimate decision, like the experience issue frankly enough (i.e., they were distracted and the media and pundits didn't discuss the issue in a front-and-center way- not like the "3 AM" ad makes people confront the question, anyway) and Barack would never have won in the general election anyway-- he would have turned out to be a bigger, liberal version of Ron Paul: a bunch of fervent supporters, but in the end too few in number to beat the challenger McCain.

"Primary Divisiveness" is just shorthand for "YOUR candidate/issue is a loser who should have the sense to know s/he's beaten," regardless of whether said beating has actually occurred.

It's a rhetorical strongarm tactic that tries to pre-empt continued debate, allegedly "for the good of the party", but in fact, purely for the good of the candidate who is asserted to have already won.

Brojo: If antiwar advocates can do the same thing to the Republicans in Minneapolis, it will not matter who the Democratic nominee is.

Look at what they did to the Republicans in Miami in 1972. Didn't help much -- just convinced people even more that the antiwar Democrat crowd was crazy and dangerous.

Did it again. Posted anonymously without meaning to.

"The essence of political freedom depends not on the fanatics of "justice", but rather on all the invigorating, beneficial, and detergent effects of dissenters."

Rosa Luxemburg.

Another problem, absent a marriage, is that there are going to be significant desertions among the losing candidate's supporters. A good number of Hillary's backers will vote for McCain (the polls already show this) and a good number of Obama's backers will stay home.

The other unfortunate consequence of this is the race issue. It is perfectly understandable why blacks would vote overwhelmingly for Obama, but the whole liberal identity politics produces a bad dynamic in the circumstances of this race. Maureen Dowd has a good column today on the issue.

It is hard to see how Hispanics voting overwhelmingly for Clinton is not driven to a significant degree by racial animus. Hillary otherwise is prospering based on the white vote. I think the best thing for the country in terms of race relations would have been if an accomplished black republican had been the first serious black candidate for president. It would not have broken the voters up in such a racially polarized manner. Obama probably can win with only about 25-35% of the democratic white vote, but it is not a good situation for his prospects in the general election or for the country.

I think the sample-size caveat that brian offers is a good one. The current situation is simply unique in many ways.

That said, I still think that parties lose the White House when they lose their own extreme wing: get outflanked by a challenge from the wing of their party that would never dream of voting for the opponent. HHH had challengers on the left and on the Yellow Dog wings of his party, Ford on the right, Carter on the left (Anderson hurt him more than Anderson hurt Reagan). 41 had Perot; Gore had Nader. Will anything analogous happen to the Democrats here? Will Nader pick up support from people who see Clinton as too far right? Maybe. But the intraparty challengers who were flanking Clinton & Obama from the left -- Edwards and lesser lights -- have faded away. Meanwhile, McCain has obvious problems with the far right.

As pointed out in several of these threads, intraparty fights always hurt incumbents, but it's less clear that they will hurt a challenging party faced with a strong contrast to the other party. Both parties are challengers this year, to some extent, and both offer those contrasts, and both are set to nominate relative centrists. This year is probably unlike any other.

So Reagan fought Ford all the way to the convention and then Ford lost. In 1980 Reagan won. Sort of puts the lie to what you were saying the other day about this being Hillary's only chance doesn't it Kevin?

Tim:

Very good examples of extreme wing candidates hurting nominated candidates. I had not realized that it happened so ofter. But I always questioned whether Perot significantly hurt Bush 41. I know many experts say so and that Perot was very critical of Bush 41 during the campaign. But I always figured that voters mad enough at Bush 41 to vote for Perot would not have voted for Bush had Perot not been in the race.

Finally, your valid point about how a challenge from a wing candidate can hurt the nominated candidate does not mean that the Hillary/Obama struggle is not another way that the nominated candidate can be hurt. Also, I don't know that Obama, or to a lesser extent Hillary, will be perceived as a relative centrist by election day. Of course, if we are in a recession and Bush otherwise is unpopular, it may not make much difference.

This election really comes down to a huge generational rift. We unfortunately have a graying population trying to get theirs and moving to Hillary in numbers just large enough to keep her viable. I would state that this block of fearful people, clinging to dwindling pensions and entitlements, has been very vulnerable to exploitation. And probably not as receptive to change as they need to be.

If Hillary wins the primary using negative adds, blackened Obama posters and scaring the elderly, what do you tell a whole generation of energized and politically active young people? They are outnumbered by the generation that brought us this mess? I will walk away disgusted myself. This is the type of situation that breeds Third Parties. Perhaps Obama is more like Lincoln than we know. Exit the Whigs.

I don't know about intra-party divisiveness in previous election cycles. I think these analogies are not of much use in the present political environment. I know that I have been furious with the Dems for the past eight years, and I am furious now. If Hillary comes into the Democratic convention ahead on delegates and secures the nomination, okay, then I'll hold my nose and vote for Bill Clinton's war-mongering legacy.

But pundits I respect say that the only way Hillary can win the nomination is to fight dirty--to insist on Michigan and FL votes being counted (in other words, changing the rules) and leaning on superdelegates.

And if HRC gets the nomination by using dirty tactics to steal it from the person with the highest delegate count, then my allegiance to the Democratic party will shatter. I'll be looking for viable candidates and a third party long-term, if not in Nov 2008.

"...to steal if from the person with the highest delegate count..." PTate in MN @ 7:29 PM.
Are you seriously suggesting that if we still had four or more candidates still competing in the primaries, the three with the least number of delegates should just quit; because, you know, they could only get the nomination using "dirty" methods?
Noone is going to go into the convention with enough delegate votes for a nomination on the first ballot. After that the nomination is up for grabs and the only way Sen. Obama is going to be the nominee is if he makes the type of deals that you refer to as "dirty tactics" when practiced by an opponent.
It is called forging alliances, compromising, or making deals (depending on how soured you are at that particular moment). It is what politicians do. It is what we pay them to do. It is also what produced Kennedy, Truman, FDR, and Wilson, just to name the best known.

This election really comes down to a huge generational rift. We unfortunately have a graying population trying to get theirs and moving to Hillary in numbers just large enough to keep her viable. I would state that this block of fearful people, clinging to dwindling pensions and entitlements, has been very vulnerable to exploitation. And probably not as receptive to change as they need to be.

Sparko, as a 66-year-old woman, I have to say that you seem to recognize some of the problems faced by the elderly, but you don’t understand why Obama’s promise of change falls so flat with older voters. Change is just a word, when he doesn’t specify what that means.

Older voters have really taken a beating from the young during this primary season. We are accused of being fearful of change, of being racists, of being in favor of war, etc., etc. The generational rift I see is young people who think that they will be young forever and never need any help and older people who know from hard experience that everyone encounters problems and needs a helping hand from others. Often, it is the very people denigrated in this election, older women, who end up caring for the frail elderly and the abandoned grandchildren. They recognize that Hillary knows what they are going through, while Obama just gives speeches.

Often, it is the very people denigrated in this election, older women, who end up caring for the frail elderly and the abandoned grandchildren. They recognize that Hillary knows what they are going through...

Because she's personally cared for the frail elderly and abandoned grandchildren herself? No? Then because she's a late-middle-aged woman, you assume she automatically has some special connecting emotion to you that Obama lacks as an early-middle-aged man?

Look, I hear what you're saying, but it sounds like you identify with Hillary more than you do with Obama because you and HRC are in similar age and gender (and perhaps racial) demographics. The reverse doesn't necessarily apply. The fact is that both of these people understand what a whole lot of people different from themselves go through. They're both Democrats; they're both committed to Democratic principles; they've both worked in public service; they've both spent the last however-many months traveling the U.S. hearing the stories of people who are in vastly different circumstances than their own.

If you are suggesting that a candidate cannot really identify with a voter unless he or she shares that voter's gender (and age, and race, and so on), then I have to disagree (and wonder if you would then also accept the idea that Clinton can't understand the experiences of different demographics than her own). If you have some special reason for thinking that Obama doesn't "understand" what older women are dealing with--a reason based on his legislation or something specific he's said--then please share it with us.

And if HRC gets the nomination by using dirty tactics to steal it from the person with the highest delegate count, then my allegiance to the Democratic party will shatter. I'll be looking for viable candidates and a third party long-term, if not in Nov 2008.

Exactamundo!

That's the thing the Clinton camp doesn't understand. Sure, I'd be willing to support and vote for Hillary if she were to win the nomination.....PROVIDED SHE DOESN'T STEAL IT!!!

And in looking at the race right now, that's the ONLY way she can win. For all the hoopla yesterday, she only won 8 or 9 more delegates than Obama. That's equivalent to what Obama won in North Dakota alone. And Obama will win more than that next Tuesday in Mississippi.

The bottom line is Clinton is dead in the water and CAN'T WIN.

Her only chance is to try and seat the delegates from MI and FL, and also get the superdelegates on her side. And really that's the only reason she's staying in this race at this point. And if she successfully steals the nomination, fuck her, I won't vote for her come November.

If she wants to redo Florida and Michigan, great, let's do it, no problem at all. But my sense from listening to her supporters and surrogates is that they don't want a do-over, and want to seat the delegates as determined by those non-elections.

My feminine gut feeling is that division in the party is ultimately irrelevant
since McCain's flypaper theory is such an absurd mantra--and if he represents
the the character of the Bush administration, and is ultimately one more Bush crony--
Dems should prevail.
The McCain mis-statements and inconsistencies will overwhelm old McCain, and people
are generally way too smart. Gas prices, new problems with student loans, disavowed American dreams, et cetera....
Thanks for the post. I appreciate your tenacity in presenting the issues...I love you, in fact.

Kevin, I said this about the '76 GOP primary contest between Reagan and Ford in yesterday's "Chill Out" thread, which you posted at 2:20 A.M.:

"Actually, I'd ask that you consider the ugly fight over the 1976 GOP nomination between President Gerald Ford and former California Gov. Ronald Reagan, a series of increasingly bitter primary battles that went all the way to the national convention.

"Although Ford eventually prevailed at the convention, Vice President Nelson Rockefeller (a moderate Republican) was forced off the ticket in favor of an up-and-coming conservative firebrand, Kansas Sen. Bob Dole. Further, Reagan subsequently decided to bide his time and sat out the '76 general election race, which Ford eventually lost to former Georgia Gov. Jimmy Carter.

"While the Ford-Reagan battles weren't 'ruinous' to the GOP in a general sense, the fallout from that conflict influences the general direction of the Republican Party to this day. Following Ford's defeat, GOP moderates were soon easily marginalized by the ultra-conservative acolytes of the so-called 'Reagan Revolution,' and that party soon made a hard right turn, from which it has yet to pull out."

(Emphasis since added.)

"And as we can see in Gerald Ford's posthumous valedictory, Write It When I'm Gone, he never reconciled with Ronald Reagan, and blamed him for his loss in the '76 general election.

"Ironically, Ford and his '76 Democratic opponent, Jimmy Carter, would eventually strike up a deep and enduring friendship, which began when each man discovered that they shared something in common: a mutual disdain and loathing of Reagan and the far-right, neo-conservative movement he ushered into power in Washington."

Hello, Donald. We posted simultaneously here, and I have admired your work and eloquence.
You are such a star, plus you're from Hawaii.

Brojo: "Antiwar advocates need to make the Minneapolis streets rage in September."

Sounds like a plan. I'll bring the bong, and you bring the "Who" albums:

"Hope I die before I get old (Talkin' 'bout my generation!) ..."

I cannot even imagine if McCain wins. Am reminded of the photo posted of a random person
holding a notebook--you may recall--- a scribbled, hand-written note, saying "Sorry, world...
we tried---From Half of America." ----(back when Bush "won"...)
Funny--my only solace is that Rachel Maddow is on shows such as Dan Abrams and
Keith Olbermann...
Feel so lost

It seems to me that the present situation of relatively even and stalemated division between Clinton and Obama might call for an innovative solution.

Some years ago, Gordon Brown and Tony Blair found themselves in a similar situation. They were said to have concluded an agreement in which Blair would become Prime Minister for a period of time after which he would resign in favor of Brown. This was the so-called Granita Pact, named after the restaurant in which it was concluded. In the event, this is in fact exactly what happened but there have been many accounts that Blair stretched his allotted time and thereby enraged Brown and his supporters.

What then if the Democratic party fielded a ticket of Clinton for President and Obama as veep with a secret but written understanding that Clinton would resign after three years. This would allow her to claim the first female presidency and also allow her time to try to force through universal medical care taking both the heat and the credit in the process. But such a deal would also allow the younger Obama a full year of presidential tenure from which to run for his own terms of office. If this was played correctly, everyone would get what they wanted and the party possibly three consecutive presidential terms as well.

On the matter of Michigan and Florida delegates, any makeup primaries would be manifestly unfair in that they would be conducted in the absence of the full field of candidates who have latterly dropped out. Such contests would be head to head spendfests which would not approximate conditions as they would have been in earlier months. As an alternative, I would suggest dividing the delegations evenly in half between the two remaining candidates and seating them without further ado. Their addition would narrow the gap between each candidate and the magic number finishing line yet not mathematically affect the existing proportions.

Just two thoughts from a spectator standing outside and leering in through the bars at the inmates at play.

The Granita Pact is described here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blair-Brown_deal

shortstop: "Look, I hear what you're saying, but it sounds like you identify with Hillary more than you do with Obama because you and HRC are in similar age and gender (and perhaps racial) demographics. The reverse doesn't necessarily apply."

You made a very good point, and did it so eloquently. Certainly, we all have our own petinas, our unique points of view.

I gravitated to Hillary Clinton because at heart I'm an anomaly, a die-hard male "feminist." Having lost my father in Vietnam while barely out of toddlerhood, I grew up watching my mother raise her children on her own, while simultaneously confronting the ingrained sexism in our society that all too often impeded women of her and her mother's generation. While the vast majority of my childhood friends in Pasadena had stay-at-home moms, mine was our family's sole breadwinner, and I was a "latch-key kid" long before the term was popularized.

So, having experienced vicariously what my mother endured as a single parent, and as the father of two teenaged daughters myself, I literally cringe at the overt sexism and misogyny that I've seen heaped upon women of talent and ambition, especially if they're politicians who dare to run for higher office. It's one thing to josh with the guys -- and Lord knows, I've offered up more than my share of fairly tasteless remarks over the years -- but to see the type of abuse and viriol directed toward Mrs. Clinton both saddens and disgusts me.

I was privileged during my years as a political staffer to work for Congresswoman Patsy Mink (D-HI), who, I'm ashamed to say, far too few young women know about. Well, Mrs. Mink was the author of Title IX, which revolutionized the fight for gender equality in a profound way that no legislation had done since the U.S. Constitution's 19th Amendment gave women the right to vote.

Mrs. Mink was also a friend Hillary Clinton long before she ever became First Lady, and I'd like to think that she'd be very proud of Hillary's presidential campaign, regardless of its outcome.

I think older women like my mother and aunt relate to Hillary's campaign because far too many of their generation have seen talented and experienced females tossed aside as expendable commodities, in favor of the smooth-talking male. And in their eyes, they're seeing it play out once again in this year's Democratic primary. They've simply reach their limits of endurance and tolerance, and quite frankly, I can't say as I blame them.

Aloha.

Bush and McCain say "Bring em on."
We continue to say "Bring em home."

My mom refused to vote for Ford in the general in 76.

Donald,

I hear you and I have a lot of respect for your posts.

Being pro-Hillary because she is a woman is the same thing as being anti-Hillary because she is a woman. If you really want to bury those discrepancies in our society, you have to bury them, both ways.

If you think Hill is the better candidate, support it with reasons other than chromosome makeup, otherwise, that is all there is.

Historical analogies are always dicey - "except for," "but then again," "unlike ____ ," etc.

But it seems to me the real concern is not a repeat of '68, but a mild version of '72. The major party players (your stereotypical smokey backroom guys), were incensed when mcgovern got the nomination - after some nifty parliamentary maneuvers by Gary Hart and Pat Caddell at the convention. The important thing to remember is that they weren't so much upset because of major policy differences (there were some, yes - greater than between Clinton Obama), but because of their loss of influence. As a result, they essentially withheld their support from McGovern in the general. Their positions as kingmakers within the party were more important to them than the party's greater success.

Now, there are a number of other major reasons why mcgovern got his ass handed to him, but my point is that we would be foolish to believe that there aren't major players today who would rather lose the Presidency to the Republicans again than give up their influence. Now, it would be very difficult to be as blatant about it today as they were then, but one of the major reasons I'm behind obama is because i know those people exist, and I'm pretty sure the only way to get rid of them is a changing of the guard from the top down that could not happen with a Clinton nomination.

As this thing gets closer and closer to the convention, the backroom types have a greater chance to exert their influence - either by fighting tooth and nail to somehow hand it to Clinton, or, perhaps more likely, by making deals with Obama's people to preserve some sort of niche for themselves.

The longer this goes, the better for the bigshots, and therefore the worse for both the fortunes and the ideals of the Democratic Party.

says you: "If you think Hill is the better candidate, support it with reasons other than chromosome makeup, otherwise, that is all there is."

While I appreciate the compliments, please don't willfully misconstrue my post to imply something I never said. I also used the term "talented and experienced" in that post. My support for Mrs. Clinton is predicated on a number of factors.

Donald-

Aloha. Deja vu re: ur post. Absolutely, positively feel I've read much of it before. Please don't be angry with says you. Of course gravitating toward someone you admire for their accomplishments has no comparison with being against someone because of their gender or race.
I've always admired your father and now have the same admiration for your mother. She sure did a good job raising you.

Chao

So if Clinton wins by campaigning hard and getting 55%+ of superdelegates, both of which are perfectly within the rules, Obama supporters will a)stay home
b)vote for McCain c)leave the Democratic Party

Apparently your commitment to progressive goals is a bit weak. You would rather feel 'pure' than actually help make other people's lives better.

Lmao, I really think some of you don't fully understand the emotional impact of having a white establishment rig an election to screw a black candidate out of the nomination.

You are, to put it bluntly, downright idiots if you think Clinton can get the nomination through supers and still win a General election. Not only that, we may well lose 10+ seats in congress.

Anyone who says a divisive primary will make no difference is
A) a Clinton supporter, and
B) naive

Being pro-Hillary because she is a woman is the same thing as being anti-Hillary because she is a woman. If you really want to bury those discrepancies in our society, you have to bury them, both ways.

No, not at all. One can have perfectly valid reasons to vote for Hillary because she's a woman, if for example you think that her experience as a woman will lead her to support policies that benefit society as a whole (for example, by supporting equal pay, family leave, a fairer tax distribution, etc. etc.). Similarly, one could support a black candidate "because he was black" if, for example, one thought that his race and familiarity with bigotry made him a better advocate for issues of social justice, anti-discrimination, etc.

Speaking of primary divisiveness, Michael Blanchfield for TNR:

First and foremost, the U.S. media has identified [Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper's] chief of staff, Ian Brodie, as the leaker of the diplomatic cable written by the Chicago consulate reporting on the Goolsbee meeting. Harper's domestic political foes are advancing a narrative that has already angered Democrats, and would be bad news for bilateral relations: that Harper was trying to do a favor for the GOP by tossing a piece of political dynamite in front of Obama's train as it was barreling down on Ohio.

It's not a divisive primary, Kevin. It's a primary artificially prolonged by Republicans for their own benefit, just like Markos tried to do to Republicans in Michigan.

The only reason Hillary's still in this is because the Republicans want her there.
.

Jesus, Kevin, it might be worth reading up on the actual history of the election.

Firstly: George Wallace. It's somewhat hard to say who Wallace took more votes from. I think all the deep south states would easily have been won by Nixon if Wallace had been out of the race, increasing his electoral college and popular majorities. But Wallace also got a lot of votes in the north, mostly from the kind of people who would later become Reagan Democrats. Humphrey was actually not that unattractive a candidate for Reagan Democrat types, and I think it's reasonable to think that Wallace hurt Humphrey more than he hurt Nixon there. Still, on balance, Wallace probably took more votes from Nixon in the south than he did from Humphrey in the north (and Nixon might have won Texas if Wallace had been out of the race, too, which, I think, puts the race out of reach for Humphrey, even if he'd been able to win a bunch of northern states like Ohio as a result of Wallace's exit). I'd be interested to see actual analysis of this, though.

Secondly, the election was not one which was close all the way down. It was one where Nixon was expected to win easily until about two weeks before the election. What happened was that Humphrey had first distanced himself from Johnson on the war, and that then Johnson had himself called a bombing halt and peace negotiations with North Vietnam seemed to be progressing in Paris.

Humphrey then began to gather steam in a serious way, but it was punctured by the Nixon campaign basically going through back channels to tell the South Vietnamese to torpedo any settlement, because Nixon would get them a better one. So, anyway, Nixon won a much closer election than anyone expected.

So if Clinton wins by campaigning hard and getting 55%+ of superdelegates, both of which are perfectly within the rules, Obama supporters will
a)stay home
b)vote for McCain
c)leave the Democratic Party

Notice you conveniently left out the seating of the MI and FL delegates, which would not be "within the rules".

In case no one noticed, Hillary only made up around 8 delegates on Tuesday. That's nothing. Obama got more from North Dakota, and will get more from Mississippi next Tuesday. Clinton is dead in the water. Her only hope is to get the MI and FL delegates seated AND rely on superdelegates to push her over the top.

If that's the case, put me down for a) and c).

Joe, don't let the door hit you in the ass on your way out...

I agree with Demtom on 1952--there's lots of parallels between then and now. Taft was the establishment Rep leader, the heir apparent; Ike was the charismatic outsider with little or no political background (or so it seemed). Taft knew the issues, Ike didn't. They battled all the way through the primaries and into the convention--remember the fight over seating the Texas delegates?

I don't remember it (really, do many of us?), but this seems to fundamentally misunderstand the nature of that contest. Eisenhower was the candidate of Tom Dewey and the eastern establishment. Taft was the candidate of conservative midwestern main street republicanism. They both had massive institutional/establishment support. Also, while Eisenhower was a newcomer in domestic policy, in foreign policy he was obviously a master, and Taft's isolationism made him a weak candidate on foreign policy.

Also, all campaigns went all the way to the convention back then. Even Nixon in 1968 wasn't completely assured of the nomination when the convention opened - there was talk of a Rockefeller/Reagan ticket to deny him the nomination.

Anyone who says a divisive primary will make no difference is
A) a Clinton supporter, and
B) naive

That's a good observation. This thread offers a lot of supporting evidence.

Soullite: "I really think some of you don't fully understand the emotional impact of having a white establishment rig an election to screw a black candidate out of the nomination."

Another important point. It may seem smart to say "don't let the door hit you in the ass on your way out..." but I wonder if the Democratic party regulars--the ones who think it is politics as usual to hand HRC the nomination (over the popular vote and the delegate count) --I wonder if they will be so smug when 20% or more of the Democratic base and a generation start looking for a 3rd party choice in future elections. Maybe HRC captures the nomination, maybe she wins in Nov 2008, but I think the victory would be short-term.

Remember all the warhawk triumphalism when the Republicans invaded Iraq, all the smug dismissal of those who tried to talk sense? Sometimes opposing arguments are made by your friends, by people who are concerned for your welfare.

I wonder if they will be so smug when 20% or more of the Democratic base and a generation start looking for a 3rd party choice in future elections.

That's a crazy number. The largest groundswell for a third party candidate was in 1992 for Perot, and he drew 19% of the total electorate, won no states, and failed to sustain a movement. In the following election cycle, his totals went down, he failed to create a viable third party, and he drew disaffected voters from BOTH parties.

Despite your insane fantasies, Hillary Clinton does not doom the Democratic Party. If she wasn't running, someone else would be. And you'd probably have the same reaction to that person, i.e., "So-and-so is the END of the Democratic Party!"

You can beat that dead horse all you want, but he's still not going to take you to town with that kind of thinking.

Pale Rider: "That's a crazy number."

Bah, I am talking about long-term disaffection from the Democratic party, not a historic number of votes cast for a third party candidate in 2008. With your hysterical name-calling, you deserve tit-for-tat, not respect, nevertheless, I will respectfully explain how I arrived at 20%:

African-Americans = 15% of the US population, currently voting ~90% for Barrack Obama. Say, 50% are disaffected and more open to 3rd party options after white party super-delegates hand the nomination to Clinton. Let's make the math easy and figure that as 5% of the Democratic base willing to defect.

Obama's youthful supporters are currently identifying themselves as Democrats. Say, 10% stop calling themselves Democrats and start supporting the Green candidates in their local and state elections.

And let's say, 5% of liberals who have stuck with the Democratic party through thick and thin--through the scandals of the Clinton years, supporting Gore, not Nader, in 2000, yet seeing the WH handed to GWB, through the waffling of the past eight years, through the inevitable return of the Clinton's in 2008--say they finally give up on the Democrats and start looking for progressive candidates.

You may call this an insane fantasy. But if Clinton is perceived to secure the Democratic nomination by playing unfair? You really think that won't have consequences? That the party will just kiss and make-up and be gosh-darn stronger than ever? We'll talk some more next November. I hope I'm wrong.

Anyhow, this thread is dead. I'm outta here.

Joe, don't let the door hit you in the ass on your way out...

Thanks elmo. Good to see you and the rest of Hillary's supporters are not just sitting idly by but actually encouraging her to steal the nomination. I'm sure the Democratic party will be in good hands....

If this is allowed to go down, I guess all that talk about Bush stealing the election in 2000 was just empty rhetoric. Nope, as long as your guy, or gal in this case, is the one doing the stealing, you don't care.

Fortunately though, Hillary won't win. There's still enough honest people in the right places (Howard Dean) that won't let her steal it. So sorry Elmo, your attempt to Putin-ize this process is doomed to fail. Nice try though, if it makes you feel better, I'm sure it brought a tear to Rove's eye.

You're welcome, Joe. There is no "stealing" the election here and you know it. There is a process that has to be played out, and if no candidate gets the required number of delegates to secure the nomination, then it goes to the convention.

There is no rule that says the candidate with the most elected delegates wins the primary, no matter how much you cry about it. If you want to get technical, Obama only is where he is because of the caucus system that leaves most out of the electoral process. You guys think Florida and Michigan voters should be left out. Anything that helps Obama in your eyes is "fair", anything against him will be "stealing" the election.

I dig your enthusiasm, I really do. But if you are going to throw a temper tantrum on the floor and leave the party if Obama loses, then fine.

Get the fuck out...

Obama only is where he is because of the caucus system that leaves most out of the electoral process.

A couple of things:

i. elmo is bipolar, with fake red fur and a preternaturally happy affect.

ii. he misplaces his modifiers.

iii. he is an impostor. Elmo from Sesame Street is a fine puppet. Elmo incarnated here . . . I don't know how else to say it. He disappoints children everywhere.

he misplaces his modifiers.

You found them? Where are they?

only modifies "because of the caucus system."

My most serious charge, mr. impostor elmo, was that you disapppoint children everywhere by advocating a say-anything and do-anything candidate who appears to crave the VP spot on a McCain ticket.

The Elmo I know and love supports Obama.

Also, *all* campaigns went all the way to the convention back then. Even Nixon in 1968 wasn't completely assured of the nomination when the convention opened - there was talk of a Rockefeller/Reagan ticket to deny him the nomination.
Posted by: John on March 6, 2008 at 12:38 PM

Something to think about RE: pre-annointed candidates

I think the current situation is better than the last several election cycles, but I think it still would have been better for Edwards and Romney to have stayed in the race all the way to the convention for their respective parties.

mr. impostor elmo

I'm the same elmo that has been commenting here for three years. The fact that I'm not really a red furry monster is just plain common sense.

a say-anything and do-anything candidate

What a chickenshit statement. Hillary has worked her entire life for others, but you seem to believe she is doing all this for her own personal pleasure. Typical...

African-Americans = 15% of the US population, currently voting ~90% for Barrack Obama. Say, 50% are disaffected and more open to 3rd party options after white party super-delegates hand the nomination to Clinton. Let's make the math easy and figure that as 5% of the Democratic base willing to defect.

I've looked at several different census sources, and the percentage of African-Americans in America is generally listed at 12%. I've seen statistics where Obama is winning well under 90% of the African American vote.

So if the basic foundation of your bullcrap numbers is something contradicted by the actual numbers, I think it's reasonable to conclude that your assertion of "20% or more of the Democratic base" abandoning the party is insane.

Wah! Wah! Your preconceived notions that are based on hating the candidates dissipates before your pampered eyes! Wah! Wah!