What the hell's a Feed?
Stick it in your email!
South Carolina Dems elect McCain
 |
| Meet your new President. |
It has become a cliché among the political punditry that the only thing standing between the Democrats and the White House are… Democrats themselves. With the notable exception of Bill Clinton, Democratic candidates and their party faithful seem congenitally incapable of putting together a candidacy that can win the support not just of Independents and the scant Republican crossover voter but of their own motley base. Barack Obama’s resounding victory in the South Carolina primary pretty much rings the death knell on the chances for a Democratic victory in the fall and, I would say, guarantees that our next president will be John McCain.
It would appear that Democrats learned nothing from the debacle of the 2000 election. That election showed the profound impact that a fracture in their base could have — had Ralph Nader not shaved just a few percentage points off the totals for Al Gore, there would have been no need for a Supreme Court coronation of George Bush. This time it’s worse. As has been noted [many times], outside of the Democratic party Hillary Clinton is not a very popular character. Her chances in a general election were dicey to begin with unless she faced a particularly weak Republican and, as McCain ascends, that looks unlikely. A full-on challenge to her from within her own party is evidence that even Democrats are not satisfied with their choices. And the nature of the dissatisfaction — as evidenced in the South Carolina vote — must encourage the Republicans. Obama won South Carolina with overwhelming support from blacks (78%) and women (54%), but fewer than one out of four white Democrats voted for him. And these are white Democrats. A Democrat cannot win the general election without picking up Southern states and they cannot win Southern states without white votes.
To a great extent this primary season has been about voting in protest. Huckabee comes from behind to win Iowa because the evangelical base doesn’t like Romney or McCain and is not willing to “play along” in the interests of party unity. Similarly, Obama makes his name in Iowa as the anti-Hillary change agent and in South Carolina as the Great Black Hope of this generation. But the Republicans are falling into line behind a front-runner more quickly than are the Democrats. McCain effectively derailed the far-right smear machine in South Carolina and now looks to win Florida, as well. If he can avoid a brokered convention — where the wing-nuts could mount a challenge to him — he will go into the general election in very good shape. He has appeal not just to moderate Republicans and Independents but also conservative Democrats and his soft support on the far-right will turn to stone in the face of either Clinton or Obama.
We can already write the history of this campaign: after eight failed years of Republican rule it looked like the Democrats had a lock on the White House, but their leading candidate — a controversial woman with lots of baggage — faced a challenge from within her party from a candidate that fractured the base. The result was a Republican presidency and a Democratic congress, which is just the way America seems to like it. The more things change, the more they stay the same.
Posted in Politics 01/27/08 | 
Email this | Comments (13)
Share/Save this: 
Hmm. I think I’m going to have to disagree with you on this. I think it’s early enough in the game for either Hillary or Obama to run an effective national campaign and shore up the Dem base. I think we’re going to see record turnout at the voting booth in Nov., and (fingers crossed) maybe even the mythical youth vote emerging as a real force to be reckoned with finally. I think we are actually witnessing another Kennedy emerge, and his chances get better everyday as far as I’m concerned. I’m grateful there is an alternative to the Clinton team, and I think I’m far from alone. During the last 2 minutes of his victory speech in SC, I actually welled up with tears at one point. No politician has ever had that affect on me. I don’t like McCain, but he’s the least offensive of the GOP lot, so an Obama/McCain matchup would finally give me someone to vote for, instead of merely against. You may be right, but I certainly hope not, and hope is one thing that I’m grateful to feel this time around.
Comment by Aatom — January 28, 2008 @ 10:42 am
Wishful thinking, buddy. The republicans might as well use the next 4 years to set themselves up for a 2013 victory. The next president will be decided at the democratic primaries, and they are pointing at Obama.
Comment by dave — January 28, 2008 @ 4:38 pm
Aatom,
I agree that a McCain/Obama race would be a dream contest that would be good for the country in so many ways (face down residual racism, likely an honorable debate on policies since McCain is not a wing-nut ideologue, etc.) but I doubt the country would choose Obama’s idealism over McCain’s experience and I’m not sure they should. I’ve already lived through the failed presidency of an honorable idealist who lacked the practical experience to govern (Carter) and don’t think it’s Obama’s turn. Yet.
McCain is not beholden to the far-right as past Republicans have been — far from it. And given that he may not even run for reelection given his age, I think he would be a pretty moderate check on a Democratic congress and that wouldn’t be bad.
Comment by Sprague D — January 28, 2008 @ 6:58 pm
Mr rat,
Your logic is absurd. Barack, Edwards and Hillary have been running fairly even for awhile now and among white voters in SC,they broke not far outside that range yet again.
Indeed, Hillary got less than a 3rd of the Democratic white vote in SC. That means more than 2/3rds voted for the other guys.
2/3rds voted against her! 3/4 voted against Obama. So this means Hillary is electable in Nov but Obama is not?
Sorry, the issue is will those voters who voted against either of them come back in November and vote for the nominee if it’s not the one they voted for yesterday. Some might not come back and vote for Barack, but there are a lot of Hillary haters who won’t come back and vote for her either.
Remember this country allowed black men the right to vote about 75 years before they allowed white woman to. Sadly, the same might be true for the POTUS.
Comment by mark — January 28, 2008 @ 7:08 pm
Your argument seems to boil down to this:
1. The leading Democratic candidate has baggage that will complicate her chances in the general election.
2. A younger, less-encumbered Democrat may win the nomination instead (thereby fracturing the party).
3. This is a bad thing because he’s black and therefore southern white Democrats won’t vote for him.
This is ludicrous–just turn each of the arguments around to see why. Are we supposed to just accept that Hillary will be our nominee without actually going through a nomination process? Do we prohibit uppity blacks from campaigning if they actually might win?
For heaven’s sake, why can’t we just conclude that Obama’s winning because he’s inspiring voters and has a solid organization? This idea that Obama’s supporters are hurting Dem chances this election are, in my view, wrong and frankly repugnant.
The nomination process is working and is generating a lot of excitement and interest. That’s a *good* thing–get over it.
Comment by David in AK — January 28, 2008 @ 7:44 pm
Mark,
The white vote wasn’t divided evenly among the 3 main candidates as you suggest. One quarter went to Obama and 3/4 was divided among his rivals. The significance lies in the disproportionate support he received by racial group: 78% of blacks vs. 24% of whites. That’s significant. I agree with you that many of his voters might transfer their support to Clinton in the event that she prevails in the primaries — but to the extent that they don’t, Obama risks looking like a spoiler (think of Kennedy and Carter in 1980). But then, he might be the Democratic candidate. We’ll see.
And I never said Hillary is electable in a general election — I don’t believe she will ever be president. My point is that the challenge from Obama makes her election even less likely were she to be the Democratic candidate.
Comment by Sprague D — January 28, 2008 @ 8:07 pm
David,
Suggesting that by considering the effect Obama’s challenge has on the putative front-runner in his party is somehow keeping down “uppity blacks” is itself repugnant… and patronizing.
Would you have said criticizing Kennedy’s challenge of Carter was an example of keeping down “uppity rich white Irish”? Was criticism of Ralph Nader’s challenge to Gore keeping down “uppity Jewish consumer advocates”?
Comment by Sprague D — January 28, 2008 @ 8:25 pm
At no time was Ralph Nader ahead of any of the major party candidates in polls or in the delegate count. Obama is well ahead of Clinton in the delegate count–perhaps you should stop assuming that her coronation is a foregone conclusion.
Comment by David in AK — January 28, 2008 @ 8:31 pm
The bottom line is that you appear to be upset simply because Obama’s challenge has been more successful than you wanted or anticipated. And if we can’t have successful challenges during the primaries, why bother with a democratic process? Just for show?
Comment by David in AK — January 28, 2008 @ 8:38 pm
Vote for McCain
Comment by Idlmind — January 28, 2008 @ 11:13 pm
“And I never said Hillary is electable in a general election — I don’t believe she will ever be president. My point is that the challenge from Obama makes her election even less likely were she to be the Democratic candidate.”
Am I to understand that you think the fix is in, and the Dems will lose possibly the easiest election that has ever been granted them in modern history? I wholeheartedly hope you are wrong! As a confirmed (and controversial in insignificant quarters!) Independent, I sincerely hope you are wrong. I think Carter is just as irrelevant now as he has always been, any attempt to associate him with Obama would require significant argument on your part.
And I can’t help but feel that this post has garnered a notable amount of comment here, which I feel works in Obama’s favor. There is an engagement factor at work this time around that our country hasn’t felt for quite a while.
Comment by Aatom — January 29, 2008 @ 2:34 am
Aatom,
One of the previous posts I linked to comments on a Marist poll from last year that showed only 50% of the electorate would consider voting for a woman for president. I think it would hard going for *any* woman to be elected, but especially this woman who brings so much baggage.
I appreciate the enthusiasm you feel for Obama, it’s clear that he touches a deep chord in people and that’s not insignificant. But I think it’s too soon for him. I doubt he would have the practical ability to put his ideals into practice and I don’t think he will win against McCain, though it would be good for the country if he ran.
I know what enthusiasm for an idealistic challenger feels like — the first election I ever participated in was 1980, when I volunteered for Kennedy.
Comment by Sprague D — January 29, 2008 @ 8:34 am
Democrats didnt win the majority white male vote with B.Clinton or Gore….but won all three elections er… popular votes. Obama can do this thing, esp. since the white “majority” no longer exists.
Comment by jm — January 29, 2008 @ 7:30 pm