How the Democratic party is making the decision

David Brooks thinks Hillary is destroying the  Democratic party's chance to win the White House simply in order to protect a newly estimated 5% chance at becoming the nominee.

For the sake of that 5 percent, this will be the sourest spring. About a fifth of Clinton and Obama supporters now say they wouldn’t vote for the other candidate in the general election. Meanwhile, on the other side, voters get an unobstructed view of the Republican nominee. John McCain’s approval ratings have soared 11 points. He is now viewed positively by 67 percent of Americans. A month ago, McCain was losing to Obama among independents by double digits in a general election matchup. Now McCain has a lead among this group.

For three more months, Clinton is likely to hurt Obama even more against McCain, without hurting him against herself. And all this is happening so she can preserve that 5 percent chance.

When you step back and think about it, she is amazing. She possesses the audacity of hopelessness.

Hillary Clinton's negatives have remained high enough for Rush Limbaugh -- gleefully -- to throw Republican votes her way, hoping to insure a McCain win in November. 

Meanwhile, political alliances have shifted in the past four years.  One thing we know for sure by now:  Barack Obama is attracting conservatives to his fold as well as progressives. 

In many ways, the Obama campaign is challenging the fundamental political premise that has prevailed in Washington for more than a generation: that any majority coalition must be carefully centrist, if not center-right. Bill Clinton ran in 1992 as a candidate willing to break with liberal orthodoxy on many issues, including crime and welfare, and eager to move the party — which had lost five of the six previous presidential elections — to the middle. Mr. Clinton’s New Democrats assumed a certain level of conservatism among voters.

Mr. Obama and his allies are basing his campaign on a different bet: that the right-leaning political landscape Mr. Clinton confronted has changed. Several major Democratic strategists, and outside analysts as well, argue that the country has shifted to the left because of the Iraq war, the economy and seven-plus years of President Bush, and that it has become open to a new progressive majority.

The Democratic party is left in a state of confusion and indecision, and it's the party which can throw the nomination either way:  to a candidate who has captured the "swing states" but who has less acceptance and higher negativity, or to a candidate who has fewer supporters in traditional quarters but wide acceptance nationally.

Barack Obama may or may not have started a new "conversation" on race, but Hillary Clinton wants to talk about who can win in November.  ... Do big swing states matter more than the popular vote or the delegate total? Are primaries victories good predictors of general elections?

The party seems to be stuck in an assumption that the political divisions of the 1990's still hold.  They don't.  A realignment has taken place.  But the party is stuck in the past.  And here's something we forget when we vote in a primary.   Our vote is not, as it were, going straight to god's ear.  It's a little frightening to realize that it's the party, more than the voters, who decide on the nominee.

Parties hold primaries.  Parties decide the allotment of their delegates to national conventions.  The delegates decide the presidency.  As we're learning, delegates come in several flavors and are subjected to a variety of influences as they move through their county conventions, their state conventions, and on the floor of the national convention.  A big bunch of those delegates -- loose canon -- are not pledged.  And even the pledged delegates are released from their pledge after the first vote in the convention.

Just how this process is working right now -- how a decision is being made about who is to be anointed by the Democratic party-- is being discussed in a variety of places.  The discussion about swing states described above is coming up today:  will super delegates throw the nomination to Hillary Clinton because of her wins in what we've traditionally regarded as "swing states." 

We're keeping an eye out for these discussions.  When they seem particularly relevant or worth archiving for reference, we're doing our best to let you know or even (as we're doing in one case right now) transcribing them.  Coming up soon: a long discussion about (among other things) how the Democratic party's super delegates are being urged to decide on their candidate well before the convention, and how the Democratic party will deal voters in Michigan and Florida seek full representation.

Comments

[Will Divide]

Look, Brooks has been wrong about nearly everything, a man whose vision is always guided by his wishes.

Yeah, McCain is getting a free ride now, but what is he doing with it? Making one dumbass comment after another.

I wish Hil would go away. I also wish the Fed wouldn't bail out Wall St. and Dems defund the Iraq Project. These systemic collapses don't happen overnight (well, at least until the end.)

As a Texan you should know that a big snake can twist a long time after its head is sliced off, making a more revolting sight than the animal whole.

[PW]

Though I don't necessarily think Brooks is wrong about this issue, I don't post him because he's right. I post him when he's interesting or relevant or being a super-jerk or just because he's a Republican looking for some validation on the other side. Which he's been doing a lot lately.

Beats me why anyone thinks a blogger has to believe or agree with everything quoted: often quite the opposite!

[BettyB]

That's Brooks take. Who cares.

I think Obama is losing ground as his negatives are finally given some press. Can he win over the Hillary supporters? That is the question for an Obama candidacy, not whether he attracts a few conservatives.

Hillary has been crushed under negative press, and Obama has been given a pass until recently. Why that is, I'm not sure.

Rush Limbaugh wants Hillary to run because he can get higher ratings bashing her. If he gets down on Obama with the race card, it won't go over so well with anyone but dittoheads, and could get him shelved like Imus.

It's a rare primary that any votes count beyond the first few states. Let the final ten states have their say. This is beginning to remind me of Florida 2000. Let's ask Al Gore how he feels about an election decided by someone other than the voters.

[PW]

Be interesting to see who Al Gore endorses!