A Party Divided

There have been a number of idiotic statements in the last couple of months made by pundits who are supposed to have their fingers on the pulse of the American electorate, but perhaps the stupidest of all is one of the most frequently repeated mythologies that is just now starting to be wholly debunked. The mythology in question is the talking point that "Democrats like BOTH of these candidates" in reference to Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama.

The real story is that Clinton and Obama have inadvertantly (at least in the beginning) divided Democratic voters into two distinct groups, neither of which particularly likes or trusts the other. The divide was clear as early as the New Hampshire primary when older voters and working-class voters started to show some backlash to Obamamania and attach themselves to Hillary Clinton. The divide really came to the surface on Super Tuesday, where Hillary had built a seemingly impenetrable coalition of older women, Catholics, blue-collar whites, and Latinos contrasting with Obama's coalition of African-Americans, young people, liberal activists, and affluent professionals. A generation ago, it would have been painfully obvious that the numbers would be on the side of Hillary's coalition in any Democratic primary, but the changing nature of the party made the contest jarlid tight as of Super Tuesday.

Then, of course, Obama was on a roll, albeit an artificial one propped up a number of states demographically favorable to him, that made it seem like Clinton's coalition was falling apart. Wisconsin really seemed like the nail in Hillary's coffin, but in retrospect, her decision to write that state off probably cost her more votes than anything positive Barack Obama did. Nonetheless, I was pretty convinced Obama had it in the bag as recently as one week ago, and was grateful for that as Hillary seemed like a sure loser in the general election and her increasingly negative and confrontational tone was angering me....and since it was angering me, I assumed it must be angering every other Democrat.

But the anecdotal evidence even within my personal social contacts pointed to a tremendous problem Obama was having connecting to older voters even in the friendly turf of the Upper Midwest. My dad reported one person out of more than 30 raising their hand at the county Democratic meeting in my working-class home county in Minnesota when asked who supported Barack Obama. My mom has been unimpressed with him throughout the process, seeing him as an empty suit unable or unwilling to talk specifics, even threatening to sit out the 2008 election if he's the nominee. As last Tuesday's big night for Hillary approached, I came across a poll showing 25% of Hillary supporters would vote for McCain if Obama got the nomination, as compared to 11% of Obama supporters in the event of a Hillary nomination. Those are some sobering numbers, and were ultimately confirmed by a set of Survey USA state polls released last week (after Tuesday). http://www.surveyusa.com/ Scroll down to see hypothetical poll results for Obama v. McCain and Hillary v. McCain.

The fault line is painfully clear. The working-class Scots-Irish belt stretching from Pennsylvania to Arkansas is open to voting Hillary, while Obama would lose by 20 points in a number of swing states. Meanwhile, Obama would put a number of crimson red states in the Plains and Rocky Mountain West in play that Hillary would lose by 20 points or more. There really is no serious electability advantage at this stage, and it's pretty clear that Obama was getting way ahead of himself when he expressed confidence about being able to win over Hillary's voters in a way that she wouldn't be able to win over his. Older voters in particular simply do not take him seriously, and the GOP's wise decision to nominate John McCain really helps the GOP frame Obama's lack of experience in terms favorable to them. The fact that working-class Ohioans soundly rejected a man who spent his young life fighting directly for the working-class and Hillary and her husband were the strongest cheerleaders of NAFTA is irrelevant. Perceptions trump reality in our deranged world of identity politics, and the battles lines are drawn.

Does this mean I'm changing horses midstream and hopping aboard the Hillary Comeback Train? Nope. Not for personal nor strategic reasons. The next three months promise to be an ugly knife fight between the rival factions that is likely to tear the party apart before and during the convention. Obama's thin lead in pledged delegates will be meaningless since he won't pass the threshold of 2.025 delegates required for nomination...and Hillary will thus use her "big state" and 11th hour momentum arguments to try to convince superdelegates to swing her way.

Whoever prevails, I can't imagine the two sides reconciling after such a bloody battle, virtually ensuring defeat in November against a unified bloc of Republicans, independents, and disaffected Democrats who are cool with the seemingly benign John McCain. So what it boils down to then is which demographic of Democratic voters do we want to piss off by not nominating their preferred candidate?

By choosing Obama, older working-class Democrats who currently support Hillary defect to John McCain en masse, producing what is likely to be the most generationally polarized election of all-time. The two most senior-heavy states in America, Florida and Pennsylvania, swing to McCain and by themselves ensure mathematical defeat for Obama. But can the GOP remain the party of seniors when they inevitably resurrect their plans to shrink Social Security checks and dismantle Medicare? Not likely. Nominating Obama would most likely not permanently realign nonsupporters into the Republican column, but the same cannot be said for the reverse scenario....

If millions of young Obamamaniacs get their "hope" stolen from them by Hillary Clinton and cigar-chomping party bosses in the backroom of the convention, all those young Democrats become instantly disillusioned with the Democratic Party and politics in general. The 2008 election would become of the lowest-turnout races ever.....a yawner of a battle among the geriatric voters who supported Hillary and McCain in the primaries, or at least those who haven't died or gotten Alzheimer's by November 4. But the consequences would certainly extend beyond November 4 as Obama fans who feel disenfranchised after the "stolen nomination" no longer have a use for the Democratic Party in 2010 or afterward.

The choice is still pretty clear to me that Barack Obama is the stronger candidate at a personal and strategic level, even though I'm bracing for near-certain defeat this fall given the current arrangement. Kind of ironic how Texas, the state that brought us George W. Bush, and Ohio, the state that denied John Kerry the Presidency in 2004, have managed to poison the 2008 elections eight months before the first general elections votes have been cast. All we can do now is sit back and watch the show....and probably still hear residual nonsense from "experts" that "Democrats like BOTH these candidates".