The next six primaries are crucial
By Thoreau
If Hillary Clinton had fallen short of expectations, she’d be out of it. If she had exceeded expectations, there’s a real chance that things would shift in her favor.
Instead, she exactly matched expectations, and now the good people of Guam are about to get 24/7 political ads. Welcome to American presidential politics, Guam. Don’t worry, it will be over soon.
As to Obama, he sounds good at times. Sometimes I start to think that he’s the real deal. Then I remember that the real deal always either loses, dies, or sells out. Since I don’t want anybody to die, and since I don’t want to get into another round of whether I’m being too cynical about the Dems, I’ll predict that he’ll lose. Whether it’s the primary or the general election, I predict that he’ll lose something. The good news is that if he loses we can always tell ourselves that there was one good politician out there and the only problem is that he was simply better than this awful system deserved.
No, I don’t really have a crush on Obama, but I do have to admit that he knows how to say the right stuff. I just figure that he’ll lose because a Democrat who gets all aspirational and high-minded always loses. I can either react to that with cynicism, and say that it’s the way the system is designed, or I can react with forlorn hope. Either way, the system will grind on, but illusions can be comforting things. Even when you have the suspicion that your illusions are indeed illusions.
Comment by Tejota —
April 22, 2008 @ 11:16 pm
He’s not the real deal, he’s just a gifted orator with a talent for gaming the electoral system.
Your choices this year come down to
A) Empty suit. (A _beautiful_ suit, but still empty)
B) The most hated woman in America.
Comment by Thoreau —
April 22, 2008 @ 11:33 pm
I know he’ll lose because he said something about being a party that focuses on why they should win instead of a party that focuses on what it takes to win. That means he’ll lose, now or in November.
He’s up against two candidates who have shifted shape multiple times and come out stronger for it. In 2000, McCain was the guy talking about uniting people and bridging party lines and all that, and he lost. And he drew votes from some of the same sorts of Democrats and independents who support Obama. Then he went to the base, focused on that, and he’s the party nominee. Hillary Clinton was seen as far lefty and elitist, and now she’s playing to conservative blue-collar Democrats.
Was her far left thing authentic, or is this authentic? Ultimately, it doesn’t matter. She and McCain have learned how to change shape in response to opportunity, and so they will eventually devour this guy who thinks that he can win by stirring the souls of some people who want to be inspired.
Yes, I know, many would say that there’s real substance there, and maybe they’re right. But these aspirational candidates don’t win. Substance or not, they won’t get the chance to deliver it, nor will they get the chance to break any promises.
Comment by Dave W. —
April 22, 2008 @ 11:42 pm
Our cause is not just.
Comment by Jim Henley —
April 22, 2008 @ 11:52 pm
Meanwhile, I predicted 55% of the vote would go to Clinton, and it did.
Comment by Thoreau —
April 23, 2008 @ 12:16 am
Drop it, Dave.
Comment by ChrisWWW —
April 23, 2008 @ 12:18 am
Damn Thoreau. Stop depressing the hell out of me.
Comment by sglover —
April 23, 2008 @ 2:42 am
I think Obama will pull it out, because only HRC has a chance at losing to the geezer.
As for whether Obama’s an empty suit, it’s hard to say. Seems to me that when people say he is, they’re really objecting about his resume’, which lacks the usual ticket-punching gigs — a tour in Congress, a Cabinet job here, a governorship there. Given our leadership caste, Obama’s sparse resume’ looks pretty damn good to me. But the political circus does such a horrible job of selecting worthy people. I sure wish there were a Science & Reason Party…..
Comment by Doug T —
April 23, 2008 @ 7:55 am
Well, Obama has already beaten Hillary in the Democratic primary, against some very long odds. (Unlike Iraq, there is a finish line to the primary season, so Hillary’s strategy of “if I don’t say I’ve lost, I haven’t lost” won’t work the same way.)
Given that, and given the huge built-in advantages he will have in the general election (McCain is effectively running on a platform of “4 more years” of the most unpopular president in recorded polling history), I’m not going to write him off.
Comment by Dave W. —
April 23, 2008 @ 9:31 am
Yeah, cancel my previous comment. Upon reflection I have to same that I agree with or share the hopes and fears expressed in this post. It is a good post.
Comment by y81 —
April 23, 2008 @ 9:35 am
Why do you say aspirational candidates don’t win? Have you forgotten Mr. “Why Not the Best?”, Mr. “The American People Deserve a Government as Good as They Are” etc.?
Now if you said aspirational candidates aren’t usually very effective in office, that would be a better-founded argument.
Comment by Flippanter —
April 23, 2008 @ 11:19 am
I don’t mean this as a challenge to Doug T., but people mention Obama’s (or the theoretical other Democratic candidate’s) “built-in advantages” fairly frequently, and I am afraid that I just don’t have faith in any such advantage. As Jim has said in the past, the world is a red state, and McCain is a far more familiar and welcome character (however false) to most people outside a few big cities than Obama (or the theoretical other Democratic candidate). It just seems likely that the uninformed or not-particularly-interested voters who break late, or break early on the basis of superficial impressions and unexamined prejudices, will tend to break for the irascible veteran, rather than the young black guy with the funny name and without an “ordinary person” resume.
Comment by Doug T —
April 23, 2008 @ 11:28 am
I think the fundamentals of this election season strongly favor the Democrats. It’s hard to run as the status quo candidate when only a third of the country likes the status quo. McCain is the pro-war candidate when the war is extremely unpopular. There’s a pretty good chance the economy will be in the crapper by November, too. At the least, the economy is likely to be struggling. All of these factors strongly favor the Dems.
It’s certainly not a lock for the Democrats, but Bush barely squeeked by in 2000 and won a close election in 2004. I think Bush is a better candidate than McCain (which is why he trounced him the 2000 primaries), plus most of the country is much less happy with the GOP than was the case in either 2000 or 2004. Lastly, I think Obama is a stronger candidate than either Gore or Kerry.
Comment by Flippanter —
April 23, 2008 @ 11:43 am
It’s hard to run as the status quo candidate when only a third of the country likes the status quo.
Only a third of the country may like the status quo of an unsuccessful, humiliating war, and even fewer may like a sinking, serpent’s-tooth economy, but a lot of the country, and an awful lot of the parts of the country that are overrepresented vis-a-vis electoral votes, like the status quo of familiar-seeming white people being in charge of everything.
Comment by bobbo —
April 23, 2008 @ 12:39 pm
I agree with Doug T. It’s the fundamentals, stupid. Call me crazy, but I think either Obama or Clinton will win. McCain is only barely even with them now, which is pathetic when you consider all the mud they’re flinging at each other. Once we have a candidate and can focus, McCain starts to sink again. Plus, I don’t discount the charisma thing. Obama: lots, duh. Clinton: doesn’t seem like much compared to Obama, but against Grandpa McCain she will look and sound stunningly strong.
Comment by Thoreau —
April 23, 2008 @ 12:46 pm
Don’t underestimate McCain. In 2000 he got liberals and independents to vote for him in a Republican primary. He knows how to woo people who aren’t in the base. In fact, he’s probably even better at wooing them. No, his policies aren’t actually very moderate, but campaign politics is about perception as much as substance.
I don’t think he can beat Obama among independents, but I think he’s tougher than you guys are giving him credit for.
His biggest weakness is that since 2000 he’s come out as a much more open and aggressive hawk, and that’s a hard thing to explain away to independents and liberals. Still, don’t count him out. If nothing else, he’s good with the media, and it’s the suckitude of our stenographic press that’s abetted a lot of the crimes of recent years.
Comment by mds —
April 23, 2008 @ 1:54 pm
Fortunately, he won’t have to explain it, and the media that showers him with donuts and standing ovations will continue to lie for him about it. Plenty of people who want out of Iraq have been voting for McCain because they think he’s the best person to do it. Plenty of pro-choice Republicans voted for him over e.g., Huckabee, because of his moderate views on abortion. So he’ll still have many votes from that part of the electorate that are the salt of the earth. You know: morons.
Comment by sglover —
April 23, 2008 @ 4:57 pm
All things being equal, McCain’s right up there with Sisyphus. The GOP faces a real implosion this year. In the primaries, Dem turnout is pretty consistently double or triple that of Republicans. And the real economic shitstorm is only just beginning.
Of course, the Dems may just score another Pyrrhic victory in November. Since they haven’t done much of anything to check the Bush gangster syndicate, their “prize” will be the privilege of trying to clean up the intractable mess he’s made. It won’t be surprising if the Republicans sleaze their way into big comebacks in ‘10 or ‘12.