Verdun Not a Detour on Road to Loserville

I am not surprised. Hillary Clinton's firewall held on March 4, because, once again, demography is destiny. Barack Obama has shown very little ability to win over the Reagan Democrats, particularly in non-caucus states, and absent another swing in this campaign (which could very well materialize) he will lose Pennsylvania by an even worse margin.

Senator Obama's recent difficulties center on two matters: one, blue-collar white households continue to reject his candidacy (some of, undeniably, attributable to soft racism); two, the electorate is beginning to realize his smooth talk of "post-partisan" politics and "reuniting America" will only occur against a Mike Huckabee candidacy--and the Huckster isn't headed for the general election. Now, I don't want to take the accusations of "soft racism" terribly far, but I will say that a white candidate, after eleven straight wins in February, would have flipped Ohio and Texas even from the admirably dogged Mrs. Clinton. Nonetheless, the second problem is a much bigger one for Mr. Obama. For once, David Brooks synthesized this perfectly in his effort this morning.

"In short, a candidate should never betray the core theory of his campaign, or head down a road that leads to that betrayal. Barack Obama doesn’t have an impressive record of experience or a unique policy profile. New politics is all he’s got. He loses that, and he loses everything. Every day that he looks conventional is a bad day for him."

Yep. Others mince even fewer words. So what now?

Will there be blood? Will the Republicans actually benefit?

This post encapsulates an important point quite well.

"Rather, the problem is that the party is losing a golden opportunity to try to put the race away early, the way Bill Clinton more or less did with Bob Dole in 1996 - by using their enormous fundraising advantage to rebrand John McCain as a Dole-style loser while he's still struggling to get his money-raising operation up to par."

An excellent contribution, except for one small annoying detail. If you cannot recollect, run a search on the 1996 election and determine its type, then do the same for 2008. Wonder of wonders, you will find the former a closed race and the latter an open one. Until proven otherwise (yes, it could change this year), this stuff matters. A lot.

Democrats struggle, in some cases, mightily, in elections where their candidate has to make their own sale, i.e., no indictment of the incumbent president. Certainly, Democrats will try to make 2008 another Bush referendum, but the politics and policies of Mad Mac will make that very, very difficult. Essentially, I dispute the conventional wisdom that in the next seven weeks the Clinton-Obama delegate battle will turn incendiary and callous, nor do I think the continued intra-party squabble will damage the party brand in November. Yes, the candidates have raised an incredible amount of dough. Yes, the Democrats may have a chance to open up a five-to-twenty seat margin in the US Senate come January 2009. Yes, "fundamentals" or the partisan identification makeup of the country may look promising, alas...

Democratic edge, 2007-08: +4.8
Democratic edge, 1988: +4.8

Need we remind you of the 1988 election? Need we remind you of what type of election took place? Starts with an "O" and ends an "N."

A fellow compatriot has chronicled my long-held suspicions over Democratic fortunes this November 4, yet I will not take the unexpected, prolonged blue-team fight to bolster my argument. Even if the worst comes to worst, and HRC forces upend national popular vote and non-superdelegate winner Barack Obama on the floor in Denver, it should not resonate as an excuse for a very possible Dem defeat to Senator McCain.

The "math" for Senator Clinton is tough; the "math" for the eventual nominee may prove even tougher.