McCain and the Base

Kevin Drum notes that contrary to what you might think, John McCain won in Florida without really solving his base problem at all. He lost self-identified conservatives and he lost self-identified Republicans, too:

Kevin remarks: "Does anyone seriously think that any Republican candidate can kick such major ass among independents in November that he can afford a conservative base that's not charged up and working feverishly to turn out every last vote? I don't." Well, no, neither do I. But fortunately for the GOP, the Democratic front runner is still Hillary Clinton whose nomination would ensure solid base support for McCain despite the lack of genuine enthusiasm. Does anyone seriously think that any Democratic candidate is more likely than Clinton to ensure a conservative base that's charged up and working feverishly to turn out every last vote? I don't.

Comments

I agree, and Drum seems oblivious to this line of thought.

Posted by Strega Nona | January 30, 2008 8:31 AM

Can anyone make sense of the chart? The row elements under the candidates are neither a breakdown of the total - they don't sum to the totals - nor independent percentages, since they can't be made to average out to them.

Posted by James Wimberley | January 30, 2008 8:38 AM

Of course. McCain versus Clinton is exactly the sort of "Perfect Storm" matchup which could lead to the Democrats actually losing an election they should win in a landslide. He neutralizes almost all of her nominal strengths, and she in turn shores up almost all of his weaknesses.

And I really hope the Democrats start connecting the dots on this.

Posted by DTM | January 30, 2008 8:39 AM

Does anyone seriously think that any Democratic candidate is more likely than Clinton to ensure a conservative base that's charged up and working feverishly to turn out every last vote? I don't.

I agree. Just like 1996, the Republicans will turn out in massive numbers for a candidate they're unenthusiastic about just so they can defeat the great Satan.

Posted by gustav | January 30, 2008 8:50 AM

As an Obama supporter, I find the fact that Obama has almost exactly the same breakdown among democratic partisans as McCain, but for Barack it's a strength.

I guess that perception is fueled by clinton's institutionality (to coin a phrase), rather than an intrinsic problem between Obama and the base the way McCain is just loathed... My guess is Obama would have no problem with the base in November, but it is a striking contrast.

Posted by dbt | January 30, 2008 8:50 AM

Of course Romney didn't win anything close to a majority among conservatives, either. So question is, if Guiliani drops out & endorses McCain, will his conservative supporters follow his lead and actually throw in w/ mcCain? And could Huckabee swing the election at some point?

Posted by TW | January 30, 2008 8:55 AM

Krugman pretty convincingly showed in COLA that racism is the backbone of movement conservatism. I think it is a GOP talking point that Hillary will incite more ire, and it is not necessarily true.

Also, Obama is a "two in one" object of hatred - he will be trashed for being black and for "seeming" Muslim.

No matter who the candidate is, the Republican slime machine will gear up for an attack, and the compliant press will dutifully pring whatever oppo research the GOP feeds them.

Posted by esaund | January 30, 2008 8:57 AM

If you think Republicans need a strong candidate to get energized, or a weak Democratic one, you're not really paying attention. The base doesn't pick a candidate, they fall in line behind the one that gets picked. Read, for instance, Todd Gitlin's THE BULLDOZE AND THE BIG TENT. Or read Malkin or Professor Lodenhosen for about 15 words.

Posted by Mr. Know It All | January 30, 2008 9:32 AM

I think it is a GOP talking point that Hillary will incite more ire, and it is not necessarily true.

Have you ever spoken to an actual Republican? Their hatred is irrational and it knows no bounds.

These guys know how to toe the party line when the election is at stake, and there is no one like Hillary to encourage them to toe that line.

Also, saying that the GOP slime machine will gear up for an attack regardless of the candidate is obvious. Who the slime will stick to more is also obvious. They would have to tread carefully in smearing Barack lest they alienate more voters than they attack. There is very little concern about that with Hillary.

Alas, since I belong to no organized political party, I have already resigned myself to her candidacy.

Posted by Jen | January 30, 2008 9:35 AM

The base doesn't pick a candidate, they fall in line behind the one that gets picked.

Yes, they do. They're very disciplined at that. But Florida was lost by around 500 votes. If the election is close, it most definitely does matter how excited the base is. You can see the extremely lackluster turnout for the Republican primaries. The base is not excited about this election, their top two contenders have major drawbacks, and the only thing that will really unite them is going to be the perfect foil.

Posted by Jen | January 30, 2008 9:41 AM

Your comments on dead on, Matt. In fact, I went to bed last night thinking this very thing, and frankly it kept me up for awhile. McCain vs. Clinton is a near surefire loser for Democrats. Let me count the ways:

1. Hillary's argument about her experience? Gone.

2. When will the first ad show up talking about McCain's time as a war prisoner while hippie Hillary is protesting the war and trying to impeach Nixon?

3. It won't just be McCain vs. Clinton, it may well be McCain/Huckabee vs. Clinton, which would also lock up a strong evangelical vote.

4. God forbid Hillary wins the nomination and Obama turns down a VP bid (which frankly, would be the smart move on his part). The air would come out of her nomination just like that.

5. As Matt said, if Hillary is the Democratic nominee, conservatives will swallow hard and vote for anybody carrying the GOP flag. That is a given.

Posted by Dan | January 30, 2008 9:44 AM

Any truth to the speculation that McCain would name Huckabee as his VP? Imagine something happening to McCain and Huckabee becoming Commander in Chief. It's enough to make this conservative independent strongly consider voting for Hillary in the General.

Posted by Jay | January 30, 2008 10:00 AM

Unless McCain is a fool, neither Huckabee or Giuliani will be asked to be on the ticket.

Posted by Will Allen | January 30, 2008 10:11 AM

Republican hatred of Hillary: For Democrats, Not a bug, it's a feature.

How long will it be before the Republicans throw around the word bitch? (OK, it's been done.)And let the world see their misogyny?

And won't that just turn off all sorts of constituencies? McCain/ Clinton will be ugly, and John won't be able to turn it off. And the ugliness will turn off the 54% of voters that are women, because the majority will see it not because of Hillary, it's because she's a woman.

Or haven't you read Andrew Sullivan lately?

Posted by PDX Pete | January 30, 2008 10:21 AM

Will, need you ask?

Posted by Gore/Edwards 08 | January 30, 2008 10:31 AM

PDX Pete

You're missing the biggest point of all. The press loves McCain, and hates Clinton. That will be the only thing that matters, because the press is the lens through which most people view these campaigns. And when the press fails to skewer McCain for his antics but nails Hillary to the wall for hers, that is what people will see.

Posted by Dan | January 30, 2008 10:36 AM

Er..no Jewish joke intended , but why didn't Matthew simply ask John McCain's MOTHER what McCain's chances are with the Republican base? From

http://thepage.time.com/transcript-of-roberta-mccain-on-c-span/
----------
"Steve Scully: This is a political question in terms of how he gets the nomination, but just from what you have seen, how much support do you think he has among the base of the Republican Party?

Roberta McCain: I don’t think he has any. I don’t know what the base of the Repub–maybe I don’t know enough about it, but I’ve not seen any help whatsoever.

Scully: So can he then go on and become the nominee of this party?

McCain: Yes, I think holding their nose they’re going to have to take him."

Posted by Don Williams | January 30, 2008 10:44 AM

Any truth to the speculation that McCain would name Huckabee as his VP

What I heard is this: McCain wants Huckabee to stay in the race to pick off conservative voters from Romney, so he's promising Huckabee that (1) if Huckabee stays in the race and (2) McCain wins the nomination, (3) McCain will agree to pay off Huckabee's campaign debts.

Posted by Peter H | January 30, 2008 10:46 AM

If I'm not mistaken, Hillary has been called a bitch, publicly, by a woman. She has been called a bitch privately by women many, many times. If that's the best you've got, then we are so, so, doomed. 54% of voters are women = Hillary wins! does not compute.

Posted by Jen | January 30, 2008 10:49 AM

On the other hand, I can understand the TACTICAL reasons WHY Matthew doesn't interview John McCain's Mother. That kind of trick can so easily backfire.

Consider, e.g,, Ann Coulter interviewing Matthew's mother after Matthew becomes a powerful liberal pundit:
--------
"Ann: So where did you fail in raising your son?

Matthew's Mom: Well, he was always an ungrateful, selfish little boy. I carried him in my womb for 9 months and yet his arm must be broken because he can't pick up a phone and call his own mother.

And boy, could he eat. He was fat from day one -- I thought I was passing a watermelon.

And always a loner. Always hiding in the closet, pulling on the wiener..."

Posted by Don Williams | January 30, 2008 10:53 AM

About a week ago Anonymous Liberal had a short but interesting post asking why so many smart people refuse to think rationally about Sen. Clinton's weaknesses as a general election candidate. I find myself agreeing with his sentiment. I will vote for the Democratic candidate no matter who it is, but Dan and Jen are right. The right wing crazies' hatred of Clinton is irrational and boundless but it's most important quality is that is there and not going away. And I have no faith that Clinton's campaign will be able to handle the Republican attack machine, despite the popular notion of her as an experienced fighter. She's 0 for 3 in major propaganda fights: Healthcare reform, impeachment, and the Iraq war/occupation.
So this is a rambling way of saying I think she'd be a good president, though probably less progressive than I'd like. But I don't think there's enough single-malt to drown the sorrow I will feel if she loses in November. Not again Democrats, please. Not again.

Posted by David | January 30, 2008 11:02 AM

Bravo David, well said.

Posted by Dan | January 30, 2008 11:05 AM

The nightmare scenario for Democrats is a tight race all the way to the convention, with Senator Clinton gaining the margin of victory via super- delegates, and by getting the delegates from Michigan and Florida to count.

Posted by Will Allen | January 30, 2008 11:11 AM

I don't see how McCain's military career would play to his favor in a long, national campaign. His greatest claim to fame, in uniform, was being taken prisoner.

Add that to his age and the way Limbaigh et al. have already questioned the POW's sanity for years and years, and ultimately it will make McCain look pathetic.

None of the GOP candidates motivate the base very well, which is why their best bet is Hillary.
.

Posted by Grand Moff Texan | January 30, 2008 11:17 AM

Very well said. And single-malt is expensive, and we won't have any money for it, what with the upcoming Depression and all. Just as there were Hoovervilles, there will be McCain Martinis, made with whatever you can get to ferment in your basement.

(Consigning myself to the worst case scenario early on is an important coping mechanism for me.)

Posted by Jen | January 30, 2008 11:21 AM

Can anyone make sense of the chart? The row elements under the candidates are neither a breakdown of the total - they don't sum to the totals - nor independent percentages, since they can't be made to average out to them.

Seconding this question. What does this chart actually say? Nothing adds up either across or down.

Posted by Rover | January 30, 2008 12:05 PM

"Does anyone seriously think that any Democratic candidate is more likely than Clinton to ensure a conservative base that's charged up and working feverishly to turn out every last vote? I don't."

I grant you that Clinton, based upon what we know, is the most likely candidate to fire up the conservative base. But how likely is it that any Democratic candidate can fire up the conservative base in such a way that we seriously run the risk of the Republican nominee taking the white house?

I don't know, and neither do you because that question has so little evidence one way or the other as to be pure speculation.

Posted by Joseph | January 30, 2008 12:17 PM

Am I a fool to think the only insurance for Clinton is to pick Obama for VP? I'm not a starry-eyed young voter, I haven't drunk either campaigns' kool-aid, and I do think there is such a thing as wasting one's vote by hewing too closely to conscience and ignoring, you know, reality.
But does anyone else get a warm fuzzy feeling inside from the idea of our country electing a black man and a woman to the number two and number one offices? Could a tide of idealistic enthusiasm put them over the top?

Posted by David | January 30, 2008 12:19 PM

Joseph

I'm not sure what country, or perhaps what womb, you inhabited during the 1990s, but there is mountains of evidence that Hillary Clinton will fire up conservatives more than any other human being alive short of perhaps Bill Clinton. My God, conservative media empires have been built upon little more than sheer hatred of the Clintons. And that isn't even getting into likability ratings.

Sure, any Democrat would fire up conservatives to some degree. But listen to what conservatives say about Obama...they may disagree with him, but almost to a person they just like the guy.

Your assertion is just completely wrong.

Posted by Dan | January 30, 2008 12:23 PM

David

Why should Obama accept a role as VP on Clinton's ticket? If (when?) she loses the general election, he becomes the de facto head of the party and "inevitable" nominee in four years. Plus it would undermine his message of change and unity.

I agree with what you're saying about Obama being Clinton's best VP option, but I'm not sure she would want him. Even if she did, I think he'd be smarter to walk away.

She definitely needs him far, far more than he needs her.

Posted by Dan | January 30, 2008 12:27 PM

Re: the chart. Of the 80% of GOP primary voters who think of themselves as primarily Republican, 33% voted for Romney, 31% for McCain, etc. The four rightmost numbers don't add to 100% because they exclude those who Paul, Thompson, or someone else. Most of the totals are in the 90s.

Posted by Emartin | January 30, 2008 12:35 PM

"those who voted for Paul, Thompson,..." Sheesh.

Posted by Emartin | January 30, 2008 12:37 PM

I think McCain has four important weaknesses:

#1) potentially depressed turnout among conservatives

#2) a long, very conservative voting record (Mrs. Clinton has been calculating in her votes from day one; there's almost nothing offensive to the center there)

#3) his age; it isn't that he is too old but that he seems too old

#4) a bad temper

If Clinton was going to be in trouble against Giuliani in a general election campaign I think she is just strong enough against McCain, and maybe stronger - ditto against Romney.

Posted by Linus | January 30, 2008 1:08 PM

Linus

About your #1 "potentially depressed turnout among conservatives" - Hillary would eliminate that advantage by her mere presence as McCain's opponent. It's not just a suspicion that Hillary will fire up the conservative base...in fact, they are gleefully telling us so. See Michael Gerson's column from a week or two ago.

Posted by Dan | January 30, 2008 1:18 PM

Dan,
I'm not saying Obama should accept the spot if it's offered. But I'm trying to be as rational and dispassionate as I can in my estimate of who is likely to be the nominee. We're coming up to Super Tuesday and I don't kid myself about Clinton's strengths. She had eight years to make contacts and friends and scratch some backs. There are lots, tons, of Democratic office holders and activist organization leaders and members who will work hard for her. Here in California, the mayor of San Fran, L.A., and Oakland began a state tour for her today. I'm sure there are similar tours in other delegate-rich states. This is the reality that must be faced. But these Democrats are the same ones who have been losing governorships, city council seats, state legislature seats, mayorships, etc. for almost twenty-five years. They've been drinking their own kool-aid and are the same folks who thought running against the war would be a losing strategy last November.
Anyway, I digress.

I'm not saying Obama should accept the job if it's offered. I'm just saying I think it's the best chance for beating whoever the Republican nominee is. Plus, it makes him the presumptive nominee in 2012 or 2016. He'll be only 54 in 2012.
Why do you think it would be smarter for him to walk away?

Posted by David | January 30, 2008 1:33 PM

David

I'm not arguing about whether Clinton will get the nomination. She certainly is formidable. And I agree that Obama is her best VP option. I'm arguing that from his standpoint, he would be wiser to turn it down.

Why would a guy so universally liked go to work for someone who isn't? Joining forces with her would go against everything he's campaigned for so far, and makes him just another politician. I'm an ardent Obama guy but even I'd feel betrayed in a sense if he became her VP.

He'd be far better off being his own man in the Senate. Because if it's Hillary and McCain, Hillary will lose and Obama's stature only goes up.

Posted by Dan | January 30, 2008 1:42 PM

Dan,
OK, we agree Obama is Clinton's best option. And we agree if he stays away his stature can only go up, not down. This means Clinton will need him. Do you think he might get a quid pro quo from her as the price of acceptance?
Moreover, maybe his presence on the ticket could nullify the backlash. I believe a Clinton-Obama ticket could be a 65%-35% blowout, maybe even 70-30. Wouldn't such a mandate give Clinton the room to be the liberal they keep telling us she really is deep down, and thus not be be just another politician?

I was an ardent Edwards guy and am having a figurative bottle as I write (cheers, Jen). I can easily become an ardent Obama guy just because he was always my second choice and because the idea of a black president only five generations after slavery and two generations after Brown v. Board of Education utterly thrills me, however shallow that might sound. I suppose as a white-ish guy (south american parents) I get a pass that a black guy wouldn't: I can vote for him "just" because he's black. And in a way that's why I would vote for Clinton, "just" because she's a woman. Her votes haven't been as progressive as I'd like but her presidency could make sex a non-issue in elections from now on. Dan, truth is I might stop caring if it's Obama or Clinton. Just the idea of seeing asshole republicans addressing "Madam President" or closet racists having to address "President Obama" gives me goosebumps. I wanted Edwards for his policies, but I'll take the symbolism of Clinton or Obama if that's all I can have. Symbolism can be just as powerful.

Posted by David | January 30, 2008 2:12 PM

David

Yes, we're in agreement on a few key principles here. But what kind of quid could Obama really get for his pro quo? He has far more stature as an outside Democratic figure than he would as part of her administration. He'd be tethered to her for what would surely be a contentious presidency - and frankly I don't think she'd win even with him. Mark my words, if she wins the nomination, some Democrats will stay home.

The only real way Obama loses is if Clinton wins the nomination, offers him the VP slot, he turns it down, and (somehow) she goes on to win the presidency and turns vindictive on him - which, with Hillary, is a near certainty, but I think Obama has enough goodwill built up in the party that people wouldn't stand for it.

At this point, I don't think anything can nullify the Hillary backlash. Goodness, don't you get the prevailing sense that almost nobody really likes her? The media doesn't like her, a good slice of the Democratic electorate doesn't like her, and of course pretty much everyone who isn't a Democrat not only doesn't like her, they hate her passionately.

I appreciate and respect your sentiments David. And I agree in principle that a female or black president would be a great thing. But the practical bottom line is that Hillary has too much history and too much baggage and is disliked too much by too many people. I've been an Obama guy all along but now it's a simple matter of electability. He has it, she doesn't.

Posted by Dan | January 30, 2008 2:25 PM

Jesus, Dan, I'm trying to stay positive about Clinton. Part of me desperately wants to believe that my Clinton doubts are just the lingering effects of a concern troll virus, and that we'll all get over it. But when even guys like us can't get past her faults and/or weaknesses, I just worry and see a large bottle in my future.
Just for the record I am a long time Somerby reader. I know Hillary hatred is irrational and unfounded. But I do get that sense that no one likes her and I can't figure out why, at least for liberals/progressives. I have a bunch of liberal female friends and none of them has her as a first choice. I heard someone compare her to the Tracy Flick character from Election. And in some ways that is spot on. Maybe that's why they hate her.
Anyway, Obama's latest statement, quoted in a later post here, is heartening. More fire in it, less unity blather. Interesting comments being made there.

Posted by David | January 30, 2008 2:44 PM

David

Ask me a year ago, and I would have said I also didn't understand what I perceived to be an irrational hatred of Hillary from the right. In general I was lukewarm on her personally but I thought she would have made a fine president, although with a huge target on her back from day one.

But today it's much more clear to me why conservatives never liked her. I've watched the kind of campaign she's run, and I've concluded that there is truth in the statement that she will say or do literally anything to get elected. I'm not fond of that kind of campaigning at all - I think it lowers the bar for all of us - but especially to do that against a Democrat completely turns me off. And now she's turning significant factions of her own party against her.

She's done much of this to herself. I really thought she had started to rehabilitate her image until after the Iowa caucuses, and it's been downhill ever since.

Posted by Dan | January 30, 2008 2:55 PM

Dan,
Yeah, it's an interesting point about her saying or doing anything to get elected. Something recently really pissed me off.
When she began suggesting that the Florida delegates should be allowed to vote at the convention I understood that going back on her word and changing the rules in the middle of the game is just part of hardball politics. I get that. She's trying to become president and you don't get there by playing nice. You get there by being ruthless and driven, though without completely abandoning one's principles, one would hope.
So I get it. She was being a tough competitor.

But I find myself wondering why she's a tough competitor when she's fighting a fellow Democrat but not when she's fighting a weak, unpopular Republican president? Where is all that toughness and fire when Bush is shitting all over the constitution or nominating reactionaries to the federal bench or idiot lawyers who can't tell if waterboarding is torture?

God damn, god damn, god damn.

Please let Obama be the candidate.

Posted by David | January 30, 2008 3:26 PM

David

You're exactly right. I've considered those thoughts too and they are part of the reason why I've concluded that Hillary isn't some principled politician fighting for a cause or for the betterment of our country. Hillary is in this for Hillary.

If she is so tough, smart, and experienced, why not run against Bush in 2004? She would have had incredible name recognition built up from day one, probably avoided a protracted primary fight, and been able to hammer on Bush (perhaps the only politician people hate worse than her) for 10 months. Not to mention the Clinton years would have been much fresher in people's minds and easier to contrast against Bush. But she feared she might lose, so she didn't run. (Too bad for her...Kerry, as mediocre as he was, damn near pulled it off. She probably would have.)

You're absolutely right that Hillary could have led a progressive charge against the disastrous Bush administration. But by and large, she's done nothing. As Obama is pointing out, she's showed no political courage whatsoever.

Posted by Dan | January 30, 2008 3:36 PM

Kind of funky how this thread turned into the Dan and David show.

Dan said:

Why should Obama accept a role as VP on Clinton's ticket? If (when?) she loses the general election, he becomes the de facto head of the party and "inevitable" nominee in four years. Plus it would undermine his message of change and unity.

Dan, don't you think that being the VP nominee makes him the de facto nominee in 2012? Ok, it didn't quite work out for Edwards, but Obama has a lot more of a loyal following. I'd guess if things went that way he'd be unopposed in '12. Also, I must say I think it's strange that you assume that Obama's "message of change and unity" as you call it does not extend to unifying the Democratic Party.

I'd like to think Obama is less ego-driven than that.

You guys both ask what Obama would get in return for being Hillary's VP. I have an idea. He gets to be Vice President of the United States, a not insignificant position over the past sixteen years. I think having Obama on the ticket cancels out Hillary's negatives and together they would be unstoppable.

My fear is that the two of them hate each other so much that this could never happen.

Posted by Rob Mac | January 30, 2008 4:46 PM

Forgot to respond to this from Will Allen:

The nightmare scenario for Democrats is a tight race all the way to the convention, with Senator Clinton gaining the margin of victory via super- delegates, and by getting the delegates from Michigan and Florida to count.

You're absolutely right genius. The ultimate nightmare is for Florida's Democratic votes to count in a presidential election. Everyone knows our role in the Sunshine State is for us to cast ballots and then have those ballots overturned and ignored for the good of the nation. Thanks for pointing that out asshole.

Posted by Rob Mac | January 30, 2008 4:53 PM

Rob Mac

Dan, don't you think that being the VP nominee makes him the de facto nominee in 2012? Ok, it didn't quite work out for Edwards, but Obama has a lot more of a loyal following. I'd guess if things went that way he'd be unopposed in '12.

True, except that many of Obama's followers (myself included) are no fans of Hillary Clinton, and I think he would damage himself in many people's eyes by aligning himself with her. Anything he says going forward would ring somewhat hollow after he spends a year talking about Hillary's negativity, lack of courage, and bad judgment only to turn around and join her campaign.

Besides, what kind of power would a VP Obama really have in a Clinton administration anyway? Do you really think she would give him a meaningful role? It should be obvious by now that for all practical purposes, Bill will be the VP no matter her running mate.

And Clinton/Obama would not be unstoppable. In my opinion, Clinton/Anyone would be quite stoppable. She's just that divisive and polarizing. I really think people underestimate that.

Also, I must say I think it's strange that you assume that Obama's "message of change and unity" as you call it does not extend to unifying the Democratic Party.

It's not about what I assume. It's about what Democratic voters assume. And even a lot of them don't like Hillary. She can't bring significant change and she is most certainly not a unifying figure.

Posted by Dan | January 30, 2008 5:54 PM

Rob Mac,
Dude, relax. The asshole comment was out of line. It isn't Will Allen's fault that the Republican controlled state legislature of Florida decided to move the primary date. It isn't Will Allen's fault that the Democratic National Committee, for whatever reason, asked for and got the pledge from all of the major candidates.

And I'm sure Will isn't saying Floridians' votes shouldn't count. Your anger is directed at the wrong target. Clinton could have insisted months ago on the delegates being counted. For that matter all of them could have. But they didn't and agreed to follow the rules.
But in the end I do think it was a major fuck up to dis important states like Michigan and Florida. But then I didn't go to an Ivy league school like all these campaign geniuses so their brilliance must be the effects of a good education.

I agree that getting to be Vice President is a prize in itself, as long as a hypothetical President Hillary Clinton doesn't throw progressives under the bus as President Bill Clinton did: Healthcare reform, gays in the military, welfare so-called reform, NAFTA, tax policy, liberal judges for the federal judiciary, etc. I've no illusions that even a genuinely progressive president could govern as a genuine progressive. But the first President Clinton didn't have to throw so many of his supporters under the bus and govern as a Republican-lite.

And lastly, I think Will is spot on with his nightmare scenario analysis. Here's why. If Clinton wins with delegates from primaries in states where her opponents didn't campaign, we have no way of knowing what would have happened had Obama and Edwards campaigned there. In Florida, 60% of Democratics who voted, voted early, in December. But a large proportion, a really large proportion (wish I remember the figures) of those who voted for Obama decided to do so in the last week. Who knows what those early voters would have done if all three major Dem candidates had campaigned there.
So Clintons delegates tell us nothing about Floridians' preferences.
Moreover, super delegates are not masses of voters, they're major Democratic party establishment types, officeholders and such.
So if Clinton wins with delegates from contests that didn't accurately measure voters' preferences, and delegates who are in fact just well connected Dems, then we have no way of knowing if she's riding a tide of popular support or if she won by playing a better intra-party politics game.
And winning the nomination by playing intra-party politics is no guarantee she can win the presidency in the god-awful, take-no-prisoners, mud-slinging, call-her-a-ball-busting-bitch campaign that the general election inter-party politics will surely be.

Posted by David | January 30, 2008 8:09 PM

Rob Mac,

Re: Florida delegates

What Ezra said:
http://www.prospect.org/csnc/blogs/ezraklein_archive?month=01&year=2008&base_name=the_florida_vote

Posted by David | January 30, 2008 8:13 PM