Now Conservatives Think Ahead To President Obama

Another week is over, and a quick assessment would go something like this:

1) Whatever John McCain says, the voters don't believe it, not even if Joe the Plumber supports it.

2) Whatever the Bush administration does, the Wall-Street-types don't believe it for more than a couple of hours.

In other words, this is a crisis of trust in the ability of Republicans of all stripes to solve the economic mess, and this feeling can't possibly turn around before the election.

3) All this is perfectly clear to any conservative with an IQ in the 90-110 range, as shown by the last Matthew Kaminski's column in the Wall Street Journal.

What is interesting in Kaminski's piece is the fact that in his 1300-word column, nowhere the possibility that Barack Obama will NOT be elected is mentioned. The very title, "The Axelrod Method. The 'change' president could be in for a rough ride on Capitol Hill," indicates that while McCain's campaigns launches its last fireworks, conservatives start thinking to a completely different subject: the possible failure of Obama's first term.

Kaminsky writes about the election of Deval Patrick, governor of Massachusetts:

As a path to power, the Axelrod method appears to be the best thing going today. Coming into the 2006 race, Mr. Patrick was a political novice with 1%-2% name recognition in a state that's 6% black . He faced off against a sitting state attorney general favored by the Democratic Party establishment. The former Clinton administration lawyer energized the grass-roots and youth vote with superior organization and stirring oratory. The candidate himself was the message; the campaign dwelled on his personal story, not the issues. (...) Massachusetts never saw anything like it. Mr. Patrick upset the favorite in the Democratic primary and won the general election by 21 points.

Then Kaminski, goes into the details of the difficult relationship between the governor and the Democratic legislature:

That crusading optimism, so critical to his election victory, fast bumped up against established Democratic interests such as the police unions and power brokers on Beacon Hill. They didn't know Mr. Patrick, didn't appreciate him jumping the queue to the governor's chair, didn't buy his reformist outsider message, and frankly liked things as they were. Great speeches or popular support were insufficient for Mr. Patrick to get his way.

And Kaminski makes his final point forecasting "a rough ride" for Obama, when dealing with "the Democratic warhorses on Capitol Hill."

Well, no doubt that the Republican candidate for president  will be happy to hear THAT (with still 17 days to go) but let's put aside John McCain's feelings, and discuss the scenario offered by the Wall Street Journal.

First, Kaminski could have found a better example than the one of a first-term governor: in fact, president Carter's relationship with Democratic Congress between 1977 and 1981, would be much more significant. 

Jimmy Carter, indeed had trouble in having legislation passed by Congress, as had Bill Clinton in 1993-1995. It would be fair to say that all Democratic presidents, including Franklin Roosevelt, had sooner or later strong difficulties in implementing their agenda because of resistance from Congress. Only Roosevelt in his first term (before the "Court-Packing" episode) and Lyndon Johnson after the 1964 landslide were able to lead Congress in the direction they wanted.

Carter and Clinton, on the contrary, were both governors of backward Southern states, real outsiders in the party. Clinton was more well-connected than Carter, but his first term began in worst possible way, with troubles in confirming his cabinet, and the public relation disaster of gays in the military. Clinton got only 43% of the popular vote, and no senator or representative felt obliged to him for his election.

What about president Obama? If the Democratic ticket wins on November 4, it will be largely because a perfect campaign that has reshaped the political geography of the country. Axelrod's and Plouffes' efforts in mobilizing activists and voters from North Dakota to Louisiana will benefit local Democratic candidates for the House and the Senate, many of whom will enter Congress only because of Obama's coattails.

Obama will win with more than 50% of the popular vote (FiveThirtyEight's forecasts, the best in the business, give him 52%) and a large majority in the electoral college. He will bring to Washington a NEW Democratic majority in the Senate, a majority that today exists only in name (the party controls 49 seats, and only the conditional support of two independents allows Harry Reid to claim the mantle of Senate Majority Leader). Democratic candidates for a senate seat might win in states like Texas, on November 4: will they forget in a minute who is the leader that propelled them over the top? And representative who will win in arch-conservatives districts will give Obama a "rough ride?"

Maybe.

However, a more plausible scenario is that President Obama will start with strong majorities in both houses of Congress, and that the bulk of these senators and representatives will be grateful to him, and decided to implement his agenda to turn the page after eight years of George W. Bush. The sense of urgency created by financial chaos will add to the discipline of the troops, exactly as happened during Franklin Roosevelt's first term. The fact that the mood of the country changed, and that Democrats will be on the verge of a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate will strengthen the administration enormously.

What Barack Obama will be able to do is another matter. Two wars and a depression will tax his abilities enough, Congress will not be the top of his concerns.

Undecided voters tilt to Obama

Today, the undecided voters who usually make the difference in a close presidential election are more pessimistic about the direction of the nation than the broader electorate and are looking to Democrat Barack Obama for a solution of economic issues.

In the latest Bloomberg/Los Angeles Times poll, 22 percent of voters said they are undecided or could easily change their preference between Republican John McCain and Obama. 

Almost nine out of 10 of the undecided voters said the country is on the wrong track. That result is 10 points higher than for all registered voters. The percentage of undecided voters who said the economy is doing badly is 7 points higher than among the broader public.

With the candidates locked in a tight contest, yesterday both Obama and McCain were credited of 46% of the preferences by Gallup, they must look to the still uncommitted voters.'' This group is ``more pessimistic than voters overall, which should be worrisome for McCain, since Obama is the candidate that voters believe would strengthen the economy and help get the country out the financial crisis we're in," said the Los Angeles Times polling director.

Is McCain Really Ahead?

Gallup's new poll, conducted right after the Republican convention, barely appeared on the firm's home page, and the pundit class started screaming about the "Palin effect," the "new energy" she brought to McCain's campaign, and the new "enthusiasm" of evangelicals for a presidential ticket led by someone they despised.

Well, let's look at the basics.

It is certainly true that McCain for a moment took the lead, after several weeks in which it was "advantage Obama" (most recently 50% to 42%, just one week ago). However, these polls reflect the "bounce" after the convention and really mean that the race is tied, as shown by the new Rasmussen's poll here on our right bar. The turning point will probably arrive with the three debates between the candidates.

More important, the race seem to go in the same direction of the 2000 and 2004 election, that is highly polarized contests in which the two camps count on mobilizing the faithful more than  reaching to the independents. Probably about 90 percent of those identifying with a political party will vote for that party's presidential candidate: the exit polls in 2004 showed that John Kerry had won 89 percent of the Democratic vote, George W. Bush 93 percent of the Republican vote. The question is: which one of the camps has more troops?

We know that the Democratic advantage in party identification is now of almost 6 points, according to Rasmussen: during August, the number of Americans who consider themselves to be Republicans increased two percentage points to 33.2% while the number of Democrats was little changed at 38.9%. That gives the Democrats a net advantage of 5.7 percentage points.

To gauge the importance of this factor, imagine that in November vote the same 120 million Americans who voted in 2004 (there will be more voters, but we shall look at that issue later). If Obama will keep the share of 90 percent of the Democratic vote, that translates into a huge gap over McCain (41 million votes to 36 million). Even assuming (somehow generously) that McCain will able to bring the same percentage of followers to the polls, while Democratic cohesiveness would be weaker (80%) that still means an advantage for Obama (37 million to 36 million). 

And what about independents? In an year of economic hardship as this one, there is no way they will split 50-50 between the two parties: more probably they will go 52-48 for the Democratic candidate, McCain's courtship of them notwithstanding. That means another million votes in the democratic column (Independents are about a third of the voters, as of today). 

And there will be new voters, a majority of them pulling the lever for the democratic candidates (remember that turnout in their primaries has been the double than in Republican ones). This will bring another million votes net advantage to Obama.

Question: Can the democrats squander an advantage which is between 3 and 7 MILLION VOTES in the next two months? The answer is: "In theory, that is possible." If you put together a lethargic propaganda, a campaign focused on the economy but short of solid proposals, plus the vicious Republican campaign, it is indeed possible that the Democrats achieve the result of snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.

However, this would really go against the odds. To win, it is enough for Obama to reassure the constituencies that took part in the primaries, especially women, Latinos and young people: they should give the Democrats a comfortable edge in November's election. Right now, calculations about the electoral college give the Democratic candidate a slim majority (273 votes) but the victory might be much larger, if Obama wins in Ohio, Virginia or Florida, which is quite possible.

If you add to this the real possibility of large majorities in the House and in the Senate, one realizes that there are on the table long-term opportunities for the Democrats, and the possibility of changing American political landscape for a generation, as Ronald Reagan did for Republicans in 1980. This, of course, is a question of leadership but it all depends on how the party leader will conduct himself. Will Obama be up to the task?

____

Will John McCain Do Better Than Barry Goldwater?

Politically, the situation in the field is this: Obama has gained a 7-point margin over John McCain in the last three days (50%-43%) and he seems to be a Democratic candidate not weakened at all by the long battle in the primaries. At least, this seems to be the effect of Hillary Clinton's endorsement of Saturday: now 81% of Democratic voters say they are ready to vote for him.
That means he should easily win in November: he will need only to keep the blue States where John Kerry prevailed in 2004, and win in states like Iowa, Colorado and New Mexico (look at the map on top of the page): that would make 273 votes in the Electoral College, more than the "magic number" of 270. In Iowa and New Mexico a few thousand votes more (or, a few thousand votes LESS in the Republican column) will suffice. Colorado has been leaning Democratic in recent years, electing several smart politicians like governor Bill Ritter and senator Ken Salazar.
This, however, is a conservative forecast: polls give him good chances of winning in Ohio and Nevada, creating a very large majority in the Electoral College for a Democratic President who will have strong Democratic majorities in Congress (the party should pick several seats in the House, and Democrats are on the brink of a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate).
During an American Presidential campaign everything can happen, but John McCain will have a hard time in convincing voters that the main issue should be terrorism, or Iraq, and not the economy. The gasoline at 4$ a gallon is simply political poison for him.

Will Clinton Do What Reagan Did in 1976?

In the end, numbers prevailed and all the talk about a convention fight in Denver proved to be just that... talk. Hillary Rodham Clinton will suspend her campaign and endorse Senator Barack Obama on Saturday, which was her only possible choice after Democratic members of Congress urged her to leave the race and allow the party to coalesce around the nominee. Now, the problem is: what will Clinton do in the Fall?

I suspect that the rumors about her becoming Vice president are nonsense: if she is really serious in asking the n. 2 position on the ticket, Obama will be dead serious in refusing it. Not because of her sometimes vicious attacks during the primaries but because an Obama-Clinton ticket would not have credibility vis-à-vis the voters: it would give them the feeling that everything was simply a show and that, in the end, every nasty political fight can finish with tarallucci e vino (if you are not familiar with this Italian motto, send me an email, and I will explain). There are all chances that Obama will pick up someone with experience, and possibly a military background, to stand up to McCain when things will get tough after the conventions. 

The real issue, then, is whether Hillary will indeed campaign for Obama in the Fall, or not. There is one precedent: the 1976 long contest between Gerald Ford, the incumbent President who had entered the White House because of Richard Nixon's resignation after Watergate, and conservative rising star Ronald Reagan. Reagan fought to the bitter end and this solidified his name recognition, and his relationship with the party, opening the path to his easy nomination 1980.

In the campaign of 1976, however, he stayed home in California, and his presence at political events was perfunctory. Ford asked him to play an active role, at least in some swing states were he was popular, like Ohio and Mississippi, but Reagan declined.Of course, nobody can say what would have happened had Reagan campaigned vigorously, but the numbers are there: barely 11.500 ballots more in Ohio and 15.500 in Mississippi would have been enough to tilt these states to Ford, and create a majority for him in the Electoral College. Carter would still have had a plurality of the popular vote but Ford would have won 272 electoral votes and with that the White House (a scenario similar to the one of 2000, when Gore easily won the popular vote but Bush got more electoral votes).

So, the real question is: how hard will Clinton work in the Fall, to convince her supporters that a democratic victory in 2008 is indeed necessary? I suspect that 85% of them will vote for Obama anyway, but the traps on the road to victory in any American presidential election are more than land mines in a Cambodia uncleared field.

Angry Democratic White Men/2

What is important, in these comments by angry supporters of John Edwards, is the extent of their resentment, and their willingness to accept the rumors, half-truths, and complete fabrications spread during a presidential campaign. We must remember that these people certainly are part of the most active voters, not uninvolved citizens prone to swallow any lie that surfaces on the Internet. This is another comment posted on the ABC blog: “At the end of the day, the core preoccupation about our floundering Democracy lies in the issue of consistency and integrity. John Edwards knows that Obama is the ‘offspring’ of Chicago’s corrupt political machine, but he still supports him. John Edwards understands that Obama has personally funded, via his directorship in the Woodsfund, terrorist sympathizers (Khalidi and others) who claim that SUICIDE BOMBING is a legitimate method of resistance fighting (even if used against school children). John Edwards also knows that Obama is completely unprepared to become Commander in Chief, something to which he had continuously alluded to in multiple interviews, nevertheless, we now have him riding this faux pony all the way to the White House.”

Another participant takes issue with the perks of politicians: “I had heard on my local CBS radio station today that local US congressmen even charge the taxpayers for gasoline. So, on top of the best health care in the world, we pay the $4/gal gas for their SUVs. Yes, SUVs. Then they have the gall to lecture us about our polluting the air.”

Some readers try to defend Edwards’ endorsement of Obama: “I do not care how win the nommination!obama or clinton.democrat have to win,in november” but the majority vents its anger at his repudiation of Hillary Clinton: “John Edwards lies like a rug! I would not trust him anymore than I would Barack Obama or any other Democratic bully boys! Edward's funny timing endorcement for Sen Barack Obama amazes me, especially right after Hillary's landslide victory in West Virginia. GO-Go Sen. Hillary Clinton in '08....” and this: “John Edwards what a snake. Elizabeth [Edwards] must be really proud of your endorsement of Osama right now. I had thought better of you. Guess a lot of people were wrong about what you really stood for. Sad.”

And another one: “Does Edwards really believes that the American people are so stupid as to buy into his story that there was no deal cut to endorse Obama? He is just an opportunist who ran away from the North Carolina Senate reelection because he knew he would have never been reelected.”

The threat to jump ship in November is crystal clear: “Edwards has gone to being a man for the people to supporting elitists. You go figure. I am voting for McCain Well I think I am just not voting.”

There are some responses:”All of you so called "democrats" who insist that if Obama gets the nomination then you will vote for McCain in the fall. Well, you'll show them huh? Then we will have a 3rd term of Bush as if the country had not had enough already. WOW just because the nominee that some democrats wanted Hillary isn't going to get the nomination doesn't mean that you should switch parties. What are you accomplishing? If you vote out of anger and not on the issues then you are only hurting yourselves.”

Nevertheless, the split in the party is there and it is clearly dangerous in some swing States needed to create a majority in the electoral college: Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan. While it is technically possible, for Obama, to get 270 electoral votes and win without Ohio (if he prevails in some western States like Nebraska, Montana, Colorado, Nevada and New Mexico) he definitely need Pennsylvania and Michigan, where many low-income white families do think along the lines we described above.

How Will Obama Perform in November?

No matter what, Barack Obama has secured the nomination: he need only 63 more delegates to cross the required number of 2,025. However, the first Afroamerican candidate to the presidency nominated by a major party has many serious problems that the media is ignoring. While the conventional wisdom is that hate and racism disappeared in American politics, the fact that they are banned in polite discourse in Manhattan doesn’t mean that they are equally banned at the ballot box. 

The actual performance of Afroamerican politicians in elections is mixed at best. A number of them have been elected mayors (David Dinkins in New York, Harold Washington in Chicago, Andrew Young in Atlanta, Kurt Schmoke in Baltimore (MD), Harvey Gannt in Charlotte (SC), and many others). There is a number of successful representatives, whose dean is Charles Rangel, who has been in the House since 1971, taking over the Harlem’s seat of colourful Adam Clayton Powell. And, of course, there has been a handful of black senators: Obama himself had Carol Moseley Braun among his predecessor in Illinois, but she was a one-term senator, elected in 1992 and easily defeated in 1998. Gannt run twice, in 1990 and in 1996, against aging Republican Jesse Helms in South Carolina and he was defeated twice, favorable polls notwithstanding. Harold Ford was a young and dynamic politician, but he failed to win the Tennessee Senate seat in 2006.

This experience in various elections suggests that charismatic politicians of Afroamerican origin can win, but they some times underperform compared to the expectations in the polls. If a black candidate is credited of 53% of the vote 24 hours before the voting, his actual results may be between 48% and 51%. People were simply ashamed of saying pollsters they would NOT vote for him, inflating his numbers in the polls and depressing them in the actual results. Does this mean that Obama is a weak candidate? Not in the least, but he will need a mistake-free campaign because his margins will be smaller than those of a white candidate. This is clearly shown by the angry reactions of some Edward’s supporters to the announcement that he would endorse Obama (more later on this). We are strongly convinced, however, that race will a factor much less important this year, and that long-term demographic and political trends will propel Obama to victory in November.

"The math is controlling. This race, I believe, is over”

After Hillary Clinton's victory in West Virginia, former Governor of Colorado Roy Romer, said that he endorsed Obama because "The math is controlling." And indeed it is so: the race is over, comments by Howard Wolfson, Clinton’s communications director, notwithstanding. Wolfson said Tuesday: “I think superdelegates who have been moving toward Barack Obama in the last week are going to wake up tomorrow and say, ‘I’m a little concerned about the fact that our nominee, presumptive nominee, can’t win West Virginia. I’m a little concerned that he can’t win Pennsylvania or Ohio, or Michigan, or Florida."

Well, Wolfson might be correct, but up to a point: Superdelegates are cold-blooded politicians and they know that a Superdelegates' coup d'état handing the nomination to Hillary would fracture the party right in the middle, with all young people and all African Americans (the two most loyal constituencies this year) simply walking out (and may even supporting an independent candidate). Not to mention the fact that Clinton should convince NINETY-ONE PERCENT of the Superdelegates still uncommitted today, to snatch the nomination.

The fact that this scenario is a fairy tale doesn't mean that the problem of working class male who tend to vote Republican doesn't exist, as we pointed out earlier this year in several posts. However, the electorate of the two parties strongly polarized in the last 8 years, and most Democratic voters, even unhappy with Obama, will come back to the fold in November. The real issue is not how many of them will defect, but in which states: Ohio, Colorado, New Mexico, Wisconsin and Nevada are states where a handful of ballots changing side can deliver the victory to either candidate. And prevailing in those swing states is crucial to winning an Electoral College majority.

Clinton, The Candidate of Seniors

The brawl for the Democratic nomination may be about to stop: numbers leave no chance to Clinton of snatching the nomination. However, Obama may have several concerns to think about in the coming weeks (aside the fact that Hillary hasn't withdraw yet). One is his trouble in convincing the 65+, voters, who in Indiana preferred Clinton by a massive 71% to 29%. This pattern was already established in the first primaries and caucuses and was particularly apparent in Ohio, where Hillary crushed Obama in this age group by a whopping 46-point margin, and Tennessee, where she got 40 percentage points more than her opponent.
Obama still has an overwhelming support among the 18-29 years-old, but this age group is smaller, and less inclined to vote than seniors. In 2004, for example, two over-65 citizens voted for every under-29 one. That means that facing McCain (an appealing figure to seniors, at least because he is over-70 himself) Obama may have a potentially dangerous weakness in the general election. Seniors count for much in some key states like Florida and Ohio, that in 2000 and in 2004 went to George Bush, tilting the electoral college to Republicans.

Obama Two Steps Closer to The Nomination

In the end, Barack Obama remained barely 13,000 votes behind Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton in the hard-fought primary in Indiana, where the outcome was clear only after counting the very last vote. As Indiana has been a draw, and not the large vicotry Clinton needed, Obama is now much closer to the nomination: on Tuesday the Illinois senator won a commanding victory in the North Carolina primary, too. He has now enough momentum to widen his lead in pledged delegates, and new ammunition in seeking to persuade Democratic leaders to rally around his campaign.

Populist Commercials and Oil Money

Hillary Clinton spent April 25, 2008, in Indiana, and gave a speech about economic issues in Bloomington. You can see a clip of it in the video below:

Clinton also broadcasted a populist commercial about the soaring prices of gasoline, an issue very important to Midwest voters. In this spot (see below) she calls for "suspending the gas tax this Summer." 

However, this is the same proposal offered by Senator McCain in a recent speech and is generally considered a gift to the oil companies (it's not clear whether the details of the two plans are identical). An examination of campaign contributions by individuals from the oil and gas industry by the Center for Responsive Politics reveals that McCain has been the largest recipient of their largesse and Clinton comes second. 

So far, individuals from the oil and gas industry have given McCain more than $404,000, while Clinton received $309,363 and Obama $222,309. In fact, nearly 70 percent of the industry’s donations in the 2008 White House race have gone to McCain and other Republicans, which is no surprise knowing that the Bush administration has been a figurehead for the oil industry during the last 7 years.

It's somehow bizarre, instead, that Clinton would attack Obama on this issue, when he is the least connected to oil interests of the three candidates.

The Day After

Pennsylvania spoke, and the two Democratic candidates are more or less in the situation of the two Civil War armies on the morning of July 4, 1863, at Gettysburg (which, by the way, was in Pennsylvania).

The question, today, is: "Does the never-ending battle for the democratic nomination alter the dynamics of this campaign?" It might, but the fundamentals remain on the Democratic side, whoever is the nominee (and Marco Polo remains strongly convinced that it will be Barack Obama). We think significant that at this low point of Democratic Party's internecine war, polls show Barack Obama with a statistically insignificant two-point advantage over John McCain, 47% to 45%. During last month, it was McCain leading Obama by similarly close margins: at this point the two candidates are tied in the preference of voters. In a match-up with Hillary Clinton, McCain maintains the advantage: yesterday, 47% of the vote, while Clinton would get 45% (all data coming from Rasmussen).

This almost perfect parity between Obama and McCain is apparent in the Electoral College, too, and this is what will really matter in November. So far, the race remains a toss-up: the Democrats lead in states with 200 Electoral Votes while the GOP has the advantage in states with 189 ones. When States that “lean” toward one of the two camps are added, the Democrats lead 260 to 240 (the magic number to enter the White House is 270).

All this means that John McCain, at the moment when Democrats are engaged in a dogfight, and mainstream media are romancing him, is not capable of obtaining a significant lead over Obama, and has only a modest advantage over Clinton. Why is that?

The only reasonable explanation is that McCain is the Republican standard bearer in a year when all the the strong currents of American politics favor the Democrats. The economic crisis and the social tragedy of million of people losing their home will be on the forefront of voters' concerns in November. The same can be said for the Iraq war, that vanished from the TV screen, but not from the mind of citizens: two-thirds of them still want the troops home ASAP.

Much will depend on the two Conventions, but in the Fall most Democratic voters will go back to the party candidate, no matter his or her name. Today, only 74% of Democratic say they would support Obama but American politics has been polarized for 30 years, and the two parties has never been so far apart as during George W. Bush's era. Three out of four citizens think that the Country is "on the wrong track." This trend will favor heavily the Democrats and it will matter a lot in November.

How ABC Set A Trap To Question Obama's Patriotism

Wednesday night there was the debate in Pennsylvania, considered an important moment before the democratic primary of April 22. Many observers remarked how silly were the questions asked by the two moderators (see, here and here, for example).

However, most pundits failed to note that the question by a member of the public on why Barack Obama doesn't usually wear a flag pin on his jacket was planted by ABC, which hosted the debate, and was in no way a "spontaneous" question surging from the heart of a citizen. What happened was that ABC tracked down Nash McCabe, the woman who asked "I want to know if you believe in the American flag" after she was quoted in a New York Times story about white voters in small-town Latrobe, Pa., being against Obama.

We know that because Joshua Micah Marshall's blog had this: "In this case, the producers put the producers' question into the mouth of a voter, because it made the question seem more authentic, as if people care in large numbers about the flag pin question. That is, the woman was used to legitimize the traditional media's focus on these frankly trivial and, yes, distracting issues."

It may well be that Gibson's and Stephanopoulos's unethical behavior was simply part of the traditional media's focus on trivial and distracting issues, but one might wonder if the long relationship between Stephanopoulos and the Clintons (he worked for Bill Clinton's campaign in 1992 and at the White House later) has really nothing to do with his obvious hostility toward Barack Obama and the plot to question his patriotism. 
In any event, the attack misfired: the latest Rasmussen Reports survey in the state shows Hillary Clinton with 47% of the vote and Barack Obama with 44%. This poll was conducted AFTER the nationally televised debate between the candidates. Last Monday, before the ABC' show, Clinton was leading Obama 50% to 41%.

Even The New York Times Realized That...

It's not by chance that the New York Times is nicknamed "The Gray Lady," giving the newspaper the reputation of being serious, well-mannered, and a bit boring. On 42° Street, it took a couple of weeks to recognize the obvious: the counting of Democratic delegates shows that Hillary Clinton has no real chance to snatch the nomination. "Trailing by more than 160 pledged delegates — those chosen in state primaries or caucuses — Mrs. Clinton has counted on Superdelegates to help her overtake Mr. Obama with a late surge before the party’s convention in August" wrote John Harwood yesterday. "The party’s rules for proportional allocation make it highly difficult for her to erase Mr. Obama’s pledged delegate lead, even if she sweeps the final 10 contests. (...) Yet Mrs. Clinton’s once formidable lead among Superdelegates who have announced preferences has shrunk to 34 by the Obama campaign count." Even if the pool of remaining uncommitted Superdelegates is around 330, many of them will support the candidate who prevailed in their home state, and that means an advantage to Obama, as we predicted on March 26, here. 

The coldness of the "Supers" is understandable: they are politicians in good standing, and can read the numbers of the popular vote so far (advantage: Obama). They can read the polls, too, and Gallup tells us today that "Barack Obama now leads Hillary Clinton by a statistically significant margin, 52% to 43%." Same verdict at Rasmussen's, which gives Obama over the 50-percent-mark for the fifth consecutive day: "Obama now attracts 51% of the vote while Clinton earns 41%. Obama leads by five points among Democrats and by a two-to-one margin among unaffiliated voters." In other words, while Hillary has zero chances of capturing the nomination, how long her campaign will go on is another matter. According to well-respected Cook Political Report, "Generally speaking, presidential candidates don't decide to drop out because they lose primaries and caucuses; they decide when their donors have stopped writing checks and their campaigns run out of money. Unless Clinton wins Pennsylvania, Indiana, Kentucky, North Carolina and a few other places by landslide margins, which is very unlikely, her donors will stop giving and her campaign will grind to a halt."

Are intra-party feuds fatal in November?

Media pundits look restlessly for political events similar to the harshly contested Democratic race in this year's primaries; the 1976 elections (on the Republican side) and the 1980 competition between Edward Kennedy and Jimmy Carter, on the Democratic side, are often cited in the search for historical lessons that might be applied to the present.

However, former US Ambassador Dennis Kux has another example in mind: "I think that all these people are just not old enough to remember the primary that is most similar to the ongoing one; the Republican race of 1952," he told Valentina Pasquali at the Woodrow Wilson Center for International Scholars, one of the most respected think tanks in Washington DC.

In 1952, Senator Robert Taft, son of former President William Taft and leader of the Republican "Old Guard," tried to capture the GOP nomination against Dwight Eisenhower, the war hero that wasn't even affiliated with the party. The Republican bosses decided that, after 20 years of Roosevelt-Truman domination, they wanted to win the White House at any cost (what happened on the Democratic side was covered here).

Just like today, the incumbent was out of the race, since President Harry Truman had announced he would not seek a second full term (although an exception for him was included in the XXII Constitutional amendment). Just like it might happen this year, the race between Eisenhower and Taft went all the way to the convention and was only decided by delegate-count. Moreover, just like in 2008, a fight over the standing of some delegations happened in 1952, when accusations of rigging in the primaries in Texas and Georgia heated up the convention and gave rise to a litigation over the seating of delegates.

"So many observers keep repeating that the clash between Obama and Clinton will end up damaging the party in November by creating divisions among the democratic voters," Ambassador Kux told Valentina Pasquali. "I really don't agree."

In 1952, despite the prolonged battle inside the party, Dwight Eisenhower went on to take the White House in a landslide, with an 11% victory margin over his Democratic opponent Adlai Stevenson II.

Clinton goes to Jay Leno's show to defuse issue of truthfulness

As we reported earlier this week, Clinton was attacked on the key issue of her truthfulness because of misleading statements made during a visit at George Washington University. Talking about a trip to Bosnia in 1996, Hillary had said that her plane landed "under sniper fire." Quite embarrassing, when footage of the event broadcasted by the networks revealed that there was no fire, and that she was welcomed by a red carpet and a young girl presenting her flowers. Satirical videos promptly appeared on You Tube (see this, for example).

The Senator from New York's skilled communication staff chose to cut short clumsy explanations, and sent her to Jay Leno's show, where she opened with a well-crafted one-liner: "I was worried I wasn't going to [arrive on time], I was pinned down by sniper fire." Leno's interruption, "Really!" made the audience laugh, she "admitted" her exaggerations, proved to be capable of self-irony and now the Clinton's campaign hopes the issue will fade. The (very serious) issues of the role of late-night shows in the American political process were first discussed in an excellent Salon article by Michael Scherer on Stephen Colbert two years ago, and now by  Russell L. Peterson's new book "Strange Bedfellows: How Late-Night Comedy Turns Democracy Into a Joke," below.

Indianapolis, April 4, 1968

On April 4, 1968, forty years ago, Robert F. Kennedy was scheduled to give a campaign speech in Indianapolis, when news of the assassination of Martin Luther King reached him. Rejecting the advice of many advisors, Kennedy continued toward the ghetto playground where he was to give his speech, undeterred by a police warning that they could not provide him with protection if things got out of control. This video features the original sound of Bob Kennedy's remarks disclosing the death of Martin Luther King to an Afro-american crowd.

A VIDEO THAT WILL HAUNT HILLARY FOR A LONG TIME

In a single week, this ironic video posted by "Barely Political" (the nickname of "I Got a Crush on Obama" producer) collected 1.6 million hits on You Tube. Quite damaging for Clinton's reputation.

There would be hell in the party for a long time/5

Even if she is still ahead in Pennsylvania, it appears that Hillary Clinton, facing an uphill battle in the contest to collect enough delegates in the next primaries, is staking her chances to win the nomination on the fight to seat the Florida and Michigan delegations at the convention. Delegate from both States were disqualified because the local party organizations violated DNC rules related to the national schedule of primary elections. Hillary did not campaign there, but her name was the only one on the ballot, and therefore she would add some 300 delegates to the final count, if Michigan and Florida delegations were seated.

“I have no intention of stopping until we finish what we started and until we see what happens in the next ten contests and until we resolve Florida and Michigan,” she told the Washington Post. “And if we don't resolve it, we'll resolve it at the convention — that's what Credentials committees are for.”

It is doubtful that the Credentials committee, where Obama will have more members than Clinton, and where a majority of the 25 appointees by DNC Chairman Howard Dean will side with Obama, could accept Clinton's demand but she could require to vote out a minority report, meaning that both Democratic candidates could have their positions voted on by all seated convention delegates. The prospect of a convention that begins with a contentious vote on a “minority” or “majority” report is “the nightmare scenario," according to many Democratic party insiders. Whoever the candidate, a nomination obtained by a 51-49 margin would mean hell in the party for a long time, and the slimmest chance of winning in November. Such a split might tilt the balance of the election to John McCain (see previous posts 1 to 4, below). A different opinion, by former ambassador Dennis Kux, can be found in this post in From the Field.

There would be hell in the party for a long time/4

As we mentioned in the previous posts of this series, 2008 is a year in which Democrats could win by a landslide because all the underground streams of American politcs favor them. Factor n. 1: the economy is in dire strait, and it will bring more pain and suffering to million of Americans approaching November. That is always an ominous sign for the team in place: Dubya must remember that a very mild recession in 1991-92 ousted his father from the White House in no time (and his share of the popular vote was less than Goldwater's one in the calamitous 1964 election).
Factor n. 2: "The balance of party identification in the American electorate now favors the Democratic Party by a decidedly larger margin than in either of the two previous presidential election cycles," as the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press tells us in its last survey. We tackled this issue some times ago, pointing out that there is "a huge advantage for the party that is ahead in what political scientists call party identification," aka the Democrats this year. Now, Pew data show that "36% [of voters] identify themselves as Democrats, and just 27% as Republicans. The share of voters who call themselves Republicans has declined by six points since 2004, and represents, on an annualized basis, the lowest percentage of self-identified Republican voters in 16 years of polling by the Center."
Factor n. 3: There is a large reject of the War in Iraq (about two thirds of citizens are against) and a widespread fatigue and disgust because of government's corruption.
Tha should be enough to call the election for the party of Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, but Democrats have an exceptional talent in destroying themselves, particularly in election years (More).