Gallup finds "some support" for Clinton's claim that she would be the stronger candidate in the general. Meanwhile, Clinton is consistently doing better than Obama (albeit usually in the margin of error) against McCain, despite three months of drumbeat about her impossible task and the certainty of Obama. Voter preference for Clinton remains amazingly strong, given this attempt to push her out.
While Clinton would have probably won an all-primary nomination process, the two candidates roughly tied. The voters did not move to Obama as the Democratic leaders clearly hoped they would.
Without doubt, this created a terrible quandary for the Democrats. Obama had the liberals and between 80 and 90% of African Americans. Clinton had the feminists, the working class whites, Hispanics and a solid forty plus percent of college educated voters, a good bit of which isn't covered under her existing support among feminists hoping for the first female president. Turning down the first African American candidate couldn't have been an appealing task, especially given Clinton's high negatives.
However, the Democratic superdelegates didn't even try. Instead, from March on, the leadership made it clear that they were doing everything they could to shut the race down, which meant giving the race to Obama by pushing Clinton out. The superdelegate role was set up explicitly to override the pledged delegates, but Democratic leaders have adamantly criticized any suggestion of its use (Pelosi was actually pressured into walking back her strongly expressed disapproval). Essentially, the media and the party leadership has done its best to use moral suasion to put the superdelegate/convention option out of reach. Donna Brazile, "undeclared" Obama shill, flatly declared that she'd leave the party if the superdelegates "threw" the nomination.
At times, their reaction resembled the classic SNL skit, Buh-bye. Wow, Clinton stomped all over Obama in Texas, Ohio, and Rhode Island! Buh-bye. Hey, Clinton wiped out Obama in Pennsylvania! Buh-bye. Clinton used Obama as a dustmop in West Virginia and Kentucky! Buh-bye. Clinton has won more votes since March despite being outspent 3:1! Buh-bye. Clinton won the "tiebreaker" state of Indiana! Buh-BYE and now, Tim Russert is the flight attendant and he means business. Hillary's got to get off the damn plane.
Time and again, when Obama's demographic failures were highlighted, Democratic leaders stressed that the party would "come together", that the unprecedented divisions the primaries revealed, with no momentum accruing to the winning candidate, were nothing to be worried about. Democrats would fall in line.
This isn't an attempt to revisit the nomination or challenge the results. It is, rather, an observation on how completely out of synch the party leadership was with an enormous segment of the party itself. How many Democrats watched and listen to Pelosi, Reid, or other Democratic heavyweights blather on in this state of denial? How many of them watched in amazement as Democratic politicians ignored every bit of conventional wisdom they've learned over the past 20 years? How many of them noticed that at every point, the leadership has been profoundly out of synch with the polled preferences of the Democratic party--and not only didn't care, but pretended that nothing was wrong? And how many Democrats noticed that the party's elected officials showed no signs of caring about the values of the majority of their voters?
Are the Democratic leaders trying to pull off the Big Lie? Do they really believe the Koolaid they're pushing, or are they just confident that their party will vote for whatever name's at the top of the ticket? Ultimately, the voters who either despise or distrust Obama won't have to care.
May 28, 08 03:34 PM