more election whatnot
Feb. 6th, 2008 11:39 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
sanpaku_backupWell, even if the NY Times "Caucus Blog" won't accept my comments for some strange reason, I can still share my pearls with y'all...
There was never going to be a contest for the nomination that didn't draw on blocks of voters and the various reasons they see themselves as Democrats. Everyone has their own reason for caring about what the party means -- and the big picture is that they DO care enough to vote in enormous numbers in a primary election. No matter who wins the nomination, nearly the whole country will feel they cast a meaningful vote instead of having the election decided by a few people in Iowa, New Hampshire, and the punditocracy. Since vast majorities of Democratic primary voters have told pollsters that they will support whoever the party nominates in the fall, the fact that they are actually being engaged in this process is great news for the party.
As far as divisions, I think the degree to which whites vote for Obama, or men vote for Clinton, is much less sharp than one might have expected. This is because if either candidate is perceived as giving in to the demands of a given block, they will hurt their ability to be seen as a unifying party standard bearer. Clearly each group has its base within the party, but I think you've seen both candidates doing a lot of talking to try to convince the party as a whole rather than just mobilize interest group support (unions, the elderly, etc.). Hillary has already been forced to think of rationales for being nominated other than inevitability, and Obama has to sharpen his appeal beyond party reformists. This has made them both better candidates than they were a month ago.
I also don't agree that a protracted battle is bad for the party. It sure could be, if the candidates allow it to become a death match with dirty tricks and a nasty floor fight -- that WOULD leave people angry and embittered. This being the Democratic Party, that's certainly a possibility. But so far I think the perception is that this has been a largely clean fight, and let the best candidate win. If that can be maintained -- a big if -- a long process can keep Democratic issues front and center in the national eye. Meanwhile, we can learn more about the vulnerabilities of each candidate and perhaps get a chance to change course if it emerges that one of them has a fatal weakness that Republicans could exploit. A long process keeps the other side guessing, whereas both Hillary and Obama can begin directing their aim at McCain. There are no guarantees in politics, but there's a potential for this to be a very good thing for the Democratic Party.
There was never going to be a contest for the nomination that didn't draw on blocks of voters and the various reasons they see themselves as Democrats. Everyone has their own reason for caring about what the party means -- and the big picture is that they DO care enough to vote in enormous numbers in a primary election. No matter who wins the nomination, nearly the whole country will feel they cast a meaningful vote instead of having the election decided by a few people in Iowa, New Hampshire, and the punditocracy. Since vast majorities of Democratic primary voters have told pollsters that they will support whoever the party nominates in the fall, the fact that they are actually being engaged in this process is great news for the party.
As far as divisions, I think the degree to which whites vote for Obama, or men vote for Clinton, is much less sharp than one might have expected. This is because if either candidate is perceived as giving in to the demands of a given block, they will hurt their ability to be seen as a unifying party standard bearer. Clearly each group has its base within the party, but I think you've seen both candidates doing a lot of talking to try to convince the party as a whole rather than just mobilize interest group support (unions, the elderly, etc.). Hillary has already been forced to think of rationales for being nominated other than inevitability, and Obama has to sharpen his appeal beyond party reformists. This has made them both better candidates than they were a month ago.
I also don't agree that a protracted battle is bad for the party. It sure could be, if the candidates allow it to become a death match with dirty tricks and a nasty floor fight -- that WOULD leave people angry and embittered. This being the Democratic Party, that's certainly a possibility. But so far I think the perception is that this has been a largely clean fight, and let the best candidate win. If that can be maintained -- a big if -- a long process can keep Democratic issues front and center in the national eye. Meanwhile, we can learn more about the vulnerabilities of each candidate and perhaps get a chance to change course if it emerges that one of them has a fatal weakness that Republicans could exploit. A long process keeps the other side guessing, whereas both Hillary and Obama can begin directing their aim at McCain. There are no guarantees in politics, but there's a potential for this to be a very good thing for the Democratic Party.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2008-02-06 04:58 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-02-06 06:09 pm (UTC)Who did you vote for?
no subject
Date: 2008-02-06 06:16 pm (UTC)But... It's the first time in my memory that I ever felt I had a choice! And it was hard. I really, truly find the all of them to be so appealing. But I guess it's the difference between apples and Mussolini.
no subject
Date: 2008-02-06 06:20 pm (UTC)