How much danger does the Clinton-Obama fight hold for Democrats?
This is the question on a lot of people’s minds these days as the Democratic race drags on and looks to get nastier, and maybe far nastier, than it has so far, while the Republicans sit back and rally around their already-chosen candidate.
The answer depends on who you talk to, but the answer for now seems to be that it won’t completely destroy the party’s chances in November:
Concerns are starting to grow that this year's Clinton-Obama contest could fracture the Democratic Party. African-American turnout has exploded, and Obama usually rolls up 8 or 9 to 1 ratios among black voters. He also does well among upper-income voters of all races.
But if he loses the nomination_ particularly if the decision turns on some insider maneuver such as last-minute superdelegate switches or a convention credentials committee ruling on disputed Florida and Michigan delegates — will they back Clinton in the fall?
And would Clinton backers, notably the older women who've routinely given her 2 to 1 majorities in primaries, come out for Obama?
Most experts give a qualified yes to both those questions.
. . .
The consensus at the moment is that the Democratic Party is likely to heal fairly quickly. A lot of Democrats think that President Bush didn't really win the 2000 election and that a better campaign by nominee John Kerry in 2004 would have denied Bush a second term. This time they're hungry for victory above all.
"There just doesn't seem to be that fine a line between Clinton and Obama," said Si Sheppard, a professor of political science at Boston University.
Mulholland, an activist who's been to every Democratic convention since 1980, has witnessed a lot of intraparty strife, but he noted that it usually fades when things calm down and there's a common enemy.
I’d feel much better about that last part if Hillary would quit painting the common enemy as Obama against her and McCain.
Ultimately, I think it will be partly decided on how negative the campaign gets. The more vicious the attacks, the more hardened the supporters of the attacks victim will get, and the less enthusiastic they will be to support the other candidate as nominee.
For now, most of the smears have come from the Clinton camp. Many have pointed out that Obama has made a name for himself as being above these kinds of tactics, and can’t stoop to the same level as Clinton without losing some critical support. But then, the most vicious attack his campaign has launched so far is to point out that Clinton is being hypocritical about releasing tax returns, and obstructive over releasing White House documents from her time there that she’s been referring to as proof of her “experience”. Hardly the stuff of a full-blown smear machine.
And while the Democrats hash out their nomination process, the Republicans stand ready to play spoilers to their own advantage.
The Democratic National Committee ended 2007 nearly flat broke, with cash of $2.9 million and debts of $2.2 million. Since then it has raised some money, paid down debt and managed to put $3.7 million in its piggy bank. This compares, however, with $25 million that the Republican National Committee has in cash on hand, after having raised $97 million since the beginning of 2007.
And with Senator John McCain now the presumptive Republican nominee, party officials started plotting with his campaign this week on deploying those resources against the well-financed Democratic candidacies of Senators Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama
. . .
Such party money can play a vital role in presidential campaigns because candidates are barred from using money they raise for the general election until they are nominated at the conventions. So the party money is often used before then — as well as after — to finance advertisements, direct mail and, ultimately, get-out-the-vote efforts.
One thing to note about the rest of the NY Times piece is that Dean’s insistence on an expensive 50-state strategy meshes very well with Obama’s campaign tactics of fighting for every vote, everywhere, while the traditional DNC tactics of focusing on a few battleground states while writing off the rest as unwinnable more clearly parallels Clinton’s campaign strategy.
For now, the well-funded candidates can battle McCain and the Republicans along with each other, but the danger is one of diminishing returns. The RNC can act as a proxy for McCain and launch attacks at will, while the DNC has no money to effect a counter-assault. And the way things are going, particularly from the Clinton campaign recently, the Republicans can amplify the Democratic candidate's attacks to make their battle even nastier and more drawn out than it would be otherwise.
