Who wins the white house

[Jac Coyne]

I was watching David Gregory's show on MSNBC the other day and one of the pundits, a short-haired gal whose name escapes me (Madden maybe?) was afraid that if BO won the nomination a sizeable chunk of HC supporters would vote McCain and if HC won, a segment of the BO supporters would stay home. Is this just primary politics or could this really happen?

I find it hard to believe the Dems would be short-sighted enough to imperil their party in this way with the presidency seemingly within their grasp, but there does seem to be some animus built up between the two camps.

As for the treatment of the Democrat nominee, I'm pretty sure the Republicans will follow the same blueprint no matter who gets the nomination. We're firm believers in equal opportunity in that respect...

[Dan Wishengrad]

I was watching David Gregory's show on MSNBC the other day and one of the pundits, a short-haired gal whose name escapes me (Madden maybe?) was afraid that if BO won the nomination a sizeable chunk of HC supporters would vote McCain and if HC won, a segment of the BO supporters would stay home. Is this just primary politics or could this really happen?

I find it hard to believe the Dems would be short-sighted enough to imperil their party in this way with the presidency seemingly within their grasp, but there does seem to be some animus built up between the two camps.

This is a refelction of the exit polls in Pennsylvania, Jac, with 52% of HC's voters saying they would not vote for BO if he wins the nomination. When pressed further, a sizeable percentage of these Clinton supporters said they would vote for McCain, another bloc said they would vote for a third-party candidate, and 14% (I think) say they would not vote at all. The Obamians say much the same.

But this is all just the "heat of the moment" emotion in the midst of a hard-fought campaign. Remember that many of Romney and Giuliani's partisans were equally adamant that they would never vote for McCain. Rush Limbaugh gave no doubt at all that he would never support Mac, and Anne Coulter said that she would campaign for Hillary if Senator McCain was the GOP nominee. Heat of the moment stuff, but guess what? These Republicans have rallied around their nominee, just as the Democrats ultimately will once we have our own nominee.

There are enough clear-cut, stark differences on policy that will eventually cause American voters to fall into either the McCain or Obama (Hillary is making things interesting but has no mathematical chance to win enough delegates) camps come November. Those who support continuing the war in Iraq indefinitely and who support the current administration's economic policies will vote for McCain and a "third Bush term". Those who oppose these will vote for Obama.

It's just wishful thinking on the part of some Democrats and Republicans that a big chunk of the opposing party's voters will somehow switch sides and vote for their guy. Fat chance. This election will be won by which side captures the independents and -- to a an even greater degree -- on voter turnout in November. Low turnout favors McCain, and high turnout favors Obama. We shall see, but if you enjoy politics it will certainly be good theater.

PS I have no doubt that their will be tons of negative campaigning by the proxies for both party, and that the "blueprints" are in place for sliming both JM and BO. But Senators Mccain and Obama are both honorable, decent men, and IMHO they will both stick to the high road themselves. They are also both formidable candidates and terrific campaigners. The General Election campaign debates will surely be "Must See T.V."

[Jac Coyne]

Those who support continuing the war in Iraq indefinitely and who support the current administration's economic policies will vote for McCain and a "third Bush term".

While the "third Bush term" quip is -- and will continue to be -- an effective soundbite, Dan, it is purely a Democratic construct. McCain has opposed the administration on numerous key points, which is why we've heard so much rhetoric from the conservatives (who strongly backed W) about McCain's nomination. But "third Bush term" will be one of the buzz phrases we'll hear all summer, just as we will "100-year war," "embittered small town folk," and "U.S. of KKK A."

And as I understand it, HC's nomination, while unlikely, is not mathematically impossible with the presence of superdelegates. Obviously, I don't have a dog in this fight, but it would seem clear that if BO led in both popular votes and delegate count, the superdelegates should fall in line. However, I wonder, Dan, if HC's argument that her victories in "big states" somehow gives her a better shot in the general election doesn't hold some water. If, as you surmise, the Dems completely coalesce behind the eventual nominee it won't be an issue, but if these party fractures are real -- which is a possibility, despite your conviction -- she would seem to have a better chance.

Senators Mccain and Obama are both honorable, decent men, and IMHO they will both stick to the high road themselves. They are also both formidable candidates and terrific campaigners.

Agreed.

[onpoint]

After all the clamoring by the Democratic party when Gore won the popular vote, but lost the election, when and if Hillary wins the popular vote (which she very likely could), I wonder if they will be singing the same tune?

[Adam Gamradt]

After all the clamoring by the Democratic party when Gore won the popular vote, but lost the election, when and if Hillary wins the popular vote (which she very likely could), I wonder if they will be singing the same tune?

Now Alex, that's not quite why the Democrats were clamoring. They were clamoring because in the year 2000, it was entirely reasonable to expect an election could be conducted properly in the great state of Florida.

Let's use a lacrosse analogy even if it is a bit of a reach. CSU plays BYU in the championship game. For some reason, the scorekeepers have the score CSU 9 BYU 10. The refs on the other hand have the score CSU 10 BYU 9. The fans of each team really have no clue what happened, but side with their respective teams, and loudly take their argument to the executive board, who ends up deciding the winner. It doesn't matter what the score was at the time, the fact that the executive board decided the championship is something a reasonable person can and should find objectionable.

Factor in the smugness of Katherine Harris (maybe she knows how to score a lacrosse game, but she sure was terrible at managing an election) and you've got a recipe for disaster.

Granted I know the real answer to the above analogy is that the refs score was official, but do you get where I'm going?

Maybe that analogy is a reach, maybe it isn't. Or maybe I just don't feel much like working right now.

Actually, while we're at it, can we get Coach Lamb and Coach Naumburg to run for President? Maybe Alex can be VP? Coach Lamb has perfect hair, but Coach Naumburg has transcendental charm. I would hedge my bets and donate to both campaigns, hoping to get a position called Minister of Loose Balls, Keeper of Rose Garden Goals, or the coveted Washer of Presidential Water Bottles.

[Dan Wishengrad]

[And as I understand it, HC's nomination, while unlikely, is not mathematically impossible with the presence of superdelegates. Obviously, I don't have a dog in this fight, but it would seem clear that if BO led in both popular votes and delegate count, the superdelegates should fall in line. However, I wonder, Dan, if HC's argument that her victories in "big states" somehow gives her a better shot in the general election doesn't hold some water. If, as you surmise, the Dems completely coalesce behind the eventual nominee it won't be an issue, but if these party fractures are real -- which is a possibility, despite your conviction -- she would seem to have a better chance.

She just might have a better chance against McCain, Jac, you are correct. But that's not the point. The point was that this primary campaign is over, mathematically, and Hillary can't win the Democratic nomination. For her to overtake BO and gain the requisite delegates to be the nominee she would have to win all the remaining states with over 85% of the vote. That isn't going to happen. Obama will win Oregon and North Carolina outright, and he should earn a decent proportional split in the remaining states. Florida's delegates could possibly be seated, but Michigan's can not be in any circumstance. The superdelegates will largely wind up being a non-issue -- no way will they wind up bucking "the will of the people". Obama has won this thing, but HC will continue to fight on, as is her right. But she would be smarter and better regarded by the Dems if she folds her campaign after North Carolina and Indiana. Will she? Probably not. But she should, IMHO. I also believe that our party will heal itself quite nicely after the convention, but that doesn't mean the election will be a slam-dunk. It most certainly will not.

Senators Mccain and Obama are both honorable, decent men, and IMHO they will both stick to the high road themselves. They are also both formidable candidates and terrific campaigners.

Agreed.

Nice to agree on something, isn't it?

[Jana]

What a true Democrat (in my opinion) would want is for Barack to jump on as her VP, gain necessary experience for 8 years and then ride that to his own 8 year term.

How many times have Democratic VP's been elected directly after the Democratic President completed service? (JFK and FDR do not count as they died in office.)

IMHO, the Hilary supporters would vote for Obama in the General Election, but the Obama supporters would be disillusioned if they saw the winner of the popular caucus / primary delegate race get screwed out of the nomination. It's Obama or bust for them.

I'm not surprised about Pennsylvania, every time I go back to visit family, I'm appalled at how naturally racial slurs roll off the tongues of the older generations of family and friends.

Can you imagine if the US had a british style parliament and Dubya had to speak and answer questions for hours in session? That would be difficult to watch, but Hilary and Obama would do quite well.

[onpoint]

She just might have a better chance against McCain, Jac, you are correct. But that's not the point. The point was that this primary campaign is over, mathematically, and Hillary can't win the Democratic nomination. For her to overtake BO and gain the requisite delegates to be the nominee she would have to win all the remaining states with over 85% of the vote. That isn't going to happen. Obama will win Oregon and North Carolina outright, and he should earn a decent proportional split in the remaining states. Florida's delegates could possibly be seated, but Michigan's can not be in any circumstance. The superdelegates will largely wind up being a non-issue -- no way will they wind up bucking "the will of the people". Obama has won this thing, but HC will continue to fight on, as is her right. But she would be smarter and better regarded by the Dems if she folds her campaign after North Carolina and Indiana. Will she? Probably not. But she should, IMHO.

But Dan, isn't it true that while Hillary can't get the requisite # of delegates, Barack can't either? He may end up winning, but I don't really believe that it's as "over" as many Barack supporters would suggest.

[Ravaging Beast]

Looks like Obama will affectively clinch the nomination tonight:

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Barack Obama effectively clinched the Democratic presidential nomination Tuesday, becoming the first black candidate to lead a major party into a campaign for the White House. Vanquished rival Hillary Rodham Clinton swiftly signaled an interest in joining the ticket as running mate.
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/P/PRIMARY_RDP?SITE=MATAU&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT

It also looks like Hillary is interested in the #2 spot.