I think this is a very minor silver lining, to say the least. A few extra Democrats would not seem to outweigh the damage of a long, bruising "throw the toilet" at the presumptive nominee campaign.

Not to rain on this otherwise happy parade, but how many of those new voters will become disenchanted when their candidate has to concede to the other? I would expect many more Obama voters than Clinton voters would be upset (to the point of staying home) if their candidate wasn't running in November, but I don't know that for sure.

yes, and the play "Our American cousin" was superbly acted too.

Blackton,

I suppose, but the whole thing was ruined when some idiot jumped onto the stage right after the biggest punch line.

I think Obama could win them back. Provided that he drops his southside Chicago shtick and starts focusing his message and travel schedules on white working class voters. The yupsters, afr-amers and other Obamamaniacs aren't going anywhere. He has plenty of time, if he's willing to shuck Wright off and get serious about people who don't cotton to identity politics.

Has anybody considered another option-- go back to the smoke filled room and the hell with it?  

If we have primaries, just use them as an indication of party preferences.  In the days when the primaries were virtually over based on what happened in Iowa and New Hampshire, that was hardly democracy.

And, being as smoke filled rooms gave us Washington, Jefferson, Adams, Polk, Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt, FDR, Truman, and Eisenhower, what's so bad about smoke-filled rooms?

the primaries haven't given us any better.  Depending on which presidents you've liked or hated since '60, maybe they've done worse.

Oh, P.S., smoke filled room inhabitants would never have nominated McGovern, Dukakis, Ferraro, or John Kerry, or have considered Howard Dean for a nanosecond.  

Cigar smokers tend to favor less rarified specimens.  And are more in touch with who the guy on the street is going to go for.

Benjamin, I think you've gotta figure that most of these new voters are Obama backers. Hillary wouldn't have won their votes in October anyway (many of them would just have sat the race out), so it shouldn't be that big a deal for either candidate when one of them is forced from the race.

Anyway, it's telling when Plumer writes, "28 percent of Clinton supporters would vote for McCain over Obama in the general, while 19 percent of Obama supporters would defect."

This dynamic -- Hillary supporters being more intolerant of the other candidate winning the nomination -- has been present in polls state-by-state and nationally since New Hampshire. It's not the long drawn-out process that threatens to be damaging to the eventual nominee. It's Hillary herself and the deliberately divisive nature of her campaign. If this were down to Obama versus Biden, this wouldn't feel like a slow-motion suicide pact. Alternately, if this were down to Hillary versus reincarnated George Washington, the race would be just as nasty and dispiriting.

I"m grateful, Brad.

Yes, of course people will come back home. 6 months is an *eternity* in politics. In Sept-Oct we'll have forgotten all this nonsense and be talking about the economy, the f-p crisis du jour, the economy, some BS kulturkerfuffle, the economy, and did I mention the economy?

Obama's greatest threat isn't Hillary or her supporters, its his own supporters and their insatiable appetite for identity politics distractions. If he can get on message (it's the economy, s...) and stay on message, and if there are no huge blowups on either the f-p or kulturkampf fronts, he wins in the GE, end of story.

But that's a big IF, given what we've seen so far from him and his fanclub.

Chan, Howard Dean actually would have been a strong contender in the days of smoke-filled rooms. Howard Dean the moderate, Cintonesque governor looked like a great candidate. It was Howard Dean the pretend primary populist on the campaign trail who was a disaster.

tep,

I thought it was Clinton supporters that were playing identity politics by looking for the candidate that would most screw the Republicans in the same way Democrats were screwed for the past 7 years.

"And are more in touch with who the guy on the street is going to go for."

So, the guy on the street isn't able to accurately register his or her preference?

Rhubarbs, I buy that.  And, it underlines another thing wrong with the primaries.  The candidates have to pander to the more extreme elements of the respective parties who tend to vote in the primaries.

Not a very good indication of what's going to win in the national.  

Agree entirely with Rhubarbs about Dean. Agree with him or not, he had convictions and would have offered a very clear choice. Nominating someone who represented the status quo didn't work out too well.

<i>Anyway, it's telling when Plumer writes, "28 percent of Clinton supporters would vote for McCain over Obama in the general, while 19 percent of Obama supporters would defect."</I>

Those are Democrats, mind you, not merely supporters.  Supporters of both candidates have included Independent and Republican voters so far.  Obama and Clinton are basically splitting the Democratic vote 50/50.  That means Obama supporters who would defect represent 9.5% of Democratic voters, while Clinton voters who would defect represent 14% of Democrats.  

When Bush ran against Clinton in 1992, 8% of Democrats voted for Bush.

When Dole ran against Clinton in 1996, 10% of Democrats voted for Dole.

When Bush ran against Gore in 2000, 11% of Democrats voted for Bush.

When Bush ran against Kerry in 2004, 11% of Democrats voted for Bush.

Do you think McCain has greater crossover appeal than Bush, Dole, or W?  If so, then the defection rate cited in the poll Brad linked is probably correct - somewhere from 10-14% of Democrats will probably vote for McCain.  If no, then you can believe what Brad believes, and imagine that the 10-14% number represents tempers flaring.

My guess is HRC's supporters are just trying to game the polls. I would if I were them. They're losing, and they know it. They also know the only way to get a win is to convince the superdelegates that Obama is unelectable. And the best way to do that is to produce scary poll numbers. What else would it be? Anger that he hasn't dragged Hillary through the mud?

They'll come around. The Deniacs did, despite hating Kerry early on.

ralphnelle, I'm not so sure the Dean/Kerry comparison will hold. Speaking only for myself, I was a Deaniac, though unlike other Deaniacs I spent the early days hoping that the fake Dean of the campaign trail would quickly whip off his mask and reveal the calm, centrist, good-government governor that I liked before the race began. I never thought Kerry would make a good nominee, and I never thought he would make an even minimally competent president. But in 2004, the choice was between a disastrously bad Republican incumbent and a merely well-below-average Democratic challenger. Throw in the Supreme Court being in the balance, and it was easy to become an enthusiastic Kerry supporter once he won the nomination.

In all the ways that Kerry looked like a bad candidate and a lame president, Hillary is worse. Yet she will not be running against a Republican with a record of failure among the worst in American history, and barring a deadly salmonella outbreak in the Supreme Court cafeteria, the judiciary will not be in the balance in the next presidential term. None of the factors that made it easy to back Kerry with enthusiasm apply this year for those who don't like Hillary.

This is still more about "throwing the bums out" and "anybody but Bush", more about change than any one issue. That's why the Democrats are doing so well. McCain is moving away from change, more towards a stay the course strategy.

One mistake by Obama: He doesn't surround himself with people like Zinni. He should move away from the Oprah-type endorsements, fast, and start getting serious people to stand by him.

And he should get back to Bush-bashing. It appears the candidates haven't noticed, but Bush is back in the news. The candidates should play whack-a-mole: Every time Bush makes the front page, the Dems should crush him.

Rhubarbs,

Sort of going off on a tangent, but why don't you think the judiciary will be in the balance next term?

Stevens is about to turn 88 and by the time the next president is sworn in, only 3 of the justices will be under 70.  There is every reason to think there could be at least 1 appointment this term, and possibly more.

Jackie Calmes, of the Wall Street Journal, writes under the headline "Pastor Flap Hasn't Hurt Obama" of the latest NBC/WSJ poll:

-- But both Democrats, and especially New York's Sen. Clinton, are showing wounds from their prolonged and increasingly bitter nomination contest, which could weaken the ultimate nominee for the general-election showdown against Sen. McCain of Arizona. Even among women, who are the base of Sen. Clinton's support, she now is viewed negatively by more voters than positively for the first time in a Journal/NBC poll.

-- Beyond the nomination race, in hypothetical matchups for November's election Sen. Obama still edges Sen. McCain 44% to 42%. That is nearly the same result as in the early March poll, before videos of Mr. Wright's most fiery sermons spread over the Internet. But Sen. Clinton, who likewise had a narrow advantage over Sen. McCain in the earlier survey, trails in this one by two points, 44% to his 46%.

-- The negativity of the Obama-Clinton contest seems to be hurting Sen. Clinton more, the poll shows. A 52% majority of all voters says she doesn't have the background or values they identify with. But 50% say Sen. Obama does share their values, and 57% agree that Sen. McCain does.

online.wsj.com/.../SB120657171729866843.html

BP - you guys speculate about damn near everything ... except what seems most important, now, to speculate about!  Namely:  WHAT WILL BE HRC's PRICE FOR DROPPING OUT?  What concessions, or appointment, or other booty, would she, could she, demand, and who (individually or collectively) is in a position to give her the assurances she will be seeking?  There have been posts about Ickes angling for one thing or another, but what about the candidate herself?  This is an obvious and essential topic for "obsessive" primary coverage to take up.  The assumption (reflected in a lot of posts at this site) that if she loses she will just resume being a NY Senator deserves a LOT of poking and prodding.  Where better for that to happen than here?  (I would have sent this as a private message, but that part of the web interface is apparently broken.)

JohnMagnus, she ain't going to quit because there's nothing to bargain with.  She doesn't want to be the power behind the throne.  

She had that job and saw that it wasn't a very direct link to making things happen the way you want them to.

There is no way to negotiate this or put a stake through her heart, short of beating her with delegate votes.  You guys are all thinking like losers.  And she's not used to thinking that way.

I don't like anything at all about her.  Except that she's got more balls than most men.  (Except when she cries 'cause campaigning is "hard".  Any actual man who did that would be out of the race.)

I started out backing Biden. I support Hillary, because of her experience, as the lesser of evils. This long campaign has made me more negative on Hillary but no more positive on Obama. The result is that I will probabaly vote for McCain. I do not think that I am unique.

r-ennis, I think you are simply responding to what is indisputably true:  John McCain is cut from the traditional timber of American presidents.  And neither his honor nor his experience are questioned, nor his basic eleigibility for the office.

The core problem with both Democratic candidates is that at bottom their appeal has to do with the desire of various segments of the population to prove that America is so fair-minded that, yes, of course we will elect a female or a black man for president.

But, what is obvious to most people, though it is verbotten to say it,  for you will ultimately be accused of bigotry, if Hillary were a man and Obama white, neither of them would be considered sufficiently seasoned and experienced for the presidency.  (This is not to deny their talents and intelligence, so let's not rehash all that.)

It is the impulse of the Democratic Party towards tokenism-- in this case writ very large-- that has created problems for the Party ever since it veered off on this heedless path in 1968.

If the Democratic Party would ever stabilize, ever normalize, then perhaps both women and blacks who were without question qualified could emerge and run as legitimate candidates.

In a sense, neither of your candidates is truly legitimate.  And that is the problem.

And that is why millions of voters, all responsible, thoughtful people like r-ennis, and many of them Democrats are either going to swing to or defect to John McCain in November.

Don't you think it was a foregone conclusion after the core HRC demographics became apparent after NH that those were Reagan Democrats who would bolt to the Republican if Obama was the nominee and that they might do so even if HRC was?

I don't know why everyone wants her to pack it in.  First she is not gonna.  Second, she may self destruct very nicely.  The Bosnia bit is so symptomatic of something very, very wrong about her relationship to the truth.

Another silver lining.  Now everyone knows Obama is no Manchurian candidate Muslim.

Besides the polls are understating how many African-Americans would stay home and if sufficiently organized might be persuade to go back to their Republican roots .

Channy, you've hit it on the nose.  They are both unqualified to be President.  MCain is no great shakes, but he is qualified, by experience anyway, for the office.  His teperament still gives me pause.  But we have the choices we have.  McCain in '08!

By the way, I never, never hear her name mentioned on these pages.  But, the Democrats have a great potential female candidate.  Her name is Diane Feinstein.  A smart woman, a centrist, liked by people on both sides of the aisle, very popular in California.

I don't know what her ambitions are.  But, if the party weren't so in thrall to the Clintons, you could have run her.  And she comes with credibility, lots of solid experience, and NONE of the Clinton style baggage.  

What is so wrong with the Democrats that they can never run a normal person anymore for president?  All these weirdos-- Kerry, Gore, the Clintons, Dukakis.  The Dems were ruined by the 60s and leftover hipies and just never snapped out of it.

Agree with you entirely about Hillary, Annabella.

Like your line, "Now everyone knows Obama is no Manchurian candidate Muslim."

Correct.  Now he's just a Manchurian Candidate black extremist who thinks the U.S. Government created AIDS to kill black folks.

Or, maybe he's merely a Manchurian Candidate ultra-liberal with a perfect Leftist voting record in the U.S. Senate.

Anything can happen, Annabella, but never in American history has someone as far to the Left as Obama won the presidency.

With McCain as an easy centrist option for reasonable Democrats, whey would they vote for a man who is still a blank slate, with a lotta question makrs, and a documented voting record to the Left of most Dems?

Chan, you forgot McGovern and Carter. The Democrats have abandoned the white working class (oops- Reagan Democrats) and are now dominated by political correctness. As a result, they picked a woman and a black as front runners to prove how open-minded they are and these front runners are now destroying each other as it becomes apparent that neither is fit for the job. If the Democrats lose, as seems likely, they will blame it on racism or misogyny, not incompetence, and so preserve their self-righteousness.

They bellyache that the Republicans are ruining the country, but if they had any cojones they could have prevented much of the damage the Bush presidency has caused, including the incredibly fiscally irresponsible tax reductions and the disastrous the Supreme Court appointments. Hell, they cannot even keep an unpopular president in check with majorities in both houses.  

If ever a Centrist Party was needed it is now.

ChanRobert... I think you are quite right about the Dems although I have always been aligned with that party faute de mieux.

But your experience point has got me thinking.

What does constitute a sufficient experience for that office?  Was it being a not very powerful Gov of Texas who brought in the most "experienced" Washington team ever?

Was it being an Governor of a hick state like Arkansas?

Is it being a long term senator or any state... like McCain or any other senator for that matter?  It's quite a different job after all.

Let's not even bring up Lincoln... we all know how small that resume was and talk about his lack of any thing that passes for an education!

How about Churchill... a drunk and a former Lord of the Admiralty?

Or even FDR or Truman... yada yada.

So I would suggest that what is most necessary for the job is the right temperament and the right character.  Which probably both Obama and McCain, thank goodness have.

Ok so Obama is a Manchurian candidate for the far ... what shall we call it?  Liberal is so passe...Progressive... now that is a term which might be making a come back....

What we just don't know and can only speculate is:

How much damage will HRC do... lots for sure.

How resistant to any Black candidate, even one with Obama's resume and 6 former presidents in his "genes" and family tree will enough voters refuse to vote for whatever diverse reasons.

And... what will be the role of the young, new voters that Obama e is so turning on be?.  Are there enough of them to counteract the Reagan Dems?  Will they vote?

Odds are against him no doubt.  Most particularly because McCain comes across as an honorable man.  But he is old, however, spry and it may tell over a long campaign.  Some doctors of my acquaintance have suggested that there seems to be some cognitive impairment.  In all events I am convinced neither he nor Obama are ideologues, impervious to facts.  To my mind that is the absolute key.  Now HRC is another matter on that score too.  Once she gets a hold of an idea not God almighty and the Devil combined are going to get her to back off.  Just as well that there is no way on God's green earth that she is going to be the Democratic candidate, although I for one, would almost like to see it just to have her trashed and get the Clintons behind us once and for all.  Besides part of me says the Republicans got us into this mess, let them get us out of it.  Few I would trust more than McCain to do that, but oh he'd come with all those others so many of us are fully fed up with.  And of course we'll hear all about the Supreme Court... but if the Congress has enough Democrats in it... well that might be worth taking a risk on.

r-ennis, you write, "... If the Democrats lose, as seems likely, they will blame it on racism or misogyny, not incompetence, and so preserve their self-righteousness."

Yes, absolutely positively that is what they will do when they lose.  And that is why over and over again they never learn from their mistakes of the previous election.  It's just nuts.

"So I would suggest that what is most necessary for the job is the right temperament and the right character.  Which probably both Obama and McCain, thank goodness have."

Annabella, you make good points.  There is no resume that is a perfect indication of how a candidate will act as president.   As the prospectus says, "Past performance is no guarantee of future results."

Probably the last guy who came across as expected was Ike.  And he was less conservative than the Taft wing or William Buckley would have wished.

And, Reagan actually over-performed.  Considering the opposition characterized him as a boob and a second rate actor.  

Churchill may have drunk a bit.  But, he could hold a lot of liquor and nobody disputed his well demonstrated brilliance.  Although in 1938, when he was was 64, most Brits would have described him as long washed up.

In many respects, while much disliking his politics, I do admire Obama's character and achievements with few advantages except a good prep school education.  And, he must have had a loving mother and grandmother, though I haven't read his auto-bio, which my wife just began reading.

As to Lincoln, it is common for people to point out how thin is Washington resume was.  But, he had made himself a national figure in the arduous and brilliant debates with Douglas and his electrifying speech at Cooper Union in NY.  

Neither of these were sloganized speeches of the "We are who we are waiting for" ilk.  They were intellectual tour de force on the epochal issue of slavery.  

All that said, Annabella, you are right in that I think people do cast their votes based on what they perceive as the candidate's character.  They don't vote for specific policies or platforms (except maybe for Bryan and free silver).  They vote for the man.  And this, for the woman.

We will know soon enough how fate and the wisdom of the voters cast the vote for president.

By the way, Annabella, the term "progressive" amuses me.   And attempt to use a word with an actively positive adjectival meaning to camouflage an impulse that is frequently retrograde.

r-ennis writes, "Chan, you forgot McGovern and Carter."

Uh, yeah, I've been trying to.  Especially Carter.