Noam, not quite the comment you want, but why in the world are the articles open to anyone for omments?  Too many of the posts are from some real whack jobs.

As for the 'is the party screwed', I'm torn on that one.  November is a long ways off.  The early polls in 2004 made us think Kerry had it made.  We all know how that turned out.  If anything this primary season taught us is to make the process end a lot faster.  Maybe some winner-take-all primaries are in order?

Everyday that this rancid Obama-Clinton back alley fight continues helps McCain. If this shit doesn't' stop after PA, I would say that McCain has a very very good shot at winning the Presidency and being surrounded by a Democratic House and Senate

I think June is still a long time, I think McCain is quite weak and both HRC and Obama are much stronger, particularly in the face of a disastrous/unpopular war and a weakening economy. If it's decided in June, that'll leave plenty of time.

McCain has had 0 opposition yet still has had a terrible time shoring up his base, when he's forced to tack middle again, he'll lose 'em again all over.

All that said, I think the Wright thing hurt Obama quite badly. No one had been at all successful into typecasting Obama as 'the black candidate' until then, now he's got to struggle out of this, it could really cost him.

No more screwed now than we were two months ago. There only ever were three possible outcomes to this primary season:

1. Hillary wins the nomination by acclimation after sweeping victories in Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina.

2. Hillary drops out after devastating third- or fourth-place defeats in each of the first five contests.

3. Hillary, neither victorious nor politically dead, becomes the destructive and deadly wounded grizzly of the race, lashing out at all and sundry until she bleeds to death or destroys the Democratic Party, or both.

Once the early state voters failed either to hand the nomination to Hillary (give the bear what it wants and walk away) or to humiliate her absolutely (kill the bear and walk away), the third option (wound the bear and have your throat ripped out) became inevitable. Every camper understands that if you want to survive an encounter with a bear, you either stay out of the way and let the bear have what it wants, or you kill the bear with one shot -- you never, ever anger the bear by merely wounding it.

In this race, Hillary Clinton was always going to be the bear.

Noam, I'm surprised you didn't point fingers.  Howard Dean would be the obvious culprit here.

Also, I'm surprised there isn't more backstory with party bosses trying to end this or negotiate an early end to the fight.   Donna Brazile, Howard Dean, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Al Gore, John Edwards.  Are these people really just sitting on their hands?  Are none of those people willing or able to stand up to Bill Clinton?

We are so screwed... there is really nothing left to talk about.  Until the SDs end this thing, we may as well sit around telling light bulb jokes.

Let's begin.  How many Freudians does it take to change a light bulb?

Two.  One to change the bulb and one to hold the penis.  I mean ladder.

First, Kudos for the Ted Kennedy 1980 analogy!   But I don't think that's the route Hillary will take -- I think she'll be pretty supportive of Obama in the general just so she won't be accused of such things, then will either run against McCain or, if Obama is elected and his presidency is shaky, she will attempt a Kennedy-like intra-party challenge.  

I don't think the Dems/Obama are screwed by the primary battle.  Indeed, Obama has improved soooo much better at campaigning/debating that it's hard to criticize primary battle for hurting him when it's clearly made him a stronger candidate (and Obama's better with this Wright stuff coming out now than either two months ago or two months after the convention).

What *might* screw Obama is the hubris of his campaign.  First, most Americans supported the war and don't want to be told how stupid they were -- that might play with the Dems, but "you were fooled" will work a lot better in the general than "you had worse judgment than I and my lefty supporters did."  Second, in the general he needs to talk specifics, not tone and bipartisanship.  Bill Clinton managed to do both (sure, he ditched the specifics for deficit reduction upon taking office, but he sounded like he had the wonkery to back up the "new covenant"/"hope" theme).  

Oh, and if we see a terror attack or two in the fall, I don't see Obama's "let's pull out of Iraq -- we're creating these terrorists" resonating.  That's Spain, that's not the U.S.  

I think the e-x-t-e-n-u-a-t-e-d nature of this primary season has some important benefits:

1.  A lot of the criticisms the Dems are lashing at each other won't have the same sting if/when McCain regurgitates them.

2.  The Wright debacle has proved that two credible candidates this late in the game each provide Dems. insurance against a possible deal-killer on the other side.

3.  The only way McCain will earn replay on talk-shows/blogosphere is via gaffes (e.g. Al Quaeda = Shia?!), while the same groups (have at least a pretense to) discuss the issues separating the Dems.

That said, the lingering air of uncertainty surrounding delegates from MI and FL makes their states' voters appear more disenfranchised with every news cycle.  

Hard to say. i believe that if obama is nominated it will be a route because he will lose some key swing states over his positions and because the Wright affair has transformed a post racial candidacy into a "conversation on race" with probable negative consequences on his chances. The real issue has been the incredible vitirolic turnaround against HRC  by many in the party. Sometimes reading the attitude of many liberal bloggers you would think you were reading a republican magazine. As a result many who support Obama (including many AA voters) will sit out the election if HRC somehow gets the nod. If Obama gets it, many independent democratic voters who might have gone for HRC wiil sit it out or actually vote for McCain.  Many months ago i would have thought that HRC would get this and Obama would have a nice trial run before building his resume for the serious run. WIth a thick file of activities and votes as a Senator, his church affiliations would assume less prominence in non-right wing circles.  Serendipity, HRC's coldish personna and Obama's talents being what they are, he is being presented at what is not the optimal time in his career which has led to the unfortunate vilification of HRC.

All that being said, we have a long way to go; between the bad economy (which always favorably affects the opposing party), the uncertainties in the long term effects of the surge and the unpoularity of the war, the odds should be good for a democratic victory. They are just much less good in light of  unfortunate dynamic in the democratic nomiination struggle.

There's a long-running joke that any political commentator or Democrat says before speaking to a group about any upcoming election about how Democrats have a special skill at finding a way to lose unloseable elections. Well, I guess we can tip our cap to the party for finding another way. For two years people have spoken about this election about how there was no way the Dems could lose. For a year they've endlessly discussed how the GOP had no exciting candidates and how the Dems them in abundance. And now I think we can all agree that if John McCain isn't the next president, a miracle will have occurred.

Way to go boys (and one prominent girl)!

Nice one, hewstino!

How 'bout this?

Q: How many feminists does it take to change a light bulb?

A: That's not funny.

[in the background Noam groans, realizing we Plankton are no more helpful than the main page's hoi polloi...]

Too early to say we're screwed;  lots can happen before Nov, and will. I'd guess the upshot, electorally, of what's transpired recently is that the lock we thought we had on the presidency, or at least the strong lead going into the GE, is gone. So now we're back to something like even-steven with McC.

Probably better to look at some scenarios that may play out btn now and Nov, and what our odds and options would be under each.

A. MUDDLE: Economy stabilizes but doesn't improve: rates don't spike, oil price declines slightly (10% range). Iran makes noise, bombs go off in Pakistan, but neither situation devolves into crisis. Petraeus is assigned to Afghan, begins to stabilize situation there. Iraq remains a muddle but not the main issue to most voters.

B. FLASHPOINT: a negative spike or other major blow-up in the situation with either the economy, or Iran, or Pakistan, or Afghanistan or Iraq.

C. CULTURE-CURVEBALL: a freakish event that plays up all the old kulturkampf divisions and competes with the economy and war and peace issues for central stage: a minor race riot in an obscure place like Benton Harbor MI, or a terror act involving border control failure, for ex.

Under A, we win decisively IF we're disciplined and stay on message, which isn't Iraq or Post-racial BS but old-fashioned ITES (It's the Economy, Stupid). If we get off message, we probably still win on a general change/fatigue/economic discontent wave, though by a narrow margin.

Under B, it depends on the flashpoint. If it's Iran sending a whiff of grapeshot our or Israel's way, McCain probably wins. If it's a meltdown in Afgh or Iraq, it's a toss-up. If Wall Street melts down, we win, easily.

Under C, we probably lose, even if Obama deploys his magical words, because we simply cannot carry all the battleground states we need to win nationally if the main issues are cultural rather than economic.

I disagree with hewstino.  I think we still have a good chance in November, considering that we're still passing Iraq war death milestones, the economy is still tanking, and Bush is still an incompetent mouth-breather with no reserves of American goodwill.  Also, a significant portion of the GOP base haaaaates McCain.

However, there is going to have to be much, much more catch-up done than if this painful fight hadn't gone on.

I think that the Clintons have done more damage to the party, and to America, than decades of KKK combined.

The question is not: "Are the Democrats screwed?" The Bush Administration's toxic legacy will be enough to give Hillary or Obama a decent shot at the White House. In the wake of Pastorgate, the more appropriate question is: "does the idea of a Democratic Reagan need to be discarded?" Even if Obama is the nominee, I am now afraid that GE 2008 will be tonally and qualitatively similar to GE 2004.

I'd guess the probability of A occurring = 50%, of B = 40%, of C = 10%.

Post-Wright, the probability of Dems remaining disciplined, sticking to ITES = only 60%, so scenario A + Dem Discipline = .50*.60 = 30% chance of Dem victory, 20% McC.

Re. B, if the economy's blowup dominates, there's a 100% chance Dems win; if a f-p blowup dominates, then there's probably an 80-20 chance McC wins. Overall, Dem chance of victory under B = .40 * (1.00+.2)/2 = 24% overall probability of Dem victory, 16% chance of McC.

Re. C, 100% chance of McC victory. Add .10 to McC's probabilities.

Dems = .30 + .24 = 54% likelihood, McCain = .20 + .16 + .10 = 46% likelihood.

So odds are we'll win in the fall-- BUT ONLY IF we're disciplined, avoid kulturkampf and race-related distractions and stay ruthlessly on message. It's the economy etc

I'm kind of a wayward son, being a disaffected Democrat and McCain supporter, so take this as you will.  My Democratic friends are taking this election seriously and personally.  If Obama defeats Hillary, he won't just be defeating her - he'll be defeating women.  The same for if Obama loses.  His loss will be the defeat of blacks by the Democratic Party.  It will come down to how much the loser does to mitigate their own defeat.  Obama will do a better job of losing than Clinton, but he is more likely to win the primary (barely), so the Democrats are going to get into trouble heading into November.  Going from a sure thing to a tossup - basically rewinding to 2004 or 2000 - is pretty much screwing it up, considering the economic, war, and general Bush incompetence.  Unfortunately, the Democrats timed their racist/sexist slugfest to coincide with the GOP nominating a candidate who represents both a credible break from Bush and a credible choice for moderates, independents, and 10% of Democrats.  To put it another way, do you think McCain will do better or worse among Democrats than Bush did in 2004?

In our own little echo chamber, we can sing ourselves little lullabies like "McCain hasn't locked down the base" and "Just wait 'til the debates", but we've heard those tunes before.  This doesn't mean McCain has already won, but things are moving quickly in that direction and there are signs that it will get worse.  If McCain wins every state that any poll has him tied or ahead, Obama will be buried in a landslide.  Imagine how things will look if McCain actually gains any traction, rather than just coasting like he's doing now.

Noam,

I agree with the content and tone of your article, and only wish, really, that it was written sooner.  The delegate math has not materially changed since pre-Ohio and Texas, and to the extent that it has, things have become worse for the Clinton campaign.  Sen. Clinton, of course, failed to measurably close the delegate gap by winning Ohio and Texas, and, in so doing, lost the chance to win 35% of the remaining delegates.  Take an NBA basketball metaphor:  Sen. Clinton was down 30 at half, and closed the gap to only 26 going into the fourth quarter; she may have technically "won" the third quarter, but she sure as heck didn't help her chances of winning the game; and she certainly didn't help her chances enough to justify playing dirty in the fourth quarter.  

The thing that's truly baffling about the Clinton strategy (and something that your article appopriately highlighted) is that it could not possibly be more damaging to Democrats IF it succeeds.  Their logic apparently goes like this:  make Obama so unelectable by actively painting him as aloof, inexperienced and unserious, and by passively allowing others to paint him as an angry, militant black man.  If that actually happens, the African-American base of the Democratic party will abandon us for a generation (at least, and they need not embrace the GOP, two voters staying at home hurts as much as one cross-over).  While the Clintons are not primarily to blame for the ever- expanding "Obama is an Angry Black Man" meme, they have sat idly by while that narrative has taken hold.  The party should be speaking out as a whole, defending Obama against the lame guilt-by-association mud that the Hannitys of the world are throwing; instead, the Democratic Royal Family (and I mean that as a descriptive name, not an insult), is waiting in the wings praying to benefit from this mess.  As a proud Democrat, that state of affairs makes me cringe.  

If the Clintons' strategy works, the consequences will be dire.  If Barack Obama who is Columbia and Harvard-Law educated, clearly brilliant, and half-white, is too "black" to be president, will there ever be an African-American man or woman who is not?  That is what the African-American community will be thinking, at the same time Senator Clinton will be asking for their vote.  She will not win that battle.  

Not screwed.

This election won't be close. McCain is on record as knowing nothing about the economy and being content with 100 years in Iraq. That's a losing recipe for 2008.

More importantly, the political market has changed, and Obama's the only candidate in this race with the right product for the new age: lot's of old-timers working the top and countless activists pouring their souls into his campaign from the bottom up. The cynics call his rhetoric empty bullshit, but his fundraisers call it a $2 million per day goldmine. So do the superdelegates who can't wait to ride his coattails in a record-breaking year for voter turnout.

We'll have more money, more enthusiasm, and a better candidate, a self-made man who can face the nation and say what *he* means for 45 minutes, even on issues as polarizing and politically risky as race and religion, energy and healthcare, the sinking dollar and the endless quagmire in two countries overseas. No more poll-tested slogans. No more relying on the war hero to drag the country through bitter memories of Vietnam. Obama offers Americans the chance to feel good about themselves and their country. No way he loses to the 110 year old guy who wants the soldiers in Iraq until they're as old as he is.

I say we rewrite the electoral map this year, at least a bit: Missouri, Virginia, North Carolina, Nevada, Colorado, and New Mexico go blue.

How did Bill Clinton beat a sitting president who had decisively won a popular war?  Answer:  The economy, an Republican out of touch with the present, and a candidate much more charismatic and a far better campaigner.  Obama's chances are still excellent, particularly once McCain gets on stage in a contest and his feebleness starts to show.

In my opinion, the dangers to the Democrats are two:  The first is that if this continues much longer McCain gets to solidify his support and his image without much opposition while both Hillary and the right-wing commentariat are working over Obama.  As long as this is clearly over after North Carolina, at the latest, I think that it is manageable.  The second danger is that, even after the supers declare and the result is clear, Hillary keeps battling, trying to undo Obama's delegate majority.  Then things get really, really ugly with tremendous bitterness within the Democratic party the result.  This is sort of the Samson strategy for Hillary if spite alone will not let her exit gracefully.  Ultimately, the Obama faction will prevail and many Hillaristas will defect and renounce, denounce and reject her.  But the weight of that bitterness would be a huge obstacle in November, especially for turnout.  Even with that, I think the chances for the Democrats would still be good because of what the economy is likely to be doing by September and the endless war in Iraq.  McCain might have to run against Bush to pull this out and it would be very hard for him to do without losing one or another segment of the Republican base.  I think McCain is more or less in the position of Hubert Humphrey in 1968.

What should be kept in mind is that it is extremely rare for one party to hold the White House for three successive terms, even when things have been going well as at the end of the Clinton administration.  Things are not going well.

timcrim's got it. No time to take chances. Just focus on economics, period. Health care, cleaning up Wall Street's mess, help for working families etc.

Don't swing for the fences, just hit the ball up the middle and let the economy's continued sh*tty state move us around the bases. Things won't improve before November.

So, Roi des Maths, do you agree with my back-of-the-envelope 54-46 handicap? I think we're on the same page. The economy will carry us over the top (provided of course we out a lid on any kulturkampf nonsense).

hew and drdanny are right. Has the situation ever looked worse for Republicans? The closest I can see is 74. This is the main reason why Hillary is so desperate to win now, she knows this is her best and realistically only shot. the only hope for Republicans was to nominate a guy who Kerry wanted to tap as his Vice Presidential candidate, any other Republican would have been killed. The question is how much can McCain get away with running as a quasi-Democrat in all issues but the war? If he runs as a Republican he won't win. I would love to see him defending Bush's past 8 years.

Lets see: stock market is about where it was when Bush took office. disastrous war, gas at all time high, housing prices going down, inflation rising, dollar sinking, standard of living falling. If he runs on Wright, wright, wright, people will say wrong, wrong, wrong, what will you do about this mess Bush gave us?

a cross dressing tranny could win this (I mean Democrat one, not Republican Guiliani). This will be a big year for Democrats in congress, and provided Hillary doesn't bring the party down with her Obama should win in November.

Force McCain to either run as a third term Bush presidency, or make him disavow Republican misrule, either way he will alienate a lot of people.

"The good news is that an ugly convention fight is highly preventable. The one advantage of a scenario that's...

Well, tep, trying to follow your equation as it is written here produces in me a slightly queasy feeling, but on balance I agree with you.  It is particularly undesirable for Obama to focus on the kulturkampf nonsense.  Bill Clinton pretty much showed how this can be done -- focus on the economic issues as much as possible (not too specific please, no wonkery), avoid foreign policy as much as possible (Americans really hate foreign policy and would rather not think about it altogether), stay away from the kulturkampf stuff (this is especially true for Obama -- they will try like hell to drag him onto this turf, he has to stick to the economy as much as possible, a nod or two to show he gets it and then back on message).

Your odds calculation works out about right.

Not secrewed at all:

1. Just as some of the best analysis of the Dems has come from Republicans (e.g., Peggy Noonan), I think that once the primary season ends, the Dems will finally take on McCain.

2. Obama is going through a very intense political boot camp - many debates, dealing with FOX and Talk Radio, learning retail politics, withstanding 24/7 press coverage, and so on - so he's going to emerge a much stronger, tougher, and more agile candidate than he was just six months ago.

3. The Democrats are putting themselves through the '08 version of "est", a powerful turning inward where they take a hard look at themselves. For years, the chief criticism of the Democrat Party was that they had no ideas, they don't know what they stand for. The last year has been a long, brutal refining of language and ideas, and at the end, there would be a new focus and energy to the Democratic Party - it won't just be "anybody but Bush".

4. And last, the primary season has brought millions of new voters into the process. They're engaged, they're helping to form a new coaltion, and it's this possibility of a transformed Democratic Party, a new movement,  that makes all of the fisticuffs worth it.

drdannyu, just to clarify: I don't think the Dems are necessarily screwed for November.  Like a few other commenters here, I don't find McCain all that impressive.  His war hero status should be a big deal to some voters, but as Kerry and  Dole proved, it takes  more than that to get over the top.

But the longer this primary continues, the more polarized Hillary voters  will become towards Obama in the  general election.  So now we have to creak along with this phony contest till the convention, damaging our eventual nominee, because the superdelegates  are nervous about putting the bear out of its misery (perfect analogy, Rhubarbs).  Now I understand that Hillary has enough  backing  that to just "bow out", right before a big state primary she's expected to win, is  unrealistic.  But at least the superdelegates, or the DNC, or a grown-up of some kind, could control the  rhetoric, or try to eventually pave a course  for Hillary to bow out with some dignit.  Maybe both the  candidates could work out an agreement where they just start attacking McCain. I don't know.  But someone needs to grab the  reins on this thing and the SDs are the only people who seem able to.  There's nothing  really for the  rest of us to do at this stage.

So as I was saying, how  many country singers does it take to change the lightbulb?

Two.  One  to put the new  one in and  one to sing about the old one.

I'll be interested to see how the debates play out. McCain is having a hard enough time keeping his facts straight in relatively benign forums -- how's he going to manage when the pressure's really on? (I must admit I saw little of the Republican debates.) I suppose we get to look forward to charges of playing the age card...

letsinb, Bush held his own in the debates.  Reagan, who back when Dems said was a dummy did more than fine.

I will concede that Obama is very intelligent and a superb rhetorician.  But, McCain is bright, down to earth, credible, and authentic.  All qualities that voters like.

This isn't a debate at Oxford.  And because of that, it isn't the putative hotshot who necessarily wins.

McCain isn't dumb, but he is getting feeble.  It is going to show, especially as he wearies during the campaign.

I throw my support to those who say Dems are screwed.  Clinton's scorch and burn policy has been quite successful so far, even before the Wright controversy.  Uncovering Wright only confirms the questions about Obama that she pushed forward - he is a phony, he is not experienced enough, he is black (!), he has not been vetted and the skeletons are there for the picking.  The impression that she is despicable may have also ratcheted up a notch, it that was possible, but when winning is all that matters, one's public integrity is a small matter.  I can't see her winning the nomination and if she does she will be despised by too many in the party which will only raise the hackles of those who support her.  But I see no way to victory for Obama.  Maybe if he were running against an empty suit like Romney or an evangelical simp like Huckabee or a man with too many pecadillos for the press to let be like Giuliani.  But McCain is too safe for your average American.  I don't care how many hard core Conservatives hate him in the end they will vote for him because they will keep their tax perks, their deregulation, their Supreme Court nominees,  and a hawkish foreign policy.  They will accept him the way a lot of us Dems would hold our nose and vote for Clinton.  Obama's promise was that he could pry the Independents and the untapped voters.  But I don't see Independents going for Obama at this point.  When many people who admire Obama get into the voting booth, the images of Wright and the innuendos and attacks thrown by Clinton will encourage them to pull the lever for McCain - just to be safe.  I agree with John McWhorter's analysis - Many white people want to support a black candidate as long as he does not act "too black".   It is tragic that Wright, his mentor, has undone Obama's post racial campaign for too many.

Has anyone else heard the rumor that McCain was on a heavy dosage of amphetamines during the long nights of the GOP primary? Seems plausible given how irascible he was by the time he got to California. Imagine where he'd be if that contest was still dragging out. I think he'll be worn thin come September.

timcrim and tep, 2004 isn't 2008. If Kerry had given the Vietnam analogue to Obama's race speech, he'd be president right now, and "swiftboat" wouldn't be a new word in our political vocabulary. We have a game-changer in Obama's candidacy. He's neither weak/indecisive like Kerry and Gore nor nasty/polarizing like Hillary and Bush. He's the new Bill Clinton, the type who shatters every category used to define him.

ralphnelle, well said.  I agree completely.  The man is game-changer.  Watch out Rs.  I think he is just getting his legs in the Bigs.  

If anyone thinks we can't win this election, they clearly haven't done a google image search of "McCain Bush".  If we just spent all of our campaign funds on 30 second slide shows of these images we would win by 20 points.  What is Bush's approval rating now? 17%?  I mean I'm all for this discussion because I'm pro Obama as well, but we should recognize that while all these points might be relevant in a different race, the bottom line is Bush + McCain + Hot Dogs = We scrape the GOP in November.

The Dems aren't screwed so long as they don't put up a flaky liberal with no past, no experience, and recent calls to end DOMA, re-invigorate affirmative action, supports drastic abortion policies and has a wife and a minister who do a good job of acting like they hate America.

Otherwise, McCain wins. Thank all that's holy.

I think that all the attention on the Democratic nomination fight is making McCain seem like an after-thought, and that only hardcore Republicans will even care that the election is still on in November.  Hopefully, enough Democrats will remember to vote so that we win the election.

I'm in almost complete agreement with the article. I might be deluding myself, but I'm still hoping that when the party finally does consolidate behind Obama all the dread of the last couple of months will only make a united front of motivated democrats and left-leaning independents seem stronger.

We seem to have better congressional and local candidates on the field this year, more money than ever before, and a motivated base that's plugged in to the news. McCain is a strong candidate, but I think he'll have less resources at his disposal and I'm not quaking with fear at his campaign staff, who seem to lack a coherent theme or message aside from blind optimism about Iraq. Nothing he's said about the economy or domestic issues has stuck so far, and he's very capable of shooting himself in the foot.

I still think Obama can get first time voters, young voters, and independents behind him. Of course he'll have a much tougher road if the race goes all the way to the convention and older white democrats start to sour on him. Will a significant number of them consider voting for McCain? That's the million dollar question!

Noam,

"Bet we're working on it. The article comment threads should be closed to non-subscribers in the near future. (For what it's worth, I'm told the delay in between the time you post a comment and the time it appears will also be disappearing fairly soon...)"

I was told the exact same thing by multiple people at TNR about four months ago, so forgive me if I take your assurances with a dose of the Great Salt Lake. Still, those two promises are damn good to hear reiterated and just might convince me to stick with my wavering TNR subscription.

Regarding the actual question, I am (or was on Super Tuesday) a reluctant Hillary supporter who considered voting for McCain. I admire Obama personally, as I do Huckabee, but see little to actually vote for in a leader of my country's foreign and domestic policy. I respect Clinton's Senate record but am increasingly disturbed by her campaign methods and strategies.

I have no idea how representative I am, but I feel that the Democratic party is hurting itself badly in this primary. Not because of the length, as other contests have gone on as long or longer, but because of the nature of it. There has been virtually no debates/discussions on real policy since the field was narrowed, it's just been months of identity politics and he-said/she-said from both candidates, and it's making people like me tune out and give up in disgust. For months now I've barely read the Plank or Stump because it's 90% horse race crap. If Clinton and Obama can't find it in them to come up with some meaningful, interesting, provocative policy ideas (pennies, anyone?)to separate themselves from each other, then shame on them as candidates. I have little interest in supporting candidates whose well of ideas is so shallow they must resort to a campaign like the last few months; I, personally, can think of at least half-a-dozen ideas/policies/proposals these two could have trumpeted that would have earned them national attention and respect and gotten this race out of the gutter. Thus, I am far less likely to be motivated by whomever the nominee turns out to be, and that is going to hurt the Democrats among anyone like me who is at all wavering or reconsidering their views, their parties, and their candidates.

Just my two (oops, five) cents.

hewstino, I meant to compliment your Freudian joke.  I've been telling it all night.

How many Jewish mothers does it take to screw in a lightbulb?

None.  "Don't bother yourself, I'll just sit in the dark."

Don't know whether the Dems are screwed, but in what should be the best Dem year since 1974, the Dem candidate for Prez will have a hard time.  McCain is NOT feeble, roi, but time will tell on that, I suppose.

If you nominate HRC, you fracture the party and run someone with 50% or more negatives, and she doesn't wear well.

If as is more likely you nominate BHO, not only will all the folks who won't admit they don't want a black Prez vote for McCain, many of the old folks who vote for HRC in the primaries will vote for one of themselves.

This year, the Dem should win, and they should win at all levels.  W has done for you what Bill did for us.  You're welcome.

As promised, here are some of the choicier comments from that "How Screwed Are the Democrats?"

I think Obama has been seriously hurt by Wright.  As far as I can tell, he failed in his recent speech to reject and renounce the pastor of disaster.  I think this is worse for Obama than Hillary's charge that McCain and Clinton are the only candidates capable of serving as Commander-in-Chief.

However, McCain's negatives are going to loom very large by November.  By then, we will have lost another thousand troops in Iraq and will be no closer to a political settlement among what remains of the people of Iraq. The recent uptick in violence will continue and will undermine McCain's false optimism, not to mention his regrettable "100 year" commitment.

The cost of the war - largely borrowed from the Chinese over the past seven years - will rightly be blamed for our economic troubles.  Troubles that we will still be contending with as we go to the polls.  

The Bush administration, in its final days, will surely find a way to remind voters of the consequences of his hackocracy.  Let's hope there are no more Katrina's, but surely something has to go terribly wrong twixt now and November.  Time is not on McCain's side -- there is no end of mischief that Cheney and Bush can get into in the next 7 months.

So, on the whole, I don't think we're screwed at all.

Neil  

One last thought on the "how screwed" theme , in favor the "not screwed" position

"Pastor of Disaster."  Good one, Neill.

Thank you Chan -- as an atheist I think it is pretty funny that people like Obama and McCain - who clearly know better than to believe in God - are having so much difficulty with their ties to controversial preachers.  As Stephen Colbert just said on his show - nobody pays any attention in church anyway. Colbert also makes clear that Jeremiah Wright's comments were merely equivalent to the comments of Robertson and Falwell. But Jeremiah Wright is definitely hurting my candidate, I am sorry to say.

Neil

Neil, the corollary to what you just wrote is that the more or less highbrow, more or less on the Left types who post here don't belong to a church or temple, probably never did, except maybe when they were little kids.

Therefore, they look at a preacher as something like the emcee at a charity dinner.  They can't imagine anyone have a relationship with their church pastor that is anything more than a polite handshake on Sundays.  

And, they assume, if Obama were going to church a lot, it was just for show for political reasons, so what's the big deal?

In other words, Obama supporters, at least hereabouts, are taking that "closest spiritual mentor" description with a big grain of salt.  

They don't believe the relationship was as anywhere near as close as Obama sez it was, so they can't understand the flap and think it's being ginned up by opponents.

Chan

I think you're mistaken about our fellow talkbackers - they seem to be mainly a religious bunch.  I don't think faith is a Right-Left thing -- Obama is right about that.  

But, as you suggest, lots of people don't take their churches and ministers seriously.  Look at the president, a man who rarely goes to church but who enjoys his semi-official dual status as the head of state and of the Evangelical church.  The contradictions are amazing, no?

Neil

Neil, you may be correct that I'm not guessing right here.

But, anecdotally, based on my experience which is predominantly West Side of L.A. and Manhattan-- in other words, the places the media influencers and the commentariat are based, most people in these tend to have religion as a cultural part of their makeup, but they're not very regular at the church or the temple.  

In real life, they are of the main, secularists.  So I don't know how much they really relate to the meaning of church or synagogue membership or if regular attendance constitutes idea ratification or just social obligation.