Campaign of the Century

This is a campaign of legend and lore--two excellent campaigners, each powered by important and broad constituencies, rallying their considerable forces from state to state as the Great Democratic Adventure moves back-and-forth across the country. 

How will it end?  Will the legend be one of song and story?  Or, will it be angst and dread?  At this point, it could go either way.  The Democrats could fall apart in recrimination and division, which could elect John McCain. 

Or, this campaign could also be the beginning of something we haven't had since FDR--a long-term, governing majority.  In the fall Congressional elections, Democrats are likely add at least a few Senators to the 51 we currently have.  We are likely to add 10-15 seats to our House majority.  This, by the way, would be a Democratic majority which, for the first time in its history, would not be dominated by southern conservatives.  If we elect a president, everything would be in place. 

If we do manage to achieve that, it does not necessarily guarantee, of course, that streams will flow in the desert and flowers bloom in the streets.  Even with a governing majority, we're quite likely to fight among ourselves on various details of the agenda we hope to enact.  One of my former profs used to say, "There's more fighting within political parties than there is between political parties."  Truer words...

Still, we did pretty well the last time we had a long-term governing majority.  We enacted Social Security, rallied the country from the Great Depression, and won the World War.  If that isn't impressive, I don't know what is. 

If I'm a Democratic elected official, or a superdelegate, or someone else in the upper echelons of the party, I would look at the possibility of the Democratic Party being the governing majority not just for four years, or eight, but rather for a generation.

It could happen this way.  The nominating process will continue into May, or even June.  First of all, this is not necessarily a bad thing.  Historically, many campaigns have gone into the summer.  Plus, our campaign will be dominating the news, and nobody will hear much about John McCain.  True, he'll be using that time to placate the conservatives and draw them back inside the GOP fold, but that's going to happen anyway.  They're almost there right now.

Hillary looks to do well in late primaries.  By the time we get into early summer, the difference between the candidates' delegate totals will quite likely be in double digits rather than triple digits.  Out of 4000 possible delegate votes, the difference in pledged delegates will seem like a handful.  In the minds of most people, the long nominating process will have produced a wash.

Both campaigns will be making their pitch to the superdelegates.  The superdelegates are not, incidentally, "unelected," as the Obama campaign is saying.  They all got elected to something, one way or another.  In fact, most of them represent much larger constituencies than any delegate elected through the current process. 

When Hillary makes her pitch, she will say that she wins traditional Democrats, and that she wins the big states we have to win, especially Ohio.  (As Richard Nixon used to say, "Ohio is the ballgame.")  She will argue that she stacks up well against McCain on the issues, and she wins Latinos, which is absolutely critical for the future of the party.

If Obama hasn't knocked her out in the late primaries, which he won't, she will be able to say that he has tried four times to do it, and hasn't.  She'll argue that she's the one who will be able to "close the deal" against John McCain.  That will be a strong and persausive case.  (For an entertaining and thorough explication of the candidates' arguments, see Noah Millman here.)

Obama will argue that his candidacy has generated great enthusiasm and brought new people into the party.  He'll argue that he can win Virginia, Missouri, and Colorado.  This is persausive as well.  He will also argue that he should get the nomination because he has actually won the most delegates--if this is really so, of course.  This seems a weaker argument, however.  We don't want our nominee to appear to have "backed in" to the thing. 

If I'm a superdelegate, or other Democratic big shot, I will want to pick a winner, and I will want to avoid making either side so angry that some of their supporters might stay home in November.  I will consider that if Obama gets the nomination, 10% of Hillary's people will stay home, and we don't win.  If Hillary is nominated, 10% of Obama's new people stay home, and we might not win.

If I'm a superdelegate or some other big party wheel, I will try to have my cake and eat it too.  I'll try to find a way to get them both on the same ticket.  Who heads it?  Both candidates will be making their pitch, and they both have good points to make.  When superdelegates consider all the factors, however, Hillary's argument is more persausive than Obama's.

Putting them on the same ticket solves a whole lot of problems, and would be a popular choice.  The campaigns, of course, are thoroughly aware of this possibility, which has the pleasant side effect of keeping both campaigns reasonably civil to each other.  You don't want to burn any bridges. 

The Clintons, in fact, are actively promoting the idea, probably because it usually assumes Clinton being at the top of the ticket, which is an association she wants to encourage in the mind of the voter.  Obama is not as warm to the idea for precisely that reason.  But, and this is crucial, he hasn't ruled it out either.  Granted, they are not there yet.  Each candidate has a "short list" of VP prospects, and neither one has their opponent on that list.   

At some point, however, a deal is going to be floated by serious well-connected insiders, and there will be a lot of pressure to make it happen.  Yes, Obama's supporters would be disappointed, but Obama would have the inside track on 2016.  This would give him time to hone his considerable skills.  More important, it would provide an opportunity to shore up his resume in some critical areas.  Besides, it's the presidency of the United States we're talking about here.  It's only eight years, and the way the years fly by, eight years will come soon enough.

In essence, Sen. Obama will be asked to "take one for the team."  In return, he can fairly demand a substantive role in the administration--within reason, pretty much whatever he wants.  More important, he will have to trust Hillary--trust her to follow through on the deal, and trust her for political support in the future.  Maybe he can get there, and maybe he can't--I don't know what their relationship is like.  (I'm told they're "friends," but I don't know exactly what that means.)

He may also decide that this time is his--to coin a phrase--"roll of the dice."  He might think that he will look differently to the public in 2016.  He wouldn't be the fresh face.  He'd be "establishment."  On the other hand, if the administration is successful--and Democrats really deliver--being "establishment" would not be a bad place to be.

Hillary will have trust too.  She'll have to trust Obama to be a loyal vice president, and to put his energies fully into the success of the administration.  She can do it.  She's a Methodist, and Methodists are good at that sort of thing--seriously.

They will both have to make a leap, which means they will have to form a true partnership.  I think they themselves are intrigued by the idea, and, if I gauge party sentiment correctly, Democrats across the nation would be ecstatic. 

This is the greatest campaign in decades.  Our people flock to the polls in droves.  How can we top it off?  We can complete the Campaign of the Century with a ticket that can win, and can lead a long-term Democratic governing majority.  For the good of the Democratic Party, in support of the progressive agenda, for the benefit of middle and working class Americans, they--and we--ought to do it.  Then, we had better deliver.   

Comments

[shelly]

sure, obama has more delegates, almost twice as many states and more popular votes. But your racist, condescending pat on the back-you can be my VP hillary thinks she deserves to be the president. Its either Obama or McCain. Hillary is done.

[John Petty]

What, pray tell, is racist about offering someone the Vice Presidency?

[Barbara Davis]

After studying the states whom have already voted I have come up with an interesting evaluation. Clinton carried 12 of the blue states to Obamas 9. If the Democrates want to win this election for the White House they better figure out that alot of these states Obama has won are Red states.

[Barbara Davis]

Since they are Red States he could not carry them in a General Election.

[John Petty]

Obama's constituency is basically African-Americans, young people, and, for lack of a better term, the "liberal-left insurgency."

The "liberal-left insurgency" regularly fields a candidate for the Democratic nomination--think Hart, Bradley, etc. Normally, they get about 30% of the vote.

The "liberal-left insurgency" has gone for Obama in a big way. They're good at caucuses. 5000 liberals in Idaho doesn't really do much, but, if you get them all in a room at the same time, they can have impact.

Thanks for the visit, Barbara.

pax, jp