New Math

I wrote up a long version of this this morning and PJ accidentally erased it. The joys of parenting are without number. You all benefit, though, because this version will be shorter.

I have been wondering lately why it is that everyone is so on edge. Sure, this primary is longer than any other we've ever had. Sure, the protracted undecidedness of it all, and the whole situation where neither candidate has a completely decisive popular majority, probably triggers everyone's memories of the Great Debacle That Was 2000. Sure, the campaign has gone from negative to nasty and so has the tenor of discussion in GD: P. But I think there's something else at work here that nobody's really talked about.

Here is my crackpot theory: We are all so @#$! tense about all this because not only does each of us firmly believe that the Other Candidate is unelectable, but many of us also secretly fear that our own candidate is unelectable.

I don't expect anyone to admit to that, of course. But the fact is that we've all known ever since Edwards dropped out that in November of 2008 we were going to have to ask America to do something it has never done before. Ever since then, it's been on our minds: either America elects its first president who is not a white man, or we lose. Because this has never been done, we don't know if it's possible. We can read all the tea leaves we want, but the bottom line is, we never will know until after the election is over. And of course none of us can contemplate this prospect without twitching, or without doing a lot of things which are interpreted as attacks on the other candidate but which could equally reasonably be interpreted as attempts to reassure ourselves that although our own candidate doesn't have the white man's "electability" magic, the other candidate has even less of it. At least that's the only way I can explain unbelievable things like the sight of people bickering over whether the fact that the Republicans are boasting about having 1200 pages of "oppo" on Clinton proves that she's more or less electable than Obama, who only has a 1000-page "oppo" dossier. Whereas I look at that and my first thought is, "Why are they paying people good money to dig up 1000 pages of real shit on either candidate when there are 527s out there who will make shit up for free?"

The conversation lately has been mainly about Obama's electability and in particular the fact that he's not doing as well as Clinton with the white vote. TimeForChange has addressed that issue very well, so I will only add that all the primary tells you is that Clinton is doing better with white voters *who are already Democrats.* That doesn't tell you anything about what happens in the general election. Clinton has her own electability problems, and just as any Clinton supporter who thinks racism has not played a part in Obama's failure to obtain a crushing lead is naive or self-deluded, so is any Obama supporter who thinks that sexism/antifeminism/misogyny have had nothing to do with hamstringing the Clinton campaign. Once we get outside the Democratic party, racism and sexism do not get better; they get worse. And once we get outside the Democratic Party, Clinton's got special electability problems not because she's a woman, but because she's a Clinton. Within the Democratic Party--at least until recently--being a Clinton was a plus. Outside the party, it's a different story. Obama has the advantage of not having been around long enough to accumulate the kind of baggage that Clinton has, through no fault of her own, been forced to carry. He is accumulating his own baggage at a pretty good clip, though, so who knows.

Anyway. My point is this: the old strategy we used to win presidential elections--get all the big blue states and then get some of the swing states full of those hard-working blue-collar white voters that Clinton does so well with--is not going to work in the GE--for either candidate. There are too many people in that swing group who a) don't want a woman president b) don't want an African-American president and c) don't want one of those elitist Democrats, and you better believe that if Clinton does manage to become the nominee, she will inherit the title of "elitist" no matter how hard she's trying to foist it onto her competitor. The way the media and the GOP noisemakers define "elitist," being a woman with the gall to pursue her own career means you're a hop skip and a jump from drinking latte and driving a Volvo and we all know what comes after that.

So. We can't win with the strategies we used in 2000 and 2004, no matter what happens. That's the bad news.

The good news is, we couldn't win with that strategy in 2000 or 2004 either, so it's about frickin' time we developed a new one.

We're not going to win this by luring back the "Reagan Democrats" or getting the "guys with the Confederate flags on their trucks" (that's not Clinton, that's Howard Dean post 2004) or convincing all the bitter rural voters mistakenly clinging to their guns and their bigotry that we are really their friends. We tried that when we were running white guys and it did not work. I do not see it working now. We're going to win by growing our base, and that is exactly what the 50 state strategy from 2006 and this primary season have done for us.

We won't be doing this the way we did it before. We can't. And for that reason, this time, we just might @#$! WIN. And if we do, it will be with an electoral college map that looks like nothing we've ever seen.

C ya,

The Plaid Adder

:)

Of all the things said this campaign season, the Clinton push to paint Obama as an 'elitist' was the one defining moment that turned me against her. Before that, I had positive feelings for her. At the moment, I do not. And that is because the "elitist" label is one that badly damages any Democrat. HRC is not going to keep the anti-elitist vote, and neither is Obama. The solution is not to pander to that vote (and in doing so, strengthen it), but rather to shrink the proportion of voters who consider "elitism" to be an important issue. Bashing Democrats for being "elitist" is simply counterproductive when it comes to long-term strategy.

I have nothing to add except these are some exciting times, eh?

I agree, we've got to do it differently this time. It's got to be grassroots, 50-states, local activism, and people speaking up not letting racist, hateful remarks go unchallenged.

My state has the possibilty of turning Red. McCain doesn't seem to be to "farm friendly".. so that could garner some votes for Obama out West. Here in Omaha & Lincoln (the "Big" Cities).. we tend to be more liberal anyways.. and Obama made a HUGE impact on the college kids at UNO, UNL & Creighton when he was here in Feb.

For the first time ever, NE could be at least 1/2 Blue (I believe we are the ONLY state that allocates our delegate number proportional to popular vote). And, 1/2 blue is better then all red.

Or, maybe you've been around and I missed your posts in my hasty scans - but whatever, it is good to read you again, and this is a particularly perspicacious entry. I'll gladly K & R if I am in time.

Another good post from the inimitable Plaid Adder.

This country needs respite.

P.S. to your editor pj, :hi: you little :evilgrin: have fun driving your parent :crazy:

because it was that good

Obama 56% and McCain 38%

the democratic party needs to recognize and commit to long term strategies based upon trends (herbert has a nice NYT collumn on it today), and not just abandon this strategy if it doesn't work in this election cycle. There DOES seem to be a shifting in the electorate among the growth of the "milenials" and over time they will become only a larger and larger power base in this country. That, combined with the rise in latino's will make for a very different demographic that both parties will need to compete for (but which democrats seem to have a headstart)

:toast:

New, progressive ideas for winning elections are exactly what this party needs. Demographics are helpful, but they tend to put us in a rut if we fail to see beyond them.

Our ruts are very deep.

:thumbsup:

when young voters identify with a party, they stay with them unless they make the country all fubar.

And we have them this time, excited and politically active, in droves!

... more like an overt 'burnt dog' fear of yet another STOLEN ELECTION. :(

We all want to be optimistic but recent history shows that no matter how solid we think the Dem candidate is, and no matter how thorough our logic and our preparedness, the GOP always has one more dirty trick up their sleeve.


:shrug:

You nail all of that quite well. Not to mention the Democratic party needs to figure out a way to stop snatching defeat out of the jaws of victory. It's tough to change stride sometimes but it's got to be done and right away. The pivot from primary to general is a tight turn.