Angry, Ugly, Bitter, Yes!

| | Comments (0)

The big media watching last night's Pennsylvania returns see an outcome that will result in the two Democratic candidates more furiously attacking each other, and likely hurting their party's chances to win the White House this fall. As Slate's John Dickerson put it:

For those in the Democratic Party who are worried that the race has gotten too ugly, it looks like it's going to get even uglier.

And he has a valid point. The media threshold for a Clinton victory was 10 points, which she met exactly. But past performance dictates that Clinton would have continued her campaign had she won by a single vote, hence her campaign's "A Win is a win," stance of the past few days. But to truly change the dynamic of the race, she likely would have needed a blowout victory in the range of 20 points. So, if the probably mathematical outcome of the race hasn't been fundamentally altered, the remaining question is, "How much does this hurt Obama and the Democrats after he secures the nomination?"

The New York Times offers this editorial analysis:

Voters are getting tired of it; it is demeaning the political process; and it does not work. It is past time for Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton to acknowledge that the negativity, for which she is mostly responsible, does nothing but harm to her, her opponent, her party and the 2008 election.

But if voters are in fact getting tired of it, why did they come out in substantially higher numbers than 2004, and why did they give Clinton a double-digit victory? Even if many voters nationally are "getting tired of it," most of them (including New York) already had a chance to cast their vote for one of the candidates in one of the two major parties. Still, while most progressive bloggers are pushing for Clinton to exit the race, some continue to argue that the protracted battle won't hurt their party's chances in the general election.

In a post titled, "Democrats Are Going to Be Fine," Matt Stoller says:

Don't get distracted by noise.  It's fun to bite your nails and fret about how Democrats are tearing themselves apart, which of course I heard plenty of on the various cable shows.  But whatever.  Obama's probably going to take the nomination as Clinton doesn't have enough to win, and her annoyed supporters will move to Obama after she endorses him.


More blogger reactions after the jump...

The Moderate Voice's Jazz Shaw on polls showing 23 percent of Clinton voters and 18 percent of Obama voters would either vote for John McCain or sit out the election if their candidate isn't the Democratic nominee:

So how are we to explain why a Hillary or Barack supporter would go cast a vote for John McCain? The answer is clear and very disappointing. It is nothing more than a fit of childish pique. “If my candidate doesn’t get nominated, I’ll show you! I’ll make sure your candidate gets the shaft too!” The reality, of course, is that you will be showing nobody but yourself, cutting off the nose of your party to spite its face.

Matt Yglesias doesn't want to wait for the voters to (un)decide:

All the superdelegates should just say who they're voting for and bring this to the end.

Markos Moulitsas agrees with the NYT editorial, while smartly noting they endorsed Clinton in their state's primary. But he also says the nomination will be over soon anyway:

She's lost this election. She is desperate. Her website forwards to her donation page, which would be sad and tragic if she wasn't hell bent on bringing her party down. We've got two weeks left in this contest. North Carolina and Indiana will finish this thing off.

Post A Comment


(for verification only; will not be published with your comment)