|
Obama does well then loses. The numbers are shifting really all that dramatically. if they do it is most likely he can only come close. The two main reasons excluding the media clowns and the primary setup and whatever might very well suffice under any conditions. The inertial thrust of Dem voters and the establishment power plus dedicated base power of the Clinton campaign. You might say in some rough math that the media has even canceled itself out by trashing Hillary to the point of hamstringing, immobility and and yet by keeping issues and vote fraud of the past two losing cycles have not given the Dem electorate any real healthy fear of November. Though that suits their GOP purpose admirably it arguably looks like some good old political attitudes, remarkably inappropriate for the times has weighed in.
Nostalgia and trust in the Clinton era. Many actually rotten regimes have snuck back into power after a disaster like Bush. The aura of Bill is undiminished and he was a winner in the eyes on many, usually older voters. Supposedly wiser, but that is never true. The establishment power is bound to that of course, the team, the allies, the "experience". Just on plain inertia and the added excitement of Dem women a very good candidate(not great like Bill) there is something akin to an incumbency power from party pols to the voters.
To overcome that one needs both a very charismatic alternative which will always find a home among voters who REALLY want change and some realistic appraisal of electoral possibilities in the fall. While we have been watching Bush dismantle America, America with some great mesmerizing encouragement has been occupied with other things, bent away from doing anything and thinking less. Raw feelings and inescapable disasters and common intuitions move the masses as a collective toward daylight. The anger and fear is not well directed and hits around both ways in the box. This is how Bill survived impeachment and how many pols were punished, including Al Gore.
Before even thinking about the powerful and well run campaigns of the alternatives to Hillary one has to admit that the public does not rationally get it about the electoral risks we are taking again, nor about the entire first tier of critical issues that also should have priority- logically and by experience as well. So what we had instead was an inevitable candidate with massive negatives based on the information distortions in previous years being met by a high road for change rookie and a person on the losing ticket of 2004 who had decided to try to knife through the inertia. Obama also has a powerful base, only lately swayed to his side, and a much better political and issue sense than Gary Hart. The alternatives are very different and a significant core of their supporters are still not looking outside the box. That is why supporters of all candidates can seem shallow and move toward other campaigns in ways surprising to people most concerned and more knowledgeable about the real times we live in.
Considering the voters pretty much are set in their mystified simple ways and most things canceling out and blinking out in the process and no sudden rout having happened, I would imagine(predict?) that Hillary will get enough with even a modest share of the Edwards supporters who simply think they have to choose one of the other two to secure the nomination with her super delegate edge. Maybe not, but in the rise and fall of tides things settle back to her advantage pretty inevitably. That is the voters' choice. There have been worse and the voters more disgruntled, but maybe never this surreal because the people's thoughts and movements are way out of whack with the real challenges of these times.
She then will get to seat her Florida and Michigan delegation cheering section without too much scandal. She might have to choose Obama as Veep if showering him with healing honors and glory is not enough. I would think either candidate realistically has to choose someone else. Real progressives had better hold their lunch tightly. While the masses of Dem voters may carry some of this unexplained dyspepsia bravely, reality will bite. In the best case scenario and to the delight of strategists of the percentages like Rahm, there will be no real attempt to sweep the board, all predictable claims to the contrary notwithstanding. The masses will not be told too soon that their states are written off, but unquiet feelings will mount. The feelings of the GOP will be stronger because orchestrated, and hopefully their candidate will be a real schmuck without much Bush machine backing. If Bloomberg is in to siphon off fear, distaste of "partisanship" and the same old stuff(that was an attraction to many Dem voters in the primaries!) any GOP candidate could game it and be competitive. If competitive then then Clinton is irresistibly vulnerable to media attack and election fraud. If so, then a greater and greater disquiet among the Dem voters whose momentum had been delegated, they suddenly find, to the past. To being robbed again. Of course that is the dismal picture. There will be fire and enthusiasm and dedication and mountains of new voters and workers. The odd great campaign moment or debate performance perhaps. And things will settle done into predictable inertial sequence of events that will have the hairs on the back of your neck standing up for weeks unless the GOP is in full self-destruct mode like 2006.
We will win if the economy sucks and the war is going bad and the competent campaign doesn't morph into Mondale/Dukakis/Gore/Kerry and doesn't lose the initiative by hugging the football. Not running against a Reagan Hillary may prevail over her own negatives.
As for progressives, as miserably weak and differently deluded than other segments of the party they might learn as all other- and crazier, dumber groups have- that having the best this or that is not often politically rewarded anywhere in the world and that educating the public, doing away with the sham MSM interference will not change the inertial fundamentals that existed in the 'good old days". That a second rate actor can steal your government with the voters adulating seal of approval, that telling the truth will be punished enough to make the leader a pariah at first(and long enough to defeat), that in the glamor of a big money campaign, memory and common sense get tricked completely. A single leader or candidate is only the final tool in the toolkit. We have since the beginning of the campaign have had the same challenge no matter who the nominee was. To organize, unite and lobby for change as a dedicated group and not as a seasonal fan base. We never got behind a single candidate anyway- as usual. Our effect has been marginal and marginalized and denied, rather easily, with only the strength of truth versus real world meltdown of the crap vindicating our position if not our influence.
Let's elect progressive candidates, spell out the real priorities, and let the campaigns know who we are and why we are here, and why we cannot be denied. or, in the usual run of things in history, this country(and planet) is in for a big pile of trouble in a time where such foolery will be punished more severely than in any other generation.
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
