The last several days, the political environment for Democrats in Nevada has been, shall we say, a little noxious. I’m inclined to think we’re pretty far from last damage and burnt bridges, but I also understand feeling a little uncomfortable about the current trajectory.
Slate’s John Dickerson, analyzing yesterday’s results, noted:
Bill Clinton was so angry because it got ugly at the end in Nevada. Democrats may have cooled down their flash war over race and gender earlier this week, but by the time the vote took place Saturday, each of the two top campaigns was flinging some very ugly charges about the other. Bill Clinton accused the powerful Nevada culinary union of suppressing voters, claiming he’d witnessed it first hand. Obama’s campaign manager in turn threw out some very charged coded language about efforts by the Clinton campaign to suppress the vote. “It is a sad day when Democrats start trying to suppress the vote of other Democrats,” he said of push polls, robo-calls, and what he called “old-style say anything or do anything to win” Clinton politics.
Commence the hand-wringing. How do you put a party back together when Obama claims that Clinton wins only by winning ugly? Historically, political parties find ways to put themselves back together, but Clinton risks looking like a hope killer if Obama’s charges that she’s succeeded unfairly start to stick. In addition to charges by Obama aides, the candidate himself was accusing Clinton of distorting his record and saying anything to get elected in the final hours of campaigning. Clinton’s negatives are already high enough. This prospect of Clinton commanding a party stitched together like Frankenstein may at some point cause people to resist supporting her even if their doubts about Obama increase.
I see Dickerson’s point, but isn’t this a bit hyperbolic? Dems are divided over their favorite presidential candidate, but aren’t we pretty far from a party “stitched together” like Frankenstein’s monster? The core elements of the party are still very much in place; Dems aren’t even close to experiencing the kind of ideological fissures the Republicans are facing; and Dems are well aware that the political landscape in 2008 gives them an inherent advantage.
Any party in midst of a competitive primary is going to appear at least a little divided, but we’re pretty far the point at which one of the top-tier candidates can’t lead the party in November, aren’t we?
This is not to say the past couple of weeks have been pleasant; they haven’t. Two weeks ago, there was an exceedingly distasteful race-based dispute between Clinton and Obama. The candidates seemed to take control of the situation before matters spiraled completely out of control.
This past week, though, merely saw one series of ugly back-and-forth attacks replaced with another. The Clinton campaign, for example, issued a mailing to Nevada Dems hitting Obama on taxes with a message that could have been written by the Republican National Committee (it was also factually wrong). There was a lawsuit to eliminate agreed-upon Democratic precincts in Nevada. Obama comments about Reagan and the “party of ideas” were intentionally misconstrued to mislead voters. Mysterious robo-calls parroted Rush Limbaugh rhetoric about “Barack Hussein Obama.”
Yesterday afternoon was especially unpleasant, with Bill Clinton personally claiming to have seen first-hand instances of voter intimidation. The Obama campaign not only denied the charge, officials fired back with accusations of Clinton-backed voter-suppression efforts.
The Iowa caucuses were just 17 days ago, and for all the overused cliches about the candidates “taking the gloves off,” the race was actually quite positive and aboveboard until the Hawkeye State’s results came in. Ever since, it’s been considerably more painful.
But if we step back, we see that this isn’t that unusual. In 2004, at least until the Kerry snowball became unstoppable, there was a heated contest between Kerry, Dean, Edwards, Clark, and Gephardt. At the time, I think we all heard plenty of supporters of each candidate saying they couldn’t possibly tolerate rivals winning the nomination. If I had a nickel for every Dean supporter who vowed to stay home if Kerry won the nomination, I’d be quite wealthy — but eventually, they returned to the fray. People usually do.
In 1992, the race between Clinton, Brown, Kerrey, and Tsongas grew quite contentious. In 1988, the contest between Dukakis, Gore, Jackson, Simon, and Gephardt was plenty heated at times. Mondale/Hart was no walk in the park in ’84. Carter/Kennedy was really ugly in ’80. You get the point.
I know there are plenty of Dems — I suspect commenters will happily help prove this point — who currently believe they couldn’t possibly vote for (fill in the blank with current Democratic candidate’s name) in November. He/She is just too much to bear. If he/she wins the nomination, you’ll just stay home, regardless of the consequences.
Dickerson’s piece suggests the party is headed for the kind of division that makes post-primary reconciliation very difficult. I really doubt it. The top three candidates agree on almost everything, they’ve each presented a progressive platform, and they each lead Republican candidates in hypothetical general-election match-ups.
The campaign has taken a few ugly turns, but this is hardly a recipe for a splintered, unrecoverable Democratic Party.
