Polarizing Politics

To misquote the words of John Dean (describing the increasingly disastrous effects of the Watergate scandal on the Nixon White House), there may be a cancer growing on the Democratic Party.

Newsweek calls it "The Deep Blue Divide," this increasingly hostile war between the supporters of Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama.

"It's become like the [C]old [W]ar," a Clinton supporter told Newsweek. "[I]n order to maintain the relationship, you don't talk to each other."

I've been on the receiving end of the bitterness between the two camps. They may not speak to each other much, but they'll unload with both barrels on groups they perceive to be third parties.

It intrigues me that most of the venom I've encountered from the Clinton side comes from her female supporters (rarely from the males who support Clinton's candidacy), and most of the venom I've encountered from the Obama side comes from his black supporters (rarely from Obama's white supporters). And Newsweek reports that hard feelings could persist to Election Day.

"According to exit polling in the Texas primary, 91% of Clinton supporters said they would be dissatisfied with Obama as the nominee; 87% of Obama fans said they would be dissatisfied with Clinton," reports Newsweek. "Nationally, a quarter of those who back Clinton say they'd vote for John McCain if Obama won the nomination (while just 10% of Obama supporters would do the same if he lost)."

That's enough to scare many Democrats into believing that a spirited contest for the nomination will mean a reduced likelihood that Democrats will reclaim the White House this year.

If anything, I've found that the intensity of this hostility is greater on Clinton's side. My theory is that, although women had a breakthrough candidacy with Geraldine Ferraro's nomination for vice president in 1984, they haven't had a candidate before who was in the position to breathe the rarified air of the presidential nomination. And, for some reason, they seem to believe that one chance is all they'll have.

But blacks have been here before.

Jesse Jackson may not have been as serious a prospect for the nomination as Obama, but he won presidential primaries and caucuses in 1984 and 1988. He went to the conventions those years with delegates backing his candidacy, and he delivered speeches to the conventions in prime time.

It took a black candidate another 20 years to reach this point. But somehow, blacks and other racial minorities never seemed to believe their chance had come and gone with Jackson's candidacies in the 1980s. He may have been perceived as symbolic in his day, but his candidacies were viewed more as the trailblazers, not the end of the road.

For some reason, though, the women who support Hillary Clinton seem to feel their gender may never get another chance at the Oval Office-- even though nearly two dozen women currently hold seats in the U.S. Senate or governor's offices in this country. Only two blacks hold governorships, and only one (Obama) is in the Senate.

Does a spirited contest for the nomination necessarily mean the eventual winner won't be able to win the general election?

No.

Admittedly, the most recent examples in both parties -- Gerald Ford in 1976 and Hubert Humphrey in 1968 -- aren't encouraging -- but neither candidate lost the general election in a landslide.

Ford nudged past Ronald Reagan for the Republican nomination and, in spite of his many failings as a campaigner, managed to close the gap against Jimmy Carter to the point where he could have won the election if a handful of votes in a couple of states had gone his way.

Humphrey was nominated in an era when most convention delegates were still chosen by a state's party elders, not by primary voters. His nomination might not have happened at all if Robert Kennedy had not been assassinated on the night of the California primary -- but that will forever be a subject for speculation.

Humphrey struggled to gain his footing after the Democratic convention in Chicago that was marked by riots in the streets, but, as Michael Cohen notes in the Wall Street Journal, "After turning his fire on (George) Wallace and (Richard) Nixon, Humphrey's poll numbers dramatically improved and nearly won him the election."

Nevertheless, Cohen writes, "[A] drawn-out nomination fight could leave the party critically short of the time it will need to build a winning campaign. Recent exit polls show that 20%-30% of Democratic voters will be dissatisfied if their candidate loses the nomination. Those numbers will likely increase if the battle between Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Obama intensifies, and especially if it ends in a bitter squabble over delegates at the convention."

Cohen goes on to say, "Although Democrats are more ideologically unified than any time in recent memory, the party's nominee will still have serious fences to mend. Mrs. Clinton would need to reach out to blacks and first-time voters. Mr. Obama would have to win over blue-collar voters. Unfortunately, with the convention in late August, whoever the nominee is will have little time."

And make no mistake about it. The Democratic nominee will need plenty of time to mend the fences. There are important demographic groups to be won, and both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama will have some work to do to win the support of white males.

As I've mentioned before in this blog, white male voters represent a significant demographic group that presidential nominees will have to take seriously if they want to win the election.

The Washington Post's Dan Balz says "white men have emerged as perhaps the single critical swing constituency."

Balz continues, "The competition for the support of white men, particularly those defined as working class, will shape the showdown between Clinton and Obama in Pennsylvania's Democratic presidential primary ...

"Obama (Ill.) won majorities among those voters in what appeared to be breakthrough victories in Wisconsin and Virginia last month. But he badly lost working-class white men to Clinton (N.Y.) in Ohio and Texas two weeks ago, keeping the outcome of the Democratic race in doubt indefinitely."

Obama in particular seems to be running into problems. As Balz points out, "Obama had to distance himself from his spiritual mentor, the Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr., former pastor of Chicago's Trinity United Church of Christ, over statements widely viewed as being anti-American."

Obama felt compelled to speak on ths issue today. I wasn't able to watch the speech today and so I have to rely on CNN's coverage. Based on what I've read, Obama timidly rejected the statements from the pastor who "has been like family to me."

From all that I've read, Obama still hasn't repudiated Louis Farrakhan, who last year received an award from a magazine that is published by Obama's church. The award bears Wright's name and is given to someone who "truly epitomized greatness."

That's not going to reassure white males in the general election.