Akkam’s Razor

What does the primary mean? What learnings can be taken away? Did Hillary really win? Did Barack really lose? And what about John McCain?

There are two things to take away - the primary means NOTHING, and the primary means EVERYTHING.

It means NOTHING (for the Democrats) in that we are essentially in the same place we were in the days leading up to Pennsylvania. Hillary had a strong but not-overwhelming win, picked up a handful of delegates, yet still remains behind Obama in delegate counts. The main thing that Pennsylvania means is that it’s not over - after 40-something states voting, it will be down to last the last twelve primaries, through Guam, Indiana, North Carolina, Nebraska, West Virginia, Kentucky, Oregon, Idaho, Puerto Rico, Montana, New Mexico, South Dakota, (and whatever happens with regards to Michigan and Florida, and perhaps to a brokered convention) and on to the White House! Yeeeeeeaaaaaargh!

It simultaneously means EVERYTHING, however. In order for Hillary to win, she has to overcome her negatives with the base, which for Hillary equates to being able to take down Obama’s perception of electability. Now, the problem is not bitter versus not-bitter - my personal observations are that core-liberal constituencies such as LGBT and women are turning out strong for Hillary. At the same time, those ‘bitter’ voters - it’s better to say ‘risk-averse’ - also clearly prefer Hillary.
Reading the tea leaves, that means the older, white, high school educated, gun owning, and/or union households have not reaped the benefits of the last few years, see their values as being under attack, and frankly, don’t like being told what to do. Everything that is Hillary’s strengths, however, grate on the liberal-elite and specifically the ’switchers’, self-described independents, and newly registered Democrats. Yet turnout is key - low turnout equals GOP majorities. Although threats by liberals to vote McCain are likely just that - threats - those new Democratic voters who are hungry for drastic change (and may fall under the spell of the carefully-crafted and press-peddled Maverick-brand) will find their enthusiasm level destroyed, and as such depress the turnout. That means less phone calls, less discussion and interest in the race, less nagging friends to the poll, and so on. (To be fair, McCain needs to be concerned by the same things with Ron Paul and Huckabee still pulling in double digits with no real way to win). By Hillary’s reckoning, she ‘has to destroy the [Democratic Party] in order to save [her nomination].

So what’s likely to happen? Money-flow will be carefully examined - does donor, activist, and institutional support flow to Clinton? Do delegates begin declaring themselves for her? Will calls by armchair activists (usually Goopers) for someone to withdraw since a prolonged primary ‘hurts’ Democrats, take their toll?

I tend to think yes, to the country and party’s detriment. Steel tempered by heat in the forge is stronger than metal prematurely dunked in the water.

My suggestion to the two Democratic candidates is to stop sniping at each other and participating in mutually assured destruction, and to begin calling out John McCain, making him respond to their attacks outside of the primary or debate process. Move away from (manufactured or legitimate) lingering doubts and focus on true electability - the ability to deliver the White House in November.