Forgive the paraphrasing but: If Tuesday night was the end of the beginning, then Wednesday morning was the beginning of the end.
As the results of Tuesday’s contests in North Carolina and Indiana came through, it became clear that the great primary battle would be winding down.
Barack Obama’s whopping win in North Carolina and near-win in Indiana meant that, in all likelihood, the numbers just wouldn’t be there for Hillary Clinton to win the nomination. That led in turn to discussions on Wednesday about the endgame — how and when Clinton might bow out, and how and when the Democrats would put the bitterness behind them.
On the first issue, the bottom line is that nearly everyone now seems to agree that the race is, for all intents and purposes, over. Everyone except the Clinton family, that is. And they’re not just any family.
Let’s say, for the sake of argument, she fights on. She will win West Virginia next week and Kentucky the following, even if she isn’t campaigning actively.
On the same day as Kentucky comes Oregon. That ought to be an Obama state, demographically and ideologically. But if Clinton decides to fight there, it’s conceivable she could win. If she came out of May 20 with two victories, we’d be back where we were after Pennsylvania.
However, it seems unlikely.
Party leaders and superdelegates have wanted this contest to end for some time. Tuesday’s results gave them the excuse they needed to start moving towards Obama.
George Stephanopoulos said on television on Wednesday morning that superdelegates ”will come three, four, five at a time, and this nomination will be locked up”.
There is also the question of money. Clinton seems to have none. Wednesday morning headlines included the news that she had lately loaned her campaign another $6-million or so out of her own pocket (beyond the $5-million earlier reported). It’s a near certainty that at least some of her big-money people will close their wallets.
So let’s assume that circumstances force Clinton to start shutting down, even if against her will. This leads us to the second matter — how the party picks up the pieces and unites against John McCain.
American media have been playing up the divide and will continue to do so. It’s understandable because it’s a good story: there’s tension and argument and, of course, there’s a racial angle, which always spices things up.
It’s got some basis in truth. The constituencies that make up the Democratic Party were split right in two, with each key group (black voters, blue-collar whites, young people, old people) voting for its preferred candidate by hefty margins. The extent to which some of these voters will back Obama is a fair question.
But there are two counter arguments here. The first is it’s only May; resentments will ease by November. In March 2000, supporters of George W Bush and McCain were similarly angry, but McCain’s voters went for Bush in the end.
In addition, and more importantly, the November electorate is vastly larger than the primary electorate. About 33-million people have voted so far. There’s every reason to believe that 133-million might vote in November (122-million voted in 2004, and interest seems higher this year).
That’s a far bigger pond to fish in, and Obama will do just that, meaning that he might be able to withstand some Democratic defections if he does well among the US’s vast army of voters who belong to neither party.
In the long term, the party will unite. The short term is a little trickier. It’s mostly in the hands of the Clintons. Not the most comforting thought, except that their hands may be tied. — Â