Bottom Line:
If Clinton defeats Obama after he wins New Hampshire AND he is not on the ticket, the Democrats will lose a 1988 size blow out. Hillary will destroy the future of her own party in order to win a nomination that her very victory will make valueless.
If Huckabee is perceived to have been defeated for his religion, the Republicans will face a total melt down.
Let me indulge in some off-the-cuff political speculation:
Every party has a “melt down” scenario where everything goes wrong and they plumb the Bob Dole-Walter Mondale levels of support in an election.
The Republicans are going to carry Alabama and Utah. The Democrats are going to carry Massachusetts and the District of Columbia. If either party gets close to campaigning in their safe states, then they are doomed.
Next year appears, as it often does after a two term Presidency, to be a Democrat year. The Party of Franklin Roosevelt might still lose, but it would look unlikely to get pasted.
Republicans have the chance to lose very badly or win (at most) a 1988 election (closer than it now looks). What would cause everything to go wrong?
In this case, one wing of the party goes home in a funk and refuses to support the candidate. The Republicans don’t break forty percent at the Presidential level and get washed away in Congress.
There are two different groups that could stay home for the GOP. The first group consists of the activists. The second consists of the leaders of the conservative movement and the party. We have already seen in this race that the two are not the same.
If either group “tunes out” the nominee, the party will lose in a big way. The party of Lincoln may lose even if everyone is on game, since the outlook is already difficult. Losing a five point race is, however, very different than losing a forty state blow out.
Some election scenarios are software conflicts . . . bad news but eventually fixable. There is always (always!) another election. Other election results are Blue Screens of Death which send a movement into a tailspin for decades. Democrats are just now recovering from Reagan . . . just as it took decades to shake the Civil War debacle out of their system.
Bill Clinton was Reagan-Light just as Grover Cleveland was really just a Victorian Republican-Light.
They finally seem able to run who the base really wants and win. They have reformatted their drive and are over the Reagan Blue Screen of Death.
What is the most likely Blue Screen of Death for the Republicans?
At this point, the worst case is a scenario where Evangelicals perceive that anybody, but especially Rudy, is more acceptable than Huckabee to the Establishment.
If Huckabee fails to get the nomination and values voters perceive it is because of his faith and not because of his policy failure, then the Blue Screen of Death will visit the Republicans this November. Value voters will say, “Rudy is bad on our issues, but got a pass. Huck was bad on some economic issues, but got denied.” They will stay home.
The other bad scenario is Huckabee winning the nomination narrowly and the Convention turning into a Goldwater like tribute to one wing of the party. I think Huck knows this and is working best he can to avoid it.
The best outcome for the party? Huckabee self-destructs or loses “fair and square.”
Some commentators don’t like Huck on policy grounds. They don’t communicate disdain for his voters or values. If Huck loses to them and is perceived to have lost to them, then all is well with the Republican base.
Other conservative commentators may not like Huck on policy grounds, but they also communicate loathing for Evangelical religion.
Let’s be a bit unfair to one writer and call this the “Derbyshire wing” of conservative commentators after the glib, but intellectually shallow writer for NRO. Pundits underestimate the irritation produced in forty-percent of the party by Derbyshire-style sneering, mentally superficial, secularism.
If voters perceive that the Derbyshire-wing of the party triumphed over Huckabee, the party is in trouble. But if the commentators who respect Huck’s faith (and may share it) , but dislike his policies (let’s call it the Ramesh-KLo-wing of leadership) takes down a flawed candidate, then all will be well.
If anti-South and anti-religion sneering continues to dominate the public perception of the anti-Huck movement, then Huck may lose, but he will be a force in the Party for a generation. Now is the time for conservative leaders to get their message right. In a few more states it will be too late.
Activists will stay home and the Blue Screen of Republican Death will happen.
I don’t think this will happen, but if people like Andrew Stuttaford want a result they claim to fear (European Christian Democrats), they should keep on writing as they are.
Right now I think either Republican Blue Screen of Death scenario unlikely. Most conservative leaders are not anti-Evangelical. Many are devout Christians, but just don’t like Huck’s direction. Huck is far from the nomination at the moment and if a state like South Carolina derails him . . . no Baptist will think it is because he did not get a fair shake.
What is the Democrat Blue Screen of Death Scenario? Or at least a Nightmare Software Conflict?
Given the climate, there is no likely total Blue Screen melt-down moment for Democrats.
What is very possible is a bad and unexpected defeat . . . not just of the Bush 2000 kind, but the Bush 1988 kind. The two wings of that party could have a conflict so severe that it will result in an unexpected major Republican victory
This outcome is actually more likely at this moment, than the meltdown for the Republicans.
Pundits are confusing an energized base with an energized electorate. Polls show a tough year for Republicans, but not a “lock” for the Democrats. If they go too far left, they pull defeat from the jaws of victory . . . something Democrats are good at. All the top three nominees have gone so far left on social issues, that they cannot carry most Republican base states and (long term) have done grave damage to themselves in places like Ohio.
That might not matter if they are united, but unity may be harder to achieve than people assume.
Democrats are angry and hopeful. The hopeful side of the equation is driven to a great extent by Obama-mania. . . the first Democrat candidate in my lifetime for whom I wish I could vote.
What if the Clinton scandal machine narrowly takes Obama down after he scores a New Hampshire triumph? What if the Establishment slanders the Heroic Knight and tarnishes his dream?
If Clinton wants the nomination enough to go toxic on Obama, and succeeds, she will have alienated many voters simply won’t vote in 2008. I now believe that if Clinton loses New Hampshire and has to use Establishment muscle to take out Obama . . . that she cannot win.
Her destruction of Obama-mania will disillusion and anger the hopeful. Nobody likes seeing their dream taken away by angry party hacks trying to hold on to power. If there is dirt on Obama, then he will fail, but many will hate the messenger.
A narrow Clinton victory with super-delegates had better see Obama on the ticket as Vice President or Clinton will be the Candidate Who Killed the Dream. I don’t think Obama will take the number two slot if dirty politics denied him the top slot.
I believe the Democrat Party could plausibly self-destruct if Clinton is now the nominee.
Clinton can now only win the nomination by defeating Obama after it appeared to his followers that he could (Obamaniacs will think “should”) win.
If Clinton had defeated Obama in Iowa or does so in New Hampshire, then it will look like “normal” politics. If she loses New Hampshire and wins, it will be because Money and the Establishment nailed him.
Clinton now cannot win the Presidency if she wins the nomination after losing New Hampshire.
I am curious to know what my political friends think . . . Hugh?