To make the general case about American Political Conventions.
Once every four years, the various major parties and minor parties convene in a national meeting to nominate a Presidential candidate. And they are really two ring and sometimes three ring circuses. This year, we will be spared that third circus ring because both the democrats and republicans have a nominee certain. And not to dis any third parties, but no present third party has any chance of winning in 2008 as a reality based comment. But as a general comment, third parties often determine the winners because they can disproportionately hurt one of the major parties. And never say never, especially given trend lines, some year in the future may see a third party win the general election.
But in terms of the two ring circus, there is the big public media event, where everything is supposed to be sweetness and light for ring number one. And hidden away in the back rooms are the various party leaders and delegations trying to cut various deals on the platform and political power sharing. And while most of the party have bet on the right horse in the primaries, there are always the losers who bet on the wrong candidate and now do not want to pay the forfeit. But in the interest of the party, they must all support the winning candidate.
Bottom line, how united and how charged up a major party emerges from its convention often determines the winner in the election. Especially if the other major party fails to unite.
And at the same time, while one major party is meeting, its becomes the job of the other party to rally all its press and media resources to portray and exploit any and all divisions in the other party. And we sure see that happening on this thread to make a non general comment. As posters who will vote GOP anyway are coming out of the woodwork to ridicule and paint dark clouds in every silver lining.
Having said all that in a general sense, I have two specific comments about the democrats and republicans regarding emerging from their conventions unified. And each party has the dead opposite problem of the other.
1. For the democrats, two very strong and very similar candidates emerged from the right center of the democratic party. And both are non white male candidates. And what killed Hillary was initial lack of organization and the baggage of voting wrong on the Iraq war. And while Obama has shown vision, he lacks experience. And in an unusually bruising primary, many US females really wanted Hillary to win.
And now its Obama's job to bring those Hillary supporters back into the party with enthusiasm.
2. For the republicans, the unity job is far harder. McCain is not the choice of the party leaders. And the GWB record is perhaps the worst in American history as GWB and his band of merry neocons have basically hijacked the traditional GOP values of fiscal conservatism, small government, and isolationist foreign policy. And while McCain has a certain amount of experience, he seems to woefully lack judgment or any leadership track record. McCain has some military credibility, but is exactly the wrong person to appeal to the religious right or those in the GOP who want less foreign entanglements and more diplomacy. And in MHO, what made him the GOP primary winner was the GOP electorate who selected McCain only because he was the only candidate who was in any way critical of GWB. And by failing to separate himself from GWB, he insults that new base as he appeals to neither the GWB wing of the GOP or the anti GWB part of his base.
Facebook
Twitter