First Draft

by digby

Here's a pretty good example of the media's early post game analysis of the primaries from Gary Langer of ABC. He outlines all the areas where the establishment believes the candidates are strong and weak (which means that even if they aren't strong and weak in those areas, the candidates will be fighting the perception.)

Here's the conclusion:

With the war (which McCain supports) unpopular, and the economy and broader outlook deeply negative, some analysts have been tempted to cast the general election as a slam-dunk for the Democrats. That's not the case; depending on the poll, Obama leads McCain narrowly or not at all, and the two divide public preferences on issues and attributes alike.

There are two fundamental reasons. One is that this is more a center-right than a center-left country. On average this year 34 percent of Americans have described themselves as conservatives, vs. 23 liberals. (What closes the gap is that moderates are more closely aligned with the Democratic Party.) The other is a generation-long trend in political party affiliation, which, despite ups and downs, has been in the Republicans' favor. On average in 1981, when ABC News started polling, Americans were 13 points more apt to call themselves Democrats than Republicans. So far this year, it's been 9 points. The Republicans did even better --- absolute parity with the Democrats --- in 2003, before public views of the war and then the economy went sour, prompting an exodus from the president and his party.



That's an interesting way of looking at it, don't you think? Americans have been more apt to call themselves Democrats than Republicans for decades, and the fact that Democrats have gained nearly ten points in just four years means the country is --- still center right. Isn't it always?

There is a lot of interesting information in this article. Some of it is even correct. But the facts recounted in it aren't as important as the conclusions which will, in my view, be the ones that dominate the media's coverage starting tomorrow.

That leaves us with the last wildcard of 2008, George W. Bush. If the Democrats make the election a referendum on his presidency, they gain a vast advantage. If, instead, it's a post-Bush election, all bets are off.


It's not that simple, but they will say it is. McCain is very good at promoting himself as a maverick and they love him for it. They will be anxious to portray this as a post-Bush election because the Bush years are an indictment of them too, (as we've seen during this little drama over Scott McClellan pointing out that the sky is indeed, blue.) I don't think it's going to be as hard for him to make himself into a "change" candidate as people think it is.

But there is plenty to work with. Obama doesn't have to run against McCain the Bush clone. I think he needs to run against Republicanism. Right now there is no more loathed brand name in America.




Update: Thomas Edsall recounts the fascinating tale of how the reformers of the 60s and 70s created the nominating system under which Obama won.

.