Four years ago, John Kerry became the presumptive Democratic nominee on March 2nd. His Republican opponent was George Bush, who had already united the Republican Party, built the largest financial warchest in Presidential campaign history, was hovering at just over 50% in approval rating, and had been running against John Kerry for a entire month based on over two years of opposition research. Given all of those advantages, George Bush still only defeated John Kerry by 2.46% nationwide, and narrowly won the Electoral College in Ohio under dubious circumstances.
Considering the far more favorable climate to Democrats have in 2008, the growing conventional wisdom that the still undecided Democratic campaign will somehow hurt the eventual Democratic nominee strikes me as bogus. If we have a nominee on March 4th instead of March 2nd, that is a difference of only two days. Further, during the next few weeks, both of our candidates will be running advertisements and receiving huge press in key swing states like Ohio, Virginia and Wisconsin. When it is all over, we will have a Democratic nominee with a lot more money than Kerry, a much higher name ID, a far less unified Republican Party, and a much more favorable political climate. Adding on an extra month actually strikes me as very good for Democrats, rather than something to worry about.
However, what happens if the nomination goes on after March 4th? As I explain in the extended entry, this could be something of a problem.
There is a six-week interval between Mississippi on March 11th, and Pennsylvania on April 22nd, Forty-two days is a lot of empty space to fill, especially if the campaign is just as undecided then as it is now. News coverage could shift back toward McCain, and one the media's all-time favorite narratives, "Democrats divided," will have a lot of credibility for a long time. Both Democrats can spend a long time campaigning in the key swing state of Pennsylvania, but McCain won't be so restricted to one state. Fundraising isn't a problem, since Obama is now raising money at a rate equal to John Kerry in 2004, but spending it might be. Since both Clinton and Obama would still need to throw everything just at winning the nomination, in a post-March 4th campaign Democrats will be effectively spending less money targeting the Republican nominee in 2008 than they did in 2004.
So, I like this overtime, but I am a little worried about what could happen if the primary continues to be undecided after March 4th. The odds of either candidate dropping out on March 5th are not very good, either. In order to knock Obama out, Clinton probably needs to take about a 75-100 pledged delegate lead after Ohio and Texas. However, since Obama looks set to build an even larger pledged delegate lead over the next two weeks, that just isn't bloody likely. On the other side of the coin, Obama could conceivably knock Clinton out if he sweeps every state through March 11th, building a clear advantage in pledged delegates, popular support, fundraising and momentum. However, polling in both Ohio and Texas look pretty good for Clinton right about now, If she wins either state, and stays within 150 pledged delegates of Obama, she will probably soldier on to Pennsylvania. Expect talk of super delegates and Michigan / Florida to only intensify during that period, too.
I am really feeling good about this campaign right now, as most of the country is allowed a meaningful chance to vote, as both campaigns recover from multiple major setbacks, as both are now rising huge waves of grassroots support, as media attention solidifies around Democrats, and as the political climate stays very strong for Democrats. However, if we enter the six-week Pennsylvania Interval, I'm not sure if I will be feeling good anymore. Convince me either that the campaign will end before we reach that six-week break, or that it is a good thing if we reach that six-week break undecided. My gut reaction is not positive, but perhaps I am just being pessimistic.
