One thing we have definitely learned this election cycle is that the Republican party is better equipped to handle a broken field than the Democratic party. This Tuesday, when 22 states vote in both races, at the end of the day McCain will likely emerge the winner on the Republican side, whereas the Democratic primary may very well extend further. Yesterday, Howard Wolfson told reporters in a conference call that he thought the Democratic primary might go to convention. So while the heads of Ann Coulter, Michelle Malkin and Rush Limbaugh are collectively exploding at the likely prospect of McCain as the nominee, they will probably have several months to warm up to the idea while the Democratic struggle between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton continues indefinitely. If the the Democratic contest goes to convention, it will to put it bluntly, not be good. The last primary is sometime in June. While the Democratic party is slugging it out, McCain can begin to consolidate his conservative base, a base clearly uneasy with his candidacy. While polls show that McCain does well nationally against both Clinton and Obama, these are basically misleading. The Democratic candidate, whoever it is, once he/she starts engaging McCain on the Iraq war, the economy, healthcare, they will be at a decided advantage. McCain, by his own admission knows little about economic policy. But given how things are shaping up, he'll have to catch up. Hell, if it goes on long enough, he could take a semester-long Macro-economics class with Alan Greenspan. My point is that despite all the ballyhooing that goes on about McCain's electability in the press, this is a man who needs a head start. And it looks like he very well may get it.
Compare the circumstances of both primary races at the start: A slate of candidates on the Republican side with the absurd prospect of trying distance themselves from Bush without actually opposing any of his significant policies (except immigration). None of them satisified both the fiscal and socially conservative wings of the party, except Fred Thompson who didn't seem to want the job much anyway. The mainstream media got into the habit of annointing a front runner, only to have one side of the conservative coalition tear him down.
By contrast, the Democratic party began with a clear front runner, but even more striking was how satisfied Democratic voters seemed with their choices. Unlike the Republican side it was not a question of finding a candidate sufficiently edible for enough voters across the the country "swallow" .
Given these two scenarios, one would assume that the party dissatisfied with their slate of candidates would have a more difficult time settling on a nominee, than the party enthusiastic for their candidates. Yet judging strictly on the basis of speed, it looks like the Republican candidate may come to the starting line much sooner. Why?
Three words: winner-take-all. In states that vote rather than caucus, the Republican party operates on a winner take all system. That was the case in South Carolina where McCain beat Mike Huckabee by a mere 3% and in Florida, where McCain beat Romney by 5%. By contrast, none of the Democratic primary states are winner-take-all. They alot delegates to the candidates proportionally, based on the voting percentages in specific districts.
Consequently, McCain can win all 55 of South Carolina's delegates with just 33% of the vote, whereas Barack Obama can lose the popular vote in a state like Nevada to Hillary Clinton but actually end up with more delegates. Neither system seems particularly well-designed, but one seems to have performed the service of nominating a candidate by simply killing off all the others, whereas the other system has given us an epic political battle...except that IT IS NOT FOR THE GENERAL ELECTION.
One has to give the Republican National Committee credit. They designed their nominating bylaws precisely to AVOID, the prolonged battle that Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton appear ready to engage in. Is winner-take-all fair in a primary? Probably not. Does it discourage the sort of upstart candidacy that Barack Obama has fashioned for himself against the Clinton establishment? Absolutely.
Look. I'm an Obama supporter. I'm voting for him today, and if he survives Super Tuesday within 150 delegates of Hillary Clinton I will most likely campaign for him in Maryland this weekend. If all 22 states today were winner-take-all, he probably wouldn't survive, so in a sense I'm grateful thats not the case. But I also do not want to see this thing go to convention. Part of it is that the longer this process goes on, the greater chance there is for something to happen that causes an irreparable rift in the Democratic party. This could happen, especially if Bill Clinton fails to rein in his inclination towards subtle mendacity. But more importantly, if this primary season has taught us anything, it is that time is of the essence. I believe that the more time the Democratic candidate has to make their argument against McCain, the stronger they will be come election time. McCain does not strike me as a candidate who functions well as a front runner. Right now it doesn't matter because he's the last man standing in the Republican nomination. But come election time, when he has to defend his support of the Iraq war, when he has to communicate some solid ideas for improving the economy, when he has to propose solutions for the health care crisis, all while at the same time pandering to a skeptical Republican base on immigration, he will have a tough trail to navigate. I don't see him being able to stay consistent over the course of a general election, in no small part because he's 75(?) years old. But if he's given time to rest, that could change. If he is not pressed to defend his case for the presidency until less than five months before the general election, that will help him a great deal.
