Winners and Losers

Yesterday's Presidential primary contests in Texas, Ohio, Rhode Island and Vermont had the curious effect of presenting dichotomous results to everyone involved. In other words, the winners did some losing and the losers did some winning and everyone's got issues moving forward. Let's take a look, starting with the biggest winners.

The Republican Party
Hillary Clinton's resurgent victories made the GOP the big winner last night. Repubs can now count on a three month Democratic primary bloodbath to provide them with choice ammo for the general. It buys them time to fundraise, organize and create strategies for both Obama and Clinton, without having to campaign against them in earnest. With John McCain's sweep last night, the GOP did what the GOP has always done: unified early behind a nominee. Look at this party now compared to a month ago. It's in much better shape. So where does it lose? Well, under the surface there is still discontent among the base. And while John McCain has positive attributes for the general, he continues to align himself with a disastrous administration.

John McCain
He's the second biggest winner of the night by virtue of locking up the nomination. Now he has time, time, time, to build an organization, raise money, start defining his opponents and rest. Where does he lose? His victory speech revealed some positions that are going to kill him in the general. His stubborn stance on free trade could lose Ohio to either Dem candidate. I'm not saying he's wrong on the issue, just on the wrong side of the people of Ohio. Also, his cavalier remarks on healthcare put him out of touch with the American public's desire for relief. If he doesn't have a real plan to improve the current system, it'll bite him. And finally, his victory last night has prompted a lunch with George Bush today. That's B roll the Dems will cherish.

Hillary Clinton
As the next biggest winner, Hillary re-energized her campaign with a win in Texas and big popular vote wins in Ohio and Rhode Island. This Ohio victory supports her case that she wins in the crucial swing states. These victories stop Obamamania, allow her to raise more money and let her gather her wits before the next big contest in Pennsylvania. She has also found a way to go negative on Obama: create doubt. And she will continue that strategy because it's the only way she can win. http://www.thenation.com/blogs/thebeat?bid=1&pid=294426 The success of this negative campaign is ironic. It garnered crucial victories, but it also verified everything that Obama has been saying about her: that she is not a change agent and, in fact, she's the opposite: a practioner of the old school politics responsible for the political division that people bemoan today. So how does she lose? Well, the delegate tallies are still incomplete, but this big night will not deliver a meaningful net gain of delegates. And this is her real problem, she can't really catch up to Obama in the delegate math. She also by loses by a prolonged negative battle, if she is the eventual nominee. It will certainly weaken her for the general.

Mike Huckabee
He wins by starting his 2012 campaign early or by getting his own talk show on Fox News. How does he lose? Well, something about a nomination, but it's not a big deal.

Barack Obama
Not a great night for the junior Senator from Illinois. But he wins by remaining ahead in the delegate chase after 10 days of collisions with the kitchen sink. In a startling announcement last night on MSNBC, Tim Russert triumphantly held up an internal Obama paper that predicted the outcome (complete with margins of victory) in each of the primaries. So far they had been eerily accurate. Russert revealed that the Obama projections for the remaining contests showed that he would garner the plurality of pledged delegates when all was said and done. Obama also wins by getting beaten up now so that his campaign can adjust and improve for later battles--which they have consistently done throughout this campaign. He wins by having Wyoming and Mississippi to hand him two more victories and more delegates. And finally, he will benefit from the analysis that exposes Ohio as a racially polarized state. Many exit polls found Clinton supporters willing to admit that race played a role in their vote. On the other hand, he loses big by... losing big. He lost three states last night, two of which were big states. So, critics can still point to the fact that, with the exception of Illinois, he hasn't defeated Hillary in one large state. He also loses by showing a real electability problem in Ohio. Whether it's race or the negatives conjured by the Clintons, he got trounced and it doesn't look as if he could do much better in a general. You don't win Ohio, you don't win the presidency. Finally, he loses by having to slog it out for another three months, battling both McCain and Clinton. With vulnerabilities exposed by the Clinton attack machine, he's almost having to start over. And he's exposed in a general.

The Democractic Party
No victory here at all. A once promising gallop to the White House has turned into a mid-winter slog through Donner's Pass. Count on cannibalism as the method of survival. Leave it to Democrats to cripple themselves in an election that has handed them every possible advantage on the issues and the mood of the country. Has it been exciting to showcase two historic candidates? You bet. Is it now detrimental to the party to continue this race? You bet. Especially when it's going to showcase nothing but negative campaigning. Squandering the fundraising advantage, providing cheap shots for the Republicans, alienating voters, and burning out the Democratic electorate prior to the general is the collateral damage created by last night's results. Everyone is starting to talk about the Democratic conventions of 1972 and 1980 as precident for what's to come. That's comforting. Maybe Democrats should let McCain win and continue our plunge into disaster, then try again in 2012, when things will be so bad nothing can deny Dems the White House. Not even the Dems.

Oratory In America...
was the biggest loser in last night's primaries. After constantly bashing Barack Obama's ability to speechify, Hillary Clinton and John McCain continued to steal or butcher parts of Obama's message. In last night's victory speech, after talking about what real change meant in Washington, McCain's run up to his big finish stated that "We are not afraid of history, we make history! This is the essence of hope in America..." Now, I don't know what being 'afraid of history' means, unless it's AP History in school, which is a tough course. But to place a hope line at the penultimate moment of your victory speech seems to be a pretty solid nod to the effectiveness of your opponent's speeches, even though you claim they're useless because they're, y'know, just speeches. Similarly, Hillary Clinton talked about change again as if it has always been her signature attribute and then--get this--shamelessly tried to peddle a version of Obama's "Yes We Can" by altering it to "Yes We Will!" I keep saying it: you can't make this stuff up.

I'd like to know if anyone thinks that what happened last night is good for the Democrats. Talk about this or anything else by clicking on 'comment', bypassing the Google sign up and hitting the nickname or anonymous button.