Can the Democrats win back the White House?

The day after Super Tuesday, a panel of sleep-deprived but distinguished speakers gathered in Parliament to discuss the Democrats' chances of winning back the White House in what all agreed is the most captivating US election contest for decades.

Rachelle Valladeres, the former international chair of Democrats Abroad, opened by citing the New York Times' headline of that morning - 'Clinton/Obama trade victories' - demonstrating just how close the race is for the Democrat nomination. Valladeres, who has not yet disclosed publicly which candidate she is backing, argued that it is good for the party to have a contested election for its nomination since it engages party members who feel their votes are making a difference.

Fabian Society general secretary Sunder Katwala summed up the general mood of pundits by stating that 'nobody knows anything' about the outcome of the Democratic contest. With strong positions on key issues such as the economy and healthcare, the Democrats could by all means win power again, said Katwala, but history shows that the party has a habit of losing elections it should win.

Katwala added that the likely prospect of McCain snapping up the Republican nomination was bad news for Democrats since he was clearly the most electable of candidates on the right. Nevertheless, he added that there were still massive dividing lines between the two parties, notably on national security, healthcare and the role of government.

Time Magazine's London bureau chief, Catherine Mayer, told the audience she had been up all night covering the Super Tuesday votes. 'What's keeping me awake is the excitement around the election,' she said, locating the cause of such excitement in the strength of candidates on offer. Interest in the race had gone way beyond the Westminster bubble, she claimed, citing a visit to an east London comprehensive school at which a teenager had told her he was supporting Obama.

However, Mayer warned of the risk of a potentially destructive rancour developing between the Clinton and Obama camps, saying that they should redirect their ferocity away from each other and towards the real opposition - the Republicans.

Mayer agreed that McCain is the Republican candidate who would prove most palatable on a national level and therefore the most difficult to beat. While there is clear water between McCain and the Democrats, said Mayer, the water is not as clear as it might be, noting the 71-year-old's more liberal stance on issues such as climate change and torture. She added the depressing but realistic possibility that being a white male might also work to McCain's advantage electorally, appealing to a section of middle America that might not be ready to put a woman or an African American in the White House.

Dr Niall Palmer, a leading expert on American politics at Brunel University, agreed with the other speakers that this was the most interesting race in years, although dissented from the view that McCain's nomination was a foregone conclusion, pointing out the level of ill-feeling directed towards him in parts of the Republican camp.

Palmer offered an analysis of what the race said about the political psychologies of the respective parties. 'The Republicans may be embarking on a period of inner soul-searching and coming to terms with the fact it is not a united party,' he said. 'Splits could open up and become very serious.'

On the Democrat side, Palmer emphasised that, despite the Obama/Clinton rivalry, the party is displaying a unity of purpose he hadn't seen for some time, as well as greater freedom to speak in progressive terms. 'There is a willingness to say things that 15 or 20 years ago candidates wouldn't dare to for fear of being branded too liberal,' he noted.

Denis McShane expressed skepticism about Obama, saying he did not know what the Illinois senator stood for. He echoed Mayer's point about the impact that the prejudices of some segments of America could have on his electability. 'Hilary does well with the white working class. Is your average mid-westerner in a pick up truck ready to vote black?'

McShane was particularly unimpressed by the Democrat candidates' foreign policy positions, citing their 'vacuous policy statements' in this area. On a more optimistic note, the former foreign office minister emphasized that a new incumbent in the White House would present 'a fantastic opportunity' for Europe to forge a new partnership with the US.

A member of the audience asked how likely it is that the loser of Democratic race will become vice-presidential candidate. Valladeres reminded the audience that who becomes the vice-presidential candidate is strictly the choice of the presidential candidate but said she would be surprised if Obama or Clinton chose each other. Mayer said she was not convinced that Obama and Clinton running together would be a dream ticket, saying that there would be a strategic benefit in picking a running mate who would appeal to the aforementioned pickup driver demographic.

Asked to predict the outcome of both the nomination contests and the final election, the panel were divided. McShane and Palmer both predicted a McCain vs Clinton contest with the Democratic candidate winning while Mayer thought it would be the same race but with McCain emerging victorious. Valladeres predicted a democrat would win the White House, but wouldn't say which, while Katwala did not want to write off Obama just yet.

While the panel were optimistic that a Democrat could win back the White House, it would be fair to say the majority were lukewarm towards Obama. Palmer perhaps summed up this mood, comparing Obama to Jimmy Carter whose 1976 campaign focused on himself as the embodiment of hope but did not deliver once elected. 'There is a danger that people buy the Obama rhetoric and then find out what's there,' he said. 'With Hilary, we know what's there, she's more of a known quantity. I'd be unwilling to entrust the immediate post-Bush epoch to a hope.'

Comments

[a very public sociologist]

I can't see McCain in the Whitehouse. Too many Republicans dislike him as does the American right-wing punditocracy. They're more likely to get themselves in a lather over his nomination than Clinton or Obama.

I hope these words don't return to haunt me.