The Democratic race, May 6

Each party has "fault lines."  For the Republicans, it's Main Street vs. Wall Street, or neo-cons versus theo-cons vs. paleo-cons, or social conservatives vs. money conservatives.  As GOP operative, Roger Stone, once put it, "Half the Republican Party wants to lower sin, the other half wants to lower taxes."

The Democrats have their "fault lines" too.  As has been oft-suggested in this race, it's Starbucks vs. Dunkin' Donuts, or the "wine track" vs. the "beer track," or "creative class" vs. "working class." 

Side-note:  Can we put the "creative class" thing to bed?  In the first place, it's a label that was proposed by the so-called "creative class" itself, and, generally speaking, one should not automatically buy into self-congratulatory labels that others put on themselves.  In the second place, the so-called "creative class" is no more "creative" than the working class.  In fact, you want "creative"?  You can't get more creative than a single mom trying to juggle three jobs, or a construction worker trying to get by without health insurance.

Starbucks vs. Dunkin' Donuts isn't that far off.  The Starbucks in my suburban middle-class neighborhood is mostly frequented by internet-savvy young people and the type of person who spends four bucks for a cup of coffee--(except for me;  I get a "cup of joe").  It's an Obama crowd.  A little further up the street, at Dunkin' Donuts, where you can get coffee and a donut for a buck, it's Hillary all the way.

The Starbucks voters in the Democratic Party have historically supported the left-liberal insurgency candidacies of Bill Bradley over Al Gore, and Gary Hart over Walter Mondale.  It is generally suburban, as opposed to urban or rural, and is good for about 30% or so in Democratic primaries--enough to make a splash, but not enough to win.  The Dunkin' Donuts voter is more traditionally Democratic, and, generally, more urban and rural than suburban. 

This year, a key traditional constituency--African-Americans--has moved from Dunkin' Donuts to Starbucks.  African-Americans, the most stalwart of all Democrats, typically support the "working class" candidate.  This year, for obvious and understandable reasons, they are supporting Sen. Obama.

In effect, African-Americans have added their electoral weight to the 30% left-liberal insurgency--electorally speaking, a potent combination.  To further mix it up, many liberal suburban women, who would normally be a Starbucks constituency, have shifted to Hillary.  The net effect is to create as close to a 50-50 split as you can get in a large, moderately diverse political party.

This is yet another argument for a fusion ticket.  Right now, a significant chunk of each candidate's supporters are saying that they would not vote for their candidate's opponent in the general election.  If Hillary wins, she has some major bridge-building to do with African-Americans and liberals.  If Obama wins, he has some major bridge-building to do with "working class" Democrats, Latinos, and women.

That problem would be largely solved by a fusion ticket.  I continue to think that Hillary should be at the top of that ticket because she could best win now.  Even though generally declining in number, the working class still holds the key to the industrial midwest.  How can you win a general election without Pennsylvania, Michigan, Florida, and Ohio? 

Plus, a Clinton-Obama ticket would, in the long run, work to Obama's advantage.  He would be 55 years old in eight years, and he would have shored up his "experience gap."  Clinton's presidency would, I suspect, be a contentious one, but also a successful one.  In 2016, American would be ready for, and Obama could truly run as, a post-partisan candidate.  With the presidency for 16 years, and increasing majorities in both houses of Congress, we would have a long-term Democratic governing majority.

It works the other way, too, just not as well.  An Obama-Clinton ticket still would probably not win Florida, but we would at least have a shot at Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Ohio, with the possibility of adding Colorado and Virginia.

Rahm Emanuel (D-IL) summed it up about as well as it can be done:  "The way the loser loses will determine if the winner wins in November."  If the "loser" is on the ticket, we leave Denver at least on the way to unity and victory.  If, on the other hand, half of the Democratic Party is dispirited and despondent, the candidate will have to spend the month of September trying to mend fences instead of taking on John McCain.