Today I was reading a wonderful piece of snark from Oliver Willis, who provides the following dire warning to the Democratic Party should they be foolish enough to award the nomination to Senator Obama.

More people are voting for Sen. Obama and that’s a huge problem in the fall. If we extrapolate this trend, it’s possible that he could, in the general election, have more votes than any other presidential candidate in history! The nomination process will be a mockery of the highest order if Howard Dean and the DNC sit back and allow the person with the most votes and most supporters to walk away with the nomination. This isn’t what we all signed up for.

While I enjoy a good bit of satire as much as the next person, following the link trail led me to an exchange between Atrios and Big Tent Democrat (BTD) at Jeralyn Merritt’s wonderful Talk Left blog. Duncan Black raised the following issue regarding Clinton supporters who are saying that Obama will lose in the fall and their candidate should be nominated regardless of the results of the primary elections.

What the Clinton campaign is doing is saying that Obama has electability problems, and using their support from white voters as evidence of that. That’s a wee bit problematic, and not just because it doesn’t follow logically any more than the other electability arguments such as Obama can’t win the election because he can’t win the primary in big states.

BTD responded with additional questions.

Why is it problematic? Why does it not follow logically? Atrios does not explain.

Allow me to field that one, if I may be so bold. First, there are some fundamental problems with these predictions about Clinton being able to beat McCain in the fall and Obama falling short.

Any polls conducted this far in advance when the Democrats don’t even have a nominee yet are pure fantasy at best. In July of 2004 it was common knowledge that John Kerry was going to beat George W. Bush like a rented mule. Also, one of the most quoted resources I see Clinton supporters pointing to in backing this claim is a recent article by, of all people, Karl Rove. Oh yes… if you’re looking for good advice and information on how the Democrats can do well in November, the first person you would look to is obviously Karl Rove.

Second, and more to the point, is the fundamental fallacy in comparing primary races to general election results. In the first case you are talking about offering Democrats and Dem leaning independents (in some states) a choice between two Democrats.

In order for this theory to operate effectively, this means we must assume that Democrats who don’t vote for one of the candidates will immediately turn around and vote Republican in the fall. Tagging along with Atrios’ comparison to the big state analogy, this is like saying that since Hillary won New York in the primary, if Obama is the nominee then the GOP will carry the Empire State in the fall. I would hope it is fairly safe to assume that Democratic leaning voters will react differently when presented with a choice between a Democrat and a Republican than they will when selecting one of two Democrats.

And what of these exit polls showing numerous Clinton supporters who say they will either stay home or vote for John McCain if Obama is nominated?

The most likely scenario, one would hope, is that this is largely a case of overheated, passionate supporters of each candidate responding vigorously in defense of their choice. Assuming Clinton and Obama make nice when Hillary finally calls it quits and strongly endorses the party’s choice, her supporters will hopefully step back from the ledge and realize that Obama’s proposed policies are virtually identical to hers and he is a strikingly different choice than John McCain. If that is the case, the Democrats may have little to worry about in terms of damage to the party from the primary process.

The other option, of course, is that a significant portion of Hillary’s supporters are serious about this stance and follow through on it.

Such a reaction - effectively a school yard recess ploy of taking one’s ball and going home - would indeed be serious and have a big impact. But perhaps this would be a natural phenomenon demonstrating Darwinism in politics. As I have previously written, the Republicans have one platform explaining their plans for the country’s future and the Democrats have another. The two could hardly be further apart. If a serious number of Hillary Clinton’s backers can look at her candidacy, decide that this is the future they want, and then turn around and vote for the Republican platform if Obama is nominated, the results are predictable.

The job of the parties is to get their message out there, marshal their forces, and get the largest number of voters to support them. If the Republicans can manage that while the Democrats splinter off into intra-tribal warfare, then the GOP will have gotten the job done and they deserve the victory. The Democrats will then get to effectively sit back and enjoy a third term of George W. Bush.

And who knows? Perhaps having spent so long in the wilderness since the 2000 elections they are simply more comfortable arguing from the cheap seats?

Cartoon by RJ Matson, The St. Louis Post Dispatch