History Reasserts Itself

Victor Davis Hanson pretty much agrees with my read of Clinton’s PA win last night:

Hillary won just enough to show that it is ludicrous to oust a 10-point winner at this late junction, but not quite the blow-out that might cause a stampede to her in the next few states.

He goes on from there to suggest the worst of all possible scenarios for the Democrat party:

The Democrats are tottering at the edge of the abyss. They are about to nominate someone who cannot win, despite vastly out-spending his opponent, any of the key large states — CA, NJ, NY, OH, PENN, TX, etc. — that will determine the fall election. And yet not to nominate him will cause the sort of implosion they saw in 1968 or the sort of mess we saw in November 2000.
:

This situation has been noted before, and I note even Sullivan is saying the same thing this morning. (Interesting that it took this thing getting this far along to get Sullivan to comment openly about it, but I digress)

Patrick Henry:

” I have but one lamp by which my feet are guided, and that is the lamp of experience. I know of no way of judging of the future but by the past.”

This cycle has much in the way of history surrounding it, and from that history I think, we have our only reasonable conclusions to be drawn from the data we have in hand.

In looking at the lay of the land and the timing of events leading to Clinton’s win last night though, I note that this is the first vote taken, post ‘bittergate’. I also note the breakouts from last night (Which came in amazingly quickly, as compared to that of other states.. I wonder why?) which suggest that Clinton won most remarkably with those who Obama slighted in his comments.  One cannot help but think the chances are rather high that she will score well among such people in the remaining states, and THAT, in turn will result in victories she would not have had, otherwise. Kentucky, for example, and Oregon.

All of that ends up with a very close primary race, indeed, which, I think, when decided by the party muckties, will cause a ’68 style implosion, as Hanson suggests.

All this is 68 all over again, gang, in more than this. Nixon won in a landslide, not only because the Democrats were in such disarray, but before he was a very liberal Republican…. as is McCain. And should we recall, also, that Chicago was the site of the Dems convention that year, along with the camping site of every left wing crazy who could scrape up a ride to the place… and that both Hillary and Obama are very deep with their Chicago roots?

Those who don’t learn from history, are Democrats.