Playing "what if?" with the fallout from the DNC nomination process (Updated)

"Captain Ed" Morrissey, once of the Captain's Quarters blog and now at Hot Air with Michelle Malkin (among others) has a tendency to pre-empt my political musings by beating me to the punch. It happened again today as he evaluated competing analysis by Andrew Sullivan and Pete Abel:

Andrew has the better argument here, I believe, but the Clintons are not completely to blame. We have seen massive reform movements take to the streets when elections have been rigged or perverted, such as in Ukraine with the Orange Revolution. When voters start building expectations higher than anyone can deliver, their disillusionment can take very passionate form. I think Andrew estimates the potential destructive impact reasonably and realistically.

However, Abel points out where the real disillusionment will be placed. The Clintons have never really pretended to be anything other than ruthless, relentless pols who will do anything to win. In fact, that’s really been the Hillary message for the last couple of weeks. She’s tough enough to answer that red phone, and she’s tough enough to go toe-to-toe negative with Mr. Nice Guy. She’s going to win or collapse in the direction of the finish line, whichever comes last.
(Hot Air)

Fortunately, this time Morrissey did not completely give away my opinion before I got around to it, though he comes close by allowing that both Sullivan and Abel have a point.

Presidential candidates over the past 100 years have always had a tendency to promise more than they can deliver. That is one of the reasons why presidential popularity tends to end up lower than it starts while a president is in office. Over time, you grate on the opposition and find ways to tick off even constituents from your own party. President Bush fits the model suitably well.

Sullivan's suggestion regarding the undermining of trust in the electoral process is well taken, but that trust has been low for some time. Could it result in a rash of civil unrest? Sure--particularly if living conditions decline to lend motivation. A reasonable status quo, however, ought to defuse the fallout that Sullivan appears to expect (I'm not going to go too far with that since I'm reading Sullivan through Morrissey's analysis). The most likely and most significant fallout from throwing Obama under the bus in favor of Clinton (all this assuming that Clinton gets the nod despite trailing in delegates and the popular vote) is the fracturing of the black voting bloc that formed following LBJ's support of civil rights legislation.

Blacks, who once voted primarily Republican, began voting pretty much as a bloc for Democrats despite the fact that civil rights legislation required a coalition of Republicans and northern Democrats.

The majority of black voters might get behind a third party, or perhaps the GOP will finally recapture the support of blacks.

The fear of losing the near-monolithic black vote will help Obama perhaps like nothing else when the race comes down to the superdelegates.

Other than a shift in how the black vote will divvy up in the future, I think it is as likely that politics will simply continue more-or-less as usual. People who are interested in politics are more likely to vote. Those who do not have well-formed opinions are more likely to take themselves out of the process. Though I hate to say it, that is probably a good thing until voters actually take the time to familiarize themselves with the issues.

And I can see the DNC controversy potentially moving the population toward a more realistic view of politics. Bottom line, the president doesn't have much power in the current system (regardless of Woodrow Wilson, FDR, and George W. Bush). Congress has always had the upper hand. The system can be changed, but a president can't do it alone and the change we would end up with if Obama wins the presidency will simply be politics as usual with Democrats under control.

The real push for change will probably have to come from divided government, otherwise there is little incentive to follow through on campaign promises.

One more reason to think that McCain can play the "change" card better than the choices from the other side of the aisle.

Update:
It figures that Cap'n Ed was poised to steal the rest of my thunder (such as it is) with a subsequent post regarding Al Sharpton's threat (shared with Bill O'Reilly last night, apparently) to protest a Clinton nomination:

Sharpton’s threat gives Obama potent leverage to keep from accepting a convention demotion. If his supporters start talking about third-party movements, the Democrats are finished up and down the ticket — and they know it.

(Hot Air)

*****