If Sen. Barack Obama wins the presidential election, will that victory undermine his political future?
What a stupid question, you might be thinking. I can’t believe I even clicked on the headline.
This kind of bizarro logic, however, is percolating in the political media. The cable shows have been talking about how a Democratic sweep could ultimately hurt the Democratic Party. “Democrats See Risk and Reward if Party Sweeps” blareda recent New York Times headline. OpenLeft Blogger Chris Bowers slices through this madness in a post Wednesday: “„Look, the raison d’etre of electorally focused political party is to win as many elections as possible. To argue that winning more seats is somehow a negative for any political party is exactly as stupid as arguing that it is bad for a sports team to win a championship. To even attempt an argument that winning an election is bad for a party is to enter the final level of concern troll mastery…
Speculative punditry is riddled with concern troll ticks, of course. Some editors and producers also like the “man-bites-dog” quality of these stories. On a personal note, I’ll never forget when I was invited on CNBC to debate whether Obama would be weakened by winning another primary. I am not exaggerating — the segment was titled “Mississippi: Will Win Weaken Obama?“ I pointed out that winning primaries was the point of these campaigns. Yet, as everyone prematurely obsesses over a massive Democratic sweep — which has not happened yet and may not happen — we’ll hear even more contrarian craziness. But, for the record, here’s one safe prediction: The winner of this election will not be hurt by his victory.