redblueamerica.com

"Messiahs," James Ceaser writes in the new issue of the Claremont Review of Books, "have very little margin for error." And so Barack Obama, halo tarnished and askew, is looking pretty haggard right now, even though he maintains a mathematical lead in the fight for the Democratic nomination. Who told him this election would be easy? Hillary Clinton, accustomed to obliterating her opponents, likely will not prevail. But she will fight brutally for what she thinks is hers all the way to the end.

The Atlantic's Marc Ambinder writes how "a lot happened" in Pennsylvania, but "little has changed. "Clinton has the burden of explaining why a potentially quixotic quest is worth the damage that might be accruing to the Democratic Party," Ambinder writes. "Two weeks from tonight, the overall delegate number will probably not have changed much, and Obama, if he wins Indiana and North Carolina, will have made up the net popular vote gain that Clinton takes away (from Pennsylvania). Obama will focus heavily on John McCain over the next two weeks; Clinton will do largely what she's been doing." Keep up the good work, I say.

Meantime, Jonah Goldberg muses about what the Clinton campaign might be discussing today:

Mark Penn: We hit 10% in Philadelphia!

Intern: So we've won?

Penn: No. But the best possible thing is happening. The campaign will go on.

Intern: For how long?

Penn: Indefinitely!

Intern: But, when do we go home?

Penn: We don't -- at least not until September! That's a whole fiscal quarter from now! And let's not rule out a third party bid! Besides, this is our home. Here at the Four Seasons. Or the Ritz Carlton. Or wherever the battle takes us! ...

Back to Ceaser's essay. The University of Virginia political scientist has been following presidential politics for decades. He's the co-author of several astute books on recent elections, including The Perfect Tie and Red Over Blue. But even he seems slightly befuddled by the way in which this election is playing out. Still, Ceaser's probing analysis is worth reading. He breaks down the similarities and differences with past elections, casting doubt on the idea that 2008 will be a radical break with the past.

"Electoral analysts from across the political spectrum have begun to argue that this (liberal vs. conservative/red vs. blue) structure is ready to crumble -- a prognosis that seems about half right. There is now strong evidence that significant segments of the electorate are no longer much concerned with the old liberal-conservative divide. In Michael Barone's words, 'we have entered a period of open-field politics" in which voters are moving around and 'there are no familiar landmarks,'"  writes Ceaser. "Nonetheless, it is not true that the ideological edifice inherited from the Reagan era is in immediate danger of collapse. It remains intact -- no alternative ideological way of thinking having yet been offered as a viable replacement."

I think that's right. There has been no coherent or broadly appealing independent alternative to the existing two party system. (Who's gonna change it? Mike Bloomberg? Chuck Hagel? Please.)

Ceaser goes on to suggest that the uncertainty of this year's election could redound to the Republicans' benefit (but perhaps not to conservatives'): "Unfortunately for Democrats... the election of the president is not a contest between generic party labels. As Alexander Hamilton observed in The Federalist, it is 'the choice of the person to whom so important a trust [is] to be confided.' This fact gives John McCain a fighting chance. And fighting is what McCain knows best."