Dan Carney

USA TODAY Opinion

The likely Democratic presidential nominee has lost a ton of recent primaries and presides over a deeply divided party.

That’s a pretty good description of Hillary Clinton right now. But it’s an even better one of Barack Obama in 2008.

At this point eight years ago, Obama already was dubbed the nominee by many political insiders. But he had just lost the West Virginia and Kentucky primaries by margins of 41 and 36 points, respectively. He was being faulted for limping his way to the nomination, for his inability to connect with ordinary folks and for his injudicious comments about working-class voters who "cling" to guns or religion.

To make matters worse, Obama faced questions about whether he could unify his party. Half of Clinton backers in an Indiana exit poll said they wouldn’t support him in the general election. A third said they would vote for the presumptive Republican nominee, John McCain, and 17% said they would not vote at all. Even in the days after Clinton ended her campaign in June, things looked ominous. A national poll conducted by CNN found that only 60% of Clinton supporters would back Obama.

Then things changed, as they often do. Once Clinton’s backers fully absorbed the reality of the situation, they began to weigh their options and get behind Obama. In November, he'd be supported by 89% of self-identified Democrats, more than enough to win by a comfortable margin.

Angry birds could put Trump in White House: Column

This history is worth noting in light of Clinton’s 2016 predicament. She has lost a string of primaries and caucuses and faces considerable hostility from Bernie Sanders' supporters, whose anger was evident in a chaotic uprising in Las Vegas this month.

Yet the odds are still very good that Democrats will go into the general election with a unified party.

Sure, Sanders could make trouble. He could encourage protesters and platform fights at the Democratic convention this summer in Philadelphia. But if he cares about progressive values, does he want to undermine the Democratic nominee?

As things stand, Clinton is in a stronger position with Sanders' voters than Obama was with her voters eight years ago. One-quarter said in a recent poll that they wouldn’t support her. To be sure, that's a number to be concerned with. But it's less than similar polls eight years ago. And it comes from a poll taken before Donald Trump, who is anathema to the great majority of Democrats, solidified his position as the presumptive Republican nominee.

Cory Booker smartest choice for Clinton VP: Column

POLICING THE USA: A look at race, justice, media

The natural tendency of Sanders' voters will be to get behind Clinton. Some working-class voters will flee, as they fled Obama in 2008. But the great bulk will be loath to have Trump in the White House. In fact, because of Trump, the centripetal forces holding the Democratic Party together are likely to be stronger than they have been in recent elections.

This isn’t to say the election will be a cakewalk for Clinton. Trump is a wily and unconventional candidate whose appeal to independents and ability to attract previously unmotivated voters are not fully appreciated.

But the concept of Clinton limping into the Democratic convention is overblown. If Republicans can coalesce around Trump, who is far more unpopular in their ranks than Clinton is with Democrats, then surely the Democrats can unify behind her. And if they want a model for how this is done, they should start with the race eight years ago.

Dan Carney is a USA TODAY editorial writer. Follow him on Twitter @dancarney301.

In addition to its own editorials, USA TODAY publishes diverse opinions from outside writers, including our Board of Contributors. To read more columns, go to the Opinion front page and follow us on Twitter @USATOpinion.