I've said it before, but Chris Bowers is saying it now and saying it convincingly.
« Post-Patriotism | Main | The Shocking Truth »
Edwards Helps Obama
18 Jan 2008 03:01 pm
Comments (42)
It's not just about splitting the white vote, as Bowers notes.
It's also about splitting the older vote and the economically anxious vote. Those factors are likely more important than the factor Bowers notes.
"The outlook for Obama doesn't look too bright. As Edwards inevitably fades, what then?"
Feel free to count your inevitables before they hatch, but if Clinton gets Obama in a two race, she's obviously going to win. I think that's been clear to everyone paying attention for several months now.
That's one of the reason the smarter anti-Clinton Dems were supporting Edwards pre-Iowa.
In answer to comment 1. Then the democratic party is doomed to have Hillary Clinton as its candidate in the general election. I am a life-long democratic voter who will have no enthusiasm for another Clinton at the top of the ticket. I know people who pine for the first Clinton administration, but Obama was right in noting that it really was not a transformational presidency, except in the sense that Bill's grotesque personal pecadilloes in the end sandbagged Al Gore's chance to be the next president and bequeathed to us George W. Bush. Some legacy.
Bowers might be right, but I don't necessarily buy it. The polls were way wrong before Iowa and New Hampshire, and polls are all Bowers uses as evidence for his thesis.
Remember? Hillary was the inevitable nominee. Even Bowers hedges his bets.
Otherwise he just begs the question.
My guess would be that Edwards is getting anti-Clinton voters who would otherwise go to Obama, but I have no way to prove that.
I don't begrudge Edwards, it's the way the system is setup. Just as Gore won the popular vote in 2000 but lost the election fair and square because of the way the system is set up.
Oh, I see what you mean, splitting the white vote. When I saw the thread title, I was going to say, handing her a huge sympathy vote in NH with his stupid remarks did not help Obama.
As an Edwards supporter, I hope that if he can't get traction (and it's hard to see how that can happen if he isn't given coverage and even omitted from polling at this point), then I hope he sticks in long enough to give Obama a fighting shot. I agree with the writer who said that more politically savvy (I wouldn't say smarter in terms of intellectual power necessarily) anti-Clinton democrats were working for Edwards in Iowa. When he came in second to Obama I had the feeling I was having deja-vu all over again as my party set in motion the slow-motion train wreck of a Clinton candidacy.
"I've said it before, but Chris Bowers is saying it now and saying it convincingly."
I see no evidence presented as to whom Edwards' supporters put as their second choice... so why would that convince you? Because you think that white people are some monolithic block temporarily confused as to which white person to vote for? Pretty ridiculous and unsupported as far as I can tell.
Bowers' post is not convincing at all. It assumes that the white vote currently going to Edwards would, in the absence of Edwards, split between Obama and Clinton in the same ratio is they split the non-Edwards white vote. But there is no reason to think this! It seems to me just as likely that the White vote currently voting for Edwards would skew heavily in favor of Obama if (when) Edwards drops out.
I know Petey thinks differently - we had this conversation the night of the NH primary - but I just don't see the evidence out there, in the absence of a poll asking Edwards voters who their second choice is.
"By staying in the campaign, Edwards is helping Obama in states with large African-American populations."
I think the flip side to this is that Edwards hurts Obama in states with small African-American populations. Obama seems likely to win SC regardless of whether Edwards is on the ballot. Nevada is where Edwards is most likely to play a spoiler role.
But I do think that Edwards helps Obama in the national race as a whole by pulling the whole conversation to the Left, focusing the race on how the candidates approach actual issues, and making the debates hinge on which candidate makes the best impression in a group setting. A one-on-one between Clinton and Obama works to Clinton's advantage, because it sharpens the distinctions on race and gender and political experience.
...if Clinton gets Obama in a two race, she's obviously going to win. I think that's been clear to everyone paying attention for several months now.
Maybe I haven't been paying enough attention, but I don't think its been clear at all. Months ago, I had no idea what an effective debater and speaker that Hillary was. I'd expected that she would be a total dud as a candidate, based on what I'd seen previously.
If Carcetti can get the backing of Delegate Watkins, then maybe a strong showing by Tony Gray will be enough to weaken Mayor Royce just enough to squeak it out.
It is hard to know whether it is more the case that Edwards splits the white vote or he splits the anti-Clinton vote.
Another interesting question is whether Edward voters are more pro-Obama than Edward delegates. It is not clear that the profiles of the two will be the same. And assuming that Edwards really prefers Obama (which also is not obvious) it makes a difference for whether Edwards does better for Obama by trying to throw his votes to Obama before they are case, or trying to throw his delegates to Obama after the votes are cast.
"I know Petey thinks differently - we had this conversation the night of the NH primary - but I just don't see the evidence out there, in the absence of a poll asking Edwards voters who their second choice is."
There's an enormous amount of evidence out there so far. Check out the NH exit polls for some tasty stuff showing Edwards voters peeling off for Clinton.
And no matter what state and what poll you look at, you find Edwards drawing support from the same beer-track part of the Dem electorate that Clinton lives in. Obama can't get up to 50% because he gets slaughtered among older and downscale Dems. That's why a strong Edwards is Obama's audacity of hope.
Just because Bowers is an idiot doesn't mean there's no evidence.
To take one example of how this works, if you can tell me what percentage Edwards will get tomorrow in NV, I'll be able to tell you whether or not Obama wins.
"I think the flip side to this is that Edwards hurts Obama in states with small African-American populations."
Excepting, of course, that this isn't true, since among the exclusively white electorate, Edwards is drawing from the same older and downscale voters that Clinton is, while leaving the young and upscale voters all to Obama.
Smarter electoral watchers, please.
Just because Bowers is an idiot doesn't mean there's no evidence.
As if I needed a reminder why I find it hard to type "I agree with Petey . . ."
Thank you, LaFollette, for providing a counter-theory that makes it easier for me to resist agreeing with Petey on this issue.
I disagree with Bowers' analysis, which is based on current polls and demographics. Edwards' dropping out would change the dynamics of the race in ways that polling cannot anticipate, and I believe it would work to Obama's advantage.
Early in the race, when Clinton was the frontrunner, I think it was accurate to say she was running "as an incumbent," i.e. the basic question for voters was whether they were pro- or anti-Hillary. Starting in New Hampshire, however, the campaign became a 3-way contest and it no longer made sense to talk about an "anti-Hillary" candidate. But I'd argue that Democrats' approval or disapproval of Clinton is still the fundamental question of the primary race: do folks want to resume the course that the Clintons had put the country on, or find a new one? There's reason to believe that Clinton's support has topped out, and I think this would become clear if Edwards dropped out and the question of Clinton's "incumbency" resurfaced.
Finally, if Edwards dropped out there's a good chance he would endorse Obama, which would certainly have an effect that Bowers' analysis does not account for.
Well, I can't say whether or not this analysis is correct, but if it is, then I think it shows Obama would have an extremely tough time in a general election.
I know that Brooks et al. supposedly love him, but if he's really having a very hard time pulling Democratic Party *primary* voters, you'd really have wonder how he'd do with the considerably less "open-minded" segments of the general electorate.
And by then, he might even have gotten hit with the first TV attack ad in his entire political career...
"As if I needed a reminder why I find it hard to type "I agree with Petey . . ."
Bowers' heart is in the right place, but he's always been as dumb as a suitcase full of rocks.
RKU: "Well, I can't say whether or not this analysis is correct, but if it is, then I think it shows Obama would have an extremely tough time in a general election."
Yeah, carrying independents and men overwhelmingly is likely to hurt the Democratic Party in the general election.
RKU: "I know that Brooks et al. supposedly love him, but if he's really having a very hard time pulling Democratic Party *primary* voters, you'd really have wonder how he'd do with the considerably less "open-minded" segments of the general electorate."
That's assuming that the majority of the electorate, especially independents, is less open-minded than Democratic partisans. Well, anyone who's been on the internet lately knows that's simply not the case. Obama carries independents by a much larger percentage than he wins Democratic partisans -- a very good sign for the general election since Democratic partisans aren't going anywhere.
Edwards presence in the race does almost nothing either way for Obama. Chris' political acumen may or may not be right, but his logic is flawwed.
Republican primaries have a lot of delegates that go to the winner of a state, but Dems have proportional division of delegates, and superdelegates which are not affected by voting.
On the Republican side, the presence of a "spoiler" can allow a candidate to win many states that he could never win head to head. This lets him rack up large numbers of "winner-take-all" and "winner-take-most" delegates. That can't happen on the Democratic side.
Edwards presence helps the candidate most likely to win a brokered convention. That is Clinton. If Edwards takes 100 delegates from Clinton, and 50 from Obama, and that 50 prevents an Obama first ballot victory, then Edwards has helped Clinton.
Petey: "Feel free to count your inevitables before they hatch, but if Clinton gets Obama in a two race, she's obviously going to win. I think that's been clear to everyone paying attention for several months now."
I don't think anything's clear at this point.
Petey: "That's one of the reason the smarter anti-Clinton Dems were supporting Edwards pre-Iowa."
That an interesting conclusion since Obama's supporters are wealthier and better-educated than Edward's. Also, how can positively gauge Edward's potential against Clinton given the fact he's more or less tied and lost badly to her in the only two primaries that have occurred?
"To take one example of how this works, if you can tell me what percentage Edwards will get tomorrow in NV, I'll be able to tell you whether or not Obama wins."
Same math works for California. If Edwards is not a factor, Clinton's chances of winning CA approach 100%. But if Edwards gets 20%, Obama becomes very competitive in CA.
"That an interesting conclusion since Obama's supporters are wealthier and better-educated"
Upscale Dems have lost every nomination contest over the past 30 years since the rules were changed to prevent plurality nominees.
(The upscale supported McGovern won the nomination with substantially less than 50% of the vote.)
Tell me who wins older and downscale Dems, and I'll tell you who the nominee is going to be. Obama's only serious shot at the nomination, as has been clear for months now, is if Clinton and Edwards split the older and downscale vote, allowing him to squeeze through with his younger and upscale bloc.
Petey sez again:
as has been clear for months now
The polls were wrong in Iowa and New Hampshire. Why would you trust them anymore?
Excepting, of course, that this isn't true, since among the exclusively white electorate, Edwards is drawing from the same older and downscale voters that Clinton is, while leaving the young and upscale voters all to Obama.
Excepting, of course, that there's very little evidence to support your tidy little wine track/beer track theories.
Iowa
2007 total family income:
Category. . . . % Total Clinton Edwards Obama
Under $15,000 . . 10 . . . 30 . . 17 . . 37
$15,000-$29,999 . 13 . . . 32 . . 21 . . 32
$30,000-$49,999 . 18 . . . 32 . . 20 . . 33
$50,000-$74,999 . 23 . . . 26 . . 24 . . 35
$75,000-$99,999 . 17 . . . 24 . . 22 . . 31
More than $100K . 19 . . . 19 . . 28 . . 41
New Hampshire
2007 total family income:
Category. . . % Total Clinton Edwards Obama
Under $15,000 . . 5 . . .49 . . 13 . . 37
$15,000-$29,999 . 9 . . .50 . . 15 . . 29
$30,000-$49,999 . 18 . . 44 . . 17 . . 32
$50,000-$74,999 . 24 . . 32 . . 18 . . 37
$75,000-$99,999 . 16 . . 36 . . 18 . . 42
$100,000-$149,999 17 . . 33 . . 17 . . 43
$150,000-$199,999 6 . . .48 . . 15 . . 33
$200,000 or more .5 . . .36 . . 13 . . 44
Obama is definitely drawing many of his votes from young voters and from wealthy, well-educated voters. But Edwards is not getting most of his support from downscale voters. To the limited extent that there's any pattern at all, he's getting the largest share of his votes from middle and upper middle class voters.
Petey sez again:
as has been clear for months now
The polls were wrong in Iowa and New Hampshire. Why would you trust them anymore?
What is clear is that Obama has been inspiring many more people to register than have in the past. This has been reported in state after state.
Petey: "Upscale Dems have lost every nomination contest over the past 30 years since the rules were changed to prevent plurality nominees.
(The upscale supported McGovern won the nomination with substantially less than 50% of the vote.)
Tell me who wins older and downscale Dems, and I'll tell you who the nominee is going to be. Obama's only serious shot at the nomination, as has been clear for months now, is if Clinton and Edwards split the older and downscale vote, allowing him to squeeze through with his younger and upscale bloc."
Well, I wasn't arguing that point, Petey. I was simply responding to your assertion that Edwards is supported by smarter Democrats. That's clearly not the case. And as an Obama supporter, I'd like to register my desire to see Clinton and Edwards' supporters get some additional learnin' before they go into the ol' voting booth.
LaFollette Progressive,
Agree with you that the IA and NH results have Edwards with relatively flat support across income categories.
But if you drill down into the economic anxiety and economic outlook questions, Edwards does better the more downscale you get.
What makes a downscale Dem a downscale Dem is not income level, but economic attitude going forward. A 25 yo college grad may be making peanuts, but is still likely an upscale Dem.
-----
At the end of the day, you don't even have to believe that Edwards draws more from Clinton than Obama, (though I think the preponderance of evidence points pretty strongly in that direction). If you simply accept that Obama can't get up to 50% in a two-way race with Clinton on 2/5, then even if Edwards pulls evenly from both, he does a service to Obama by running strongly.
If you believe Obama can get up to 50% in a two-way race on 2/5, then obviously Edwards does him no service. But if you believe that, you really ought to share some of what you're smoking with Petey.
"I was simply responding to your assertion that Edwards is supported by smarter Democrats. That's clearly not the case."
Au contraire. Edwards won pretty much every straw poll among politically active Dems during 2007. Part of that was due to ideology, but a large part of it was due to the fact that the more clued-in of a Dem you were, the more you understood the weakness of the Obama coalition in trying to secure the nomination.
I'm just really not following your math, Petey. Like you say, Edwards pulled relatively flat support across age and income groups. To the limited extent there was any trend at all, he pulled more votes in the upper-middle income range and among Baby Boomers. His peak is BETWEEN Clinton and Obama for both variables. This says to me that he's pulling votes from both sides.
The divisions are much sharper by race and sex than by income. Obama is winning with black voters in SC. After what I suspect will be an anomalous result in Iowa, Clinton dominated the female vote in NH. Edwards, predictably, does best with white men. Again, I think he's pulling votes from both sides.
If you believe Obama can get up to 50% in a two-way race on 2/5, then obviously Edwards does him no service. But if you believe that, you really ought to share some of what you're smoking with Petey.
Yes, a three-way race makes it harder for either Clinton or Obama to win 50% of the delegates. This helps Obama because he's currently behind Clinton in the national polls and needs time to catch up, not because Edwards is actively taking votes away from Clinton. But the only way he's likely to catch up is to sweep NV and SC and ride the wave. Obama doesn't need Edwards' help in SC. In NV, where Obama needs to win the union vote, I think Edwards hurts him.
Which is not to say Edwards should drop out. I just disagree with Bowers' analysis.
"I'm just really not following your math, Petey."
To repeat myself, economic attitude questions are a better proxy for the downscale/upscale divide than income questions.
-----
"Yes, a three-way race makes it harder for either Clinton or Obama to win 50% of the delegates. This helps Obama because he's currently behind Clinton in the national polls and needs time to catch up"
Yup. (Though I'd argue Obama is always going to have trouble scaling up to 50%, not just in the short-term.)
"not because Edwards is actively taking votes away from Clinton."
While Edwards helps Obama even if he was drawing votes evenly from both Clinton and Obama, again, if you look at all the evidence, I think there is a relatively clear case that he draws more from Clinton than from Obama.
And Bowers' case, while incomplete, is utterly true in the heavily AA states of the Confederacy.
If you want to see one data point of how things functioned in NH, to take a non-racial, non-Southern example, check out my second comment in this thread.
If Obama can not defeat Clinton in a head to head contest he needs to do the right thing and drop out now. Obama staying in the race at this point only ensures we end up with Clinton as the nominee.
What happens if no candidate gets the required 2,025 delegates? Are the candidates free to make a deal and place give their delegates to another candidate, or is the nomination not really decided by the candidates?
I'm assuming a situation (although somewhat unlikely) where the support of the superdelegates is either not enough to put any candidate over the top,.
But if you believe that, you really ought to share some of what you're smoking with Petey.
Oh shit, Petey's gone third person on us. MEDIC!!
Is Delegate Watkins Al Gore? In that case I think that Watkins WOULD endorse if Tony Gray dropped out. But not before.
Matt,
FYI..
http://www.postcrescent.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080117/APC06/801170560/1036
HRC will try to get Edwards off now. HRC did not use what Russ had in mind, as HRC has many weaknessess herself, but with time running out, expect HRC to use Russ talking points memo...
Well, with all your data here in comments, you've all done a pretty good job of convincing me that Hillary/Obama will be make for a great ticket (Obama/Hillary slightly more problematic but still good) and I can stop worrying about all of the campaign sturm and drang, knowing that that is what will probably happen.
The constituencies merge into a nice majority (including lots of the personal-identity-politics affected type folks that might not normally get out and vote.) Obama mitigates the negative "dynasty" factor and many of the Democratic Hillary haters as well. Hillary brings the "it's the economy stupid" memories. The working class, blue dogs, liberal elite and minorities that have been at each others's throats since 1968 will once again vote together with enthusiasm. (Obama, interestingly doing the "there was a good side to Reagan" thing and the wine track at the same time.) The 1/3 hard core (and the few racists left in the country who don't make a distinction between one kind of black and another) will vote for the GOP candidate whose campaign will scream "watch out they're liberals!" the whole time, which by around Oct. of next year will work about as well as it did for George Bush I saying "America, watch your wallet when they talk taxes." I could go on and on...suffice it to say, they make for a big majority energized to get out and vote. Each alone with another running mate turns off too many people.
Oh and a more realistic prediction: in a decade, only Petey will remember all the hatred between Hillary and Obama supporters. By that time, a lot more liberals will be unified in hating BOTH Obama and Hillary equally. :-)
Artappraiser:
I would hope that Obama has nothing to do with Clintons on the full ticket.
If Obama is the nominee, I would prefer his VP is Sen. Dodd from CT or Gov. Janet from AZ.
If HRC is the nominee, I want Obama to say NO, if asked.
If HRC is the nominee, I want her and her husband to lose very, very, very, very, very.... n times, very badly to McCain.
eorse,
I must make a clarification that might be implied by your comment about my own: I wasn't saying what I want. Matter of fact, I've never, not once, gotten anything close to what I want in national politics. I just figure that comes with the territory of sharing a country with 300 million other people.
As far as what you want, nobody's stopping you, you can keep dreaming.
Did any one see HRC interview about Lewinsky (youtube)?
A few comments:
- The HRC people planned this to get the issue out in the open. They had assumed that the press would focus on it.
- HRC answer: You have to be true to yourself. You have to hear yourself when things are hard.
Debate Moderator: Ask this question.
Mrs. Clinton, you have mentioned that in times of crisis, it is best for you to be true to yourself. When you voted for the war, were you true to yourself?
"... if Clinton gets Obama in a two race, she's obviously going to win. I think that's been clear to everyone paying attention for several months now."
Is it as obvious as Dallas' victory over Golden State was last year?
That word, "obvious" ... I do not think it means what you think it means.
Comments closed February 01, 2008.
| 
Heads in the Sand
The outlook for Obama doesn't look too bright. As Edwards inevitably fades, what then?
Posted by Jim W | January 18, 2008 3:10 PM