I'm not sure I understand the state of the expectations game at this point. Obama's going to win, but even if he does win it doesn't count because there are too many black people in SC? Is that right? But John Edwards is surging and there's some chance of Clinton falling into third? But as we learned in Iowa, doing well in primaries doesn't count if it's John Edwards doing the doing? Something like that? Oh well. It'll be on to February 5 either way.
« The Right Attitude | Main | Union Share Rising »
South Carolina
26 Jan 2008 12:28 pm
Comments (35)
Never say never. Everybody thought NH was going to be a big win for Obama, too.
On the other hand, the polls might be unable to catch mammoth African-American turnout and he might win in a total landslide.
The fact that some in the media (at the urging of the Clintons) are trying to discount this South Carolina is really an insult to black Democrats. The whole reason this primary is early in the process is to give black Democrats, the most reliable constituency in the party, a voice in the nominating process. If the media attempts to marginalize then, it will only deepen the rift developing in the party.
As far as Edwards, you have to eventually win a primary to start mattering. Coming in 2nd a few times won't do you any good. The same point was made about Romney prior to his Michigan and Nevada wins, so it's not unique to Edwards.
I expect the Clinton team to spin the loss as being a result of there being a disproportionate amount of Blacks in South Carolina. Whatever. Obama should counter this by stating his usual mantra of "we are one people." A win is a win, and a big win is a big win.
Regarding Edwards, it's a huge boost. I guess it all depends on how the MSM plays it. If they're in a "let's embarrass Hillary" mood, it gets play. If they're stuck in the horse race mode, as is likely, it's a footnote.
3rd place for Clinton will be spun by Obama and the Edwards remnant as "a rejection of the politics of personal destruction" (hat tip of sorts to Mark Shields on NewsHour last night).
Also what Mike said. The press corps has this nasty habit of saying things like "without African-Americans, Democrats would have lost Illinois, New Jersey, Maryland, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, etc.". But never saying equivalent things about Republicans and evangelical Christians. Josh Marshall has some documentation of it ... it's totally unprofessional.
Edwards can't win because he might raise taxes on journalis... er, because he'd "ruin" the economy. Obama can't win because he wasn't wrong at the same time as journalists (and FP experts) were... er, because he's not committed to fighting terrorism. And he's inexperienced! Yeah! That's the ticket! You don't want another Bush, the guy who got elected over the unified opposition of absolutely everyone on the East Coast on the basis of four cranky Christians in Oklahoma! And Hillary can't win because she's one of them and they hate he... er, because she's from Arkansas, or maybe... well, shit, the old guys aren't getting any for months if Hill doesn't win, so there it is. That's where Bloomberg comes in to save the day after the nomination!
max
['Because he is a man of wealth and power, and he was in St. Petersberg during the Revolution, you know. Experienced, yes, sir.']
If the media attempts to marginalize then, it will only deepen the rift developing in the party.
I'm not sure African-Americans have anywhere else to go. I wonder more about young white women in elections somewhere down the line. IIRC, Rove wanted to reach out to African-Americans because some set of white women use it as a proxy for something that effects the likelihood that they'll vote for Democrats.
Maybe a victory in South Carolina should be considered irrelevant since there's about a 2% chance South Carolina would go blue in November anyway. Who cares which democrat a red state likes if they aren't going to be able to muster enough support to actually get the candidate electors.
I'm not sure African-Americans have anywhere else to go.
Staying home is always an option.
CNN.com on their front page this morning (now just their political page http://www.cnn.com/POLITICS/) states that Obama's legitimacy is at stake in SC. His "legitimacy"? Really?
Makes you wonder if Bill Clinton is writing their headlines.
Jesus they're idiots, but part of me feels that no matter what happens, Obama's been set up for this not to be a win.
Is it because South Carolina has a larger population than NV and NH combined?
Oh wait...that would make it more important, not less. Stupid me.
Rove wanted to reach out to African-Americans because some set of white women use it as a proxy for something that effects the likelihood that they'll vote for Democrats.
The ones with Jungle Fever?
The race talk in this election has gotten totally absurd. The "Expectations game" stuff plays in the media and nowhere else. If one of the candidates had dominated Iowa, NH and NV, then SC would be some candidate's last stand. As it is, we'll be two for Obama and two for Hillary. Then it's on to the feb 5th states and probably beyond. The only thing that matters at this point is delegates.
Feb 5th voters are not going to care who beats expectations today. White voters in the north are certainly not going to take their que from southern whites, who they view as rednecks.
"Obama's going to win, but even if he does win it doesn't count because there are too many black people in SC?"
Likewise, any state that Hillary wins doesn't count because all Democratic primaries are majority women...I suppose Obama's Iowa win is the only "real" win so far...
I suspect Edwards is going to do slightly worse than expected, a bit bellow 20%.
I am more sure that Obama is going to win convincingly. I don't know how the media is going to spin it, but I am afraid it's going to be portrayed as some sort of victory of racial politics; a notion which I find disgreaceful.
Here's a great post from 'jackandjillpolitics.com' that addresses the apparent 3/5 theory of Black votes. Black folks would too like to know why the White punditry is declaring our votes worth less than Whites votes? Didn't see this argument suggested when Hillary Clinton, a White woman, won NH, a 98% White state.
http://jackandjillpolitics.blogspot.com/2008/01/medias-three-fifths-compromise.html
Jake,
Thanks for highlighting the CNN "legitimacy" headline. I'm glad I'm not the only one who found it incredibly offensive. I can believe that they would openly assert that he isn't "legitimate" if he doesn't win a "respectable" percentage of the White vote. If he does, will the headline be, "Barack Obama gets the White stamp of approval." What the hell is this a political slave auction?
But John Edwards is surging
Sort of like he was surging in labor-friendly Nevada, right?
"I'm not sure African-Americans have anywhere else to go."
Really, Tim? How about if we stay HOME in November. See if you can win without us.
One last thing, Mike
I'm an African American woman who would sooner cut off my right arm than pull a lever for Hillary Clinton at this point. Do me a huge favor and keep telling Black folks we don't have any options. We'll show you our options come November. Post Civil Rights era, Black folks made the mistake of not being more competitive with out votes, but you may very well be witnessing a sea change. Black folks may very well decide that it's better to be politically single and happy than in an unfulfilling marriage of convenience with the Demcoratic Party and start looking for a new spouse. Bloomberg seems like an eligible bachelor. Or we may be like the revengeful spouse and vote for McCain just to say FUCK YOU to the Democratic Party. Keep pushing us, Mike...the Democratic Party may have to learn the hard way that Black folks have always made opportunities for ourselves when none were afforded.
I'm sorry, Mike!!! My previous post should have been addressed to Tim.
Can someone explain to me why the media outlets are reporting low turnout in SC?
What the heck is going on? Is everyone going to show up in the late evening?
This is NOT good news for Obama.
yeah. well you know blacks only count as 3/5 of a person. so if obama wins south carolina, it will only be 3/5 of a win and not a full win.
See. What black people think doesn't matter.
And how come hillarys "win" in New hampshire counted? She got mostly white votes...
There are too many liberal bloggers that buy into such an obviously racist idea as the one Matt is identifying. Strange that people like Big Tent Democrat didn't have any problem with Clinton's wins, even though they come entirely on the back of the white female vote.
Thats why this is obviously racism, and some of these people need to come to terms with this.
Just as an example:
Without the African-American vote in Philadelphia, winning Pennsylvania becomes a heck of a lot harder for a Democrat.
So, as others have said, how about African American's can stay home.
Its not racism. The issue is, what does the voting pattern in SC portend for other states? If Obama wins because of the large black vote, and other states don't have as large a black vote, then this is significant.
Let's not be so sensitive.
Where are the upscale, well-educated whites that have supported Obama elsewhere? These are people unmoved by racial arguments. I guess S. Carolina just does not have many of them.
Matt: Check out all the passive constructions in this post at Time's Swampland...
"Winning and losing primaries is not a clear-cut, black-and-white issue. A candidate can essentially win by coming in second as long as he defies expectations. Conversely, if a candidate is unable to attract enough of a key group of voters, he can be judged to lose a race even if his name is tops in the final vote count. The latter is the troubling situation Barack Obama could find himself in at the end of the day. Polls and pundits agree that Obama is likely to win South Carolina, but he very well could do so almost exclusively with the help of his base of black voters.
"And for a candidate who has staked his bid on his ability to transcend all sorts of divides, most notably race, that is not an encouraging sign. Winning anything less than a significant percentage of the white vote could leave Obama vulnerable to being boxed in as the “black” candidate, unable to appeal to Southern whites who may help decide the general election in the fall."
http://www.time-blog.com/swampland/2008/01/some_thoughts_on_todays_primar.html
Living in SC, I think the story is not the white vote moving away from Obama, it's the white vote moving away from Clinton. Since Obama's high water mark after Iowa, he's only dropped 5%. Clinton's dropped nearly 7% since she began her Southern Strategy and she's bleeding support to Edwards.
I always thought the "surge" Obama got from winning white Iowans worked on people of all races everywhere. In others words, winning leads to being seen as a winner. I think many white and black Democrats in SC who were on the fence moved into his camp after his win in Iowa. His poll numbers rose to 44%. He's only dropped to 39% in the latest poll, after taking the Clinton abuse.
Clinton, by constrast, had a high water mark of 43% back around Halloween. The black vote swung to Obama when he brought Oprah down around Thanksgiving. By Christmas, Clinton was at 33% where she stood tied with Obama until he won Iowa. While Obama gained after Iowa, Hillary lost virtually nothing, breifly dropping below 30% only to have regained the support by the time the feud began....
In the latest poll, Clinton drops to 26%. It's a drop of 7%. That's bigger than Obama's 5% drop. Hillary seems to come out on the wrong side of the fight. Edwards is cleaning up.
Of course, this is South Carolina. I know that there are places like Missouri where racism works more effectively and Clinton may be banking on that.
PS. Steady flow at my polling station. Scary touch screens. Surprising to see Dodd, Biden, Richardson etc., still on the ballot. Sadly, no Colbert.
Oh, and here's the WSJ laying off the expectations game on voters....it's the part in italics
This may seem like good news for Mr. Obama, who scored a first-place finish in the Iowa caucus but finished second to Mrs. Clinton in New Hampshire and Nevada. But with expectations set so high, political pundits say the Illinois senator faces a dilemma: He will have to win by a double-digit margin in order for voters nationwide to perceive South Carolina as a real victory.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120131411693318865.html
So this is a report on what nameless pundits say Obama "has to do" to get voters nationwide to perceive South Carolina as a win.
Just Karl: Great post. And besides whites moving away from Hillary, so are some of the people who know the Clintons best. George Packer's piece in the current New Yorker suggests as the Clintons continue down this path, reasonable people are going to be forced to take sides - and it won't be good news for the Clintons.
For example, Packer mentions John Danner, someone who worked in Bill's administration in Arkansas, as Bill's chief-of-staff. Danner has a lot to tell, and over the years he's kept quiet. It appears other ex-True Believers will be speaking up.
NMP - You read my mind with the 3/5 thing. Since when did black votes count less than white ones? That is just patently offensive...
Re the 3:14pm Martin post: NYT says "party officials said they had early reports of high turnout"
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/26/us/politics/26cnd-carolina.html?hp
The fact that some in the media (at the urging of the Clintons) are trying to discount this South Carolina is really an insult to black Democrats.
Mike, the Clintons did not need to do a damn thing. The press is largely self-starting in this regard. They were already saying similar things long before the blow-up of the last couple of weeks. That's their job - creating controversy and feeding it liberally sells newspaper, gets more viewers. And they can almost always rely on the losers to blame the other camp for causing it. Still works like a charm, or so it would appear. We shall see.
Comments closed February 09, 2008.
| 
Heads in the Sand
Well, whatever happens, I'm sure it's good for John McCain.
Posted by br | January 26, 2008 12:36 PM