The Obama campaign's strategy for victory certainly isn't very interesting but by the same token, it's utterly plausible. It's worth recalling that four weeks ago, Obama was down badly everywhere except Iowa. The events of the past seven days are clearly a net plus for his campaign.
« List of the Day | Main | The George Allen Era »
Strategy
09 Jan 2008 11:40 am
Comments (18)
I look at it this way: Obama is essentially the descendant of Hart/Tsongas/Bradley, at least in terms of who he appeals to if not necessarily ideologically. It's been shown that that breed of Democrat can't win a nomination without some help from outside that demographic. Obama can add African-Americans, which is about the best demographic to add. So he's not in bad shape as long as he can get a win sometime between now and 2/5 to keep the media from turning on him.
But I think he's going to have to climb down from Mount Olympus. Whatever you might think of Hillary, and I'm not really a fan, she has done a good job with specifics in recent days. That's something that always worked well for her husband even as it bored the media--witness the bad press reviews Bill Clinton always got for those same long SoTU addresses that the public loved. Obama will have to provide some details now.
How much of the African-American vote is Obama going to get? I don't see him getting 70% with his current theme or rhetoric. He needs to add some readmeat.
you can not defeat the typos on Yglesias' blog
I think it's interesting that Team Obama has decided to focus on caucus states. Intuitively it makes sense; if it's August 2007 and you see this big gap between Obama's favorability ratings and the polls, you'd say to yourself "well, we'll just win where the electorate is small". If he can win five of six caucus states, plus Georgia and Alabama, and make it close in the rest of the Southwest, he's ahead going into Washington and Louisiana, which he'd probably win.
And jack: my guess is 70%. Maybe higher.
Speaking of Strategies: Would Bloomberg finance Obama in a third party run? 'Cause if not, the Dems are headed for oblivion in '08. Early yet, but the two results so far say no one wins the nomination, so if Edwards stays in the race, then we could easily get a deadlocked convention. In any case, coming out of the convention, if it is Clinton, the Obama supporters will not vote her, at least speaking for myself. History shows intraparty political battles like this lead to lost elections. So in their grasp for power, Clintons are taking down the party. So, why not face up to it now and try to escape this bad outcome.
I would like Obama to win, but I don't see it. He can win Nevada with the union endorsements, and he will win South Carolina because of the big black vote.
But on super-duper Tuesday, there's no way he can compete with Hillary's organization and ability to run a national campaign. He needed to be inevitable by that point, he won't be, and Hillary will win.
I think Hillary now has it sown up. Obama needed to win New Hampshire more than Hillary.
How is it sewn up? Obama smashed her in Iowa; she narrowly won in New Hampshire, perhaps because of pity. People are paying attention to whether she wins additional contests. There is another debate in a few weeks. She and Obama are tied in the national polls. And Obama has more won/earned delegates and more money. According to the memo, he has more organization in upcoming caucus states.
The Clinton strategy has been "I am inevitable and invincible so I will win." Well, she's not inevitable (she lost) or invincible (she cried).
Now, she has found her voice. But I still don't see how that translates into victory unless she takes Edwards' votes. And Edwards isn't giving up without a fight.
History shows intraparty political battles like this lead to lost elections.
There were fairly fierce primary battles among the Democrats in 1976, the Republicans in 1980, the Republicans in 1988, the Democrats in 1992, and the Republicans in 2000. In the other elections since the modern primary system began - 1972, 1984, 1996, 2004 - the winner was an incumbent president. Where are you coming up with these general maxims from?
this thing is wide open. the question for the clintons and the african-american community becomes: can the best Black candidate the country has every seen be removed from the stage without alienating the community in the process.
Hopefully, Donna Brazile's comments yesterday excoriating Bill for his toxic putdowns of Obama will have an effect. You've got a pink-faced, white-haired old white man screeching "kid!" at a U.S. Senator and extra-viable Presidential candidate. As she pointed out tersely- if it was Bill Bennett carrying on like that- everyone and his brother would be calling the tormented guttersnipe motherfucker a *racist by now.
Obama's campaign is fucking better than Donna Brazile.
Do you seriously think Obama's rainbows/unicorns campaign in 08 is the best black candidate the country has ever seen. Pretty sure that was Jackson with Rainbow/PUSH in 1988. Unless by best you mean non-threatening to whitey and beloved by the press.
The Obama campaign's strategy for victory certainly isn't very interesting...
That's the most trite political commentary I've yet seen on this site. C'mon. Like it's a movie or videogame, not the well thought out and, so far, well-executed strategy to win an election, pitted against the toughest political machine we've seen in recent times.
Has the pressure of churning out posts to satisfy your bosses got to you? I've come to expect better from you, dude.
So in their grasp for power, Clintons are taking down the party. So, why not face up to it now and try to escape this bad outcome.
Ken from Katonah: You could say the same thing about Obama in his "grasp for power." Heaven forbid somebody actually contest the nomination. Moreover, if you simply look at the electoral college map, Hillary's chances of winning a general election in this shitty economy year look pretty good. She simply needs to pry one or two states from Bush's 2004 tally while holding down the Democratic base. Also, only once since WWII has a party managed to hold onto the White House for a third consecutive term. In economic terms, at least, 2008 ain't no 1988. Finally, should Clinton prevail, I think there's an overwhelmingly likely chance they'll offer the VP slot to Obama. That might not placate you personally, but I think a lot of voters will go for such a ticket over the warmed over dreariness we're likely to get from the GOP.
Finally, should Clinton prevail, I think there's an overwhelmingly likely chance they'll offer the VP slot to Obama. That might not placate you personally, but I think
If Clinton prevails, Bloomberg is running. If Bloomberg is running, Obama is staying in the Senate.
If Bloomberg is running, Obama is staying in the Senate.
I don't follow your logic. Why would a Vice President Obama care if part of the background noise en route to higher office happened to be an unsuccessful third party run by Michael Blomberg? If you're suggesting that a Bloomberg run hands the White House to the Republicans, there's still no problem for Obama, as he wouldn't have to give up his Senate seat to run, as he doesn't face reelection until 2010. In any event, I'm not suggesting Obama would necessarily agree to be Hillary Clinton's running mate (although I think there's a good chance he would, as he's obviously an ambitious guy, and the Vice Presidency has historically been a stepping stone to the presidency), I'm mainly saying Clinton would probably offer it to him. It would be difficult not to.
Why would a Vice President Obama care if part of the background noise en route to higher office happened to be an unsuccessful third party run by Michael Blomberg?
Why would Barack Obama run for Vice President when he can wait, avoid a general election loss, and run for President later?
I'm mainly saying Clinton would probably offer it to him.
And I'm saying you have no idea what you're talking about. If he proves he can win additional states in the general that she can't (what he'd have to do for her to consider it), then he wins the Democratic nomination.
Comments closed January 23, 2008.
| 
Heads in the Sand
No, my epiphany last night was that the Dems are going to nominate someone (Hillary) for the exact reason they nominated John Kerry. "Electability." And she will lose. I don't know why I didn't see it coming this time.
http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/archives/016568.php
Posted by Bill | January 9, 2008 11:58 AM