The Independents

John Judis and Ruy Teixeira take a look at the demographic and ideological characteristics of self-described independents and their potential role in the presidential election. It's clear that the post-partisan rhetoric from Barack Obama that's annoyed a lot of bloggers has tremendous appeal to this segment of the electorate. And though I, too, find it annoying I think you have to agree that if he really does manage to use this kind of rhetoric to mobilize an unprecedented number of independents to go caucus for the first time on behalf of a candidate who was right about Iraq from the beginning, backs ambitious new programs on climate change and media reform, big new regulations on health insurance companies and new subsidies to people who have trouble paying for insurance, etc., etc., etc. that that'll be a pretty impressive achievement.

It's always worth recalling that George W. Bush talked the talk about repudiating the harshness of Newt Gingrich and Tom DeLay. That duped the brain-dead press and they, in turn, helped dupe a substantial element of the public. But the policy agenda from Bush was always very right-wing, just as Obama's platform is quite progressive.

Comments

You mean those "always very right-wing" policies like the NCLB Act, Medicare Part D benefit, Sarbanes-Oxley Act, Immigration amnesty, and Campaign Finance Reform?

Posted by Chris | January 3, 2008 11:22 AM

The independents will favor whichever Democrat wins the nomination. The only thing special about Obama is that he has not been vilified by the right wing slime machine yet like Clinton and Edwards both have.

Posted by ken | January 3, 2008 11:24 AM

Perhaps progressives need to develop a coded language of our own. We all know it when Republicans use their various codes: state's rights, dredd scott, etc. . . Maybe we need som similar phrases so that Obama can give us the wink, wink, nudge, nudge to let us know that he really just trying to make Joe Klein and David Broder happy and we shouldn't pay too close attention to what he is saying. Then Markos and Atrios won't get so pissed off all the time.

Posted by DP | January 3, 2008 11:25 AM

Yes indeed. Obama, because of his interpersonal skills, tone, and integrity, is both the most electable and most consistently progressive candidate. Plus, his coattails could be very high, leading to a true mandate next January.

Posted by Jacob | January 3, 2008 11:27 AM

"Maybe we need som similar phrases so that Obama can give us the wink, wink, nudge, nudge to let us know that he really just trying to make Joe Klein and David Broder happy and we shouldn't pay too close attention to what he is saying."

Or maybe Obama just means exactly what he says.

The more pages Obama takes out of the '92 Clinton playbook, the more we should expect Obama to pursue a similar triangulating course should he become President.

Posted by Petey | January 3, 2008 11:33 AM

Campaigning with homophobes.
Non-universal health care.
Right-wing talking points on SS.
Attacking Krugman.
Etc.

I think he's given us plenty of reason to be worried.

Posted by Gore/Edwards 08 | January 3, 2008 11:33 AM

I'm sure Petey will have some choice insights on which of the Democratic frontrunners is well-positioned to attract independents.

Posted by Tyro | January 3, 2008 11:34 AM

I'm sure Petey will have some choice insights on which of the Democratic frontrunners is well-positioned to attract independents.

I'll say it for him: Edwards polls very well with independents and republican voters, which is why he always does so well in general election matchup polling.

As for MY's argument that Obama doesn't really mean what he says... hasn't Matt been the one pointing out for months now that it doesn't matter what a candidate "really" believes if they keep campaigning in a certain way? If the pressures that keep Obama drifting to the right exist during the campaign, they'll exist during his presidency - and he'll keep drifting to the right then, too.

Posted by Christmas | January 3, 2008 11:47 AM

You can't get a progressive mandate if you don't ask for one.

That's why I think that Obama's unity rhetoric is harmful.

Bonus guessing game! Speaking of dog whistles, who said:

"I am absolutely certain Connecticut is going to have the good sense to send Joe Lieberman back to the U.S. Senate."

That's why the "unity" message redlines my bogometer, since supporting Joe Lieberman against an insurgent Democrat is what it boils down to in practice.

Posted by lambert strether | January 3, 2008 11:47 AM

"It's clear that the post-partisan rhetoric from Barack Obama that's annoyed a lot of bloggers has tremendous appeal to this segment of the electorate."

You've been hearing some of the same kind of rhetoric from that Giuliani fellow (even if they can't vote for him in Florida's primary).

Also: I think Petey is right (even if I also think that Mr. Obama is more likely to become president eight or twelve or more years from now).

In fact of all the field I think Obama's rhetoric is the most transparent.

Posted by Linus | January 3, 2008 11:51 AM

Obama said that before Lamont was even around. Obama campaigned for Lamont against Lieberman, I don't know if you knew that and you were being cute or what.

Posted by Ed Marshall | January 3, 2008 11:52 AM

The only thing special about Obama is that he has not been vilified by the right wing slime machine yet like Clinton and Edwards both have.

His unfavorable rating is at 51 (to Clinton's 50 and Edwards's 42, so he's not that special.

Posted by Aaron S. Veenstra | January 3, 2008 12:00 PM

"You can't get a progressive mandate if you don't ask for one."

This is true. But first an observation: even if you have some qualms about Obama's "nearly-universal" health care plan, or other items on his agenda, his stated goals are still progressive. Far more so than four years ago.

I don't think any Democratic president will have an easy time in office, but I think that a President Obama -- if he has a broader base of support -- will be able to put more pressure on Republicans than a President Clinton could. I just don't think any Republican will worry about their re-election chances if they reflexively oppose everything President Clinton proposes.

First and foremost, however, I want a candidate that "will do what it takes to win." That used to be Senator Clinton's argument, that she knew how to fight and win. Well, different battles call for different strategies, and it seems, despite her significant advantages, Senator Obama is making a stronger case that he knows how to win. You don't win Iowa against the skilled campaigns of Clinton and Edwards without running a smart, tough campaign yourself. I think Obama knows how to win, and that's why I don't think he's too "nice" to win in November.

Posted by Ryan Scott | January 3, 2008 12:02 PM

Obama is not triangulating! He's persuading! Progressives always complain that "a majority of Americans actually support progressive policies, if only someone could phrase it the right way." Now we have a major candidate who has proven he can persuade that majority on a local, state, and national level, and netroots purists are whining because his rhetoric is better than theirs!

Gore/Edwards--first off, accept the reality that Gore isn't running. Second, your boy Edwards is talking a good populist talk, but in office he was quite centrist, and in '04 he ran timidly (remember the Cheney debate?! He was awful).

Obama "attack[ed] Krugman"? Really? He never went after Krugman personally; the campaign pointed out an (admittedly, reasonable) change in Krugman's reasoning. All fair game, but heck, if that's Obama's Sister Souljah moment, God bless him. Who cares if he pisses off Krugman and Kos and everyone else I like to read if it will get him millions of independent voters.

"Right-wing talking points on SS"? Did you actually look at what Obama plans to do for the long-term viability of SS? He wants to raise the cap. It's a progressive position. He's not for privatization.

He's throwing independents and Republicans some rhetoric meat, and they're eating it up. Why do you fear success? Is it that a progressive in the White House will actually have to make compromises and work with reality? Would you rather have a Republican to bitch about on blogs for another 8 years?

Who needs coded language when you can look at Obama's legislative record? It clearly shows that bipartisan appeal does not require triangulation.

Posted by Jacob | January 3, 2008 12:04 PM

"Obama said that before Lamont was even around."

Obama, like the Clintons, campaigned for Lieberman during the '06 primary.

I don't think this is a particularly good reason to oppose Obama. Some pretty good Dems like Barbara Boxer also campaigned for Lieberman during the primaries.

The problem with Obama is the one that Matthew identifies above: if you campaign as a mealy-mouthed centrist, you're going to govern as a mealy-mouthed centrist.

If Obama outperforms today, I'd advise folks to start reading up on Jimmy Carter's '76 campaign. He ran as being above partisanship, suckered lefties into thinking that he was secretly with him, and by the time he left office, had higher approval ratings among Republicans than among Democrats (!)

Posted by Petey | January 3, 2008 12:05 PM

Petey - your Carter-bashing ill-becomes you. He was a pretty good President, and is now a pretty good ex-President too.

Posted by otto | January 3, 2008 12:09 PM

I don't worry much about Obama's political tactics. What worries me is the policy advisors he is surrounding himself with particularly on the economics side. Using right wing code language on Social Security might be a slip, or flawed tactics, but when you see that one of his top three advisors is author of a worker unfriendly (to say the least) privatizing Social Security 'reform' plan you start to worry.

The sound bites are mostly cosmetic, the policy team cuts to the bone. Yesterday some commenter said he was encouraged by the people Obama was taking on the team, well throw me a rope here. Who on Team Obama actually has a documented progressive policy record? Cause it sure isn't Austan Goolsbee.

Posted by Bruce Webb | January 3, 2008 12:09 PM

"The more pages Obama takes out of the '92 Clinton playbook, the more we should expect Obama to pursue a similar triangulating course should he become President."

Are you critical of Obama's policy platform, rhetoric or his campaign tactics? His platform is solidly progressive and largely similar to Edwards'.

Obama is appealing to independents and moderate Republicans and is the candidate who is most likely to win broad support for left of center positions. Krugman and other commentators may fanatasize that the country is ready for a combative left-winger to force Congress into passing a new New Deal, but there is not much evidence that the political climate is so favorable. First, the Dems have only a slim lead in each house of Congress. Second, it now effectively takes a supermajority to pass any important legislation. Third, despite the Bush Admin's unprecedented reign of daily scandal, there is no animating event (such as the Great Depression) that has yet roused the voting public out of its complacency and mobilized broad support for far-reaching and agggressive change. Like it or not, to get anything done will require the support of moderates, and the candidate with the best chance of winning that support is Obama. Tone and personality, while somewhat superficial, still count.

Posted by talleyrand | January 3, 2008 12:10 PM

"Petey - your Carter-bashing ill-becomes you. He was a pretty good President, and is now a pretty good ex-President too."

All of us on the left love Jimmy now.

But again, it's worth remembering that by the time he left office, he had higher approval rating among Republicans than he did among Democrats.

Seriously. Think about that one.

Obama's '08 campaign appeals to rise above partisanship is a carbon copy of Carter's '76 campaign. And the way that the desire of some on the left to believe the Carter secretly stood with them was disappointed during his administration should be a warning flag to the left today.

As Matthew has correctly pointed out many times, the way you campaign shapes the way you are able and willing to govern.

Posted by Petey | January 3, 2008 12:14 PM

The problem with Obama is the one that Matthew identifies above: if you campaign as a mealy-mouthed centrist, you're going to govern as a mealy-mouthed centrist.

Mmm... except Matt says the opposite. He quite aptly notes that Bush campaigned as a mealy-mouth centrist but governed as a deranged right-winger (with about three exceptions noted by the first commenter).

Posted by right | January 3, 2008 12:17 PM

"The problem with Obama is the one that Matthew identifies above: if you campaign as a mealy-mouthed centrist, you're going to govern as a mealy-mouthed centrist."

When you vote like a moderate and are beloved by the DLC, you'll govern like a DLC centrist. Oh wait, I forgot pointing out Edwards's past was against the rules.

Posted by Reality Man | January 3, 2008 12:18 PM

"Using right wing code language on Social Security might be a slip, or flawed tactics"

It's intentional. It's part of a larger political plan.

"The sound bites are mostly cosmetic"

I'm far away from you on this one.

Rhetoric matters. The way you run shapes the way you are able to govern. Rhetoric matters because politics matters. The politics you create in your campaign governs the way you end up making policy decisions.

Posted by Petey | January 3, 2008 12:19 PM

Not fair! Obama is better at politics than my candidate! Waaannnh! Waaannnh! Waaannnh!

Posted by Shorter Everybody | January 3, 2008 12:21 PM

Are you critical of Obama's policy platform, rhetoric or his campaign tactics? His platform is solidly progressive and largely similar to Edwards'.

... except it's not, really. It's carefully designed to sound great, and still include lots of free passes to all his establishment and corporate patrons.

Insurance companies, defense contractors, and large banks/lenders are laughing all the way to the bank while the media builds up somebody that's essentially a cipher.

That's assuming, of course, that McCain doesn't win the R nomination, in which case Obama would lose badly (assuming he gets the D nomination)

Posted by justinb | January 3, 2008 12:22 PM

The more pages Obama takes out of the '92 Clinton playbook

And a very good playbook it was, considering he won.

Twice.

More of that, please.

Go Obama!

BTW, I'd be very happy with an Edwards presidency too, as I strongly supported him in '04. We could do much, much worse.

Posted by SoCalJustice | January 3, 2008 12:24 PM

Of the frontrunners I think Edwards is the most progressive and Clinton the least (in terms of foreign policy).

Obama is still largely an unknown. Clinton gets all the credit or blame for her calculated policy stances, but I'll be damned if Obama isn't taking the same strategy to the next level.

The great thing about Obama though is that he is an unknown. He has a great upside, but it's definitely a gamble.

Posted by ChrisWWW | January 3, 2008 12:30 PM

Re: Lieberman. I'm not running a purity test; cool Democrats did campaign for him. What I am saying is that this is how the "unity" rhetoric works out in practice -- why let these so-called moderates keep playing both ends against the middle?

Re: Carter. I like this quote:

He ran as being above partisanship, suckered lefties into thinking that he was secretly with him, and by the time he left office, had higher approval ratings among Republicans than among Democrats (!)

Some commenters point out that we like Carter now. And that's true.

But the times are different now. The country is far, far more deteriorated, and the right far more ferocious and entrenched, than they were in Carter's time. Obama will not be able, in Edward's trenchant phrase, to "nice them to death."

Posted by lambert strether | January 3, 2008 12:32 PM

The reason Bush was able to campaign one way for two years and end up governing another way was that he's a mentally ill, pathological liar. A mentally healthy person could not spend two years giving emotional speeches about how he's going to govern a certain way, then immediately change course once he's in office. The dissonance would be too painful. And his family and friends would have to either be horribly let down or as ill as he is. I doubt Obama has the kinds of mental health problems Bush does; ergo, I believe him when he promises to triangulate and acts like it. He's simply sold out and managed to convince himself that ultimately it's the right thing to do.

Posted by 14All | January 3, 2008 12:40 PM

It's really not that difficult to understand.

Independents are simply non-partisans.

They see the Republicans as a corrupt, autocratic, pro-war and pro-torture party. They see the Democrats as politically inept cowards unwilling to challenge an extremely unpopular president even when support for their position is overwhelming.

They helped vote out a rubber stamp Republican Congress and are now disgusted with a pathetic rubber stamp Democratic one.

So they don't consider themselves Republicans and they don't consider themselves Democrats. They consider themselves politically independent.

They don't have a common worldview and plenty of them would be perfectly happy with a progressive president. Most of them would be thrilled with a competent one.

Posted by Jinchi | January 3, 2008 12:41 PM

[Carter] was a pretty good President, and is now a pretty good ex-President too.

I am a Democrat and am not at all interested in 'bashing' him, but Carter wasn't really all that good a president. He's a perfectly good man and a good ex. But if you actually check him out, you find that he was not a very able executive and was really quite conservative as well. Of course he looks great next to W. Bush, but who doesn't?

Posted by jonnybutter | January 3, 2008 12:42 PM

Well, for one, Carter got peace between Israel and Egypt, so he looks a lot better than a whole bunch of people, including Clinton.

Posted by otto | January 3, 2008 12:44 PM

To claim that somehow Barack Obama is the second coming of Jimmy Carter is preposterous. Anyone who actually remembers Jimmy Carter in office knows how painful it was, for both him and the nation. He agonized over every decision. Watching him on national television one saw words squeezed out of him as if he was being crushed by some enormous invisible force. He wasn't cool then, and he isn't cool now -- just more self-righteous.

Barack is charismatic, folks. This might seem obvious, but the Democrats with charisma -- FDR, JFK, Clinton -- are the ones most likely to win elections in this country. Charisma doesn't guarantee greatness in the White House, but it gives the bearer an infinitely better chance of arriving there.

You don't have to like Obama, but for God's sake, don't compare him to a Baptist nuclear engineer from Georgia. He's nothing like Jimmy Carter.

Posted by Kit Stolz | January 3, 2008 12:49 PM

I remember when Jimmy Carter spoke at my college in the fall of 1975. Yes, Obama does have a lot in common with Carter in his approach to politics.

Posted by low-tech cyclist | January 3, 2008 12:52 PM

don't compare him to a Baptist nuclear engineer from Georgia

Wait, is it the Baptist part that's supposed to be the insult, or the nuclear engineer part?

Posted by Jinchi | January 3, 2008 1:00 PM

Jacob- right on. When people say Obama is triangulating or following the '92 Clinton playbook, I just facepalm. He has policy positions and a whole book that make it clear where he stands, and it's not the middle, it's to the left. He just uses rhetoric in a very smart way, which is what I thought we have been trying to do for years to combat the noise machine.

Posted by Winner | January 3, 2008 1:02 PM

Like someone already said, the Carter comparison doesn't take you very far, since the political landscape is so different now. Bush was able to do his bait and switch because the political "center" has moved so far to the right, and the media was too busy tearing Gore into little pieces to delve into Bush's record or question his "compassionate" rhetoric. (And then, too, there was Cheney, who has convinced Bush to do any number of things he probably wouldn't have done on his own . . . )

ANYWAYS, this difference is what makes me so annoyed with Obama -- not just during the campaign but in his tenure (so far) in the Senate, he has been cautious and "bipartisan" more often than not. And he has seemed more willing to criticize Dems and progressives than the failed and dangerous Republican policies. Given the media's failure to characterize these policies or the political climate accurately, it's not likely to do us much good if Obama campaigns and wins as a healer and uniter (or whatever) and then tries to govern that way -- even if the Dems gain a whole lot of seats in the Senate, the Republicans are simply not going to play along. I don't believe in reading tea leaves -- I think that what people say is indicative of what they really believe. But I wish he would at least wink or nod or do something to show that he's aware of this.

This criticism of Obama does not translate into lavish praise for either Edwards or HRC. I can't understand how anyone can feel certain about any of the candidates -- they are all light years ahead of the Republicans, of course, but there are things about each of them that give me pause.

Posted by mary | January 3, 2008 1:07 PM

I would say that the "black bourgeois" Jack and Jill are pretty good on this one (click on my name for link). Some excellent analysis, including:

"I have written many times that those who argue about electability better be arguing for John Edwards. If you bring up the fact, that in the history of this country, only a White male has been elected, and thus, this is why they support Edwards, I wouldn't have to like it, but I could accept it."

And also:

"It has been disheartening to read 'Progressive' after 'Progressive' deride Barack Obama because they don't believe he'll be an attack dog like Hillary Clinton or Edwards. I don't know why it took me so long to vocalize this, but it came to me:

"Barack Obama and no other Black candidate would EVER

"and I mean EVER

"campaign on a theme of 'attack dog', or anything remotely dealing with 'attacking' the opposition...

"The MINUTE Barack Obama turns into that 'attack dog' that the Progressives are clamoring for, what will happen?

He will become THE ANGRY BLACK MAN."

Posted by nolaboyd | January 3, 2008 1:10 PM

"To claim that somehow Barack Obama is the second coming of Jimmy Carter is preposterous ... Barack is charismatic, folks."

You ought to read some of the coverage of the '76 campaign.

Carter's charisma was how he made it to the White House. The standard campaign coverage for the nomination talked about how his smile covered up the fact that he was consistently refusing to stand with his party.

Posted by Petey | January 3, 2008 1:12 PM

It's really not that difficult to understand.

Independents are simply non-partisans. - jinchi

Bingo! Of all people, the Huckster's saying as much with his recent "I'm a vertical guy" talking points.

The problem is that the Villagers have convinced too many people (including it seems too many Democratic stragists) that independents want someone who's smack-dab in the middle of a political spectrum in which the Brookings Institution is the left and the AEI is the right. The fact is that most independents are not centrists even if they claim, due to a cultural commitment to "the golden middle" that is a part of our common Western heritage from the ancient Greeks, to be. So playing to the middle doesn't work.

Part of Huckabee's success (even with getting some liberals too comfortable with him) is that he understands this (and is clever enough meta-politically to say he understands this which cuts down the hate the Villagers, many of whom otherwise hate him for his populism, have for him as they feel he's letting them in on his secrets). I think Obama understands this too.

As to the issue of meat in Obama's policies. The health care mandate question is a perfect examplar: why open yourself up to criticism that you are just another power hungry Democrat who's gonna force the working stiff to subsidize (via an insurance mandate) the lazy poor? Why insist that campaign rhetoric include talk of a mandate that, in practice, won't make much of a difference in the policy after it gets through the sausage making factory that is Congress?

Yes, Democrats need to talk, in great "detail"(TM) about "policies"(TM) and "substance"(TM). But note the scare-quotes and (TM) indication. Talking in too much detail about policies that'll never be implemented with the exact details you give, will only open things up to criticism: especially if those details re-enforce stereotypes about liberals. The point is not to tell people exactly what you'll end up doing (as you can't) but to give people an idea that you have enough of a plan that they can trust you to lead the ship of state in the right direction.

Actually, I'm not sure if Obama is quite there yet. Sometimes it does seem as if the direction in which he'll run the ship is state is not quite right. And sometimes it seems he lacks "substance"(TM). But Edwards, who as a successful trial lawyer ought to know about how to convince people, has mistaken substance for "substance"(TM) (and indeed appears to lack the latter) and, well, HRC is HRC.

FWIW, though, re: Obama being another Bill ... that is exactly how he is running. I know we progressives have many legitimate beefs with the Big Dawg, but we shouldn't let ourselves be convinced by the Villagers that people dislike Clinton. People might feel compelled to give anti-Clinton disclaimers (and the need to do so may hurt HRC), but people do feel nostalgic for Clinton's economy, etc. So Obama is being very smart, ain't he?

IMHO, the real problem with Obama is this:

Insurance companies, defense contractors, and large banks/lenders are laughing all the way to the bank while the media builds up somebody that's essentially a cipher.

Even if the above isn't true (and why would insurance companies support Obama over someone who's proposing mandates that, once all the sausage is made in Congress, will force people to buy their product?), that Obama is perceived as such a cipher (because of his "I'm a high minded independent" shtick, which otherwise might be a good way to get independents), the GOP can make people believe that Obama is a front (people will gladly believe that someone claiming to be a populist/progressive really is on the take ... and racial politics will enter here too) for the big business interests for which, in reality, the GOP candidate will be a front.

I think Obama has played the political game fairly well. And if we want to win over the GOP, we need someone who actually plays the game well and to win. Except that Obama, at some point, needs to be honest that he is a player in the game (and place himself as a progressive/liberal rather than a cipher -- which'll also help expand any coat-tails he would have as it builds the brand in addition to the person) as otherwise people'll just think the worst of him and of what his real agenda is.

Posted by DAS | January 3, 2008 1:23 PM

I agree with posters who've noted the inconsistencies in matt's reasoning: bush is a great of example of someone who has governed very differently from how he campaigned.

I think's it's probably more accurate to say that national elections shove both parties to the fulcrum of centrist, wimpy rhetoric. but republicans, unlike the dems, have no trouble sticking to their core ideals once in office.

which revives that familiar theme of spineless democrats. and which is what I think troubles many dems about an obama presidency. the next democratic president better be prepared for bareknuckle brawling with the senate GOP minority if he or she wants to enact any kind of agenda.

worrying that obama doesn't have the stones for that fight and what that would mean for the party's future is a fair concern given the soft yellow underbelly the party's been offering up to bush--- an opposition lame duck president with approval ratings in the low 30's.

I don't like many of the red flags obama's been waving for the reasons noted by others above. that said, he'd be better than clinton on progressive issues, but for my money, not as good as edwards.

Posted by mencken | January 3, 2008 1:27 PM

Obama's '08 campaign appeals to rise above partisanship is a carbon copy of Carter's '76 campaign. And the way that the desire of some on the left to believe the Carter secretly stood with them was disappointed during his administration should be a warning flag to the left today.

Wait, I'm so confused. I thought Obama was a carbon copy of JFK. Does this mean that JFK was a carbon copy of Carter?

Posted by Cyrus | January 3, 2008 1:32 PM

"The problem with Obama is the one that Matthew identifies above: if you campaign as a mealy-mouthed centrist, you're going to govern as a mealy-mouthed centrist."

Didn't stop Bush from running as a moderate but then governing from the right.

Posted by Mike P | January 3, 2008 1:36 PM

The comparisons of Obama to Carter have at least a limited merit. The 'above politics' personality-driven ('I will never lie to you') stuff is similar, and similarly feckless politics. That said, I'd be a lot more enthusiastic about an Obama presidency than I was about the Carter one (and I remember Carter pretty well). Carter was a conservative Democrat, folks. Obama is conservative in some ways (as is Edwards) but couldn't rightly be called conservative like Carter. Carter was the Reagan prequel, as many of you might remember...

Posted by jonnybutter | January 3, 2008 1:37 PM

You've been hearing some of the same kind of rhetoric from that Giuliani fellow (even if they can't vote for him in Florida's primary). - Linus

They can't? Why not?

Actually, the thing about Giuliani is that I doubt if he would win the FL primary anyway. FL Republicans would either vote for Huckabee or Paul (maybe a few for McCain).

But Giuliani would win FL for the Republicans. Because for every arch-conservative in North FL who would sit out the race or vote 3rd party rather than voting for Giuliani, at least two "independents" in South FL would vote for Giuliani because "he'll keep us safe from 'those people'".

Posted by DAS | January 3, 2008 1:44 PM

Except that Obama, at some point, needs to be honest that he is a player in the game (and place himself as a progressive/liberal rather than a cipher -- which'll also help expand any coat-tails he would have as it builds the brand in addition to the person) as otherwise people'll just think the worst of him and of what his real agenda is.

Having gotten this far as a cipher (an apt description), why would Obama change? I do anticipate that if Obama gets the nomination, he'll find himself in a tight race at the end and he will have to to campaign like a partisan, populist Democrat, just to goose up his numbers with working class voters in the Midwest. At which point, the media will say that the "once post-partisan Obama" has resorted to "talking like John Edwards."

Posted by Shawn | January 3, 2008 1:45 PM

Didn't stop Bush from running as a moderate but then governing from the right.

I think a lot of you are confusing campaigning as a uniter with running as a moderate. George Bush never campaigned as a moderate. Anyone who bothered to listen knew exactly what they were getting, which is why he was so popular among conservative Republicans.

And as Winner noted, Obama wrote a whole book that make it clear he's a progressive.

Posted by Jinchi | January 3, 2008 1:48 PM

if Obama gets the nomination, he'll find himself in a tight race at the end and he will have to to campaign like a partisan, populist Democrat....At which point, the media will say that the "once post-partisan Obama" has resorted to "talking like John Edwards."

Exactly. But we can't actually nominate Edwards in the first place, right? That would be just too...I don't know, too something....

Posted by jonnybutter | January 3, 2008 1:58 PM

I've pretty much given up on either party, but from an outsider's perspective, I'd say that you are kidding yourself if you think that ANY truely transformative candidate is going to emerge from within either party. But if you are a believer in incrementalism (I no longer am), then I think that Matthew has a good point. There is no reason at all to believe that Edward's somewhat more firey rhetoric is going to mean that his program will be any more progressive than Obama's.

About the whole "mandate" issue, it's bunk. New laws get enacted when you have 50% plus one support in the House, 60% support in the senate, and a president who won't veto it. "Mandates" don't enter into it at all.

Posted by LarryM | January 3, 2008 2:23 PM

New laws get enacted when you have 50% plus one support in the House, 60% support in the senate, and a president who won't veto it.

Actually, lots of laws get passed with 50% support in the Senate. Don't confuse today's Congress with the normal state of affairs.

Posted by Jinchi | January 3, 2008 2:27 PM

Obama's current strategy would make some sense if the country were evenly divided and he was coming out of the convention. As it is his pandering to the center seems to be a shortsighted way to get some momentum out of Iowa and NH on route to Feb 3rd. I just don't know how it plays in big state primaries that do not have open ballots.

As a political tactic it is pretty risky, if his instincts were really as left-progressive as his supporters insist there was room to run to the left and compete with Edwards. I am leaning toward Edwards but mostly by default, Obama had ample opportunity to make his case. That he chose not to make this fairly obvious move and instead is running some quasi-national centrist strategy eight or nine months early combined with his determinedly centrist team of advisors has convinced me he is being authentic or so getting close to disqualification as being too moderate given the current political environment.

This history of Republican rule in any place they have been able to seize power since 1994 has been a ruthless one of divide and conquer. They don't want consensus, they openly bragged that their goal was Permanent Majority. And their current behavior while being in the minority shows that they are just biding their time. And while it may be a little distasteful for some to play hardball, the reality is that the other side is not willing to play at all. Obama is appealing to a comity that simply does not seem to exist.

It is my belief that this country is more than ready for real change, and not just a self proclaimed change agent. We not only want our country back we want it restructured with an eye on equity which clearly means reforming the tax system on more progressive lines, which will have predictable rhetorical results from the right which will have to be countered with some strong push back from the left. Obama seems to be confusing the roles of leader and umpire here.

Posted by Bruce Webb | January 3, 2008 3:12 PM

"It is my belief that this country is more than ready for real change"

You ought to be more than just leaning towards Edwards.

Posted by Petey | January 3, 2008 3:18 PM

…netroots purists are whining because his rhetoric is better than theirs!

Or is it because he hasn’t come around kissing the rings of the ones who consider themselves to be the top honchos and arbiters of progressivism and pandering to their ardent followers who live on and regurgitate their every word?

It is disheartening to me as a committed progressive to realize that those who are loudest in their vituperative attacks against Obama for being a “mealy-mouthed” triangulator, conciliator, and other choice epithets, have most likely not read or studied any of the detailed policy proposals that Obama has put forward, to say nothing of the actual history of his contributions to progressive legislation during his long run as a legislator in Illinois, and his short time in the US Senate.

Is it any wonder then that some of my fellow progressives can be so enamored of a candidate who has newly "come to Jesus", with a fine rhetoric about fighting the corrupt corporations, etc., without a single piece of evidence to support this rhetoric of actions taken and results achieved during his own time as a legislator?

Posted by Justin X | January 3, 2008 3:24 PM

Well, to throw my just-as-meaningless-as-anyone-else's two cents in:

The Carter campaign, built mostly on his personal empathy, did have similarities to what Obama is doing now. Their histories were, as many have pointed out, different, but Petey and others are right to question whether that or what one campaigns on matters more.

Carter, however, was correct to run that way, because, despite the opening offered by Watergate, the country was, by 1976, clearly headed in a more conservative direction. It took a Dem in, essentially, drag, to win.

That was still the case, to a lesser degree, in 1992 -- the GOP coalition was fraying but not yet broken. It took someone who could finesse issues like Clinton to nudge the country slightly more leftward.

But that was then and this is now. Clinton's successes made the country more disposed to Democratic rule. Despite venomous media hostility and a wooden stump style, Gore got the most votes in '04 and should have been the winner. Kerry -- a MA liberal, the death-knell a generation earlier -- came within an eyelash of being elected against an incumbent. And the nearly unprecedented incompetence of the Bush administration has finished the job. the electorate is loathe to even consider another GOP presidency; ANY Democrat is going to be the solid favorite in November -- just as the allegedly unelectable Reagan was by Election Day 1980.

This is where those of us who are Edwards supporters divide from the Clinton/Obama folk. Clinton, I think, is making the stronger mistake: assuming (understandably but incorrectly) that 1992 will always be the template -- hence her irriating feints to the right (cheered on at each turn by the DC press).

But Obama -- a far superior choice to Hillary -- makes some of the same mistake. His supporters talk of how he's going to persuade GOPers and (I guess) right-leaning indies to vote his way because he doesn't seem like he'll rock the boat. My problem with this is twofold: first, as others are saying, it leaves him in a poor position to push any further than that once elected; but second and more important, it's camapigning from a point of weakness -- assuming that Dems, despite recent evidence, are permanently on the defnsive or on probation. Why doesn't he do like Reagan did in 1980? -- realize that conditions (both long-term -- the GOP coalition in tatters -- and short -- Bush the least popular president in half a century) favor him dramatically, and use it as an opportunity to make people endorse his way?

That's what Edwards offers, and why I think he's clearly the best choice of candidate for this particular year. (Though, quick disclaimer: I'll be out there for Obama or Hillary or Dodd or Biden...anyone but the GOP)

Posted by demtom | January 3, 2008 4:04 PM

I think, as a general rule, blogger annoyance levels have a strong positive correlation with popular political positions.

Discuss amongst yourselves.

Posted by VasyaDC | January 3, 2008 4:57 PM

"They can't? Why not?"

If Independents register as Democrats or Republicans they can vote in Florida's presidential primary. Otherwise they're limited to voting on the statewide stuff on the ballot. At least that's my understanding.

Posted by Linus | January 3, 2008 6:42 PM

Obama has an ideological jiujitsu system for moving the Overton window. He says he's openminded, criticizes left-wing rhetoric, and puts up progressive policy proposals. It's a sly way of coopting a part of the opposing side (those taken in by his rhetoric) into supporting his reasonable policies (since the real world has a left-wing bias). He talked about issues with Social Security - to propose lifting the income caps. Now if some winger rants about SS, Obama (or anybody else) can propose *expanding* the program! Using the enemy's strength against him.

It's worked for him at Harvard and in Illinois, and at least to some extent in the Senate with his anticorruption and antilobbying laws. His achievements are already more substantive than either Edwards or Clinton. Further, his strategy is a very good one for dissassembling the Republican coalition. It's quite fractious, as we are seeing, and consequently extremely vulnerable to somebody who can *sound* like he's helping some subcomponent fight the eeevil overreaching hyperpartisan libruls even as he hammers in on wedge issues like protectionism, estate taxes, abortion rights, and immigration. He's already convinced a large section of the population that he's a "unifier" even though you need a fairly sharp knife to separate any of the top 3 Democrats on actual proposals in the context of the range of American political opinion.

I'm confident that with Obama we will get legislation as progressive as we can get out of Congress. The obstructionist party may block anything really substantial, but I don't see any of the 45 nutbar Republican Senators yielding to Edwards' rhetoric or Clinton's power plays any more than they do to Obama's suasion. On the other hand, I think there's a real chance that Obama's postpartisan rhetoric will shave off a part of the Republic coalition (like populist evangelicals or thinktank wonks) and that will make even the nutbars scramble to deal with the new political situation.

Posted by FairEconomist | January 3, 2008 6:58 PM

Obama has an ideological jiujitsu system for moving the Overton window.

Too many buzzwords in a single sentence. Especially an opening sentence. Try again in English.

Posted by Jinchi | January 3, 2008 10:53 PM