Three Ways

I think it bears mentioning that it's always worth trying to not overread the trends. A month ago, it looked like Hillary Clinton would probably win the nomination. At the same time, it was clear back then that Obama wasn't prohibitively far behind in Iowa or anything. And it was clear that winning Iowa would give him a big edge in winning in New Hampshire. And it was also clear that if Obama swept Iowa and New Hampshire, the powerful culinary workers union was unlikely to back Clinton. And it was also clear that if Obama won in two lily-white states, that the odds favored African-Americans flocking to his banner in South Carolina. And it was clear that all that would create a lot of momentum working against Clinton moving into the big states.

We knew all that, but because it looked like Obama probably wouldn't win Iowa, that pro-Obama cascade looked unlikely. Then Obama did win Iowa, making the cascade look likely. And I think it is the most probable outcome. But just as Obama once looked like he would lose in Iowa and then won, just because Clinton looks down now hardly makes it impossible for her to recover. In particular, I think there's an important sense in which Edwards is doing more to split the regular/warrior/beer track vote than he is to split an anti-Clinton vote, which is one reason that I haven't felt too torn up about my divided affections for both Edwards and Obama. But if Edwards doesn't build up any profile in the February 5 states, I think a head-to-head matchup is much trickier for Obama. The risk for Clinton is that her network of supporters might melt down before then, or else that Edwards' message might start to break through in a wider array of states and make it difficult for Clinton to consolidate a coalition of working class whites and Latinos.

Meanwhile, if there's such a thing as an anti-Obama constituency inside the party, it seems to me that Edwards would probably have an easier time beating Obama in a two-person race than would Clinton since in a lot of ways he's much better-situated to lead a working class counterinsurgency against Obama's fancy-pants fan club.

Comments

You're just trying to stir it up now.

Posted by El Cid | January 7, 2008 4:53 PM

Leave the stirring to Petey

Posted by Peter Driscoll | January 7, 2008 4:58 PM

"Meanwhile, if there's such a thing as an anti-Obama constituency inside the party, it seems to me that Edwards would probably have an easier time beating Obama in a two-person race than would Clinton "

As things stand now, I think both Edwards and Clinton would beat Obama in a two-way race.

That's a large part of the reason why Team Obama is making an alliance with Edwards to keep him strong.

Posted by Petey | January 7, 2008 4:58 PM

"In particular, I think there's an important sense in which Edwards is doing more to split the regular/warrior/beer track vote than he is to split an anti-Clinton vote"

Of course.

But even more important than that is the age thing. So far this has been a generational race.

Here's the vote in Iowa among the entire 45 and over electorate:

37% Clinton
35% Edwards
26% Obama

As long as Obama is cleaning up the youth vote, he benefits enormously by Edwards and Clinton splitting the non-youth vote.

Posted by Petey | January 7, 2008 5:01 PM

Since I'm still having difficulty assimilating the fact that Edwards somehow hasn't already won the primary, as I had been lead to expect, these sort of three-way match-ups are quite beyond me.

Posted by otto | January 7, 2008 5:03 PM

So does that mean that Obama is evitable?

Posted by infirm | January 7, 2008 5:04 PM

I think it bears mentioning that it's always worth trying to not overread the trends. A month ago, it looked like Hillary Clinton would probably win the nomination.

This paragraph by itself would have made a real fine post.

Posted by artappraiser | January 7, 2008 5:08 PM

I think that Edwards would much prefer Obama to beat Clinton and it has been reflected in his actions. Similarly, I think he has realized that his plan B is to try and knock Clinton out early and then become the not-Obama option. Regardless, I appreciate his current strategy because it seems to minimize Clinton's chances.

Posted by mpowell | January 7, 2008 5:10 PM

I agree with MY here. Watching the cascade of diverse opinion stream through this blog brings about too much fun to start throwing in the towel for HRC and Edwards now. So Obama wins two primary states that allow non-Dems to vote. It ain't over! What happens when he competes in a closed primary? What about the anti-Oprah vote? What prescription does Obama have for the mortgage crisis, considering all the lobbyists who work for him? (I'm surprised we haven't seen too much focus on that -- the mortgage problem, I mean).

Posted by DC | January 7, 2008 5:11 PM

"So does that mean that Obama is evitable?"

Obama is very evitable.

He's going to win January, but I think we've got a much longer race ahead of ourselves than anyone is imagining. I don't we'll have a nominee yet on March 1st.

Obama has to find a way to get up close to 50% in primaries at some point to win the nomination, and he's going some real obstacles in finding a way to do that - mainly around the age issue. We don't have plurality nominees in the Democratic Party.

Posted by Petey | January 7, 2008 5:11 PM

fancy-pants fan club

Drum = Clinton
Klein = Edwards
Atrios = Edwards
Kos = Edwards/Clinton
Yglesias = Edwards?

The American people = Obama

Which group is "fancy-pants club" a better description of?

Posted by hlah | January 7, 2008 5:13 PM

"I think that Edwards would much prefer Obama to beat Clinton and it has been reflected in his actions. Similarly, I think he has realized that his plan B is to try and knock Clinton out early and then become the not-Obama option. Regardless, I appreciate his current strategy because it seems to minimize Clinton's chances."

Yup. The race forward is win/win for Edwards. By hitting Clinton, he helps create a situation where the eventual nominee is either Edwards or Obama, either of which is preferable to Clinton.

Posted by Petey | January 7, 2008 5:13 PM

On a related note, what did folks think about Clinton's "misty moment?" It came across as really scripted to me. I'm the first one to say she's been penalized by an unfair double standard, but the humanizing moment feels too little, too late. Today, too, she gives a fear-mongering speech that warns darkly of terrorism here in the homeland and how she's the Dem best prepared to deal with that. But how can she be ready for al-Qaida if she wasn't prepared for the long-expected rise of Obama?

The Clinton campaign seems as though it's just flailing away to get through tomorrow and then regroup for February 5th.

Posted by BryklynLibrul | January 7, 2008 5:14 PM

mainly around the age issue

The more racially conservative older voters are the hunting grounds for Edwards and Clinton.

Posted by otto | January 7, 2008 5:16 PM

Anyone know anything about Michigan?

hee hee hee

Posted by Don Williams | January 7, 2008 5:17 PM

I'd like to know from someone about Edwards's campaign finances. You keep reading that he has no real cash or organisation after New Hampshire. How much is that true? Even a bit?

Posted by otto | January 7, 2008 5:22 PM

"In particular, I think there's an important sense in which Edwards is doing more to split the regular/warrior/beer track vote than he is to split an anti-Clinton vote"

As stated, I think that's true, but even more importantly, Edwards is splitting the non-youth vote, which is crucial to Obama at the moment.

-----

I normally think Tom Schaller is more than a bit of an idiot, but he had the best blog post of the millennium this past Saturday night during the Democratic debate, which I will reprint in full below:

R.I.P., THE CLINTON ERA, 9:34 P.M. EST.

Wow.

Get your kids out and put them in front of the TV: The Clinton Era officially ended at 9:34 p.m. EST when Edwards paired with Obama to bury Hillary as a non-agent of change.

Wow, again.

What Schaller was saying is not overstatement. By allying with Obama, Edwards has pretty much insured that whoever the eventual nominee is, it won't be another Clinton.

(Disclaimer: Clinton still has a shot. She'll always be able to raise money, which will always give her a shot.)

Posted by Petey | January 7, 2008 5:23 PM

"The race forward is win/win for Edwards."

I thought only Repubs win under all circumstances.

BTW, I voted Obama and I think I'm due a pair o' them thar fancy smancy pants. Do they send them automatically, or do I have to fill out a web-form or call somebody or something? Any help you can provide, Matt, in getting me my fancy pants would be greatly appreciated.

Posted by Rihilism | January 7, 2008 5:23 PM

"Edwards is doing more to split the regular/warrior/beer track vote..."

Didn't Obama win union households in Iowa? Does someone know? Petey?

The "anti-Obama constituency" would be more plausible a if Obama didn't win or come close in basically every demographic group in Iowa...

Posted by P | January 7, 2008 5:25 PM

Look, we've all been wrong before. Remember when it seemed Fred Thompson was a helluva candidate? But, unless God forbid anything happens to him, Hillary can't stop the mocha gazelle. She's Hubert Humphrey without the insipid buoyancy. She's a lousy candidate with a lousy message. "Ready", "safe", and toast. Sure, they'll drag it out to the end. But, once Obama crushes her tomorrow, Bill & Hill are goners.

Posted by Trevor | January 7, 2008 5:26 PM

Obama has to find a way to get up close to 50% in primaries at some point to win the nomination

Which could come as early as January 26th, according to local polling.

19 days is a long time, and all of the attacks on him might start working, who knows - but he's polling at that level right now.

Posted by SoCalJustice | January 7, 2008 5:27 PM

So, as voters melt away from the safe, middle-of-the-road Clinton they'll decide not to go with the safe, middle-of-the-road (at least rhetorically) Obama and instead go with Mr. Fight, Fight, Fight? I don't think so.

Posted by ostap | January 7, 2008 5:27 PM

I think you will all be surprised when the Obama / Edwards / Clinton alliance is finally solidified and beats their primary rivals.

Posted by El Cid | January 7, 2008 5:27 PM

"I'd like to know from someone about Edwards's campaign finances. You keep reading that he has no real cash or organisation after New Hampshire. How much is that true? Even a bit?"

This past Friday and Saturday were Edwards' two highest grossing fundraising days of the entire campaign.

And as long as he keeps the left consolidated, Edwards can survive some dry fundraising patches ahead and still pull in 20%+ in the primaries while he waits to break through.

As far as organization goes, he's got excellent operations in NV and SC.

Posted by Petey | January 7, 2008 5:29 PM

I don't think Edwards would stand a chance against Obama one-on-one. Sure Edwards would do quite well in many states -- the midwest and states in the South that don't have huge black populations. But he would get killed in California and New York and Illinois. You can't get killed in all three of those and win the Dem primary.

Edwards needs Hillary to be around to steal some of the votes in California and New York in particular and then maybe he could take Obama in a head to head after that. I'm sure Hillary will stick it out until Feb 5 so I guess it is not an issue. The fact remains, however, that Obama would crush Edwards in the big, heavily Dem states in a head-to-head.

Posted by Brian | January 7, 2008 5:30 PM

Go Petey!

Posted by Peter Driscoll | January 7, 2008 5:32 PM

As long as Obama is cleaning up the youth vote, he benefits enormously by Edwards and Clinton splitting the non-youth vote.

Color me skeptical that a majority of the 35% in Edwards' 45+ demographic would break towards Clinton in a two-person race between her & Obama. That said, I think it might be a moot point at this stage. Even if Edwards were to pull out immediately following New Hampshire (just speculating -- not not saying it's likely or he should), the trend that *seems* to be out there (particularly if this latebreaking national poll by Gallup is any indication) might be too much to turn back. I appreciate Matt's point about the inherent mutability of these "trends," but momentum is much more difficult to swing in the opposite direction once the actual primary voting -- and the ensuing media feeding frenzy -- has begun. I'm happy to be wrong, because I think voters benefit from a longer & more substantial debate on the issues of the race, but I'm beginning to wonder if that's going to happen here.

Posted by Emperor of Ice Cream | January 7, 2008 5:32 PM

"I think it bears mentioning that it's always worth trying to not overread the trends. A month ago, it looked like Hillary Clinton would probably win the nomination."

I've been on record all fall and winter saying Clinton was less than a 50/50 shot.

Posted by Petey | January 7, 2008 5:37 PM

CNN's entrance poll has Obama tying with Clinton among union members. Regardless, it's pretty clear that despite Obama's union member success in Iowa (as much a function of the fact that most of unionized Iowa is in the Quad-Cities media market), Obama fell flat in rural Iowa, among marrieds, and voters age 45 and older. Not exactly a ringing endorsement for his ability to win Ohio in November. The anti-Obama vote, at least right now, is an older white suburban/exurban/rural working class. If Clinton falls, there's no reason to assume that they immediately gravitate to Obama.

Posted by dry_fish | January 7, 2008 5:40 PM

I've been on record all fall and winter saying Clinton was less than a 50/50 shot.

= understatement.

Posted by otto | January 7, 2008 5:45 PM

Matt's and Petey's reasoning might be right here. However, the NH polls I've seen have Obama tied with or ahead of Clinton and Edwards in the older age groups.

Also, in a three-way race typically no one gets to 50%. The core argument being made here against Obama can be made against Clinton and Edwards. The idea that Obama would currently be fatally weak against either of the other two because of his weakness with older or blue collar or union voters is largely conjecture, and in my opinion stems from an overstatement of Edwards' vote-getting appeal. I like John Edwards very much. There is no significant evidence that large numbers of people want to vote for him.

Posted by mrsaturdaypants | January 7, 2008 5:47 PM

"the trend that *seems* to be out there (particularly if this latebreaking national poll by Gallup is any indication) might be too much to turn back"

January is going to be all about Obama because of momentum.

But this nomination isn't going to be decided in January.

"Color me skeptical that a majority of the 35% in Edwards' 45+ demographic would break towards Clinton in a two-person race between her & Obama."

Look at the breakdown of Obama's vote by age in Iowa:

57% 17-29
42% 30-44
27% 45-64
18% 65 & up

Now look at the breakdown of Clinton's vote by age in Iowa:

11% 17-29
23% 30-44
28% 45-64
45% 65 & up

And finally, consider this:

Despite winning Iowa easily, Obama finished third in Iowa among the entire over 30 vote.

Still fully skeptical?

Posted by Petey | January 7, 2008 5:49 PM

"The anti-Obama vote, at least right now, is an older white suburban/exurban/rural working class. If Clinton falls, there's no reason to assume that they immediately gravitate to Obama."

I'd add "married" to that list, but other than that, you're dead on.

Posted by Petey | January 7, 2008 5:54 PM

Despite winning Iowa easily, Obama finished third in Iowa among the entire over 30 vote.

Still fully skeptical?

Yep!

Especially about the fundraising bit. Didn't Obama play hardball to deny Edwards some funds or something?

Posted by Peter K. | January 7, 2008 5:58 PM

I've been on record all fall and winter saying Clinton was less than a 50/50 shot.

You were also on the record saying that Edwards wins Iowa.

Posted by Michael B Sullivan | January 7, 2008 5:59 PM

"Also, in a three-way race typically no one gets to 50%."

Of course. The real question is which candidates get to 50% against which other candidates in two-way races.

The rules don't allow plurality nominees in the Democratic Party.

Posted by Petey | January 7, 2008 6:00 PM

Despite winning Iowa easily, Obama finished third in Iowa among the entire over 30 vote.

This is why Edward's promise to stay in the race to the end may be a promise to Obama as much as its a promise to his supporters.

Posted by mpowell | January 7, 2008 6:00 PM

"You were also on the record saying that Edwards wins Iowa."

While I thought Edwards was headed for an Iowa win between Xmas and New Years, I never thought it was anywhere near a 50/50 shot.

I was never willing to pay more than 15 cents on the dollar at Intrade on an Edwards Iowa win. But I was willing to heavily short Clinton to lose the nomination once it got above 60 cents on the dollar.

Posted by Petey | January 7, 2008 6:07 PM

Yes, it's hard to make sense of all the conflicting information that comes in all the time.

That's why it's nice to be able to just look at the prediction markets that Matt derides. They do a perfectly reasonable job of aggregating all the information for me.

Maybe they provide too much competition for his punditry?

Posted by ed | January 7, 2008 6:18 PM

All the NH polling cross-tabs right now show Obama winning with registered Dems (he won there in Iowa too), show him winning in all age groups, etc etc. The SC polling suggests he'll break 50 there (as of right now)

Obama's winning the nomination. The only question is how soon some of you come to grips with that.

Posted by Michael | January 7, 2008 6:19 PM

Couldn't agree with Michael more (read that carefully):

http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollReport.aspx?g=066ea20c-d300-48cd-a585-cc9c356df4eb

Obama is still losing the 65+ crowd in SC, so we'll see how that goes.

If he owns January, there won't be a February.

Posted by mrsaturdaypants | January 7, 2008 6:30 PM

Regarding Petey's breakdown of Iowa voting by age: isn't Iowa a relatively older state? If so, then Obama having a higher proportion of voters who are younger should give him a higher expected vote percentage elsewhere (all things being equal, which obviously they are not)? Just curious.

Posted by matt | January 7, 2008 6:30 PM

Matt Y.'s analysis neglects an important factor making the current Obama momentum different from the former Clinton momentum: Now there have been actual votes cast. Winning two actual contests means a lot more than winning endorsements and polls several months out. Obama will win NH comfortably and will take SC even more comfortably, and I expect he'll take NV in there as well. All things being equal, Clinton or Edwards might have a shot even after Obama racks up wins in four of the first four contests, but all things won't be equal then. The compressed calendar would help any Iowa winner this year; Obama is the beneficiary, and he won't let it slip away.

Posted by John E. | January 7, 2008 6:40 PM

"The SC polling suggests he'll break 50 there"

I expect he's got a good shot of hitting 50% in SC, but that's not the 50% I'm talking about.

He needs to get 50% on 2/5 to be able to have any chance whatsoever of shutting down the race early. I'm not saying he has no shot at doing that - I think he does have a shot - but I think the odds are definitely against it.

And if he does break 50% on 2/5, you'd folks better pray Edwards runs strong. Because if he wins 50/40/10, Clinton will have absolutely no reason to pack it in.

Posted by Petey | January 7, 2008 6:42 PM

"If he owns January, there won't be a February."

I'm honestly curious if you have any rationale for that beyond the audacity of hope. Non-rhetorical question.

Posted by Petey | January 7, 2008 6:52 PM

You forget one very important point...old people vote. I know, 'cause I'm old. Young folks may get all excited in the primaries, but this does not necessarily mean this will translate to the general election. In fact, it clearly hasn't in the past. Also, If Edwards or Clinton had some of the same "friends" as Obama, you would nail them to the wall. It's all overlooked for Obama the rock star (who hasn't got a chance in hell of winning the general election). Obama is as much an agent of change as Fred Thompson. His record is not one that leads one to believe he will be anything other than mainstream. I would like someone to ask each of these candidates whether or not they believe in evolution. I'm tired of all this religious bullshit. We need some science back in the white house, not some holy roller (and I don't mean only Obama here). I will vote for any democrat over any republican this fall, but it would be nice to choose someone who can win and is not just the flavor of the moment.

Posted by ruthless | January 7, 2008 6:52 PM

I'm an Edwards man and want him to hang in there all the way- I still think he has a real shot. (Good riddance, Hillary.) Having said that, the idea that Obama can't win the general is a complete crock. I may not trust him completely on some of the issues I care about, but I know a really gifted politician when I see one. He would crush any of the nimrods running for the rethug nomination.

Posted by Steve LaBonne | January 7, 2008 7:16 PM

From what I understand, Obama did very well amongst latinos.

Posted by Anonymous | January 7, 2008 7:19 PM

But I was willing to heavily short Clinton to lose the nomination once it got above 60 cents on the dollar.

Petey, are you willing to heavily short Obama to lose the nomination right now? I believe it's at about 67. Non-rhetorical question.

Posted by right | January 7, 2008 7:23 PM

Here is why this is a bit of a one way street.

The reason why the early states can have this much effect in the Democratic contest is that all of the major contenders are generally well-liked by Democratic voters (contrast this, by the way, with the deeply divided Republican party). That is why it is relatively easy for Democratic voters to process new information (e.g., the results in the early states) and change the order of their preferences: they are just switching from one person they liked to another person they already liked as well.

And there was never a hard anti-Obama vote, or for that matter a hard anti-Clinton vote or anti-Edwards vote, that was going to be large enough to stop any of these candidates from getting over 50% once people started switching their way. So, this process is heading toward a consensus nominee (again, in contrast to the Republican side), all because the major contenders all started off fundamentally well-liked.

Now, of course if the Democratic voters get new information again (e.g., someone else starts winning some states), for the exact same reason they could switch around the order of their preferences again. But someone dropping out isn't going to constitute such an event, precisely because that wouldn't be freeing up some notable anti-X vote that would have to go to Y. And again, that is because there just is no such thing--there are not a lot of anti-X voters on the Democratic side, no matter who you fill in for X.

Posted by DTM | January 7, 2008 7:28 PM

Here is why this is a bit of a one way street.

The reason why the early states can have this much effect in the Democratic contest is that all of the major contenders are generally well-liked by Democratic voters (contrast this, by the way, with the deeply divided Republican party). That is why it is relatively easy for Democratic voters to process new information (e.g., the results in the early states) and change the order of their preferences: they are just switching from one person they liked to another person they already liked as well.

And there was never a hard anti-Obama vote, or for that matter a hard anti-Clinton vote or anti-Edwards vote, that was going to be large enough to stop any of these candidates from getting over 50% once people started switching their way. So, this process is heading toward a consensus nominee (again, in contrast to the Republican side), all because the major contenders all started off fundamentally well-liked.

Now, of course if the Democratic voters get new information again (e.g., someone else starts winning some states), for the exact same reason they could switch around the order of their preferences again. But someone dropping out isn't going to constitute such an event, precisely because that wouldn't be freeing up some notable anti-X vote that would have to go to Y. And again, that is because there just is no such thing--there are not a lot of anti-X voters on the Democratic side, no matter who you fill in for X.

Posted by DTM | January 7, 2008 7:29 PM

I apologize for the double post.

Posted by DTM | January 7, 2008 7:30 PM

All trends are not equal. The primary/caucus dates are fixed. The importance of any trend is in direct proportion to how far away that date is. People used to counter the Clinton-loving polls with "well, all of this is a long way off". You can't say that anymore, and she doesn't have much time to swing it her way. In fact, the overarching megatrend here is this: the closer a voter looks, the more more likely the voter goes for Obama. If we'd had a national primary this month she probably would have won it.

Posted by Phoebe | January 7, 2008 7:41 PM

You're seeing the answer right now, Petey. Bandwagon effect. I'm not ready to say that this is the state of modern Democratic campaigns, but things are playing out in parallel to 2004 -- albeit this time with a candidate with charisma taking the lead. Obama's got the money, the organization, and the campaigning skills to deliver the knockout blow, while Edwards lacks enough of the same to play any major role when he loses his one big victory from last time (South Carolina), and Clinton continues to visibly self-destruct.

Clinton was a decent campaigner as a front-runner. I think she looks absolutely awful as an underdog. Also, and particularly fatally, her campaign was always principally predicated on her electability. I don't see any way she holds on to that while losing Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina, particularly if she loses big.

Completely without sarcasm, I should say that I admire your support for Edwards, both for your reasons and your enthusiasm. But I think you greatly overestimate his appeal at this point. He had to win Iowa to have a chance.

Posted by mrsaturdaypants | January 7, 2008 8:03 PM

"You're seeing the answer right now, Petey. Bandwagon effect."

I'm seeing a lot of very happy, enthusiastic, and energized Obama supporters. That is something different than the bandwagon effect.

That said, Obama is indeed going to own January because of the very real bandwagon effect.

But IA/NH momentum tends to only last 3 to 5 weeks historically.

As always the question is whether or not Obama can get up to majority status on 2/5. You folks are going to have a fun January, but that's likely not going to be when the nomination is decided.

Posted by Petey | January 7, 2008 8:14 PM

Again, though, what would stop Obama from getting over 50%?

Democratic voters already like him, they consistently say they want a candidate who will represent change, and they increasingly are coming to the conclusion Obama is at least as electable as anyone else (and maybe more so).

So, I just don't see a natural cap for Obama's support.

Posted by DTM | January 7, 2008 8:23 PM

"Petey, are you willing to heavily short Obama to lose the nomination right now? I believe it's at about 67. Non-rhetorical question."

No. But I'd be getting in the water at 80, which we may very well get to tomorrow, believe it or not.

It's incredibly hard to estimate fair value when the race is in so much flux - I'll have a better sense by around Thursday or Friday - but if I had to take a stab in the dark at it right now:

50 Obama
30 Clinton
20 Edwards

(The reason I'm not shorting Obama at 72, which is where I think we are now is 1) it's hard to estimate fair value when the race is in so much flux and 2) you make money if you only get involved when Intrade value dramatically differs from fair value.)

Posted by Petey | January 7, 2008 8:23 PM

Are there any instances where someone's won the first four contests of the primary season and didn't win the nomination? Let's look to such cases for parallels (if they exist).

I get it: you don't believe in Obama. Fair enough. I think if you look, you'll see Clinton and Edwards fading, and that Clinton's left with the Giuliani strategy. It won't work for her either.

Posted by mrsaturdaypants | January 7, 2008 8:26 PM

I don't buy the idea of a Edwards/Obama alliance based on the assumptions that I am reading here. It isn't clear to me that Obama's youth vote was something even Obama could be certain would work out for him. I think it's fair to say there's no precedent for it. Nor is it clear how many of the votes Edwards got in Iowa would really have migrated to Clinton to begin with if Edwards suddenly disappeared. So this whole idea of dividing the older demographics between Clinton and Edwards to solidify Obama's position seems to be conceivable only in the benefit of hindsight, and requires us to stupidly extrapolate from Iowa not only how the candidates will perform in other states, but also the supposed perceptions of the Obama and Edwards campaigns prior to the Iowa caucuses. Which is just crazy-I don't think anyone knew what was really going to happen, and who the hell knows how the cookie will crumble in New Hampshire?

I think Edwards wants to win the nomination, is playing his cards as best he can to achieve that result, and that what sympathies he has for the Obama campaign have played no role in his decision-making processes. With three players vying for votes, the field remains too fluid to say with any certainty who benefits the most from the current arrangement. It's a three person race that has morphed into a game of cutthroat. Hillary is simply the easiest target for both the Obama and Edwards campaign. She asked for her own beating when she set herself up as the establishment pinata. This ain't no establishment year, and both Obama and Edwards can shore up their upstart credentials by whacking away at her. If they succeed in ending her presidential bid, then they will probably coast according to different assumptions regarding which of the two will have the most electoral mojo. Edwards will count on being from a white dude from a southern state, and Obama will ply his rhetorical wares in the hopes of riding a wave of charisma to victory. They won't look each other in the eye, let alone get into a catfight over the White House.

Posted by gerontion | January 7, 2008 8:36 PM

If it's Edwards v Obama, then dKos will be unbearable, simply unbearable.

Posted by Beth | January 7, 2008 8:37 PM

"Are there any instances where someone's won the first four contests of the primary season and didn't win the nomination? Let's look to such cases for parallels (if they exist)."

In 1972, Muskie won IA and NH, and I believe a few more before losing.

In 1982, Hart lost IA, then won NH and a string of states for about a month before Mondale regrouped.

(1992 doesn't really fit your condition, since the early states were split before Clinton began winning around the 5th or 6th contest. And there were plenty of pre-72 cases where the early primary winner didn't get the nomination, but those don't really count since we weren't in the open primary system.)

"I get it: you don't believe in Obama."

Did you not read immediately above your post where I said I thought he's the clear favorite?

What I "believe" is that IA/NH momentum traditionally lasts 3 to 5 weeks.

What I "believe" is that Clinton has a ton of money and organizational support to wait out January.

What I "believe" is that Edwards has a core of support on the left to wait out January.

What I "believe" is that the very personal attributes that endear Obama to young voters make him a difficult sale to older voters once the wave subsides.

Posted by Petey | January 7, 2008 8:41 PM

"Are there any instances where someone's won the first four contests of the primary season and didn't win the nomination"

And don't count your chickens about Nevada quite yet. Obama is a lock if he gets Culinary tomorrow, but it might get interesting if Edwards or Clinton get it.

Posted by Petey | January 7, 2008 8:51 PM

So, as voters melt away from the safe, middle-of-the-road Clinton they'll decide not to go with the safe, middle-of-the-road (at least rhetorically) Obama and instead go with Mr. Fight, Fight, Fight? I don't think so.
Posted by ostap

Edwards big problem is that as a one-term Senator who was too liberal to be relected, he simply continued his Presidential campaigning after 2004, spending more time in Iowa than either the Senate or in North Carolina. He cast himself as the trial lawyer and hedge fund director with the 30,000 dollar house accepting millions from his vastly wealthy trial lawyer cronies to stand in for the little guy and work the classic populism of resentment. (Oh, sorry, that's how the media and his opponents see him).

All well and good, but his populism of envy and fighting the same old, same old yuppie, yippie, and 60s wars fell flat. Obama's version of the populism of hope and looking to the future sold better than Edwards, symbolizing One America, being the Voice and Leader of the Other, beset upon, America.

He staked everything on being the winner in Iowa, as the Voice that opposed Hillary and the Establishment Democrats. He didn't think Obama could wipe the floor with him and Hillary, but Obama's messianic hordes did just that.

Now Edwards is a dead man walking after New Hampshire. Voters want a populist message, but one of hope, not a "po' po' is us!" one that George McGovern could have said verbatim back in 1972.

The question is not to which barely served in office Senator gets the Establishment votes. It is where Edwards voters go to next.

Posted by Chris Ford | January 7, 2008 9:04 PM

Petey,

I'm curious: how long do NV and SC momentum typically last?

Posted by marcj | January 7, 2008 9:05 PM

"All well and good, but his populism of envy and fighting the same old, same old yuppie, yippie, and 60s wars fell flat."

The fascinating thing to me is just how anti-left a substantial chunk of the Obama supporters are.

The thread of anti-left fervor in the Obama campaign is going to be one of its real weaknesses come February.

The candidate of Andrew Sullivan and David Brooks is going to have an interesting time getting to 2025.

Posted by Petey | January 7, 2008 9:26 PM

I'm also curious about Petey's claim. Here, for example, is a discussion that includes a chart detailing the momentum effect Kerry picked up in 2004 as he won Iowa and NH:

http://www.pollster.com/blogs/primary_polling_primer_timing.php

Where exactly is the 3-5 week loss of momentum?

Posted by DTM | January 7, 2008 9:28 PM

Petey: The candidate of Andrew Sullivan and David Brooks is going to have an interesting time getting to 2025.

Yeah, Petey. Iowa and South Carolina are just filled with David Brooks and Andrew Sullivan types.

Spot on

Posted by hlah | January 7, 2008 9:31 PM

As usual, apparently some people are having trouble grasping that sometimes a candidate can actually have broad support. meaning sometimes candidates can draw significant support from a wide range of people as measured by ideology.

Posted by DTM | January 7, 2008 9:46 PM

"Where exactly is the 3-5 week loss of momentum?"

I'm guessing you're not particularly interested in the answer, DTM, since that same Blumenthal piece you link to mentions the numerous campaigns where the candidate who won early primaries but didn't go on to win the nomination.

In case I'm mistaken, I'd suggest researching the Dem '84 primary campaign, which is a textbook example for understanding exactly when and how the momentum recedes.

-----

Enjoy your January, Obamabots. And I mean that seriously. Surfing a wave is fun.

But remember that you win this particular game by getting to 2025.

(And buy Obama on Intrade! I'd like you to push him high enough so I can make a killing on the short.)

Posted by Petey | January 7, 2008 9:56 PM

You guys need to take the engineering approach and look at the hard numbers.

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Party_(United_States)_presidential_primaries,_2008

Some excepts:

a) Re Superdelegates (Members of Congress):
"As of January 5, 2008, the totals were: Hillary Clinton 154; Barack Obama 50; John Edwards 33; Bill Richardson 19; "

b) Obama only got 45 pledged delegates from IOWA and will only get 22 from New Hampshire. South Carolina will yield 45.

c) Hillary is the ONLY candidate on the Michigan primary, which yields 128 pledged delegates. Granted, the DNC is currently Zeroing out the vote of those delegates because the Michigan Democratic Party broke the Feb 5 barrier -- but that may come under legal challenge. Hillary choosing to remain on Michigan's ticket after Obama and Edwards pulled off will give her an advantage-- if Michigan pulls back to Feb 5.

d) Hillary is likely to get New York's 232 delegates on Super Tuesday --Feb 5. Plus Haim Saban's Spanish Univision TV network will make a strong stealth push on Hillary's behalf in California , under the radar of the English speaking world.

e) Given that 2025 delegates are needed for the nomination, I don't see January as deciding the issue, assuming the Big Money boys stick with Hillary.

f) Normally there is a strong bandwagon effect if one candidate becomes the obvious favorite -- people don't want to be left out in the cold with the loser --especially if doing so endangers their own political future by alienating the party's anointed leader.

g) But this time is different. Per Karl Rove's plan, The Democratic Party is being split into two major factions -- the antiwar Progressives vs the prowar Israel Lobby.

The very thing that is hurting Hillary with the rank and file vote in the primaries -- her docile obedience to the wealthy financiers of the Israel Lobby -- ensures that Hillary won't have to fold her tent for a long time to come.

h) The strength of people like Haim Saban and S Daniel Abraham is that they are immune to political pressure -- they have their billions in the bank, not invested in corporations. Hence, they can fight Obama till the cows come home.

i) Plus they know the Democrats will eventually have to cut a deal with them -- else they can simply walk over into the welcoming arms of the Republicans. Look at Joe Lieberman.

An interesting question is whether The Israel Lobby can throw the election to the Republicans, even given the Republican's unpopularity, by running Michael Bloomberg as an Independent.

Posted by Don Williams | January 7, 2008 9:58 PM

Petey,

What Blumenthal actually writes is:

"An early loss is not necessarily fatal. Many early front runners (Reagan, Mondale, Clinton, both Bushes) have lost early primaries and bounced back to win their nominations, but the early primaries almost always change voter preferences."

So, I don't disagree with the idea that someone else could still win the nomination. But you seem to be arguing that somehow the effects of the early primaries automatically disappear in 3-5 weeks. I remain skeptical about that.

Posted by DTM | January 7, 2008 10:02 PM

"But you seem to be arguing that somehow the effects of the early primaries automatically disappear in 3-5 weeks. I remain skeptical about that."

In contests where the early winner can't quickly consolidate, that's when the early wave tends to recede.

My bet is that Clinton's ability to fundraise will mean Obama can't quickly consolidate.

We'll see how it plays out.

(BTW, you should blame the Michigan Dems if you end up losing the nomination. If they hadn't tried to fight with NH, then IA and NH both would've been scheduled two weeks later than they are, and then 2/5 would've occurred at the very height of your wave.)

Posted by Petey | January 7, 2008 10:18 PM

Petey,

Again, I have yet to see you offer any evidence to support your claim that the effects of the early primaries automatically disappear in 3-5 weeks.

That said, I am sure it is true that "[i]n contests where the early winner can't quickly consolidate," new events will affect the dynamic of the race on something like that timeframe. That is because new primaries likely will be coming along within that timeframe, and I gather you are hypothesizing that the early winner does not win all those contests.

So, what you are really arguing (it seems to me) is that the momentum effects from early wins might start fading if the early winner starts losing primaries. That of course makes perfect sense. But again, that does not support your claim that momentum effects will just automatically disappear.

Posted by DTM | January 7, 2008 10:45 PM

So based on the 2025 math is the reason HRC is so confident she will be the nominee. That delgate math is why she was so cocky with Couric and adamantly asserting "I will be the nominee"
This also accounts for why MCAuliffe is telling folks that HRC will be the nominee as well.

Based on this math it does seem that HRC has an advantage and could well still be the nominee, much to the chagrin of the American people and Democratic party as a whole.

If Hillary is the nominee and Blumberg runs, we can expect to have a GOP President. HRC will galvanize the GOP to the polls and depress the Democratic turnout. All those new voters that Obama has brought into the process will not vote for HRC and many long time Democrats won't either.

The electorate will feel they were scammed and that jaded cyncism will result in a very low turnout.

I still hope Obama wins in SC and NV, and I am happy to see that the national polls show him cutting HRC's lead in half.

Yet, I have a quesy feeling that the 2025 math is going to turn out like the Fl electoral votes and simply wind up being appointed to HRC in some back room deal.

After all, it wouldn't be called the Clinton machine otherwise.

It also makes sense for the first time why Bill Clinton was so mad at Richardson for sending his IA delegates to Obama, Richardson also has congressional superdelegates he can give to Obama as well and I suspect that was really part of why he was so outraged and ranting about what jobs he had given Richardson in his administration. All of which is a red flag as to how arms will be twisted at the DNC in August to ensure HRC has the delegate votes.

I hope Obama supporters create tremendous upheaval and fight for the soul of the party. DNC fight that is surely coming could be when Obama being a Chicago politician could come in very handy.

Posted by vicissitudes | January 7, 2008 10:49 PM

"So, what you are really arguing (it seems to me) is that the momentum effects from early wins might start fading if the early winner starts losing primaries."

No. The wave period could be filled with contests or empty of contests. It doesn't really matter.

Cheers.

Posted by Petey | January 7, 2008 11:07 PM

Regarding Michigan -- no sign here that the Party is going to back off, and lots of signs that Obama and Edwards supporters will either sit it out or cross over. The story is likely a lower than expected Dem turnout (maybe even much lower) with some surprising counts for the GOP.

Posted by Harris | January 7, 2008 11:10 PM

Going into Iowa, my feeling was that if either Obama or Clinton won, that candidate would also walk away with NH, snowball through the other early states and coast to an easy super Tuesday win, at which point everybody else drops out. Both have the necessary money and organization, and they were so evenly matched, once either one got momentum, the game would be up. If Edwards took Iowa we could have been in for an interesting and bumpy ride.

Everything I've seen so far has reinforced that belief. Obama will take NH easily. There are no post-Iowa NV polls, but he'll likely take that too, before utterly obliterating Clinton and Edwards in SC.

As for super Tuesday, Clinton's huge national lead has already collapsed entirely, and that after just one win for Obama. Clinton's support will erode further with each additional win. Some of that support will go to Edwards, but the majority will go to Obama, as it has so far. Barring a major disaster, the trendlines in place now are self-reinforcing and will not change. Obama will take every state. Stick a fork in this race, it's done.

Posted by J.B. | January 7, 2008 11:12 PM

Petey,

OK, then I back to asking you for evidence to support that claim.

By the way, Mondale won Iowa in 1984 (before Hart won in NH). Also, Mondale's eventual comeback was fueled in part by Mondale's "Where's the beef" line of attack, introduced in a subsequent debate. So, even holding aside the fact that Mondale kicked off the 1984 contest with a win, he also found an effective line of attack. His comeback did not just happen automatically.

Posted by DTM | January 7, 2008 11:30 PM

Man, Petey, I think you're about as difficult to agree with as to disagree with.

So, you take Obama to have a 50% chance to win, but only after his wave has subsided and he's been battered around a bit on Feb. 5th, ultimately saved by Edwards, who holds Clinton at bay until old people finally warm to Obama.

Makes sense. But I'm with J.B., in spite of Clinton's superdelegates. Some waves are bigger than others. Maybe I'm overestimating Obama's campaigning skills. We'll see.

Posted by mrsaturdaypants | January 7, 2008 11:31 PM

Williams: "Haim Saban's Spanish Univision TV network will make a strong stealth push on Hillary's behalf in California , under the radar of the English speaking world."

One question on that? Can we assume that the Latin vote is automatically going to follow any Israel Lobby propaganda for Clinton on a Spanish network, when Clinton is white and Obama is black? Do we assume that all Latinos dislike blacks enough to vote for Clinton simply on that basis?

I'm not that confident of that. Any polls to back that scenario up?

I could see the Latinos going for Obama over Clinton easily based on simple race issues. I mean, if I was Latino, I'd assume a black guy as Prez would mean a lot more to me than another white even if the white was a female. Maybe if I was a LatinA, but I'm not sure about that.

Also, how's the black vote going to shape up in this election? It seems to me that damn few blacks are going to vote Clinton over Obama - and there should be an impressive black turnout at the polls as well to enhance the effect.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | January 7, 2008 11:36 PM

"So, you take Obama to have a 50% chance to win, but only after his wave has subsided and he's been battered around a bit on Feb. 5th, ultimately saved by Edwards, who holds Clinton at bay until old people finally warm to Obama."

That's certainly a viable scenario.

But this could play out a hundred different ways.

Clinton could decide she doesn't have the heart to spend the next month losing races and slagging Obama and announce tomorrow night that she's dropping out. Who the fuck knows?

I do know a few things:

1) Obama has momentum, Clinton has money and machinery, and Edwards has the left with the ability to scale up if conditions permit.

2) The Axelrod/Trippi alliance is in place to combat the strength of the Clintonworld axis.

3) Unless Clinton implodes in a way I'm not currently able to imagine, we're far more likely to see a long race than a short race.

Throw it all in a blender, and I think Obama has around a 50/50 shot of walking away with it at the end.

But as said, who the fuck knows. That's why they play the games.

Posted by Petey | January 8, 2008 12:01 AM

I'm late to the party here. Obviously, anything could happen, and Obama could crumble. But thus far Obama has shown himself to be the most gifted candidate in the race and he seems to have lots of dynamic trends in his favor.

Clinton seems to be stumbling in fairly profound ways; she'll probably be back somewhat after a staff shakeup but I doubt it'll be enough. Edwards, whatever his natural talents, has the tremendous handicap of a federal limit on his spending, and he just isn't as inspiring as the first-of-their-kind candidates. Obama, meanwhile, seems in pretty good shape.

Even in a (by my lights, improbable) brokered convention scenario, Obama is highly likely to have the most delegates and the best argument for why he should be nominated (as he does now). It's fine to be skeptical, but I think any rational analysis puts Obama as the prohibitive favorite right now.

Posted by southpaw | January 8, 2008 12:10 AM

I'm very biased pro-Obama, and am deeply awful at prognostications, but here's something to consider: Hillary Clinton represents New York in the Senate, got in good with the political classes, and has the name recognition. But, she spends all her time in Washington when not campaigning, New York hates its politicians, and Obama's going to have the big mo'.

So, what happens when Obama beats Clinton in New York? And every other Super Tuesday state? Laissez les bons temps roulez!

Posted by David B. | January 8, 2008 12:28 AM

"Even in a (by my lights, improbable) brokered convention scenario, Obama is highly likely to have the most delegates and the best argument for why he should be nominated (as he does now)"

Due to the schedule, I think it's next to impossible for us to have a brokered convention, but if we did, having the most delegates tends not to get you anywhere in such situations.

Clinton seems to be stumbling in fairly profound ways

She will continue to seem to stumble for 3 to 5 weeks.

Edwards, whatever his natural talents ... just isn't as inspiring as the first-of-their-kind candidates

Unless you care about ideology or issues, in which case he's the only inspiring candidate in the race.

Obama, meanwhile, seems in pretty good shape.

He will continue to seem to be in pretty good shape for 3 to 5 weeks.

-----

"I think any rational analysis puts Obama as the prohibitive favorite right now."

I think that's the rational analysis of folks who don't understand the dynamics of the process we're entering.

Or to say the same thing in other words, a perfectly neutral observer who wasn't a skilled observer of the nomination race would think Obama was the prohibitive favorite.

Or to say the same thing in yet other words, Obama is at 72 on Intrade.

In reality, he's got a more perilous road, though he is the most likely to win.

Posted by Petey | January 8, 2008 12:31 AM

Re JB's comment "Barring a major disaster, the trendlines in place now are self-reinforcing and will not change. Obama will take every state. Stick a fork in this race, it's done."
------------
1) Ha ha ha ha. Stop! Please! You're making my sides hurt. Gasp. choke.

Boy, you guys are a bunch of VIRGINS aren't you?

Remember how Gart Hart had a lock on the 1988 nomination?

2) Gary who?
Exactly my point.

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gary_Hart#1988_presidential_campaign_and_the_Donna_Rice_affair

Posted by Don Williams | January 8, 2008 12:38 AM

To expand very slightly, we're highly unlikely to have a brokered convention because the convention is scheduled so late that it'd fuck up the general election campaign, so unbelievable amounts of pressure would be put on people to settle things in late March or April.

But in the highly unlikely situation that we did have a brokered convention, it doesn't go to the candidate with the most delegates, it goes to the best second choice candidate, who, as in Iowa, would end up being Edwards. (With an outside shot at Gore popping in.)

Posted by Petey | January 8, 2008 12:39 AM

1) Howard Dean was the frontrunner in 2004 -- until billionaire S Daniel Abraham cut him off at the knees with an anonymous barrage of negative TV ads after Dean told Lieberman that the US should be evenhanded in the Israel-Palestinian dispute.

See "Political Mugging in America" at http://www.public-i.org/report.aspx?aid=194&sid=200 .

What did Dean do? He argued with Lieberman in debate that the US should be evenhanded in the Israel-Palestinian dispute --heresy to the Israel Lobby: http://dir.salon.com/story/news/feature/2003/09/23/dean_israel/index.html

Posted by Don Williams | January 8, 2008 12:43 AM

1) I worked on the Howard Dean campaign in New Hampshire and Delaware. I still remember how it was blown out of the water.

2) FORWARD covered it in a little more detail --
see http://216.109.125.130/search/cache?ei=UTF-8&p=%22S+Daniel+Abraham%22+%22Howard+Dean%22+%22Forward%22&y=Search&fr=yfp-t-322&u=www.forward.com/articles/campaign-confidential-85/&w=%22s+daniel+abraham%22+%22howard+dean%22+forward&d=erhAkbXiPy6P&icp=1&.intl=us .
(IF this link doesn't work, cut and paste it into your browser's address bar). The info re S Daniel Abraham's attack on Dean is at the bottom.

I particularly liked this part:
------
"What raised eyebrows, however, is that Abraham’s longtime chief political factotum, Sara Ehrman, was an adviser to Dean.

Ehrman, who works as senior adviser at the Abraham-funded Center for Middle East Peace and Economic Cooperation, declined to comment on Abraham’s funding of the anti-Dean group or how her involvement with Dean might be viewed in light of it, saying only, “Danny’s going to have to speak on that himself.”
----------
ha ha ha

PS Forward is wrong on one item. IRS Records indicate that S Daniel Abraham didn't kick in $100,000 for the attack ads -- he kicked in $200,000.

Posted by Don Williams | January 8, 2008 12:46 AM

We each have our confirmation biases, Petey. And you may be right that I'm not a skilled observer. But Edwards' matching fund issue is intractable; Obama's weak points (age stratification, hostility from the Edwards' left) aren't.

Posted by southpaw | January 8, 2008 12:46 AM

Richard Steven Hack:

I could see the Latinos going for Obama over Clinton easily based on simple race issues. I mean, if I was Latino, I'd assume a black guy as Prez would mean a lot more to me than another white even if the white was a female.

Actually, I'd argue very strongly it's the other way round entirely. Throughout most of the country, there's a huge amount of grassroots hostility between Latinos and blacks, far more than (for example) between Latinos and whites.

This has been demonstrated over and over again in regional/city political races such as those of Los Angeles, New York, Southern Florida, and (I think) in Chicago (I don't know anything about SF). Many black and Latino leaders try to work together and minimize friction, but to some extent they're swimming upstream.

Most of the top Latino leaders in CA have endorsed Clinton, which would also give her a boost. On the other hand, I'm pretty skeptical about whether that Saban fellow would really do anything "extra special" for Clinton, since I think he'd get along just fine with Obama as well, who's already attracted the strong support of many of his influential Hollywood friends.

Since all the big states like CA, NY, TX, etc. are just too large for any real TV advertising, I'd guess it will mostly be national media and momentum that determines who carries them. Obama would probably do very well during mid/late Jan., but as Petey points out, a lot of things can happen after that.

Posted by RKU | January 8, 2008 12:50 AM

But in the highly unlikely situation that we did have a brokered convention, it doesn't go to the candidate with the most delegates, it goes to the best second choice candidate, who, as in Iowa, would end up being Edwards.

Sure, in a conventional race. Here, you'd have Edwards and Clinton scrambling to convert Obama delegates--working to prevent the first major party nomination of an African American. I'm sorry, I just don't see that happening.

Posted by southpaw | January 8, 2008 12:54 AM

"Edwards' matching fund issue is intractable"

Did you pay attention to Iowa? There was more outside spending for Edwards than official spending.

Posted by Petey | January 8, 2008 12:57 AM

I hope no one lets Petey convince them that only he is capable of rational and skilled analysis.

In particular, I have yet to see any evidence for Petey's claim that momentum is like a state of intoxication that automatically wears off after 3-5 weeks. Indeed, we know it doesn't always wear off in 3-5 weeks, as that did not happen in 2004.

Rather, I think momentum in this context is more just a name for what we observe when voters in subsequent states treat the results in earlier states as important new information and reorder their preferences accordingly. On that information-based model, the effect isn't going to wear off, although of course it may be overcome by new events that provide more new information. But again, Petey is insisting these effects will go away without any such new events/information arising, and I find that hypothesis implausible and as yet unsupported.

As a final thought, in addition to 2004, I think we already have some evidence in favor of the information-based model of momentum in 2008. We knew going into Iowa that Obama was already well-liked by Democratic voters in places like NH, but some people who otherwise liked Obama still had concerns about his "electability". The results in Iowa provided such voters with information that addressed the electability issue (demonstrably: his poll numbers on that issue have since gone up), and accordingly voter preference has shifted in his favor.

In contrast, Huckabee faces hard opposition from significant factions of his own party on largely ideological grounds. Those factions are particularly numerous in NH, and his win in Iowa did very little to address those ideological concerns. Accordingly, Huckabee got almost no bounce in NH.

It seems to be that according to Petey's 3-5 week intoxication theory, Huckabee should also have gotten a bounce. So, this is yet another piece of evidence in favor of the information-based view, and against Petey's intoxication-based view.

Posted by DTM | January 8, 2008 3:26 AM

All you Obama junkies: Just saw the Colbert Report; so nice that you have Andrew Sullivan on your side! I don't particularly like any of the 3 top dem candidates, though any one of them would be intellectually superior to any of the repubs. Truth is, they can promise change all they like, but it's the legislative branch that actually does the work. We know that no dem will have ANY support from the other side. I doubt that any of them could change things much unless they had a congress that was solidly democratic. I also worry that the primaries are not a true reflection of what will happen in the general election. Too many opportunities for republican dirty tricks...crossing over to vote for the candidate they would most like to see run against the repubs. (Same could be true of the dems crossing over, but probably less likely). To me, Obama is like Gene McCarthy...beware the flavor of the month! Especially one that Andy likes so much, because "he could unite us" what total bullshit.

Posted by ruthless | January 8, 2008 4:04 AM

I don't know if people will find this helpful, but SurveyUSA used to do job approval ratings for US Senators, and I believe the last set they did for Illinois was back in November of 2006. These had a lot of cross-tabs.

At that time, Obama had higher ratings across the board than Durbin (who is otherwise a pretty popular Democrat--just not like Obama). Interestingly, whereas Durbin was more popular among white voters than he was among Hispanic voters, Obama was actually slightly more popular among Hispanic voters than white voters (although again he was more popular among both groups than Durbin). Incidentally, Durbin is Catholic.

Anyway, the upshot is that it seems to me that Obama did not have a problem appealing to Hispanic voters in Illinois, and if anything had more appeal than the typical Democrat. Of course it remains to be seen if he can translate his broad appeal in Illinois to places like California, but so far his broad appeal in Illinois appears to be fairly predictive (meaning it has borne out demographically in places like Iowa and apparently NH).

Posted by DTM | January 8, 2008 4:13 AM

I think you will all be surprised when the Obama / Edwards / Clinton alliance is finally solidified and beats their primary rivals.

Bullshit. The Richardson-Gravel-Kucinich axis will show you how much you know when they make their stand in the Virgin Islands primary.

Posted by Jason C. | January 8, 2008 4:39 AM

Kudos to Jason C for highlighting the threadwinning comment, by El Cid, which may have been about the only comment to add to the thread. Most of the rest was just Petey being Petey, and people responding. Don't you know that just encourages him?

In the thread I also noted that, of course, Don Williams has perceived the hand of AIPAC in all of this. The only Chris Ford comment I saw seemed almost entirely reasonable, which surely must be a sign of the apocalypse.

You'd think that, after a post in which Yglesias played at being Petey, Petey'd just let it rest a bit. Yes, Petey, we all know that Edwards is not only dreamy but also the real beneficiary of everything that's happened in this campaign since the invention of electoral democracy, now go off and play.

Posted by Warren Terra | January 8, 2008 7:18 AM

Re Richard's question "One question on that? Can we assume that the Latin vote is automatically going to follow any Israel Lobby propaganda for Clinton on a Spanish network, when Clinton is white and Obama is black? Do we assume that all Latinos dislike blacks enough to vote for Clinton simply on that basis?

I'm not that confident of that. Any polls to back that scenario up? "
-----------------
1) First of all, Univision is the fifth largest US TV network -- and the ONLY Spanish language network here in the USA. It's not just in California --we get it here in Philadelphia.

2) We all saw how FOX News gained enormous clout in a very short time via focus on a particular viewing segment -- conservatives and rural dwellers.

3) I noted above how Howard Dean was blown out of the water with just $1 Million in advertising -- imagine what the owner of a network can do over several months and total control of news content.

4) Look at the Haaretz interview -- Haim Saban explains WHY he buys media properties:

-----------
[Saban] " We could seriously improve the situation of Ma'ariv [Israeli newspaper]. It can be turned into a profitable business. And it's true that if you get the opportunity to have influence in a sphere that is very important to you, the factor that lets you wield the influence is important."

[Haaretz] "What you are saying is that if you can't be prime minister of Israel, then owning an influential paper in Israel is a pretty good substitute."

[Saban] "It's not that simple. If you came to Ma'ariv I wouldn't tell you to write this way or that. It doesn't work like that. But a newspaper has a soul [also, wind]. And if one can affect whether the winds blow right or left, that's important. It doesn't have the same weight as being prime minister, but it's important."

[Haaretz] Why not replace Eliezer Fishman [as a partner] in Yedioth Ahronoth [Israel's largest daily]? You were very close to [publisher] Noni [Mozes, the paper's owner].

[Saban] "We are still friends. I like and respect Noni. But Yedioth is the Mozes family paper. There are things you just don't do. You don't get into that stew when it's clear that it's the paper of Noni Mozes."

[Haaretz] It's either be the owner or nothing?

[Saban] "Of course. Just to look for a return on your investment there are a million possibilities that are not the press."

[Haaretz] In the press you look for influence, not a return.

[Saban] "A return with influence."

Ref: http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/798437.html

Posted by Don Williams | January 8, 2008 7:55 AM

In That same Haaretz interview, Billionaire Haim Saban also explained his most urgent need:
---------

[Saban] "The Iranians are serious. They mean business. Ahmadinejad is not a madman. And every Jew who feels himself to be a Jew lives under the shadow of the Holocaust. That is something that does not leave us. The Holocaust never leaves us. So we are treating Ahmadinejad's declarations like those of Hitler in the 1930s."

[Haaretz] You too?

[Saban] "Yes, of course. When I see Ahmadinejad, I see Hitler. They speak the same language. His motivation is also clear: the return of the Mahdi is a supreme goal. And for a religious person of deep self-persuasion, that supreme goal is worth the liquidation of five and a half million Jews.

We cannot allow ourselves that. Nuclear weapons in the hands of a religious leadership that is convinced that the annihilation of Israel will bring about the emergence of a new Muslim caliphate? Israel cannot allow that. This is no game. It's truly an existential danger."

[Haaretz] You have a deep knowledge of the United States - will the U.S. take action to stop Iran?

[Saban] "President Bush has no capital. He doesn't have the political capital to take a drastic step"

...later in the interview...

[Haaretz] Could she [Hillary] be president?

{Saban]"In my view she is ten times more qualified than any other candidate."

[Haaretz] Do you really believe that, or is that your friendship talking?

[Saban] "What friendship? This is the presidency of the United States. Do you think I would support you if you were running?"

[Haaretz] And is America capable of electing a liberal woman?

[Saban] "Yes. And she's not all that liberal, either. When it comes to security, she has taken a very centrist position."

[Haaretz] Will she be good for Israel?

[Saban] "I think so. Look, President Bush is very one-sidedly pro-Israel. But look at the results of his policy. They were not beneficial for Israel. We are in a major mess. Look at the facts on the ground. Bush is a massive failure. Hillary will be more balanced than Bush. She will try to create credibility among the Arabs in order to mediate between them and us. We will get nowhere with them in direct negotiations. Only with billions, with pressure."

[Haaretz] Will President Hillary Clinton be capable of making tough decisions on Iran?

[Saban] "Her policy will be different. She believes, and I agree, that it's a mistake to conduct negotiations through the European envoys. As I told you about Hamas, we have to talk with everyone, including Ahmadinejad. Hillary Clinton intends to engage with Iran in order to try to find a political solution that will ensure a non-nuclear Iran."

[Haaretz] And if she can't reach a political solution?

[Saban] "I don't think she knows, and I certainly don't know, and even if I knew I wouldn't tell you, with all due respect."

[Haaretz] Do you still feel, as you once did, that America's attitude toward Israel is liable to deteriorate?

[Saban] "At the moment there is no sign of a crisis. But we must not be complacent. The two pillars of the state are the Israel Defense Forces and the U.S., Dimona [the site of Israel's nuclear reactor] and Washington. We must do all we can to maintain the alliance with America. A major crisis at the wrong time could be a disaster, a disaster."

[Haaretz] Do you feel that as an Israeli-American of influence your mission is to prevent that crisis?

[Saban] "You said it."
-----------------
Haim Saban raised over $1 Million for Hillary early in 2007, after that interview.

Does it sound to you guys like that BILLIONAIRE is going to pack up his tent and wait 5 more years for the next Presidential election ?

Give Ahmadinejad 5 more years to develop nukes, just because the stupid little people here in America prefer Obama over Hillary?

Plus Saban and S Daniel Abraham are not the only billionaires backing the Israel Lobby.

In my opinion, To think that Kenneth Pollack, Bill O'Reilly, William Kristol, or Michael O'Hanlon do what they do out of personal conviction is like saying that a whore has sex with a john because she is deeply in love and appreciates the john's deep personal qualities.

When you watch the news, you're NOT watching the REAL NEWS. You're watching a PLAY -- a Kubuki dance. Same goes for the viewers of Univision.

Posted by Don Williams | January 8, 2008 8:14 AM

What I "believe" is that if Obama is at the top of the Democratic ticket, lots of white working class democratic voters will forget to go voting on election day, probably enough to give us another Republican Administration.

Posted by Don Quijote | January 8, 2008 8:48 AM

What I "believe" is that if Obama is at the top of the Democratic ticket, lots of white working class democratic voters will forget to go voting on election day, probably enough to give us another Republican Administration.

I'd go farther, and without the racism you're hinting at.

Obama is nominated, the working class and independents don't forget to vote. They vote for a Republican.

Posted by Cal | January 8, 2008 12:30 PM

Obama is nominated, the working class and independents don't forget to vote. They vote for a Republican.

You're being ridiculous. Obama has already brought working class white voters to the polls in record numbers. He's brought out the youth vote, which nobody's ever done before. None of the Republican candidates even appears palatable to their own party, and most of them would do worse in the general. Yet, by your lights, they'll mop the floor with the most talented natural politician in the race? Ridiculous.

And racism masquerading as concern trolling just pisses me off.

Posted by southpaw | January 8, 2008 3:30 PM

I'm not concerned, provided someone other than Romney gets the nomination. I'll just vote Republican. Which is what I suspect a lot of people will do.

Now, if I'm wrong about that, *then* I'm concerned, because lord help the country if we've gotten stupid enough to vote in a guy who only represents change by being the least accomplished leader we've voted in since ol Woodrow. It's perfectly possible to think he's a walking disaster in a nice suit without any reference to his race--which, by the way, is as much white as it is black. Not that Obama likes to remember that.

I don't remember reading about Obama and the working class. He's the elite's guy, I thought. I won't be convinced he's winning the working class until there's a closed primary, because Republicans could certainly be voting for him to cut Hillary down.

"He's brought out the youth vote, which nobody's ever done before"

It's a relatively simple matter to get out the youth vote if they don't have to plan ahead and can show up on a whim. Just ask Jesse Ventura.

But weren't most of them college students who probably were from out of state?

Posted by Cal | January 8, 2008 4:29 PM

"He's brought out the youth vote, which nobody's ever done before"

It's a relatively simple matter to get out the youth vote if they don't have to plan ahead and can show up on a whim. Just ask Jesse Ventura.

This is analytical error. The Iowa caucuses require a commitment to show up at a precise time and spend several hours participating in the process. And the loosey goosey kids didn't show up for Dean in 2004; they've never shown up for anyone before in a presidential race (forgive my ignorance of bizarre Minnesota gubernatorial elections).

Look, if Obama's not your cup of tea, feel free not to vote for him. Perhaps you'll be in a majority. But all the available evidence suggests that you won't be.

Posted by southpaw | January 8, 2008 4:58 PM

Obama has strength across all demographics but from the polling I have seen he does better among the higher incomes than at the lower incomes. I would also assume much of his support on the low end is from students or recent grads. This does not however mean that Democratic white low income voters would automatically vote for the Republican. I assume they would vote for the Democrat since they are in fact Democrats.

Posted by toldeo | January 8, 2008 9:18 PM