Forecasting

My incessant predictions of Clinton victory have been Barack Obama's key good luck charm (have you noticed that I never predict anything correctly?) so even in her hour of seeming darkness I'm going to hold to the faith. There are two weeks between now and the crucial Texas/Ohio matchups. During that period, all signs point to John McCain focusing his fire on Obama rather than Mike Huckabee or Clinton. Consequently, Obama's real and potential general election vulnerabilities are going to be front-and-center in the minds of Democrats, whereas Clinton's equally real potential vulnerabilities will be invisible.

Fundamentally, meanwhile, many people -- especially including Democrats and not by any means excluding African-Americans -- deep down can't really imagine that the black guy could also be the electable guy. Watching Obama take fire from McCain there may be a Great Freakout as people decide that the fundamentals basically favor the Democrats so why not settle for Hillary Clinton and a reasonable shot at a 50%+1 victory rather than playing to win with Obama.

Comments

Hmm...compellingly implausible. I like it!

Posted by mrsaturdaypants | February 20, 2008 1:14 AM

So Obama is doooooomed, dooooooomed, you say?

Good. Don't change a thing. Texas and Ohio for HRC it is, then.

Posted by Jeff Larson | February 20, 2008 1:15 AM

Wait, you still need to predict a Clinton win in Hawaii, don't you?

Posted by KCinDC | February 20, 2008 1:15 AM

I appreciate your diligent incorrectness.

Posted by KJ | February 20, 2008 1:15 AM

Matt,

If there's anything serious left to this prediction, what sort of win are you predicting? You aren't predicting that she can still win in pledged delegates, are you? The chances of her taking all the big states by the massive margins that would require are essentially nil.

Do you think she'll do well enough to convince enough superdelegates to stand by her, or are you predicting that the Florida and Michigan delegates will come into play?

Posted by NC Saint | February 20, 2008 1:16 AM

Wow, um, I appreciate you staying with your forecast if it means that, as you say, it will inevitably be wrong. And, as for tossing out the fear + race card as the basis, interesting, to say the least. Biting analysis, Matt. Biting. I hope they pay you well.

Posted by JEM | February 20, 2008 1:19 AM

That presumes that Hillary can achieve this reasonable 50% + 1 victory. Polls, while still early, are showing her losing significantly to McCain.

Hillary can no longer win this with pledged delegates. Chuck Todd at MSNBC says she needs 60% of all future pledged delegates to win, meaning she needs 67-70% of the votes in each and every future race. Mississippi? Vermont? Montana? How does she win there at all, let alone with that spread?

Might still be early, but this Obama supporter is starting to read up on red state governors for VP picks.

Posted by Jake in Milwaukee | February 20, 2008 1:22 AM

Matt deserves points for trying.

Posted by Steve C | February 20, 2008 1:22 AM

She's got Hawaii in the bag though, right?

Anything can happen, and that means some thing, X, can happen, such that X causes Hillary to win Ohio and Texas by almost 50 points, which is good for her because that's roughly what it's going to take for her to TIE Barack Obama at this point, considering the vagaries of Texas' madcap system.

Posted by V. | February 20, 2008 1:27 AM

I hope you reasoning becomes apparently false.

What you just said is a play by play blue print on how the democrats have periodically been able to snatch defeat from the jaws of history, over and over for the past 20 years...

Know Hope, and please let us know make this mistake yet again,

Posted by PleaseGod | February 20, 2008 1:27 AM

I hope you reasoning becomes apparently false.

What you just said is a play by play blue print on how the democrats have periodically been able to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory, over and over for the past 20 years...

Know Hope, and please let us know make this mistake yet again,

Posted by PleaseGod | February 20, 2008 1:28 AM

Clinton wins by manipulating super-delegates, Obama declines VP-cy, his fans stay home in November, McCain wins, promptly dies of cancer, leaving us ... President Huckabee!

Posted by STS | February 20, 2008 1:30 AM

Howard Wolfson and Harold Ickes will convince 9/10ths of Obama's pledged / earned delegates to switch to HRC. This will be revealed 3 days before the TX and OH primaries, which will lead to a collapse in Obama's campaign and Clinton winning with 80+ percent of the vote.

Obama will even lose Vermont when his plan to irradiate BGH-laden milk will piss off Ben and Jerry, who switch allegiances and put out a "Billary Berry" frozen yoghurt (Thic can't be yoghurt!). Again, 80+ for Hillary.

I admit Matt's premise is more plausible, but to paraphrase every CW-spouting talking head: "what about this friggin' campaign has been plausible?"

Viva!

Posted by riffle | February 20, 2008 1:30 AM

I think you're kidding.

I'm pretty sure you're kidding?

You're kidding, aren't you?

Because if you're not kidding and you really think Hillary has a chance, then you are either uninformed, irrational, or unintelligent. None of those are good qualities in a blogger.

Posted by skeptic | February 20, 2008 1:33 AM

(have you noticed that I never predict anything correctly?)

Yes :)

Posted by Korha | February 20, 2008 1:34 AM

I'm sure that he's kidding.

Posted by ScottS | February 20, 2008 1:38 AM

For those of you in doubt: review the first sentence of this post, especially the phrase, "good luck charm."

Posted by Nick | February 20, 2008 1:39 AM

I realize that most commenters here are convinced that Obama is "teh awesome", but for those who are still open-minded, here's some cold water from Robert Samuelson: The Obama Delusion. Here's an excerpt, but it's all good, so read the whole thing.

"Political candidates routinely indulge in exaggeration, pandering, inconsistency and self-serving obscurity. Clinton and McCain do. The reason for holding Obama to a higher standard is that it's his standard and also his campaign's central theme. He has run on the vague promise of "change," but on issue after issue -- immigration, the economy, global warming -- he has offered boilerplate policies that evade the underlying causes of the stalemates. These issues remain contentious because they involve real conflicts or differences of opinion."

Posted by Fred | February 20, 2008 1:44 AM

"all signs point to John McCain focusing his fire on Obama"

Isn't this a story in itself? Although McCain's braintrust would rather run against a damaged-goods Hillary (a longshot), they get free licks on Obama that, magnified by Clinton's similar attacks, may stick with independents in the general. In effect, McCain is using Clinton's determination against Obama.

Of course, the risk of backfire in this scenario would be an unlikely earlier Clinton pull-out. (Skeptics -- including, in this case, Clinton supporters -- might say that McCain's fear of a Hillary comeback would lead to tactics that would speed her withdrawal. Doubtful.)

What are historical precendents for a presumed nominee attempting to influence the other party's choice? Or effectively using a candidate from the other party as a stalking horse against the presumed nominee's likely opponent?

Advantage, McCain?

Posted by patsy | February 20, 2008 1:56 AM

This is just a post to help SoCalJustice get his much needed rest. Good to see you caring for your commenters, Matt.

Posted by nolaboyd | February 20, 2008 1:59 AM

Fred, take heart...there are other status quo candidates and their supporters out there...you won't be alone.

Seriously, I would never count the Clintons out until I watch her/them give a concession speech. I would also feel the same for McCain.

Not so much because they are great candidates or running great campaigns or would be good for the nation.

Simply for the reason that the status quo will NEVER give up their power easily.

Obama represents the most serious threat to the power base that's gotten so cozy in DC for so long. And again, it's not because of him, but rather it's because of the wave that's carrying him.

When people stand up to power, power will do what they have to to quell the uprising.

It's still a long row to hoe. Get up off of and stay up off of your couch. Build a bigger wave.

Posted by G Davis | February 20, 2008 1:59 AM

It's a good effort, but he doesn't mean it. We can tell, because it's all spelled correctly.

Posted by Warren Terra | February 20, 2008 2:07 AM

Fred, are you aware of the fact that pointing to a Robert Samuelson article opposed to Obama is likely to improve the average commenter's opinion of Obama here? Since Samuelson's attack is that Obama isn't sufficiently opposed to popular entitlements like social security, in fact, Samuelson's article even serves as something of an innoculation against charges from Krugman & company that Obama is anti-SS!

Posted by Julian Elson | February 20, 2008 2:09 AM

I love your predictions Matt, they work so well. So, who do you predict will win tomorrow between Arsenal and AC Milan? Please pick AC Milan, please pick AC Milan. ;)

Posted by Bubba | February 20, 2008 2:27 AM

How hillary saves her reputation.

She needs to take a day off and have a real gut check. She's going to have to realize that there is absolutely nothing SHE can do to win this nomination. Obama is going to have to stumble badly or get wrapped up in a scandal. And an honest-to-god scandal, not some contrived campaign bullshit.

Once she realizes that, the next step is looking at that math and figuring out what she needs to do to keep herself close enough to take advantage of a major stumble if their is one. The good news for Hillary is- not much. She can keep coasting with 40-45 percent of the votes from now until the end and probably lock up enough delegates to win it if all the delegates break her way 'to save the party' or she wins a couple of late states in huge blow outs or both. (Again, depending on a major break).

So, what's her strategy then? She focuses on making the case for herself, her policies, what she can do to get them accomplished, she focuses on turning out her constituencies (we all know what they are by now).

And here is the most important thing-- she goes on the attack-- against John McCain. She needs to become Barack Obama's biggest attack dog. If McCain says Obama isn't ready, Hillary needs to say he's more ready than McCain will ever be. I don't care if she was saying the opposite last month.

Paradoxically, that may even improve her own poll numbers as Obama supporters who see him locking things up may throw her a bone and her own supporters may get rejuvenated by seeing her being partisan and having some fight.

If she does that, she'll be well positioned to step in at the convention should the crown fall from Obama's head, and at the very least she'll have made it with her integrity, a lot of power and her husband's political legacy intact.

Posted by john | February 20, 2008 2:49 AM

In Ohio and Texas both Hillary and Obama will be campaigning actively for two full weeks.

The more people get to know Obama the more they like him. The more they get to know Hillary the less they like her. With the one very interesting exception of New Hampshire she has only won in states where establishment support, name recognition and association with the Bill Clinton years were enough for her.

But Hillary is no Bill. In fact, Obama is the new Bill, different as they are in so many respects -- the natural leader and politician who has risen rapidly from the bottom due to his masterful skills and ability to connect with people. Hillary is looking more and more like what she is; someone who has never been in a difficult political campaign in her life, never lost a race, who entered politics at a very senior level without having to earn it.

Conclusion; after two weeks of intensive campaigning Ohio and Texas will both go for Obama and the race will be over. And come November McCain will feel a lot like the way Bush 41 felt after the 92 election --not knowing what hit him.

Posted by lostintranslation | February 20, 2008 2:49 AM

"then you are either uninformed, irrational, or unintelligent. None of those are good qualities in a blogger."

On the contrary, those are all essential qualities for a blogger.

The book, "100 Bullshit Jobs and How to Get Them" lists blogging as one of them:

"Skills Required: Ability to upload thoughts, vapors, resentments, insights, lack of insights, rumors, stuff you’ve heard, stuff you haven’t heard, truth, lies, fiction, semifact, appropriated wisdom, logrolling, political and sociological venom, self-promotion, and other cultural effluvia on a blank screen day in and day out; must possess the impression that one’s quotidian brain activity is of interest to others.
Helps to be funny but when that is impossible, being hateful often suffices.

How to Get It: Set up a Web log by establishing a site.That is your blank slate. Don’t leave it blank for long. Start writing, and by writing, I mean filling up the screen with words. Try to do this all the time. Let no notion or twinge go unexplored. After a while, your natural human tendency to be appropriate or kind or thoughtful or to edit yourself in any way will decay, falling away from you like a dead husk. This is good. When it’s gone altogether, you’ll find your output will be staggering. It’s not that hard to write when
the activity itself is the only job requirement.

The Upside: This is one of the bullshit jobs you can do immediately, with no training and no prior experience.You can also become very famous, since the established media, increasingly devoid of excitement and ideas of its own, has taken to siphoning off daily blogging activity as a much
better and more interesting alternative to actual news.

The Downside:You need a full, daily dose of imagination, guile, bile, and people pouring nonsense into your head that you can repeat.

The Dark Side: Your skin glows an ethereal white, your eyes become rheumy and bloodshot. Hair erupts in horrendous places.You don’t care.You are now nothing but a conduit through which pass all the rare gases of the universe.

You are, in short, a blog.

Where You Go from Here: McSweeney’s."

Sounds like my kind of job. I need to start a blog.

Can't do worse than Matt, the way I see it.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | February 20, 2008 2:59 AM

I actually think McCain going after him is good for Obama. It keeps his name in the headlines and gives him this aura of legitimacy. "If the republicans are going after him they must be scared of him."

Posted by DRinOH | February 20, 2008 3:07 AM

The argument that Dem voters would suddenly "wake up" and have cold feet about nominating a black candidate, thinking that a black man is not electable, would have more weight if Obama was running against Edwards, for example. I don't see anyone who thinks along those lines would then believe that America is "ready" for a female president.

Posted by JT Clark | February 20, 2008 3:21 AM

Another way she can win is to make Obama understand hopeless it is for him and suspend his race before March 4th.

Have been wanting to ask this off topic question folks:

What happens if (god forbid) is a candidate dies is nominated from his party but dies before election day?

Posted by SA | February 20, 2008 3:27 AM

The man has won ELEVEN consecutive contests by double-digit margins.

Just, you know, thought I should point it out.

Posted by Anthony Damiani | February 20, 2008 3:44 AM

If a candidate died between the convention and the election. In some states it might be too late to change the name on the ballot. The party would need to have an emergency meeting, name a new candidate, try to get on the ballot or stage a write-in campaign. This scenario would most likely lead to all kinds of legal action.

Posted by Mike | February 20, 2008 4:00 AM

Matt, of course, is joking. But suppose we took seriously the idea that two weeks of McCain attacking Obama would damage him. How likely is it that it conservative attacks would damage him in a Democratic primary? Dems and even some independents would be at least as likely to rally round a candidate under fire from the right.

Has such a scenario actually happened, of attacks from one party influencing another's primary? I can't think of a recent example, but one reason for that is that the primaries have generally been over fairly quickly. In 1992, I recall various Dems (Clinton/Gore/Jackson) slugging it out for a while, but I don't think Bush I intervened in any meaningful way.

Posted by Ben | February 20, 2008 4:13 AM

You guys who think Matt is joking? I think you're interpreting the post too hastily. It's completely plausible to me. In fact, I would take it a step farther. From here on in, it's trench warfare, and no one is better at that than the Clintons.

The thing is, with these landslide margins, last night's accumulation of delegates is going to put the Obama camp in an untenable defensive position. There's no way they can defend that many delegates. Obama is smart enough to realize the problem, so at this point I'm going to predict that he withdraws from the race before March 4th.

Posted by Ted | February 20, 2008 4:51 AM

As we consider whether being black (under the one-drop rule) makes Obama unelectable, we must also consider whether being a woman makes Clinton unelectable, or less electable than Obama.

I challenge readers to name one modern western democracy that has elected, or selected, a woman as its leader while that democracy was fighting a major war. Margaret Thatcher was PM before Argentina invaded the Falklands, and Golda Meir was PM before the Yom Kipper War started.

In virtually all societies on Earth, men are the protectors and disciplinarians of the family. It may be that the species is hard-wired to prefer men as the commanders in chief. If so -- and I know this posting will incite dissent -- then it may well be harder for a woman to win the presidency during a time of war than for a black man to win the presidency in a predominately white nation.

Posted by JRC | February 20, 2008 5:06 AM

Go Badgers! In contrast to Matt, I'm good at prediction and I predicted after Iowa that Obama would win Wisconsin. Unfortunately they only one who knows of my special powers is my wife and she's sick of hearing about it.

Why? Midwesterners don't like the Clintons, especially Bill. I would want him as my neighbor, why would him as my president...err his wife as my president?

Posted by jvoe | February 20, 2008 5:33 AM

The thing is, the more McCain attacks Obama, whatever the merits, the more Obama is seen to be the presumptive nominee.

Even if McCan's attacks land, they still do Obama good against Hillary.

She's in the process of being sidelined.

Posted by Zak | February 20, 2008 6:23 AM

Fundamentally, meanwhile, many people -- especially including Democrats and not by any means excluding African-Americans -- deep down can't really imagine that the black guy could also be the electable guy.

You might want to cut back on the posting under the influence Matt, because I can't really see anything redeemable or noteworthy in the above statement (I've made the same mistake myself several times, as far as the posting under the influence, so I'm not throwing stones at ya).

Posted by Jimm | February 20, 2008 6:30 AM

How many people do you really think are going to have the thought process, "hmmm...I'm not sure the black guy is electable, so I'll vote for the girl"?

Posted by Jimm | February 20, 2008 6:32 AM

On second thought, you're probably joking about this, some inside thing that I missed tonight on TV or something.

Posted by Jimm | February 20, 2008 6:37 AM

Ted at 4:51am
That is a joke, right?

I'm British, and as James Baker III said about Yugoslavia, I don't have a dog in this fight.
But, boy, do I yearn to listen to Hillary's concession speech, then hear the sour grapes from Clinton HQ, about how Obama won unfairly, how the election was stolen in Florida again etc etc.

Then watch out for them undermining him all the way to November, in the hope that McCain turns out to be a one-termer, when HRC, hardened by battle, rides to victory in 2012. Anything else would represent the final ruin of their political lives - ie their entire lives - and they will fight like bobcats to ensure that doesn't happen.

The Clintons will only stop struggling for power when they are, metaphorically at least, buried at a crossroads with stakes through their heart.

Posted by David Mills | February 20, 2008 6:41 AM

Right now McCain and Clinton are using many of the same lines of attack on Obama. And judging from the polls in McCain's case, and elections in Clinton's case, those lines of attack aren't working. So, unless McCain hits on something better, I would not be too concerned about this being a bad period for Obama. Basically, winning is never a bad storyline, and Clinton just keeps giving Obama opportunities to win.

Posted by DTM | February 20, 2008 7:11 AM

"Golda Meir was PM before the Yom Kipper War started."

To be fair, that wasn't that long after 1967. Indira Gandhi was elected not too long after a war with Pakistan. Benazir Bhutto came to power not long after Zia died in a plane crash that at the time many thought was an assassination.

Posted by Reality Man | February 20, 2008 7:12 AM

Well, McCain's chief strategist, Charley Black actually works for Mark Penn at Burson-Marsteller Worldwide . . .

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/graphic/2007/02/20/GR2007022000447.html

So, I think there is a distinct possibility they are at least sharing notes if not coordinating to take out a common threat.

Posted by Jon | February 20, 2008 7:43 AM

Well, McCain's chief strategist, Charley Black actually works for Mark Penn at Burson-Marsteller Worldwide . . .

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/graphic/2007/02/20/GR2007022000447.html

So, I think there is a distinct possibility they are at least sharing notes if not coordinating to take out a common threat.

Posted by Jon | February 20, 2008 7:49 AM

Matt,

I think you're essentially correct in thinking that Americans and Democrats in particular are going to take a deep breath and a long pause to wonder if we should really do this thing or not.

I also think that at the end of the day, bar a major development or unforseen scandal, most will say, yeah, why the hell not? He looks good to me.

There's something in the air and it's registering with the national zeitgeist. Note the emphasis on the "future" in this Reuters poll. I suggest it's no accident.

Americans feel better about future: Reuters poll
http://www.reuters.com/article/domesticNews/idUSN1948614520080220?feedType=RSS&feedName=domesticNews&rpc=22&sp=true

Posted by Scott | February 20, 2008 7:54 AM

Here's How It Could Happen to OBAMA for CLINTON In Texas

I was at the OBAMA Rally in HOUSTON last night. It reflected an AWSOME ground game. My party colleagues backing CLINTON were freaking out all day. The CLINTON campaign in Texas is already a fiasco with two more weaks to screw-up. But, in politics, as in battle, everybody mostly screws-up. It is a question, indeed, more of timing than of quantity of screw-ups.

"In battle, everything is very simple, but even the simplest thing is very difficult." (C.v.C)

So, while the OBAMA mobilization was great, the campaign did not really know what to do with the 50,000 or so people sitting there waiting for a candidate who was not very late by CLINTON standards but, still, not actually Jesus, so running late.

They had cheezy music for a while. Then they had some high-school cheerleading for a while -- fun at first but stupid after a while. Actually, OBAMA was probably back stage working the big donors and doing the cut in on CLINTON's speech or not decision, while stalling the crowd in the hall.

OK, that was good really, exploiting national media timing, using the audience as a prop/chorus. Good Call. Nobody in the audience complained or left early. The crowd was very orderly.

There were only two mistakes I could see:

First, the little pamphlet and the instructions to the audience described a "two-step" vote/caucus process. It is actually a four-step process. The OBAMA rocket-scientists from SC have not really gotten the lay of the land in Texas yet. They are working their twenty-first century "people-powered", technology-mediated stuff. It is great. I love it.

But, the eigtheenth- and nineteenth-century foundations of republican democracy, like how a convention system works, cannot be just ignored or dismiessed.

It is one think to snark on blogs about the Texas "system", -- a kludge actually -- but the OBAMA campaign needs to understand and master it. It takes about a day and consultation with some of the old natives who recall the last time we did this in Texas (1976). Real Strategy people (actual military commanders) call this OBSERVATION.

Second, had they done that, the time waiting would have been spent with a mock precinct and mock Senate District convention, as well as some explanation of what is really at stake in the caucus process. Hint: it is about who controls the state party in Austin as well as who gets nominated in Denver. Real Strategy people call this ORIENTATION.

Not having done this, there will be a lot of wrong decisions and ineffective DECISION and ACTION in further iterations of the Texas is not South Carolina strateregy.

The Texas kludge is actually unpredictable, as one would expect of something so illogical and demonstrably unstable.

So, a CLINTON victory in Texas could still arise as OBAMA floods the polls and even the precinct conventions, but flubs the County/Senate District as well as the state conventions where the snake-like Clintonoidal state party establishment waits under rocks. They have created the state system and used it to perpetuate themselves in control of Jim Crow party apparatus since, ta-da, 1976!

They would rather lose the General Election (and are very talented at that) than lose their control of the party. So, OBAMA has to start the "Change Agenda" on 5 March and break the Austin branch of the Washington system that he so glibly dismisses.

It is a four-step process.

Doing just two-steps is half-baked and, well, the reservation many have about OBAMA. If he is going to use words like "fight", he needs to understand OBSERVATION, ORIENTATION, DECISION, and ACTION (OODA Loop) thinking.

HOPE is good, and his explanation of what hope is not is even better. Hope is not an alternative to work, real and deep work, not GWB's "workin' hard", pretending to brush-hog on his fake "ranch".

Hope needs learning fast and ... being the exploiter, not the exploitee of political cunning.

Technology does not change everything.

Posted by John Robert BEHRMAN | February 20, 2008 8:25 AM

Hillary will take her winning states and secede as the STC (States That Count). Obviously, civil war will immediately break out as both countries will want the new Lakers with Paul Gasol.

The outmatched STC commander general, Mark Penn, begins spinning off States That Don't Matter All That Much until down to Ohio and New York.

Forces brought back from Iraq pin the Clinton army down to its last stand- the New York Stock Exchange. After Ohio teacher union members suffer significant losses, the Clintons conditionally surrender on a book deal.

Posted by asl | February 20, 2008 8:39 AM

So, I think there is a distinct possibility they are at least sharing notes if not coordinating to take out a common threat.

Her speech certainly sounded a lot of the common themes. She wants to run 2000 all over again, apparently, only somehow she thinks the even-further-right Supreme Court will be on her side.

Posted by Persia | February 20, 2008 8:41 AM

Don't forget to attack Obama because he's optimistic. (Weirdest Rovian tactic EVER.)

Posted by Jeffrey Davis | February 20, 2008 9:07 AM

Fred wrote:

I realize that most commenters here are convinced that Obama is "teh awesome"

I read the Samuelson piece you cite too. I for one am not convinced that Obama is "teh awesome" (because no politician convinces me of that---they all get dog poo on their shoes eventually) but am definitely convinced that HRC is "teh suck." Well that's the netter in-a-nutshell version, my real argument is much more nuanced and all, but can be boiled down to "teh suck." That is, her negatives outweigh her positives compared to BHO balance sheet in my mind. Some examples:

-Her husband did a lot of good things as president but I don't want him back hanging around as an unelected pro-consul or off doing big deals with shady international characters.
-Incompetence in handling staff reminiscent of the current incumbent.
-The Dynasty argument.

etc.

Posted by crimfan | February 20, 2008 9:08 AM

If Obama lost 10 in a row and was going negative on the front runner in an attempt to win the party elders would kick him to the curb. Especially if it freed up the GOP candidate to take pot shots at the front runner while he/she was distracted by Obama's negative campaigning.

Posted by Jay | February 20, 2008 9:11 AM

I don't know about anyone else her, but watching Hillary flail about in this campaign has scared me. Does anyone else think that Hillary will prefer to keep all that Unitary power around that Bush, Cheney, Addington et al worked so hard to concentrate for her? She really is a nightmare.

Posted by addington | February 20, 2008 9:12 AM

Empty rhetoric vs national bankruptcy, 100 years of war and a crypto-fascist supreme court. I'll take the empty rhetoric.

John McCain. How worthless has he turned out to be? A so-called straight talker and maverick who has now disavowed or recanted his "maverick" positions on every conceivable position. A tough guy who needs his wife to lift his arm to wave to a crowd and who has bent over every time some wingnut critic got medieval on his a@@.

I would actually vote for George Bush over John McCain.

Posted by mnjam | February 20, 2008 9:37 AM

A couple of quick thoughts from an Obama precinct captain about your post, JRB.

There is a difference between what the campaign needs to do and what the campaign needs the voters to do. We need the voters to get out and vote (polls are open until 6 today through Friday and even later starting Saturday - check out www.texas.barackobama.com for early voting locations across the state), and we need to get them out and caucus on March 4 at 7:00 pm at their home precincts.

If we can get the voters to do those two things, then we can turn the process over to the junkies. We make sure precinct by precinct that we are sending the right people to the county conventions, people who will show up and be unwavering in their support. I can only tell you that my precinct has its delegates lined up and ready to go on March 29. And we will know exactly what we need to do to get the best delegates sent to Austin in June, and they will know what to do when they get there.

One thing we can all trust from the Obama campaign - we will not leave delegates on the table.

But what we need to do for the next two weeks is simple, and that is to get every Obama supporter to the polls for both the primary and the caucus.

Posted by Curtis | February 20, 2008 9:37 AM

Fundamentally, meanwhile, many people -- especially including Democrats and not by any means excluding African-Americans -- deep down can't really imagine that the black guy could also be the electable guy.

Yes,that's why he's emphasising 'hope'.

I think Matt is using fake irony to dissimulate his superstitiousness.

Posted by M | February 20, 2008 9:48 AM

We will have to see with the upcoming debates. Obama needs to perform well, or else the media will start attacking him if he doesn't.

Posted by MGJ | February 20, 2008 9:58 AM

"-Her husband did a lot of good things as president but I don't want him back hanging around as an unelected pro-consul or off doing big deals with shady international characters."

But you're cool with Michelle Obama hanging around the White House? As :

"Newsweek has a long article on the wonderfulness of Mrs. Obama, but she sounds like she's got a log-sized chip on her shoulder from lucking into Princeton due to affirmative action. For predictable reasons, being admitted into one of the Big Four super colleges and being given lots of financial aid didn't instill in her a feeling of gratitude toward the benevolence of white people. Instead, it just fed her adolescent self-consciousness and racial paranoia. The bad news is that she doesn't seem to have gotten over it yet. (She's 44)..."

Read the whole thing, and then read Sailer's follow-up.

Posted by Fred | February 20, 2008 10:29 AM

Fred,

While I do think that Michelle's comment was rather stupid, but the right's reaction to it is getting out of hand. Now we have Sailer doing some mind reading as to what this woman is thinking. Gimme a break.

Posted by MGJ | February 20, 2008 10:47 AM

Lay off the bong, Matt.

Posted by David | February 20, 2008 10:59 AM

I can't believe you just cited Sailer. He's the guy who blamed the Katrina disaster on blacks in New Orleans who lived in a city with a slogan of "let the good times roll". His reasoning is that black people have weak moral character and need proper control by society in order to do the right thing.

Maybe though I didn't get it and your post is a joke like Matt's is. Fred, surely you aren't seriously recommending that we all go go read that disgusting racist vomit.

Posted by Sherry | February 20, 2008 11:07 AM

I remember when one of the commenters here ventured a guess about Fred's background (family wealth, income, education) based on the types of comments Fred made. If I recall correctly, Fred got very excited and nearly shit himself after contemplating the power of armchair psychoanalysis.

Posted by Barbar | February 20, 2008 11:07 AM

What is the Clinton campaign's spin going to be if they don't win Texas and Ohio big?

Would it be unspinnable even for them?

As the New York Times reports:

With the two rivals now battling state by state over margins of victory and allotment of delegates, surveys of voters leaving the Wisconsin polls showed Mr. Obama, of Illinois, making new inroads with those two groups (women and union members) as well as middle-age voters and continuing to win support from white men and younger voters — a performance that yielded grim tidings for Mrs. Clinton, of New York.

But Matt could be right, the only thing we have to fear is fear itself!

Posted by Peter K. | February 20, 2008 11:13 AM

"Her husband did a lot of good things as president but I don't want him back hanging around as an unelected pro-consul or off doing big deals with shady international characters."

I know some people don't like these words, but this is how I feel. I've had enough of a very powerful behind the scenes type guy (Cheney) who due to his position it's hard to get the laws to apply to him.

Posted by JordanT | February 20, 2008 11:13 AM

Matt's prowess for electoral prognostication, as explained by Krusty the Klown...

Accountant: Let me get this straight: you took all the money you made franchising your name and bet it against the Harlem Globetrotters?

Krusty: Oh, I thought the Generals were due!

Posted by norbizness | February 20, 2008 11:22 AM

"Now we have Sailer doing some mind reading as to what this woman is thinking."

It's not mind reading -- read the full posts -- Sailer is drawing on Michelle's own words.

"I can't believe you just cited Sailer. He's the guy who blamed the Katrina disaster on blacks in New Orleans who lived in a city with a slogan of "let the good times roll"."

That essay by Sailer was politically incorrect but it highlighted some real cultural attributes of lower class blacks that had exacerbated the aftermath of Katrina. Pretending these attributes don't exist doesn't help anyone, least of all blacks. For example, part of the evacuation plan by New Orleans mayor's office relied on blacks who had cars giving their neighbors rides. As Sailer pointed out, black ghettos are low-trust societies, where black motorists would be unlikely to offer rides to strangers for fear of violence. It would have been better, instead, to use New Orleans's hundreds of city school buses to effect an evacuation.

"I remember when one of the commenters here ventured a guess about Fred's background (family wealth, income, education) based on the types of comments Fred made. If I recall correctly, Fred got very excited and nearly shit himself after contemplating the power of armchair psychoanalysis."

I didn't literally shit myself, but that was a fun exercise.

Posted by Fred | February 20, 2008 11:54 AM

'Fundementally' and 'deep down' mean the same thing.

Posted by neilclark | February 20, 2008 12:32 PM

john @ 2:49 am - That is the absolute best analysis I have seen and one which should be shopped around far and wide. Chances of it occurring are low, but if it did - wow - exactly what is needed at this moment. Please send it off in an e-mail to the HRC site. I'm going to.

Posted by wilson | February 20, 2008 1:24 PM

Next time you hear an Obama supporter say he's going to bring America together (which, BTW, is exactly the same thing Clinton promised in '92 and Bush in '00), ask them which of Obama's positions has received support from Republicans. If you don't propose any programs that have at least a little Republican support, how are you changing anything? Obama is on record saying "No more 50% +1" elections, which means he doesn't want or think he needs bipartisan support, he just wants to ram socialism down our throats. How is that any different from any other Democrat (other than Bill "NAFTA & Welform Reform" Clinton) who has run for President since Kennedy was shot?

Posted by Dave H | February 20, 2008 1:51 PM

Dear Matt:
Thanks for not jinxing it. And remember, no changing your socks or stepping on cracks.
Barack

Posted by ched | February 20, 2008 2:05 PM

Isn't winning 50% + 1 still winning?

Posted by Joseph | February 20, 2008 2:41 PM

"Watching Obama take fire from McCain there may be a Great Freakout..."

If spirit of Hunter Thompson is coming over you, you might as well let go and go all the way. Did the Atlantic ever publish his stuff?

Posted by cmholm | February 20, 2008 4:09 PM