How The Supers Could Matter

Back when I was reporting this article for the January 2004 issue of The American Prospect, I became convinced that most "superdelegates" would actually be loathe to use their influence to reverse the outcome of the primaries. Thus, I've always thought that superdelegate support should probably be discounted at this point. There's nothing stopping the SDs pledged to Clinton from switching to Obama and vice versa. This Chris Bowers post did, however, suggest to me a way in which they really might come into play:

A campaign that is now on course to be down by more than 100 pledged delegates in two weeks didn't "tie." Just like Mitt Romney, any campaign that is talking about changing delegate allocation rules didn't "tie." A campaign that is plugging its website to try and raise money didn't "tie." A campaign that talks about stopping the momentum currently enjoyed by its opponent didn't "tie." That is a campaign back on its heels. As I wrote last night, this was not a tie, and Obama clearly has the edge.

Imagine a scenario in which Obama has the majority among pledged delegates, but Clinton has the lead among all delegate. Her superdelegates probably won't want to give the election to the candidate who lost. But they could use their majority at the convention to seat the Michigan and Florida delegations. And then Michigan and Florida could put Clinton over the top in a way that could be construed as more democratic than the alternative. Just idle speculation for now, but who doesn't like idle speculation?

Comments

Matthew,

You went to Harvard.

Learn the difference between "loath" and "loathe."

Posted by diana | February 7, 2008 11:59 AM

Which Chris Bowers post?

Posted by Bill | February 7, 2008 12:01 PM

Everyone says the superdelegates favor Clinton. Do they just assume that the establishment favors the establishment candidate, or do "they" actually know something? Is there a repository of superdelegate pledges out there?

Posted by Matt B | February 7, 2008 12:03 PM

Independents like myself will vote for McCain. Disillusioned African Americans and young voters will stay home.

Posted by Creamy Goodness | February 7, 2008 12:04 PM

>And then Michigan and Florida could put Clinton over the top in a way that could be construed as more democratic than the alternative.

I don't see how anyone besides Putin would find those results democratic in any real sense of the word.

Posted by Matt B | February 7, 2008 12:06 PM

" Just idle speculation for now, but who doesn't like idle speculation?"

I'm a big proponent active speculation

Posted by Christopher Colaninno | February 7, 2008 12:09 PM

Everyone should go read (or re-read) Hunter S Thompson's account of the delegate-seating in-fighting at the 1972 Democratic National Convention in Fear and Loathing on the Campaign Trail '72.

A great story, brilliantly told. And possibly relevant for this summer's convention, too.

Posted by Pesto | February 7, 2008 12:09 PM

From what I understand, whoever has the lead in pledged delegates going into the convention gets to control the committee that determines the fate of Florida and Michigan. Am I wrong on that account?

Either way, if Obama goes into the convention with more pledged delegates, and then Clinton gets the nomination by some slimy back door deals (either through super delegates or by sitting Florida and Michigan delegates), I have to think that there will be a revolt from many Democrats, including myself. I gotta imagine Dean knows this (or at least sees it as a possibility). It'd be like Florida all over again, except the Democrats would be doing it to themselves. If they allow that to happen, they deserve the disillusionment of half their party's base.

Posted by James | February 7, 2008 12:09 PM

Nothing, but nothing, would drive the center away from Hillary faster than the sense that she somehow stole the nomination from Obama.

Posted by John | February 7, 2008 12:10 PM

The same thought occurred to me a couple of days ago. I agree that it is a likely strategy for Clinton to pursue.

Posted by Scott de B. | February 7, 2008 12:10 PM

On a closely related matter, I've still been trying to find out whether my prediction that Obama would have a really hard time breaking 35% of the non-black Democratic vote was correct or not, but the MSM seems to be making it *exceptionally* difficult to figure it out. Can't imagine why...

Fortunately, Steve Sailer---whom everybody here totally hates!---posted the numbers on his blogsite, and eyeballing them it indeed looks like if you exclude Obama's home state of Illinois, he got less than 35% of the non-black vote across the secret-ballot states of Super Tuesday. If Sailer's figures are wrong, hopefully some energetic commenter will correct them.

It's also amusing that Obama focused his Latino media efforts in CA on his pro-illegal immigration positions...and got totally wiped out among Latinos (and Asians). Harry Pachon, the head of California's Latino research center, cited this as an example of how Obama and his people are totally, utterly clueless about Latinos, immigrants, and their political views.

Yep, I'd say he'd be solidly on track to lose almost fifty states, even to a candidate as vulnerable as McCain. Given the undertow, maybe the Republicans would even have a shot at regaining Congress.

Democratic Party headed over the Cliff of Disaster? Steve Sailer to the rescue!

P.S. My real name is NOT Harry Pachon...

Posted by RKU | February 7, 2008 12:12 PM

Why is Matthew highlighing the Bowers post? Isn't it the exact opposite of everything Matthew's been saying throughout the primary? I thought Matthew's position is that things like "stopping momentum" and "raising money" are just BS - the only important thing is the actual number of delelagtes won. I mean, Matthew's been on that bandwagon since the very beginning, right???

And in the actual number of delelagtes won on Super Tuesday, it appears to be virtually even (at least within a dozen or two out of 1800+).

That said, I think Matthew's right in his conclusion. The margin of difference in pledged delegates may very well be less than the number of delegates from FLA/MI, so whether those FLA/MA get seated may be determinative. Maybe that's why some people are talking about giving FLA and MI a do-over.

Posted by Al | February 7, 2008 12:12 PM

Please, people, stop whining. Clinton compared herself to LBJ, and there's one thing LBJ understood better than anyone: how to use institutions and rules to his own brilliant advantage. If Clinton is in a position to pull the stunt you outline, more power to her, I think. If Obama and his supporters (which include me, BTW) want to prevent that outcome, they should win enough delegates to prevent it.

BTW, aren't regular delegates just as free to change their loyalties as superdelegates? If we do come to a situation where the convention matters, things will be much more free-form than this assumes, particularly given that all the state delegations will initially be divided.

Posted by Marshall | February 7, 2008 12:13 PM

I think the super delegates will find a way to resolve the issue quietly before the convention. They will want to avoid any floor fight. And there will be a lot of horse trading in the process. They probably will be willing to swing the vote in favor of Clinton if Obama leads by less than 40 pledged delegates (1%), but they won't override a larger margin for Obama.

By the way, the assumption that Clinton leads the super delegates comes from polling of the actual super delegates. But they can change their vote, so it's really a guess now. On a side note, Lieberman has been disqualified as a super delegate.

Posted by fostert | February 7, 2008 12:14 PM

>>Is there a repository of superdelegate pledges out there?

Here you go: http://demconwatch.blogspot.com/2008/01/superdelegate-list.html

Posted by Rob | February 7, 2008 12:16 PM

It seems to me that whichever candidate loses the race for pledged delegates really ought to graciously ask their superdelegates to vote for the winner. Any other outcome is likely to generate very bad feelings in the party.

Posted by Sylvan Migdal | February 7, 2008 12:20 PM

If Clinton is in a position to pull the stunt you outline, more power to her, I think.

And so, more power to GWB for pulling something similar? If that comes to pass, I'm not voting for her and I had come around to voting Dem for judicial reasons. That degree of nonsense, banana-republicanism would trump other considerations. Probably hold my nose and vote Green or not vote for Prez.

Posted by zaleriana | February 7, 2008 12:22 PM

ROMNEY OUT!!

I was just starting to feel the Mittmentum too... Oh well.

Posted by Marshall | February 7, 2008 12:23 PM

After all, if there's one theme that runs throughout American politics it's graciousness.

Posted by phil | February 7, 2008 12:25 PM

Re: Marshall,

"Regular delegates" are actually called pledged delegates, because they are tied to voting for a particular candidate (unless that candidate drops out, ie John Edwards' delegates). So it will come down to either super delegates or the unseated delegates from Florida and Michigan. Although if the difference is within 30 pledged delegates, John Edwards could play kingmaker after all (he currently has 26 delegates, yesterday's results not withstanding).

Posted by James | February 7, 2008 12:26 PM

Matt B makes a great point! Only in a dictatorship like Putin's Russia would the votes of the states of Florida and Michigan be allowed to stand! Or maybe in Communist China! I'll bet the Khmer Rouge would have loved to seat those Florida delegates. And let's not forget Hitler and Nazi Germany!

I love how the Clinton-hating conspiracy loons are already plotting the revolution they're going to start when Hillary (curse her black heart!) steals the election from Obama. You guys are just nuts.

Most sane Democrats like HRC and Obama equally well, with perhaps a slight preference for one or the other. That's why this election is so close. Either candidate would be a great alternative to what we've got now, and only the Hillary-hating Obama nuts out on the internets don't seem to get this.

Posted by Rob Mac | February 7, 2008 12:27 PM

We may as well kiss goodbye to the black vote for all of eternity. This will be seen as a conspiracy by the white powered elite to prevent a black President. We will lose the white house not only in this year, but in every election for a generation. We will probably lose any hope of holding on to our congressional majorities.

RKU, thats the other side of your argument. You think doing this will prevent us from going down in flames? Doing this will kill this party. The damage done by the 68/72 conventions will pale in comparison. At that point, we will only be the party of 80% of latino's and 67% white women. Good luck ever winning with a coalition that small.

Posted by soullite | February 7, 2008 12:31 PM

I agree that the remaining unpledged superdelegates will swing toward the delegate leader at the time. But the question is, in determining who the delegate leader is, will they factor in superdelegates who have already endorsed (a la CNN and other news organizations), or will they just look at delegates from the primaries?

Posted by Brian | February 7, 2008 12:32 PM

Her superdelegates probably won't want to give the election to the candidate who lost. But they could use their majority at the convention to seat the Michigan and Florida delegations. And then Michigan and Florida could put Clinton over the top in a way that could be construed as more democratic than the alternative.

I agree with Matt B. To put a wonky lawyer spin on it, I don't see how taking an indirect action (seating the delegates) with really, really, foreseeable consequences, are all that different from just taking the action directly yourself. Not to mention the fact that it would clearly violate the DNC's (bad) decision about Michigan and Florida, and create a huge schism in the party. I have to assume that would be a factor in their decision.

Posted by jen | February 7, 2008 12:32 PM

Interesting point. I think we have to assume, at this point, that those MI and FL will be seated at the convention, as 'not' doing so is arguably worse than doing so for the general (does anyone have any electoral college math that favors the Democrats that doesn't include holding Michigan? I think the Obama campaign would rather not be seen as stopping those delegates from voting.

That does require, however, the Clinton's deciding to put party and country over their own personal ambitions. Anyone want to place a bet on that?

Posted by Adam | February 7, 2008 12:34 PM

If it comes to this nightmare scenario, the Democratic Party will be broken for two more elections. There will be some deeply bitter people, myself included. People will start referring it to as the "Democratic" Party. Totally Putinesque. Until a month ago, I couldn't believe the Clintons would do something likethat, but after the racebaiting, maybe I was wrong.

Posted by John | February 7, 2008 12:35 PM

Fostert, a win by 1 delegate is still a win. Super Delegates have no more right to alter an election than the Supreme Court does.

Every time anyone EVER suggested reforming super delegates, we were PROMISED they would NEVER throw the results of an election. We were PROMISED they were only there to make the margin of victory larger. We were PROMISED that they were only there to make sure that party big shots actually had to show up to the convention. We were PROMISED that they were little more than honorary rewards for a lifetime of party service.

Apparently, all those promises were lie. After this election is over, a whole lot of people on both sides will be looking for a reason not to vote for the person who won. This gives them one. I'll bet anything you idiots will start brow beating and name calling then, like it worked so well with the greens.

Posted by soullite | February 7, 2008 12:36 PM

Michigan and Florida knew the rules before they moved their primaries up. They should pay the agreed upon penalty of losing their delegates for the selection of the Democratic nominee. The only other fair option is a new primary or caucus with all candidates on the ballot. Anything else smacks of Bush style lawlessness (signing statements, retroactive immunity, etc.).

Posted by Ron | February 7, 2008 12:39 PM

If the situation Matt describes above happens, they might as well fold up the Democratic Party and rename the stump that will be left the Clinton Party.

I just have a vision of Obama and his delegates standing up in mass and walking out of the convention hall.

BTW, I'm in Seattle. During the last election Maria Cantwell had a hard time finding enough volunteers to work for her because she is out of step with the liberals in Seattle who actually volunteer for campaigns. She's supporting Clinton this time. If Hillary is perceived to have stolen the election, Cantwell would be well advised to start looking for a new job because the backlash against her will be massive.

Posted by Choska | February 7, 2008 12:40 PM

It would be suicidal for the superdelegates to help Hillary steal the nomination by seating the FL and MI delegations. I could imagine there would be some pressure put to do caucuses in those states but I can't see letting FL and MI in by virtue of a superdelegate lead. You can't slip something like that through without destroying the party.

Posted by John SFL | February 7, 2008 12:42 PM

>Only in a dictatorship like Putin's Russia would the votes of the states of Florida and Michigan be allowed to stand!

In MI, only Clinton's name was on the ballot! That counts as 'rigged' in my book. And while Obama was on the ballot in FLA, he played by the rules and didn't campaign there. Had he used his ground game, he would have earned a ton more votes. How can an election with no allowed campaigning be considered legit?

Posted by Matt B | February 7, 2008 12:43 PM

"Fostert, a win by 1 delegate is still a win. Super Delegates have no more right to alter an election than the Supreme Court does."

I totally agree. And I think the super delegates should be bound to the pledged delegate leader to avoid convention floor fights. But I have no doubt that Bill Clinton (a super delegate) will be willing to do a lot of horse trading and arm twisting to get his wife in office. But there are some limits to how far he'll go.

Posted by fostert | February 7, 2008 12:45 PM

Oh please, you bunch of ninnies. This is the most overheated hyperventilating I've seen for awhile. A Clinton win using the available institutional means would not cost the election, nor would it destroy the Democratic party. As for alienating black voters, if she pulls this move it would undoubtedly be accompanied by major concessions to black Democratic elites, at least. Hillary would have to publicly adopt postures she has avoided thus far.

I'm sure that in a meaningful convention Obama will have his own set of tricks. But of course whatever the Clintons do is evil and underhanded, while anything that Obama the Great does is virtuous and blessed.

Posted by Marshall | February 7, 2008 12:48 PM

Fortunately, Steve Sailer---whom everybody here totally hates!---posted the numbers on his blogsite, and eyeballing them it indeed looks like if you exclude Obama's home state of Illinois, he got less than 35% of the non-black vote across the secret-ballot states of Super Tuesday.

Hahahaha. Brilliant analysis. If we exlude the huge home state of one candidate, include the home state of his opponent, and throw out every causus state (most of which Obama won by massive margins in areas where Democrats will actually have to contend in November -- CO, MN, IA) we arrive at your illuminating conclusion. Well, here's the reality: Obama beat Hillary among white males and independents -- the two most critical segments of the population for a Democratic candidate in the general election. The electability argument has already been settled, and Hillary lost.

Yep, I'd say he'd be solidly on track to lose almost fifty states, even to a candidate as vulnerable as McCain. Given the undertow, maybe the Republicans would even have a shot at regaining Congress.

Percentage of Americans with a negative view of Hillary Clinton: 48%

Percentage of Americans with a negative view of Barack Obama: 32%

Percentage of Americans who would vote for a woman: 88%

Percentage of Americans who would vote for an African-American: 94%

(Gallup)

So, as you can see, Democrats have much more to fear from a Hillary Clinton candidacy and misogyny than a Barack Obama candidacy and racism. Factor in the fact that Hillary emphasizes that she's woman at every campaign stop, cries sporadically, and panders to her gender in the most craven and opportunistic ways, and you've got the perfect recipe for a male backlash in the general election.

Posted by asdf | February 7, 2008 12:51 PM

I've seen several places suggesting that the solution here may be caucuses in Michigan and Florida sometime in May or June. It sounds like the DNC may be pushing this option too. Then you'd have actual contested elections and a fair apportionment of delegates. Not sure if it'll happen or not. I suspect Clinton wouldn't like it though; she might well lose Michigan, and since she's got less money than Obama, the thought of contesting more states probably won't be appealing. If she has to publicly condemn the idea, though, it'll be hard for her to claim she's fighting for the democratic process -- especially in Michigan, where others' names weren't even on the ballot. Still, it would allow her to definitely seat delegates from Florida, where she'd have to be considered the favorite....

Posted by NoahB | February 7, 2008 12:51 PM

Nothing, but nothing, would drive the center away from Hillary faster than the sense that she somehow stole the nomination from Obama.

Nothing will drive the center away from Democrats more than a replay of Gore's 2000 Florida legal strategy of "keep on changing the rules until we get the result we want."

Posted by Ralph Phelan | February 7, 2008 12:56 PM

As far as I know, only one candidate aired commercials and made campaign appearances (er, I mean fund raising appearances, right) in FL, and that was Obama.

Regardless, it's hardly a dictatorial move to seat the elected delegates from FL. MI may be another matter, but it was the other candidates decisions to have their names removed from the ballot. The whole thing was stupid and high-handed on the part of the DNC. The Republicans handled the issue with much less bad blood by only stripping half the delegates.

And, by the way, the Clinton-hating douche bags are really out in force now. Why not dig up old Arkansas Project articles from the 90s and post those, guys? And remember, Hillary killed Vince Foster and Bill was smuggling drugs out of Arkansas while he was governor. Is there no evil deed these two aren't capable of?

Posted by Rob Mac | February 7, 2008 1:00 PM

Matt B makes a great point! Only in a dictatorship like Putin's Russia would the votes of the states of Florida and Michigan be allowed to stand! Or maybe in Communist China! I'll bet the Khmer Rouge would have loved to seat those Florida delegates. And let's not forget Hitler and Nazi Germany!
Posted by Rob Mac

As Matt B said, Clinton was the only major candidate on the ballot in Michigan. You think that's Democratic? And in Florida, both were on the ballot but there was little or no campaigning, and Clinton is a much more familiar face and name than Obama. Not to rehash the pointless "does being first lady count as experience" argument, but Clinton has many of the advantages of an incumbent while Obama has only held office outside Illinois for less than four years. You think that competition is democratic?

Posted by Cyrus | February 7, 2008 1:03 PM

More democratic? Geez. If the Michigan and Florida delegates are seated after the nominee is pretty much set, I won't complain, but if it makes the difference as to who gets nominated, I will leave the party permanently. (Not that I won't vote for a Democrat ever again, but I won't associate myself with the party.)

Posted by crazymonk | February 7, 2008 1:06 PM

"Yep, I'd say he'd be solidly on track to lose almost fifty states, even to a candidate as vulnerable as McCain. Given the undertow, maybe the Republicans would even have a shot at regaining Congress."

RKU,

Your conclusion is astonishingly wrong. Obama is no Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton. He is not a politically polarizing figure in the eyes of whites, and has actually attained elective office. You are forgetting that he was elected to the US Senate with nearly 70% of the vote in Illinois, in a state that is overwhelmingly white. So this idea that Obama cannot get enough white voters in a general election to win at least in the blue states is utter nonsense.

Obama will do no worse than Al Gore did in 2000. More than likely, he will succeed where Al Gore failed and carry Ohio also, which will give Obama more than enough electoral college votes to beat McCain. Can you honestly see Hilary Clinton winning Ohio in one on one contest with McCain? (Remember that Bill Clinton's electoral success in 1992 and 1996 derived in large part from the presence of Ross Perot in the race. Perot helped to fracture the poltical coalitions that put Ronald Reagan and Bush I into office.)

Obama is not likely to carry the red states, but then neither is Hillary Clinton (with the possible exception of Arkansas). The Democratic nominee, however, doesn't need to carry the red states; he or she needs only to win the blue states and and the purple states (i.e. Ohio, Iowa, New Hampshire, New Mexico). So far, Obama has fared better than Clinton in Iowa, and basically tied with her in New Hampshire and New Mexico. Moreover, considering his electoral success in the large Midwestern states of Illinois and Minnesota (Michigan doesn't count since he wasn't on the ballot), his chances of winning Ohio in both a primary and general election are very good.

In addition, Obama has demonstrated an electoral appeal in rural America, and with independents and even some Republicans. So his electoral coattails are likely to be much longer than Hilary Clinton's, and will help immensely in increasing the size of the Democratic majority in Congress. Hillary Clinton, on the other hand, is likely to have negative coattails (just like Dubya), and she would probably succeed in reducing the Democratic majority in Congress, even if she succeeds in getting elected as President. (Remember this about the Clintons; they are very good at getting themselves elected, but not very good at getting other Democrats elected. It was under the Clinton administration that the GOP succeeded in getting control over Congress. It took a dozen years for the Democrats to regain a majority in Congress, due in part to the Clintons' astonishing lack of coattails.)

Posted by eltoro | February 7, 2008 1:07 PM

Considering Obama wasn't on the Michigan ballot, it will seem blatantly unfair to many Democratic voters to seat delegates only pledged to one candidate.

That's the scorched earth approach, it may get her the nomination but will probably ensure her defeat in November.

Posted by david in norcal | February 7, 2008 1:09 PM

If its this tight going into the convention, I have a hard time seeing how Hillary or Obama supporters will accept the nomination of the other. Its going to be a challenge getting this party back together again.

Posted by Jayhawk Max | February 7, 2008 1:10 PM

If the super delegates want to trump the pledged delegates there will be some fallout but it is their decision to make and they get to make it. Those are the rules. Rewriting the rules so you can avoid having to make the tough decisions… I don't really think that'd go over as well.
As for the Mulligan option… If the rest of us don't like the way MI and FL go in June can we call for a do over as well?

Posted by sleepy | February 7, 2008 1:14 PM

Rob Mac: As far as I know, only one candidate aired commercials and made campaign appearances (er, I mean fund raising appearances, right) in FL, and that was Obama.

Couldn't be more wrong about Hil. She was "fund-raising" (er, campaigning) in Florida right up to the primary.

Posted by zaleriana | February 7, 2008 1:20 PM

asdf:

Hahahaha. Brilliant analysis. If we exlude the huge home state of one candidate, include the home state of his opponent, and throw out every causus state (most of which Obama won by massive margins in areas where Democrats will actually have to contend in November -- CO, MN, IA) we arrive at your illuminating conclusion.

No problem, just go ahead and throw out Hillary's home state of NY---the overall numbers won't change.

Also, go ahead and add back in all the non-secret-ballot caucus states that Obama (mysteriously) won in landslides. Since the number of caucus-participants is so totally minuscule compared to the numbers of actual voters in big states like CA, NJ, and MA, the overall numbers *still* won't change.

Since Steve Sailer is a notorious "racist", you're best bet is to claim that he used "racist arithmetic." After all, only "racist arithmetic" could have held Obama to just 35% of the non-black vote...rather than the 99% which he clearly deserved.

Why do I suspect that there would be a *gigantic* amount of "Diebold-Fraud" in the secret ballots cast this November if Obama were at the top of the ticket...

Posted by RKU | February 7, 2008 1:21 PM

Michigan and Florida had January primaries because their Republican legislatures moved up the dates and the respective Democratic parties were too cheap to hold separate primaries or caucuses. (The state paid the bills for the January primaries.)

So, how much money are we talking about? If it's small enough--10 million, give or take 5 million--I don't see why Obama doesn't offer to pay half the costs of a do-over. That would put pressure on Clinton to follow suit or risk looking like she was trying to pull a fast one.

And a do-over ought to be preferable to democrats in Florida and Michigan anyway, since it would have the potential to be determiniative.

Posted by jlw | February 7, 2008 1:23 PM

eltoro:

Yes, Obama did win his one race in (overwhelmingly Democratic) Illinois...running against Alan Keyes who had no money.

And I've never claimed that Obama is a "polarizing figure" like the ones you list...just the empirical fact that he's been unable to get more than 35% of the non-black vote among the liberal activists who vote in Democratic primaries.

But it's his pro-illegal-immigration advocacy that would totally annihilate him in November.

Just think about it for a moment. The drivers license issue is so powerful that once the Republicans make it a major focus of their media campaign, I'll bet that 80% of all the Democratic officeholders in America---including Latinos!---will publicly have to come out against it, just to save their own hides. Then the Republicans will just point out that Obama is so extreme he's opposed by 80% of his own party officials, and this contrast will totally destroy him, and probably drag down lots of those officials as well, since they still "endorse" him.

As I've said before, I personally think that a pretty good case can be made for the *policy* merits of giving illegals licenses, but it's totally fatal in today's political landscape---just ask poor Spitzer what happened to him, in America's most pro-immigrant large state.

Posted by RKU | February 7, 2008 1:34 PM

RKU-

How much of the non-black vote has McCain won? Considering that his coalition is more dependent on winning the that demographic he should be very concerned, no?

Posted by Preston | February 7, 2008 1:48 PM

Also, go ahead and add back in all the non-secret-ballot caucus states that Obama (mysteriously) won in landslides.

There's nothing mysterious about it. People living in the Midwest (where the majority of caucuses are) are pragmatic idealists with an aversion to pandering and party politics. Hillary Clinton has been overwhelmingly rejected in the Midwest. She lost my homestate, MN (85% white), 32%-67%. This doesn't bode well for the general election.

Since the number of caucus-participants is so totally minuscule compared to the numbers of actual voters in big states like CA, NJ, and MA, the overall numbers *still* won't change.

I could give a flying fuck about how well Democratic candidates do in a Democratic primary in CA, NJ, or MA. The reality is that Obama beat Clinton badly in a number of states (MN, IA, CO, MO, NM?) that Democrats need to or ought to be able to win in the general election. Moreover, as you seem unwilling to acknowledge, Obama BEAT CLINTON AMONG WHITE MALES. Also, the polling data clearly demonstrates that Americans are more willing to support an African-American than a woman -- particularly when that woman is Hillary Clinton.

Posted by asdf | February 7, 2008 1:50 PM

Both candidates are a bit of a roll of the dice. This country has never elected a woman or an African American president. There's a risk that the country is still not ready to do so, but the Dems will nominate one or the other.

Both candidates will have to suffer through a whithering bout of unfair attacks both by the press and the Republican machine. Both seem to have campaigns that can handle this, but we will see.

I think either candidate can overcome the race/gender problem in the general by running a good campaign.

And RKU, I hardly think the Republicans are going to argue to voters that they shouldn't vote for Obama because not enough establishment Democrats like him. The opposite approach is more likely. "Too liberal for Georgia," to use an old campaign saw from my former home state.

Posted by Rob Mac | February 7, 2008 1:53 PM

If this scenario did play out, Obama wouldn't create a scenario in which he doomed the Democrats to defeat in November. He'd do what most politicians in a similar situation would do: be politic and grin and bear it.

On the national political scene Obama is a relatively young man. He has several more electoral cycles to go before his chances at the presidency run out. Even if Clinton were to serve for 8 years, he'd still be a leading Democratic candidate in 2016--especially if he took the opportunity to run for governor of Illinois in 2010. If he won, and got re-elected, he'd have six years of executive experience under his belt, which would probably make him an even more attractive candidate.

Posted by Brett Champion | February 7, 2008 1:59 PM

The Clinton's are already manipulating behind the scenes. Once again Donna Brazile sent a signal from CNN. She said, "I will leave the party if the superdelegates decide the nominee." Howard Dean needs to find a backbone and put the Clinton's in their place. If the perception is a stolen nomination through the seating of Florida/Michigan or superdelegates' voting for Clinton out of obligation millions that participated in the primaries will rise up in protest. Moreover, Obama has created a working majority that could easily become a third party challenge.

Posted by RealB.G. | February 7, 2008 2:06 PM

Jesus the mewling from you lot is making me sick.

I don't want a nominee who isn't ruthless and cold-blooded enough to grab any procedural or technical tool at hand to win. Do you idiots think the Republicans are going to play nice and show respect for democratic principles or the "will of the people?" Where the fuck were you in 2000? 2004? 1998 for that matter?

After watching Gore meekly acquiesce to the punks over FL and seeing Kerry waste time on ski vacations and leave millions in the bank unspent, I view Hillary's tenaciousness as her prime asset. If Obama is as good as you lot seem to think, he'll damn well find his own back-room trick to stop the delegations from being seated. I'll think less of him if he doesn't!

Posted by gustav | February 7, 2008 2:10 PM

Rob, thanks for the s-delegate link.

Posted by Matt B | February 7, 2008 2:14 PM

RKU,
Why is the black vote an identity vote for Obama, but the woman vote isn't an identity vote for Hillary?

Posted by Mo | February 7, 2008 2:17 PM

RKU seems to be a racist troll from Sailor's site, but I'll respond anyway.

Your data is meaningless because so many white liberal Women are voting for Hillary. They will all vote for Obama over McCain in a heartbeat. Contrary to the Hillry teams nonsense about present votes Obama has a 100% Pro Choice voting record, McCain is close to 100% Pro Life and how many pledges do you think he'll have to make about judges to get the religious right lined up? Really think women will be so ticked about Hillary losing that they will let McCain appoint 2 or 3 more anti choice judges?

Posted by Eric k | February 7, 2008 2:19 PM

My speculation is that by August (though not necessarily by the end or near-end of the primaries) it will be clearer which of these candidates will feel electable, and that's who the superdelegates will support at that point. If nothing else, they won't permit the nomination of a candidate who is, by consensus, shaping up as a trainwreck.

Lower-information voters will know most of the things about Obama that they don't know now, and we'll see how much concern those things really raise, or don't raise. We'll see whether his inspirational message of change keeps rising or feels old. Things will play out further vis-a-vis Sen. Clinton's ability to convert independents outside NY, and the Bill Clinton Foundation's contributors, and the Big Dog's behavior on the trail, and so forth. We'll see just how unified the Republicans become (my guess: extremely unified). The surge may have collapsed. Bush may have attacked Iran (or someone else). We may have fallen into a flat-out economic depression.

The superdelegates will take all that stuff into account. I've never much liked that institution, which -- like the US constitution itself -- was carefully crafted to limit democracy. But, given the amount of time between the selection of almost all delegates and the actual nominating convention this year, I'm kinda glad someone's actually there to take all of the intervening events into account.

As long as we're speculating wildly, it is conceivable that both Democratic candidates will look weaker at that point, and the superdelegates will guarantee a second ballot at which time someone else comes along (I can't imagine that it would wind up being Gore, and have no brilliant brainstorms as to who it actually would be.)

But who the heck knows, huh? That's why they play the game...

Posted by bcamarda | February 7, 2008 2:20 PM

The number of Clinton lickspittles who can't see any distinction between "maximizing your advantages within existing rules" and "changing the rules retroactively when they don't work out as you expected and win by turning Putinesque Potemkin elections into actual elections" suggests that at least if the succeed in destroying the Democratic coalition in '08 there will be plenty of jobs for the in the DOJ.

Posted by Scott Lemieux | February 7, 2008 2:30 PM

Jesus the mewling from you lot is making me sick.

I don't want a nominee who isn't ruthless and cold-blooded enough to grab any procedural or technical tool at hand to win. Do you idiots think the Republicans are going to play nice and show respect for democratic principles or the "will of the people?" Where the fuck were you in 2000? 2004? 1998 for that matter?

Fuck Off. If you wan't to emulate the Republicans, join the GOP. And don't assume nominating the most ruthless candidate is a route to electoral success -- in the case of Hillary Clinton, it most certainly is not.

Posted by asdf | February 7, 2008 2:49 PM

"Also, go ahead and add back in all the non-secret-ballot caucus states that Obama (mysteriously) won in landslides. Since the number of caucus-participants is so totally minuscule compared to the numbers of actual voters in big states like CA, NJ, and MA, the overall numbers *still* won't change."

RKU,

If you look at Calfornia's results, you will see that in terms of the white vote, you will see that Obama & Clinton basically split the white vote. Clinton got 45% of the white vote, Obama got 43%. (Edwards got 9% BTW). On the other hand, when you look at NJ and MA, Clinton gets 58% of the white vote, while Obama gets 40%, not the 35% you claim. This shows that Clinton's ability to get white voters in large blue states is not uniformly superior to Obama's. In the large blue states near to New York she was able to get vastly more whites, but in CA she and Obama basically broke even. Her 10 point-advantage in CA was due to Hispanic and Asian voters, whose influence in the general election is much lower than it is in a Democratic primary election.

You may argue that Obama's lack of success in getting Hispanic and Asian voters will compromise his ability to win in the general election. However, you must also factor in that Clinton's lack of success in getting Black voters will compromise her ability to win in the general election also. (The Clintons have in fact succeeded in alienating the affections of many Black voters, so she shouldn't count on them voting for her in the general election any more than Obama should count on Hispanic and Asian voters. Moreover, Obama has more room to improve his standing among Hispanics and Asians than Clinton has among Blacks; Obama is relatively unknown among Blacks & Asians, while Clinton is very well known among Blacks, and has squandered much of the goodwill that Black voters used to have for her.)

So if neither candidate has a definite advantage among white voters in blue states, and both have trouble getting minority voters, you can't really argue that Obama will do worse than Clinton in a general election.

Posted by eltoro | February 7, 2008 2:54 PM

"Yes, Obama did win his one race in (overwhelmingly Democratic) Illinois...running against Alan Keyes who had no money."

Keyes had a high profile in the Senate race, simply because the story of Jack Ryan's removal from the Republican nomination and the replacement of Ryan by Keyes got widespread play in the news throughout the state. So a lack of money was not really the problem for Keyes; Illinois voters knew who he was and what he was about, and chose Obama instead by a 40 point margin.

Posted by eltoro | February 7, 2008 3:11 PM

"Regular delegates" are actually called pledged delegates, because they are tied to voting for a particular candidate (unless that candidate drops out, ie John Edwards' delegates).

That is a common misconception. That's how it used to be. Now, candidates win delegate slots. They choose who their delegates will be. If they think the person is disloyal, they can replace them any time until they are seated. However, the delegate can vote however they want, even on the first ballot.

If a seating fight sours some of Clinton's delegates, they could vote for Obama on the first ballot. You've got to wonder how loyal some of these people are. It might be easy to find 2000+ people who will keep their promise to vote for you if you don't look like you're cheating, and crippling their party. Finding 2000 who will go along with that could be harder.

Posted by Njorl | February 7, 2008 3:18 PM

RKU, could you elaborate on what you mean. I just looked at Sailer's site.
Here are the figures that seem to undermine your claim:

First, the states with no hispanic percentages listed:
State name ------ Percentage of white vote
Georgia ------ 40
Delaware ----- 40
Missouri ----- 39
Now, the states with hispanic votes listed

State------% white vote ---- % hispanic vote
Conn. ------- 48-------------53
Ariz.-------- 38 ----------- 41
Mass. ------- 40 ----------- 36
New mex. ------ 55 --------- 36

California is tougher to tell, becuase apparently there was a substantial Asian vote, but with 42% of the white vote and 29% of the hispanic vote (which was 29% of the ovarall numbers) it seems he probably broke 35%.

Sure, he only got 16% in Ark. and 25 and 26% in Ala. and Tenn., but Sailer's "simple average" shows he won 39% of white votes and 36% of hispanic. This is unweighted, but the numbers don't show that he did so poorly in the states with more voters to suggest he didn't break 35% overall.

What am I missing?

Posted by Sulla | February 7, 2008 3:22 PM

"But it's his pro-illegal-immigration advocacy that would totally annihilate him in November.

Just think about it for a moment. The drivers license issue is so powerful that once the Republicans make it a major focus of their media campaign..."

RKU,

The moment GOP immigrant-bashing rears its ugly head, those Hispanic voters who have misgivings about Obama will go running to him away from John McCain. Whatever goodwill McCain has individually with Hispanics will be squandered if he allows his party to start demogoging about illegals. Moreover, while Hillary would triangulate and try to match the Republicans in bashing illegals, Obama will call them on their BS, which will raise his standing among Hispanics and white independents even more.

The attack on driver's licenses for illegals may play well at first, but the air of nativism that will permeate the GOP's campaign will alienate most voters in the end. Most Americans are sympathetic to the plight of illegals, even if they have misgivings about some of the solutions that have been proposed to help illegals. The GOP has demonstrated a remarkable inability over the years to restrain its rhetoric when dealing with the issue of illegal immigration, and that will play into the hands of someone like Obama.

Obama does not fear the GOP's rhetoric like the Clintons do, and that lack of fear, along with his forthrightness in arguing for his positions, will win him a respect and support among red state voters that the Clintons will never achieve. Obama's mentor Paul Simon (the Senator, not the singer) was very good at winning over GOP voters, even though they disagreed with his liberal positions. Obama will do the same.

Posted by eltoro | February 7, 2008 3:37 PM

The Bowers post cited but not linked in the original post is here. But other than what Matt quoted it just talks about why Obama is likely to have a good February.

Posted by washerdreyer | February 7, 2008 3:44 PM

The number of Clinton lickspittles who can't see any distinction between "maximizing your advantages within existing rules" and "changing the rules retroactively when they don't work out as you expected and win by turning Putinesque Potemkin elections into actual elections" suggests that at least if the succeed in destroying the Democratic coalition in '08 there will be plenty of jobs for the in the DOJ.

That is exactly, but exactly, it.

A Clinton win using the available institutional means would not cost the election, nor would it destroy the Democratic party.

Can I raise my hand, again, as a yellow-dog Democrat? If she becomes the nominee, like this, with the blessings of the Democratic party, I for one will not vote for her nor for the Democratic party again. This is the only thing I can think of at the moment that would make me say such a thing.

I hope, however, that the issue is moot. I don't know much about this caucus idea, but it seems like that's what they're leaning towards. A "do-over" like that may be the only way to salvage some say for these states while not retroactively rigging the game for Hillary. I feel conflicted about it, though, b/c MI and FL *knew* they were going to get smacked down for moving their primaries.

Posted by Jen | February 7, 2008 3:59 PM

Matt, please have another cup of coffee and think this through again. You think that doing the deal by seating the Florida and Michigan delegations is going to assauge anybody? Florida, possibly. But the superdelegates seating Michigan, where only one candidate's name was on the ballot, looks worse than the superdelegates steamrolling it for Hillary by themselves. I know, because the lady next door just told me. She ain't Ron Brownstein, but she has a normal American sense of fairness and indignation. And she doesn't even mind Hillary.

Posted by phillygirl | February 7, 2008 4:10 PM

Matt, please have another cup of coffee and think this through again. You think that doing the deal by seating the Florida and Michigan delegations is going to assauge anybody? Florida, possibly. But the superdelegates seating Michigan, where only one candidate's name was on the ballot, looks worse than their steamrolling it for Hillary by themselves. I know, because the lady next door just told me so. She ain't Ron Brownstein, but she has a normal American sense of fairness and indignation. And she doesn't even mind Hillary.

Posted by phillygirl | February 7, 2008 4:11 PM

I read somewhere that Obama got 40% of the white vote in Georgia, of all places. And he also won something like 44% of the Latino vote in Arizona, so I'm not sure where this spin about him being unable to win any Latino votes is coming from. That isn't to say that he has a lot of work to do - make no mistake, he has his work cut out for him - but I don't think it's impossible.

Posted by Abby | February 7, 2008 4:29 PM

So a lack of money was not really the problem for Keyes; Illinois voters knew who he was and what he was about, and chose Obama instead by a 40 point margin.

Yeah, a carpetbagger, a wingnut by Republiican standards, and also black and therefore unlikely to pick up votes from racist whites. Not exactly a tough opponent.

As with Kerry, Obama has the disadvantage of being a bit of a hothouse flower - he's been in tough local primaries, but has he ever faced a serious general election opponent with an electorate that wasn't already mostly Democrat?

Posted by Ralph Phelan | February 7, 2008 4:44 PM

"Uncommitted" got more votes in Michigan than Obama got in Florida. It's not clear that seating the Michigan delegation devised from the primaries would be worse for Obama than seating the Florida delegation, where his name was on the ballot.

Posted by UN Plaza | February 7, 2008 5:56 PM

"Yeah, a carpetbagger, a wingnut by Republiican standards, and also black and therefore unlikely to pick up votes from racist whites. Not exactly a tough opponent."

If Obama is so lacking in appeal to whites, even Democratic ones, to the degree that RKU claims, even someone like Keyes would have been a tough opponent. In addition, if racist whites have to choose between a black liberal and black conservative, do you really think they are going to choose a black liberal? Racist whites would probably vote for a white liberal like Dick Durbin over Alan Keyes, but they wouldn't pick Obama over Keyes.

In addition, what makes Keyes a wingnut by GOP standards? There are no substantive differences between Keyes and mainstream conservatives like Dubya on most issues, particularly social issues and foreign policy issues. For that matter, there is little difference between Keyes and McCain on most of these issues. Keyes probably takes a tough line against illegal immigration, but most Republicans do so anyway. No, what makes Keyes a wingnut even by GOP standards is the manner and rhetoric he uses in presenting his positions. Keyes presents GOP positions in a way that makes it undeniably clear to Democrats, independents, and even moderate Republicans how crazy Republican positions really are.

This stands in great contrast to Obama, whose manner and rhetoric in presenting liberal positions makes it undeniably clear how reasonable and sensible most Democratic positions really are. Moreover he does so without masking them the way the Clintons do in general elections. The lesson of Obama's victory is not that Obama has never been tested, but rather that Obama has a gift for making liberalism palatable to most non-liberals. without resorting to Clintonian triangulation. Instead, he is like the late Senator Paul Simon, a liberal Democrat who earns the support of even Republicans who don't agree with his liberal stands.

That is why Obama won 70% of the vote in Illinois, when John Kerry won only 55%.

Posted by eltoro | February 7, 2008 5:57 PM

Sulla:

Remember, I said Obama got under 35% of the non-black vote *excluding* his home state of Illinois. If you look at Sailer's table, the IL numbers were so much higher than any others, just tossing them out would drive down the average by a couple of points.

Next, the table leaves out Asians, who were around 5% of the total vote I think and only gave Obama around 25% of their vote. Adding them in, should bring him down to 35%.

Obviously, using an unweighted average is totally ridiculous. But it's clear that Obama's non-black numbers are worst in the biggest states like NJ, CA, and NY and best in the tiny states like UT, DE, and NM, so weighting should reduce the totals quite a lot further.

Frankly, because of the lack of weighting AND the absense of Asians, Sailer's table is pretty unsatisfactory. The only reason I'm using it is because it was the only one I've seen anywhere and I'm too lazy to locate the numbers and do the calculations myself. I'd assumed the MSM would do a table like this...but I was wrong.

Maybe Matt can get an intern to do the calculation properly, and we can see the correct answer.

Eltoro:

Let's remember that Alan Keyes is *still* in the current presidential race, though the totally racist media won't even list him as a candidate. Maybe he'll end up being the Republican nominee, in which case I certainly agree that Obama would crush him in November.

Posted by RKU | February 7, 2008 7:05 PM

Pelosi was on CNN tonight saying superdelegates are each part of a state delegation. Is obama saying that kennedy should have to pledge to Hillary because his state went her way?
Kerry too?
obama's argument here is taking on water, isn't it?
have you invented a system where everyone is required to vote for "the movement"?

Obama's delegates should walk out if Hillary wins by the DNC system of delegates? that is pretty funny. go ahead; see who looks right in the press then?

did you see the report in ABC site today fretting about how obama supporters have become cult-like?
New York times editorial monday also worried obama campaign is "teetering" towards being a cult of personality over substance?
Bingo.

Posted by Michael C. | February 7, 2008 7:13 PM

did you see the report in ABC site today fretting about how obama supporters have become cult-like?
New York times editorial monday also worried obama campaign is "teetering" towards being a cult of personality over substance?
Bingo.

The reality is that Obama supporters are wealthier, better educated, more informed, and less liable to fall into irrational group-think than Clinton supporters. Afterall, we know that a large chunk of Hillary's support comes from the very salient facts of her last name and her vagina. So your concerns are misplaced. The thing this campaign has truly revealed is the unprincipled Republicans within our own ranks. Idealists and political realists smart enough to realize the grave mistake of nomination someone disliked by 48% of the country are naturally drawn to Obama. There's nothing cult-like about it.

Posted by asdf | February 7, 2008 7:52 PM

Could Obama supporters be a bit less condescending? You know, referring to Hillary supporters as "low-information voters" and "less educated" and all that? It reeks of arrogance. I support Obama myself, and I think he's a vastly superior candidate to Hillary in nearly every measure, but insulting the base of the base of the Democratic party is unwise, and no way to win elections.

Posted by Abby | February 7, 2008 8:03 PM

Asdf:
When you start talking about a candidate's vagina for effect your comments become pretty disturbing. your hatred is plainly evident and it only took two media references to poke it out of you. you and the bizarre obama rationale here on this site shows how cult-like it is and how pertinent those articles were.
To suggest that half the party should abandon their candidate because people like you will accuse us of being republicans is another indication you've been in the revival tent too long.
I have my multiple degrees and I read as much as anyone I know and yet because you differ with my opinion you want to suggest hillary supporters don't read, aren't well-educated and are intruders in your party.
Is your therapist out of town? Are you in crisis?
How isn't your warped self-serving rant cult-like?

Posted by Michael C. | February 7, 2008 8:05 PM

"Pelosi was on CNN tonight saying superdelegates are each part of a state delegation. Is obama saying that kennedy should have to pledge to Hillary because his state went her way?
Kerry too?
obama's argument here is taking on water, isn't it?
have you invented a system where everyone is required to vote for "the movement"?

Michael C.

If the superdelegates are part of the state delegation, then the vote they exercise collectively should reflect the breakout of the pledged delegates. If Hilary has 55% of the Massachusetts pledged delegates and Obama has 45% of the Massachusetts pledged delegates, the votes of the superdelegates should not change that ratio. If that requires John Kerry or Ted Kennedy to vote for Clinton, so be it. The superdelegates should not be able to alter the balance of the delegates between Clinton and Obama, unless the convention is hopelessly deadlocked. Therefore if Obama has a majority of the pledged delegates, the Superdelegates should support him enough for him to win the nomination. If Clinton has the majority of pledged delegates, the superdelegates should support her enough for her to win the nomination. If neither Clinton nor Obama are able to muster a majority of pledged delegates, then the superdelegates should step in and provide that decisive margin to whichever candidate they believe has the best chance of defeating John McCain in November.

Posted by eltoro | February 7, 2008 8:10 PM

"Did you see the report in ABC site today fretting about how obama supporters have become cult-like?
New York times editorial monday also worried obama campaign is "teetering" towards being a cult of personality over substance?
Bingo."

Michael C.

Are you sure that it's not the Clinton supporters that suffer from cult-like thinking? One of the biggest indicators is believing something in defiance of the actual facts. Clinton supporters argue that Clinton has experience needed to handle running the country, that she will fight hard against the Republicans for the poor and the powerless and the marginalized, and that she will end the disastrous foreign policy of Bush. Yet, her very record contradicts these claims.

She has little actual experience in government (being the 1st lady of Arkansas and in the White House doesn't count), and whenever she and Bill tend to encounter fierce opposition from Republicans on controversial issues, they tend to not only back down, but they also embrace Republican positions along the way.

Notice that the Clinton's legislative accomplishments during their time in the White House tend to be ones favored by Republicans (NAFTA, welfare reform). Moreover, after she and Bill failed to pass her healthcare reforms the 1st time, they never went back to fight for it, even though the poor and the powerless and the marginalized would have benefited from it. Yet she dares to claim that as President she will continue to fight to get her even more ambitious universal healthcare plan, when she failed to keep fighting for her far more modest Hillary care proposals.

Finally, need I remind you how Hillary was not only voted for the Iraq war resolution, but was also an enthusiastic supporter of the war? Moreover, unlike John Kerry and John Edwards, she has been completely unable to admit that she backed and enabled a disasterous policy. She talks a good game about ending the war, but throughout her Senate career she has sided toward hawkish solutions, so can we really count on her not to intimidated into maintaining a hawkish position on Iraq or even Iran?

I fear that Clinton will be another LBJ when it comes to foreign policy. She's willing to portray McCain as an insane warmongerer in the general election (like LBJ did to Goldwater), but once in office the fear of being labeled soft on defense by the GOP will lead her to continue the occupation of Iraq, just as LBJ's fear of being painted as soft on Communism by the GOP led to his disastrous policy in Vietnam.

LBJ tried to be a sane Goldwater, and created a foreign policy disaster. HRC will try to be a competent Dubya and a sane McCain, and she will perpetuate the foreign policy disaster that Dubya has brought us.

Posted by eltoro | February 7, 2008 8:37 PM

Well, in this regard, I tend to mostly agree with "eltoro". I don't particularly like Hillary, and her foreign policy views make me especially nervous. I hope that she's learned the lesson of Bush's gigantic political disaster in Iraq, and won't e.g. attack Iran...but I have to admit it's mostly just a hope.

On the other hand, I haven't really seen anything much different in Obama's stance since he reached DC and got "AIPACized" under Lieberman's mentorship. He also has lots of the same sort of neocon advisers, though admittedly he has a few sensible ones as well.

But the Real McCain makes me much, much more nervous than either of them, so I hope the Democrats keep their senses and nominate worthless Hillary.

Posted by RKU | February 7, 2008 9:00 PM

It was a different deck of cards in LBJ's time and a different deck of cards through much of the clinton administration than it is now.

Bill was rolled in the first years of his admin. he lacked the experience to govern effectively in the white house. No one is more disloyal than dems- like herding cats. Sam nunn screwed morning noon and night. we lost the majority. Powell and joint chiefs tortured him. Bill was arrogant in early days and neophyte and couldn't even effect a transition. Bush screwed him with phony numbers on deficit and all his social spending had to go out window right away.

Bill's bright but he was green. the numbers changed in the congress and the game was even rougher. Bill was a centrist. He ran as a new kind of dem from the centrist DLC.
The left wanted to believe he would go hard left when he got in and they felt betrayed when he was from the center left and not the left. Assholes like reich jumped ship. great people like marion and peter edelman jumped ship. The right brought up gays in the military and his presidency nearly went up in flames between trying to keep that important promise and wether his salute was snappy enough. Kimba gate and nanny gate almost buried him. But I feel like he was a great president in time. I do give him credit for the economy because of the people he brought in and the people he left in place. Stupidly i believe the stock market surged in that time because middle class believed it wasn't rigged during that time, that regulation was happening, that tax collection was a reality: I think the market began surging as it became clear a dem might come in (happy days are here again cliche). I think it was a great time. I felt the extent he was "slick" was a giant plus and that mixed with his and her resilience was amazing combo.

In all these ways I don't think obama is ready and I don't think his crowd are resilient. many of them are the dems who flaked out last time. Deaniacs turned obama supporters have already demonstrated their lack of stick-to-it-ness. Obama will not be able to deal with the sam nunn-types. Washington will eat him up. his transition will be arrogant and gaffe prone like bill's. I don't think he can get gays in the military fixed. I think that his salute will be even a bigger issue. I don't see a rubin in his camp that makes me feel good about economy. He can't keep greenspan in to calm the waters because greenspan is gone and older than mc cain.
Washington will hate him more than carter.
I want an effective person and I am convinced that Hillary gets all this and is square with military because she hopped right into military oversight in senate. I think she's quite a bit left of center. I am convinced she opposed war. I think its really important that she is a woman with the supreme court nearly older than john Mc cain.

Posted by Michael C. | February 7, 2008 9:18 PM

Could Obama supporters be a bit less condescending? You know, referring to Hillary supporters as "low-information voters" and "less educated" and all that? It reeks of arrogance.

It's demographically true, and it was in response to the "cult" comment.

Posted by asdf | February 8, 2008 8:38 AM

In addition, if racist whites have to choose between a black liberal and black conservative, do you really think they are going to choose a black liberal?

There's always "stay home.

In addition, what makes Keyes a wingnut by GOP standards?

Personal style and Kucinich like performance in national primary races.

Posted by Ralph Phelan | February 8, 2008 8:48 AM

wealthier, better educated, more informed, and less liable to fall into irrational group-think than Clinton supporters.

In my experience the wealthy and well educated are at least as susceptible to irrational group-think, usually more so. Academics are the worst. Also, people sho already have a religion are less likely to join a political cult than people who don't. And Obama's starting to sound like a baptist preacher. That's great for rousing a crowd consisting of already-religious blacks and secular whites who don't even know they're hungering for the feelings religion gives.

How good a strategy it is for winning a general election is another question.

Posted by Ralph Phelan | February 8, 2008 8:57 AM

eltoro - RKU may be overstating it, but on the other hand, this time Obama's running against McCain, not Keyes.

Posted by Ralph Phelan | February 8, 2008 9:00 AM

When you start talking about a candidate's vagina for effect your comments become pretty disturbing.

Please. The former poster accused Obama supporters of being "cult-like." I simple brought up the fact that much of Clinton's support comes from low-information voters and women voting for her because she's a woman. And don't even try to dispute these facts. The former is demographically undeniable, and the latter is discussed quite openly on the internet and elsewhere.

your hatred is plainly evident and it only took two media references to poke it out of you. you and the bizarre obama rationale here on this site shows how cult-like it is and how pertinent those articles were.

Hahahaha. There's absolutely nothing cult-like about supporting Obama because Hillary voted for the AUMF, the bankruptcy bill, the Workplace Religious Freedom Act, co-sponsored the flag-burning amendment, voted for Kyl-Lieberman, etc., etc., etc. I've got to ask, how do you justify supporting a pro-War Democrat?

To suggest that half the party should abandon their candidate because people like you will accuse us of being republicans is another indication you've been in the revival tent too long.

Reading comprehension isn't your strong suit, is it? I'm not surprised you're a Clinton supporter. My point was that those Clinton supporters who admire the fact that Billary will do anything to win ought to join the Republican Party. It's not enough just to win; we have to prove ourselves worthy of winning -- and race-baiting just ain't gonna cut it.

I have my multiple degrees and I read as much as anyone I know and yet because you differ with my opinion you want to suggest hillary supporters don't read, aren't well-educated and are intruders in your party.

I'm certainly not claiming ALL Hillary supporters are intellectually deficient. What I am saying, and the demographic data confirms this, is that Clinton voters TEND to be less well-educated and informed than Obama voters. In fact, if only those with college degrees were allowed to vote, this thing wouldn't even be close. My comments are specifically in response to be accused of being in a "cult" -- another stupid anti-Obama meme akin to "Obama doesn't have any substantive policy ideas (and even if he did, I wouldn't look 'em up)" and "Obama didn't really oppose the War." I think that the intellectual deficiency of these pro-Clinton arguments is quite telling.

Posted by asdf | February 8, 2008 9:08 AM

I want an effective person and I am convinced that Hillary gets all this and is square with military because she hopped right into military oversight in senate.

Military oversight = liked by the military? Hahahaha. It's a well known fact that many in the military hated the Clintons. Moreover, the military is one institution where sexism is rampant. How many generals, do you suppose, will appreciate taking orders from a woman? Now, I don't give a hoot what military leaders think as they are constitutionally obligated to follow the orders of the president. But to suggest that Hillary is "square with the military" is ridiculous. Oh, and Obama and Ron Paul lead in military donations.

I am convinced she opposed war.

You make me want to smash my head into the keyboard. What on God's green earth would ever give you the idea that Hillary Clinton opposed the Iraq War!?!? Yeah, it was a real stretch for me to argue that Clinton voters are by and large uniformed.

I think its really important that she is a woman with the supreme court nearly older than john Mc cain.

You think it's really important that she's a woman? So, using that same sterling logic, I suppose Phyllis Schafly would appoint good Supreme Court justices? Brilliant.

Posted by asdf | February 8, 2008 9:32 AM

"eltoro - RKU may be overstating it, but on the other hand, this time Obama's running against McCain, not Keyes."

But the opposite is true also. McCain will be running against Obama, not John Kerry with his Swift Boat baggage, and not Hillary Clinton, with her tendency to triangulate, split the difference, and even adopt Republican positions as her own in times of controversy, rather than fight for Democratic positions that deserve to be fought for. Moreover, Obama is the anti-Keyes; while Keyes argues for Republican positions in a manner that makes it abudantly and undeniably clear how crazy and absurd Republican positions often are, Obama argues for Democratic positions in a manner that makes it abundantly clear how sensible and reasonable Democratic positions often are.

This is especially important, because the Republicans are making it abundantly clear that contrary to conventional wisdom, they are going to run on national security and the occupation of Iraq to maintain the White House. They are going to paint the reasonable and intelligent positions of Clinton and Obama as acts of surrender to our enemies, the terrorists (without actually specifying which enemies and which terrorists). Contrary to conventional wisdom, such attacks can be very effective, even when the war being defended is unpopular. (How else can we explain the success of the GOP in maintaining the occupation in Iraq despite its massive unpopularity? Rhetoric like that is very effective at intimidating voters in supporting policies they have misgivings over.) However, a cool analytical mind like Obama's will be very effective in tearing apart such an argument, and showing not only absurd it is, but also how contemptible it really is. I don't see Hillary Clinton being willing to do that; she and Bill's record in dealing with such Republican rhetoric is a record of retreat and compromise and even adoption of such rhetoric as their own. Contrary to her repeated claims, the Clintons don't know how to actually beat the Republicans. They know how to get themselves elected and re-elected in the face of GOP opposition, but once they are in office they don't know how to actually succeed in getting a liberal agenda passed in the face of conservative opposition.

Posted by eltoro | February 8, 2008 11:09 AM

Ralph Phelan,

I'm not sure "stay at home" is a viable option for racist voters opposed to black politicians, when both of their choices are black, but one is a black liberal and one is a black conservative. Both are a threat to such racist voters, but one (the black liberal) is more a threat to such voters than the other (the black conservative). Staying at home increases the chances of the black liberal winning, so the racist voter will have to come out and vote against the black liberal.

Posted by eltoro | February 8, 2008 2:10 PM