« McCain Speech | Main | Obama and Pakistan » Obama Wins!19 Feb 2008 09:21 pm Says NBC. UPDATE: Exits show that Obama crushed Clinton among men, lost women narrowly. Whites are for Obama, as are every age bracket under 65. UPDATE II: Obama wins college graduates and non-graduates; Obama wins liberals, wins moderates, and wins conservatives; Obama wins Protestants and "no religion," Catholics are split. Comments (248)
Thank god. I am so sick of this election Maybe as an Iowan it's a little unfair to make that claim, and if Hillary and Obama had spent more time trying to build a case for democratic solidarity in the face of substantive policy differences it would have been a big help for us. Instead we get this divisiveness and bitterness that helps no one but McCain. 
Awesome. You just keep making those predictions, Matt.
Amazing - the White, working class people of Wisconsin don't count. Why would they do that to themselves?
Unbelievable. Wisconsin, thank you!
Unbelievable. Wisconsin, thank you!
On Obama!
Over 65 crones for Clinton. Excellent!
I'm glad my worries earlier today turned out to be defensive pessimism.
CNN and AP too.
But remember, Matt, Clinton is still in a very strong position - it's not over yet!
Well, just to be fair, males made up over 40% of the electorate. Clinton can't be expected to win with those kind of demographics.
Real cheddar cheese comes from New York. -HRC
As an Obama supporter, I feel excited now.
I don't trust the Republicans butting in.
Cheeseheads can't be trusted. - Hillary
It is too bad that another state decided that they didn't want their vote to count.
Doesn't count!
Obama won among Dems 51-49.
The Clinton's are about to go nuclear. It's gonna be entertaining!
It's over - Obama's the nominee. The only question is how ugly the Clintons will get on their way out the door.
Wow. I don't know if this can be confirmed, but it's amazing, if true: "Voters who decided in the last month picked Obama, 63% to Hillary's 37%."
Hillary knows it's over. Goodbye crone.
Wisconsin doesn't count, since good Wisconsin cheese is white cheese, and white women like white cheese, and Obama can't win white women.
But at least Clinton has won all of the significant states that have voted so far.
She just said that we shouldn't vote for a candidate that relies on words, not work. Stay classy, Hillary (not likely).
Wisconsin has an even number of delegates, so it doesn't count.
Obama looks like he's going to start his speech before Hillary ends hers... does that mean his speech doesn't count? CNN has decided to show both at the same time... and play audio for both at the same time??
Obviously, the superdelegates will soon realize that Obama can't possible beat McCain without the 65+ white female lapsed-Catholic vote behind him.
Hillary's foreclosure 'plan' is a bunch of crap. Talk about destructive voodoo economics...
Of course, as another commenter in a previous post noted, this doesn't count because Wisconsin is next to Illinois. And as Matt pointed out, it doesn't count because Billary lost. Listen, I gained political awareness during the Clinton years and I respect the Clintons and thank them for the successes of the 90s. But I also blame them for the problems that progressives have faced since then, and who can disagree that some fresh blood is exactly what this world needs right now. That said, watch the Clintons go nuclear. I hope the coalition survives their lust for power.
McCain has such an out-of-tune message. Maybe Obama can afford to alienate the Hillary voters. Seems like a bad gamble though.
Ouch. Seems like a bit of a miscalculation to get your big "contrast" speech preempted by Obama's victory speech.
And he said: let all men pass the bypass bridge, and I am, irrationally. For the outcome of this primary, nor proably of the election, will have absolutely no impact on my quality of life. May I ask: does this mean OH+TX will become a massive, crucial showdown? Who thinks HRC should simply retire, so BHO can get stuck into McCain and his falsehoods?
I must admit I never knew what this "crone" reference I keep reading in the comments here meant until I just googled it. Classy.
if you mix up the letters in Wisconsin you can spell "scions win" hi, I'm posting in this thread.
crone n. An ugly, withered old woman; a hag. [Middle English, from Old North French carogne , carrion, cantankerous woman, from Vulgar Latin. Sounds like Hillary to me!
Can anyone show me a link to a stream of Obama's speech?
Seriously, speaking as an Obama supporter, the sexist comments about Hillary are pretty disgusting. Please stop.
I can't wait to have a first lady who has "never" been proud of America before her husband ran for national office.
Hillary'08: Most of My Constituency Will Be Dead Soon
What southpaw said.
I'm an Obama supporter, but this gloating is getting a little out of hand. I understand that many are frustrated with the ridiculous arguments of the Clinton campaign, but just remember, she's a Democrat who supports a lot of great ideas. I happen to like the individual and dislike her campaign. And, need I remind you that there are still decisive contests ahead. Would it kill you all to just hold tight, don't count any chickens, and be magnanimous winners?
Good for Wisconsin, ignoring the bullshit from yesterday.
southpaw, I couldn't agree more. Please, attack HRC for her policies or her tactics, but don't just throw misogynistic comments at her. She deserves better than that (as do, frankly, all women).
Based on the exit polls, it appears that the only people voting for Hillary Clinton to become the next President are the ones that don't really have a vested interest in the matter.
scott: Apparently, the SAT no longer tests antonyms. But here's one for you: What is the opposite of "the first time I've been really proud"? a) "I've never been proud"
I happen to like the individual and dislike her campaign. Uh, OK...she's a lying, spinning, divisive, power hungry, self entitled woman, and her husband is a sexual predator. That's an individual or individuals that you like? Nice standards.
Anyone else think that Obama's speech tonight is . . . boring?
Exit polls [seem to] show that the increasingly negative campaign was not in Clinton's best interest, although it's hard to see how she could have won any more votes if she stayed positive. Obama is like the Great Wall: can't go over it, can't go under it, can't slip around it. ...Or maybe can you slip around it? To the previous commenters: calling Hillary a crone is definitely not going to win Obama any votes. Keep it to yourself.
"Would it kill you all to just hold tight, don't count any chickens, and be magnanimous winners?" i think magnamity(?) would be easier if it didn't seem that HRC was willing to tear apart the Democratic party to win. if she was trouncing him at the polls based entirely on policy and good, solid campaign smarts, then it'd be easier to swallow. before all this started, i didn't have any real problem with HRC, and would've voted for her for Pres, no problem. but watching how ugly her campaign has gotten, i now want Obama to crush her into tiny, hectoring bits.
Not just the sexist comments - which are bad enough - but anything having to do with her appearance at all. It would be nice if people could stick to the tactics and/or policies.
What southpaw, toasters, Philly and Joe said. C'mon people, have more class than the wingnuts.
Obama is going to have about an 160-vote lead among pledged delegates after tonight. I think it's very likely that he'll win Texas, and win enough delegates there to neutralize HRC's win in Ohio, assuming she hangs on there, which isn't a given. At that point, is HRC really going to hang on for six weeks waiting for Pennsylvania, while trailing by such a big margin in the pledged delegates (a gap which will get a little bigger after the Mississippi primary)? Her only argument at that point will be that a large majority of superdelegates should vote for her (why?), and that the Michigan and Florida delegates should be seated, which isn't going to happen (Obama wasn't even on the ballot in MI and didn't campaign in FL). The pressure on her to quit is going to be immense. I think she'll withdraw in mid-March.
Is anyone else watching the speech on CNN? Did anyone hear the weird off-mic talk? "What do you mean you don't have to go to confession anymore? Are you becoming Jewish?" (It sounded like Begala...curious to see if he's on the panel tonight.)
Ditto on rob!'s post. Extreme dislike was learned during this campaign. Defeat isn't enough. Humiliation is required.
Not just the sexist comments - which are bad enough - but anything having to do with her appearance at all. It would be nice if people could stick to the tactics and/or policies.
Miland, depends on whether the SAT was graded on the regular curve or the "Michelle" curve
Wow, I guess I need to redo my antonyms, too... Replace that question with: "What is a logical consequence of the statement 'I've never been really proud'"
i think magnamity(?) would be easier if it didn't seem that HRC was willing to tear apart the Democratic party to win. I think if you can't see the benefit of holding yourself to a higher standard than your opponent, you haven't really been listening to Senator Obama's speeches. I don't mean that in the sense that Obama is a Jesus figure, just that my own admiration for him has grown in seeing how he has ran his campaign: with class and moral standards.
Wow, I guess I need to redo my antonyms, too... Replace that question with: "What is a logical consequence of the statement 'This is the first time I've been really proud'"
I wonder if Hillary Clinton is paying for her cheap attempt at a smear campaign in Wisconsin. Watch her go even more negative now. Problem is, Democrats aren't as easily mobilized by negative attacks as Republicans since liberals have a positive agenda and the repugs have an ideology of reaction.
Um, scott, somehow I'm betting that Michelle Obama's Princeton and Harvard education trumps your Community College associates degree. Moron.
Houston, we have a problem (thx Jon)
You know what? I give up. Clearly I can neither think, nor type.
Milind, never mind. he's now saying he's going to do away with standardized tests, or at least minimize their importance
"I think if you can't see the benefit of holding yourself to a higher standard than your opponent, you haven't really been listening to Senator Obama's speeches." absolutely true, and i'm workin' on it! but--Obama's a better person than me in that regard. that's part of the reason i find him so inspiring.
I never liked darkies and certianly am not starting now.
Is it: The more successful Obama is, the more banal his speeches become -- or: The more successful Obama is, the longer I'm acquainted with his rhetoric, the more banal his speeches seem?
"Hillary should plagiarize his coalition"
M, I think the Obama campaign sees him as vulnerable to the "lack of substance" attacks, (rightly) anticipating that Hillary's going to try and lose ugly, and is using this speech -- probably the most high-profile speech he'll give before TX/OH on March 4 -- to show he's got the policy/substance club in his bag. Not unwise, IMHO.
scott is so funny i might just set fire to this cross i'm currently holding
Miland,
Not sure of the rules here, and tend to be non-polemical on the comment string. But, do feel the Obama balloon is gonna burst and talked at some length to a super-delegate about it today. He/she (uncommitted) tended to agree. And it was not I who posted the stupid comment about "darkies" above.
M: I suspect the type speech he's giving tonight is in direct response to the dullards on the Clinton side of the fence who've shouted 'All rhetoric and no policy' for the past couple of months.
Hear hear on the gratuitous sexist remarks. People vote for all kinds of reasons, and if I were an elderly woman I might well vote for my only chance to see a woman elected president in my lifetime.
Wow, scott, you're so impressive. You're obviously sooo well connected. Give it up, asshole.
'The odds of me standing here are very slim' got me where it matters
I realize that nothing will harsh your mellow, but check the exit polls. The demographics haven't changed. Hillary won white Democrats--closer than usual, but still up by 5 points. Independents and Republicans comprised over 30% of the voters, and they handed Obama the win--not Democrats, who voted for Hillary. As for the reason Obama won the "some college" and "no college degree" groupings--the 18-24 year old group was 17%--much higher than in any other state I've checked. California and Florida were 7 and 9 percent. Same day registration allowed college students to show up for Obama. So again--in terms of demonstrating that Obama can capture white Dem voters, nothing has changed. He's still got to prove that in Texas--or the Dems have a tough decision to make.
If you think Hillary is running a negative campaign against Obama, you haven't been around politics very long. This campaign has been very mild. In fact, as a Hillary person, I think she ought to be a whole lot tougher than she has been.
Keep grasping, Cal. It's entertaining to watch someone who's obviously so deluded. Laughing @ you.
Penn's $5m message: Q) Why should Hillary win the nomination? QED
Congratulations to Barack Obama for his victory tonight. On the campaign going forward, what many of you call "going negative" I call raising some important questions about Obama's readiness to lead and ability to tackle the complex and difficult challenges that the next President will face. Considering only three years ago Barack was just a member of the Illinois legislator, that's a fair question to explore. If Hillary Clinton doesn't raise the issue no one else will. The media certainly hasn't, and you all certainly won't. Somebody's got to unpack these whole concepts of "hope" and "change" and ask the subsequent questions about what those specifically mean in practical terms for our politics and America's future. If Obama cannot respond satisfactorily to a vigorous debate on those questions, and others, then he doesn't deserve to be president.
I understand that it is free airtime and such and that Sen Obama is really good at public speaking, but c'mon... Too much of a good thing may be a bad thing. This is turning into a Clinton State of the Union speech. Someone needs to occasionally reign him in. Don't get me wrong, he is my senator, but seriously...
Obama won Democrats, but apparently Blacks don't count in Cal's world, so only winning White Democrats is important. This is ridiculous.
Cal, so does that mean Dems aren't going to vote for their nominee because they're white and he's black?
then he doesn't deserve to be president. And thank God morons like you ultimately don't make that judgement.
Interesting (to me) find in the exit polls. Obama ran stronger with the more conservative voters. Do they realize how liberal he is? Probably more so than HRC. He's gotta be likely to lose those voters to McCain in November. I just wonder if people are really paying attention to policy right now ... Vote by Ideology:
John Petty, I've been trying to make that case for weeks here, but I'm guessing many of the commenters are so emotionally invested in Obama they can't abide a single negative word, or the only prior campaign they followed was student body president. Check out Somerby for related, wise, commentary this subject, particularly the race 'issue'.
Tim K, It's not a vigorous debate about the issues. If you read Obama's website or even listen to one of his speeches in its entirety, he gives lots of policy details. Clinton is trying to win with "gotcha" politics. She's trying to win with superficial details and Republican talking points and it's not working.
Tim K, unpack my heart with words. Obama unpacks his own concepts: they are the rhetorical gloss on his actual agenda, which is laid out in numerous policy documents and speeches. In other words, you get the style AND the substance. Happy Birthday.
Additional thought: I wonder if those who think HRC has been terribly negative in this campaign, tearing Democrats apart, thought the same of Ned Lamont last year?
Andruw -- Of course, they're going to go negative. But they have so much more on Clinton it's not funny.
The other split I'm looking at is Obama again lost white Democrats (52-47). This feels like some sort of red flag to me for November.
If Hillary Clinton doesn't raise the issue no one else will. The media certainly hasn't, and you all certainly won't. I would generally agree with this, Tim K, but Hillary has served as poor instrument by which to vet Obama. Even the rickety coalition McCain is hoping to keep together will come up with something tougher than the meat-fisted, crude, and almost parody-level material we've seen coming from the Clinton people. The Clinton campaign serves no purpose any longer except to prepare Obama for the general election. They need to get better at it, or stop wasting everyone's time and fold up tent graciously.
One correction to my above post--18-24 year olds made up 11% of the voting population, which is far more than usual. But Republicans and independents were 35%. Cal, so does that mean Dems aren't going to vote for their nominee because they're white and he's black? I think it likely that many whites will vote for McCain if the Dems are suicidal enough to put him up in the general with these results, but that's not the point. The point, again, is why do the Dems want to put up someone who can't win over white Democrat voters--and who hasn't (yet) demonstrated he can capture Hispanics? When I first heard that he'd won Wisconsin, I was fully expecting to see a change in the demographics. Instead, he won on the strength of independents and Republicans, as well as a disproportionately high college student vote.
ben: Yes he does give plenty of details on his website. His policy agenda is almost identical to what Hillary Clinton is talking about (with a few notable exception on the mortgage crisis and health care) or what any Democratic nominee would promise. The question is whether he is the right person to get it done. And you can't just take the candidate's word on that one. Ultimately it's not Obama the man who lacks substance, and it's not his platform that lacks substance, it's his rhetoric. Listening intently to his speeches his message seems to be that America cannot afford to wait any longer for Barack Obama to become the president, and that's a callow argument. The ascent of Barack Obama in national politics is not in itself an historic moment in America's history. We are not the one's we have been waiting for, because we've been here all along.
Still Undecided, Of course! If Obama appeals to independents and some conservatives, it must follow that he'll lose in the general election. Andruw, Lamont had substantial support amongst CT democrats (he won with something like 65% of the primary vote). I don't know what kind of mythical "negative attacks" you think he unleashed on Lieberman, but they couldn't possibly compare to the Zell Miller-esque crap Lieberman spewed on Democrats regularly.
Another thing: Clinton is nowhere near vetted enough, and she's benefited from Obama's refusal to engage in that kind of politics (most of the time). And frankly, her campaign has got to the stage where Obama doesn't need to drive her negatives up -- she's doing a great job of that all by herself. If I were a Clinton supporter, I'd be wondering what happened to her vaunted fighting ability.
I found the clip of Hillary's speech I watched sweet and poignant. Kept thinking, 'I would have supported you ...' Because I am male, perhaps I feel a black presidency would be the greater revolution
Listening intently to his speeches his message seems to be that America cannot afford to wait any longer for Barack Obama to become the president, and that's a callow argument.-Tim K And yet, via most metrics that actually, you know, count, it's been a strangely effective one. Good to see you still fighting Tim. I'm not sure what the heck you're trying to accomplish at this point, but am impressed at your resilience. Of course, what's that saying about doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result?
This is starting to get pathetic. There's whining about how well Obama did with conservative voters, ignoring how well he did with liberal voters. Far worse than that, though, is the absurd meme that the only votes that matter are those of white, self-identified Democrats. I don't have exact numbers on me, but if memory seres, roughly the same number of American voters self-identify as Democrats as independents. Presumably, most Democrats will vote for a Democrat (and he is the favored candidate, even at this stage, in Wisconsin, of >45% of white Democrats), but independents will be far harder to draw out in November, and you want a candidate who has shown he can do that. Now, the reason that people are deciding that only white, self-identified Democrats count is obvious: that's the only straw left to clutch at for Clinton partisans. Whoops, I'm sorry: it's the only straw left for the "Undecided" among us.
So Obama will likely end up depending on all those white Hillary Clinton democrats ...
The losing democratic candidate received more votes than McCain and Huckabee combined.
Everyone's attacking Obama. This is exactly where he needs to be.
The ascent of Barack Obama in national politics is not in itself an historic moment in America's history. Dude, do you really think that? 60 years after the Dixiecrats won Louisiana, Alabama, and South Carolina, a black man has the best shot to win the Democratic Party's nomination. That's not historic? Really?
Hey, where the white women at? No, seriously, where'd they all go?
I like crones. They are the mysterious oracles in Yeats' late poems and plays. Those who insult them usually rue the day, as well they should. Anyway, I'm happy that the zombies have found something to say about Obama. Oh, the wife wasn't blubblubblubering proud of the country, like Sly at the end of Rambo II! One of the beautiful things about this race is that the hate radio crowd has been so utterly shut out. And, when Obama wins in November, they will be pissing themselves. It will be sweet.
ben, to be clear, I effin' hate Joe Lieberman. My point was more about the delicate, and perhaps shifting, sensibilities of Obama supporters, ot at least some folks in the progressive blogoshphere.
Kraz, I think what Cal is saying's indeed that white independents matter, because there are more of them, and if Obama can't win the white Democrats in WI, how does he have a hope among white independents?
Listen, Barack Obama is doing very well he's now the clear front-runner. But that doesn't mean his critics are supposed to shut up, that's not how democracy works. It's also a good illustration of why he's not going to be able to magically silence his detractors and accomplish this transformative revolution in politics. Guess what... the whole country doesn't agree with him or the Democratic party, there's an opposition party. So get used to it.
Of course Obama will need the support of white Democrats in November, and of course he will get it. No one has put forth any evidence that Clinton's slim lead among white Democrats in Wisconsin means that those voters wouldn't turn out for Obama in November. In fact, it was apparent from the exit polls that more Clinton voters would be satisfied with Obama as a nominee than the other way around. As for the (probably true) idea that conservatives won't turn out in November for Obama: how about his leads among liberals and moderates? He won across the board. Besides, even if conservatives don't like him, they hate him a lot, lot, lot less than they hate Hillary Clinton, and that matters.
And yet Obama consistently beats McCain in the national polls... Yeats is terrible.
southpaw: You're confusing Obama the man and Obama the black man. I'm not talking about his race. You cannot elect a whole race or gender or religion president. Electing BARACK OBAMA is not an historic moment. The fact he is black would be a great symbolic victory, but the challenges America faces are too great to choose based on symbolism.
I'm not sure you're getting the point Kraz
While the resident trolls seem to be keeping up with the same line of attack, things over at Talk Left are rather muted. People over there seem to be starting to come to terms with the fact that Obama is the likely nominee.
Andruw, I'm not sure what you're talking about. There aren't a whole lot of significant parallels between the two races, in my eyes, except that all the candidates have(/had) D after their names.
I can't understand why anybody would think that's not an important demographic for the first black Presidential nominee. I think Obama is going to have a real problem in Pennsylvania in November. God forbid McCranky chooses Ridge for veep. Can he lose Pennsylvania and win? Nothing is "presumable".
and if Obama can't win the white Democrats in WI, how does he have a hope among white independents? I fail to see even a superficially convincing argument here. Of course he'll do far better among Democrats (white, whatever) in the general than in a primary, where he's running against, you know, another Democrat, and the apparent assumption that independents are all situated somewhere to the right of self-identified Democrats is oversimplified at best. And there are plenty of polls showing him doing better against McCain nationally among independents than HRC would.
Guess what... the whole country doesn't agree with him or the Democratic party, there's an opposition party. So get used to it.-tim K You know what Tim? You're right. This whole time I was listening to Barack Obama instead of Hillary (because, you know, she wasn't on for long) I totally forgot about the REPUBLICAN PARTY!!! Jesus, how did that happen?!?!? It's like I was swept away on a fairytale or something. Phew! I'm glad you pulled us all back down to Earth.
Watching Hardball right now and Chris Matthews asked this state senator from Texas what Obama's legislative accomplishments are and it was dead air. Pretty funny. But... he didn't ask the same of Clinton. Can anyone name a single legislative accomplishment of hers? Didn't think so.
Burning frock, or flock I don't remember--I appreciate the sentiment, despite you're earlier insults, but I don't think people are going to vote for 'the greater Revolution" in November--they never do. Since Matt makes predictions, I will too: Obama's peak in popularity is tonight, all downhill from here. Kind of like "Mission Accomplished" --the witch is dead, and. . . .
Re Bobskis at 10:13pm with Michelle Obama's full quote It's still an obnoxious quote. Even if you don't agree with the executive branch of the federal government (and there's certainly been a lot to disagree with through Reagan, Bush, Clinton, and Bush), there's a lot of other dimensions of the society to appreciate. She's only "really proud" because her husband has managed to attract a lot of voters? And I'm an Obama fan.
Tim K: as a fellow HRC supporter, Obama's rise is pretty damn historically important, no matter how this ends up. Tim K: "he's not going to be able to magically silence his detractors and accomplish this transformative revolution in politics." I agree with this; its going to be a very close general election, and once you get in office lofty rhetoric won't take you very far, when it is not very policy-specific. Plenty of time to work on that, of course.
John: I'm not a troll because I don't agree with you. Is that supposed to be part of the new kind of politics? Demonize those who disagree with you? Let's all come together, unless you aren't an Obama fan, that is. Some of us have serious issues with Barack Obama (just as some of you have serious issues with Hillary Clinton). He hasn't assuaged my concerns simply by winning Wisconsin.
You asshole Obamanians!!! Wisconsin doesn't count! Something to do with cheese, I hear.
How can rhetoric lack substance? TimK, I don't think you understand the concept of rhetoric. Rhetoric is meant to persuade, and it has done exactly that. It's good rhetoric: whether it has substance has little bearing on his quality qua rhetoric.
So Obama will likely end up depending on all those white Hillary Clinton democrats ... And if Clinton loses the nomination, then white Democrats will do what exactly? Vote Republican? Stay at home?
burning flock- Your argument is this: 1. Obama can't win white Democrats But there's an obvious flaw: You are assuming that if (1) is true in the primary, (3) will then be true in the general election. What I'm saying is that (1) is true only as long as Clinton is there to take up white Democrat votes; i.e. only in the primary. It isn't even always true in the primary, though it happened to be in Wisconsin.
The point is Obama needs to sell "white democrats" to win in November. It's a huge voting bloc that he must dominate. And the numbers say he's not doing that yet. More to the point, Obama has won 0% of the Hillary voters, an even bigger voting bloc! How can he possibly beat McCain in the general without winning them over?
Still Undecided, Given that Senator Clinton is not dominating white democrats (she won 51-49 tonight), shouldn't we be worried about her on the exact same issue as well? http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21226015
Sigh. If Clinton only won white Democrats in the general election--and only by a few points--she would get blown out in the general election. This, of course, is completely freaking obvious. So, for the arguments of people like Cal, "Still Undecided", and so forth to make a lick of sense, they would have to be assuming that Clinton will expand her support from her current very narrow base into the many areas which she is currently losing by large margins to Obama (and McCain, according to head-to-head polls). Yet somehow it is impossible for Obama to expand his broader base to include the segments he is narrowly losing to Clinton (and not losing to McCain, according to head-to-head polls). Oh well. If they haven't figured it out yet, I guess they never will.
Tim K - the dead-endness of your flailing around for a silver lining here is tiresome. It seems like you all go to the exit polls and find some group that Obama hasn't won, and then make this group the key to everything, and the fact that Obama has barely lost that group somehow shows what a disastrous candidate he will be in a general election. On the other hand, Clinton's extraordinary weakness with independents, her complete failure to attract younger voters, her disastrously bad showing in the African American vote, her repeated losses among white men, are all unimportant. Virginia and Wisconsin have both showed Obama making considerable progress in weakening Clinton in her key demographic groups. Clinton has made virtually no progress in making inroads in Obama's key groups. If Obama has potential problems as a general election candidate, Clinton's are looking much worse at this point.
M,
Andruw: The fact he is an African American is historic. But Barack Obama the individual becoming president isn't historic. Listen to his speeches, he practically compares his presidential campaign to the struggles of the American revolutionaries, the suffragists, abolitionists, the Greatest Generation, and the Civil Rights movements. It's a bit much. In fact, it's a lot much.
I don't understand how Hillary can be the only one who claims to be able to be CiC when she cannot even run a competent campaign? Her campaign seems to have all the same hubris as our misadventure in Iraq, there may even be a "cakewalk" quote out there back from last August.
From Jake Tapper: Hillary Clinton was in the middle of attacking him in a speech in Ohio when he didn't wait to finish -- as is customary -- but rather came out to a packed arena in Texas, confident, cocky.I used to be 'concerned' about Obama's tendency to be cocky, and part of me still thinks it's slightly ... unseemly ... for the primaries. But if he makes it to the general election, then this is just the sort of behavior that will help whip up the Dem base against the GOP nominee.
It's a lot much, Tim K? Instead, he should do what Hillary is doing and talk about what a loser his opponent is? Awesome. Barack Obama is doing very well he's now the clear front-runner. But that doesn't mean his critics are supposed to shut up, that's not how democracy works. It's also a good illustration of why he's not going to be able to magically silence his detractors and accomplish this transformative revolution in politics. Guess what... the whole country doesn't agree with him or the Democratic party, there's an opposition party. So get used to it. I, for one, don't want Obama's "critics" to shut up. From you, to Ruth Kaplan, to katie - it's been pretty hilarious. And to those wishing Hillary goes more negative - I'm right there with you, since it worked out so well tonight. More awesome.
yeesh, I'm saying the statistical indication is, from tonight's results and as Cal points out, that Obama will do less well among whites than your 'Of course' blithely asserts.
John: If you aren't going to read and understand what I write then don't bother to comment. I haven't said a single thing about the exit polls or a single thing denigrating his impressive win in Wisconsin tonight.
Obama is up by 14 points right now. Huge win, massive even. Chuck Todd is saying he's up by over 150 pledged delegates and still has an 80 delegate lead including Superdelegates. Clinton needs to win 58% of all remaining pledged delegates just to get back to even. And it is more likely that she needs to claim over 65% of remaining pledged delegates if you assume that he is going to win states like NC, OR, MS, VT, WY and MT. Obama needs less than 50% of all remaining delegates, including Superdelegates, to hit the magic number. I like these odds.
Tim - I'm sorry, you're right. Scott, Cal, burning flock, etc. are the ones who've been making the argument I was arguing against. So I'm sorry for painting with a broad brush.
yeesh, I'm saying the statistical indication is, from tonight's results and as Cal points out, that Obama will do less well among whites than your 'Of course' blithely asserts. How do you get there? What, exactly, is it about the statistics from tonight that gives you this "indication" of what would happen in November?
I'm just pointing out some weaknesses I see in the numbers and wondering how Obama can address them. Honestly I think Obama is going to have a tough time in Pennsylvania (my state) in November.
"I happen to like the individual and dislike her campaign." Um. Hillary is responsible for her campaign. It is a reflection of who she is. I once just thought she was dull but well-meaning: another Gore or Kerry. That ended around the time she decided that the rules for Michigan and Florida that she had signed on to, could be broken. And its been down hill from there. I've gone from finding her dull to finding her to be the single most objectionable politician in the Democratic party in my life-time. And thank you Wisconsin for going out in those frigid temperatures to deliver a decisive win. Yes we can.
Your "statistical indication" seems to amount to "Clinton won more white Democrats in Wisconsin and certain other states". Phrasing it in more abstruse terms doesn't make it sound any smarter. If you can prove white Democrats really have it in for Obama, or that white independents really have it in for Obama (and not for Clinton), go for it. Until then you're just blustering based on the only favorable scrap of exit poll data you could find.
We actually don't even know that Clinton would do better than Obama among white Democrats in the general election. It is all a question of conversion rates, specifically the rate at which white Democrats supporting Obama would convert to Clinton rather than McCain, and the rate at which white Democrats supporting Clinton would convert to Obama rather than McCain. If the Clinton-to-Obama rate ended up higher than the Obama-to-Clinton rate, Obama could actually get more support in the general election from this group.
TimK, Barack Obama is African-American. bjd, Yes he is. He was a fascist, a eugenicist and a cultic fantasist. He actually wrote Throw likely couples into bed, earnestly, in reference to eugenics. Have you ever tried to read through his Poems cover to cover, then write a 6,000-word thesis about them?
@plum, I don't think it was cocky. The practice is for Clinton to give a concession speech. However as Cal points out, she didn't do that. She used her free air time to attack Obama without even trying to be somewhat congratulatory. So they cut her off. BTW - the purposeful use of the terminology "Shut Up" is quite disturbing to me because there is only one use for it and that is to try and tell women voters that the Obama campaign is trying to tell them to "Shut Up". And this whole "Shut Up" thing is completely invented out of thin air. I also think that her speech, particularly the excerpts that Cal notes provides a clear narrative as to why she should not win the nomination. It is clear to me that she is still fighting or wants to fight the partisan battles of the 90's. Her heads in the past and I have a feeling that the Clintons have a long list of names that they want to exact a few pounds of flesh from.
Wow, just had a look at the exit polls for myself: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21226015 Obama won all over the place. He won white men almost 2 to 1. he won every income bracket. He won every age group under 65. He came damn close to a tie with white women and white democrats, which would have been an utter humiliation for HRC. If the Clinton campaign can successfully spin this away, they can spin anything. And we already know they can't spin anything.
BREAKING NEWS: Clinton Wins WA Dem Primary Seattle, WA - After Clinton wins the Washington State Democratic Primary, that is considered nothing more than a "beauty contest" or straw poll, Clinton claims that she will try to have the DNC allocate and seat delegates based on her primary win at the Convention, because the delegates allocated by the caucus system last week were "second class delegates" and "didn't count". More news at 12.
GW Bush 2000: Gov. of Texas ????? experience ??????
M - I call you out as an aesthetic Stalinist! That Yeats's politics were bad does not mean that his poetry is not great.
Still Undecided, When it comes to registered Democrats, most of the work in converting the supporters of the losing candidate to the winning candidate will be done by partisanship. Of course, partisanship is not a factor in the primaries, but nonetheless people sometimes get confused and forget to account for the effects of partisanship when imagining what will happen once the nomination process is complete.
Thanks John, I appreciate that. M: Really? Barack Obama is African American? I never heard this news. The point, M, is that that's not even close to being reason enough to vote for somebody. This is about electing a president.
They were just showing some clips of HRC's speech from Ohio and I almost choked on my pizza laughing. Instead of her famous "clap, clap, point, point", he has instead changed to the "smile, smile, point, point".
Wow, at the moment, McCain is beating Huckabee by 18 points. Obama is beating Clinton by 17. This is a serious ass-kicking.
I'm for Obama but STILL predict Clinton will win the nomination and the presidency. She's the shady, shady machine candidate. Just watch... Sad but I"ll bet that it'll prove to be true...
I'm for Obama but STILL predict Clinton will win the nomination and the presidency. She's the shady, shady machine candidate. Just watch... Sad but I"ll bet that it'll prove to be true...
It's worth noting that they've readjusted the exit polls, and now Clinton and Obama are tied for the female vote, at 50-50.
By the way, I find it amusing that although Obama won among white voters, and won among Democrats, the problem is that he didn't quite win among white Democrats. I guess the idea is to find the smallest triangle on the Venn diagram, and let those people choose the nominee. Or maybe the idea is just to find one of the last few triangles on the Venn diagram still voting for Clinton, and let those people choose the nominee. Nah, that couldn't be it.
With 38% of the Washington State primary in, Obama leads 50% to 47%. From HRC: Washington doesn't count because . . . it doesn't count. No, really, it doesn't
"crone n. An ugly, withered old woman; a hag. [Middle English, from Old North French carogne , carrion, cantankerous woman, from Vulgar Latin. Sounds like Hillary to me!" Well, no, I'm more generous than that. Physically, Hillary is not particularly ugly, although it will be a cold day in hell before she competes with any of the babes I like. Hell, even Stephanie Beacham, who's 61 this month, two years older than me, and the same age as Hillary, looks better than Hillary. But I'd do her! But personality-wise - "cantankerous woman" - oh, yeah, that sounds like Hillary! So, yeah, the point of "crone" is not her appearance, it's her nature and attitude. not to mention her lack of principles and her general corruption. I'm not interested in a corrupt, lying, hawkish politician, male, female or hermaphrodite. Unfortunately, the problem with Obama is either that he's either also a liar or clueless when it comes to foreign policy.
White WI Dems, because they are Democratic, are ostensibly a more favourable constituency for Obama than white independents in the general. He lost them. I am not arguing that there would be a racially-motivated migration, en masse, of white Dems and independents to McCain in November. I am arguing that his failure to win among white Dems tonight makes his position among whites as a bloc, in November, look less secure. Just as he lost the white WI Dems to HRC, he could lose more white Dems-and-independents to McCain than he would if he were himself white. The question is whether this would be balanced out by success among blacks and other very favourable demographics. This is perhaps 'racial cynicism' on my part, but the data inspired it. My bedtime, x
We actually don't even know that Clinton would do better than Obama among white Democrats in the general election. We don't know, that's true. However, it's a considerably more reliable indicator than Obama's support among independents and Republicans. Dukakis won independents in his primaries, and was up 10 points over Bush 41 in June before the election--with most of his support coming from independents. Bush beat Dukakis by 15 points among independents. In contrast, Kerry had a mixed record with independents in the primaries, and just touched out Bush 49-48 among independents. So Obama's strong support among independents means exactly nothing. What is troublesome is that so many of his victories depend on the same three things: 1) caucuses in red states 2) huge black turnout in a few red states 3) independent/Republican votes. Incidentally, if that news about Hillary winning Washington is true, that's huge news precisely because it shows that caucuses "don't count". In fact, if she's significantly closer in Washington, whether or not she wins, it calls all caucus results into question. However, as this link suggests, it's early yet.
I'm completely confused by the claim that Obama losing white democrats to Clinton in a primary somehow proves that he will do worse among white independents in the general election against McCain. The fact that Obama does far better among white independents than Clinton does is apparently entirely irrelevant to any assessment of this. This seems deeply perverse to me. Is this argument being made in good faith, or are Cal and Burning Flock just trying to obfuscate?
This whole "losing white democrats" argument is ridiculous. It was fair to point this out back in South Carolina when it could be very persuasively argued that the electorate didn't look like most of America. But Wisconsin isn't South Carolina and Obama has won, and won decisively. This is a huge win for him, and Clinton is in serious trouble. Just so nobody can accuse me of being one-sided.
Another fun new thing learned from Cal - beauty contest primaries that don't matter are more important than real contested primaries! Who knew? By the way, where is Petey? I believe he indicated that Wisconsin, unlike Virginia and Maryland, would matter.
One of the interesting things about the primaries so far is the dreadful, dreadful GOP turnout. This is a voting group. And yet, in state after state, it is half of what it was in 2000. True, Wisconsin GOPers might have considered that the race was over. But what is the ratio - something like 4 to 1 Dem. I think this bodes a huge blowout. McCain is, and has shown himself to be, a very second rate candidate. He's a terrible speaker. He's not only ignorant about domestic economic issues, but tends to be flip. His charisma seems to extend only as far as the media. The Republican lineup this time was perhaps the most subpar in two decades. McCain seems to actually want to follow Hilary Clinton by rolling out the same attacks on Obama - which have done HC a lot of good. This is going to be a luxury election for the Dems.
I'd been hoping this would put an end to Cal's shameless cocooning bullshit but no luck.
I will say, with respect to Washington, that I am rather astonished that a completely meaningless beauty contest seems to have managed to attract considerably more voters than the Republican contest, which actually matters.
The fundamental point that can be overlooked by all this close up analysis is that Obama is truly special. He is a gifted leader. Has he gone through all the paces? No. But he is the most qualified based on all evidence. It will be up to all of us to help him succeed.
Cal, The fact that Dukakis experienced an electoral collapse can't really be reliably generalized to all Democratic candidates. More importantly, I'm not sure what you are arguing. The Democratic nominee cannot win the general election with just the support of registered Democrats. Rather, the Democratic nominee will need a decent percentage of independents (and probably a few Republicans) to win. So, it is true that we cannot be sure that Obama will hold onto his current strong support from independents and crossovers, and if he doesn't he might lose the general election. But currently Clinton wouldn't even start with that level of support among independents and Republicans, so would have to find a way to dramatically close the gap. Given all this, why would you choose the person starting in the losing position over the person starting in the winning position? In short, it is true Obama is not guaranteed to win the general election. But all the evidence available now indicates he would start in a much better position than Clinton. And that is the best we can do at this time.
I'm completely confused by the claim that Obama losing white democrats to Clinton in a primary somehow proves that he will do worse among white independents in the general election against McCain. Who's making that claim? Certainly not me. I'm not making any claims about the general--only questioning those others are making. I'm predicting that the Dems are going to figure out a way to give the nomination to Hillary if Obama doesn't improve his performance among whites and Hispanics. One of the interesting things about the primaries so far is the dreadful, dreadful GOP turnout. That might seem intuitively obvious, but in fact Dem turnout has exceeded Republican turnout in all but two of the elections since 1972. Hasn't done them any good in the general. Another fun new thing learned from Cal - beauty contest primaries that don't matter are more important than real contested primaries! They matter because they support the contention that caucuses aren't representative of the overall preferences.
erict: Okay well that was just absurd. He has proven himself to be a gifted politician, not a gifted leader. There's a difference. And is certainly not the most qualified by any measure I know of.
We should note that the use of the "only white Democrats count" argument has moved from (1) a reason Clinton will win the nomination despite certain poor showings, to (2) a reason Clinton advocates could say "I told you so" if Obama lost in November. There seems to be gradual acceptance of Obama's status as frontrunner for the nomination. That's not to say it's over yet, but a big loss in Wisconsin is pretty tough to spin as irrelevant. Factor in the strange delegate allocation and tightening polls in Texas, and it's hard to see Clinton winning pledged delegates at this point without something very odd happening. P.S. DTM phrased our shared cynicism about this argument far better than I ever could have myself.
Ha ha ha - I'm loving it!
@John That is truly an astonishing figure re: the WA Dem "beauty contest". While we cannot rule HRC out, there is still time for Obama to make some more slipups and it is these little things, like the Michelle statement and the "plagarism" thing that sort of compound themselves to create a bigger problem. It does seem that HRC will be playing for the hail mary pass at this point. So the question is, how long will Hillary stay in the race? She clearly can stay in til the convention and prevent Obama from hitting the magic number as long as the Superdelegates stay uncommitted to the end as well. But at what cost? Perhaps it could be a good thing, as long as HRC doesn't go Willie Horton negative, because McCain will have the media attention basically off him once he wraps up the nomination until the convention. But is that a good thing? It seems to me that the more people see McCain the myth in person, the less impressed people are with him. He truly is an uninspiring and grouchy old man.
I'm confused that the turnout for Washington's meaningless primary seems to be so much higher than the turnout for the caucuses.
Burning flock, When you're saying a 17% loss is really at win it's time for a reality check.
He has proven himself to be a gifted politician, not a gifted leader. And through her campaign ALONE, HRC has proven herself an INCOMPETENT politician and an INEFFECTIVE leader. I don't know how any supporter of HRC can possibly spin that fact away. She has presided over a legendary fiasco, the most incompetent run for a Presidential nomination ever, sort of a joke coda to Bush's most incompetent Presidency ever.
Ha ha ha - I'm loving it!
Ha ha ha - I'm loving it!
The fact that Dukakis experienced an electoral collapse can't really be reliably generalized to all Democratic candidates. I wasn't generalizing. I was just pointing out that the independent vote isn't all that. Likewise, you have no idea what Clinton would do vis a vis the independent vote. Primaries aren't terribly reliable indicators for independents, because of the inherent selection bias. As I keep on saying, I'm not arguing for anything. My point is the same it has always been--as of yet, the demgraphics of the election haven't changed. He's still getting wins based on the same basic demographics, and they aren't the ones that he'd need. Some of you are arguing in response that well, Obama will win independents or well, the white Dems will vote for him in the general, and so on. I doubt it, but that's not the point. The issue is whether or not the Dem leadership will let it get to that point. I don't see the Dems giving the nomination to Obama based only on his "wins" if he can't demonstrate that he can win whites and Hispanics.
"He’s not just a trained thespian, he’s a terrific shadow boxer. You know the type. Outside the ring, he pretends he can float like a butterfly and sting like a bee," he said. "But Barack Obama is no Muhammad Ali. He took a walk every time there was a tough vote in the Illinois state Senate. He took a walk more than 130 times. That’s what a shadow boxer does. All the right moves, all the right combinations, all the right footwork, but he never steps into the ring. He walks away from the fight.” That was a union man supporting Hillary in Ohio. I wish Hillary would go after him this way.
This Cal character is no fun. Where is SoCalJustice? He's much more fun. Cal's argument is entirely premised on the idea that everyone who has so far voted for HRC will not support Obama. So basically, he is saying that these voters, who like Clinton on policy, will either stay home or vote Republican instead of voting for another candidate in the general election who has a very similar policy agenda. That's not a winning argument.
Over at RCP, I noticed that even Jay Cost, who expressed skepticism at the magnitude of Obama's victories in the Potomac last week, agrees that it is very likely that Obama expanded his coalition tonight: "Clinton suffered significant loses across many of her core constituencies. White women, Democrats, union workers, downscale voters, and white Catholics all drifted to Obama last night - some so much that Obama actually won them." He then goes on to say that this does not bode well for Clinton in Texas.
I'm confused that the turnout for Washington's meaningless primary seems to be so much higher than the turnout for the caucuses. It's much easier to go into a polling booth and pull a lever, or punch a card, than it is to go to a caucus.
"He's still getting wins based on the same basic demographics, and they aren't the ones that he'd need." Cal makes more sense than Still Undecided or Burning Flock, but I'm still not buying this. Obama's absolutely routing Clinton in his base demographics, and lately he's been just about splitting even in Clinton's base demographics as well. Furthermore, this bit about "the ones that he'd need" is rather mysterious. Does it mean that he won't need blacks, educated liberals, the young, and independents in the general? If so, it's absurd. Or does it mean that the superdelegates will only consider supporting someone who does well among white Democrats (just about the last demographic Clinton has, and barely), without considering other demographics (including, say, black Democrats)? I see no reason to think this would be true, but we'll see at the convention.
as of yet, the demgraphics of the election haven't changed. He's still getting wins based on the same basic demographics, and they aren't the ones that he'd need. Cal, you keep saying this, but tonight doesn't exactly look like that. See here, or Abby's quote above at 12:21. And your unsupported doubt that Democrats will vote for the Democratic nominee in the general continues to look pretty weak.
Cal, OK, I really don't understand what you are writing (I guess you don't like the verb "arguing"). We are patiently trying to explain to you why Clinton barely edging out Obama among white Democrats (and please note he won white voters in general in Wisconsin, and also Democratic voters in general) does not somehow outweigh the large margins he has elsewhere when it comes to figuring out their comparative electoral chances. I gather you aren't really trying to respond logically to our points, but are instead retreating to the assertion that the superdelegates will decide to hand the nomination to the candidate who does best just among white Democrats (and maybe Hispanics). But I can assure you we are not the only people who can do electoral math. Accordingly, I am pretty sure the superdelegates will also figure out what these numbers actually imply. And if they happen to be struggling, the current head-to-head polls in effect do the math for them. So, basically you want us to believe that the superdelegates will decide to overrule the result of the pledged delegate contest in Clinton's favor if she somehow clings to a marginal lead among white Democrats (and maybe Hispanics), even though you cannot come up with a good argument for why that means Clinton is the stronger candidate. Um, I guess I believe you believe that. But I don't see any reason why I should believe it myself.
I think we got a sneak peak into the argument McCain will be using against Barack Obama in the general election: naive, unsteady, confused leadership and lack of experience on foreign policy and national security issues. Something Amy Holmes said on CNN made me think of what McCain's slogan could be considering his long record of experience and all the challenges the country face: "Experience for when it counts"
Is this argument being made in good faith, or are Cal and Burning Flock just trying to obfuscate? Cal, Burning Flock, and RKU are just morons -- don't listen to them. Clinton supporters are now reduced to this pathetic gaggle of troglodytes attempting to argue that white people won't vote for Obama, despite the fact that he's just won an 85-90% white state by almost 20%. Apparently, he's split white Democrats, so that means that the other half won't vote for him. Nevermind that he's cleaned Clinton's clock with independents (of which the vast majority are undoubtably white) and men. Nevermind that general election polls show Hillary being routed by McCain precisely because of her lack of support from independents and men. Cal and the gang are demonstrating what Obama has referred to as cynicism masquerading as wisdom. But that's alright. I look forward to the scales falling from their eyes when Obama trounces McCain in the general election.
Obama won in places like Maine and Utah. You can't win a Democratic primary in either state without having a bunch of white people vote for you, but I guess they don't count either.
Furthermore, this bit about "the ones that he'd need" is rather mysterious. Does it mean that he won't need blacks, educated liberals, the young, and independents in the general? If so, it's absurd. There's a conventional wisdom in this country that a certain segment of white males are the only voters who really, truly matter. Every other segment of the population is a "special interest group", and "special interest groups" don't matter.
Looking at the margins in Wisconsin right now, with a bit under 90% of the vote counted, Obama is besting Clinton by 17%, which is identical to the 17% margin John McCain is leading with. Now, at this point, Mike Huckabee's candidacy is considered a bit of a joke -- he has no real shot at winning, whereas Hillary is still considered a major competitor. But those margins of victory are barely different at all. In terms of their actual percentage of the vote, she's got 41% to Huck's 37% -- not a really big difference. Now, I'm not really sure if tonight's results say more about McCain's candidacy, that even after sewing up the nomination and having complete establishment backing he's unable to really demolish this vanity campaign... or more about Clinton's campaign that in a key swing state where she campaigned heavily, she's only just barely outperforming Huckabee. Just wondering. As to the idea that Obama's staggering crushing wins amongst white men and independents aren't indicative of his ability to capture these groups in a general election... sure. Winning the primary doesn't assure him of winning in November. But at the same time, I'm hardly going to be reassured by Clinton's continued capturing of a mere 40% of the vote. If winning primaries isn't a guarantor of future success, fine -- but neither is losing.
Here's what's most bizarre about Cal's argument. Obama won 48% of white Democrats, a markedly improved performance from earlier races. Cal brushes that aside by noting that Hillary Clinton won a bare (and statistically insignificant) majority. Does something magically happen if he improves another 2.0001% among white Democrats, that indicates suddenly that he will carry them in November? If not, what margin would Obama have to win by among white Democrats to convince Cal that white Democrats will vote for their nominee? If 48% of Democrats voting for Obama is unpersuasive, why should 51% be persuasive? 55%? 60%? Considering how overwhelmingly he wins every other category, to pass Cal's test Obama would likely have to win every race by epic blowouts, on the order of 3:1, against a very strong candidate with the most formidable machie in Democratic politics behind her. Without capturing 75% of the vote or more, by Cal's lights, Obama retains "crippling demographic disadvantages."
I think we got a sneak peak into the argument McCain will be using against Barack Obama in the general election: naive, unsteady, confused leadership and lack of experience on foreign policy and national security issues. So, Hillary Clinton Part II? We all saw how effective that was. Obama is a political and organization genius rivaling LBJ and FDR. I think someone else already mentioned this, but the most impressive part of Obama's speech tonight was his devotion of the first few minutes to explaining to his supporters how and when to vote. The precision and organization of his campaign is unmatched. He's going to clean McCain's clock, mark my words. Secretariat at the Belmont Stakes.
I'm reading a lot of triumphalism from Obama supporters tonight. What I'm not reading is serious reflection about the weaknesses of their candidate and how they think they can be overcome in order to win the general election. I think some have the false belief that Obama is going to walk away with this election and that John McCain can simply be written off as Bush-Cheney II and "too old." It's a mistake to underestimate McCain or overestimate Obama.
Here's what's most bizarre about Cal's argument. Obama won 48% of white Democrats, a markedly improved performance from earlier races. Cal brushes that aside by noting that Hillary Clinton won a bare (and statistically insignificant) majority. Does something magically happen if he improves another 2.0001% among white Democrats, that indicates suddenly that he will carry them in November? Obama or Clinton will carry them in November regardless of those percentages.
Oddly enough, I think Cal is indeed implicitly assuming that Clinton is such an unappealing figure that if Obama can't beat her by 50 points in some demographic cross-section, he must have some fundamental problem holding him back among that particular group. Of course, the truth is that Clinton remains quite popular, and not just in her best groups but also among Democrats in general. So Obama winning every single group by 50 points is not in fact the default position.
Well said Daniel, and lets not forget that Obama did in fact will among Democrats, and among whites, just not among "white democrats." How in the world can that 3% loss among "white democrats" be more important then the fact that he won among democrats, independents, Republicans, whites, blacks, liberals, moderates, conservatives, all educations levels, all income levels, etc. I could go on, but I think my point is clear.
"It's a mistake to underestimate McCain or overestimate Obama." Not what we're doing. We are explaining why we think that Obama can take the nomination, and why we think he has a better chance in November than Clinton would (or at least, as good a chance).
It's a mistake to underestimate McCain or overestimate Obama. Clinton is learning, rather late in the game, that it's a mistake to underestimate Obama.
Tim K, Obviously, one should never over- or under- do anything. But I also think it is wise not to overlook the basic state of the field. The truth is that most of McCain's substantive positions are unpopular, some very unpopular, and the American people in general appear willing to embrace a decent candidate promising a change of direction. That doesn't mean Obama won't need to work hard to win, but what he should be working to do is to keep giving the American people want they want in this election.
Daniel- I think that, if that 2.001% improvement among white Democrats materializes, we will start hearing about how Obama can't win without the support of white female Democrats over 65, or whatever demographic is left at that point.
"I don't know how any supporter of HRC can possibly spin that fact away. She has presided over a legendary fiasco, the most incompetent run for a Presidential nomination ever, sort of a joke coda to Bush's most incompetent Presidency ever." I'm not a Clinton supporter, but I have to take issue with this. Rudy Giuliani was considered as much of a lock as she was, and flamed out much quicker and more expensively. His campaign was an infinitely larger fiasco and much more incompetently run. Clinton's loss will hurt her pride, but she has a day job to go back to, and hopefully will do it well. Rudy is now a professional celebrity, famous for being famous. And good riddance.
"John Petty, I've been trying to make that case for weeks here, but I'm guessing many of the commenters are so emotionally invested in Obama they can't abide a single negative word, or the only prior campaign they followed was student body president." There are certainly credible attacks to make against Obama. The problem is that Hillary is not the person to make them. Her "35 years of experience" are a joke since she spent most of that time as a First Lady for a state or the nation. Her "doer not talker" spiel is a joke because her only real act of "doing not talking" that most people remember is her vote to go to war with Iraq. Her people focus on petty, meaningless conflicts about plagiarism and Kindergarten essays. She and her people have repeatedly insulted millions and millions of voters across America. This is someone who has been running for President for most of this decade, and this is the best she can do?
Kraz, well everyone knows that white female registered Democrats over 65 are teetering on the edge of voting Republican, and are a crucial swing demographic.
I find it hilarious that all the Hillary dead enders want to talk about is Obama's weaknesses. So if Obama has all these weaknesses Hillary must have them and then some seeing as how he has trounced her in every contest since Super Tuesday. You all are really sounding more and more like the Black Knight in Monty Pyton.
Carl: Okay well let's assume for a moment that Clinton is through and it's going to be Obama vs. McCain in the general election. John McCain has a record of 35 years of experience that will frankly be unassailable next to Obama's. He will own the experience argument. And he has a lot more credibility on issues like terrorism and national security in general next to Obama. You won't be able to laugh that comparison off. Some people bring up the JFK vs./ Nixon Change vs. Experience comparison. But remember JFK barely won that election. And how will he deal with being labeled as ultra-liberal? The Republicans will be able to make the case that Obama is not only the most liberal member of the US Senate (and more liberal than Hillary Clinton and Ted Kennedy) but the most liberal nominee since George McGovern. More liberal than Michael Dukakis, more liberal than Walter Mondale. And let me bring up a specific case-in-point on the whole liberal issue. Obama supports Drivers licenses for illegal immigrants. That is not going to be a popular position among independents. That's probably going to be an attack. I'd love to hear a serious discussion about how he is going to fight this election.
His loss among white Democrats was more than anything a loss among over-65 old white female Democrats: exactly the demographic that Clinton most appeals to because they're the demographic that hasn't been put off by her racial rhetoric and think this is their last chance to see a woman become president. I'm nor sure if them identifying with Clinton is somehow proof that Obama can't win whites.
John McCain has a record of 35 years of experience that will frankly be unassailable next to Obama's. He will own the experience argument. And he has a lot more credibility on issues like terrorism and national security in general next to Obama. You won't be able to laugh that comparison off. Okay, here's how to laugh it off. 1) 35 years of experience is exactly the Hillary Clinton argument. Why will that suddenly start working? 2) McCain's legislative record is extraordinarily thin for someone who's been in Congress as long as he has, capped by playing a role in negotiations with Vietnam, for which hardcore Republicans hate him, and a series of policy collaborations with Democrats, for which hardcore Republicans hate him. 3) McCain's foreign policy positions are deeply unpopular. 4) On every issue on which McCain can try to portray Obama as a liberal freak, Obama can (and has already started) highlight McCain's ideological promiscuity over the last 8 years to devastating effect. Say McCain brings up immigration. Obama points out McCain's role in McCain-Kennedy, and uses the word amnesty a lot. Simultaneously, Obama closes the ideological distance between himself and McCain from a moderate's perspective, and reminds conservatives why they hate McCain. 5) McCain does not know or care anything about domestic issues. Sneering about false hope among a group of petrified Rotarians while the other guy talks about jobs and health care is a recipe for a blowout.
All those years in the senate aren't going to look as appealing for McCain after the democrats start pointing out every unpopular vote that he's cast over all that time (Starting with being a major Iraq war cheerleader). THe anti-immigrant folks are hardly going to rally around McCain, they practically consider him the anti-Christ. At worst this is going to be a neutral issue, and Obama's support of driver's licenses isn't nearly as harmful a Clinton's flip-flop on the issue. THe "most liberal senater" charge just isn't going to stick. He simply doesn't come across as a traditional liberal like Dukakis or Mondale. And the idea that he is more liberal then Bernie Sanders doesn't even pass the laugh test. Compare that to the mountains of dirt that can be dug up (or re-surfaced) about both Clintons, and the fact that about half the electorate already says they don't like her, and I'll pick Obama any day. That said I don’t really have a problem with Clinton winning the nomination, and likewise I find it very hard to believe that many Clinton supporters are going to have a real problem with Obama as the nominee (present company excluded)
BTW cal, intrade.com has the chance of a McCain victory at only about 33%, if you're right you can triple your money!
Obama doesn't come across as a tradional liberal like Michael Dukakis or Walter Mondale, that's right. Although it's also worth noting that neither did Michael Dukakis before Lee Atwater and the Bush-Quayle campaign defined him that way. Dukakis was viewed as a pretty moderate and highly successful governor responsible for the "Massachusetts Miracle." On immigration, Obama can't attack McCain from the Right on the issue and start yelling "amnesty!" because he doesn't want to alienate Latino voters and the left-wing blogosphere. But the driver's licenses issue is one where McCain can actually appeal to the anti-immigration crowd while painting Obama as out of the mainstream. I find it very troubling how blind some of you seem to be regarding the vulnerabilities Obama has versus McCain. No doubt there are real strengths, but it's not all strengths.
And if you still think Clinton might win the nomination, then just bet aginst Obama being the next president, intrade says that there is a 55% chance that he will be. Over a 100% return on investment, not even Chelsea's hedge fund can beat that!
On immigration, Obama can't attack McCain from the Right on the issue and start yelling "amnesty!" because he doesn't want to alienate Latino voters and the left-wing blogosphere. But the driver's licenses issue is one where McCain can actually appeal to the anti-immigration crowd while painting Obama as out of the mainstream. You misunderstand me. Obama's gambit on immigration should be to portray McCain and himself both as immigation leftists. "Senator McCain and I agree on amnesty for illegal immigrants."
Daniel: Yes, I would agree with you that should be the strategy. However, I would have a lot more confidence in that strategy if Obama had not taken this rather bone-headed position on granting driver's licenses to undocumented workers. This is an issue two-thirds of Americans oppose (even when told about the safety argument) and Elliot Spitzer had to back off from in a pretty liberal state. That's an opportunity for McCain to appear clearly to the Right of Obama on that issue, something he would not have been able to do otherwise. That was a missed opportunity to completely neutralize one of the only wedge issues the Republicans have this cycle. Yet another case of Obama's inexperience and lack of political judgment. Clinton did waffle a bit, but at least she came out with the smarter position. Obama waffled and ended up wrong. Which is worse?
Do you believe that voters whose most salient issue is stopping illegal immigration are going to make calculated distinctions between the amnesty candidate and the amnesty + drivers licenses candidate? Obama will never get the nativist vote, but he can ensure that McCain doesn't get it either.
Obama's main line of attack against McCain will be the war and the economy. These are McCain's glaring weaknesses.
Daniel: Now you're the one misunderstanding me. The nativist vote can either stay home or vote for McCain based on other issues. I have a feeling most nativists are also pretty right-wing on a whole host of issues like Iraq, taxes, abortion, guns and gays. I think you're fooling yourself if you think driver's licenses for illegal immigrants is only going to be a turn-off for "nativists." This isn't a fairy tale where 2/3's of the country is liberal/progressive straight down the ticket. Wouldn't that be special? But it's not true. Swing voters are not going to like his position on that issue.
Tim K: I don't personally think for a second that the election will swing on drivers licenses. However, Obama has an instant built in waffle on that issue, if as you claim Daniel's strategy does not work. And that is that drivers licenses are a state issue, not a Federal Govt. issue. It is a position that worked for W on abortion. Furthermore, Obama can neutralize it by pointing out that national identity cards are separate from drivers licenses. That is something already in the works under "Real ID", so the point is really can be a moot one if it is at all. However, one thing that you never bring up is what are McCain's negatives. The biggest problem for McCain is that the more he campaigns, the less people like him. When the McCain myth meets the McCain reality for voters, he loses.
We are patiently trying to explain to you why Clinton barely edging out Obama among white Democrats There's no "we". It's not like there's some official group of Matt Yglesias blog commenters that you sign up for. Speak for yourself. When I first posted, Clinton was up 52-47 among white Dems. It's now 51-48, and that's the best Obama has ever done. Are you all clear on the fact that 35% of the voters were independents or Republicans? At this point, that segment is swinging the primaries. When this was true for McCain, all papers reported it, and then when he finally won the Republican segment, it was touted all over the place. In contrast, they have never mentioned that Obama is winning primaries without the base of the party. In large part, this is because Obama has won the Dem base in states with a 30% black voting bloc. But in reality, he's winning without Democrats. His margin of victory is huge, but he gets it without winning over Democrats. That probably bothers anyone who isn't completely in the tank for Obama, which should include a decent percentage of the Dem leadership.
Bubba: I don't think the whole election is going to swing on any one issue, especially not driver's licenses. However, I think the Republicans have plenty of ammunition to throw at Obama. Everything from foolish statements on Pakistan, to misleading on public financing, to voting "present" and pressing the wrong button 16 times (they'll particularly have a field day with that one as it relates to the RED BUTTON). Add to that Michelle's statement on being "proud of her country" and what I'm sure is going to be a string of unfortunately misstatements on her part. You add enough of these things up and you can begin to paint a picture. John McCain is not Hillary Clinton, so he can't brandish some of these charges a lot more effectively considering his image.
But in reality, he's winning without Democrats. His margin of victory is huge, but he gets it without winning over Democrats. Obama won Democrats in Wisconsin 53-46, a 7 point win.
But in reality, he's winning without Democrats. His margin of victory is huge, but he gets it without winning over Democrats. He won Democrats in WI 53 to 46. Echoing an earlier question, how big would that margin have to get before it would "count" by your lights (whatever they are)? But, speaking only for myself, I'm done trying to figure out whatever your weird point/agenda is.
Tim K: Well, basically as I understand it, you are rehashing the HRC argument that she is the "vetted" candidate and more capable of handling the Republican attack machine. Similarly to your argument, McCain is not Obama and Obama cannot go negative about Clinton scandals. And there is current stuff out there, he doesn't have to go back to the 90's. There is Bill's business dealings with Dubai, which he could use to raise questions about whether the Clinton's could be beholden to an area of the world where we are currently fighting the GWOT. There is the tax returns issue. There is Clinton's shady dealings with that hedge fund. There is the drivers licenses flip-flop. And last but not least, there is the experience issue. Hillary's whole campaign is built around this idea of experience, it is also built around this idea that she is the most competent to be Commander in Chief. Do either seem credible against McCain? Has Hillary authored one signature piece of legislation during her 7 years in the Senate? McCain has and those include immigration, campaign finance reform and climate change. The two are not far apart on Iraq, despite Clinton's 60 day pledge which does not seem genuine. If Obama really wanted to go negative on HRC, he could just point out all the ways that she is indistinguishable from McCain, which really is not hard. But he does not either. So in summary, your argument seems to work both ways.
In contrast, they have never mentioned that Obama is winning primaries without the base of the party. In large part, this is because Obama has won the Dem base in states with a 30% black voting bloc. But in reality, he's winning without Democrats. God you're a moron, Cal. Do you realize you've just contradicted yourself about three times? I hate to be the one to tell ya, but black Democrats are DEMOCRATS -- in fact, they're our most loyal demographic. The reality is that your thesis has been shot to pieces. Obama won whites in Wisconsin 53-46. He's dominated the overwhelmingly-white Upper Midwest and Northwest. I guess Hillary has a real problem on her hands with white voters (well, actually a majority of voters, come to think of it).
Bubba: Aren't you at all troubled by the fact that the only way you can defend Obama is to trash Hillary? Well it's looking increasingly like Hillary won't be on the ballot in November. It's going to be McCain and Obama. It definitely is quite a contrast but it's not only positive for Obama. And by the way, at least I know for sure that Hillary knows her vulnerabilities and won't take them for granted. I know she'll be prepared for the kind of campaign it's going to be and won't fool herself into thinking she's already seen the worst of it.
It's beyond sad to find these Hillary dead-enders trying so desperately to find the last demographic sliver to pin their hopes and dreams on. Where's Petey when you need him? This is not to say Obama doesn't have weaknesses. But every available data point we have right now, from actual election results to match up polls to basic common sense (Hillary's an extremely well-known quantity who has a 50+ unfavorable rating), indicate that Obama is the more electable of the two candidates.
Ryan W: Last I checked Obama had 40-45% unfavorables and with the sole exception of a couple ads in Wisconsin he's never had a negative ad run against him. He's never had a negative Republican televsion ad run against him, and he's never even faced a serious Republican opponent. The Republicans haven't even begun their opposition research on him, but I'm sure they're working on it as we speak. And despite all of that Hillary's negative ratings are 45-50% and his are 40-45%... that's not a big difference.
here's a link to favorability ratings.
The Republicans are not sitting on some secret master scandal that will destroy Obama. The Clinton campaign oppo research team has found everything important that will be found. McCain is already previewing the Republican attacks: basically, they're going to run to run the same narratives Clinton has already run against Obama, except that they'll also attack Obama as a tax-and-spend liberal, etc., etc. It's all played out. Not saying that it won't work--who knows? it could--but it's definitely played out. The idea that suddenly Obama is going to be brought low by some sort of swiftboating or secret scandal is pure bunk.
Per Tim K's link: "Nationwide, Obama is viewed favorably by 54% and unfavorably by 43%. McCain’s numbers 52% favorable, 43% unfavorable. Clinton earns positive reviews from 46% of Likely Voters nationwide and less positive assessments from 51%" Is this supposed to be helping your case, dude? I don't see how this can be spun as anything but bad for Hillary Clinton.
Tim K: I find it spurious that the same argument that you use against Obama is somehow inapplicable when it comes to HRC. If you cannot defend the corollary, then you are making a logically inconsistent argument and I will leave it at that. As for Obama's negatives. I don't think Rasmussen has a lot of credibility as a pollster when it comes to Obama. They had Obama over Clinton, 47 to 43 in WI. They also got the Potomac primaries wrong as well, signficantly undercounting support for Obama. So find a different Pollster for your cause. SurveyUSA so far has had the best predictive results of any major pollster in multiple statewide races so far, so nice try but find me so data from a pollster with a more accurate methodology.
By the way, alternative polls suggest highly different outcomes. However I think Korha's point also stands. Here are some results from a 2/3 USA Today/Gallup Poll Obama had the highest favorable rating of the major candidates still in the race - 59% favorable to 32% unfavorable. McCain was close behind with 56% favorable, 32% unfavorable. Clinton was even at 48% favorable, 48% unfavorable. And here are results from a 2/4 Pew Poll Nationwide, more Americans express a favorable than unfavorable opinion of Obama by nearly two-to-one (58% vs. 30%), and the margin for McCain is nearly as large (53% favorable, 31% unfavorable). The overall balance of opinion toward Hillary Clinton is also favorable, though by a smaller 52%-to-42% margin. I find it funny that you think it is necessary to go out and find the poll results so divergent from what the rest of the polling results of other organizations that one could only call your results an outlier. Also, my first point stands that Rasmussen is a lousy polling organization and their predictive record speaks for itself.
Re: "Listen, I gained political awareness during the Clinton years and I respect the Clintons and thank them for the successes of the 90s. But I also blame them for the problems that progressives have faced since then..." How old are you? Progressives have ALWAYS faced problems. Only two Democratic presidents have been elected in the last 40 years, and neither one was progressive in the way that it is defined today. You guys aren't in reality. This country is conservative and only elects Democrats when the economy is bad or there is some kind of GOP mess. Jimmy Carter won because of Watergate and Bill Clinton won because we were in a recession, and if Obama wins it will be because of the mess Dubya made. When Reagan took office in 1980, conservatives had been building their movement for over a decade. They networked with evangelical preachers because they owned radio stations that could reach millions of southerners, they created think tanks like the Heritage Foundation, and anti-feminist organizations like the Eagle Forum. Recruiting Ronald Reagan and running him in 1980 was the last step. They spent a decade crafting and testing their message, which was based on the backlash against civil rights and feminism. Reagan just didn't tap into the nation's mood like Obama said. And Newt Gingrich began planning the takeover of Congress in the late 70s. Bill Clinton, the only twice elected Democrat since LBJ, has become a scapegoat for everything that Dubya has done to this country. It's a complete rewriting of history coming from supposedly intelligent and highly educated people. And many of the people doing it, some of them writers for The Atlantic, voted for Dubya, backed the war, and called the journalists who opposed it a "fifth column." That's you AS, now acting holier than thou and morally superior in your attacks on Hillary. And much of the venom against Hillary is sexist. How many posters here have called her a crone? It's sickening.
"I'd love to hear a serious discussion about how he is going to fight this election." If McCain repudiates the Iraq war and the Bush tax cuts, Obama argues that he's been on the right track all along and McCain is coming around to his opinion. If McCain supports the Iraq war and the Bush tax cuts, Obama argues against them and proves that his call for change is real, not rhetorical. If McCain plays for the conservative crowd, Obama goes for McCain the maverick's supporters, who liked him the most when he was publicly rejecting those conservatives. If McCain plays for the independents, he draws attention to the fact that he drew far less support among Republicans than Obama drew from the Democrats, and Obama goes for the Republicans who feel that McCain stole their nomination by petty politics. If Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter (and the rest) fulfil their promise to sit out the election or vote Democratic, McCain will have serious trouble rallying the Republican base. On the other hand, if they flip-flop and back McCain, he loses all of his status as a maverick once and for all, and Obama can successfully tie him closer to George W. Bush. Seriously, the Republicans have dug themselves into a deep hole this time out. Michael Dukakis would have had trouble finding a way to lose. Obama has run a solid campaign so far, so I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt. Quite frankly, Hillary Clinton was a far, far more formidable opponent than McCain, and she ran a better campaign - despite its missteps - than he has so far. Obama took her out and can do the same to Honest John. If he doesn't get his act together soon, he's looking at a blowout.
"Bill Clinton, the only twice elected Democrat since LBJ, has become a scapegoat for everything that Dubya has done to this country. It's a complete rewriting of history coming from supposedly intelligent and highly educated people." I blame Bill Clinton for having an affair with Monica Lewinsky. If he had managed to keep his zipper closed, it's almost completely certain that Al Gore would be President right now. The Lewinsky fiasco is ENTIRELY his fault and his fault alone. But I agree with the rest of your post.
Quite frankly, Hillary Clinton was a far, far more formidable opponent than McCain, and she ran a better campaign - despite its missteps - than he has so far. Obama took her out and can do the same to Honest John. If he doesn't get his act together soon, he's looking at a blowout.Best point I have read all day. Well said.
Obama can easily spin the driver's license issue as a "straight talk" issue and point out McCain is only a maverick when it's popular. Attacking McCain on his "maverick" persona, which as Anna Marie Cox has pointed out, has meant that McCain has never really been held up to media scrutiny, means that that will be the story. Clinton has been attacking Obama on his lack of experience, etc. and that hasn't really stuck. Add in the fact that McCain's main media guy has stated in the past that he will quit working for McCain if Obama is the nominee because he doesn't want to attack Obama, who he likes and respects, and you have the stronger candidate. Besides, Obama hasn't hit Clinton on the FALN Puerto Rican terrorist separatist pardons from late in Bill's term to help her win Puerto Ricans in New York. You think Rezko and driver's licenses are bad? McCain will have a field day with that. It will be pretty easy to paint her as a total lefty terrorist lover on that without even trying.
Interestingly, Obama's greatest weakness as a candidate from a historical perspective is one which has rarely been emphasized: his lack of high-level executive experience (e.g., governor, VP, or perhaps cabinet secretary). Of course, the reason it hasn't been emphasized is that the vast majority of his rivals in this election shared the same weakness, including McCain and Clinton. And actually, I think this has become a sort of trap for Clinton and now McCain. Experience is a weak card to play even when you really do have better experience, and it is even weaker (and potentially a net negative) when most of your experience is in the Senate. Still, I expect McCain to run on his Senate experience, because I don't see what other options he has. By the way, Obama's position on DL for illegal immigrants may not be the most popular position, but you do not in fact have to win every single issue to win an election. It is just wildly implausible to me that somehow this one issue will trump Obama's more popular stands on the war, economy, and health care.
Ding Dong the CRONE is dead!!
McCain is Bob Dole II: Now with even more hating from the conservative wing of the party! He's a paper tiger.
All talk of 'substance' aside (the style/substance dichotomy being a crude one -- can't you have stylish substance or substantial style?), I think the sentimentality of Obama's rhetoric, should he win, might prove dangerous for America.
Comments closed March 04, 2008. |
Search
Subscribe to this blog by Email Books by Matthew Yglesias
Recent Comments
Recent Posts
Weekly Archives
Categories
|
Copyright © 2008 by The Atlantic Monthly Group. All rights reserved.
| 
Heads in the Sand
Goodbye cruel world. I'm checkin out.
Posted by Tim K | February 19, 2008 9:24 PM