Predictions are a mug's game, but I was right about the Super Bowl, so I thought I might go on record with mine. I think Hillary Clinton's going to win this thing. I think the college educated men who dominate punditland have spent a lot of time missing the fact that there actually are enthusiastic Clinton fans out there -- they're just mostly working class women and thus mostly not in the room when this CW gets hashed out. On top of that, I think Clinton's succeeded in managing the expectations savvily. If she wins anywhere at all between now and March 4, that counts as a win for her, then Ohio is mildly favorable ground for her and Texas is extremely favorable ground. That, I think, will seal it for her as the anti-Obama backlash brewing in the press hits full stride.
« I Vote for "Free Pass" | Main | Shuster Out »
On The Record
09 Feb 2008 10:26 am
Comments (241)
cute
Matt, far more important than Hillary managing expectations right now is the Dem party managing the process so that, whichever of our two superb candidates is the nominee, the party comes out of the convention fully united and ready to kick ass.
Devastating. To think such silly, insignificant factors would matter at all, much less decide the thing. Makes you feel like quitting.
What Jeff said.
The 34 percent of the electorate that is "independent" will go 30-McCain and 4-Hillary.
As always, Americans get the government they deserve.
I have a better prediction: The press keeps its big trap shut and does its job by reporting on what is actually happening, not what they want to see happen. (A prediction that's doomed to failure,I realize.) And *what* Obama backlash? What has he done to deserve that?
Well thanks, Debbie Downer.
I have a better prediction: The press keeps its big trap shut and does its job by reporting on what is actually happening, not what they want to see happen. (A prediction that's doomed to failure,I realize.) And *what* Obama backlash? What has he done to deserve that?
^
IF Sen. Clinton would eke out a victory in the general election, it would be a horribly contentious presidency...and a country just as divided as it is right now. Republicans & many Independents will be galvanized in their hatred of anything Clinton.
While polling on this is early and often wrong, the polling trends are indisputable: Obama continues to show further growth as the winner in a general election.
There are as many delegates at stake in the states Obama WILL win this weekend/week for sure (Louisiana, Washington, Nebraska, D.C., Virginia, Maryland) than there are in Ohio and Texas. It's 326 versus 334.
Assume Obama wins these six states decisively and Clinton wins Ohio and Texas decisively -- it's not going to decide anything. They'll still end up right where they are right now: tied.
Wow. Bold stuff. I should make my bold "it's over", but I think I'm going to wait through this weekend and make a less bold "it's over".
I agree with Matt. Hillary has lowered expectations so far that we can certainly expect her to win the nomination.
Wait, what?
I think that you're right, Matt, that Camp Clinton has done a great job with expectations while Camp Obama has not. But I'm not sure how the Obama folks could have done better. It's hard to be the candidate of audacious hopes and and then insist that your partisans remain pragmatic about their dreams.
More important, Hillary's support really is deep and unwavering in certain demographics. And David Shuster, upon whom I'm not trying to pile more scorn, has allowed the Clintons to return to their favored posture: playing defense.
On the other hand, predictions this year have been even more of a waste of time than usual. Plus, it's been the best race in three decades. So we'll all just have to wait while it plays out. And I, for one, plan to enjoy the spectacle and the substance.
"Devastating. To think such silly, insignificant factors would matter at all, much less decide the thing. Makes you feel like quitting."
Why? If you've got two strong contenders neck and neck, but there can be only one winner, it stands to reason that the difference in the end will be trivial--just like a hard-fought, exciting game that comes down to one play. All the more reason to recognize that the Clinton-Obama battle isn't the real one. People are investing far too much emotional capital in an intramural battle right now, when the objective ought to be beating McCain and the GOP.
I think that you're right, Matt, that Camp Clinton has done a great job with expectations while Camp Obama has not. But I'm not sure how the Obama folks could have done better. It's hard to be the candidate of audacious hopes and and then insist that your partisans remain pragmatic about their dreams.
More important, Hillary's support really is deep and unwavering in certain demographics. And David Shuster, upon whom I'm not trying to pile more scorn, has allowed the Clintons to return to their favored posture: playing defense.
On the other hand, predictions this year have been even more of a waste of time than usual. Plus, it's been the best race in three decades. So we'll all just have to wait while it plays out. And I, for one, plan to enjoy the spectacle and the substance.
Not sure if that counts as a prediction or some sort of leg-humping effort at electoral ejaculation.
Erm, my bold "it's over" was going to be that Obama was going to waltz through February. All he needs is ties in VA, WI, and OH, and he'll have enough of a delegate lead to put the thing away.
Matt is right. Why can't O's team play the expectations game at all?
The meat of the prediction is how Matt thinks she wins it. Does she get a natural lead in pledged delegates, without seating MI and FL? That doesn't seem likely to me. And if not she can only take it if superdelegates break overwhelmingly for her, which I don't think they would do against the person who *has* a natural lead in pledged delegates; or if MI and FL are seated, which I don't think they will be unless they are no longer relevant; or if MI and FL get a redo that breaks overwhelmingly in her favor, which could happen, but isn't a lock.
To believe that the superdelegates will give Clinton the nomination even if she doesn't have a delegate lead is to believe that the Democratic Party will cut its own throat for no reason. I just don't see that happening.
I'm willing to predict that Obama will reach the convention with a small edge (but bigger than now, maybe 100) in pledged delegates.
I have no earthly idea why my comment posted a second time. Other than, probably, I hit the post button twice. For which I'm both sorry and mired in self-loathing. Really: sorry about that.
Matt your theory makes no sense. Right now, supposedly, Barack is rising and Hillary is falling, which creates a surge by Hillary fans.
So then, if and when Hillary starts rising again, and Barack falling, as the "anti-Obama backlash brewing in the press hits full stride", then Barack will surge because he has over 700,000 rabid, devoted fans!
YES WE CAN
end Clintonian lies
YES WE CAN
end Clintonian deception
YES WE CAN
end Clintonian corruption
Obama has made steady gains in the % of working class women who are voting for him. The gains are less dramatic than other demographic groups, but real nonetheless.
Hillary Clinton has no natural base of supporters; only groups that are deserting her more or less slowly.
Matt's power of prognostication is legendary. He's a terrible jinx. His Super Bowl pick can be filed with the case of the blind squirrel. I think this post should be viewed as good news for the Obama campaign.
As far as expectations go, savvy is not the word I would use to describe the Clintonian strategy. Joke is the word that comes to my mind. Underdog? Who believes that? This is the sort of CW that predicted Bill's racist comments in SC would work to the Clinton's advantage on Super Tuesday. The fact is that Hillary has been progressively lowering expectations because she has been progressively losing support. It stands to reason that the dead-enders who remain with Clinton would be the most enthusiastic.
No, every state that Obama wins or ties is a loss for Hillary. Every state Hillary wins was inevitable anyway.
Well, for what it's worth, I just spoke to my 82 year old Grandmother in Seattle, who LOVED Bill Clinton, and she can't wait to caucus...for Obama. She said although she thinks it's great that Hillary is running, it's time for no more Clintons, or Bushes.
So there.
"Why? If you've got two strong contenders neck and neck, but there can be only one winner, it stands to reason that the difference in the end will be trivial--just like a hard-fought, exciting game that comes down to one play. All the more reason to recognize that the Clinton-Obama battle isn't the real one. People are investing far too much emotional capital in an intramural battle right now, when the objective ought to be beating McCain and the GOP."
Hillary is vicious, cruel, and dishonest. She, on the trajectory of the current president, would steadily contribute to the undoing of the country. It's so transparent that she can and will do anything, out of pure lust for power, to reinstate her family to the presidency. The idea that, by inciting racial tensions, manipulating a weak press, and outright lying, she could win, is an incredibly saddening prospect.
Yo, I'm still not convinced Hillary won New Hampshire entirely above-board.
http://www.classicalvalues.com/archives/2008/01/hillary_and_the.html
I predict that the will of the majority (you know, the radical left 70% faction that wants to end the war) will continue to grow increasingly irrelevant in this country.
as the anti-Obama backlash brewing in the press hits full stride.
Liberals and conservatives alike have spent a decade eagerly waiting for the anti-McCain backlash brewing in the press to hit its full stride. Now they can wait another decade waiting for the anti-Obama backlash. Good luck with that.
If you do the math state by state its pretty darn hard for Clinton to actually come out ahead in pledged (elected) delegates. For that to happen there would have to be a pretty significant change in the voting trends we've seen so far. Basically, Clinton would have to either find a way to rein in Obama's huge margins in the southern, mountain west, and plains states or she has to win Texas, Ohio, and Pennsylvania by very significant margins -- like New York margins, California won't do it. This isn't impossible, such a change could occur, but if things continue as they have Obama ends up with a slight pledged delegate lead.
Of course, this doesn't take superdelegates, or Florida, or Michigan. Trying to predict what will happen with those cans of worms is beyond me. If Obama loses in the pledged delegates race, he is obviously done, but if he wins by a small margin the pressure on the party leadership to avoid the appearance of the smoke-filled room will be immense. How the latter scenario plays out is really anyone's guess.
Right and then as soon as she does we will have to sit through 6 months of anti-Hillary backlash. Point in fact picking the Giants doesn't make you a genius, but for the grace of David Tyree's helmet we would, right now, be wondering whether Belichek's dad also cheated at Annapolis and discussing what a fraud the Super Bowl is. I say that as a pats fan, one of the nice parts of their loss is that we will not have to subject football, which I love, to that whithering microscope. Not so for politics with a Hillary win. Half the party will long for the lost transcedent message. Hope, now much maligned as too ethereal, will become all too substantial when it is no longer an option as we watch Hillary and Bill pick the war hero to pieces. Call it "Goodbye to All That III."
To believe that the superdelegates will give Clinton the nomination even if she doesn't have a delegate lead is to believe that the Democratic Party will cut its own throat for no reason. I just don't see that happening.
So what's the Democratic Party like in your world? And what color is the sky?
Well I completely agree with the expectation games for February but I do think Obama is in a better position in Texas and Ohio than people seem to think. Maybe that expectation game can work in reverse in March.
better link here:
http://scienceblogs.com/developingintelligence/2008/01/the_diebold_effect_hillarys_vo.php
Matt,
I think that you are right. In many respects I think she is running a better campaign than Obama. I don't understand how his campaign has utterly fail to lower expectations. It also doesn't help that the media have been so nasty to Clinton which is not Obama's fault or anything, but I think that he needs to attack the media for their treatment of her. I think if the media have been nasty toward BO then I don't think that there would be a backlash for Clinton.
To believe that the superdelegates will give Clinton the nomination even if she doesn't have a delegate lead is to believe that the Democratic Party will cut its own throat for no reason. I just don't see that happening.
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!
If Clinton wins I will vote for my first republican candidate for president. Simple as that. For the third election in a row the democrats will find a way to lose what should have been a sure victory. I guess the silver lining is any party this stupid really shouldn't be trusted with the presidency anyway.
Lmao, so Matt just made a prediction based on absolutely no evidence without offering any real justification for it.
Look, women make up 51% of the population, and 60% of registered Democrats. We have have had massive, unrivaled turn out that has had, on average, a female percentage rate of 60%. There aren't enough Democratic women left for Hillary to actually increase their % of the vote by more than a few points. Many of the remaining women who are NOT voting for Clinton are black, and they are unlikely to vote for Clinton. Turnout is high enough to suggest that everyone who is ever actually going to vote in one of these things is doing so this year.
Matt's scenario doesn't actually seem possible, unless he thinks women make up 80% of the party or 80% of the electorate, we're pretty much tapped out on the older, white, suburban female demographic.
Matt also doesn't understand the delegate distribution of TX. TX doesn't have a lot of black folks relative to other southern state, but they are overwhelmingly concentrated where the most delegates are and it's unlikely that Hillary will even get as many net-delegates as she did in Florida. OH isn't even half as favorable as TX and there's a good chance those polls change by march 4th.
Matt's right. Also, in addition to what he writes, Obama needs to win something like 53% of remaining delegates to catch up to Hillary. This, of course, is not taking into consideration the fact that if she does arrive in Denver with even a tiny plurality of pledged delegates (to say nothing of a plurality of the popular primary vote) it will be difficult to argue why Florida and Michigan shouldn't be seated. After all, it was always part of the plan to let "the winner" lobby for these delegates to be seated.
"And *what* Obama backlash? What has he done to deserve that? "
Kris - implying in his Super Tuesday speech that people who don't support him are afraid or scared would be something. Trust me, if you're not already an Obama fan, that did NOT go over well.
And I wouldn't call it a backlash as much as a return towards the center. obama's been getting white glove treatment from the media for a while now, while Clinton's been getting slapped in the face with the media's glove for a while now. This "backlash" that everyone's talking about is simply the press taking as critical an eye towards Obama as they do towards Clinton.
as the anti-Obama backlash brewing in the press hits full stride.
Like the bogus Joe Klein trash you pimped yesterday?
it stands to reason that the difference in the end will be trivial
The problem is that it won't be a trivial difference, at least as far as the fortunes of the two parties go. HRC's just worse for the party-- her despicable people in key positions, opposition to the 50-state strategy, permanent defensive crouch, loss of independents and demoralized attrition of youth, small-bore/short-term thinking, and the certain resurgence of the lunatic right all point to a weak and embattled party for years to come. And the reason she makes a lot of us consider quitting is because a party that can't seem to grasp that isn't exactly confidence-inspiring. I've been a Democrat my whole life, ever since I saw the early Reagan policies as a small kid, but it's not a for-better-or-worse marriage; it's a longtime friendship that appears to be becoming more distant as time goes on.
Matt's post seems to be entirely based around the expectations game, but I think the expectations game hardly matters at this point. Also, if you look at that "accidentally leaked" memo from the Obama camp which showed Obama up in delegates at the end of the primary season, it's a pretty deft management of expectations. It shows Obama barely winning Virginia (where the recent polls show him up by double digits), and losing Ohio, Texas, and Pennsylvania, and still being ahead in delegates. While, I suppose, Obama can still be surprised in Virginia (although this looks increasingly unlikely) or Wisconsin, but if not, then he himself can beat expectations if he wins either Ohio or Texas.
Hillary can still win this thing, but it's not going to be because of deft management of expectations and a so far largely invisible "anti-Obama backlash" in the press.
If you do the math state by state its pretty darn hard for Clinton to actually come out ahead in pledged (elected) delegates. For that to happen there would have to be a pretty significant change in the voting trends we've seen so far.
Right, that was mostly the point I was going for. Despite all the post-Super Tuesday whinging about how Obama just didn't do well enough by tying her, that in itself was pretty remarkable on its face, because Super Tuesday was the day Clinton really needed to put Obama away by staking out a significant delegate lead through huge margins in the states that were considered gimmes for her. She didn't do that, though. Instead she either tied him in delegates, or gave him a narrow lead.
Looking at the rest of the states that remain, it's very hard to see how she solidly bests him in the delegate count. It seems like he'll continue to rack up a small lead in pledged delegates, and this weekend and Tuesday should help him regain some more momentum. He'll have lots of time to campaign for Hawaii and Wisconsin next week, and of the March 4 states, he just needs to keep his margin fairly close in Ohio and try to win Vermont (doable) and Rhode Island (possible but more difficult). He won't win Texas, and it's very very unlikely he'll win Ohio, but again, he has lots of time to campaign to at least improve his percentage there, and considering Uncommitted got 40% in Michigan without any ads/rallies/campaigning, I'd say his odds are good. Then right after in March you've got Wyoming and Mississippi, two more states that seem like locks for Obama.
Let's say that they get to the election with no clear winner--maybe with Obama with a slight lead in the pledged delegates, but with Clinton ahead slightly in superdelegates, and Florida and Michigan's delegates mattering a great deal. Would this not be an interesting scenario for Al Gore to step in as the elder statesman and offer to heal the party? By keeping his mouth shut, he has drawn the ire of neither side, and he could pick either of them as his VP candidate.
Look, those laughing at my claim that the Dems won't cut their own throats: maybe I should have said they won't do it *knowingly*. Obviously the Democrats have nearly screwed up everything they have ever tried to do for as long as I have been alive (I'm nearly thirty). That's not in dispute. They're idiots.
But *even they* will be able to see that yanking the nomination from the person who has a delegate lead and handing it instead to the second-place finisher will destroy their prospects not merely in November but long-term. That's how obvious it is, *before* you even begin to think about categories like "the response of an overwhelming loyal ethnic voting bloc to this sort of betrayal" or "what the press and the Republicans will have to say about it."
They won't do it. No one is that stupid, not even the people who run the Democratic party.
I have a different prediction, Matt.
I think the Democratic party leadership is getting extremely anxious about a nominating process that has already gone on far too long, and is threatening to continue on for months, perhaps as long as the convention in August. If this race is not decided soon, a backlash of negativity, bad press and candidate fatigue is going to set in, destroying much of current Democratic momentum. The party is also very worried about the intra-party free-for-all and ugly media attention that will occur if delegate fights connected to Florida, Michigan and the superdelegates come to dominate the nomination story.
Obama is poised to run off a string of victories, although his campaign has tried to lower expectations by leaking a memo predicting a loss in Maine. In a couple of weeks, he will be the clear front-runner, and enormous pressure will start to be brought to bear on the rest of the party to get behind the presumptive standard-bearer. Party leaders will facilitate the process of negotiating the key remaining commitments and endorsements to deliver blocs of voters in the remaining big states for Obama, and calls for Clinton to suspend her candidacy will become more and more public. I suspect we will already begin to hear some of those calls next week.
The obvious trend in endorsements over the past several weeks has gone in Obama's direction. It is clear that the majority of Democratic politicians across the country see Obama as the candidate with the longer coattails and best chance of winning in the fall. The insiders also know a lot of things about the sordid record of the Clintons which the Obama campaign is too decent to mention, but are likely to dominate the fall campaign, undermine the party's message and result in either a loss or a narrow victory with a weak governing mandate. Nobody wants a replay of 1998 at a time when the Democrats should be seizing a golden electoral possibility. People are beginning to realize that it's time to put the Clintons behind us.
I meant to say, "Let's say they get to the nomination" above...waiting till the election would be rather late, wouldn't it?
Matt's right. Also, in addition to what he writes, Obama needs to win something like 53% of remaining delegates to catch up to Hillary.
Umm.. Obama is already ahead in delegates. This thing is going to be decided by pledged delegates. The remaining superdelegates are waiting to see how the predged delegates break, then they'll jump on board. There are more than enough of them to offset Hillary's supers lead. Obama led in pledged delegates before super Tuesday, he extended that lead on super Tuesday, and he'll pull away over the next five days. How Hillary hopes to catch up with him I really don't know.
Man, it is SOOOO weird, a Manhattanite picking the Giants AND Hillary to win. How about some real political analysis, Matthew. That is what the Atlantic is paying you for, isn't it?
Matt's prediction might be plausible if the contests were winner take all but they're all proportional. I don't see how Clinton is going to ice this thing after 3 weeks of Obama wins. Even if she wins Texas and Ohio 60-40 -- which there is no evidence to believe will happen at this point -- the actual delegate advantage she'd get from that won't be decisive. Then he'll win Mississippi easily and it'll be on to Pennsylvania. She may ultimately win but it won't be after Texas and Ohio. Now if he won Texas and Ohio in addition to all the contests he is favored in the rest of February on the other hand, that could all but wrap up the nomination in his favor.
If the media backlash continues to consist of Joe Klein's nitwitted false choice between Inspiring Barack and Substantive Hillary and Times articles about how Obama might not have smoked as much pot as his book sort of suggests he did, then I think Obama will be just fine.
What's next, 'Obama can't dribble with his left hand'?
And I'll take Rezko over uranium deals with Kazakhstan any day.
Speaking of backlash the New York Times did an article that implies that he may have overstated his drug use. Here is the link: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/09/us/politics/09obama.html?_r=1&ref=politics&oref=slogin
expectations aside, which, I agree, the Clintons have done a better job of managing, ALL we've seen is a slow erosion of her support (as a virtual incumbant) since this thing began. Her spin gains more traction, sure, but each primary/caucus day, BHO seems to draw more people into the fold: white men in the south; hispanics in arizona/new mexico; women across the board. The closing of these gaps hasnt been rapid, but it's been consistent. And that is something; the media, predictably, doesnt report it that way...so it's the job of BHO's people to get the word out and keep pushing that.
I agree that if she wins one of these states HER people will scream from the rooftops, but i dont think it will convince people that she is the most electable.
AND: very important Matt -- if you want to take a longitudinal look at this race, how about the possibility that Dem voters might wake up to the fact that BHO is a better match against McCain that HRC??????
the ONLY poll that has been consistent throughought this race is her unfavorability numbers.
the GOP is now openly admitting that they want to go up against HRC over BHO.
As the race tightens, Dem voters may think: well, the most important thing is that we win. the Clinton name is beloved by many in our party, but for as much as she is liked, EVERY Dem knows that there are many many people (40 - 50) percent of the country who would never vote for her.
Dems know, or at least, they are told (not sure why it hasnt sunk in better), that she cant win indys.
Dems want the WH back. I think people will wake up and realize that nothing will make that more difficult than a united GOP against HRC.
"McCain Democrats in 2008" if HRC gets the nod...and that will kill the party.
The obvious trend in endorsements over the past several weeks has gone in Obama's direction.
Actually, this isn't true. While Obama's gotten some of the bigger endorsements, the bigger ones don't matter any more than the smaller ones when it comes to delegate voting. Clinton's been getting a lot of more under-the-radar endorsements from Representatives and DNC members, and overall, the superdelegate endorsements have maintained a 50/50 breaking between Obama and Clinton... which leaves her maintaining her ~100 superdelegate lead.
Now, there's no reason to think that trend will continue and they'll all keep being split down the middle -- it's a reasonable theory that many of the remaining superdelegates will be susceptible to party pressure to support the candidate with a greater pledged delegate lead -- but it's simply not true that the trend as it stands has been in Obama's direction.
It may be a question of the overall media consensus in covering the February results and the March 4 results. More pledged delegates are at stake between now and Tuesday than are at stake in Texas and Ohio on March 4.
On March 4, 370 pledged delegates will be at stake. During the rest of February, 446 pledged delegates will be apportioned. The two candidates are essentially tied in projected pledged delegates taking into account all results to date (Obama's lead is probably less than 20). Objectively, the leader after March 4 should be the candidate who wins the majority of the 816 pledged delegates between now and March 4. We will see how it plays out. Understandably, the Clinton campaign is trying to diminish the importance of the February results while suggesting the results in Texas and Ohio are what will really matter, while the Obama camp is diminishing expectations for March 4 and even conceding that he is not likely to win Ohio, Texas or Pennsylvania but will still have a small lead in pledged delegates at the end of the day.
Hopefully, each campaign's spin game and the overall media gestalt won't matter much and the key to the nomination will just be who gets the most pledged delegates.
I believe super-delegate preferences should be pretty much ignored right now as it seems inconceivable that if one candidates prevails among pledged delegates by a margin of more than 50 that the super delegates would want to be seen as overturning the judgment of primary votes and caucus goers.
Friends, I suspect that our beloved Matt is not really predicting -- but trying to play the expectations game himself. He feels that the Obama campaign is letting expectations get out of control, and so he's compensating for them.
I appreciate the impulse. But I don't think this is a lowering-expectations game anymore. I think the name of the game is about to become "party unity." At which point it helps to be ahead, and helps to have an aura of inevitability.
"If she wins anywhere at all..."
Oh, give me a break! Please stop buying her spin! She may win Maine and Hawaii (Dem establishment is going for her hard). I usually appreciate your analysis, but this bit seem very intellectually lazy. So when she does win Maine and Hawaii or any other state, Matt and the rest of the ppl who HRC has managed to dupe will consider it a great victory. The fact that Barack is even tied with her is nothing short of tremendous. A few short months ago, no one even knew who is was. Some ppl still dont! Please give credit where it is due. 100% of the population knows who she is, not so for Obama.
The fact that this thing is so close has Obama supporters out in full force.
Regardless, what are you basing this on? Your 1-0 record??
I'm just so shocked that you have been fully duped.
The question now is whether Obama would want to be Hillary's VP considering she will probably lose. There will tremendous pressure to make this "dream ticket" happen and it would certainly be in Hillary's interest to make it happen, but I'm not sure it's in Obama's interest.
inconceivable that if one candidates prevails among pledged delegates by a margin of more than 50 that the super delegates would want to be seen as overturning the judgment of primary votes and caucus goers.
Ah, the audacity of hope.
"How Hillary hopes to catch up with him I really don't know."
Texas, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Puerto Rico.
Matt you are so right! This thing is so over! I don't know why Obama just doesn't pack up that delegate lead, pack up those 7 million voters, pack up that fundraising lead, and pack up all those giant crowds and just go home. Who cares about actual voters say. Hillary is the most beloved figure of our time and nobody likes Obama. Joe Klein says so and we know he's never been wrong about anything.
In all seriouness, the better thing to happen is for Clinton to win maybe Maine, Wisconsin, and/or Hawaii. I'd rather they be evenly matched and disprove any pumped up beliefs of an Obama sweep now.that way Clinton can't claw and/or cry her way back.
Mike, she'd better hope he runs as her VP, as it's her only chance of pulling the party back together after this mess. (I think it's pretty much the strongest argument in her favor, too -- the press has done a very good job of laying the Clinton/Obama option out there as a "have your cake and eat it too" scenario. It was the last question in the last debate, after all. The more people think Obama will be her VP, the better it is for her.)
I think he probably would swallow his pride and do it.
Texas, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Puerto Rico.
Even if she wins all those, the margins will be too narrow to do her much good...
You'd better be wrong about this, Matt, or I'm blaming you. I'm very superstitious about this kind of thing.
Ooh! But maybe it's reverse psychology to get us all motivated and stuff! Good work, then!
"I think the college educated men who dominate punditland have spent a lot of time missing the fact that there actually are enthusiastic Clinton fans out there -- they're just mostly working class women and thus mostly not in the room when this CW gets hashed out."
Obama's got a far better shot than I was expecting after his Iowa victory. I'd put the odds right now at pretty close to 50/50.
Both candidates have perfectly viable paths to victory.
I vary almost daily on which candidate has the slight edge.
"Predictions are a mug's game"
Predictions are only a mug's game when there is no clear favorite, as is the case here.
Pick either one, and you've got a 50% chance of getting it wrong.
i have all the faith in the world that, given the chance to land a massive, historic, game-changing victory, the Dems will get together and do the exact wrong thing.
i keep thinking about this--HRC's supporters love to use "women" getting offended over how the media covers her as a bludgeon--i.e. "oh, this better stop or all us women will band together and vote for Hillary for spite."
this may or not be true, but i've seen the threat lobbed many times.
so why aren't people scared of that from young people?
its so damn hard to get 18-30 yr olds to vote, so i would think if HRC wins this through the super-delegates or some sort of playing inside baseball, the DNC will be telling an entire generation "forget it. it doesn't matter who you vote for, its all about the system and who can cash in the most chits down the line."
if i were running the DNC, i'd be more interested in catering to a generation with decades of voting ahead of it, rather than the over 60 group that desperately wants to return to "the good ol' days", 1992-2000, and whose window of influence is rapidly closing.
(apologies to my Mom and Dad, 62 and 74, who voted for Obama!)
What this "analysis" misses is the fundamental dynamics at play in this election, which really don't include "expectations" or "momentum" at all. Basically, Clinton, as the establishment candidate, started with the class Dem base: African-Americans, Union and working class voters, women, senior citizens, (and now) hispanics.
Obama's challenge has always been to poach away her base. He peeled off AA voters, he's peeling off women, middle-aged voters, unions, etc. His coalition is additive, hers is static. The more time he has to eat into her base, the better. Look at SUSA's cross-tabs in Washington:
In spite of the vote being almost all white, Obama is dominating not just under-35 voters, but 35-49 voters with over 60%. Even though black voters are only in single digits, he's winning female voters by 10%. He's winning 50-64 voters by a comfortable margin. His winning hispanics and asians in the state.
The longer the race goes on, the more time he has to poach away more and more of Hillary's base. That isn't a good thing for Hillary. Expectations don't matter. She's now left as the Rudy G of this campaign: seeing her base erode and riding out a string of losses in the hopes of some big states saving her ass. Ain't gonna happen. My bold prediction is: the nomination battle ends March 5th, when Clinton concedes and Obama is the last man standing.
Wow, jbryan, if that's the only kind of backlash we can expect then I say bring on more backlash! Obama used drugs somewhat less often than his book might lead one to believe? Dreadful. I can't wait to see similar "backlash" headlines like the following:
1. Obama's school daze! College and law school grades higher than originally reported!
2. Obama angry young man story faked! Sources reveal candidate was always cheerful, self-directed and hard-working.
3. Obama expose! Women in his life concur: "He was a perfect gentleman."
4. Obama campaign fights back against onslaught of tabloid revelations as hundreds of older women rush to media with details of assisted street-crossings!
5. Obama bombshell: Democratic candidate even less Muslim than first reported!
Sorry, messed up the SUSA cross-tabs link.
Check it out.
Similar trends in Maryland and Virginia. Tying in whites. Rising with hispanics. Winning across regions (which means across socio-economic status also). Winning with non-college educated voters (!). Etc etc.
He's beginning to decimate Hillary's base. There's not gonna be much left for her by March 4th.
Bill, why are you linking to a tinfoil hat post about New Hampshire done BEFORE the recounting done there? At least find one that tries to explain why nothing changed afterwards. (And yes, a post heavy with p-values can still be tinfoil hat -- lies, damned lies, and statistics)
"Friends, I suspect that our beloved Matt is not really predicting -- but trying to play the expectations game himself. He feels that the Obama campaign is letting expectations get out of control, and so he's compensating for them."
You don't reduce expectations by saying Obama is going to lose the nomination. You reduce expectations by saying Obama is going to lose Louisiana.
Your beloved Matt has been feeling the anti-Obama backlash himself, of late, and he's correctly forecasting that what he's feeling will spread to the media at large.
-----
Obama is still well below 50% among national Dems. He's going to have a big problem in trying to leverage low-turnout caucuses into the nomination as long as most Dems prefer Clinton.
Dan Kervick--
I suspect that post re: the Obama "backlash" was tongue-in-cheek.
Also, are you the same DanK who posts such good stuff on Foreign Policy at tpmcafe?
I don't see the anti-Obama backlash brewing out there. What am I missing?
On the record, I think Clinton will win ME and come much closer in a couple of states than her campaign has managed to set expectations. Why does the media always fall for it? But with a full two weeks to ponder, enough undecided OH Democrats will climb on the Obama electability bandwagon to give him the narrowest of margins Mar. 4, effectively ending the race.
To blunt the rage of fervent Clinton supporters who feel Clinton was denied the nomination because of her gender, Obama picks Sebelius for VP.
I don't think I can predict the election, and so I won't bother. But I'm getting more and more interested in predicting Matt.
Here's another theory. Matt likes Obama, and feels the same impulse all supporters do to construct a plausible hypothesis to explain how their candidate can win.
But Matt is also a temperamental (and professional) contrarian, which means
a) that he likes to contradict other people, but also
b) that he likes to deliberately over-compensate for his own biases.
So when Matt says that HRC will win, we know with >95% degree of certainty that he actually believes BO will win.
Now, what gets even more interesting is, what kind of screwed-up people like to *read* contrarians? In any case, thanks. Now that I've pretended to resign myself to Hillary's inevitability, I might be able to stop reading blogs and get some work done.
A vote for Hillary is of course a vote for McCain since polls show only Obama can beat McCain. Yet Obama has always been the underdog, and my theory is that this is because of the media. The media got us into this unnecessary war and wants to keep us there. For instance, as pointed out in Bill Moyer's 2007 documentary, "Buying the War," in the run up to the Iraq war there were millions of pro-war words published in the Washington Post, and yet Ted Kennedy, the "most famous Democrat in the Senate," got only 36 words of his important anti-war speech (9/27/02) published there. Kennedy said he'd heard no persuasive evidence of Saddam's supposed nuclear threat or link to 9/11. The public wasn't supposed to hear that. Currently, the war is again kept off the front pages, and the economy issue is stressed so that voters won't think of the war or the fact that it is the war which is the root cause of our economic problems. If it weren't for the astronomical never-ending war cost, we could easily bail out the victims of the mortgage crisis as we did the S&L crisis ($500 Billion as I recall). With regard to the war, only Obama offers a stark contrast to McCain, as Hillary joined McCain in voting for the Lieberman-Warner Iraq War Resolution as well as for the Lieberman-Kyl Iran Resolution which threatens to take us to war with Iran. McCain thinks we never should have withdrawn from Vietnam and is for staying in Iraq to make up for it.
SUSA says Obama is beating Clinton among registered Dems in Wash, and, IIRC, Virginia and Maryland too.
Also, mistake I made: Obama is tied in women and 50-64 year olds in Washington (84% white), he's leading in those categories in Virginia and Maryland, which have bigger black populations.
However, he is leading among non-college-educated voters in Wash, hispanics, and asians, per SUSA
I guess we'll learn more today
REMARKABLE.
I'm an Obama guy, but the Clintons are just way better at this than Obama.
I just read that HRC has been campaigning this week that she is the more electable candidate against McCain. Sure this isnt a new line from her, but it comes on the heels of a Time poll (one of many) that shows BHO to be stronger against McCain.
Its the Rovian school of politics: attack directly and decisively the perceived strengths of your opponent. BHO is more electable, and HRC is spinning the opposite. And people WILL buy it. The way they are buying that she is a change candidate, despite the fact that the Clintons have 2 decades in national politics.
An unfortunate reality in politics is that repeating something enough times makes it true.
HRC repeats fairy tales and people believe it. BHO talks about nebulous ideas of change, completely giving her a free pass on her weaknesses, and her weaknesses never become true in the minds of voters.
Trippi said it best: BHO has failed to cast her as the status quo.
And unlike HRC, who is going to hammer home this fairy tale that she is more electable, BHO is NOT going after her perceived strenth: the experience argument.
This is absolutely maddening to me. Can someone explain why he is shying away from this argument?
- She claims superior experience. Prove it, release the White House Presidential records, or admit that its just another in a sring of secretive measures taken to keep people in the dark. Like the tax return thing.
- She worked for "women and children" after law school for less than 1 year. but to hear her tell it, her 35 years of experience is based on this type of work.
- 20 years with a corporate law firm. what are the experiences she gained there?
- she talks a lot about working to help pass SCHIP while First Lady, but i've read many reports that claim she had to be dragged on board of SCHIP, after initially not coming out in strong support.
It's just ridiculous to me that HRC goes after Obama's strenghths: change, integrity, electability...and Obama doesnt return the favor.
Maddening I tell you.
REMARKABLE.
I'm an Obama guy, but the Clintons are just way better at this than Obama.
I just read that HRC has been campaigning this week that she is the more electable candidate against McCain. Sure this isnt a new line from her, but it comes on the heels of a Time poll (one of many) that shows BHO to be stronger against McCain.
Its the Rovian school of politics: attack directly and decisively the perceived strengths of your opponent. BHO is more electable, and HRC is spinning the opposite. And people WILL buy it. The way they are buying that she is a change candidate, despite the fact that the Clintons have 2 decades in national politics.
An unfortunate reality in politics is that repeating something enough times makes it true.
HRC repeats fairy tales and people believe it. BHO talks about nebulous ideas of change, completely giving her a free pass on her weaknesses, and her weaknesses never become true in the minds of voters.
Trippi said it best: BHO has failed to cast her as the status quo.
And unlike HRC, who is going to hammer home this fairy tale that she is more electable, BHO is NOT going after her perceived strenth: the experience argument.
This is absolutely maddening to me. Can someone explain why he is shying away from this argument?
- She claims superior experience. Prove it, release the White House Presidential records, or admit that its just another in a sring of secretive measures taken to keep people in the dark. Like the tax return thing.
- She worked for "women and children" after law school for less than 1 year. but to hear her tell it, her 35 years of experience is based on this type of work.
- 20 years with a corporate law firm. what are the experiences she gained there?
- she talks a lot about working to help pass SCHIP while First Lady, but i've read many reports that claim she had to be dragged on board of SCHIP, after initially not coming out in strong support.
It's just ridiculous to me that HRC goes after Obama's strenghths: change, integrity, electability...and Obama doesnt return the favor.
Maddening I tell you.
I would be very disappointed in Barack if he accepted the VP. Can you imagine he and Bill Clinton co-existing in the WH? No way.
What a waste of his talent that would be. We'd all be better served if he stayed in the Senate, frankly, where at least he could get things done.
And in the reverse scenario, I don't see what Barack stands to gain by adding Hillary as his VP. That would only pull down his numbers among independents.
This "dream team" meme is pure crap encouraged by the Clintons to domesticate Obama for Dem voters... to make it seem "OK" to vote for the Clintons... a variant of the bullshit free lunch mentality that has tells Americans they can have anything from their govt without having to pay for it, no sacrifice necessary.
If you want one of them, you can't have the other. Deal with it.
BillB
Ted, I don't think so many of us BO fans are contrarians as we are incredulous that Feb. 5 was actually declared a tie or a slight win for Clinton in most of the MSM pieces published the next morning. Even though Obama won more states and more delegates on a day that was supposed to make Clinton unstoppable, a day where going in everyone was saying +25 delegates for Clinton and +2 states for Clinton would be a win for Obama.
It's time to start being much more aggressively realistic about how quickly Obama can win over the electorate in a given state now that we no longer need to convince people we can win.
I would be very disappointed in Barack if he accepted the VP. Can you imagine he and Bill Clinton co-existing in the WH? No way.
What a waste of his talent that would be. We'd all be better served if he stayed in the Senate, frankly, where at least he could get things done.
And in the reverse scenario, I don't see what Barack stands to gain by adding Hillary as his VP. That would only pull down his numbers among independents.
This "dream team" meme is pure crap encouraged by the Clintons to domesticate Obama for Dem voters... to make it seem "OK" to vote for the Clintons... a variant of the bullshit free lunch mentality that has tells Americans they can have anything from their govt without having to pay for it, no sacrifice necessary.
If you want one of them, you can't have the other. Deal with it.
BillB
I would be very disappointed in Barack if he accepted the VP. Can you imagine he and Bill Clinton co-existing in the WH? No way.
What a waste of his talent that would be. We'd all be better served if he stayed in the Senate, frankly, where at least he could get things done.
And in the reverse scenario, I don't see what Barack stands to gain by adding Hillary as his VP. That would only pull down his numbers among independents.
This "dream team" meme is pure crap encouraged by the Clintons to domesticate Obama for Dem voters... to make it seem "OK" to vote for the Clintons... a variant of the bullshit free lunch mentality that has tells Americans they can have anything from their govt without having to pay for it, no sacrifice necessary.
If you want one of them, you can't have the other. Deal with it.
BillB
Obama will not take VP.
He'll finish out Senate term and run for Gov. of Ill.
For what it's worth, I agree. I think not only will she win, but the Barack Obama backlash is going to be vicious.
I think it's still 50/50 on the general election. Mostly because, I don't think CW is right and HRC can win an election based on Iraq. I think Obama would have just as tough a time, but with less flip-flopping so he can make a case similar to the Dems making in 2006.
HRC is going to get bogged down in her vote for the war and then compared to McCains active voice in management issues and critiques voice her full support and change with the wind.
The fact that they're not going to draw down troops means the adminstration is going all out to contain violence.
I think 2008 might be another story on how the Democrats blew the general election.
"inconceivable that if one candidates prevails among pledged delegates by a margin of more than 50 that the super delegates would want to be seen as overturning the judgment of primary votes and caucus goers."
Ah, the audacity of hope.
Posted by Bill | February 9, 2008 11:31 AM
Yeah, Bill, I do think this is pretty inconceivable. Right now a large plurality of super-delegates are still sitting on the sidelines. Most of those who haven't committed yet are unlikely to be strong Clinton or Obama partisans. I suspect they will be more concerned about perceptions about the Democratic Party process than they are about which candidate wins the nomination. If Clinton or Obama winds up with 50 or more pledged delegates at the end of the process, it's hard to imagine that the remaining uncommitted super-delegates will want to reverse that judgment. To do otherwise will do great damage to the Party not only in the General Election, but in the future as well.
Matt, if you're wrong, as I hope to any and all higher powers there are, will you do a "my bad" version of the Table?
Anyway, it's not all about expectations and the media, thankfully. People still have to vote.
They are even now, there are caucus states ahead where he does better. Let's see where we are on Tuesday night/Wednesday morning.
I don't think the Latino vote in Texas has the same animosity towards black leaders as the California Latino electorate. I think this for the simple reason is that the black population isn't big enough in Texas to create competition for political power and community influence.
I predict Obama wins a few caucuses between now and March 4th. I predict that the Hillary camp will dismiss those victories as "nice little wins in pleasant little states." (Being a Seattle resident, I do agree that we have a pleasant state.)
I predict that Hillary will turn on the water works right before Ohio because she "wants to help America just so much."
I predict that Michigan and Florida organize some party-only caucuses.
I predict that by the end of the process Obama has the lead in pledged delegates, but not enough to win.
I predict that Hillary and Bill and the rest of the Democratic establishment conspire to give Hillary the nomination via the super-delegates.
But don't accuse me of being cynical. I further predict that the Obama supporters sit this election out in disgust, which gives the election to McCain.
I predict Clinton suffer a humiliating loss to McCain.
I predict the loss of several Democratic House seats.
I predict the loss of a handful of Senate races that right now are quite winnable.
These losses mean that the Clintonistas will be driven from the Party, though I do predict that Clinton and Schumer try to talk Spitzer into running.
I predict Obama cake walks to the nomination in 2012 when the 76-year-old President McCain will be running for re-election pledging to continue our occupation in Iraq.
Change is coming to America. The Clinton people just need to decide if they want to subject the world to a McCain presidency.
(Why does this election remind me of the 1976 Republican nomination struggle between Gerald Ford and Ronald Reagan? I was a kid when that happened, but even I realized that the Republicans nominated the wrong guy in 1976. How in the hell did they decide to nominate the guy who pardoned Nixon?)
Obama is like a puppy with big paws.
You can always tell when a post gets linked from somewhere else and brings in all the Obamabots or Paulbots.
For some weird reason, the robots can't manage to ever single-post their comments. I assume it's a rust-borne malady on their logic boards that leads them to look like idiots.
Matt
Please tell us your record for previous predictions!
What's your batting average?
lol media
C'mon, this guy has already said he *likes* polarization in politics. OF COURSE he's a Clinton guy.
-----} I think the Democratic party leadership is getting extremely anxious about a nominating process that has already gone on far too long, and is threatening to continue on for months, perhaps as long as the convention in August. {-----Oh goodness gracious! Heavens to Betsy! We have had six whole weeks of primaries and that is far, far too long! Suffer the children that voters should actually have to listen the candidates' arguments and make a real choice as late as the end of March. Oh the humanity.
Cranky
I have to disagree with MY, and I was with you on the Super Bowl. I certainly don't think this thing is over, but I do think the tide has turned. Clinton is likely pretty close to her ceiling, and the more people see Obama, the more they like him. Poll after poll will come out showing McCain losing to Obama and beating Clinton. While I agree that Clinton does have enthusiastic supporters, I think (or fervently hope) that the party is ready to move on.
My gut sez Obama wins.
It is clear that the majority of Democratic politicians across the country see Obama as the candidate with the longer coattails and best chance of winning in the fall.
The problem is, it isn't so clear that a majority of Democratic voters see it that way. Clinton, after all, did take a majority of Super Tuesday's popular vote (and her modest majority surely would have been significantly larger if those five or six caucuses had been primaries). Barack would win going away if the rest of the contests were caucuses.
For what it's worth, I agree. I think not only will she win, but the Barack Obama backlash is going to be vicious.
Well, I think it's safe to say at the least there will be extreme, probably irresistible pressure to give him the veep slot if he wants it.
I don't think the Latino vote in Texas has the same animosity towards black leaders as the California Latino electorate.
Probably not. But the Latino vote in Florida, too, broke heavily for Hillary. I don't think it's a matter of animosity toward black leaders so much as it is simply that a lot of Latino voters like the Clintons.
It's true that bettors and predictors failed to weigh the significance of a 38-35 game preceding the Superbowl. It's true that bettors and predictors (and almost everybody) failed utterly to foresee McCain's rise from 10:1, even 20:1, to victory. It's true that Matthew Yglesias, scion of New York, was among the one of five who called the Superbowl correctly.
Nevertheless, the best evidence available to all us mere mortals who none of us knows what the future will bring--the best evidence is what comes from the prediction markets and betting parlors. They tell us two things--first, it's too close and too shifty to call. But second, if you have to call it, the odds are nearly 3-2 in favor of Obama. I'll take the wisdom of the crowd over even that of the redoubtable Mr. Yglesias.
You can always tell when a post gets linked from somewhere else and brings in all the Obamabots or Paulbots.
Right. I wonder if it ever occurs to them that mass posting by the Stepford Obamabots itself helps to fuel the backlash.
Assuming that something odd doesn't happen which effectively decides the race in the next month or so, the context and background could look very different in the run up to the convention.
There's a very good chance that the economy will go into free fall by 2Q 2008. The Federal Reserve will be running low on bullets, and the Democratic primaries will be about responses to recession.
If I were handicapping the race right now with what I know today, I'd give it 60-40 Obama (I'm not dedicated to the nomination of either candidate). I can see Obama picking up momentum from this week, and splitting Ohio/Texas down the line.
But if we're engaging in wishful thinking, I'd like to see some discussion, here and in the press, about which candidate will make a better president - which includes both policy prescriptions and dealing with the toxic political environment after the general election. There will likely be a deep and painful recession working its way through in Jan 2009, and Iraq won't look any better (and Pakistan will probably look worse).
Whoever is the nominee will have an immense amount of ordure thrown at him or her by the GOP in a last stand to hold the White House. The press will be obliged to "report it fairly" - and hold the new incumbent "accountable" just as they have the current Administration :-)
So the odds are that the 2009 Democratic president will have a worried country and an angry GOP rump in Congress to deal with, with the Senate filibustering everything in sight. Who do you want at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue then?
I think Clinton's succeeded in managing the expectations savvily. If she wins anywhere at all between now and March 4, that counts as a win for her...
Expectations, schmexpectations. That game's essentially over: from here to the finish, it's about delegates.
If Obama finishes up the primary season with more delegates overall than Hillary would have if her bogus MI and FL delegations are added in, then he wins the nomination. If Hillary wins more pledged delegates than Obama, she wins. If it's in between, we may see a bit of a dogfight.
It looks like the super delegates will decide this thing. I know you discount these match-up polls this early in the season but by July, with the convention in August, we should have a much clearer picture of who will do best against McCain. Hopefully, our Democratic leaders will make the correct choice.
I think the hatred for Hillary Clinton (and increasingly for Bill) on both the left and the right, will topple her in the end.
This is the prototypical MY blog post. Matt is poking at his readers with a stick just to watch them scurry around, Dan Kervick is awesome, and Petey is still bitter about John Edwards. What else is new...
Tobias, as a black woman who lives in Miami. I can tell there's a lot of animosity between Cubans and blacks. Many Cubans are very racist. Nevertheless, your analysis of Hispanics in FL like Clinton is on the mark. A lot of Venezuelans and Columbians like Clinton. In the 2000 election they voted overwhelmingly for Gore.
"The problem is, it isn't so clear that a majority of Democratic voters see it that way. Clinton, after all, did take a majority of Super Tuesday's popular vote (and her modest majority surely would have been significantly larger if those five or six caucuses had been primaries)."
No to mention that Clinton has a larger lead in the daily Gallup tracker today than she has a week ago.
It's too early to tell for sure, but the Obama wave may well have crested on February 3rd.
Hillary may or may not have won the popular vote on Super Tuesday. The fact that you bring it up at all more or less marks you as a Clinton supporter.
Those so-called popular vote totals being bandied about for Super Tuesday exclude votes from several of the caucus states that Obama has won because not all caucus states keep individual voter totals.
"Petey is still bitter about John Edwards"
Petey is not bitter ... anymore.
Petey is just voting Clinton these days.
Petey prefers actual Dems to independents,
And Petey prefers the Edwads UHC plan that Clinton has adopted to Barack's bullshit healthcare cowardice and future disaster.
You don't sound bitter at all.
Petey, she was up by more than 10 points on super Tuesday according to the Gallup Tracker. That wasn't born out in actual voting totals and, given that both California and NY voted on Tuesday, it would have.
You can always tell when a post gets linked from somewhere else and brings in all the Obamabots or Paulbots.
Or could it be that Matt's demographic is a good match for Obama supporters, it also helps that Matt has stated his preference for Obama.
It would have taken only a modicum of intelligence to suss this out. I'm not saying you're not smart, but your desire to snark lead you to a really stupid comment.
FYI, I've been reading Matt for 8 years in various forums.
"Hillary may or may not have won the popular vote on Super Tuesday. The fact that you bring it up at all more or less marks you as a Clinton supporter."
Or, y'know, marks him/her as a neutral reporter.
We're very possibly headed to a scenario in early June where Obma will have the larger number of delegates, but Clinton will have the larger number of votes cast.
This will leave the superdelegates which two completely different, but both viable conclusions to reach in divvying up their votes.
As long as Obama is running behind Clinton in the Gallup tracker, he's likely not going to be the nominee.
However strong the Obama "backlash" is, or the "backlash" against the media in favor of HRC is, as her folks are clearly hoping for and encouraging with this pimpin' business, this only translates into a change in voting trends if you buy that media perception is reality. I think we've seen more than once this campaign season that it's not nearly that simple. It's going to take a major shake up for either one of the candidates to pull away. Maybe we're just we're past the point where MSM hyperventilation can make that happen.
Petey does sound pretty bitter.
I'm very excited by the roll-out of Petey 2.0: it's got all the tendentious anti-Obama talking points we know and love, but with even less credibility!
Dan Kervick seems to the only person here who is thinking what I am.
Let's assume that Obama wins every race with the exception of Maine between now & March 4th. What nobody here seems to realize is that he will have won a string of victories in a row, something nobody on our side has been able to do. It is like everyone is putting these to phases of the election into a vacuum.
Pre march 4th - Obama cleans up
March 4th - Hillary cleans up.
Assuming the first scenario is true (and I'm not), do you think the voters of Ohio & Texas will not be paying attention? That is what it seems matt is saying. Winning begets winning. Just ask John McCain.
I am not saying the voters of TX & OH are sheep. But they read papers there and watch the news and day after day coverage of Obama beating her in state after state will have an effect that will certainly close the gap from whatever current leads. And the days of Hillary's early voting advantage are over.
I am not saying the nomination is Obama's to lose either. There are plenty of news cycles ahead and the waters are treacherous. But I think Matt is missing the fact that if Obama wins 9 of the 10 contests between now and March 4th, that will be seen by many voters as momentum.. That should not be underestimated.
Petey, unlike John Edwards, prefers big money contributors and lobbyist in the white house.
Petey, unlike John, prefers the candidate who sees no mistake in her Iraq vote.
Petey is pro cluster bombs just like Hillary. I don't know where Edwards falls on this issue.
Knowing Petey's track record I'm feeling very optimistic.
"You don't sound bitter at all."
I was bitter for about two days after JRE dropped before I realized I was going to have to actually go vote for one of the two schmucks. That's when I cheered up.
I'll admit it felt pretty weird to be pulling the lever for Clinton, but I'm a Democrat who wants to see Democratic aims made into policy in the next Congress. So it ended up feeling to pretty damn good to be standing with the base of the Party rather than standing with the swells who have contempt for government programs.
I love the nomination season. Everyone's gotta decide, and you get to see if they stand with the Party base, or with the big money swells. Easy decision for me.
hopefully this is as accurate as MY's last prediction:
http://matthewyglesias.theatlantic.com/archives/2007/04/my_bet.php
I think the Democratic Party certainly needs to find a way to harness the powerful dynamic between these two excellent candidates and mobilize both constituencies.
Perhaps the Democratic Party should allow Barack Obama to win the nomination then work like crazy to get him elected AND to pick up seats in the Senate. After doing so the they dump the incredibly ineffective Harry Reid and make Hillary Clinton the Senate majority leader - a role Obama cannot play given his short tenure there.
Given the dynamic between these two we could be assured of one thing: the legislative branch would certainly reclaim is co-equal status with the executive branch. This return of co-equal government after so many years of a rubber-stamp operation would be the greatest gift these two could give the American people at this time.
The base of the party isn't so narrow as you would portray it, Petey, and thankfully there are many that aren't entirely as single issue driven as you are.
Petey 2.0: now able to argue with a straight face that a vote for Hillary is a vote *against* "the big money swells."
Hilarious.
the swells who have contempt for government programs.
Say what? Another screw just fell out of Petey's head.
X,
that was too funny. Those internets have a loooong memory.
Matt, please feel free to repost that prediction.
http://matthewyglesias.theatlantic.com/archives/2007/04/my_bet.php
On the "anti-Obama backlash":
The only source I'm seeing for this is that unbelievably misguided rant "Goodbye to All That #2" put out by Ms Magazine and read aloud at a Hillary campaign event.
Go read it at the Politico. It may be one of the single dumbest statements ever put to paper.
This is more victim playing and may blow up in the Clintons' face, judging by the Comments thread at Politico (which I know isn't totally representative but still interesting). Basically she is claiming that feminists who vote against Hillary are betraying feminism, and young women who like him are all idiots who don't count as much as Baby Boomers.
If that's a "backlash" I'm not too worried about it. BTW, I can't wait to see how this kind of victimology plays in the general if she is somehow the Dem nominee. The self-righteous narcissism of Dems never ceases to amaze me.
BillB
The funny thing is I can see Matt repudiating this prediction as early as tonight if today's caucuses go Obama's way. In addition, Obama seems to have opened up quite a gap in Virginia.
The funny thing is I can see Matt repudiating this prediction as early as tonight if today's caucuses go Obama's way. In addition, Obama seems to have opened up quite a gap in Virginia.
The funny thing is I can see Matt repudiating this prediction as early as tonight if today's caucuses go Obama's way. In addition, Obama seems to have opened up quite a gap in Virginia.
swarty,
Here's Petey from the the prediction comment thread:
If I had to rank the candidates in order of likelihood of winning the nomination, I'd put them:
1) Hillary 2) Edwards 3) Obama
"Petey 2.0: now able to argue with a straight face that a vote for Hillary is a vote *against* "the big money swells.""
You think the average Obama supporter doesn't have more disposable cash to donate to a campaign than the average Clinton supporter?
If so, you're an idiot.
The Obama financial steamroller is much the same as the Dean financial steamroller - lots of culturally liberal folks making $70k - $150k / yr, with no great interest (and even some contempt) for entitlement programs like Social Security and Universal Healthcare.
They're simply a more cosmopolitan of the upscale demographics that were flooding Ron Paul with cash on the other side.
I'm a Hillary fan, but I'm not sure you're right or that she's going to be the nominee. It's amazing how unpredictable politics can be. Let's see how things play out over the next few months. I don't see Hillary going anywhere until after Pennsylvania votes (at the end of April -- Gov. Rendell has already endorsed her and it's like NY and NJ in trending towards her).
"single issue" - jbryan
It's not even a single issue. It's like one-twentieth of an issue.
I was once a Kiss fan, until I heard Springsteen, so there is hope for all of us!
(tried to stop reading this thread, failed)
Gallup's tracking poll is pretty much useless now. At pollster.com they looked into the voter screen. It lets through 80% of registered voters, all those who are "somewhat likely" to vote.
The 50% screen, the "extremely likely" screen, has done a much better job of predicting elections this season (primary turnout is still greater than 50%). And Obama does much better with that screen. See also recent Newsweek poll, which has them tied.
But of course, since more than half the country has voted already, national polls are slightly beside the point. Data out of OH and TX is pretty old right now. After we get a couple of good recent polls in those states, we'll have a notion whether HRC is going to have big margins, small margins, or no margins. Then we'll be able to start predicting.
"Here's Petey from the the prediction comment thread:
If I had to rank the candidates in order of likelihood of winning the nomination, I'd put them: 1) Hillary 2) Edwards 3) Obama"
Yup. And I stand by that.
Whichever of Clinton or Edwards could emerge in the beer-track slot would have the fundamental advantage over the wine-track slot reserved for Obama.
And seems to me that that is still precisely where we're at.
Obama is making it tight, but unless he can win over a majority of national Dems, which he's shown no ability to do so so far, he's going to end up with a narrow loss at the end of the day.
Petey--
I don't know about the disposable cash available to the average Obama (or Clinton) supporter. Neither, for that matter, do you. I do, however, know that a far larger percentage of her supporters have donated the maximum allowed under law, which sort of undercuts your ridiculous portrayal of her as tribune of the people.
That said, I find your tendency toward strident, unsupported, absurdly generalizing pronouncements oddly endearing. You're like the simpleton little brother I never had.
Obama is making it tight, but unless he can win over a majority of national Dems, which he's shown no ability to do so so far...
He hasn't? Really? Didn't Clinton only run .4% better than Obama in popular vote totals out of Super Tuesday? Obama seems to be doing okay in winning over lots nationally. Surely you'll concede that he's at least shown "an ability" to do so... right?
(I'm still chuckling over the idea that having a large small donor base makes a politician the candidate of the big money swills.)
Yay! Petey's talking about "wine-track" and "beer-track" again!!!
I really missed that incisive analysis while Petey was in mourning.
God bless Petey 2.0!!!
Given the current game, a Hilary nomination will at best blunt and at worse cripple the current momentum the Democratic party has. Obama may be selling snake oil or kool-aid, but its a concoction that attracts and energizes. It brings in new voters and gives some indies a reason to switch.
Kick that fervent support in the teeth with a back-room shuffle of party-hack delegates and we'll be stuck with HRC playing catch-up to McCain all the way to November.
The media has always given McCain far more than a free pass. And we know how it's always treated the Clintons. He can clown and flip-flop and toss off gaffes five days out of seven and every one of them will be treated as more evidence of his happy-go-lucky straight-shooting Maverickness.
And what can HRC do to change voters minds? What bold new subclause in draft 2.B.12 of her impenetrable designed-to-be-compromised-into-oblivion health care proposal? She's hyper-cautious by nature and experience and consultant-triangulated into a box that saps any misguided enthusiasm anyone might have for the steady economic erosion of Bill's don't-look-behind-the-internet-bubble presidency.
Fall back on "Yes, she can" and Geraldine Ferraro's endorsement and see where it gets you.
The one poll number that never moves is Hilary's unfavorables. Uninformed or over-informed, voters think they know who she is.
Nominate HRC and it's Humphrey-Mondale-Dukakis-Gore-Kerry redux. Possibly close but inevitably not close enough.
"I don't know about the disposable cash available to the average Obama (or Clinton) supporter. Neither, for that matter, do you."
Does it ever occur to you that others may not share your nescience?
It's only in political chat that folks actually brag about how little they know.
I'm curious Petey, do you have any opinion at all about foreign policy? I never see you talk about that.
Petey--
I call your bluff: how much disposable cash do the average Clinton and Obama supporters have?
Matt,
Thank you for mentioning those working class women who are always left out of the conversation, but who will probably prove essential for a Democratic win.
Their absence from the public debate, the extent to which they are overlooked, and, let's face it, the contempt in which they are often held (in some elite quarters) is one of the major reasons why the CW is so often wrong (in their predictions) about both Clintons.
There is no way any kind of progressive economic agenda will ever be achieved without the energized participation of these women in the political process. That's why my vote is going to the Democrat who is pulling these women into the process, in larger numbers than ever before, rather than the one whose strategy depends on appealing to the same fortunate constituencies that have been most consistently well served by both parties for the last 3 decades.
I believe Obama is sincere about wanting "change" -- but the kind of (mostly symbolic) change the affluent constituencies he is hoping will put him in the White House want is not the change we need. Their support for him would vanish the moment he tried to make concrete efforts to serve the interests of the working class. Because those interests are in conflict with their own.
In politics you gotta dance with the one who brung 'ya. Obama is planning to dance with the fortunate few who never have any trouble getting their dance card filled. While Hillary is bringing some entirely new people, who have for too long be left out in the cold, to the dance floor.
That's the way, the only way, real change happens.
Nominate HRC and it's Humphrey-Mondale-Dukakis-Gore-Kerry redux. Possibly close but inevitably not close enough.
I really don't think McCain has much of a chance either way. Look at his exits - he's getting a huge number of votes from Independents who hate the war.
This might seem like a bad thing for the D candidate but I would disagree. The problem is as I see it that no one profits on the right by attacking McCain for being too warlike, so his position on the war is partially concealed to uninformed voters - they just vaguely know from the media that he's criticized Bush in the past.
Move ahead to the general election, either Clinton or Obama is likely to hammer him on the war - he's an out and out true believer, so he's not going to pivot on this issue. He'll start bleeding Independent support almost immediately.
Add to that the fact that he's been in the Senate for an awfully long time. I'm sure there's a treasure trove of choice votes to go through.
There are two reasons that the NRO crowd can't stand McCain - one is that he doesn't kowtow to them the way others (Romney) might but the other is that they (correctly I believe) regard him as totally unelectable and a disaster down-ticket.
Screw that! I was just down at the Falls Church, VA Obama HQ, and it was swarming with volunteers and there were no yard signs or canvassing packets left.
People talk about Obama's financial advantage, but it's time (or greater exposure to low information voters), more than money, that will work to his advantage.
I'm a soft Obama supporter mainly because Clinton makes me nervous on foreign policy and because I think Obama has a slightly better chance to squeeze red state Senators due to having a greater base of support in red states and a series of positions that are likely to be more appealing to red state independents.
However, the differences between the two - even on healthcare - are super marginal compared to the chasm between them and McCain.
Throw in that I think McCain is close to 0% likely to win in a general, I really don't think the Democratic nomination is actually that important.
Can we all agree, however, that a month and a half ago, Clinton was going to walk away with this thing in a John Kerry flourish and have a running mate chosen by March?
I think some of us have been watching and reading the news too much. Hillary very well may seal the deal after Texas. But the "managing expectations" thing with the campaigns is somewhat of a silly point, given that Obama wasn't expected to win anything as late as December.
I really don't think the Democratic nomination is actually that important.
I think it is. I think there are real, substantive differences between the two candidates on a lot of issues (not necessarily those which have gotten the largest media play), and that it really will matter which of them becomes president.
Mary writes:
In politics you gotta dance with the one who brung 'ya. Obama is planning to dance with the fortunate few who never have any trouble getting their dance card filled. While Hillary is bringing some entirely new people, who have for too long be left out in the cold, to the dance floor.
Dear mary,
What do you see in any of his policies that leads you to that conclusion about Obama? I have not seen his platform on funding NPR, koi pond subsidies, or limiting Pinot Noir imports. You are confusing his fundraising base with his policies. Your bias is showing.
As for Hillary, she is energizing the most reliable voter group in the Democratic Party: Older voters. That demographic is not more underserved than any other voting bloc. And I will say that I see nothing in her policies that explicitly caters to that base either, to her credit. What I see is identity politics. Voters are seeing someone like them and they are voting accordingly.
To clarify:
and by Identity politics, I see it on both sides, not just hers.
I think it is. I think there are real, substantive differences between the two candidates on a lot of issues (not necessarily those which have gotten the largest media play), and that it really will matter which of them becomes president.
I'm not saying that there are differences, I'm just saying that the differences are pretty negligible when you hold them up to McCain.
Throw in the sad fact that the Senate will include >40 pretty hardcore GOPers, then the differences start getting even less relevant. My point in the other post was that I suspect Obama will be able to put slightly more pressure on the GOP Senate caucus, thus giving him a slightly better chance to break off a couple of them on important legislation.
Mary,
Why do you exclude black voters from your calculus?
Ohio might provide some surprises. While demographically, it looks like a "Clinton state", I lived there during the first Clinton presidency and visceral dislike of the Clintons runs very deep, on the left as well as on the right.
I agree with Matthew that Clinton would be in good shape if she could stay at parity with Obama between now and 3/4, but doing that is going to be easier said than done. If she wins Maine alone between now and then, probably the best turf for her (it's a downscale New Hampshire), will that be enough? And if Obama wins today, wins Tuesday, and wins Wisconsin, doesn't momentum begin to cut into Hillary's advantages in Texas and Ohio? At some point, "expectations" aren't enough to save you; you actually have to start winning someplace.
This race really reminds me of 1984. Except that if Gary Hart had had Jesse Jackson's 1984 voters, he would have won. I think Obama is slightly more plausible now than Clinton.
BFR,
Your thinking on McCain is all wrong. Yes, the NRO folks aren't thrilled, but they will vote for him. He will lose some of the Dobson crowd (maybe not with a smart VP selection), but he wins white male independents in droves.
Red states stay red and purple states go pink. Clinton does not change this, Obama does.
As a fellow Obama supporter, I appreciate Matt's efforts to manage expectations for our candidate. I'll add my bit; I don't really see Obama winning Maine, and the Virginia polls that have him up by 20 points seem pretty unlikely. If he beats Hillary there, seems like it'll be much closer than that.
I also wonder why the media seems so convinced that expectations of this kind matter. Obama's expectations were way higher than they should have been pre-New Hampshire; I don't think that hurt him after New Hampshire that I can see. Similarly, Hillary has definitely under-performed since the summer, but she could still win. Seems like, in a race this close, the handicapping by the media may be more important to the media than to anyone else. I think maybe commentors just like to feel that they have some effect, even when it doesn't matter all that much.
The CW seems to have Obama carrying VA in the 2/12 Potomac primary. I don't buy it, for four reasons:
1. Women turn out in greater numbers than blacks in VA Democratic primaries. Advantage Clinton.
2. Under VA election law, college dorms are not places of residence; students have to go home to vote. (If they live off-campus and remembered to register - rolls closed a month ago - they can vote.) Advantage Clinton.
3. VA primaries are open, and the GOP race is settled. VA Republicans are inveterate dirty tricksters, and know Clinton stands next to no chance of carrying the state against McCain. Expect GOPers to crash the Democratic primary to vote for Clinton.
4. Delegates are apportioned by congressional district, and Obama's constituencies are clustered in four (of 11). He could win the raw vote and still wind up trailing in delegates, especially if GOPers provide the winning vote margins in three or four downstate congressional districts.
To underline to what swarty said above,
Democrats in Texas and Ohio and Pennsylvania want above all to win in November, whomever they currently support. And Democrats, unlike independents, are receptive to both electability and party discipline arguments. If Obama builds up a head of steam in the next few weeks, and if Clinton-leaning Democrats in those large states perceive that the Democrats are being hurt by their failure to settle on a nominee, and that Clinton is in an uphill battle against the front-runner Obama, a movement will grow to wrap up the race and get behind the leader.
I saw yesterday or the day before that for the first time there are polls that have McCain beating both Obama and Clinton head-to-head. Is that because McCain has suddenly become a much stronger candidate? Not at all. It's because the Republicans now have a nominee. Most of those Republican or Independent Huckabee supporters and Romney supporters who opposed McCain, and who told pollsters for weeks that they were undecided, or even pro-Democrat, when offered a choice between McCain and some Democrat, are now predictably moving into the MCain camp. Once the Democrats have a nominee, I expect to see the same phenomenon, with the Democratic candidate shooting ahead of McCain once again in the polls.
However, the Republicans have now already begun their campaign against the Democrats - it started this week - and it is important for the Democrats to choose a candidate fairly soon. Otherwise they are going to be taking a lot of incoming for several weeks without being able to mount an effective and coordinated counter-attack with a consistent message.
On the record, I think Clinton will win ME and come much closer in a couple of states than her campaign has managed to set expectations. Why does the media always fall for it? But with a full two weeks to ponder, enough undecided OH Democrats will climb on the Obama electability bandwagon (Rasmussen today: Obama +3, Clinton -6) to give him the narrowest of margins Mar. 4, effectively ending the race.
To blunt the rage of fervent Clinton supporters who feel Clinton was denied the nomination because of her gender, Obama picks Sebelius for VP.
BFR,
I'm with you. For all the doom and glooming about the potential McCain presidency should Hillary get the nod, I think she would absolutely flatten him in the general election, as will Obama. People don't seem to fully recognize just how destroyed the Republican brand is at the moment, and that's before you even take into account how weak a candidate McCain is.
And I don't think there is much of a difference at all between the candidates. (Of course, I'm a young, educated, Mac-using, Wire-watching San Francisco male native who voted for Hillary, which means that there is probably something deeply wrong with me. How did I fail to catch Obama fever?)
1. Women turn out in greater numbers than blacks in VA Democratic primaries. Advantage Clinton.
Surely this was true in every southern state Obama has won. This is meaningless.
2. Under VA election law, college dorms are not places of residence; students have to go home to vote. (If they live off-campus and remembered to register - rolls closed a month ago - they can vote.) Advantage Clinton.
Sure, if Obama's expected margin was entirely based on college campuses.
3. VA primaries are open, and the GOP race is settled. VA Republicans are inveterate dirty tricksters, and know Clinton stands next to no chance of carrying the state against McCain. Expect GOPers to crash the Democratic primary to vote for Clinton.
Bullshit. Republicans and independents, if they vote in the Democratic primary, will be voting for Obama, as they have everywhere else. Significant quantities of voting out of spite pretty much never happens.
Beyond that, there have been three polls in Virginia, and Obama has been up by about 20 in all of them. The delegate totals may be close, but Obama will certainly win.
Obama looks poised to rack up a few wins in a row. If he loses instead, that could hurt. But his tying Hillary on Super Tuesday sets him up to start a winning streak.
By my read, the Obama team just hasn't made many mistakes so far. They haven't managed expectations very well, but it looks like they've made mostly good strategic choices, and are in much better shape than almost anyone would have predicted on January 1st of this year.
I have my doubts that there will be much backlash among the voters. We netizens tend to overgeneralize from the trends we see online. For most Democrats nationwide Obama is still a relative unknown. So the fact that many commenters on here are sick of his schtick doesn't necessarily indicate much.
So yes, Clinton could certainly win. It's still likely. But I don't think the odds are with her at this point.
blindjoe,
Sorry, but I don't see it at all. Republicans are going to stay home in large numbers. Democrats are going to turn out in huge numbers regardless of the candidate. And Hillary will win independents.
If Obama is the nominee, he gives the Democrats a better chance of winning Deep South states for the first time in forever. He wins all the blue states, peels some of the Southern states with large black voting blocks and large evangelical voting blocks, and it seems like he'll be at least competitive if not at an advantage in some of the remote Western states like Utah, Idaho, etc, etc.
If Clinton is the nominee, she wins all of the blue states, she wins Florida, she wins some upper South states, she wins Arkansas and she has a good chance of winning New Mexico.
The question is simply whether the Democrats are going to blow the doors off the Republicans or whether they're going to blow the doors off and then beat them with the doors. Which is why it is so amusing to see so many Democrats acting like whipped puppies, as if the voting conditions of 2008 bear any resemblance to those of 2000 or 2004. They don't.
Your thinking on McCain is all wrong. Yes, the NRO folks aren't thrilled, but they will vote for him. He will lose some of the Dobson crowd (maybe not with a smart VP selection), but he wins white male independents in droves.
The NRO folks will vote for McCain, as will the Dobsonites. But not at the rate that they voted for W. If you recall, W barely won in 2004 and the GOP has hemmorhaged Independents since then.
Yes, most white male independents will vote for McCain, but I don't think in enough numbers to save him. Again, he's getting a ton of votes from people who think he's anti-war. How's that going to work out in the general? You think he's going to keep all of them?
"The Obama financial steamroller is much the same as the Dean financial steamroller - lots of culturally liberal folks making $70k - $150k / yr, with no great interest (and even some contempt) for entitlement programs like Social Security and Universal Healthcare."--Petey
Gee, Petey, how would you like to live on my SS income? I contributed $25 to the Obama financial steamroller, and just pledged another $25, but my wife--who made phone calls for Obama--says I'll have to cut my wine intake. Guess I'll switch to muscatel.
MY's analysis is uncharacteristically shallow. Expectations matter, but do they matter as much as MY assumes?
The rest of the piece really doesn't go beyond gesturing toward the well known differences between Obama's and Clinton's voters. True, Clinton has the sort of following that usually has prevailed among Democrats in the past. But the African American factor might offset that advantage.
A better approach might be to go with the assumption that the super delegates will decide the matter, and to look at who they are and who they might favor. Can we assume they'll go with the winner of contests for pledged delegates? If not, the outcome might be fairly easily predictable, requiring only that the supers' preferences be ferreted out. If so, the outcome is harder to predict, depending as it does on the vagaries of voting in several states.
I'd like to think the Democrats have learned something the past eight years, but I'm afraid not. I think the Democrats have one more stupid brain fart left in their system and will push it out come hell or high water. So here's my prediction:
Hillary Clinton will get nominated.
Then, John McCain will get elected.
He will die in office late in his first term, and Mitt Romney will succeed to the presidency, going on to serve two terms of his own.
If the planet still exists, Obama can take another crack at it in 2020.
blindjoedeath --
Because in this primary African Americans, including working class African American women, have unique, more complex motivations for voting than usual -- aspirational motivations that go beyond personal and class self-interest (in the policy sense). They aren't voting class, they are voting community. And, for them, the symbolic change Obama represents, just in his person, does have real concrete consequences for their community and its future. That makes it reasonable for working class African Americans to participate, in these primaries, in a coalition with more affluent groups -- upscale white youth, affluent independents and cross-over Republicans, etc., who do not share their economic interests.
My worry is that, if this coalition is successful, working class African Americans may find that, whatever good intentions Obama may have -- and I believe he does have good intentions -- they will nonetheless be the weakest element of the coalition. That these new, more affluent and economically powerful voters that he is bringing into the fold will further dilute the power within the party of the working class as a whole.
(I think this is what happened when a similar coalition -- of anti-war middle class youth and affluent, former Republicans joined the party during the McGovern campaign. They were anti-war and socially liberal, but not economic liberals. Their hearts may have been in the right place in matters of race and social justice, but their economic interest conflicted with the real economic interests of both the African American community and the working class. And that limited the progress that could be made.)
Energizing working class and poor women, on the other hand, in my view, will strengthen the power of working class voters, of every race and ethnicity.
Why is it that Obama's support amongst blacks can simply be dismissed out of hand while the same isn't true of Hillary's support amongst older white women?
I voted for Obama on 2/5, but I'm not an Obama cultist. I'll tell you this: It will be easier to get a black elected than a woman, all else being equal. Sexism runs far deeper and wider than racism. What's more, racism gets called out more quickly, making it all the easier for Republicans to play the gender card. Making this election a feminist cause celebre is about the stupidest thing we could do and live to regret.
My worry is that, if this coalition is successful, working class African Americans may find that, whatever good intentions Obama may have -- and I believe he does have good intentions -- they will nonetheless be the weakest element of the coalition. That these new, more affluent and economically powerful voters that he is bringing into the fold will further dilute the power within the party of the working class as a whole.
But the key is that he will have a winning coalition. Working class voters (much less African American working class voters) are nowhere near being able to win on their own, particularly given that they split down the middle into economic liberal Democrats and religious/social conservative Republicans who largely offset one another. You're putting the cart before the horse to worry about overcrowding your coalition. First build a coalition that can win. And if not the sort of supporters Obama is bringing in, who would you bring into the coalition instead?
Sean,
Please show me where Hillary is attracting independent voters. I haven't seen this mentioned anywhere.
I don't see how Clinton is beating Obama in the "managing expectations" game. The best way to gauge the practical result of the expectations game is by tracking contributions, and Obama has been winning that battle.
He did well on Tuesday but was perceived by the punditry to have lost a bit of momentum. Net result: a deadlocked race and a flood of cash from the grassroots.
Any politician will take a "loss" like that any day.
p.s. re. the Super Bowl: Forget the "Nixon in a pantsuit" meme. Clinton is Belichick without the hoody. Cunning, well-prepared, relentless, polarizing...but not evil. And certainly not unstoppable.
Democratic voters are pissed off and fired up after 8 years of Bush/Cheney, so we know that our base is going to turn out in strength this November. But Obama adds to that by bringing huge numbers of youth and African-Americans to the party. This translates into a BIG win that will serve us well in the downticket races (Congress, governorships, state offices, county races, municipal offices, etc). We are looking at the possibiity of a sea change election that marginnalizes the GOP for the forseeable future.
Obama is a rare phenom, and we are not likely to see another like him in our lifetime. Hillary is a garden variety centrist who doesn't have the ability to drive large voter turnout.
A Hillary nomination will be the death knell of the Democratic Party, because it will stifle the progressive energy that provides so much of the horsepower we need to fundraise and register new voters.
Why would "expections" have so much to do with it? I think that Clinton is a little stronger on the issues that matter most to Democrats and that a long hard fought battle will be (barely) won because of this.
The worsening economy may be bad luck for Obama because people hate to take a chance during bad time.
But I'm just thinking out loud, not predicting. I wouldn't bet 10 cents on a winner. This one is as hard as the super bowl.
I really want to caution those who think Hillary would flatten McCain, and I have two points. One, I thought the same thing about Kerry in '04 because it blew my mind to even consider that the American public wouldn't vote that ass clown out of office. Here we are in '08 and the public likes Bush and the Republicans even less. But if you are basing your conviction that McCain will lose on this feeling -- just don't do it. I did it once, and I won't do it again. There is nothing logical about politics.
Two, look at the polls. The head-to-head polls for McCain v. Clinton and McCain v. Obama are getting better for Obama and worse for Clinton. She loses to McCain in, I think four out of five polls. A statistically insignificant difference between them has turned into about a 9-point difference.
I DO realize that February polls will not predict a November election. But it is not true that they are "meaningless", because we all know that Hillary has a ceiling. About 45% of this country wouldn't vote for her if she spent the summer walking on water.
Be Careful, and learn the lessons of the past.
Those people who put any faith in the possible head-to-head matchup polling this far out are crazy. To base your vote or your argument on such is foolish.
GC,
I love your thinking and if you're right about the Dems refusing to slit their throats for no good reason, I will die happy. But I've been a Democrat for longer than you, and I've never seen them turn aside an opportunity to protect their individual sinecures, small as they might be, by curling up in the laps of the party hacks. They have made good lives for themselves by declining to fight Republicans, and they will continue to enjoy good lives. Worse, most of the superdelegates probably have no sense that a decision to hand the nomination from Obama to Clinton would deplete their party. In their experience, no one actually leaves the big, warm tent, and certainly not over concerns like integrity, or fairness, or honesty. But, hey, I hope you're smarter than me.
You know, I thought something along these lines yesterday, when my New Yorker came with Hertzberg's piece in the Comment section mentioning how hard it is to find a strongly pro-Hillary voter. Um yeah, only if you run in very elite circles. I know quite a lot of passionately pro-Hillary voters, and they aren't crazy or deluded or even strongly anti-Obama -- they just like what she has to say, and feel strongly that she can deliver. If you don't know any of these people, I'd suggest you're swimming in an altogether too-elite pool.
People are forgetting the horrible economy in Ohio and much of PA (and the whole country, actually).
There aren't enough people who have the luxury of "hope" and "unity" (and it is a luxury)--many more millions of us need practical help from our govt, even if it is divisive and partisan--and Hillary is more likely to get it for us.
Speaking of expectations, the turnout at the Louisiana caucus is very low that team Obama are worried.
Louisiana had a primary.
...many more millions of us need practical help from our govt, even if it is divisive and partisan--and Hillary is more likely to get it for us.
I seriously doubt it's true that Hillary "is more likely to get" government help for us. But in her campaign she certainly places a lot more emphasis on government intervention in the economy on behalf of the non-wealthy than Obama does. I've wondered why Obama doesn't make this sort of shtick a bigger part of his stump speech, or a more prominent element of the content of his TV spots. But perhaps he doesn't want to fix what ain't broke. So far he's undeniably run an absolutely brilliant campaign. If he does lose out in the end to Hillary, he won't be able to say that a lot of people haven't warned him. This is a shitty economy right now, and a lot of people have warned him.
To base your vote or your argument on such is foolish.
You are misinterpreting what I said. I'm not basing my vote on it, I pretty clearly made a two-prong argument in favor of not assuming that Hillary will slaughter McCain in the general: 1) just because it would absofrickinlutely insane to elect McCain doesn't mean we won't do it; and 2) EVERYONE knows Hillary has a ceiling. Maybe she hasn't hit it yet. Maybe people will grow to like her more and like McCain less. But she doesn't have far to go before she runs into the group of people who say they would never vote for her under any circumstances. And everyone knows the MSM is far more accomodating of McCain than HRC.
If you want to make a counter-argument, then make it. I personally don't think there's anything whatsoever foolish about pointing these 2 fairly obvious things out.
Jasper,
I think the reason why Obama doesn't talk about government intervention is because of his race. The demonization of government programs worked in tandem with the southern strategy.
Obama does believe in government intervention. For example he wants to add $1 billion in funding for innovative transitional jobs and career pathway programs over five years. These programs help teenagers and ex-cons to work in job programs so that they can fully be integrated into the workforce.
I DO realize that February polls will not predict a November election. But it is not true that they are "meaningless", because we all know that Hillary has a ceiling...Be Careful, and learn the lessons of the past.
The lesson of the past is that moderate/centrist Democrats (or at least Democrats who can plausibly lay claim to the moderate/centrist brand) -- especially ones who can't be tagged as McGovernites on defense issues -- with southern roots -- can wreak havoc with the GOP's southern strategy en route to solid national victories. The lesson of the past is also that northern process liberals (McGovern, Dukakis, Kerry) get their clocks cleaned by the Republican attack machine, and have little success winning outside of the blue archipelago. Gore is harder to categorize, but in explicitly abandoning the Clinton brand, and by running as a progressive populist, he cast in his lot with the process liberals.
blindjoe- The general election campaign hasn't started yet. The current round of polling is about as relevant as polls from three months ago regarding Clinton and Obama. After four straight months of voters getting a good close look at both Clinton and McCain, those numbers would move a lot. The reality is that Clinton has very high negatives, but they are largely a result of people not being directly familiar with her (and with their having drunk the Fox Kool-Aid, knowingly or not). But she managed to win over upstate New York quite impressively, and with the kind of extensive coverage you get during a general election campaign, she'd end up winning over quite a few people, particularly Republican and Independent women. She's going to wipe the floor with McCain in each and every debate, and he's going to have to deal with the absolute toxic attitudes 70% of the country has towards the Republican party.
It's not 2004- it's 2006 and more.
The lesson of the past is that moderate/centrist Democrats (or at least Democrats who can plausibly lay claim to the moderate/centrist brand) -- especially ones who can't be tagged as McGovernites on defense issues -- with southern roots -- can wreak havoc with the GOP's southern strategy en route to solid national victories. The lesson of the past is also that northern process liberals...
The problem with this is that Hillary Clinton isn't viewed as possessing a moderate/centrist brand; she's perceived as a complete liberal. Beyond that, from her position as a Senator from New York, she's a lot more likely to be recognized in the general as that sort of "northern process liberal," at least far moreso than a midwestern senator who talks about his roots in Kansas as much as anything else. Outside of Arkansas, Hillary certainly isn't perceived as having southern roots, not anymore. That was largely Gore's problem, too. No one considered him a southerner by the time he ran for the presidency. And two terms in the White House followed by two terms in New York City erase that advantage for Clinton as well.
I seriously doubt it's true that Hillary "is more likely to get" government help for us. But in her campaign she certainly places a lot more emphasis on government intervention in the economy on behalf of the non-wealthy than Obama does.
There's no point in becoming President at all unless you want to use the Govt for one purpose or another, no? Obama has neglected this to his great detriment, especially since we haven't had a good economy or any job growth for years now. It's the most important part of the job--"What will you yourself do with this massive power that you alone will wield? and "What will you do for those of us who need help?"
I think at the very least, Obama is less likely to simply and personally use (or misuse) the massive power invested in him as Pres to do so, because he hasn't made it a priority at all, and keeps going on about a new kind of politics and not doing the same old thing, etc (and he hasn't used his time in Congress to do so, from what i can see). And his continued emphasis on "we", "unity", a "movement", etc, doesn't fit with the extraordinarily singular nature of the job either, i think. Plus, all his policies are weak, incremental, and totally status quo, further belying his "transformational" rhetoric. Clinton's policies are weak and incremental too, but they form the fundamental basis of why she wants to be president--to do these specific things for us. Compare and contrast. Obama's fundamental message is not at all even tangentially connected to the specific and practical things he himself will do for us.
Micheline, great thing by Sirota on that -- The Democrats' Class War -- http://action.credomobile.com/commentary/2008/02/the_democrats_class_war.html
"...Though Obama certainly is less industry-owned than Clinton, the Washington Post noted last spring that he was the top recipient of Wall Street contributions. That cash is hush money, contingent on candidates silencing their populist rhetoric.
But while this pressure to keep quiet affects all politicians, it is especially intense against black leaders.
"If Obama started talking like John Edwards and tapped into working-class, blue-collar proletarian rage, suddenly all of those white voters who are viewing him within the lens of transcendence would start seeing him differently," says Charles Ellison of the University of Denver's Center for African American Policy.
That's because once Obama parroted Edwards' attacks on greed and inequality, he would "be stigmatized as a candidate mobilizing race," says Manning Marable, a Columbia University history professor. ...
Remember, this is always how power-challenging African-Americans are marginalized. ..."
Amberglow, you're missing one (well, okay, you're missing a lot of) crucial thing here: Hillary Clinton can't "get" you what you want as if she's a salesperson in a grocery store. She actually has to convince members of Congress, even GOP members, that it's a good idea to go along with her policies. And she's not very good at persuading people who don't agree with her already. You may think that this is a small thing that can be easily overcome because HRC is so intelligent and knowledgeable, but people in Congress aren't moved to help you because of your intelligence and knowledge. They're moved to help you because you've convinced them that it's in their best interest to do so. You catch more flies with honey, and HRC doesn't have a lot of honey for the "right wing attack machine."
Also, you haven't done your homework on Obama's policies at all -- they're just as substantive, if not more, than HRC's. This point has been made over and over again. All of the Democratic candidates -- Obama, HRC, and Edwards when he was still in it -- had thought out lots of specifics of what they wanted to do. If you can't recognize that, we can't help you.
Are you predicting a Clinton win, because you are lowering expectations for Obama because you want to help Obama win? Or do you really think Clinton will win, because I don't see that happening? This is too "meta" for me.
Exactly, jbryan. She doesn't even *sound* like a Southerner.
Current polls are relevent. They gives us a pre-campaign basilene.
The rpe-campaignn baseleine is that Clinton loses to McCain and Obama can beat ot tie mcCain.
From that starting point think about how the respective campaigns will go. Obama has the ability to appeal outside the base. He has a grass roots structure in place to get those new voters or new Deomcrats to the polls. Obama gets fair media covrage and he doesn't inspire thhe rightwinng to vote against him. He can win by more than what the polls show.
Clinton is disliked by 48% of the voters and her disapproval ratings have not improved after almost year of campaigning. The media hates her. She has no abiity to attract new voters or independents. Shhe is relying on the party structure to turn out the base and we know from the Gore and Kerry races how well that owrks.. Since she is starting from behind it is far more logical to assume that she will stay behind and lose then to assume that all the forces against her will suddenly disappear and she will (a miracle!)win.
Some Hillary supports sneer that that Obama is albout hope and has no substance. And yet it is thhe Hillary supporters who are depending on nothing but hope to get their candidate into office. Obama, on the otherr hand is very, very smart about politics annd is building a base for a bigger Deomcrtaic party that can elect him annd have coattails for othher Demos too.
aND i SUCK AT TYPING.
far too many democrats are working under the assumption that support for obama is strictly democratic support. a good section of his support is from independents; i've been registered with the green party for years, but i am supporting obama. i cannot speak for all of us, but i will not support a clinton candidacy. i refuse to continue voting my fears, and for me, a clinton vote is a vote for more of the same.
Amberglow,
And his continued emphasis on "we", "unity", a "movement", etc, doesn't fit with the extraordinarily singular nature of the job either, i think.
That's really not true. Being president and enacting policies is NOT a singular job in any sense. To enact policies, you need the support of legislators (and, frankly, lots of other powerbrokers even outside of Congress). This is what Obama has emphasized: that regular Americans can enact change by getting more involved in politics and by organizing. This makes sense as this was the big bulk of Obama's prepolitical career.
It's easy to dismiss this as with the typical snide kumbaya schtick, but if he's able to deliver on what he's promising here, it offers some really powerful opportunities. So far, even in this campaign alone, he's shown an exemplary ability to organize -- if he turns that organizational skill into a party building apparatus (as rural Nevada Dem leaders indicated he did in their state) to help get more Democrats elected (whether to local, state, or federal offices), that's a huge boon to our priorities; if he uses it to galvanize people into pressuring their representatives to take action on key priorities, that, too, is going to have a big positive impact. Most presidents come with a bully pulpit that allows them to push for change; Obama's rhetoric and history indicates he'll take a new (and possibly much more effective) tack at that idea.
If you think the idea of unifying the people around his priorities isn't something that falls to a president to do (this is what I believe is typically referred to as "leadership"), then I'm sorry, but I simply disagree.
Further: Plus, all his policies are weak, incremental, and totally status quo...
Some are. Most of his policies, however, aren't. His health care plan certainly isn't. People can bleat and moan all they like about the lack of mandates, but the fact is that none of the Democratic health care plans put forth are weak or incremental or status quo -- they'd all represent a huge change for the public. Many of his other policies are significantly bolder.
Laura: "Obama, on the other hand is very, very smart about politics annd is building a base for a bigger Deomcrtaic party that can elect him annd have coattails for othher Demos too."
That is very appealing, the question thus becomes, is this true? This country has not shown a whole lotta love for liberals and Dems for several decades. 50.1 percent seems to be the limit. The question is, once Obama is the nominee, does the entire dynamic change, or is he viewed as just another Dem?
I'm neither an Obama or HRC supporter, and am not a member of either party.
I voted for McCain in the 2000 Virginia primary, but never again, somewhat because of his stance on the present war, but primarily due to his response when the Bush/Cheney campaign in 2000 slandered and maligned him in South Carolina and beyond. His basic response-'thank you sir, may I have another'. To be honest, I lost what respect I had for the man.
I am not enamored of Obama, and do not get why so many find him 'inspirational'. But I do respect him for his early opposition to the war. It's tipped the scales in his favor.
As for HRC, 90% I will vote third party of she is the nominee. Here are the reasons why it will be very difficult for me to vote for HRC:
--she did not oppose the war, but tried to rationalize her vote by shoving all the blame on Bush. (She had no power of independent judgment?)
--she supported Kyl/Lieberman, which essentially is the extension of the Bush doctrine into Iran.
--she is a leader in a dem controlled Congress that has caved in and kowtowed to Bush on every significant issue.
--she has yet to publicly condemn Bush for his unlawful expansion of executive branch powers. Nor has she led a fight to end his administration's spying on US citizens without a warrant.
--if she is elected, and were to be re-elected, there will have been a Bush or Clinton in the White House from 1989-2016. This is not healthy for a democracy. While it ranks last among my concerns, this is a legitimate issue.
"Like the bogus Joe Klein trash you pimped yesterday?"
AAAHHHHH! You're calling Matt a WHORE!
You must be BANNED!
You must be FLOGGED!
You must be put in STRAPPADO!
Andruw:
Laura: "Obama, on the other hand is very, very smart about politics annd is building a base for a bigger Deomcrtaic party that can elect him annd have coattails for othher Demos too."
That is very appealing, the question thus becomes, is this true?
I think one of the best posts on this topic was done by hilzoy at Obsidian Wings. See here. To my mind it goes pretty far to answering the question in the affirmative. If he continues efforts like this, Obama can go a long, long way towards helping to build a stronger party infrastructure across all 50 states and in many places where the party has largely completely conceded.
Matt - in earlier days: "Rather than right a whole long post about it, I just thought I'd like to go on record early as saying I think John Edwards is probably going to win the nomination."
So, Matt, now you're a "flip-flopper". eh? (And one that doesn't know the different between "write" and "right".)
Gonna vote for McCain next?
Meanwhile, after today's "clean sweep for Obama" as the HuffPo puts it, Matt is sitting in front of the computer going, "Shit! It's Iraq all over again! I'm wrong AGAIN!"
...Hillary Clinton can't "get" you what you want as if she's a salesperson in a grocery store. She actually has to convince members of Congress, even GOP members, that it's a good idea to go along with her policies. And she's not very good at persuading people who don't agree with her already.... They're moved to help you because you've convinced them that it's in their best interest to do so. You catch more flies with honey, and HRC doesn't have a lot of honey for the "right wing attack machine."
Also, you haven't done your homework on Obama's policies at all -- they're just as substantive, if not more, than HRC's. ...
I see no evidence that Obama is good at persuading other officials to do things at all. Show me the concrete accomplishments, and show me how he plans on using us to stop the GOP's obstruction or Pelosi/Reid's spinelessness.
The stuff about "their best interests" is exactly what i mean when i speak of Hillary's concrete promises and emphasis on those practical things. It's about how all candidates serve our best interests. And sitting politicians have best interests too--we're not their priority--their donors, and businesses in their district are.
I said they both were weak and incremental policywise--i said nothing about substance except that for such soaring rhetoric Obama's substance should be far bolder. Neither of them are offering anything more than baby steps--even in healthcare. Bold would be cutting health insurers out totally and going to Medicare for all.
...That's really not true. Being president and enacting policies is NOT a singular job in any sense. To enact policies, you need the support of legislators (and, frankly, lots of other powerbrokers even outside of Congress). This is what Obama has emphasized: that regular Americans can enact change by getting more involved in politics and by organizing. This makes sense as this was the big bulk of Obama's prepolitical career.
It's easy to dismiss this as with the typical snide kumbaya schtick, but if he's able to deliver on what he's promising here, it offers some really powerful opportunities. ...
Regular Americans have been involved since 2000, and most definitely have failed in persuading Congress to stop any of Bush's horrors. From the millions screaming not to invade Iraq to Judges to Torture to Spying on us, etc... Americans already are involved--and Obama has never ever called for people to lobby their Congresspeople or anything of the sort, which kinda proves my point about his priorities--he never connects his "change" with concrete action--except in terms of voting for him and working for him in the election alone.
There's no way Obama can accomplish the "if" given the current leadership and rank-and-file in Congress--who really have seats for life nowadays. And the GOP will be obstructing everything just as they do now. "If" is not good enough. (they're bragging now about not giving kids healthcare-- http://thinkprogress.org/2008/02/09/blunt-brags-about-blocking-health-care-for-more-kids/)
And there are always tons of "if"s whenever anyone speaks of Obama--why is that?
I see a weakness in the Hillary campaign. Its not the same machine that got Bill elected twice. They arent very good at responding to bad news or to attacks by opponents. The most recent example is the news that Obama is more electable against McCain than she is (according to new polls). There should have been a response to that (that Gore, Kerry, Dukakis... lead too; that Obama lead in New Hampshire, California...; that Obama has been getting great press and no attacks from the GOP, etc....) to point out that polls this early dont mean much - but I didnt hear anything from them about it. That tells me that theyre not clued in about what is moving voters.
They also overreacted after the debate where Hillary screwed up the drivers licenses question. And then after she lost Iowa they went negative in a way that left their fingerprints on all the attacks. Hillary got shrill. Her 'slum lord' remark was the low point. That doesnt mean you dont fight back, but the tone from them comes off as too nasty. She finally really found her voice, not in New Hampshire as she suggested, but at the California debate. She was strong, but likable. Thats the kind of Hillary that could win. But I have to wonder if they even know thats how they need to campaign from here on.
I think all this suggests that even if she is the nominee that she may not be as good a candidate as people think. Obama has major weaknesses too. I just can not imagine older white democrats or the kind of guys that carry lunch buckets to work voting for Obama over McCain. It seems to me he's doing well by just winning caucuses with all black votes and upper class liberals. That is not a winning general election coaliton. I think he's much much weaker than his delegate count suggests.
This is what Obama has emphasized: that regular Americans can enact change by getting more involved in politics and by organizing.
And at the very same time he wants more people involved and that's somehow going to "enact change", he's saying the current system is broken and mired in the past, and that both sides are too partisan, and that the battles of the past are tired and hurt the country... There's a gaping contradiction and disconnect there, besides the denigration of the very system he wants people to engage in.
What are these people supposed to be enacting beyond his election exactly? How will they "enact change" if he's president as opposed to someone else? And why doesn't he speak of it? Why is that "organizing" purely to get him in the WH? And why isn't it about what he'll do once the power is given to him by us? Americans don't elect Presidents so that we'll do things themselves. JFK asked what we could do for our country, but once in office, had to do things himself. He had to take charge and responsibility--as all presidents do. We're not there, and we're not the ones we selected to be there. We pick presidents so that they will do things, not to have us do things.
And there are always tons of "if"s whenever anyone speaks of Obama--why is that?
Because we don't pretend to be able to see into the future?
Note that I've also couched my "ifs" in the midst of "he has done X" and "he's currently doing Y," but that's been conveniently ignored. He has worked as an organizer; he has worked to set up strong organizations and support structures for the party as part of his campaign; he has campaigned relentlessly for other Democratic officials and would-be office holders -- look at his efforts in 2005 and 2006 getting other Democrats elected, which is why a large chunk of his superdelegate endorsements have come from that class (Tim Kaine, Paul Hodes, Carol Shea-Porter, John Yarmuth, Ed Perlmutter, Chris Murphy, Chet Culver, Hank Johnson, Deval Patrick, Tim Walz, Claire McCaskill, Peter Welch...).
jbryan
Obama's organization exists outside of the Democratic Party. In many cases, the local party organization is working for his opponent. Obama's foot soldiers are being mobilized to elect Obama not invigorated the Democratic party or drive an issue. From what I ever read about the campaign's organizer training it is very Obama-centric, stressing personal stories about why they support him not policies or Democratic values.
Obama may turn his organization into something like DFA after the campaign or his followers may become party stalwarts but for now your comment on organizing is a gross overstatement.
Agree with your point on his campaigning for other Dems. He even did this in 2004 in the midst of his Senate walkover against Keyes.
I voted for Obama on 2/5, but I'm not an Obama cultist. I'll tell you this: It will be easier to get a black elected than a woman, all else being equal. Sexism runs far deeper and wider than racism. What's more, racism gets called out more quickly, making it all the easier for Republicans to play the gender card. Making this election a feminist cause celebre is about the stupidest thing we could do and live to regret.
Posted by bob | February 9, 2008 3:34 PM
Interestingly "bob" has posted the same thing on the three liberal blogs I have visited in the past hour. You would almost think he was trying to put out a meme that was unfavorable for Clinton. Maybe "he" will except the designation of banal partisan.
54 fighting,
I don't really agree that the organizations he's setting up aren't to the benefit of local Democrats. It's hard to say to what extent that will continue to be true in the future, but for what it's worth, the people in Nevada interviewed for the piece in the story I linked to earlier seem to believe that Obama's efforts will be incredibly helpful to them:
"For state Democratic Party leaders, the challenge is to build on the work of Obama's campaign, as well as the efforts of organizers such as Trigg from the state party that threw together a caucus in places where, in some cases, there had been almost no party at all. This year, five rural counties that had been dormant will hold party conventions, Trigg said.
That's good news for people such as Jill Derby.
When the chairwoman of the Nevada Democratic Party ran for Nevada's second congressional district in 2006, she often found herself struggling to throw together barbecues and town hall meetings in out-of-the-way counties where there were no Democratic supporters to call on.
Today, the party is "organized out in the rurals down to the precinct level in a way that we haven't been in the past," Derby said. "This is going to be a very big lift" for Democrats in future elections."
Now, I guess one could strain to assume the worst: that none of this organizational effort will be deployed to help local Democrats win office. But that's not what these people think; it's not what the evidence suggests, given how strenuously he worked to get Dems elected in 2005 and 2006; and it isn't what his rhetoric in the current campaign suggests. Isn't he going to want to get people like Derby into the House or Senate so that he can enact his agenda?
what you said, jbryan--there's no issue other than electing Obama.
I'm watching him now, and he's actually giving a laundry list speech, a la Clinton--but none of things he says he will do are bold or even new (tax cuts for working families?), and they are all just as dependent on the very system he is denigrating, too. No calls to action on anything--except voting for him. And he's doing that same misdefinition of "hope" w/Revolution, Civil War, WW2, Civil rights, etc (they were fights--bloody, thoroughly partisan and divisive, non-unifying, enduring scar-inducing fights).
"We will transform this country and the world" if they vote for him is how he ends.
oops--i meant what 54fighting said.
Yes, Hillary has some enthusiastic supporters, who remind one more and more of the Bush cultists.
Supporters who don't care that she was a Goldwater Girl who canvassed Chicago precincts looking for "Democratic voter fraud".
Supporters who don't care that she talks about 35 years of service, yet can't point to one single initiative that has come out of that service.
Supporters who claim she has the experience Obama does not, when if he becomes President, he will have served 12 years in elected office while she will have served eight.
Supporters who don't care she voted for the Iraq war, voted against the Levin amendment which would have forestalled the war.
Then demonstrating 3000+ dead Americans, 100,000 dead Iraqis and 3/4 of a trillion dollars squandered in no way contributed to a learning curve, she voted YES on the Kyl-Lieberman Iran Resolution, when the names alone on it would have been warning enough for any real progressive.
Bottom line: Her supporters will end up voting for Obama if he is the nominee, for they obviously aren't too diligent when it comes to specifics or the consequences of ill-informed decisions.
Meanwhile, lifelong Democrats such as myself, who have never voted anything other than Democrat, will never vote for someone who attempts to co-opt the "change" mantra...and then, in her most shameless chutzpah yet, gives a speech this week in Virginia and declares that Obama will not offer healthcare for everyone, but when she is asked, she says, "Yes We Can".
She dares to try and co-opt that phrase in a week where the Obama/Will I. Am "Yes We Can" video receives a million views a day over the past week?
She is the most soul-less, calculating, maniacal, twisted android to ever cross the political horizon. She needs to quit stealing Obama's vision and simply advertise her raison d'etre, "By Any Means Necessary".
It's hard to believe, when all is said and done, the DNC will allow the Party to go on a chromosome-driven Joan of Arc suicide march with the forlorn put-upon spouse of Bill Clinton.
Look up George Sores. Find out who he is and how he is buying Obama and your party. He has Billions and wants to change America. He is a communist and is evil. Find out where all the money is coming from and where your party will take us. We will be repeating history! Wanting something from the government- to take care of us- our freedom will be taken away over time and it may not take many years with Sores! What has Obama done to run anything. He is the most liberal Senator we have- and sometimes he does not even vote. And Hillary is no diffent- she can not control her own husband - how stupid are we? Look up George Sores!
That, I think, will seal it for her as the anti-Obama backlash brewing in the press hits full stride...
I don't know about your other predictions, but this one is solid. It's a-coming.
She dares to try and co-opt that phrase in a week where the Obama/Will I. Am "Yes We Can" video receives a million views a day over the past week?
Like Obama co-opted "Yes We Can" itself and stole it from that union?
Like Obama has consistently waited for all the other candidates to put forth detailed proposals first--on healthcare, economics, etc--before releasing his own?
They both are very flawed and weak candidates.
Obama will have big problems in the general election. So far, he has won democratic primaries in Red States (which the Republicans will definitely win in November) or he has won CAUCUSES where only a handful of people vote (like only 20,000 in Idaho and 400 in Alaska). It is easy to manipulate caucuses just by setting up "grassroots" operations months before (like the Obama people did) and by working on the few precinct captains by "inspiring" them.
Meanwhile, he has lost all the traditionally big blue Dem states like California, NY, MA, NJ etc. where the DEM rank and file have gone heavily for Clinton.
What do I think will happen in November if Obama is the nominee? He'll lose the traditionally RED STATES, which he won in the primaries, most of the mid-Western and mountain states and, the BIG FEAR is that he will lose the traditionally DEM BLUE STATES as well. Don't forget that McCain has major support among Latinos, so they could easily switch from Clinton to McCain in November.
Another fear is that because of the "arrogance" of the Obama camp, a lot of Hillary's supporters are getting turned off in a major way. It would not be surprising if many of Clinton's supporters decide to stay home or vote for McCain come November. We have a completely fractured DEM electorate at this point.
Could be a landslide victory for McCain, the "polls" notwithstanding.
jbryan
Do you always become a defensive twit when someone points out your errors?
Your initial statment "he has worked to set up strong organizations and support structures for the party as part of his campaign."
My initial critique: Obama's organization exists outside of the Democratic Party. In many cases, the local party organization is working for his opponent. Obama's foot soldiers are being mobilized to elect Obama not invigorated the Democratic party or drive an issue. From what I ever(sic)read about the campaign's organizer training it is very Obama-centric, stressing personal stories about why they support him not policies or Democratic values.
Obama may turn his organization into something like DFA after the campaign or his followers may become party stalwarts but for now your comment on organizing is a gross overstatement
Your response: I don't really agree that the organizations he's setting up aren't to the benefit of local Democrats.
Who don't you agree with? Certainly not me since I wrote no such thing. If you read again carefully you will see I acknowledge the very possibility that the Obama organizing may benefit the party in the future while insisting your current claim was a gross overstatement at present.
The link you provided above and referenced in your response supports my initial critique.
While Clinton nabbed the backing of traditional Democratic Party leaders, Obama went outside that apparatus, reaching into parts of the state where in the past Democrats had often feared to tread.
You engaged in hyperbole and were called on it. Instead of admitting you were wrong you have now been reduced to rebutting an argument I did not make. You are pretending I objected to your 11:02 pm post referencing a hilzoy post at Obsidian Wings which is obviously untrue.
The entirety of your follow up comment reveals you to be either confused by simple statements, unable to differentiate between your multiple posts or a disingenuous asshat. Whatever the case may be, I would suggest avoiding hyperbole and making points that your own links do not refute in order to avoid the temptation to resort to douchebaggery in the future.
We both would have been better off if you had admitted to an overstatement or did not respond.
I agree with "Kris" above... where's the "Obama Backlash"... hello? Haven't seen that building. Is that just your wishful thinking Matt? Let me go.. "on the record" myself and say... that we, the voters, would love it if you, the press, would save your opinions and just report.
I agree with "Kris" above... where's the "Obama Backlash"... hello? Haven't seen that building. Is that just your wishful thinking Matt? Let me go.. "on the record" myself and say... that we, the voters, would love it if you, the press, would save your opinions and just report.
As the late great Senator from New York Daniel Patrick Moynihan used to say "Everyone is entitled to their opinion but they are not entitled to their own set of facts"
The facts are Hillary won every big important blue state. Many of the same states MCain won in the Republican party primary. She wins the "Reagan Democrats" blue collar workers and the middle class. Yes middle class suburban woman.
If Obama gets the nomination Republicans will rip him apart. He's had a free media ride because the media gushes over the cult hero. The Republicans will paint him as a lefty. Hillary's vote on Iraq and Iran will actually help her against McCain. She is the centerist. She is a Commander-in Chief"
Obama is selling sizzle. Hillary is selling the steak.
This is the most ridiculous statement I have ever hard. First, you guys said youths are apathetic and disillusion; and now, you're calling them member of a cult. This is irresponsible journalism at his best. Thank God for internet; if journalist won’t report the news “We” the people will find our information else where.
By the way, your prediction in Texas and Ohio will be wrong again. The same old CW will be put to shame one more time.
As the late great Senator from New York Daniel Patrick Moynihan used to say "Everyone is entitled to their opinion but they are not entitled to their own set of facts"
The facts are Hillary won every big important b lue state. Many of the same states MCain won in the Republican party primary. She wins the "Reagan Democrats" blue collar workers and the middle class. Yes middle class suburban woman.
If Obama gets the nomination Republicans will rip him apart. He's had a free media ride because the media gushes over the cult hero. The Republicans will paint him as a lefty. Hillary's vote on Iraq and Iran will actually help her against McCain. She is the centerist. She is a Commander-in Chief"
Obama is selling sizzle. Hillary is selling the steak.
I realize Hillary Clinton machine are counting NY as a heavy win. For Christ sake, do we expect Hillary Clinton to loose her home state of NY? Now i know why so many of Hillary Clinton supporters are on cool aid. It is like saying Obama win the state of Illinois. What else should he have won? Hillary wining state of NY is like Obama wining state of Illinois.
Any agument that count state of NY as a big win is ridiculous in my opinion. The argunment is shallow indeed.
Hillary by more than a nose!
My daughter will be so proud.
Huillary is going to clean house in TX, OH and PA...and the press is going to look as dumb as they did after NH, NV, and Super Tuesday. And if it's Hillary vs McCain, McCain is going to get beat up with his own walker. McCain is a tired old man, and Hillary will mop the floor with his tired ass.
BYE BYE GOP...nice knowing you.
Go ahead. You Billiary's put Clinton in. Then watch the continuing saga of shananigans begin.
I predict there will be major chaos and riots in every major city across the USA if Clinton wins the nomination by way of "Super Delegates".
Pretty scary, isn't it?
By the way, I am voting for Clinton.
I predict there will be major chaos and riots in every major city across the USA if Clinton wins the nomination by way of "Super Delegates".
Pretty scary, isn't it?
By the way, I am voting for Clinton.
We are probably a bit older than most of you, but that can be a good thing when making decisions like this. We just want to say that no matter who gets in...our country is in a real mess...we need to face that. The next president cannot be expected to undo the terrible state of our country even in 2 terms. Georgie has really botched it up good, guys!
Our family is half republican and half Democratic and we are all going to vote for Hillary Clinton. Many reasons mostly because we need some real substance in the Whitehouse now, not just another one of Oprah Winfrey's dreams like an oscar for Jamie fox and Halle Berry. This is the life of our country we are talking about. We dont have time for sulking little boys.
Not sure if anyone has been watching the subtleties, but we have. After all Hillary has done for this counrty over 35 years she has taken her losses in this campaign like a true and dignified worthy candidate for the presidency of the United States of America. When Obama faced his first big loss, he stalked off with a disgusted twisted mouth...looking anything but presidential. We were embarrassed for him. Now you may think that that is minor..but guys...our President will have to take many losses and many "no's" during her/his terms...we need a grown up..not a little boy who is tended so often by his (more mother than wife), and a rich dowager like Winfrey who only cares about "buying" what she wants.
I'll take the candidate that walked out the door disaapoined yet gave a classy smile and stood and hugged all those who wanted to wish her well. And I am old enough to remember that the last time we had a balanced budget and most Americans could afford to eat was when Bill Clinton was in the Whithouse. Mrs. Clinton learned much during those years, we need that experience now. I also am dissapointed that some of the very people whom she has served for so many years and who have always hailed her (and Bill) for thier concern for the poor and the children etc...now will go with someone new just because. Thanks of listening..I have enjoyed your views as well.
One more thought today..if we are gonna talk in terms of wine and beer...let's just consider Obama "near beer"...he has a ways to go.
Hillary has 100 percent no chance at winning Hawaii. Us Hawaiian's stay true to our locals!
Plus, he's a brilliant person. Hillary has failed in Health Care, and the Iraq war. That's just some to name... let's not talk about her Wal Mart years... and she had the nerve to blame Obama on rezko (do factcheck.) Hillary is friends with Rezko, and her co-chair the mayor of Los Angeles has taken money from Rezko. She didn't even vote in D.C. for one of the hardest national security bills, while Obama and McCain did.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BWa2VwROj6M
I've enjoyed reading all of your responses. I predict that Hillary Clinton will win the Democratic nomination. She is definitely the best qualified candidate. And when you are running for a job as important as President of the United States of America, I believe that your experience, qualifications, and plans for the future are absolutely essential. I think it's easy for a relative newcomer like Barack Obama to throw out words like change, hope and unity to millions of Americans who he knows are tired, worn out and feeling desperate about our country. And especially to the youth of our country who get behind him because they haven't yet come to know just how serious the situation is. Many of them don't have children yet. They don't own homes yet. But change is just a word if you don't have the experience to make the changes happen. Hillary has given voters not just a list of what is wrong with this government and country but very detailed and specific plans meant to help everyone. She wants to help those who feel like their world is falling apart. She offers them plans for a renewed economy, creation of new jobs, universal health care for everyone with no one being left out, ideas for solving problems with our education system, and ending the war in Iraq. She is very focused and really cares about people. This is the first election where I believe a candidate has been so specific. I've learned more from listening to Hillary Clinton in 3 or 4 months than I have from 8 years of G.W. Bush. I know she will be a president who will give it her all and I can't wait to vote for her.
Everyone thinks that Hillary cannot win. My grandma who is a life long republican is going to vote for her. There are going to be lots of people voting that did not before. Also a lot of republicans could care less about john McCain they think he is a democrat in disguise so they will stay home and not vote at all which will help hillary.
Everyone thinks that Hillary cannot win. My grandma who is a life long republican is going to vote for her. There are going to be lots of people voting that did not before. Also a lot of republicans could care less about john McCain they think he is a democrat in disguise so they will stay home and not vote at all which will help hillary.
Everyone thinks that Hillary cannot win. My grandma who is a life long republican is going to vote for her. There are going to be lots of people voting that did not before. Also a lot of republicans could care less about john McCain they think he is a democrat in disguise so they will stay home and not vote at all which will help hillary.
Of course, a big bomb could fall somewhere- and the election could be postponed;
or a third party candidate or two could decide to run;
or someone could die of old age;
or be hit by a bus.
Who the hell knows what might happen with Bush as president for another 11 months (accidents happen...)
Isn't there going to be a white house wedding?
Is something else going to happen in the middle east- or africa?
Will Cheney's heart survive? (new VP prior to the convention! maybe someone charismatic!)
The big picture sucks.
You don't know what will happen.
and one more thing:
those "working class" voters- that so many of you refer to-
you mean the vast majority of Americans? And most of the people who are commenting on blogs?
(unless everyone here is living on trust funds and stock dividends?)
- and do you believe that "working class" and "college educated" are mutually exclusive?
Hillary is still in this thing and she will prevail. Obama is the insurgent and he has to carry the burden across the finish line, which he can't do. Interestingly, I saw a placard at the Obama rally in Houston. The placard read, "Republicans for Obama". Why would a Republican vote for Obama? Why? He wants to raise taxes everywhere and his foreign policy ideas are anathema to the GOP. Those must be very strange Republicans, indeed. Anyway, Hillary is the traditional Democrat and the nomination is hers.
Jerseydevil
February 20, 2008
I too think the idea should be to get a canadate that can beat John McCain, to me at this point that isnt Obama. I have spoken with many Republicans and they are voting for HIllary just cause they dont want Obama to even make it to the Gen Election. Then they go on to say if Obama gets the nomination they will most absolutely vote for McCain. I too will more than likely vote for McCain if Obama gets the nomination and I am a life long Dem and would vote for Hillary for sure. I really think they are just dividing the country farther, one of them should have dropped out already for the sake of the party. The Gen election is just gonna leave 2/3rd's of the american public pissed instead of the usual near 1/2 that we had when G.W. was elected the first time.
Looking at the Democratic Nomination race is interesting, fascinating and very encouraging. It is so interesting because of the competition between two excellent candidates. It is fascinating becuase the longer it goes on the more inroads Obama makes into what was considered save Clinton territory and it is very encouraging becuase of the records numbers who are voting.
My prediction is that the momentum is with Obama, he will win Ohio, Texas and if necessary Pennsylvania. In particular I reckon that he will do very well with the Hispanic vote in Texas, the composition of which is very different to California. Hillary should concede after the Ohio and Texas votes and Obama will defeat McCain with a united Democratic Party behind him. Florida and Michigan nor the supeerdelegates will not come into play.
Donal McAuliffe, Dublin, Ireland
Looking at the Democratic Nomination race is interesting, fascinating and very encouraging. It is so interesting because of the competition between two excellent candidates. It is fascinating becuase the longer it goes on the more inroads Obama makes into what was considered save Clinton territory and it is very encouraging becuase of the records numbers who are voting.
My prediction is that the momentum is with Obama, he will win Ohio, Texas and if necessary Pennsylvania. In particular I reckon that he will do very well with the Hispanic vote in Texas, the composition of which is very different to California. Hillary should concede after the Ohio and Texas votes and Obama will defeat McCain with a united Democratic Party behind him. Florida and Michigan nor the supeerdelegates will not come into play.
Donal McAuliffe, Dublin, Ireland
Comments closed February 23, 2008.
| 
Heads in the Sand
I'll go ahead and predict John McCain then wins the general election. Probably without breaking a sweat.
Posted by Jeff | February 9, 2008 10:35 AM