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.
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