In Play

Harold Ickes says of states Obama's won:

“Most of those states haven’t voted Democratic in a presidential since the Johnson landslide over Goldwater in 1964, and we don’t see that changing,” said Harold Ickes, a senior adviser to Mrs. Clinton. “They’re great states, but Idaho, Nebraska and the Carolinas are not going to be in the Democratic column in November. He’s winning the Democratic process, but that is virtually irrelevant to the general election.”

The converse of this, however, is that Clinton's delegate count is heavily dependent on states like California, New York, and Massachusetts that aren't in play either. Meanwhile, though they've traditionally gone Republican in presidential elections, I don't think it's beyond imagining that Barack Obama could put some of these north plains states -- the Dakotas, Montana, maybe even Kansas or Nebraska -- into play. There are plenty of Democratic senators from this part of the country many of whom are pretty orthodox liberals. Similarly, border states like Virginia and Missouri that Obama's carried in the primaries aren't out of reach in the general election any more than Colorado is and there's at least some reason to think Clinton would put some marginal blue states (Washington, Oregon, Wisconsin, Minnesota) in play for McCain.

Now what's true is that Ohio was the decisive state in 2004 and Clinton would probably be the stronger candidate for Ohio. There's not, however, much more to the Clinton argument than that. The whole thing about Clinton winning the states that matter or the "big states" just amounts to Ohio. Which is fine as far as it goes, and certainly leads me to believe that if Clinton does wrest the nomination away from Obama she'll probably win on a Clinton-Strickland ticket. I just think Obama would probably win too (especially if Clinton can somehow be persuaded to drop out after Pennsylvania thus letting Obama turn his cash and rhetoric against McCain), except with a larger number of states and more Democratic Senators.

Comments

I think it's clear Clinton would be the stronger candidate for Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Florida. I think Obama would be the better candidate everywhere else and the better President. Easier to know who to support.

Posted by right | March 12, 2008 5:45 PM

"Now what's true is that Ohio was the decisive state in 2004 and Clinton would probably be the stronger candidate for Ohio. There's not, however, much more to the Clinton argument than that."

If you're willing to ignore PA, MI, and FL, as well as OH, sure. What you're saying makes perfect sense.

Posted by Petey | March 12, 2008 5:46 PM

I think you are over-emphasizing the swingedness of states like Wisconsin. Governor Doyle recently defeated a House Republican who was a big time Bush supporter. Think McCain light. And Doyle wasn't particularly loved in Wisconsin. I think Wisconsin is solidly blue this time around, and it wouldn't surprise me if Minnesota ends up that way too.

Posted by freddiemac | March 12, 2008 5:47 PM

He’s winning the Democratic process, but that is virtually irrelevant to the general election.”

1. How great is He’s winning the Democratic process? Bet Wolfson's going to want that one back at some point.

2. Is virtually irrelevant to the general election meant as an argument against primaries, entirely? Cripes, if we're back to smoke-filled rooms as best, it would be nice if someone could say so.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | March 12, 2008 5:48 PM

Ickes appears to be saying that the entire nominating process is a waste of time. All the Dems in the red states have no business intruding on the process of nominating a candidate. Their views don't count, because the demands of the electoral college trump democracy.

Posted by bloix | March 12, 2008 5:50 PM

It is incoherent to argue that how Barrack does against Hillary in a primary in any given state has any bearing on how he will do in November against McCain. Apples vs. oranges and all that.

The HRC campaign tried to make her trip with Chelsea, Sinbad and Sheryl Crow sound like the Yalta conference or the Camp David Accords, only with extra danger.

Don't expect deep thoughts in the service of their spin.

Posted by Ba'al | March 12, 2008 5:51 PM

If you're willing to ignore PA, MI, and FL, as well as OH, sure.

Didn't "undeclared" pants HRC in MI?

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | March 12, 2008 5:52 PM

Yeah, as Petey said you have to include Pennsylvania and Florida in addition to Ohio, although re-polls have shown Obama up in Michigan, so I wouldn't toss that in.

But the thing is, maybe I'm naive, but swing states really only come into play in a 51-49 election, swing state strategy really only matters to Hillary, who already has 50% negative approval ratings across the country. Obama has a better shot at a 55-45 situation where he could lose Ohio and Pennsylvania but pick up the mountain west, the midwest, and Virgina.

Posted by How Insane Is John McCain? | March 12, 2008 5:52 PM

If you're willing to ignore PA, MI, and FL...

Could you at least wait until PA votes? And while I agree that Clinton is probably the stronger of the two in MI and FL, it's tough to say by how much what with the messed up nature of the two states' primaries.

Posted by daveNYC | March 12, 2008 5:52 PM

If you're willing to ignore PA, MI, and FL, as well as OH, sure.

It's entirely unclear that Clinton could beat Obama in Michigan.

Posted by right | March 12, 2008 5:52 PM

It is incoherent to argue that how Barrack does against Hillary in a primary in any given state has any bearing on how he will do in November against McCain. Apples vs. oranges and all that.

The HRC campaign tried to make her trip with Chelsea, Sinbad and Sheryl Crow sound like the Yalta conference or the Camp David Accords, only with extra danger.

Don't expect deep thoughts in the service of their spin.

Posted by Ba'al | March 12, 2008 5:53 PM

Does anyone have a case that Clinton would *not* have a better chance of taking FL, OH, and PA in November?

Posted by Anderson | March 12, 2008 5:54 PM

You are way to kind to Clinton. If she had managed a wire to wire victory that avoided destroying the Democratic party, she might - might - have beaten McCain. As it is, if she somehow gets the nomination, the only question is whether she loses all 50 states, or only 48. Well, no, the other question is whether her noxious effect on the down ticket races merely means no gains but no losses for the Dems, or whether she can manage to cause the Republicans to win back the House and Senate.

Posted by LarryM | March 12, 2008 5:54 PM

Seriously, though, Tim is correct, this latest statement was a major (or minor, at least) mistake; the last couple of days have shown increasing desperation on the part of the Clinton campaign. Like the Soviet Union, the whole nasty mess may fall apart much sooner than we thought.

Posted by LarryM | March 12, 2008 5:58 PM

Ickes' statement is demonstrably false. Obama has won 27 states, including D.C. Eleven (WA, ME, VT, CT, MD, VA, DC, IL, WI, MN, HI) went Democratic in 2004. A twelfth (IA) went Democratic in 2000. Two more (MO and LA) went Democratic in 1996. That makes 14, or "most" of 27, and you only have to go back to 1996, not 1964. What the heck? Let's keep going: two more (CO and GA) went Democratic in 1992 (so did MT, which Obama will probably win).

What are the chances the press will debunk this demonstrably false assertion by Ickes?

When is someone in the press going to point out that Obama has won NEARLY TWICE AS MANY 2004 blue states as Clinton (11 to 6)?

Posted by Brian | March 12, 2008 5:58 PM

petey,
jesse jackson won michigan. they have no jobs. they'd vote for anybody instead of a republican. unless kwame kilpatrick has poisoned the well too much.

Posted by jay | March 12, 2008 5:58 PM

Part of the problem could be the use of the caucus rather than primaries, so that the vote in some states is not a clear indicator. I hope that either candidate could win, but McCain will not be beaten all that easily.

Will voters go along with Obama on withdrawing from Iraq? The polls say yes, but I sometimes wonder.

Posted by Jennifer | March 12, 2008 5:59 PM

They’re great states, but Idaho, Nebraska and the Carolinas are not going to be in the Democratic column in November.

He forgot to add "if Hillary is the nominee."

Posted by Seitz | March 12, 2008 5:59 PM

First, Missouri and Virginia certainly are more "out of reach" than Colorado for Obama -- the former two would be toss-ups (I suspect Obama would be the slight favorite in Virginia, and the slight underdog in Missouri), but he would be the strong favorite in Colorado. I believe he's up by almost 10 points in the SUSA polls, which isn't hard to believe -- Kerry really didn't even campaign here, and he only lost by 5. Lots of young, well-educated white people in the Front Range, and that counts for 80% of the state's population.

Second, Petey wrote: "If you're willing to ignore PA, MI, and FL, as well as OH, sure. What you're saying makes perfect sense."

This is horseshit. Clinton runs better in OH and PA, to be sure, but that's about it. No Democrat is winning Florida -- the state has been trending red for years, and it has a very popular governor who is a huge McCain supporter. And Obama would probably be a stronger candidate than Clinton, both in a primary and the general election. Michigan is basically Wisconsin with black people.

Posted by Joe | March 12, 2008 6:00 PM

Now what's true is that Ohio was the decisive state in 2004 and Clinton would probably be the stronger candidate for Ohio. There's not, however, much more to the Clinton argument than that.

But it underscores the point that no one is better at refighting yesterday than a Clinton.

Posted by Face The Music | March 12, 2008 6:00 PM

When somebody says that a state is great, what do they mean?

Posted by Ba'al | March 12, 2008 6:02 PM

and there's at least some reason to think Clinton would put some marginal blue states (Washington, Oregon, Wisconsin, Minnesota) in play for McCain.

McCain pretty much single-handedly killed the Boeing tanker deal and flew into town on a chartered Airbus during the caucus.

He's not going to win WA.

Posted by BFR | March 12, 2008 6:02 PM

It seems rather fruitless to engage in this analysis. As has been said, it's incredibly difficult to extrapolate their performance head to head into potential performance in the general election. I just saw that 24% of Clinton's votes in MS were from Republicans. Does that mean they intend to vote for her in the general? MS might be in play then. Does it mean they were strategic voting? Does it mean they lied to the exit pollster? Who knows?

More fundamentally, if you start parsing the value of particular votes based on which states they come from there's no logical end-point. So we'll just ignore the votes from states that are either un-winnable or un-losable? Why bother having a primary at all? Let's just pick the states we think are "swing states," run some polls there and then nominate whomever is ahead.

Posted by DCMike | March 12, 2008 6:03 PM

This the problem with winning so many more states than your opponent. It turns out that even if you have won more "blue states", it also can be technically true that most of the states you have won are "red states".

Anderson,

Not Florida, but OH and PA perhaps. Obama will likely be stronger in OH and PA among swing voters in suburban areas. Clinton is currently stronger among core Democrats, particularly in Appalachia (Southeast Ohio, and most of PA outside of Philly and Pittsburgh). If Clinton helps Obama campaign among core Democrats in those states, I think he ends up stronger overall (obviously Obama would try to help her among swing voters in the suburbs, but I think there is only so much he can do for Clinton among those people).

Posted by DTM | March 12, 2008 6:06 PM

Does the Clinton-Strickland victory model depend on Florida going Dem? Cause I don't think that's going to happen.

Posted by Jim | March 12, 2008 6:07 PM

Obama has a better shot in PA, FL, and OH because he poses a clearer contrast with McCain. Clinton is McCain-lite on the war and all for sabre-rattling with Iran.

Clinton's resort to identity politics could also hurt her where she has antagonized a lot of voters by her campaign tactics, especially African-Ameicans who might stay home and demcorats making a lot of money who might be tempted to go for McCain for his alleged CFR bona fides and unearned "maverick" rep. Warrants mention that in a general, women make up 51% and not 60% of the electorate. Live by the demographics, die by the demographics.

In contrast, it's about past versus the future with Obama -- and the broken system in washington has not served the people of these states well. And while old people have a lot in common with McCain, they will not go for his privatization dreams for social security nor be impressed with his stunning ignorance of domestic policy. Obama will also benefit from the registration advantages -- as would Clinton to a lesser extent -- it's real that Dem turnout is massively higher than Republican. Polling based on last election's turnout models is overestimating McCain.

Not that it matters, since Clinton already is net down in delegates in March despite her alleged "momentum-changer." While she won Ohio, it was only 10 points -- much less than she needed to make up for some stunning blowouts in Wisco and Virginia.

Posted by David B. | March 12, 2008 6:08 PM

>>If you're willing to ignore PA, MI, and FL, as well as OH, sure

You really are a hack, Petey. I loved Edwards, I think these 2 are much of a muchness - but for fxxx sake, the rules were that MI/FL weren't going to count because they moved their primaries forward, The DNC said so, Clinton and Obama went along. Because of a technicality Clinton's name was the only one that appeared and she won both, and you say that as if she won a fair fight?

For fuck's sake have some dignity

Posted by Amaretti Biscuits | March 12, 2008 6:10 PM

What is clear to me and friends who all voted for Obama is the incredible meanness of Obama supporters is going to work against Obama. The attacks on Clinton by Obama supporters are like extreme Republican attacks on Democrats. This is a destructive strategy.

Posted by Jennifer | March 12, 2008 6:10 PM

What is clear to me and friends who all voted for Obama is the incredible meanness of Obama supporters is going to work against Obama.

polls have shown consistently (especially recently) this working far more against clinton than obama.

Posted by john b. | March 12, 2008 6:15 PM

Like I said, and as described above, Ickes' statement is demonstrably false. I have asked the New York Times to run a correction.

Interestingly, in the chart accompanying the NYT article that quoted Ickes, Michigan was included as a Clinton win. I do not understand how anyone can coherently argue that the outcome of the Michigan primary, in which Obama was not on the ballot, means anything at all.

Posted by Brian | March 12, 2008 6:17 PM

especially African-Ameicans who might stay home

No might about it. The only question is for how many years. You can't steal the nomination away from black folks, who have been the most loyal Democratic constituency EVER and expect them to suck it up. They've been voting for white Democratic candidates for 40 years. The black guy played by the rules and won the most pledged delegates. If you change the rules to give it to the white candidate, you can kiss the next couple elections goodbye.

I'm sorry if this is upsetting to white folks of a certain age and background. All I can ask is that you try to imagine the shoe on the other foot. Think of how outraged you'd be if Obama came in second place and they awarded him the nomination. Think of how outraged you are right now that you got beat fair and square. Got that feeling in your mind? Great, now take away the fair and square part. Now yer getting there.

You've already lost. How much worse do you want it to be?

Posted by Face The Music | March 12, 2008 6:18 PM

Petey's been dodging the electoral map / downticket question for a couple of weeks now. Should Clinton seize the nom, the best-looking Senate election calendar in years isn't likely to deliver the goods, and that healthcare plan is dead in the water.

I do not want the Democratic campaign camped out in Ohio and Florida again. No fucking thanks. I've had enough of dildos in Dayton saying on national television that they just can't decide on the issues, and being treated as if they are Jesus come back to earth.

Obama widens the map. He puts new states in play. He has the endorsements of Congresscritters from those states for a reason. His campaign will force the GOP to spend money in states that they've previously left to their own devices, and with a potential fundraising advantage, that matters.

Clinton's saying 'Nominate me because I can get 120,000 votes more than John Kerry in Ohio', and that's pathetic.

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | March 12, 2008 6:18 PM

None of it matters. If Hillary gets the nod, the African-American vote takes a November vacation and McCain wins it. End of story.

Posted by dizzyg | March 12, 2008 6:26 PM

You really are a hack, Petey...... For fuck's sake have some dignity

There is nothing on earth more important than mandates, including Petey's assumed dignity.

Posted by Great White Snark | March 12, 2008 6:26 PM

Like I said before, this is just a new spin on the "these states don't count" meme for which they've been so widely (and deservedly) ridiculed. Various posters whine every time a snark is made about that argument, but as long as the Clinton campaign keeps advancing this seriously, it deserves to be hammered for it. It's offensive and self-destructive to the party which SHOULD be hoping for as strong a victory as possible.

Setting that aside, though, it's still gross how quickly they're willing to dismiss all these votes and delegates. I don't care if Sen. Clinton wins Ohio except to the extent that she acrues additional delegates through that victory. Ohio isn't a magical bullet primary. We don't retroactively decide which states are singly determinative of the outcome and that all the other millions of votes and hundreds of delegates are irrelevant to the process.

And I don't care if North Dakota will go Democratic in the presidential race. I also don't care if Tennessee will or if Mississippi or Oklahoma will. As long as these people are electing Democrats to Congress, as long as they're contributing money to our party, as long as they're willing to engage in activism for progressive causes, and as long as they've been welcomed to participate in our process, they've earned their voice in this process -- a process determined by rules everyone agreed to beforehand.

Posted by jbryan | March 12, 2008 6:29 PM

Funny that he refers to "the Carolinas" as an example even though only one Carolina has had a primary.

Posted by Joseph Hovsep | March 12, 2008 6:34 PM

Funny that he refers to "the Carolinas" as an example even though only one Carolina has had a primary.

They've already written the other one off. Contrast that with Obama who will campaign in Pennsylvania until primary day.

Posted by Face The Music | March 12, 2008 6:38 PM

This is one thing that pissed me off about the Krugman column from last Friday (I think -- or was it last Monday?). He cherry-picks the state of Ohio -- one of the states Clinton happens to have won handily -- and then extrapolates from the Ohio exit polls to show Clinton beating Obama in all sorts of categories (the economy, health care, etc), and drawing dead even with him on foreign policy. Right -- if he had looked at exit polls in Kansas, maybe he would have found that voters actually like Obama's health care plan more than Clinton's.

Not only was the column embarassing in the flimsiness of its arguments, but near the end it effectively endorses the strategy that has screwed Democrats so badly in 2002 and 2004 -- "talk a whole lot about domestic policy and hope that foreign policy isn't all that big a deal in the election." Paul Krugman himself used to recognize that this was a failed strategy, when he called upon John Kerry to vigorously dispute Bush's foreign policy and not fall into the trap of trying to avoid the battleground of foreign policy while hoping that better domestic policy would appeal to voters. Now, though, he's advocating the stupid "sweep foreign policy under the rug" strategy once again.

Posted by Julian Elson | March 12, 2008 6:44 PM

The way Sen. Clinton has waged this primary campaign is a frightening indicator to me of how she'll wage the general election: narrowly focus on a few key demographics in a couple of specific big swing states and hope all the pieces fall into place as she cedes foreign policy ("I can be tough too") and replays the economy.

Democrats can absolutely win in Virginia and Colorado this year -- two states that have been won narrowly on the presidential level and continue to trend bluer and bluer (electing Dem governors, senators, representatives, and state legislatures). Webb winning in 2006, Warner winning in a walk in 2008, Kaine's success, the Dems' knocking off Devolites-Davis and frightening her husband into retirement -- all of this should be scaring the heck out of Republicans re: Virginia. How is this not an electoral goldmine for us? Same with Colorado. I think we can win Montana, too, and Iowa. All of these states have seen huge Democratic resurgence in recent years as voters are just disgusted with the state of the Republican party.

North Carolina and North Dakota? May be tough, but why not give it a shot? The point is, it's insane for us to be preemptively conceding huge swaths of the battlefield. We've got the opportunity to acquire huge financial resources for this particular fight and put them to good ends all across the country. We should fight for each state, make McCain fight for them, and try to win as banner a year as we can (while dragging in as many senators and representatives in what's looking to be even more of a blowout than 2006 was).

Posted by jbryan | March 12, 2008 6:48 PM

Kaine's success

Kaine would be a good VP pick, even though he's pissed me off a couple times already. He is Catholic and my recent Atlantic Monthly informs me that Catholics are historically the most reliable swing group or somesuch.

With Johnny Mac giving Catholics the big fat middle finger, perhaps they could be enticed over.

Posted by Face The Music | March 12, 2008 7:00 PM

There are really two possibilities here if Barack Obama succeeds in beginning the nominee.

Either all you Obama supporters are correct and this election is an opportunity to re-draw the map, many more states will be in-play this time with Obama, Obama will beat McCain decisively with independents, and millions of new voters (especially African Americans and young voters) will cast ballots. If that's true then the election won't come down to states like Ohio or Pennsylvania, and this will be a 40 state landslide for Obama with 400+ electoral votes. That's one possibility and I will admit it is possible.

The other possibility is that you are all wrong and the election is lost.

It's that simple.

Posted by Tim K | March 12, 2008 7:05 PM

Tim K: Can you repeat your claim that Obama will win with either 40 states, or will lose, with no possibility of something in the middle? I'm sort of astounded that anyone could manage that with a straight face, so I'd like to watch your technique.

Posted by Michael B Sullivan | March 12, 2008 7:10 PM

He’s winning the Democratic process

Hey, I know! Let's pick the candidate with the 45% unfavorable rating vs. the other's 20%. Or even better! Let's pick the candidate who won Southern Ohio because everyone knows the rest of the country is just like it. And next time, let's just have primaries in nine states!

Posted by asl | March 12, 2008 7:12 PM

Michael B Sullivan:

I don't think Obama will win a close race. If it's a close race that means the assumptions many of you have made concerning Obama's extraordinary cross-over appeal proved unfounded, and the dismissal that Clinton supporters would flock to support Obama as the nominee was either wrong or exaggeration. If Obama cannot bring states like Virginia, North Carolina, Colorado and the plains states into play then the election will once again come down to a Kerry+ strategy of winning Florida, Ohio while holding Michigan and Pennsylvania. If it comes down to that I don't have a lot of confidence in Obama be able to do that. That's why - with a straight face - I say it will the most likely scenarios are a decisive Obama victory or a defeat, but not a close victory.

For Clinton I agree with many of you that there is virtually no possibility of a landslide victory. Having said that I think the overwhelming likelihood is that she carries the Kerry states and adds Ohio, Florida, Arkansas and New Mexico.

Posted by Tim K | March 12, 2008 7:25 PM

Petey, no one is ignoring MI, PA or FL. But Michigan and Pennsylvania will be won by the Democrat, unless HRC is effective in destroying Obama in the minds of Democratic voters as seems to be her aim, and Florida will go to the Republicans either way.

Obama will win Wisconsin, Minnesota and Iowa. HRC may lose any of the above and would probably lose 2 of the 3. Obama could win Virginia and/or Colorado, Clinton will not. Obama is a sure thing in Washington and Oregon, Clinton is not.

The electoral map plays in his favor, period.

Posted by TH | March 12, 2008 7:28 PM

Tim K--your scenario for Clinton being the best choice for another close general election overlooks the reality that she'd have to basically steal the nomination in the first place. How would she bring all those outraged Obama voters back into the tent? How would she repair the damage done to the party?

Posted by Claudius | March 12, 2008 7:35 PM

She'd win on a Clinton/Strickland ticket?

Without the black vote? I doubt it and she'll never get that back.

Posted by Jay | March 12, 2008 7:37 PM

For Clinton I agree with many of you that there is virtually no possibility of a landslide victory. Having said that I think the overwhelming likelihood is that she carries the Kerry states and adds Ohio, Florida, Arkansas and New Mexico.

Wow.. she wins all those states without African-Americans? Are you using Underwear Gnome logic?

1. Steal nomination from black guy and piss off most loyal Democratic bloc of voters

2. ???

3. Win all states Kerry won plus Ohio, Florida, Arkansas and New Mexico.

And while you're pulling stuff out of yer ass, how about giving us your popular vote methodology and how it's reprensents victory for HRC even though it doesn't include four or more states/contests and unfairly diminishes states with caucuses.

Posted by Face The Music | March 12, 2008 7:40 PM

Claudius:

To be totally frank with you I don't know the answer to that question. But I'll also tell you that one would have to be naive at this point not to expect Barack Obama to have similar problems with Clinton supporters, particularly if she keeps winning states. And if Obama supporters continue with this level of vitrole, the likes of which I have never seen from a front-running campaign. It's really startling bitter, defensive and ungracious.

Jay:

Any Democrat is going to get 90% of the black vote after 8 years of George Bush. We're only talking about marginal turnout problems and 90% as opposed to 95%. The idea that most black Democrats would not vote or vote Republican is just absurd.

Posted by Tim K | March 12, 2008 7:42 PM

For Clinton I agree with many of you that there is virtually no possibility of a landslide victory. Having said that I think the overwhelming likelihood is that she carries the Kerry states and adds Ohio, Florida, Arkansas and New Mexico.

As a native, I honestly don't think Florida is in play. It's been trending Republican for years, and is perfectly suited for McCain.

McCain also isn't going to lose New Mexico, unless Hillary chooses Bill Richardson as her running mate (not impossible, I suppose).

So even if Hillary flips Ohio and Arkansas, she has to hang onto all the other Kerry states, including New Hampshire (which adores McCain), Wisconsin (where she pulled 41% in the primary), and Minnesota (32% in the caucus). Without at least two of those three she doesn't win.

Looking more strategically, Obama puts McCain on the defensive. The election will be fought in Colorado, Virginia, Nevada, and Iowa, areas of upside for the Democrats. A Clinton nomination allows McCain to focus on flipping Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Minnesota, and Michigan. (Ohio will be hotly contested in either scenario, Florida not so much I think).

Posted by right | March 12, 2008 7:46 PM

I just read the most sarcastic and unprofessional memo from the Obama campaign.

If there weren't so much at stake in this election I would really relish Obama losing in November.

This has to be one of the most arrogant and self-satisfied campaign and candidates on record.

Posted by Tim K | March 12, 2008 7:46 PM

It's really startling bitter, defensive and ungracious.

It SHOULD sound that way. You have all but admitted the only way you can win this thing is to change the rules and award the nomination to the second place finsisher.

Christ on crutches, dude. Get a conscience.

Posted by Face The Music | March 12, 2008 7:47 PM

Tim K in italics.

I don't think Obama will win a close race. If it's a close race that means the assumptions many of you have made concerning Obama's extraordinary cross-over appeal proved unfounded, and the dismissal that Clinton supporters would flock to support Obama as the nominee was either wrong or exaggeration.

Or, you know, maybe it'll just be that Obama's cross-over appeal will be good but not "extraordinary."

That's why - with a straight face - I say it will the most likely scenarios are a decisive Obama victory or a defeat, but not a close victory.

No, actually, that's not what you said. You said that the only possibility was either an incredible blow-out victory or a defeat.

See how that's different from "the most likely scenarios are a decisive victory or a defeat"?

But, in any case, that's silly. It's perfectly reasonable to suggest that Obama puts some additional states in play but (gasp!) doesn't win every state that he puts in play, and ends up with a narrow victory or a normal victory instead of a huge blowout. There are no mental gymnastics involved: it just involves tuning up or down Obama's appeal to new voters, independents, and Republicans, or his various negative variables.

For the record, I think that Obama will have a relatively easy time beating McCain, and I think that Clinton would also have a relatively easy time beating McCain providing that she could get the nomination without half the Democrats feeling like she trampled on their democratic rights.

(And, yes, Obama would also have difficulty getting the nomination if half the Democrats felt like he trampled on their democratic rights. But, you know, that's not what's happening. What's the great injustice that Obama is doing to Clinton's supporters? As far as I can tell, the strongest argument you've got that Clinton supporters will feel angry and stay home in November is, "I feel really bad about how mean Obama supporters were in Matthew Yglesias' comments section." Which isn't exactly an issue that I think has a lot of national sway.)

Posted by Michael B Sullivan | March 12, 2008 7:51 PM

My bad in the above post: I should have written, "Obama would also have difficulty winning the general election if half the Democrats felt like he trampled on their democratic rights."

Posted by Michael B Sullivan | March 12, 2008 7:53 PM

When we won Iowa, the Clinton campaign said it's not the number of states you win, it's "a contest for delegates."

When we won a significant lead in delegates, they said it's really about which states you win.

When we won South Carolina, they discounted the votes of African-Americans.

When we won predominantly white, rural states like Idaho, Utah, and Nebraska, they said those didn't count because they won't be competitive in the general election.

When we won in Washington State, Wisconsin, and Missouri -- general election battlegrounds where polls show Barack is a stronger candidate against John McCain -- the Clinton campaign attacked those voters as "latte-sipping" elitists.

And now that we've won more than twice as many states, the Clinton spin is that only certain states really count.

But the facts are clear.

~~~~~~~~~
(this is from the Obama mailing list)

Posted by Erik | March 12, 2008 7:54 PM

Tim, about your firm belief that Obama can't win a close race, I just don't get it. What if your theory is, like, half right, and everyone elses theory is half right as well.

In other words, you're correct that Obama is a liability in OH, FL, MI, and PA. However, he's not such a liability that he actually manages to lose MI and PA, although they're closer than they should be.

And he expands the map a little bit and manages to bring a few new voters, but not to the extent that Obama supporters hope. This leads to Obama victories in VA and either CO or IA, giving him a narrow win along with the Kerry States.

In that scenario--Kerry+CO/IA+VA--he wins a close race. What is so implausible about that?

Posted by djw | March 12, 2008 8:04 PM

How would she bring all those outraged Obama voters back into the tent? How would she repair the damage done to the party?

I don't think you should assume everyone cares as much as you do. Seriously. The general population has pretty much ignored elite opinion thus far.

No doubt there will be a poll at some point. My guess is that black voters will come out in good numbers, but not huge numbers. White liberals are more likely to stay home (or vote for Nader)--but they are by far the least essential element of the Democrat coalition.

Posted by Cal | March 12, 2008 8:05 PM

Let me figure this out Tim K:

If Clinton steals the nomination from Obama, all the Obama supporters will just flock to Clinton because "the idea they would stay home after 8 years of Bush is absurd."

If Obama wins the nomination, with more states, more delegates, and more of the voters, all the Clinton supporters will stay home because of the "level of vitriol from Obama supporters in blog comment sections."

Nobody yet has invented drugs powerful enough for me to be able to understand an argument that incredibly stupid.

Posted by cd6 | March 12, 2008 8:06 PM

Cross posted with Sullivan there.

Posted by djw | March 12, 2008 8:12 PM

It's perfectly reasonable to suggest that Obama puts some additional states in play but (gasp!) doesn't win every state that he puts in play, and ends up with a narrow victory or a normal victory instead of a huge blowout.

The point, of course, is to compete -- and not to re-enact 2004 and its All Ohio, All The Fucking Time strategy.

If now's not the time to be bold and take the expansion of the map in 2006 into a presidential campaign, I don't know when that time is. This year's Senate prospects are bound to states where Obama is competitive (the House less so, but that's less crucial) and getting past the Liebermajority is almost as big a priority as the White House. There will not be as good a two-year window for Dems to make use of an increased Senate majority for many years to come. Time to change the map.

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | March 12, 2008 8:13 PM

I don't think you should assume everyone cares as much as you do. Seriously. The general population has pretty much ignored elite opinion thus far.

No doubt there will be a poll at some point. My guess is that black voters will come out in good numbers, but not huge numbers. White liberals are more likely to stay home (or vote for Nader)--but they are by far the least essential element of the Democrat coalition.

Cal, KO just had a survey up about what if the leader in pledged delegates doesn't get the nomination. 38% - the largest bloc - said the nominee wouldn't be legitimate.

So as I continue to hammer home, you've already lost, all you can do is make it worse at this point. But I can't understand why you'd care, you've already said you'd vote for McCain in the general.

Posted by Face The Music | March 12, 2008 8:16 PM

NC is in play with Obama heading the ticket.

Tim K, let the rest of us in on it. What memo? What was said? Was it out of thin air, or responding to Clinton spin? They get more of a pass if it's the latter, don't you think?

Posted by drinkof | March 12, 2008 8:16 PM

People should remember that Cal is a registered Republican who is fairly indifferent to Clinton or McCain being elected.

Posted by Barbar | March 12, 2008 8:23 PM

Matt think the Dems can win in the Dakotas, Kansas, and Nebraska? Is he high? What the hell, maybe the voters in those states will bite, because after all "The power of Obama compels you!" The brain-rotting effect of Obamania on liberal pundits continues unabated.

Posted by scottreads | March 12, 2008 8:25 PM

Cal, KO just had a survey up about what if the leader in pledged delegates doesn't get the nomination. 38% - the largest bloc - said the nominee wouldn't be legitimate.

Link? I don't know what poll you're talking about. If you're talking about a survey of user responses, that's useless.

Newsweek Poll

Should neither Clinton nor Obama secure enough delegates to win the nomination (a scenario that looks increasingly likely), 43 percent of Democrats said they would prefer that the candidate trailing in the delegate count concede the nomination, while 42 percent think superdelegates should choose the nominee. Should the ball end up in the superdelegates' court, most respondents (42 percent) think they should choose the best-qualified nominee in their judgment, while 38 percent believe they should choose the person with the popular vote lead.

As I said, that number was closer to 70% before Texas, which is not a good sign for Obama, if it dropped that fast.

Posted by Cal | March 12, 2008 8:27 PM

Yer right, Cal. All this winning is really sinking Obama's chances. I said I saw the poll on Keith Olbermann's show. How can I provide a link to a television show segment that just aired five minutes ago? When I see it online, I'll post it so you can figure out how to shoot it down. After all, you know better what the Democrats will do if the nomination is stolen, even though you're voting for McCain in November.

Posted by Face The Music | March 12, 2008 8:34 PM

People should remember that Cal is a registered Republican who is fairly indifferent to Clinton or McCain being elected.

Indeed they should. Or perhaps learn it for the first time. They don't have taglines here, or I'd put together a list to remind everyone of what I'm not.

Posted by Cal | March 12, 2008 8:36 PM

If it's a close race that means the assumptions many of you have made concerning Obama's extraordinary cross-over appeal proved unfounded, and the dismissal that Clinton supporters would flock to support Obama as the nominee was either wrong or exaggeration.

So you're saying if Obama doesn't have an insurmountable lead against McCain everywhere in the fall, you're going to whine and whine about Hillary being hypothetically better. How pleasant for everyone concerned.

Posted by blahblah | March 12, 2008 8:41 PM

I said I saw the poll on Keith Olbermann's show.

You didn't, actually. I didn't get the KO reference. So I was just looking for a cite. You might be right; I'm not challenging you without the poll.

All this winning is really sinking Obama's chances.

I wouldn't go that far. Clearly, though, his winning "streak" over the past month didn't do him any good in Texas and Ohio and it won't help in Pennsylvania. So I would say at least that the general electorate seems unmoved by his wins as far as their feelings about him.

All that said, my only point was that Democrats seem to be changing their mind about whether or not they want the superdelegates to overrule the pledged delegates. That seems to suggest that more of them would rather Hillary be the nominee.

Posted by Cal | March 12, 2008 8:41 PM

Matt think the Dems can win in the Dakotas, Kansas, and Nebraska? Is he high? What the hell, maybe the voters in those states will bite, because after all "The power of Obama compels you!" The brain-rotting effect of Obamania on liberal pundits continues unabated.

Scot Treads, psychic in nc addressed your concerns 12 minutes before you voiced them.

The point, of course, is to compete -- and not to re-enact 2004 and its All Ohio, All The Fucking Time strategy. If now's not the time to be bold and take the expansion of the map in 2006 into a presidential campaign, I don't know when that time is. This year's Senate prospects are bound to states where Obama is competitive (the House less so, but that's less crucial) and getting past the Liebermajority is almost as big a priority as the White House. There will not be as good a two-year window for Dems to make use of an increased Senate majority for many years to come. Time to change the map.

One nominee on the Democratic side can't be bothered to go speak TO DEMOCRATS in about a dozen states to secure the nomination. Tell me how she's going to speak to the entire nation.

Posted by Face The Music | March 12, 2008 8:45 PM

The Obama memo was fucking hilarious, and Monsters, Inc. deserved it.

Posted by Monster | March 12, 2008 8:45 PM

Matt, I think you ignore a fundamental problem for Clinton. Whether she wrestles the nomination away or not, she will not be President in 2008.

In order to get the nomination she's going to have to pull some sort of trickery that will kill any chance she has to win in November. Even worse, if through some back room deal she overturns the will of the majority of the Democratic electorate and takes the nomination from an African American, the Party won't win the WH for a generation or more. The Democratic Party, as a legitimate, viable Party, will be dead. That's the truth no matter how you slice it. The faster we accept this reality the better off we will all be.

The 2008 Dem. nomination is worth nothing in Clinton's hands.

Posted by jujuluv | March 12, 2008 8:51 PM

Michael B. Sullivan

What's the great injustice that Obama is doing to Clinton's supporters?

From the perspective of many Clinton supporters, though, Obama is doing a great injustice to Clinton by denying her a nomination which she deserves. The subtext of the Clinton campaign is "I did my homework, put in my thirty-five years, and have earned the presidency. You should vote for me because I am the most deserving candidate." Not voting for Clinton is demonstrating ingratitude for all the wonderful things she's done for our country.

Posted by Julian Elson | March 12, 2008 8:51 PM

It is conceivable that if Clinton has fewer pledged delegates going into the convention, and convinces superdelegates to vote for her, and so secures the nomination, that an insignificant number of people would understand what happened or consider it important, and so she would not suffer in the general. I don't think it's likely, but it's not a prima-facia ridiculous concept.

I don't think that you can trust any polling on this subject, 'cause it's a new concept and I think there'll be a lot of education of the public between now and the convention. But sure, it's not impossible that Obama could have the pledged delegate lead, lose the convention, and Clinton doesn't suffer much for it.

It's also not (quite) crazy to predict that the Democrats have already torn themselves apart, or are on track to, and that by the time of the convention, no matter who wins, there will be massive bad feelings on the other side and whoever wins will be doomed in the general. I think it's a pretty damn hard sell to suggest that this has already happened, but I could imagine believing that it's on-track to happen, and to predict that it will happen.

However, it is completely nuts to believe that if Obama wins the nomination with a majority of the pledged delegates and a majority of the superdelegates (but without 2025 pledged delegates), Clinton's supporters will stay home and doom his general election chances, while simultaneously believing that if Clinton wins the nomination because superdelegates overturn Obama's greater number of pledged delegates, Obama's supporters will bury the hatchet and happily support Clinton in the general.

Posted by Michael B Sullivan | March 12, 2008 8:52 PM

Let's keep this reality based...Obama won Texas (close loss in the primary, good win in the caucuses = delegate win overall.

Posted by bemused | March 12, 2008 8:54 PM

You didn't, actually. I didn't get the KO reference.

I did actually. I can't be expected to know the depths of your ignorance and compensate in advance. At any rate, instead of reflexively requesting a link, you could have simply said you were unfamiliar with "KO", (which EVERYONE knows is Keith Olbermann - Gah!) and asked for clarification.

I wouldn't go that far. Clearly, though, his winning "streak" over the past month didn't do him any good in Texas and Ohio and it won't help in Pennsylvania.

Actually, you have that backwards. HRC's pull out all the stops, throw the kitchen sink, race-bating strategy netted her exactly zero delegates from her first three wins in sixteen contests. So you see, in a contest for pledged delegates, HRC got zip. Considering those contests represented 38% of the remaining delegates, netting zero actually put her further behind, effectively disqualifying her from being able to win the most pledged delegates. So now it doesn't even matter what happens in Pennsylvania.

All that said, my only point was that Democrats seem to be changing their mind about whether or not they want the superdelegates to overrule the pledged delegates. That seems to suggest that more of them would rather Hillary be the nominee.

Yes, much like Special K, you just know shit that happens to not be true.

Posted by Face The Music | March 12, 2008 8:57 PM

Too many people responded to my points for me to give a comprehensive answer, but I will try to summarize:

I don't think really think there is any chance for Barack Obama to win Kansas, Nebraska, North Dakota, South Dakota, Montana, Idaho, Wyoming, Oklahoma, Alabama, Mississippi, Georgia, South Carolina, North Carolina, or Texas. Now, if I'm wrong about that then this whole conversation is irrelevant and he'll win in a landslide. If I'm right about that then Obama will have to win Ohio or Florida, without losing Pennsylvania or Michigan. If he can't win either Ohio or Florida then he must win both Virginia and Colorado. There would be no margin for error. If he wastes valuable time and money competing in North Carolina and the other states I mentioned that will give McCain an advantage in states like Pennsylvania and Michigan. Bush made that mistake in 2000 wasting resources on California.

Posted by Tim K | March 12, 2008 8:58 PM

I don't think you should assume everyone cares as much as you do. Seriously. The general population has pretty much ignored elite opinion thus far.

They wouldn't be staying home because they listened to "elite opinion" -- they'd be staying home as a result of a direct slap in the face.

Posted by hum | March 12, 2008 8:59 PM

It's fine and dandy to talk about hypothetical states 6 months out, but honestly, we might as well be debating the position of the stars and extrapolating from that. I'd suggest a couple of demographic points that deserve more consideration:

Hillary Clinton began this primary with remarkably high negative ratings - generally around 48-49 per cent aong the population as a whole. This was before she had achieved the ill-well of numerous Democrats, in particular the young voters, African Americans, (and yes, the possible Independent cross-overs). Let's grant, generously, that these groups might constitute around 24-25% of her available votes. Suppose then that one in four of those voters turns against her (a figure which strikes me as cautious, but defensible). She loses 6% of available Democratic support - and so 3% of the national vote.

That puts her negatives at 51-52 per cent, which leaves her with quite a mountain to climb - and remember, that we took a fairly optimistic view of her chances of hanging onto those votes. Given how close matters were in some of the swing states last time, this hardly looks like a recipe for success to me. I can't see how she makes up the lost votes from Republican defecters, especially after McCain finds a good, solid conservative VP.

The second point is this: Hillary Clinton shows no major sign of outperforming her polls, with the relatively trivial exception of New Hampshire, and has lost large leads or seen them diminish consistently. If you doubt this, consider what she had in the way of an edge in most polls 6 months or even 3 months ago. In recent terms, remember how she pretty much lost Texas in real terms, and saw a big lead in Ohio whittled down to around 10 per cent, even after the NAFTA-gate incident. What was her lead in those states - generally around 20 points for a long time. What does that imply for a national race where she has, at best, a miniscule lead over McCain - generally around 1-2 per cent at best, and is often behind by the same or worse margins?

Now, Hillary Clinton's standing in the polls has pretty consistently diminished, even though Obama has not campaigned particularly hard against her in personal terms. Do we believe that Republicans will play nice and leave the scandals and corruption charges off the table? No, of course not. Will Hillary get a bump in the polls? From what? Winning an increasingly bitter primary by tactics that leave many Democrats regarding the Clintons without enthusisam - or with clear dislike? That hardly seems like a realistic vision.

Thus, I'd suggest that Clinton's claim to have been vetted is simply not true, but even if you grant the premise, it remains trivially true - and attacks work, especially when the target is already disliked and has high negatives. People won't give her the benefit of the doubt as they might have done back before 2000. Here we might remember that her negatives have been engrained for most of a decade, arguably more. How exactly do you shift people's minds after all that accumulated distrust and dislike? Isn't it more plausible, and in keepping with what we have seen that those negatives will rise - and remember that they do not have to rise much to be over 50%. What odds for a candidate in those circumstances?

Given the above analysis, which I think is based on generally accepted facts, I am not sure how anyone sees Hillary Clinton as a strong, even viable candidate for the general election. You can argue about polls in various allegedly "key" states - but the overall trend is clearly unfavourable to her, and unlikely to improve. In fact, based on the last 6 months, the trend shows every sign of worsening. That's an ominous sign for Democrats contemplating choosing Clinton over Obama.

Posted by morzer | March 12, 2008 9:00 PM

Michael B.

I don't disagree with anything in your post. Which means that if you were trying to state my position, then you missed.

The issue is quite simple: who loses more voters?

Will more white and Hispanic Democrats vote for McCain because they don't want Obama (not because of his race, but because of his inexperience or radical views or whatever) or will more blacks and liberals stay home or vote for Nader out of outrage at Clinton being given the nomination via the superdelegates?

Posted by Cal | March 12, 2008 9:05 PM

With Fallon forced out, the powerful leader of la resistance to predatory loans, my unlamented Gov. Spitzer, nailed in more ways than one, and, finally, a group of unrepentent fellas with absolutely nothing to lose, it's quaint any of you could honestly think McCain won't kick the shit out of either of these two.

(For the record, I couldn't vote because NY never sent me my absentee, but I'd probably have gone Clinton - though if I bothered to register in Hyde Park, I'd vote for Obama, and I certainly will in the general election).

Posted by Greg | March 12, 2008 9:11 PM

Morzer:

I'm not sure if I've read so little new said in so many words.

Hillary Clinton, as you pointed out, began this campaign with roughly 50% of the country having a positive impression and 50% having a negative impression. After a pretty rough 14 months where she has undergone more scrutiny than all her opponents combined, and received generally unfavorable press throughout, her ratings are exactly the same. Thus, as many of us have held consistently, her numbers are remarkably durable.

Barack Obama, on the other hand began the election season with something like 10% having a negative impression, a number that has now grown to about 40% (Rasmussen says 46%) and most of the attacks on him haven't even begun. I don't expect Obama's ratings to be as durable as Clintons have proven to be.

Posted by Tim K | March 12, 2008 9:12 PM

“They’re great states..."

As in: "you've been a great employee but we really need to let you go."

Or: "you've been a great wife but I really need to move on."

And: "you are such a great dog but I just think it's time for us to put you down."

On the other hand: maybe the Obama fellow's supporters should wonder aloud why so many working class people haven't voted for him. Maybe they shouldn't it has much if anything to do with Obama's race.

Posted by Linus | March 12, 2008 9:15 PM

Tim K, perhaps you might read the overall argument, and build a reasoned case against it? I know that I am asking you to go against all your previous habits, but make the leap. You may even find the use of logic refreshing. Try it - for the novelty, if nothing else.

Posted by morzer | March 12, 2008 9:16 PM

Obama just can't win: if he wins a blue state like Vermont or Connecticut, it apparently means nothing b/c any Democrat would win it. But if he wins a red state, that doesn't matter b/c no Democrat would win it in the general.

Here's another question: even if Ickes were right about those states having little chance to turn blue, since when are Dems in those states not allowed to have a say as to who the party's nominee is?

Posted by Paddy | March 12, 2008 9:17 PM

Will more white and Hispanic Democrats vote for McCain because they don't want Obama (not because of his race, but because of his inexperience or radical views or whatever)[...

You mean older white women. Because Obama's done perfectly fine with white men in most states -- and Venn would suggest he's done perfectly fine with white Democratic men, too.

...or will more blacks and liberals stay home or vote for Nader out of outrage at Clinton being given the nomination via the superdelegates?

Blacks, liberals, the youth, and you conveniently leave out independents -- a pretty key bloc of voters in a general election and one with which Sen. McCain is very competitive. Sen. Obama can beat McCain with independents; Sen. Clinton will have a much harder time.

Posted by jbryan | March 12, 2008 9:18 PM

Shorter Tim K:

The Tim K droid is investigating the internal configuration of its internal anal function and is unable to comply with requests for coherent or functional analysis at this time.

Posted by jaswant | March 12, 2008 9:20 PM

So Tim K can't dispute the negative trends for Clinton, except by noting that at least as many people hate her as always did - in other words, half the population of America, and counting... What a searing response! And of course she's turned off a bunch of Democrats. That's the most obvious consequence of a negative campaign and a shopworn candidate.

Posted by yazzel | March 12, 2008 9:24 PM

You mean older white women. Because Obama's done perfectly fine with white men in most states

Actually, no. They are tied among white men. He does well with white men when independents vote in large numbers and they aren't in the south.

I didn't leave off independents "conveniently", but because you can't generalize their behavior. No one knows why they are supporting Obama or Hillary. But again, if you look at all independents and Republicans, Obama's ahead, but not by much. There's literally no evidence that Obama can beat McCain with independents (or vice versa, for that matter), because you don't know who those independents are.

Fundamentally, it comes down to the demographics I listed. Blacks and liberals will be more vocal with their outrage, but my guess is white and Hispanic non-liberal Democrats will have the larger transfer rate. Which is not the same as saying that they'll all refuse to vote for Obama, of course.

However, the real issue is what is the best bet to make, and it's a really bad idea to bet that downscale and middleclass Democrats sticking with the party when they've showed their preference so strongly. It might work, but it's a fool's bet.

Posted by Cal | March 12, 2008 9:24 PM

Morzer:

You cannot simply dismiss an argument as unreasoned because you don't agree with it. You totally ignored what I had to say so why would I take the time to construct a detailed rebuttal to your post? It goes both ways.

jbryan:

Older women, latinos, and whites making less than $50,000 a year: three groups without which a Democrat cannot be elected to the White House.

Despite the media being totally obsessed with youth voters and independents, they are not going to be able to make up for underperforming with those three groups.

Posted by Tim K | March 12, 2008 9:26 PM

One might claim that Obama's supporters, for whatever reason, are more willing to compromise and more willing to put up with losing for the good of the party, while Clinton's supporters, are unwilling to suffer the slight of losing, and care more about the political fortunes of Clinton personally than about the Democratic party. I don't know if it's true, but if so, it would allow for the "Clinton loses pledged delegate count and wins through superdelegates, and gains support of Obama supporters" and "Obama wins pledged delegate count and wins the nomination, but doesn't win over Clinton supporters" to both be true. I don't think this is a very flattering perspective of the Clinton campaign. Of course, if the reverse is true, as Krugman seems to believe, and Obama's supporters want "their hero or nobody," while Clinton supporters are willing to compromise, that doesn't paint a very flattering portrait of the Obama campaign, but does point toward Obama being stronger in the general election. (Krugman seems to believe that both Clinton supporters are Democratic partisans who would rally behind Obama while Obama supporters only support Obama and won't vote for Clinton in the general, and that Obama is a weaker general election candidate. There is some tension between these two beliefs, but they aren't contradictory, since Clinton could do better among people who aren't involved in intra-Democratic politics at all than Obama, while losing Obama's supporters, and still do better than Obama in the general election than Obama would even with Clinton's supporters backing him. Not that I think this is actually the case.)

Posted by Julian Elson | March 12, 2008 9:27 PM

Tim K, produce a detailed argument, rather than a couple of childish sentences, and I might take you seriously, Until then, it's hard to respect someone who has no real argument for his positions and simply channels the latest spin from the Penn-McAuliffe-Ickes hydra. Logical argument relies on stating premises and building a consistent structure. You simply haven't crossed that threshold here. When you don't offer any serious disputation of the points I made,you effectively concede them. Is this the best a Clinton champion can do?

Posted by morzer | March 12, 2008 9:32 PM

However, the real issue is what is the best bet to make, and it's a really bad idea to bet that downscale and middleclass Democrats sticking with the party when they've showed their preference so strongly. It might work, but it's a fool's bet.

Again, you being a Republican, I'm at a loss as to why you give two shits about downscale and middleclass Democrats. But entertaining your concern trolling, accepting your framing and all the caveats that go with it, the candidate of the downscale and middleclass Democrats came in second place. In much the same way as my candidate in 2004. When that happens, you suck it up and try harder next time.

On the other hand, when the candidate that comes in first place has the nomination wrested away in a bitter, race-baiting campaign followed by backroom shenanigans, different outcome. You can just trust me on this. I wouldn't try to mislead you.

Posted by Face The Music | March 12, 2008 9:34 PM

Careful, morzer, you are asking Tim K to do something out of the range of his experience, and actually think for himself. That's not the modus operandi of Clinton surrogates, far less trolls.

Posted by yazzel | March 12, 2008 9:35 PM

Re: Should Clinton seize the nom, the best-looking Senate election calendar in years isn't likely to deliver the goods

Nonsense. I strongly suspect that it won't matter who the Democratic presidential nominee is, the other races will be largely independent of it. (That's the normal trend by the way). The public by and large is sick to death of the GOP, and even if some (or even many) people are turned off by Hillary Clinton as well, they will still be eager to vote out their Republican Senator, Congressman or governor.

Re: As a native, I honestly don't think Florida is in play. It's been trending Republican for years, and is perfectly suited for McCain.

I agree that Florida will probably go for McCain, but I don't think the state has been "trending Republican", except to the extent that the whole country did for a couple election cycles after 9-11. Florida just handily reelected a Democratic senator, and also turned out some GOP congresscritters, one of whom had been ensconced in the Capitol since 1980 in a supposedly safe district. And its current GOP governor won his race in 2006 by moving to the center and appealing to Democrats, sensing correctly that Florida was not Republican enough for him to coast to victory on a get-out-base vote effort.

Re: A Clinton nomination allows McCain to focus on flipping Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Minnesota, and Michigan.

Michigan will not flip. Not while its economy remains the worst in the nation in near-depression state. (And McCain has not even offered snake oil as a palliative) If anything Michigan will be even bluer this election cycle.

Posted by JonF | March 12, 2008 9:38 PM

"I don't think really think there is any chance for Barack Obama to win Kansas, Nebraska, North Dakota, South Dakota, Montana, Idaho, Wyoming, Oklahoma, Alabama, Mississippi, Georgia, South Carolina, North Carolina, or Texas."

I do!

On Super Tuesday, when there were still competetive races on both sides, when Huckabee was still winning races against McCain, here are the totals of votes cast for Democratic candidates and for Republican candidates:

Oklahoma - 401K for Dems, 319K for Reps
Georgia - 1,000K for Dems, 930K for Reps
Alabama - 540K for Dems, 563K for Reps (yeah, Reps win, but by only 23K)

A week before, in South Carolina - 530K for Dems, 443K for Reps.

Yeah, I think there are alot more states 'in play' for the Dems this year.

Posted by Robert Earle | March 12, 2008 9:39 PM

Interesting, the Tim troll has been silenced by a demand for reasoned debate. Quelle surprise, mes amis!

Posted by maraschion | March 12, 2008 9:42 PM

Backroom shenanigans, FtM? Please. This is exactly what the superdelegates are there to do; overrule the pledged delegates if they think the #2 candidate is better. It's a stupid system, but these are the rules.

In practice, of course, it doesn't matter what the rules are if people feel they were cheated. Anyone want to put money on whether the Dems will be smart enough to abolish superdelegates after this year?

Posted by AlanC9 | March 12, 2008 9:42 PM

Actually, no. They are tied among white men. He does well with white men when independents vote in large numbers and they aren't in the south.

I said he's done fine with white men in most states, and he has. Even in a number of the states where Sen. Obama lost the white vote overall, he still won white men. He won white men in Georgia, Vermont, Wisconsin, Utah, Massachusetts, Maryland, Connecticut, Virginia, California, New Mexico, and of course Illinois; tied in Texas and Delaware. And that's not counting any of the caucus states he won.

In some of those states, he won white men by crushing margins (20 points in California, 17 in Connecticut). There are some states where he hasn't done as well with them, obviously. But in most, he's done well with those group. You continue to ignore this fact when you make your arguments.

I didn't leave off independents "conveniently", but because you can't generalize their behavior.

Really? It sure seemed convenient to your argument. And I kinda think we can generalize their behavior in the sense that in state after state they're picking the Democratic primary to vote in and in those primaries they're choosing Obama over Clinton by huge margins. So, as such, they're one of the key voting blocs supporting him in the primary; this isn't arguable. His support is being driven by independents as surely as it is by the young, educated/affluent liberals, and blacks.

There's literally no evidence that Obama can beat McCain with independents (or vice versa, for that matter), because you don't know who those independents are.

Nope. But we know, again, that they're currently choosing to vote for Obama, not Clinton, and not McCain. So that gives us an idea of where we start with. There's also literally no evidence that McCain can beat Obama with Democratic women, but that doesn't stop you from assuming that Clinton's key supporters are going to flee away from him because of his "radical" views.

Keep up the mendaciousness, though! Thumbs up. Applause for so consistently stoking your own little fantasy racial civil war.

Posted by jbryan | March 12, 2008 9:43 PM

I agree with what Matt is saying in this post. I would add Pennsylvania as a state that Clinton is clearly a stronger candidate. I note that his analysis that McCain may be stronger in other states (Washington, Oregon, Wisconsin, Minnesota) is a valid reason to go with Obama. I would think those states wouldn't agree with McCain's basic policy on Iraq however and vote for Clinton anyhow. But I can't really say I know what people in those states may be thinking.

I would have thought that any Democratic candidate would have been stronger than what either of these two appear to be after looking at this. With McCain's war record, Ohio will be tough to win.

Posted by Chad | March 12, 2008 9:44 PM

The real question, at this point, is what will happen on a marco scale with our political parties, given that the current unpleasantness is clearly (no matter who the nominee is at this point) going to destroy the Democratic party.

You are kidding yourself. Have you been reading the same blogs and news reports I’ve been reading? The only real question is whether this mess merely dooms the Dems in this presidential election, whether it dooms the whole party for this election, House and Senate included, or whether it completely destroys the party.

The Republicans, of course, and thankfully, are not well poised to take advantage of the situation. Maybe the fantasies of the media elite will come to pass, and a “centrist” party will be formed, socially center left, economically center right, and realist/hawkish on foreign affairs. That pretty mush defines the locus of elite opinion these days. Heck, Clinton, Lieberman, McCain, Bloomberg would jump at the chance to join such an assembledge. It sure as hell wouldn’t be my party, but I could see it dominating the political landscape against vestigial Democratic and Republican parties.

That really may be the hard lesson here - many of us unhappy with the current parties may get just what we are asking for, though not in the form we want. A new, dominant, third party combining all of the worst aspects of the current parties.

If that sounds far fetched, ask yourself this - if I’m right about the Dems (and the last few days they certainly have had the look of a party tearing itself apart), what other option do you see? The Republicans (a) don’t seem poised to take advantage of the Dems collapse, and (b) even if they were, their current coalition is strained enough without adding a large chunk of current dems, many of whom are quite socially liberal.

I don't know, maybe I shouldn't post this, might give the Clintonoids some ideas.

Posted by LarryM | March 12, 2008 9:48 PM

The more I think about it, the more sense it makes (though in a frightening sort of way). Even the normal objections to a three party system in the USA wouldn't apply. Each party would dominate a different geographical locale - Dems the cities, Republicans rural areas, and the Bloombergs the suburbs. The only question is what the normal coalition partners would be.

Posted by LarryM | March 12, 2008 9:51 PM

Now what's true is that Ohio was the decisive state in 2004

Out of the eight or so states Kerry deigned to compete in.

Obama's refusal to buy into the 50%+1/swing state strategy is one of his best features as a candidate.

Posted by Marc | March 12, 2008 9:54 PM

Oh, well, little cut and paste error in my post before last (extraneous paragraph 2), but I think you get the point.

And, really, what I describe is not by any means my preferred outcome, but it is scarily plausible.

Posted by LarryM | March 12, 2008 9:55 PM

Morzer:

Fine. Let's take your argument point-by-point, shall we? (just so you know, nothing you said is particular original or anything I haven't read previously)

Hillary Clinton began this primary with remarkably high negative ratings - generally around 48-49 per cent aong(sic) the population as a whole.

No one disputes the case that Hillary Clinton has become a polarizing figure over the years, as she has been on the national scene over over 16 years. Remember, however, that polarization doesn't simply imply strong dislike. Just as Hillary Clinton has the highest negatives among voters, she also (in poll after poll) has the largest group of voters certain to support her. More than Obama, McCain, or anyone else. George Bush was highly polarizing (both in terms of voting intentions and favorability) in 2004 and yet won the election by 3 million votes. Hillary Clinton has a high floor and a low ceiling. Very little that is said or revealed about her is going to change many minds, either positively or negatively. That has it's advantages and disadvantages going into a general election campaign.

The second point is this: Hillary Clinton shows no major sign of outperforming her polls, with the relatively trivial exception of New Hampshire, and has lost large leads or seen them diminish consistently

This goes along with the point above. Everyone already knew Hillary Clinton, her views, her personality, her history, her record, very well. Most of the people who were for her decided early on and most of the people who weren't for her decided to support others early on. It's the same thing with incumbent Senators and members of Congress, for instance. Since they are so well-known and well-defined their support tends not to grow as much as with challengers. So, while HRC's support did not grow very much in most states, it didn't decline either. Mostly Obama's new support came not from former Clinton supporters, but former supporters of other candidates. Given he was the de facto challenger in this race, this was not at all surprising or unique to him.

Now, Hillary Clinton's standing in the polls has pretty consistently diminished, even though Obama has not campaigned particularly hard against her in personal terms.

The Obama campaign from the very beginning has attacked HRC as polarizing, divisive, untrustworthy, indentured to special interests, lacking in judgment, deceptive and opaque, and willing to say anything to win. Those are attacks - highly negative attacks - and very personal.

attacks work, especially when the target is already disliked and has high negatives.

Attacks work best when a candidate is not as well known or well defined. Attacks worked very well on John Kerry, Michael Dukakis and George McGovern, for example. Clinton simply cannot be accused of anything she hasn't already been accused of. Once one has been accused of murdering their best friend, everything else sort of pales in comparison.

I am not sure how anyone sees Hillary Clinton as a strong, even viable candidate for the general election. You can argue about polls in various allegedly "key" states - but the overall trend is clearly unfavourable to her, and unlikely to improve. In fact, based on the last 6 months, the trend shows every sign of worsening. That's an ominous sign for Democrats contemplating choosing Clinton over Obama.

Sorry to sound patronizing at all, but it almost seems like you think this is going to be marked. It reads like a response on a midterm exam in US politics. Concluding sentence and everything. Kind of cute, actually. Are you from Canada, by any chance? (that's just out of curiosity) The truly ominous sign for Democrats who support Obama should be that in the very short time he has been subjected to any degree of scrutiny, or attacks that could be considered at all strong, he has not fared very well. Considering how effective we know Republican attacks can be that should give any Democrat pause. Obama could very well prove to have a glass jaw.

Posted by Tim K | March 12, 2008 9:58 PM

It's almost fun to watch Timmikins trying to argue. Of course, he ducks the main point, which is how Clinton has lost key Democrats, and I think morzer is too generous to her on the merits. But hey, why should Tim respond to a clear argument. And that last comment is priceless:

"Sorry to sound patronizing at all, but it almost seems like you think this is going to be marked. It reads like a response on a midterm exam in US politics. Concluding sentence and everything. Kind of cute, actually."

The very notion that concern troll Tim could ever patronize anyone successfully! A whole evening's entertainment in one pathetic little piece of self-praise!

Posted by yazzel | March 12, 2008 10:04 PM

Ohio tossed out a number of Republicans in 2006, right? What has changed there since then to make 2008 different? In addition, I thought the Ohio Republican party had been pretty hard hit by the various scandals around Taft, Noe, Coingate, etc. and hasn't been able to turn things around - but I could be wrong.

Posted by Ted | March 12, 2008 10:06 PM

At the risk of repeating myself, this whole argument is very amusing because Bush is laying the necessary foundations for McCain to beat whoever the Democrats nominate.

Posted by Greg | March 12, 2008 10:12 PM

Let's see. The polls have consistently suggested that Obama would do better than Clinton in a match with McCain. This is true both at the aggregate (national) level and in more detailed analyses on a state by state basis. In brief, Obama wins more states by wide margins, and also puts far more states into play than Clinton can. He does not have to rely upon Kerry's states plus Ohio, which is essentially the Clinton campaign strategy.

Most Republicans would prefer to run against Clinton rather than Obama. She unites and mobilizes the Republican base in a way that no Democrat can, and she has very little appeal to independents. These disadvantages are st least as significantr as Obama's problems with the Clinton base of supporters.

Most Democrats in red states would prefer to have Obama at the top of the ticket rather than Clinton.

Despite all this evidence, Clinton supporters continue to claim that she would be the stronger general election candidate. Why? What evidence supports such a conclusion?

One other point. As several posters have observed, Obama is virtually certain to finish the primary season with a substantial lead in pledged delegates. Anyone who believes that African American voters will show up to vote for Hillary Clinton if superdelegates award the nomination to her in these circumstances is living in a fantasy world.

Posted by Thrasymachus | March 12, 2008 10:14 PM

No, Tim, you don't sound patronizing, just your usual incoherent self. It's really quite sad that you tried so hard, and yet missed the obvious point, which is that half the country wouldn't vote for Clinton before this, and she has now lost a crucial slice of Democratic support. I estimated it generously at 6% of her potential total, but it could easily be higher, around 10-12 %. That doesn't offer much hope for her in the general, and it's the point you failed to address completely. Still, I don't agree with your numerous critics here. You are not deliberately evasive, simply unable to operate at a higher analytic level.

Perhaps the argument I offered was a little too complex for you, and I apologize for testing your reading comprehension so unkindly. Still, I am encouraged by your attempts to develop some form of logic, and I hope you will add the capacity to read and understand argument to your portfolio of skills. I wish you luck in your quest. It might, however, be better for your chosen candidate if you retired from the fray and allowed more qualified people to debate on her behalf. Your advocacy is rather limited, and it is regrettable that she has not found a more convincing supporter.

Posted by morzer | March 12, 2008 10:14 PM

Clinton did well among whites in Mississippi because she had so many fake Republican white votes. 24% of her vote was from Republicans and this is not because they like her. It's because Rush Limbaugh and his copy-cat radio talk show hosts told their zombified listeners to cast a false vote for Hillary so that McCain could beat her in November. (Polls show Obama beating McCain handily.) Her win in Texas was likely fake being made up of Republicans instructed by Rush. Thus Obama wins the Texas caucuses since one has to be much more motivated and willing to invest time and energy to caucus, and the pseudovoters would not do this.

Posted by Tamsin Crozier | March 12, 2008 10:17 PM

Morzer, you rock! You totally owned Tim K's sad little ass there!

Posted by sheryl | March 12, 2008 10:17 PM

Tim K, for Clinton's sake, quit drinking the happy juice. You are embarrassing the poor old lady terribly.

Posted by jaswant | March 12, 2008 10:19 PM

Morzer:

Obviously you missed the obvious point that half the country said they wouldn't vote for George W. Bush in 2004, yet when presented with a choice between him and John Kerry 51% voted for him anyways. You take highly arbitrary numbers out of the clear blue sky (which anyone can do) and try to imply that is operating at a "highly analytical level." You obviously have an extremely high opinion of yourself.

Again, nothing you had to say was particularly insightful or original. And nothing you said in your response addressed any of the points I have made. All you have to offer, so far, are personal insults.

Essentially, your strategy is to adorn your vacuous arguments in a cloak of pretentious prose.

Posted by Tim K | March 12, 2008 10:20 PM

It's gotten to the point where not only would I not vote for a Clinton/Obama ticket, but I'd be hard pressed to vote for an Obama/Clinton ticket. She needs to go far away for a long time. Dream ticket, my ass.

Posted by Just Karl | March 12, 2008 10:21 PM

Do my eyes deceive me? Tim K accuses others of vacuous arguments! Hah! Gave me a chuckle right there.

Posted by maraschion | March 12, 2008 10:22 PM

The only reason people like Morzer are able to get away with what he says - in his haughty manner - is because he is doing so before a totally uncritical crowd of clapping seals like maraschion, sheryl, jaswant, and 9/10's of the commenters.

People who support Obama on this blog can say basically anything they wish and you all will support it.

Posted by Tim K | March 12, 2008 10:27 PM

Tim K, have you never realized that George Bush had not lost the support of Republicans in 2004, and that Kerry was a mediocre candidate, just as Clinton is now? Was it just a little too complex for you? If 5 per cent of Republicans had defected or sat out in 2004, do you really think Bush would be president today? Now, take a deep breath and ask what happens if 5% of Democrats do the same thing to Clinton. Not so complex, no?

No, I don't need a particularly high opinion of myself to see that you aren't making a serious argument and that your only tactic is to resort to name-calling in the hope of hiding your political illiteracy. It's amusing in some ways, but mostly sad. Please, contribute something positive to the online community, rather than this childish and negative behavior. It really does reflect badly on you and your candidate.

Posted by morzer | March 12, 2008 10:30 PM

Tim K, little friend, it doesn't help you to lose the argument spectacularly, and then lash out at the audience. Or is this the latest Clinton strategy? Sad stuff, kiddo, sad stuff.

Posted by maraschion | March 12, 2008 10:32 PM

People who support Obama on this blog can say basically anything they wish and you all will support it.

Posted by Tim K | March 12, 2008 10:27 PM

Ah the subtle analytic mind of Tim K! Worthy of Russert at his most incisive.

Posted by yilderim | March 12, 2008 10:34 PM

Funny that. Tim K gets whipped in an argument - and starts to blame the people who were convinced by his opponent. Gotta tell you, Timmy, you aren't winning any debates by stamping your little foot and bursting into tears.

Posted by peterandwendy | March 12, 2008 10:39 PM

morzer:

Yes, morzer, your genius arguments are way too complex for a simpleton like me. What are these fancy figures you keep flashing around. I'm dizzy.

Oh please. Give me a break.

The November election is not going to be a referendum on Hillary Clinton, or anyone else for that matter. It's going to be a choice. Many factors are going to enter into that choice. If Barack Obama is the nominee, one of those factors is going to be that he was merely a state senator 4 years ago and has hardly any national experience, or foreign policy experience.

You are the one who has resorted to name-calling at every juncture. Your brazen hypocrisy is amusing.

You couldn't be more pretentious or arrogant if you tried.

I would be pleased to raise the level of this discussion and avoid name-calling and rudeness.

Unfortunately you have shown zero willingness to do that.

Posted by Tim K | March 12, 2008 10:40 PM

People, people.... this is getting ugly. Are you trying to prove LarryM right?

Posted by AlanC9 | March 12, 2008 10:41 PM

your genius arguments are way too complex for a simpleton like me

Posted by Tim K | March 12, 2008 10:40 PM

Is this Tim K developing some sort of belated self-awareness?

Posted by jaswant | March 12, 2008 10:42 PM

AlanC9 - hmm.. you do remember that Tim K has a long record of trollishness, yes? And if you look at his posts, he's consistently abusive in a very childish way.

Posted by maraschion | March 12, 2008 10:45 PM

Those invoking historical precedent during this campaign seem out of touch, don't they? This Democratic primary and the ensuing general election (no matter who wins the Democratic race) are going to be historically unique.

It's particularly silly of the Clinton campaign to do this, as it feeds into the part of Obama's stump speech about this election being about change versus the failed politics of the past.

Posted by Trieu | March 12, 2008 10:45 PM

Just think, we've got six more weeks of this until PA!

Posted by argh | March 12, 2008 10:46 PM

On this blog trolling means criticizing Barack Obama.

Everyone who criticizes Barack Obama, his campaign, or points out problems in his candidacy or electability are accused of being a troll and called every name in the book.

It's a disturbing pattern clearly intended to stifle debate and squelch dissent.

Posted by Tim K | March 12, 2008 10:48 PM

Tim K: sure, they're the ones pulling the name-calling and stuff (the self-righteousness of Obama fans is getting really obnoxious lately). But you did avoid the main point; is there any way for Hillary to win the nomination without alienating too many Democratic voters to win the general? I don't see it. Even if winning vis superdelegate is legitimate under the party rules, it sure isn't going to feel legitimate to the losing side.

Even if you think Obama's going to be a relatively weak general election candidate, aren't we stuck with him?

Posted by AlanC9 | March 12, 2008 10:49 PM

Tim K, start by writing posts that are mature, debate arguments on the merits, and leave the attempts at abuse at home. You haven't offered any serious response to the point that Clinton has high negatives and is losing Democratic support. This maker her close to unelectable, and certainly a poor candidate for the general election. Dispute this point in good faith and with a real argument, leave the attitude at home, and you'll find people are much more tolerant towards you. Your last post was simply childish, and it doesn't win you any respect to throw insults and then play victim.

Posted by morzer | March 12, 2008 10:51 PM

Yes, Alan, they are.

Look, I'm the biggest Clinton basher around here, but really this is getting tiresome. This is one reason I troll so much (though the most recent comments were meant entirely seriously). You all act like you are going to persuade people with arguments in comment threads. It isn't happening.

Tim K: even you admit Obama has a shot. Let's accept for the sake of argument your dubious belief that Clinton has a somewhat better shot in the general election. Even if you could somehow convince the people here that you are correct (you can't) their loathing of Clinton is such that (rightly or wrongly, rightly IMO) they would prefer a good but slightly smaller chance of victory to supporting the Monster. And you sure as heck aren't going to shift their opinions about Clinton at this point,

Everyone else: do you see any signs at all that you are getting through to Tim K? No? Then why are you wasting your time?

If the Democratic party means something to you (all of you), give it a rest. If it doesn't (and it doesn't, much, to me, despite my even greater contempt for the Republicans), by all means keep going, but please: lose the pretense of reasoned argument and just stick to the fun invective.

Posted by LarryM | March 12, 2008 10:53 PM

Hear hear, morzer. Tim K, quit the pose of injured party. You've thrown around a lot of dirt in your recent posts. AlanC9, look at what Tim K has written, and you'll find that our Clinton fan is far more consistently abusive than anyone else on here. Don't encourage him, please.

Posted by zilifant | March 12, 2008 10:54 PM

AlanC9:

Thank you for addressing me with a little bit of respect. I don't really know the answer to your question and I don't think it's known. I will say I think it's unlikely Clinton can be nominated without alienating Obama's supporters. Increasing there is evidence (in the Mississippi exit polls, the Pew poll and Rasmussen polls) that Clinton supporters are being equally turned off by Obama. I think it's looking increasingly likely that either candidate is going to have serious problems with their base come November. Who will have the more severe problems? At this very moment it looks like Clinton, but that is becoming less and less clear.

Having said that, you could be right that we are stuck with him. This thing isn't quite over though, as Clinton has the chance to capture the popular vote.

Posted by Tim K | March 12, 2008 10:54 PM

zilifant:

That's just a total fabrication. Go back far enough on this blog and I've been called just about every name imaginable. The worst I've ever done is call people "naive", "arrogant", "ignorant", or "pretentious." I'll admit, that's not very charitable of me, but it's tame compared to what has been said to me.

Posted by Tim K | March 12, 2008 10:58 PM

Tim K: if that's your belief (10:54 post), your prior posts really do represent disingenuous trolling of the worst sort. You have just essentially conceded most of your opponent's arguments.

Congratulations, you are officially a bigger troll than I am.

Posted by LarryM | March 12, 2008 10:59 PM

Hell is other blog commenters.

Posted by Jean-Paul | March 12, 2008 11:02 PM

As far as I'm concern being called a "troll" by the likes of many of you is a badge of honor I will proudly wear.

Posted by Tim K | March 12, 2008 11:05 PM

So, since I called out Cal on something earlier, I figured I'd go and do some additional research to back up what I was saying. What I argued was that Obama was doing fine with white men and was winning them overall in the primary contests.

It turns out that this is, in fact, true, though the margin is fairly narrow. So, in the 28 primary contests where exit polling was done (all the states here minus Iowa and Nevada: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21660890/), I calculated the number of white male votes won by Sens. Clinton and Obama. It's pretty close. Out of over 6 million votes, Sen. Obama has 3,133,341 to 3,080,261 for Sen. Clinton. That's 50.43% to 49.57%. So he isn't steamrolling her here but he's certainly holding his own, and more than that he is winning white men.

Posted by jbryan | March 12, 2008 11:06 PM

LarryM and AlanC9, remember that this began when Tim K attacked a long and well-argued piece by morzer that made a contribution to the debate. He did so in unpleasant and personal terms, and continued to be unpleasant throughout the exchange. He made references to morzer's supposed Canadian origin, accused him of writing to be marked and basically threw in every bit of name-calling he could think of. That's simply contemptible, and for him to play victim is simply a scam by an incompetent scam artist.

You do yourselves no favors by defending Tim K's behavior. We would all like substantive debate on these issues, but it is the ignorant, arrogant and deliberately dishonest people like Tim K who stop us achieving that. Tim K began this whole fight with a personal attack on morzer, who responded reasonably by suggesting that Tim K address the arguments and issues. Tim K refused to do so, and continues to be unpleasant and immature. That's why we consider him a troll, and why we would ask you not to give him cover for his inappropriate behavior. We'll happily debate you on the merits, but there's no reason why we should debate or take seriously someone who is as unpleasant and dishonest as Tim K.

Posted by jason c | March 12, 2008 11:15 PM

Looking through the thread, I'd have to agree with jason c. Tim K really doesn't try and argue seriously on the merits. It's a shame, because there is a good debate to be had, but Tim K's name-calling gets in the way. Larry and Alan, how about setting a good example for Tim?

Posted by msalazar | March 12, 2008 11:20 PM

jason c:

I'm Canadian. I asked him if he was Canadian because he spelled favorable the Canadian/British way as: favourable (which is the correct english way, I might add). It couldn't have been meant as a personal insult considering I am Canadian myself.

I didn't do any name-calling, you simply made that up.

The whole tone of Morzer's responses were arrogant and condescending at every level.

How about you stop attacking others for attempting even-handedness, simply because they do not conform to the mob mentality of much of the pro-Obama commenters here.

Posted by Tim K | March 12, 2008 11:22 PM

That's why we consider him a troll, and why we would ask you not to give him cover for his inappropriate behavior. We'll happily debate you on the merits, but there's no reason why we should debate or take seriously someone who is as unpleasant and dishonest as Tim K.

My point exactly (or one of them, anyway). Then why are you all persisting in this lame attempt to debate him? Ignore the troll, or mock him and call him names. The last thing you want to do is take him seriously.

Posted by LarryM | March 12, 2008 11:23 PM

So, Larry, moving on to more substantive debate - do you consider Clinton a strong candidate for the general? I tend to think she's going to have trouble, based on the argument I outlined above. What's your opinion? Alan, any thoughts?

Posted by morzer | March 12, 2008 11:28 PM

Ignore the troll, or mock him and call him names. The last thing you want to do is take him seriously.

Is that what debating on merits means? Mocking people and calling them names?

Basically the pattern here is that if I say something critical about Obama or something on something in defense of Clinton, and then I am condemned by half a dozen posters all at once. Then I respond and there is a back and forth. Then whenever there is an exchange of invective of any kind (sometimes began by me, but usually by others) I am then pilloried by half a dozen pro-Obama commenters, called a troll about 50 times, mocked, called names, insulted in every way. And then people have the audacity to blame me for the problem because I do not conform to your views.

This is the pattern that proceeds again and again and again here.

Posted by Tim K | March 12, 2008 11:32 PM

I would guess Clinton is toast for the nomination, but if she does weasel her way to it, I can't see her doing too well with voters. A lot of people are turned off by her, and she hasn't really offered much positive, especially in the last month. Hard to see the appeal in a Democratic candidate who really is running in the style of a national security paranoia Republican.

Posted by zilifant | March 12, 2008 11:35 PM

morzer:

Could you be any more disingenuous? You know they all agree with you. Why don't you go to the mirror and have an argument with yourself? It will take less energy than typing.

Posted by Tim K | March 12, 2008 11:35 PM

for me, morzer is solid on the demographics, although it might matter just how the vote breaks down in terms of states. you can still win while losing the popular vote and vice versa. i think it's not very likely that clinton can escape her negatives, as well as being defined by now as a negative candidate. can't see the african american vote coming back for the clintons this time either. not a good outlook for her.

Posted by javier | March 12, 2008 11:40 PM

javier:

What about latino voters? McCain has a chance to maintain or even build upon George Bush's 40% of the latino vote from 2004 given his leadership on comprehensive immigration reform and being from Arizona. Obama has to contend with the ethnic tensions that apparently do exist (read John Judis articles) between African Americans and latinos. Clinton not only has the strong support of latinos in this primary, her husband barried two-thirds of the latino vote in the nineties. I think she has a much better chance of do better with hispanics than he and that could be the difference in Florida, New Mexico, Nevada and New Jersey.

Posted by Tim K | March 12, 2008 11:47 PM

It is strange that Clinton hasn't tried harder to offer a positive platform. My guess is that she knows Obama has her beaten on that front, and is trying desperately to pull him down. Shame that the Democratic house has to come down as well. Anyway, no way she'll get the nomination now, so discussing the general prospects for her might not get us far.

Posted by adamselznick | March 12, 2008 11:47 PM

Here's a new angle, touched on (way, way) above by one poster:

Why does Clinton do so much better among the less educated than Obama? I would argue that there is a correlation between a voter's level of education and his or her level of informedness, if that's a word. The more informed people are, the more open they are to Obama as a candidate. Many less educated Democrats prefer Clinton because she's a known quantity whom they positively associate her with her fondly remembered husband. Furthermore, and frankly, appeals to emotion, fear and even racial matters are more likely to resonate with less educated/informed voters.

In a general election, less educated voters will begin to get to know Obama, and the contrast between what he stands for, especially in terms of domestic policy and kitchen-table issues, will be in strong contrast with McCain. Remember, these voters are still Democrats. It won't be difficult to make the case that Obama's domestic and economic platform is more aligned with working-class interests than McCain's.

On a related topic, Obama needs to address his lack of appeal with Catholics. A good place to start would be to distill the argument offered by Doug Kmiec, the conservative dean of Pepperdine Law, on Slate last month as to why Catholics should prefer Obama.

Posted by Brian | March 12, 2008 11:48 PM

Brian:

Another interpretation is that less-educated voters are not simply "low information voters" but are also low-income voters. Their personal financial security and that of their families is much more of a concern for them than college students and middle-aged affluent liberals. Lower income Democrats are focusing on the economy and concrete solutions rather than lofty rhetoric featuring a promise of change, calls for international harmony, and an end to bipartisanship. Some people can afford to think in those terms, while others have to worry about how they are going to pay their mortgage, afford health care, or send their kids to school.

Posted by Tim K | March 12, 2008 11:59 PM

I think you've got a good point, Brian, since Obama has generally done well except among blue collar workers and older voters. Mind you, some of his big victories did secure blue collar support, so it's not unreasonable to say he can get those groups into the tent once Clinton finally gives in. It might be that the educated demographic versus less educated is also a function of what sources of information they have access to. Do blue collar workers have less diverse sources and go by word of mouth/old allegiances/union affiliations etc, rather than eg. investigating issues and platforms on the web? This isn't condemning them for doing so, and loyalty to the group is perfectly natural. Equally, many older people seem less web-oriented.
Is it a coincidence that Obama gets the younger voters as well as the more educated? Again, my guess is that the young are more at home surfing the web, looking for diverse information, and just don't have the same strong bonds as the older blue-collar voters. Could election preference come down to how diverse one's sources of information are? Is that one of the big building blocks of the Obama coalition, plus the African-American vote? Anyway, it's an interesting issue, and I am glad you raised it.

Posted by morzer | March 12, 2008 11:59 PM

Maybe it's time for a new slogan:

"It's the internet, stupid". *s*

Posted by peterandwendy | March 13, 2008 12:02 AM

The Clinton coalition:

low-information voters, and those who read Taylor Marsh ... oh, sorry, they are the same *s*.

Posted by maraschion | March 13, 2008 12:08 AM

maraschion, you missed out a crucial figure: Tim K... although on second thoughts, he does fall under the low information rubric.. and probably hangs on Taylor's every rabid word.

Posted by javier | March 13, 2008 12:13 AM

Tim K,

I don't disagree with that, and I tried to convey that in the first post (i.e, "kitchen-table issues"). The further point, though, was that, since Obama's economic philosophy is more aligned with these voters' interests than McCain's, he will stand a good chance of winning them over once the general election campaign begins in earnest. I'd argue that he'd have a better chance at winning them over than Clinton would of winning back alienated black voters and young voters. This is not to dismiss the converse problem Obama will have winning back female Clinton voters who feel that she was unfairly attacked because of her gender.

Posted by Brian | March 13, 2008 12:13 AM

Tim K,

I don't disagree with that, and I tried to convey that in the first post (i.e, "kitchen-table issues"). The further point, though, was that, since Obama's economic philosophy is more aligned with these voters' interests than McCain's, he will stand a good chance of winning them over once the general election campaign begins in earnest. I'd argue that he'd have a better chance at winning them over than Clinton would of winning back alienated black voters and young voters. This is not to dismiss the converse problem Obama will have winning back female Clinton voters who feel that she was unfairly attacked because of her gender.

Posted by Brian | March 13, 2008 12:14 AM

morzer:

The subtext of what you are saying is elitist in the extreme. You basically saying essentially that Clinton supporters are irrational and ignorant and once they are given information they will see the light and vote for Obama. That's extremely patronizing to low-income people.

The same affluent voters who are now the bedrock of Obama's support (besides African Americans) were the same voters who back Eugene McCarthy, Gary Hart, Paul Tsongas, and Bill Bradley. The "low information" voters backed Bill Clinton and Al Gore, for example, and nearly every other Democratic nominee. Are you saying they were ignorant and Bill Bradley or Paul Tsongas should have been nominated instead? That would have been a disaster.

Posted by Tim K | March 13, 2008 12:15 AM

Brian:

I think that's fair.

Posted by Tim K | March 13, 2008 12:17 AM

Morzer, I think you have Mini-Me on line one. Will you ignore the sad little beast, or shall I?

Posted by maraschion | March 13, 2008 12:19 AM

It's ok, maraschion, I find Tim K pathetic but harmless. He'll try and pick a fight by misquoting or distorting, but frankly, I don't think he really knows much about the issues, so we should simply ignore him and engage in real discussion.

Posted by morzer | March 13, 2008 12:23 AM

Are you are doing is congratulating yourselves for how intelligent and wise you are, not having a serious discussion about anything.

A political debate without dissenting views is a pep rally.

Posted by Tim K | March 13, 2008 12:26 AM

I voted for Obama. I think he's going to lose because of racism.

Don't dismiss this. The older white women who support Hillary are much angrier than Obama supporters. I think they're not going to support him because they're crazy and irrational. I mean that seriously. My mother is one of them. They despise Obama, and the main reason seems to be that they're so in the bag for Hillary that they can't accept him winning.

All you hear from them is how unfair and how bad Obama is, how awful he is. Then Hillary will do something truly despicable and "That's just politics, he needs to learn how to take a punch."

It's incredible. Read some of the arguments above. Obama is criticized for both his weak jaw and inability to stand up to Republicans while also being criticized as incredibly unfair and personally vicious to Hillary. I too am worried about whether he can take a punch successfully with an electorate racist enough to be against him from the start, but Hillary supporters see everything through some weird victimhood angle where she is horribly mistreated because she's a woman but she's the stronger candidate, where she's already hated but that makes her stronger, etc..

It's incoherent. I just want to win this year. I want to beat the Republicans because this country can't survive four more years of this anti-American, anti-worker, anti-poor crap. I hate Hillary but I'll vote for her in a minute over McCain. Sadly, most Hillary supporters refuse to say the same about Obama and they can pretend that they have good reasons for that.

Frankly, I still think the best outcome is a joint ticket to unite the supporters. McCain is up in the polls over both right now but in my mind that's just reflecting how split the Democrats are. McCain's party is as unified as it could be given the circumstances, once the Democrats unify, his numbers will slip and the Republicans will panic and eat him alive for not being a true conservative.

Posted by Simon | March 13, 2008 12:28 AM

Good point, morzer. You can see how desperate the little troll is to get some attention. Best not to engage. He reminds me of my uncle's dog that used to lie around and lick its balls, and then look incredibly pleased with this great achievement.

Posted by maraschion | March 13, 2008 12:29 AM

All*

Posted by Tim K | March 13, 2008 12:29 AM

Seems like an unfair comparison to me, maraschion. Was the dog really that bad?

Posted by morzer | March 13, 2008 12:31 AM

You only embarrass yourselves and your preferred candidate. You have cheapened debate in this place even more than it already was, and that's an impressive achievement.

Posted by Tim K | March 13, 2008 12:33 AM

Well, as dogs go, it was decent enough.. and I probably should make that clearer. I was mostly thinking of the slobbering and the self-congratulatory look on the beast's face.

Posted by maraschion | March 13, 2008 12:35 AM

Simon:

I wish you would stop for a moment and consider that many Clinton supporters feel the same way about Obama supporting who also appear irrational in their constant personal attacks and insults on Hillary and Bill.

Not only do they say she is divisive and will do anything to win, not only do they accuse her of racism and race-baiting, but they bring up Monica Lewinsky, Gennifer Flowers, Paul Jones, White Water cattle futures, drug-dealing, Vince Foster. It's really the worst kind of Arkansas Project, Republican smear.

So, there are good reasons for Clinton supporters to be angry Simon.

Posted by Tim K | March 13, 2008 12:37 AM

Well, I can see the comparison on that basis, maraschion - but don't blame me if dog-lovers denounce you for comparing their cherished pets to Mini-Me. *s*

Posted by morzer | March 13, 2008 12:38 AM

I think Simon may be right. It seems to me that, whenever Obama's campaign or his supporters have taken exception to something as racial politics, it has only been in response to something that is actually racialized, such as Ferraro's comments. When Clinton's campaign and supporters take exception to something as gender politics, it is never in response to something that is actually gender-related. It is a subtext that they read into it. The closest thing I can think of to a gender-based comment out of an Obama surrogate is McPeak's reference to "crying fits." I can certainly understand someone reading a gender subtext into that, but it's not overtly about gender. It's about demeanor, contrasting Clinton's highs and lows with Obama's even keel.

The most egregious example I have seen of a Clinton voter straining to find gender bias occurred last week. A Clinton supporter wrote a letter to the Los Angeles Times objecting to that newspaper's statement that Clinton "resuscitated her flagging bid" by winning Ohio. The letter-writer insisted that the paper should have used the word "revive" instead of the word "resuscitate" because the latter word is anti-woman. Huh? Granted, this is anecdotal, and extreme, but it is representative of a pattern.

Posted by Brian | March 13, 2008 12:40 AM

i'm a dog-lover, and I want you to reject and denounce these hateful remarks about dogs. you degrade a noble species by comparing it to the troll! shame on you!

Posted by javier | March 13, 2008 12:42 AM

I know you guys probably won't answer this because it would likely prove my point, but can ask your ages?

Posted by Tim K | March 13, 2008 12:43 AM

Brian, I think the Obama campaign has been very careful to avoid anything that could be seen as sexist, especially after Clinton's tearful victory in New Hampshire. It's worth remembering that this was when Hillary really went negative with the false fliers about Obama's record abortion issues. I imagine Clinton is using race now as the last, worst gambit - but all she is doing is destroying her political future, and quite possibly Democratic hopes for 2008.

Posted by morzer | March 13, 2008 12:47 AM

I reject and denounce comparisons of dogs to simpering trolls! This sort of canine hate has no place in our political discourse!

Posted by Tim L | March 13, 2008 12:50 AM

You know, I can only bring up what I've seen.

In the real world, what I've seen is this: A mostly positive Obama campaign that attacked Hillary on the issues and didn't unveil a single negative TV ad for months. A Hillary campaign that released endless surrogate statements about race, about Obama's past, and also some well-founded policy critiques that were perfectly inbounds. That's how she fights. By having her surrogates say reprehensible, horrible things and then dancing away from the mess.

What I then saw was an Obama campaign that was lured into this as the race got uglier and Hillary started landing serious body blows. In the recent few weeks I'd say Hillary has continued her underhanded strategy and Obama's campaign seemed to come unmoored from the attacks (a bad sign for him, his surrogates seemed too out of control). Now much of this is expected. This is politics. I expect things to get ugly as things get more drawn out.

But here is what people like yourself and people on the internet have apparently seen:
You've seen a race where Obama personally attacked Hillary from day one. Where Hillary is called a racist by Obama for silly little things that were clearly unplanned or didn't really mean anything racist. Where Obama constantly referenced Hillary's past in the 90s and made sexist arguments against her. In short, you've seen a race where Obama is always the aggressor and Hillary always the poor victim getting an unfair shake by the media.

Now on the internet what I've seen are some mean-spirited attacks on Hillary that are unfair. I credit many of these to idiots. I thoroughly dislike her because of her dirty campaigning, but voting against her over McCain seems the height of lunacy to me for anyone who claims to be a Democrat. And that's what really burns me uyp. I've also seen way, way, way, way, way, way more Hillary supporters say they'll never vote for Obama in a million years because of "what he's done to Hillary Clinton" and his "misogyny." I've seen people say they'd rather McCain win the Supreme Courts last few liberal spots because "it's already ruined anyway" and "Obama's supporters aren't real Democrats."

In short, what I'm trying to say is that I started this race being an Edwards supporter. And I'm not claiming Obama is perfect or that he's run a 100% positive campaign or that he hasn't had some moments I wish he'd thought better of, but it's been absolutely clear to me that Hillary has by far been the more negative campaigner and by far launched more personal, out-of-bounds (and yes, racist) attacks than Obama, and that because her supporters love her so much, they look past this and see her as a perpetual victim.

Frankly, I want to win at all costs, so if Hillary's disgusting behavior proves Obama isn't ready for the big-time yet or the country is too racist, then fine, let her win because it'll be way better to win with her than to lose with Obama, but I question whether Hillary supporters really give a crap about this country at all that so many of them online say they couldn't bite the bullet and vote for Barack. This idea that he's gone beyond anything reasonable and is somehow tainted or evil for having a political battle with Hillary where each side has thrown punches. I question whether those people mean what they say, and if they do, if they're the reason we keep losing to Republicans and letting this country slip down the drain.

Posted by Simon | March 13, 2008 12:50 AM

i think Clinton has built a campaign on playing victim, and that won't fly against McCain. he'll just make her look like a whiny, selfish, east coast liberal. hell, a lot of democrats would agree with him. you notice how nobody in the purple states wants hillary anywhere near them? there's a reason for that, and a good one - she offers nothing, and people just don't like her.

Posted by javier | March 13, 2008 12:55 AM

On Senate races:

Nonsense. I strongly suspect that it won't matter who the Democratic presidential nominee is, the other races will be largely independent of it.

You're missing one aspect here: many of the seats that are up for grabs either have weak incumbents -- Liddy Dole might even be in trouble -- or are open.

If the presidential campaign seriously includes the states on that map, and Obama shows every sign of doing that, then you get motivation and registration and free media. That actually matters.

If it camps out in Ohio and Florida, there might be House pickups (more in the former than the latter state) but it leaves those Senate races up to the state candidates.

Like I said, 'John Kerry +130,000 votes' is not the kind of campaign I want to see in 2008. Not in the context of the 50-state strategy and the gains of 2006 in parts of the country once thought utterly inhospitable for Democrats.

But that's probably the only one Clinton can take, having told lots of states they don't count these past months. I can't see her going back to St Louis as the nominee. She has painted herself into a rusty corner.

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | March 13, 2008 12:58 AM

Simon:

It's not that Clinton supporters have imagined Obama's attacks on Clinton. For the most part they weren't sexist at all, but they were either bringing up Republican talking points or exploiting her negatives from doing battle with Republicans in the past. Many of us don't find them particularly endearing.

While there in an argument to be made that certain statements that were made by Clinton surrogates were racially insensitive, it is also true that the Obama campaign has cynically exploited race in order to tar Clinton with the racist brush, which is probably the single most serious charge that can be hurled at someone in the Democratic party. I think they have done that proactively because they fear the consequences to Obama's candidacy if he were ever defined as the "black candidate" intentionally or not. Many of us aren't very impressed with the Clintons being called racist, since that's plainly ridiculous and deeply hurtful.

I think it's unfair to accuse Clinton of negative and under-handed tactics without recognizing that the Obama campaign has consistently attacked her in the most personal terms, recycled Republican attacks from the 1990's, and played the racial victim card in order to deflect questions of identity politics that naturally arise when one candidate receive the near unanimous support of his own ethnic community.

I think you should attempt to be a little bit more open-minded a fair to both sides.

Posted by Tim K | March 13, 2008 1:00 AM

Simon, can you think of any positive themes that the Clinton camp have offered in the past month? I can't recall anything of substance. It seems to be attacks on Obama, coupled with fear and race-baiting. I can't remember seeing a candidacy that was so overwhelmingly empty. Why should anyone vote Clinton? I see the negatives, but nothing offered in the way of positives.

Posted by morzer | March 13, 2008 1:01 AM

It's a disturbing pattern clearly intended to stifle debate and squelch dissent.

Not really. They all just love their lives in the echo chamber. The sincerity just leaks onto the screen, right along with the venom. But come on, you know the drill. You can't really mind the ranting; no one who deliberately posts in Obamaville is doing it because they can't find anywhere else. I have my own forum and just post here because there aren't enough stupid people at my place (but don't tell them I said that, it'll swell their heads).

JBryan, you could have saved yourself the trouble of analyzing the white male vote. I've done the exit poll analysis for all the major demographics here.

Posted by Cal | March 13, 2008 1:29 AM

The point about Clinton winning the big reliable Democratic states is this: what do you do to those voters who have been for years reliably and consistently turning out Democratic when you say, oh, they're Democrats, they'll vote for whoever wins, when in fact the race is very close. Yes, I suppose they will. But they won't be happy. I'm talking about the working class, the women, etc. who have been taken for granted for decades by the Democratic establishment and who in the big states are showing clear preference for Hillary. You prefer the youth vote, the "creative class," etc. who are turning out for Obama -- who never turned out before, who sure didn't turn out for Kerry. Well, fine. It's so exciting, all those new Democrats in Wyoming. Meanwhile we Democrats who have always been there in California and New York and Ohio and Pennsylvania and Florida and Michigan giving moeny, turning out, rallying behind whoever is the nominee -- not that we in California ever had any say in that before -- are told to hold our nose and vote against our preference because Obama will rock North Carolina.

Sure. Thanks. We will.
But the one thing the Repubs know is that you don't alienate your base.

I sure hope that new Obama support is strong and deep and lasting. I don't know how well the "creative class" will fare in the coming economic shitstorm and I don't guess the youth care all that much about health care and Social Security. Still, when politics turns out to be a lot more complicated than just "reaching out to the other side," I hope they stick with the Dems, giving time and money for decades and not just for a few months, despite disappointment, despite disillusionment, despite the clay feet any idol is sure to have.

Posted by BK | March 13, 2008 2:03 AM

The point about Clinton winning the big reliable Democratic states is this: what do you do to those voters who have been for years reliably and consistently turning out Democratic when you say, oh, they're Democrats, they'll vote for whoever wins, when in fact the race is very close. Yes, I suppose they will. But they won't be happy. I'm talking about the working class, the women, etc. who have been taken for granted for decades by the Democratic establishment and who in the big states are showing clear preference for Hillary. You prefer the youth vote, the "creative class," etc. who are turning out for Obama -- who never turned out before, who sure didn't turn out for Kerry. Well, fine. It's so exciting, all those new Democrats in Wyoming. Meanwhile we Democrats who have always been there in California and New York and Ohio and Pennsylvania and Florida and Michigan giving moeny, turning out, rallying behind whoever is the nominee -- not that we in California ever had any say in that before -- are told to hold our nose and vote against our preference because Obama will rock North Carolina.

Sure. Thanks. We will.
But the one thing the Repubs know is that you don't alienate your base.

I sure hope that new Obama support is strong and deep and lasting. I don't know how well the "creative class" will fare in the coming economic shitstorm and I don't guess the youth care all that much about health care and Social Security. Still, when politics turns out to be a lot more complicated than just "reaching out to the other side," I hope they stick with the Dems, giving time and money for decades and not just for a few months, despite disappointment, despite disillusionment, despite the clay feet any idol is sure to have.

Posted by BK | March 13, 2008 2:04 AM

JBryan, you could have saved yourself the trouble of analyzing the white male vote. I've done the exit poll analysis for all the major demographics here.

I always do my own research and verification. And with good reason, since your figures are off.

Posted by jbryan | March 13, 2008 2:07 AM

The point about Clinton winning the big reliable Democratic states is this: what do you do to those voters who have been for years reliably and consistently turning out Democratic when you say, oh, they're Democrats, they'll vote for whoever wins, when in fact the race is very close. Yes, I suppose they will. But they won't be happy. I'm talking about the working class, the women, etc. who have been taken for granted for decades by the Democratic establishment and who in the big states are showing clear preference for Hillary. You prefer the youth vote, the "creative class," etc. who are turning out for Obama

No, that's exactly the point. There's no preference given in a primary election to one demographic over another. There's no magic demographic. I prefer whoever gets the most delegates because that's how you win the nomination -- just as in the general election, I prefer whoever gets the most electoral votes.

I'm sorry if you feel slighted if a candidate in the primary has put together a coalition of voters that has allowed him to get more states/votes/delegates than your preferred candidate, but that's the way the process works. You suck it up and deal with it. I voted against John Kerry in the 2004 primary. My candidate (Clark) lost. I dealt. You can deal or not deal. But your demographic isn't entitled to a nomination.

Meanwhile we Democrats who have always been there in California and New York and Ohio and Pennsylvania and Florida and Michigan giving moeny, turning out, rallying behind whoever is the nominee -- not that we in California ever had any say in that before -- are told to hold our nose and vote against our preference because Obama will rock North Carolina.

Democrats who have always been there in Ohio and Florida? It's not exactly like these are Democratic bastions, you know.

Meanwhile, no one is saying hold your nose and vote against your preference. You compete in the primary for your preferred candidate, but if your candidate leaves, you make the choice to either continue with the party or take your ball and go home. If you can't tolerate losing an election, I'm very sorry, but again, you're not entitled to a free victory. Obama's won this thing fair and square.

Posted by jbryan | March 13, 2008 2:15 AM

For what it's worth, some guy (poblano) on Daily Kos did some regression analysis, and his results seem to indicate that, once you control for education, income levels have no bearing on Clinton vs. Obama support. I.e., a poor, well-educated person and a rich, well-educated person are equally likely to support Clinton and Obama (same with poor, poorly-educated people and rich, poorly-educated people). As far as I can tell, though, he conducted the regressions using data at the state level, not the individual level, so there might be dynamics in play that such data don't capture.

Posted by Julian Elson | March 13, 2008 2:21 AM

Whoops. Somehow I forgot the post the link. Here's the URL:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/2/9/13227/22519/239/453361

Posted by Julian Elson | March 13, 2008 2:23 AM

Obama's won this thing fair and square.

Not yet, he hasn't. It's not "fair and square", but "won".

The "winner" gets the most delegates total. Until he does that, he doesn't win.

The Democrats, the party you just demanded loyalty to, doesn't give the nomination automatically to the candidate supported by the voters.

He'll win "fair and square" when he gets to 2025 (or whatever the new number will be). And if Hillary gets there first, she won it "fair and square".

Oh, and by the way:

You can deal or not deal. But your demographic isn't entitled to a nomination.

That kind of thinking is exactly why superdelegates exist. And the reason Obama's so nervous is because he knows full well that the superdelegates know who will walk and who won't, and they know who matters more to the Democrats. Here's a hint: it ain't you, toots.

Posted by Cal | March 13, 2008 6:24 AM

Re: Most Republicans would prefer to run against Clinton rather than Obama.

Mainly because they have been preparing to run against her for the last eight years

Re: She unites and mobilizes the Republican base in a way that no Democrat can

The GOP base cannot win elections nationally no matter how motivated it is. And it has shrunk of late.

Re: McCain has a chance to maintain or even build upon George Bush's 40% of the latino vote from 2004

Bush did NOT win 40% of the Hispanic vote in 2004. Even GOP partisans now accept that that statistic was a fake. Moreover the GOP has branded itself the nativist (and white people's) party. McCain has done nothing to reject that brand, in fact he has embraced it. The Hispanic vote will not be favoring the GOP this year.

Posted by JonF | March 13, 2008 6:29 AM

Right says:
McCain also isn't going to lose New Mexico, unless Hillary chooses Bill Richardson as her running mate (not impossible, I suppose).

What are you basing this on? NM has been trending democratic since the razor-thin election in 2004. Are you saying McCain wins just because Arizona is next-door? They're different places.

Posted by Adam Villani | March 13, 2008 7:40 AM

The GOP base was highly motivated to run against Bill Clinton in 1996 and he won by more than an 8 point plurality.

Posted by Tim K | March 13, 2008 8:23 AM

Bush did NOT win 40% of the Hispanic vote in 2004. Even GOP partisans now accept that that statistic was a fake.

Pardon me, then whatever the statistic was (38%, 35%, 36.5%, or what have you) it was more than they won before. And I still think Clinton will do substantially better with latinos than Obama.

Posted by Tim K | March 13, 2008 8:25 AM

"Meanwhile we Democrats who have always been there in California and New York and Ohio and Pennsylvania and Florida and Michigan giving moeny, turning out, rallying behind whoever is the nominee -- not that we in California ever had any say in that before -- are told to hold our nose and vote against our preference because Obama will rock North Carolina."

Dude, Dems live in North Carolina too, and it would be nice not to be ignored by the party and the candidates for once. We've never had any say in who is the nominee either, and trust me, we have to hold our noses when we vote too.

This whole notion that working class voters in Ohio and Democrats that happen to live in reliably blue states confer some kind of special legitimacy is absurd, particularly in a once in a lifetime election like this, when the party needs to expand, win big, and redraw the map for future elections. We can't just squeak this one out; we have to win big and bring Senators in on our way.

All of these domestic policy disagreements won't mean a damn thing if there are still 45 or more Republicans in the Senate next year.

Posted by Zeke | March 13, 2008 8:30 AM

and they know who matters more to the Democrats. Here's a hint: it ain't you, toots.

So says the registered Republican.

Posted by Barbar | March 13, 2008 8:41 AM

BK: The point about Clinton winning the big reliable Democratic states is this: what do you do to those voters who have been for years reliably and consistently turning out Democratic when you say, oh, they're Democrats, they'll vote for whoever wins, when in fact the race is very close. Yes, I suppose they will. But they won't be happy. I'm talking about the working class, the women, etc. who have been taken for granted for decades by the Democratic establishment...

But not about African Americans, apparently. Although they fit your description to a T.

The coalition of blue-state, working-class and female Democratic voters has been just big enough to lose the last two presidential elections--and that was with African Americans, the most loyal part of the Democratic coalition.

The Democratic party needs to build its coalition if it wants to win. Obama's the candidate who can best do that by bringing in more young voters, independents, and white men, and increasing turnout for young voters and African Americans.

Also--I would worry about winning the upcoming election before I'd worry about the inevitable disappointment in the winner. I'm sure President Obama will do something to disappoint me, but I'm okay with that; I doubt whether there can even be a President Hillary Clinton.

And I know President McCain would be a disaster.

Cal: And the reason Obama's so nervous is because he knows full well that the superdelegates know who will walk and who won't

What an amazing act of mindreading. Granted, if the superdelegates are looking at those state-by-state polls, they do indeed know who will walk in November and who won't. That would probably explain why Obama's whittled Clinton's superdelegate lead down to 32 or so in the last month.

Posted by Marc | March 13, 2008 9:46 AM

And I still think Clinton will do substantially better with latinos than Obama.

Most likely true. They tend to be racist tools like you, Tim K.

The darker the berry, the sweeter the juice - Tim K

Posted by Brother of Tim K | March 13, 2008 9:57 AM

Right, so not only are everyone who criticizes Barack Obama racists, but since latinos prefer Hillary Clinton they are racist too.

That's great.

The New Politics = Accusing one's political opponents of racism in order to win a presidential election.

Pretty inspiring stuff.

Posted by Tim K | March 13, 2008 10:08 AM

Yes the Obama campaign is so desperate!

Posted by Barbar | March 13, 2008 10:12 AM

Babar:

They aren't desperate, they are afraid. David Axelrod knows one of the greatest dangers to Obama's candidacy is to be marginalized an a niche candidate of the African American community (which, of course, he is not). Unfortunately, the idea he is the so-called "black candidate" is reinforced when 90% of African Americans vote for him despite the Clintons long-held ties to the community and commitment to civil rights issues. And it's important to remember that 85% of blacks voted for Obama in Nevada before the Bob Johnson comments and before Bill Clinton's "Jesse Jackson" comparison.

Cleary, the Obama campaign's strategy is to go into messaging over-drive every time the subject of race comes up in this campaign in order to pin all of the blame squarely on the Clinton's, subtly (and sometimes outright) accuse them of race-baiting, spark sympathy, and put the issue away. I understand why they are doing this. This is politics. But let's cut it out with the lectures.

Posted by Tim K | March 13, 2008 10:25 AM

Tim K:
The GOP base was highly motivated to run against Bill Clinton in 1996 and he won by more than an 8 point plurality.

Don't insult our intelligence; we remember Ross Perot's existence just as much as you do. If Ron Paul (or one of James Dobson's minions) runs, then yes, we've got this sucker in the bag. Otherwise, this has absolutely no relevance to a two-way general election.

Zeke:
... a once in a lifetime election like this, when the party needs to expand, win big, and redraw the map for future elections. We can't just squeak this one out; we have to win big and bring Senators in on our way.

Yes, thank you. I'll say it again: Do we want the election of 2006 to go down in history as the beginning of a trend, or as an anomaly? If the Democrats only win 51% of the votes this November, that will be a tremendous squandering of an opportunity. Yet somehow, that seems to be Hillary Clinton's strategy.

Posted by Adam Villani | March 13, 2008 10:48 AM

Let me preface this by saying that I make no assumptions about the ethnicity of the people on this site or their feelings about race.

That out of the way, as a black man in his mid-30's here is my humble opinion. If Hillary Clinton becomes the nominee because her margin with the superdelegates outweighs her final deficit in pledged delegates, John McCain won't have to campaign a lick. Every black person with an email account is following this campaign right now, and (I am trying to be fair here) is aware of every racially tinged slight, both real and imagined, coming from the Clinton campaign. I get at least four emails a week that start with "Can you believe this $#!^ the Clinton people just said?" I don't care how many downscale whites vote for her in PA and OH, without black turnout in Cleveland and Philly, fuggitaboutit! There's no putting that toothpaste back in the tube.

Which is why she did something she never does yesterday -- apologize... to a bunch of black ministers.

That my friends, is the reality.

Posted by Blue Moon | March 13, 2008 10:52 AM

Adam Villani:

Yeah because if Ross Perot didn't run Bob Dole would have won 51% - 49%. If you believe that you'd believe anything.

Also, electoral performance is not cumulative. You make the argument that a big Democratic win in 2008 would necessarily be the start of some great winning streak, while a 51% win would be a wasted opportunity. The Demcrats won 50% of the popular vote in 1960 under John Kennedy, but that didn't stop the party from winning 61% of the vote with LBJ four years later. And winning that huge landslide in 1964 didn't stop the party from dropping 19 points to 42% in the subsequent election. The same example can be used for the Republican in the 1980s and 1990s for the Republicans. 1988 did not presage success in 1992. Each election is a separate contest subject to underlying variables, not past performance.

Posted by Tim K | March 13, 2008 11:01 AM

Blue Moon:

Most of it is imagined. Like the "fairy tale" remark, the MLK statements, the 'drug use' references, Bob Kerrey's remarks, this ridiculous interpretation of the 3:00 AM ad as having racial overtones. There are a couple legitimate examples but most of them were deliberately distorted by the Obama campaign in order to deflect the race issue.

Posted by Tim K | March 13, 2008 11:08 AM

MLK was not distorted or imagined -- you just don't see it the same way I do.

Shaheen was not distorted or imagined - he said "drug dealer." Please!

"Even Jesse Jackson won S.C." was not distorted or imagined.

Geraldine Ferraro was not distorted or imagined.

I'll give you 3 am and fairy tale. I'll give you partial credit on MLK and Kerrey.

Look, its not that I think the Clintons are racist, its that they want to win, and part of their winning strategy is to put Obama in a black box and parade it in front of blue collar whites. Appealing to racists does not necessarily make you a racist, it just makes you cynical.

Posted by Blue Moon | March 13, 2008 11:17 AM

My bad -- Shaheen actually said:

"It'll be, 'When was the last time? Did you ever give drugs to anyone? Did you sell them to anyone?'"

Posted by Blue Moon | March 13, 2008 11:25 AM

Each election is a separate contest subject to underlying variables, not past performance.

Especially if you cherry-pick the numbers like Tim K the permatroll.

2004 represented a scramble for 50%+1 of the electoral college. It also whittled down the party's commitment to competing across the ballot: hence the push to re-establish a presence in those abandoned red states. The nature of the gains in 2006 -- not just the victories, but the hard-fought defeats in places like Idaho and Wyoming, or Larry Kissell's grassroots-funded 300-vote loss in NC-08 -- blew away the idea that it's better to 'focus elsewhere'.

But for Paid Troll Tim K, the narrow focus on the presidential vote explains it all. What a surprise. You really are just committed to exclusionary identity politics as an electoral strategy, because there's nowhere else to go. No fucking ambition whatsoever.

I said it before Feb 5th: Clinton can't win ugly. The harder she pushes now, the more likely it is that there'll be a desire to declare her persona non grata within the party.

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | March 13, 2008 11:28 AM

Blue Moon:

What way do you see it? The Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. as great and important an historical figure he was, did not single-handedly pass the 1964 Civil Rights Act. He, as real and symbolic leader of a movement, played a crucial role, but so did President Johnson. Without the requisite votes in the House and Senate, which Johnson was crucial in obtaining, that bill wouldn't have become law no matter how many protests there were in Selma or Birmingham. It takes both social movements and political action to produce change. That was Hillary Clinton's indisputable point. Why did she use MLK as an example? Because Barack Obama was using King's rhetoric and references to the civil rights movement in his speeches! He was the one who make the implied comparison.

Bill Shaheen shouldn't have said what he said, but he was correct that admitting to cocaine use is stupid because it opens an pandora's box for future questions like, for instance, where did you obtain it and did you sell? Journalists have looked into this and nobody from Obama's school days remembers his drug use, so why bring it up?

The Jesse Jackson comparison was historically accurate.

The Geraldine Ferraro comments were accurate. I really wish she didn't say it because you can't tell the truth about something like this without being called a racist. But the fact is why was Barack Obama given the keynote address at the 2004 DNC? A state senator from Illinois running for senate? It's the same reason Michael Steele was given a prime time slot at the 2004 RNC. How would Barack Obama's campaign be an historic candidacy were he not black? How would electing him be sending a positive message to the rest of the world? Why would 90% of African Americans be voting for him? Of course being black has helped him in this case. It's obviously not THE ONLY REASON he is where he is, but it is an indispensable reason.

Posted by Tim K | March 13, 2008 11:29 AM

pseunodyn NC:

It's childish to call people names simply because you disagree with them.

2004 represented a scramble for 50%+1 of the electoral college.

Right, because the Kerry campaign played for 50%+1 because they thought that would be a fun time. Kerry was trailing Bush by over 10-15% after the RNC and before the debates. Due to the relative timings of the conventions and FEC rules, the Kerry campaign was outspent and had to conserve resources. It wasn't a lack of imagination, it was making a venture out of necessity. You have a very selective memory.

Posted by Tim K | March 13, 2008 11:36 AM

Discounting states because you believe they aren't in play in the general is an awful strategy and the reason Gore lost in 2000 (setting aside the theft by the Supreme Court).
The Florida result would not have mattered if Gore had managed to win his home state of Tennessee (he had previously won statewide election there as a Senator and Clinton won the state in 92 and 96) and if he had managed to win Clinton's home state of Arkansas (Clinton carried AR handily in 92 and 96).
Or, he could just win one of those states and win Missouri (which elected a dead guy to the Senate over John Ashcroft in 2000).
The reason the Clinton campaign is in such trouble right now is because they discounted or disregarded certain states that they didn't believe they could win.
That is not how the Democratic Party should run in the general election and that is exactly how a Clinton campaign would do it.

Posted by Mikey in KS | March 13, 2008 11:46 AM

It's obviously not THE ONLY REASON he is where he is, but it is an indispensable reason.

The same of course is true of Clinton and being First Lady. How many people just get elected to the Senate in a state like New York despite never having lived there? Pointing out that Obama benefits from his racial identity is not racist, but incessantly dwelling on it even though every successful candidate capitalizes on biographical advantages is racist. Never mind the fact that being black brings disadvantages as well.

Posted by Barbar | March 13, 2008 11:54 AM

Tim K:

Forget about whether the statements were accurate, what's the point in making them? It has nothing to do with who is the better candidate, rather it is just the Clinton camp's repeated attempts to say "Oh, by the way, have you noticed that my opponent is BLACK."

Clinton is trying (consciously or not) to inject a focus on race in the campaign and that is repugnant.

Posted by Mikey in KS | March 13, 2008 11:59 AM

Babar:

Well Robert Kennedy, because he was attorney general because of nepotism. Ted Kennedy was from Massachusetts, obviously, but John made sure his seat was kept warm for him until he came of age.

I'll only dwell on this as long as Ferraro's comments keep being labeled racist, and the Clinton campaign keeps being labeled race-baiting. Once that stops, I'll stop pushing back on the story.

You cannot expect only one side to be allowed to express their point of view.

Posted by Tim K | March 13, 2008 11:59 AM

Mikey:

That's an arguable but fair point. I think it's naive, however, to think race (or gender) was ever not going to be an issue in this campaign. The first serious female and first serious African American candidate are running for the highest office in a country where slavery is (along with the treatment of Native Americans) its original sin and will forever be a national embarassment, and in a country and in a world where sexist is rampant. It was always going to be an issue.

Posted by Tim K | March 13, 2008 12:18 PM

Tim K:

A little historical context on LBJ. He actually opposed Civil Rights litigation a decade earlier. How did someone who was against that stuff become it's strong-arm champion in D.C.? I dunno, maybe it was marches in the street and massive uprisings leading to large changes in social mores? Perhaps?

The whole point of her comment was that MLK's speeches and inspiration were nice, but LBJ got it done. I don't think anyone would disagree with that interpretation. Not only does that diminish a hero of the black community, it also completely overlooks the role MLK and the rest of the agitators outside of Washington played both in applying pressure to LBJ and creating the conditions in DC in which LBJ could be successful in pushing that legislation through.

They both needed each other, sure, but LBJ was needed only insofar as a strong politician was needed; that's just reality. You could insert pretty much any skilled politician in there and there's pretty decent chance you end up with similar outcomes eventually. Especially considering, as I noted above, LBJ wasn't even always onboard w/ the legislation he ended up championing.

So, historically, LBJ was far less necessary IMO, and trying to highlight his importance and at the same time diminish the importance of the social-leadership aspects of that entire movement was, to say the least, a little politically tone-deaf. I wouldn't call it racist or even race-baiting, just racially insensitive. I'd also say its somewhat historically inaccurate at the same time. And of course, it also highlighted her views of how "change" is achieved, and created a nice contrast with Obama, playing right into the types cast for both of them.

Posted by Michael | March 13, 2008 12:23 PM

Michael:

I don't disagree with that. I stated it takes BOTH grassroots activism and social movements AND political leadership to enact real change. There was a lot of grassroots activism against the war in Vietnam but without political leadership the war continued for years despite the protest. There was a lot of grassroots activism for passing the Equal Rights Amendment, but without enough political leadership in the state legislatures it failed.

The whole point of her comment was that MLK's speeches and inspiration were nice, but LBJ got it done.

That wasn't the "whole" point of the comment. Here is also what she said:

"You know, today Senator Obama used President John F. Kennedy and Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. to criticize me. He basically compared himself to our greatest heroes because they gave great speeches.
President Kennedy was in Congress for 14 years. He was a war hero. He was a man of great accomplishments and readiness to be president. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. led a movement. He was gassed. He was beaten. He was jailed. And he gave a speech that was one of the most beautifully, profoundly important speeches ever written in America, the “I have a dream” speech..."

There is no way, shape, or form what she was saying was either racist or denigrating King. She was purposely elevating what MLK did and denigrating Obama's lofty and empty rhetoric. That was the whole point.

Posted by Tim K | March 13, 2008 12:36 PM

It wasn't a lack of imagination, it was making a venture out of necessity.

So it's fine for Clinton to paint herself into exactly the same strategy? Ah, what incoherence from Tim K.

2008 is a year to challenge the GOP in the places it has taken for granted. The Senate election schedule dictates it, the gains of 2006 dictate it, and the Clinton campaign has excluded itself from doing so in order to justify remaining in the primary.

And if you're not being paid to humiliate yourself here, then your level of self-esteem really needs looking at. So what is it, K: shill or masochist?

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | March 13, 2008 1:33 PM

psneudonymous NC:

It would be foolish for Obama, Clinton or McCain to paint themselves into any strategy until September. We simply do not know for sure which states will be competitive and to what degree. You may be right that this will be a year to challenge the GOP stranglehold over many states' electoral votes. If the Democrat has a strong lead that makes sense. But if this is a tight election then focusing precious resources on states like North Carolina, Arizona, and Mississippi would be disastrous.

Your offensive and immature rhetoric, notwithstanding.

Posted by Tim K | March 13, 2008 1:43 PM

Tim K.,

Ferraro's statements certainly weren't accurate. However much Obama's race helps him against AAs, it also hurts him with the white working class. Perhaps the Clinton campaign wouldn't have so much trouble with AAs if people like you weren't so eager to defend statements like Ferraro's.

Posted by Josh E. | March 13, 2008 1:55 PM

I notice that you don't mention Colorado or Virginia, states where your patron's campaign and her fuckwitted surrogates has tried their best to burn her bridges. (Nor Missouri, which isn't on the Senate map, but is a state ripe for turning blue.)

Saying 'too early to tell!' when your candidate has already defined her own map by her manner of campaigning is disingenuous bullshit. Obama can go to the states he's lost and say 'in the primary, I campaigned in a way that showed I value your votes'; Clinton, not so much.

And really, what's more offensive? Being condescended to by a shill/masochist, or calling it out?

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | March 13, 2008 1:56 PM

Josh:

I don't like how every time somebody makes a true statement that may not be politically correct it becomes necessary for everyone to denounce that person and they are expected to recant as if this were the Spanish Inquisition or the Star Chamber. Not only should Ferraro have the freedom to say what she said, but what she said was obviously true. Obama being an African American has a lot to do with why he is THE FRONTRUNNER in this race. Not why he is a senator, or in this contest, or why he is a very successful person. She was NOT saying he is an equal opportunity or affirmative action candidate. She was just saying it is the fact that many people are taken with the historic nature of his candidacy, and I think that's a huge part of his success.

Posted by Tim | March 13, 2008 2:14 PM

Saying 'too early to tell!' when your candidate has already defined her own map by her manner of campaigning is disingenuous bullshit. Obama can go to the states he's lost and say 'in the primary, I campaigned in a way that showed I value your votes'; Clinton, not so much.

And really, what's more offensive? Being condescended to by a shill/masochist, or calling it out?

"Calling me out" for offenses that only exist in your own mind is not very impressive.

There is no risk at all of losing Nebraska or North Dakota because we were never going to win over those states in any event. Yes, Virginia and Colorado are more possibilities for Obama than for Clinton. Just as Arkansas, Tennessee and Missouri (particularly the rural part) look stronger for Clinton.

Posted by Tim K | March 13, 2008 2:19 PM

Yeah because if Ross Perot didn't run Bob Dole would have won 51% - 49%. If you believe that you'd believe anything.

Good thing I don't believe it, then.

But you can't just toss Bill Clinton's 8-point plurality up onto the wall and pretend that it's applicable to a two-way race. We don't have the luxury of running a controlled experiment in which Ross Perot never ran for President, or never became a viable candidate, but it is pretty well-acknowledged that he ate into Bush and Dole's numbers more than Clinton's. Clinton may very well have won both elections regardless, but I'm quite certain that it would not have been by the margins he had.

Posted by Adam Villani | March 13, 2008 2:47 PM

Adam Villani:

I can and I have. Clinton in 1996 and Bush in 2004 prove that just because 45% of the country actively dislike you doesn't mean you cannot win a presidential election. Even if Clinton had only won by 1% in 1992 and 1996 it still proves the point.

Posted by Tim K | March 13, 2008 3:12 PM

But Obama can't win, because he isn't leading Clinton by a sufficiently large amount. Gotcha.

Posted by Barbar | March 13, 2008 3:30 PM

But Obama can't win, because he isn't leading Clinton by a sufficiently large amount. Gotcha.

Black folks are quite familiar with the unspoken standard that requires them to be wayyy better than their white counterparts to get the same job. Welcome to America, Barbar.

Posted by Face The Music | March 13, 2008 7:22 PM

Face the music:

So are women, by the way.

Posted by Tim K | March 13, 2008 10:28 PM