Obama campaign picks up additional delegates out of Iowa now that the state caucus process is officially complete. Don't ask me to explain all the details, but broadly speaking the Iowa caucuses were projected to yield 16 delegates for Obama but at the state convention he actually wound up snagging more like 21. Some kind of similar process where caucuses projections need to be turned into actual delegate counts is going to play out elsewhere.
« The Paradox of Electability | Main | The Economist »
Old Mines
15 Mar 2008 08:28 pm
Comments (66)
Democracy in action!
Er, Matt, the process isn't complete yet as far as I know. These were the county conventions, which still have to send the delegates elected today to the actual full state convention, which is yet upcoming. At least that's how I understand it. We're still projecting, just a step closer to the end.
Expect less fine-tuning in the coming weeks. The Iowa case is due to the fact that 1/3 of all county delegates were for candidates who have dropped out.
Exactly Robert. It's not really all that complicated. In this case, Edwards supporters broke mostly to Obama, so he picked up some delegates as a result. There may be a small adjustment in those other early states where Edwards competed, but this is probably the biggest pickup we'll see.
Maybe Hillary and her surrogates will figure out that dissing the states that caucus wasn't such a brilliant move. People don't like being told that their vote doesn't count.
GREAT NEWS! (for McCain)
Yes, there's the next stage to come. And yes, this is partly based on the fact that this caucus had more candidates. Still, ground game, attention to detail.
Yet another sign and reason that the inevitability candidate is going down.
So between Iowa and California, I believe Obama picked up more after-the-fact pledged delegates than Clinton won in Ohio.
Just saying.
too bad Iowa doesn't count...
So now Billary has her donor thugs threatening the DNC and "demanding" their money back.
Dean and the DNC committee should tell them to pound sand and sue if they like.
Also, Obama'a supporters would happily replace the Clinton blood money out of the DNC and provide a lot more. Good riddance Clinton donor thugs.
One email from Obama could raise the DNC $1,000,000… and another, and another.
It’s time for Obama supporters to make clear that their support for Obama will also translate into major cash for DNC and local Democratic candidates. It’s not just electability that compels a clear Obama nomination and an immediate Hillary withdrawal, but also major cash for the Democrats coffers.
The Superdelegates and Democratic professionals should understand that Obama’s coattails includes major cash for their elections.
Time for the party leaders to pull Hillary out of this race.
The fact that these states do count is becoming more and more apparent. Ambinder says the gain is 10 from Iowa, that's more than her net gain from Ohio.
Matt, as a delegate to the Poweshiek county convention today, allow me to correct you.
Today, a collection of county conventions were held where delegates, who were elected in the caucuses on January 3, convened and among other orders of business, elected delegates to go on to conventions at the next two levels, the district conventions held on April 26 and the state convention, which you incorrectly implied was today, on June 14.
The delegate projections made after the caucuses were done on the basis of "state delegate equivalents", where the proportion of support for a candidate within a county by delegate count after the caucuses was multiplied by that county's delegates to the district and state conventions (my county, Poweshiek, has 17).
Of course, these were only projections that assumed that all delegates would show up and throw their support behind the candidate for whom they caucused. Obviously, this is a false assumption. For a comparison of the projected state convention delegates from the caucuses as compared with the actual total elected today, look at this pdf of today's results, which has comparisons to previous projections.
Again, using my county as an example, the "state delegate equivalents" from Poweshiek county were 3.06 for Clinton, 5.89 for Edwards, 7.37 for Obama, and 0.68 for Biden. Because most of the Biden delegates and a very significant portion of the Edwards delegates joined the Obama preference group at the convention, the final count was 3 for Clinton, 4 for Edwards, and 10 for Obama.
I think that you will find that this is pretty indicative of Iowa as a whole today, with Clinton basically maintaining her delegate projections, Edwards losing delegates, and Obama gaining.
"Don't ask me to explain all the details, but broadly speaking the Iowa caucuses were projected to yield 16 delegates for Obama but at the state convention he actually wound up snagging more like 21."
I guess.
(That's right Linus: there's no question about that. There is however some question about other things like "Lib Hister it is" and "the Obiesama one may not be quite as bitchen as some people say.")
Of course.
You know, the last few weeks made me uneasy. First l'affaire Goolsbee, then the surge of racial division (from whatever sources) over the last week. The Obama campaign, which had seemed unstoppable, sort of paused, and you could feel a lot of white Democrats start to say to themselves: "Whoa, what were we drinking in February -- did we just nominate a black man, from a black church, to be the Democratic candidate for president?"
But I think the tide is turning back the other direction now. Extra delegates are nice. But more importantly, Obama has been back at the top of his game, addressing some challenges, and turning them around into strengths. If you haven't seen the video, this part of his speech in Indiana today is worth a listen:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O0srV-ZxSYg
This is a pretty good test of his ability to transcend divisiveness, and I'd say he's delivering on the promise.
Thanks Ted, that cheered me up no end.
HO-LEE-SH*T: Tracy Morgan on SNL on Obama.
Saturday Night Live tonight, the News. Tracey Morgan guest commentator. Talking about Obama and Hillary and Geraldine Ferraro:
"Bitch may be 'The New Black', but Black is The New President, Bitch!"
Basically, today's Iowa results show how ridiculous these caucuses are.
This is the first time caucuses have, in effect, chosen the Democratic nominee (if everything turns out like it's looking right now).
We'll see how it turns out, won't we.
This is just a bit off-topic here, but after just reading this in the New York Times and shaking my head at the crystalline-pure Alice in Wonderland nature of this, I had to share it:
"the party’s uncommitted superdelegates say they are growing increasingly concerned about the risks of a prolonged fight between Senators Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama, and perplexed about how to resolve the conflict. . . while many superdelegates said they intended to keep their options open as the race continued to play out over the next three months . . "
“It would be nice to find a way to wrap it up,” said Representative Chris Van Hollen of Maryland, chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, who has not committed to either candidate.
Hey, here's a suggestion to you uncommitted superdelegates who are wringing your hands about this intermiable process: make up your damn minds already!
This is the first time caucuses have, in effect, chosen the Democratic nominee (if everything turns out like it's looking right now).
You don't think the Iowa caucus, in effect, chose John Kerry as the 2004 nominee? Or Jimmy Carter? At least this year ever contest, be it caucus or primary, gets a chance to play out.
It's worth noting that to the extent caucuses have played a large role in this nominating process, those effects can be attributed almost exclusively to the combination of a)Obama's campaign paying a lot of attention to them and generating a lot of enthusiasm from it's supporters, and b) Clinton's campaign all but ignoring them as part-and-parcel of their "big state" strategy, and not generating nearly as much enthusiasm from it's supporters.
That is, two main factors have lead to their large influence: one campaign getting a lot of enthusiastic support, and one campaign making a wise strategic decision while the other campaign makes a completely-stupid strategic decision.
I hardly find it something to wring one's hands about, in that light. Hey, we have two candidates with similar levels of support, candidate A probably getting a small-but-significantly larger slice of the pie than candidate B. However, candidate A's support is also much more enthusiastic and candidate A is far more dedicated to contesting every single election than candidate B...and we think it's bad thing that candidate A is rewarded for those qualities...why again?
Oh, that's right: because you support candidate B.
Well, if you want to right that wrong, then I suggest you go volunteer for Clinton in Texas to work the county conventions. Otherwise, stop whining; the reason Obama does well is precisely because his supporters care enough to go make sure those things go off well for him, whereas Clinton's don't. Instead, they apparently spend their time whining on the internet about how unfair it all is.
I love the first sentence of the AP lede (my bold)
By MIKE GLOVER, Associated Press Writer
DES MOINES, Iowa - Democrat Barack Obama expanded his fragile lead in delegates over rival Hillary Rodham Clinton on Saturday, picking up nine delegates as Iowa activists took the next step in picking delegates to the national convention.
If you find this ludicrous, you can reach the AP in Des Moines here: apdesmoines@ap.org
Hell, I didn't even see this one. Josh Marshall picked this one up:
Twelve automatic delegates bring the state's total to 57. Obama has been endorsed by four of those and Clinton three, with the remainder uncommitted.
"Automatic delegates" and "fragile"? Shouldn't the Hillary campaign get a double byline or at least a contributed line on this one? Sweet Jebus.
Actually, Tim K, what today's results do show is that the Clinton campaign has clearly inferior appeal and organization among Democrats in Iowa, which is a critical swing state. At my convention here in Poweshiek county, the Clinton preference group couldn't muster enough alternates to fill all their delegate slots.
We need a nominee that can inspire activists to volunteer and work for not only a Democrat in the White House but also more Democrats in Congress. Hillary Clinton clearly cannot inspire her own elected delegates to show up and perform the duty they were elected to do nor does is she compelling enough a candidate to convince Edwards supporters to vote for her.
If you want to see more of the Clintons' awesome coattails effect (for Republicans, of course), then be my guest and vote to nominate her.
Dave:
The only reason you can say Iowa chose Kerry in 2004 is because New Hampshire went the same way, and then so did the big states on Super Tuesday. Just because something goes first, or before something else does not mean it caused the thing.
Iowa chose Obama just as strongly as it chose Kerry, and yet New Hampshire made a different choice and the Super Tuesday states were split.
Perhaps I'm wrong and somebody with access to the figures could do the checking, but I don't think any presidential nominee's entire margin over their chief competitor came from caucus states since the modern era of primaries (since 1972).
Has a nominee ever won without carrying primaries in New York, Ohio, California, New Jersey, Massachusetts and Texas? Perhaps one or two, but all of the biggest state primaries? I doubt it.
What are the implications of that? What does that mean for a candidates ability to rally large numbers of votes in large contests? Maybe it means nothing at all. I don't know the answer, but it has to make you wonder given how unprecedented it is.
Perhaps I'm wrong and somebody with access to the figures could do the checking, but I don't think any presidential nominee's entire margin over their chief competitor came from caucus states since the modern era of primaries (since 1972).Strangely enough, it's not happening now either. Obama leads the delegate count of both primary states and caucus states. So, I think that you actually need to check this election's figures before trying to make points like this.
Has a nominee ever won without carrying primaries in New York, Ohio, California, New Jersey, Massachusetts and Texas? Perhaps one or two, but all of the biggest state primaries? I doubt it.What are the implications of that? What does that mean for a candidates ability to rally large numbers of votes in large contests? Maybe it means nothing at all. I don't know the answer, but it has to make you wonder given how unprecedented it is.
Never has the delegate count between two candidates been so close either. But I really can't see how a candidate who gets a few sliver wins in some big states and then loses by huge blowouts in medium and small states expects to get the nomination either.
On Super Tuesday 22 states and American Samoa voted. Of these 15 were primaries awarding 1,475 pledged delegates and 7 were caucuses awarding 206 pledged delegates.
The results of the caucuses were such that of the 207 delegates awarded Obama led Clinton 139 to 67.
The results of the primaries were that Clinton led 766 to 709.
Now, if we exclude the caucuses, the story out of Super Tuesday would have been Clinton winning 9 of 15 contests including all of the major states and the majority of delegates. Together with her committed super delegates she would have had a formidable lead coming off that day.
There is no doubt that it was the caucus results that gave Obama his Super Tuesday claim of momentum. It's the only reason the media didn't give Clinton the clear edge after having won New Jersey, Massachusetts and California.
Let's get real and at least be honest about how this thing played out as it did.
One correction: Obama, of course, won Illinois on Super Tuesday.
Which proves what, exactly? It's not like momentum has been a big deal in the campaign so far. If anything, Hillary does better when it looks like she's going to be knocked out of the race.
I suppose my point is when the contests are caucus meetings where party activists and affluent liberals dominate Obama does extremely well. When the contest moves to primary elections where hundreds of thousands of Democratic voters cast ballots in large and diverse states, he doesn't do nearly as well. In fact, he tends to lose.
A further point is that when primaries are conducted in states where African Americans constitute anywhere from 2 to 5 times more of the electorate than in the nation as a whole, Obama is essentially unbeatable. When the contest moves to states that look like America - especially if they have Latino voters in any significant numbers - he tends to lose.
oh wait you mean crazy pastard and ferraro teaming up to give "Osama" double side-kick did noy deflate the "empty suit"
I had the impression that the "not black enough" was a Muslim, did he not have a muslim garment was the idea not that being muslim would kill "Osamas" candidacy and yet a day ago he had 50% over Hillary 44% so what the F-you-see-k
is Obama a teflon or are Americans really above it all.
this does not compute, why is the muslim thing not killing him, what does people know that we dont.
he is black and is said to be a crypto muslim what more does hillary need to do.
is she that disgusting to democrats that they will choose a "black-muslim"
you know i am starting to like america unles something bad happens like an interview with "Osama's" white grandmother whom i now to be a member of KKK in Hawaii,
ps. we realy dont have to worry anymore, you can try to pain Obambi the way you like and people would still vote for the "lucky" bastard i think he is Irish, i hoping that he is a fellow Swede, we need an Obama our according to american racial notion "black" prime minster (his fifth grand father was black) is no where near Senator Obama, damn all the nordic genes have diluted all his negrotude.
So, Tim K, you're basically saying that states with large African-American populations don't count because they're unusual in how many African-Americans they have compared to the nation as a whole, but states that have any Latinos in them somehow look like America, and thus count for more? Keep spinning there, buddy.
TimK - Although you are, for the most part, stating facts, the manner in which you're making your argument is easy to see through. You're basically saying, "Well, under THESE conditions on THIS day in only THESE types of contests, Hillary won!"
Now, you can argue that caucuses are undemocratic, but you have to also acknowledge that no one seemed to have a problem with them - especially with having a caucus as the very first, stage-setting contest. Some would argue that Hillary's apparently mediocre strategy reflects upon her ability to assemble a good team, although I think that's a bit of hooey.
You point out that Obama enjoys the support of people who can afford to be active. How, exactly, is that a negative for opportunities the Democratic party and the progressive movement has laying at their feet?
I think the suggestion of the Obama support in caucuses is a wink and a nod towards the Western US support he's gotten, which is where all the latte-sipping elites are, right? So it must be those types that are supporting him.
It's also a way of suggesting that Obama supporters are the more liberal members of the Democratic party - the "lunatic fringe", as Limbaugh calls them. It may be true, but he also appeals more to independents and Republicans. Nevertheless, I'm sure it's an attempt at drawing Hillary as the more centrist candidate, and therefor the most "electable".
You also point out that Obama enjoys the support of African-Americans. This is very well-known, but I'm not sure what your point is. It's not like their votes only count for 3/5th in the general - they are just as valuable.
I think, by and large, Obama's support amongst African-Americans is identity politics, encouraged by perceived (or real) attacks on his race, which galvanizes the AA community. The same could be said about Hillary's support amongst 50 year old women with a bunch of angst towards their husbands.
The underlying tone with the "but he gets a ton of African American support!" talking point is that Democrats can take the AA support for granted, but that we can't take white blue-collar (ie, union workers) for granted, or women. None of these groups should be taken for granted, of course.
So, again, I'm not sure what your point is. That he's getting by on his race alone? Well, Hillary's getting a lot of white voters, so I guess she's getting by on her race alone, too? Oh - she isn't? The assumption being made is that she's not getting by on her race alone, because "white people can think these things through, black people are just voting for their skin color. Silly Negroes." Of course that's not the case.
It's silly. Identity politics IS real, and this campaign is a textbook example, but it would be foolish not to point out how Hillary benefits from it and tries to capitalize on it by painting Obama as "the black guy". There's nothing wrong with talking about the identity politics phenomenon in an academic sense, but the more we talk about it as a result of deliberate maneuvering by the campaigns - as the Ferraros of the world encourage us to - the more it galvanizes the racial lines in this race, and it just becomes a big snowball.
Ugh, I dropped words in mid-sentence in that last one. It's late.
It looks like Obama proves himself shrewder than Hillary whenever the rules get complicated.
Shouldn't this be a great thread for idiotic to pimp their blog?
Obama has won primaries when Capricorn is in retrograde, which benefits African-American males with Arab/Swahili names, so those primaries don't count.
Also, considering that Clinton's primary win in Texas came courtesy of the Limbaugh effect, that was not really a win because it was voters who want her to lose that put her over the edge.
In addition, Clinton won New York and its biggest suburb, New Jersey, because she is a Senator from New York. However, she also lost Connecticut, which is also pretty much a NYC suburb, which suggests she can't hold onto her geographic base.
Tim K-
While it may be arguable that caucuses are a bad way to choose a nominee, they are part of the current process. Should Obama have simply ignored them and campaigned on Hillary's terms?
Maybe, if the rules were that to win the Democratic nomination you only had to win CA, NY, IL, TX, OH and PA, Obama would never have left those states and his charming personality and charismatic speeches would have carried the day. We'll never know, although maybe you should ask Harry Turtledove to write an alternative history about it.
The simple fact is that everyone knew how delegates were awarded, and to make any arguments about caucuses vs. primaries is changing the goalposts 3/4 of the way through the game.
I don't get it.. Petey assured us that Edwards supporters would break for Clinton, but it looks like almost all the Edwards delegates in Iowa went to Obama. What happened?
I don't get it.. Petey assured us that Edwards supporters would break for Clinton, but it looks like almost all the Edwards delegates in Iowa went to Obama. What happened?
Petey is an idiot.
This has been another edition of simple answers...etc.
Thanks, mcd, I emailed apdesmoines@ap.org.
Shorter version of the last 2 months of debate on this blog and elsewhere on the left:
Some Democrats cannot quite believe that Americans will *really* vote for a black man. Especially not in a general election. The primary/caucus debate, and the whole "states that count" nonsense -- which would be ludicrous if you took it literally -- is a delicate way of saying "Look, sure, Obama can win under special *conditions*, but not really, not in America as a whole."
I understand the fear. It's not necessarily a racist thing, it's partly pragmatic -- and it's been felt by black people as well as by others. The Wisconsin primary laid it to rest for a while, but then there was Ohio, and then the Wright controversy reminded Democrats of how deep racial divisions still are, and they got panicky again.
But though it's an understandable fear, we really need to get over it. We've got a fantastic candidate who can beat McCain, and is beating him in polls. Americans seem to have realized that he's black. They're still supporting him. And he's going to be our nominee. So it's no longer time for anxious back-seat driving; it's time to get out of the damn car and push.
Tim K said:
I suppose my point is when the contests are caucus meetings where party activists and affluent liberals dominate Obama does extremely well.
You heard it here first, ladies and gentleman, Clinton is the ground-roots underdog and Obama is the establishment candidate. Tim K has now officially jumped the shark.
Tim K-in your primaries v. caucuses comparison, you only looked at Super Tuesday states, instead of the whole campaign. And you also seem to have assumed that Obama would have not netted any delegates from the states he won on Super Tuesday, if they had been primaries. He still would have netted delegates from those states-probably not as many as he actually did, but it still would have been a pretty narrow loss, delegate-wise.
And the rest of February was still set up nicely for Obama to overcome that deficit, and then some.
It's not necessarily a racist thing, it's partly pragmatic
Agreed, but with the additional caveat that it is often just a racist thing. When registered Republicans who express no preference between McCain and Hillary are supposedly concerned with Obama's electability... I just have to laugh.
THIS IS EXCELLENT NEWS!! FOR HILLARY!!!
All:
Let me be clear. I think Barack Obama is winning fair and square. His campaign effectively out-maneuvered the Clinton campaign by organizing in the caucus. This wasn't entirely the Clintons' fault because caucus states are perfect for the type of demographics Obama attracts. I know it sounded dismissive when I called caucuses dominated by "party activists and affluent liberals" but it's obviously the case. The smaller the turnout the more enthusiastic and committed the participant is going to be. It's, almost by definition, a less mainstream group of people. Especially in such a heavily Republican state like Idaho or Wyoming, the few thousand people who are likely to show up to the DEMOCRATIC caucus are not exactly representative of the state. Participants are much more likely to be affluent because privileged people do not tend to work weekends, do shift-work or have severe child-care issues. Furthermore, caucuses are dominated by activists because they are not secret ballots, and the loudest and most enthusiastic participants can hijack the proceedings. And, actually, one of Clinton's advisers urged her to skip the Iowa caucuses because it was always recognized how difficult the state and the format was going to be for her.
On Obama's dominance in states with very large African American populations. It's really insulting for people to insinuate I am a racist just because I'm pointing out that the more African Americans there are in a primary state, th e better Obama has done.
Obama has won 15 primaries. In all but 2 states, Wisconsin and (barely) Connecticut, the African American population is more than in the nation as a whole of 12.5%. It ranges from about 15% in Missouri (which Obama won by a hair), to 28% in Georgia and 29% in Maryland.
There are now more Latinos than African Americans living in the USA. How many states has Obama won where Latinos constitute a similar proportion as they do nation-wide? Only one: Illinois, his home state. Other than that, he hasn't won any states (primaries or caucuses) where there are as many Latinos as there are blacks.
If there were a national primary I have no doubt Clinton would beat Obama in it. Of course, Obama did well in the post Super Tuesday February states. Only one state (Wisconsin) had demographics and a format that didn't overwhelmingly favor him, while all the rest were tailor made. If February after Super Tuesday had been dominated by contests with large Latinos populations like Nevada, New Mexico, California, Texas, Arizona, New Jersey and Florida it would have played out different and Obama wouldn't have won any of them.
Glad the Obama people are on board with delegates choosing whichever candidate they happen to prefer. I also agree with Reality Man that votes from Republicans should not count in the Democratic primary.
The Obama spin operation apparently didn't have time to get the updated delegate talking points out this weekend as they were too overwhelmed by the Wright scandal.
Two of the morning gabfests I saw were pretty emphatic that the Wright thing was a big deal and would hurt Obama in the general. Bill Kristol (not to be trusted on foreign policy, but not unwise about domestic politics) thought Hillary should figure out a way to keep it going. Curious whether that's possible. Also curious as to how many people here would prefer to lose with Obama than probably win with Hillary.
I'm an editor for a magazine and would like to contact "Petey". So, if anyone knows how to reach him, please say so.
I didn't hear any complaints from Obama supporters about Republicans voting in open primaries when Obama was winning the vast majority of them.
otherScott - What makes you think Obama's a sure way to lose, and Clinton is a sure way to win?
TimK - That's because Republicans voting for Obama in the beginning probably truly intend on voting for him in the general election. The Republicans being encouraged by Limbaugh & Co. are the most hard-line, partisan Republicans, and surely don't intend on voting for Hillary in the general. The intentions of the two different voting blocs are different. Nevertheless, the rules allow it, I suppose.
scctty:
Well that's a self-serving argument if I've ever heard one. The truth is we don't know why more Republicans are voting for Clinton now. I suspect one reason could be that at the beginning of this process Barack Obama came across to them as an inspiring and unifying figure who transcended so many of the old categories of identity and ideology, and that now they've simply seen and heard more and have changed their minds: he now comes across as an out-of-the-mainstream liberal who's not up to the job and not ready for prime time.
Every day it is looking increasingly like Barack Obama is the new Michael Dukakis.
Personally, I am convinced the only reason there is a correlation between caucuses and Obama doing well is that caucuses are a popular choice in states where Obama would do well anyway.
By the way, states with a higher population than Massachusetts include Illinois, Georgia, North Carolina, Virginia, and Washington.
DTM:
Oh does that explain how Obama won the Texas caucus by 10 points but lost the Texas primary by 4 points (100,000 votes) in a contest where many times the number of people participated?
Illinois is Barack Obama's home state. Georgia, North Carolina and Virginia have huge black populations and Washington State had a caucus. No, I'm not saying that "they don't count." They count fair and square. They just are not representative of the country as a whole or (in the case of Washington) a general election format.
And New York, California, NJ, and Massachusetts are "representative of the country as a whole"? How do the Democrats ever lose?
Here's a crazy idea: if you want something that is representative of the whole country, why not look at the contests throughout the whole country? You could use some measure to roughly weight them, maybe called, I don't know, "delegates".
By the way, obviously neither primaries nor caucuses are representative of the general election, but I do think Obama benefits in caucuses because of his superior political skills, which probably adds up to around 5-10 points on average. But that would not be nearly enough to swing most of the caucus states Clinton's way, as in fact states like Wisconsin and Utah prove.
Here's a crazy idea: if you want something that is representative of the whole country, why not look at the contests throughout the whole country? You could use some measure to roughly weight them, maybe called, I don't know, "delegates".
Nah, too radical. Let's use the popular vote instead. Oh, I guess Obama's winning that too. Even though it underweights caucus states.
DTM:
I agree with you that Obama likely would have won states like Utah, Colorado, Minnesota and Washington anyways. I just think they would have been closer and he would have net many fewer delegates. I like how you attribute his ability to win caucuses to his "superior political skills" ... whatever that means.
New Jersey, Pennsylvania and Ohio is much more representative of the country as a whole than North Dakota, South Carolina and Maryland.
And to answer your question, Democrats lose by nominating people like Barack Obama. A perfect amalgam of several losing Democratic nominees and failed Democratic president of the past 50 years. He has the out-of-the-mainstream associations of Michael Dukakis, the staunch anti-war stance of George McGovern, and the inexperience and thinness of Jimmy Carter. Of benefit to him is sharing the oratorical skills of JFK, but if you average all of those comparisons out you come up with an undeniable prediction: he's going to lose.
Tim, it is true that there was a 14 point swing in Obama's favor between the Texas primary and the Texas caucus. And some of it is certainly attributable to the fact that Obama's demographic is more willing and able to put up with the mess of having to be at a particular time and place.
But a whole lot of it is that Obama's campaign knew and understood the rules and designed its campaign around the particular rules of the contest. I was at a training in Austin in August of 2007 that was focusing on building the ground game here, and already there was talk about how the different state senatorial districts broke out, and about how to focus on getting our people back to the caucus.
The Clinton campaign, by contrast, assumed the nomination would be sealed by February 5, and was six months late to this party. Every Obama advertisement in Texas included a reminder to vote twice; none of the Hillary ones I encountered did. I spent the last two weeks focused on getting the people I knew who supported Obama to the caucus, and not working on the undecided voters nearly as much.
The problem with the Clinton campaign is that it is too much like the Bush administration: unwilling to see anything but the best case scenarios and not having contingency plans in case things don't go exactly as they expected. It reinforces the case that she simply isn't ready from day one.
Every day it is looking increasingly like Barack Obama is the new Michael Dukakis.
Posted by Tim K
Given that his candidate is managing to combine the worst qualities of Al Smith (in '32), Hubert Humphrey, and Walter Mondale this is just a bit rich. (and yes, I do understand that each of the gentlemen I refer to also had good qualities).
Remind me again about the Smith, Humphrey, and Mondale presidencies?
And to answer your question, Democrats lose by nominating people like Barack Obama. A perfect amalgam of several losing Democratic nominees and failed Democratic president of the past 50 years. He has the out-of-the-mainstream associations of Michael Dukakis, the staunch anti-war stance of George McGovern, and the inexperience and thinness of Jimmy Carter. Of benefit to him is sharing the oratorical skills of JFK, but if you average all of those comparisons out you come up with an undeniable prediction: he's going to lose
That is straight out bullshit.
First off, explain to me the "out-of-the-mainstream associations of Michael Dukakis? Then remind me all about Obama's "staunch anti-war stance." He has the exact same position on Iraq as Clinton! To say nothing of the fact, that he has made clear that he is not fundamentally opposed to going to war to quell the threat of terrorism. The Jimmy Carter analogy is just nonsense, but since you are clearly talking about electoral prospects here, it would do well to remind you that Carter won in 1976.
But lets then move on to to the other Democrats who've been nominated over the last 40 years. (Note: I think either Clinton or Obama will win on November) Humphrey, Mondale, and Kerry are all losers, and all have considerably more in common with the Senator from New York.
But in reality, this whole line of argument is an absurd exercise in post hoc rationales.
Also, I find it amusing that at this late date, there are still elements of the Democratic Party that believe we as a party can only win if nominate CHicken Hawks. It's bewildering.
Curtis:
I'm not saying Obama cheated. He's played by the rules and done very well for himself, and that's good for him. The mistake is to think that because he has done well under these circumstances that means he will do well in the general election. George McGovern did very well under the rules that were enacted following the debacle in 1968. Did he do well in the general election? And, speaking of 1968, despite the debacle that was the convention that year in Chicago... had the Democrats chosen the nominee who was the favorite from the primaries - Gene McCarthy - it would have been a disaster. At least with Humphrey the party came very close.
He has the out-of-the-mainstream associations of Michael Dukakis
Out of the mainstream? That explains why he does so poorly among independents.
fp:
Don't worry, the Republicans, FOX NEWS, and the 527's will do a good job "educating" independents by November.
I guess it is too much to ask deadenders like Tim K to remain remotely consistent, but it really does amuse me that on the one hand they cite winning states like Massachusetts as evidence that Clinton should be the nominee, and on the other they suggest it is Obama who is most like Dukakis. And on some level, I think that is what people like Tim K just can't process: Clinton did all the same things to win the Democratic nomination that Mondale, Dukakis, and Kerry did before her. And yet she is the first in this line to get beat for the nomination ... unless, in fact, you count her husband Bill beating Tsongas.
DTM:
And Obama has done all the things to win the nomination that George McGovern did, so what's your point?
It's not Massachusetts that is proof that Clinton is more electable (although it's a primary so it's a better indicator than a caucus state like Wyoming), it's places like New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Ohio and Florida... all states that Dukakis lost.
I'm not a "deadender" because I would like Democrats to come to their senses while there is still time.
Mark Halperin of TIME - a very reliable reporter -
said this morning on ABC that McCain and his advisers want to run against Obama. George Will said he's changed his mind about which Democrat is more beatable... he was still saying Clinton before the Wright controversy, but now he is saying Obama. He compared him to Dukakis as well.
Of course McCain is taking a pass on Wright's statements right now. They want him to secure the nomination before they seek to define him. And they'll probably not want to have their fingerprints on this story anyways. They'll wait for the 527 groups to have at it in July/August.
Was Kerry hit with the Swiftboat ads in March? No. It's coming.
Actually, I would say that Obama and Bill Clinton have one thing that none of the Democrats nominated in my memory (I'm 34) have had: charisma. My frustration with the Democratic Party has been that for years we've been the "eat your vegetables" party, while the Republicans have struck gold with swaggering nincompoops like Reagan and G.W. Bush.
I remember in the last gubernatorial election here in California, the Democrats sent Phil Angelides up against Arnold Schwarzenegger. What were they thinking? I don't care how strong of a policy wonk you are, you're not going to beat Conan the Barbarian with a guy who would get cast as Thulsa Doom's cravenly financial advisor.
With Obama, the Democrats have an opportunity to nominate somebody whom people actually like more the more they see of him. If you had told me, sight unseen, that the Democrats wanted to nominate a black freshman Senator from Hawaii with the middle name Hussein, I would have told you they were nuts. But that would be without seeing the actual candidate. Obama connects with people, and his speeches are excellent on *both* style and substance.
Who besides the Democratic base likes Hillary Clinton? And since when has appeal only to the Democratic base been enough to win a national election?
^^^I meant none of the Democrats *besides* Bill Clinton have had in my memory.
Hillary Clinton is precisely the kind of charmless technocrat running on "competence" that the Democrats have been losing with for a long time.
Tim K,
You might want to check again which PRIMARIES Dukakis won, seeing as how your argument depends on which PRIMARIES Clinton has won.
Comments closed March 29, 2008.
| 
Heads in the Sand
Expect Ms. Ferraro to come out tomorrow saying if you give obama an inch he'll ask for an eel.
Posted by The Surge | March 15, 2008 8:36 PM