Matthew Yglesias (March 06, 2008) - State-by-State (Politics)

If you want to inject pro-Obama spin, ask yourself which coalition of states you'd rather have with the Blue States' backs, and which looks more sustainable, given variations in regional culture.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | March 6, 2008 5:49 PM

"Provocative, but I don't buy it. Each of these polls has a sample size of 600, so the margin of error will come into play. What's more, there are 100 separate polls being aggregate here, so the odds are that several of these are just bad samples."

And you don't like the results.

-----

Come back to the reality-based community, Matthew! We miss you.

Posted by Petey | March 6, 2008 5:50 PM

I would like to live in a universe where Obama wins North Dakota, McCain wins New Jersey, and the two candidates duke it out in the crucial swing state of Nebraska.

That's a much more interesting universe than the one in which I currently reside, and given how bizarre this primary season has been that's saying something.

Posted by JB | March 6, 2008 5:50 PM

Among all the other problems with this, I note that both scenarios show Missouri picking the loser (McCain). I guess MO's bellwether days are coming to an end this year.

Posted by Alexander | March 6, 2008 5:53 PM

I don't see how McCain attacks the Democrats from the right in Michigan on global warming. If it didn't work for the Texas oilman (Bush lost it to Gore, who was associated with the issue much more than either Clinton or Obama are), it won't work for McCain.

Obama isn't going to win North Dakota or lose New Jersey, but otherwise I can live with that map. We might have to substitute Pennsylvania for terminally backward Ohio, though.

The Clinton map is mostly OK. I'm not convinced she can beat McCain in Florida, but if she wins the now light-blue New Hampshire, the Carolina blue Michigan, and the solidly blue Washington and Oregon, she won't have to.

Posted by ChuckE | March 6, 2008 5:58 PM

Re: what happens in Michigan will have more to do with whether or not McCain runs demagogic attacks on the Democrats' global warming plans than on who the Democrats nominate.

Michigan has not voted GOP in a presidential election since 84 or maybe 88. The state has trended increasingly Democratic over the last twenty years at all levels. Given its appallingly bad economy I don't see any possibility that McCain could win there, unless just possibly he he damns all things Bush and reinvents himself as an economic populist/nationalist.

Posted by JonF | March 6, 2008 6:00 PM

The website 270towin.com has a better map. It's interactive and doesn't award EVs to states +/- 5 points. Pundits need to relearn simple addition before buying the spin that Clinton can win the states 'you need' to get the nomination.

Pennsylvania (21EV) is less than Virginia (13EV) + Colorado (9EV)

http://www.270towin.com/2008_polls/mccain_obama/

Posted by joejoejoe | March 6, 2008 6:02 PM

Nebraska as a purple state? lol...

Posted by A | March 6, 2008 6:25 PM

Don't kid yourself on WA state Matthew. We are a swing state if there ever was one. Our population is a nearly perfect split between the Seattle-Tacoma metro area (hippies) and rural/agricultural Eastern Washington (anti-hippies) - we even have a mountain range in between us to reinforce the metaphor. If you don't believe me, please recall our 2004 Gregoire v. Rossi governor race with its final margin of 129 votes.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_gubernatorial_election%2C_2004

Posted by cranky kate | March 6, 2008 6:28 PM

while I think this method is clever, I don't really see it as methodologically sound

Um, no. This is how public opinion polling works. Odds are that in two or three states (5% of the total) the actual numbers are outside the MOE, and asking McCain-Clinton first for every respondent is a problem, but Clinton trailing in WA doesn't indicate a methodology problem. What it indicates, if anything, is that the real election is still eight months away.

Posted by Aaron S. Veenstra | March 6, 2008 6:28 PM

And you don't like the results.

Why wouldn't he like the results? Obama wins the election more comfortably according to these maps. I expect better snark from Petey.

Posted by drjimcooper | March 6, 2008 6:29 PM

Matt,

Actually, Washington is a potential swing state in a Clinton-McCain matchup. People don't seem to get that the Pacific Northwest is not all coffee shops and wineries--it also has a healthy dose of libertarian-type Westerners who do not like Clinton.

Michigan is also not as much in the grasp of the automotive industry anymore as some people assume. For good or ill, that is because many of those jobs are gone, to Tennessee, Mexico, and so on.

Posted by DTM | March 6, 2008 6:34 PM

Cranky kate is right. Lots of military voters, both active and retired, and McCain's strong pro-trade rhetoric will get him solid support in WA. The Dems will need a big Seattle turnout, which Clinton might not be able to deliver.

Posted by CG | March 6, 2008 6:35 PM

Actually, rather than Nebraska being a swing state I think that the map's blue/red lines are referring to the state's practice of awarding electoral votes to the winner of each individual congressional district. While it's definitely unlikely that any Democrat would win the state as a whole, Obama might be able to snag an electoral vote from Nebraska's second congressional district, particularly if someone manages to make a huge issue of McCain's embrace of anti-Catholic bigot John Hagee.

Posted by Andrew | March 6, 2008 6:36 PM

Based on the below comment, I think Hillary saw the map and decided on a different strategy.

"...I think it’s imperative that each of us be able to demonstrate we can cross the commander-in-chief threshold,” the New York senator told reporters crowded into an infant’s bedroom-sized hotel conference room in Washington. “I believe that I’ve done that. Certainly, Sen. McCain has done that and you’ll have to ask Sen. Obama with respect to his candidacy,” she said..."

I think her new tagline will be, "I'm just like John McCain, 'cept liberal."
Or, maybe, "A New Lieberman for New Challeges. Vote Hillary."

Posted by carsick | March 6, 2008 6:37 PM

Come back to the reality-based community, Matthew! We miss you. Posted by Petey | March 6, 2008 5:50 PM

Yeah really. How come he doesn't get the high floor/low ceiling stuff? Is it because of his yut? Actually believes the inspirational RFK stuff will hold as image for 6 months, that that's not soft? Doesn't realize that we just don't know how many Independent and swing type people might end up hating Obama in a general election race because we just don't know what kind of image he is going to run with? We know how exactly many people hate Hillary, those are the numbers that aren't going to change very much, no journalist is going to convince anyone different. Another clue for the clueless: if there's some big event related to foreign policy during the general election campaign, Hillary's got the hawkishness image tied up, he has nothing much yet except hopes. I know Obamabots hate it when people point out the empty suit thing, but they just need to see that right now that he's a blank slate that many people have been projecting some hopes on, and now that party is over and he has to create a more definite image. An image that we don't know if all the people who voted for him in the primary even will like.

It just jumps out at me: they have even chances at McCain right now and Obama is far riskier. If you're one to believe in him, that he's got the appeal for the middle, the thing to do would be push him to reveal much more of himself much ASAP. Not to mention tamp down the worst of the Obamabots on the net continually trying to define him with their amateur and often very damaging spin. He needs to do another DailyKos Sister Souljah, mho.

Posted by artappraiser | March 6, 2008 6:38 PM

Oh, and I will once again declare a victory for regionalism on the basis of these maps, even as we quibble about individual states.

I will also note that if Obama can just get Clinton supporters in Appalachia to convert to him in the event Clinton loses, he does in fact have a good chance of a landslide victory.

Posted by DTM | March 6, 2008 6:41 PM

typo above:
"A New Lieberman for New CHALLENGES. Vote Hillary."

Posted by carsick | March 6, 2008 6:42 PM

Sorry, this race is over.

http://www.newsweek.com/id/119010/page/1

Posted by Stacy | March 6, 2008 6:47 PM

First, what is it with HRC and her supporters continually insulting BHO supporters? Why do you think his supporters are susceptible to "magic" but HRC's are not?

Anyway, all the usual caveats but I found this interesting. In TIME magazine they list the 10 most critical Senate races of 2008. Here's the point differential between HRC and McCain compared to the point differential between BHO and McCain.

.....HRC BHO
VA. -10 | 0
CO... -6 | +9
NH... -8 | +2
NM.. -0 | +7
ME.. +6 | +14
LA.. -10 | -15
MN.. +4 | +7
NE.. -27 | -3
OR.... -5 | +8
AK.. -22 | -5

Obama is better than HRC in every state but Louisiana. Incidentally, Oregon is the only state where we haven't had a Dem primary yet.

This is what Obama means by "bringing people together" to change Washington DC.

Posted by JLTTravis | March 6, 2008 7:00 PM

Instead of squabbling over how predictive these particular polls, I'd rather look for some general trends. It seems Obama is consistently stronger in the west and upper south. That fits with his coalition.

Hillary is stronger in the mid-atlantic and Florida, note that PA and FL are two of the oldest states in the union. Since SurveyUSA has been one of the better polling outfits this primary season and they did 30,000 interviews for this survey. It's a better use of your political junkie juices to study the actual results than to try to dismiss them or use them to argue why the other candidate sucks.

Posted by AJ | March 6, 2008 7:06 PM

By the way, here are some key margins (all the states within 5, unless I missed something).

In Obama-McCain, Obama lost Florida by only 2. NJ was actually tied, and Obama was only down 2 in North Carolina (which I think is gettable if he can in fact convert Appalachian Democrats). Pennsylania was within 5 (same caveat). Other McCain states with leads of 5 or less included Alaska, Nebraska, South Dakota, South Carolina, and Texas. Scoff if you will, but I think regionalism and other factors give Obama a chance in many of these places. On the downside, Obama was only up 1 in Michigan, 5 in Nevada, 2 in NH, 4 in ND, and tied in VA (VA is yet another place where converting Applachian Democrats would really help).

In Clinton-McCain, the good news is that she was within 5 in Iowa, Michigan was tied, Missouri was within 4, Oregon was within 5, Tennessee was tied, and Washington was within 2. The bad news is she was only up 5 in Delaware, 4 in Hawaii, 4 in Minnesota, 5 in NJ, tied in NM, 1 in PA, 5 in W.Va, and 4 in WI.

Personally, I think this once again puts the lie to the "lower ceiling, higher floor" argument for Clinton. Obama is competitive all over the map and in many non-Kerry states, which gives him a lot of different ways to get to 270 even if he loses a couple Kerry states (as in fact this map shows). Clinton's problem is that her support is much more concentrated, and she is in trouble in important Kerry areas like the Pacific NW, the Great Lakes, and the Mid-Atlantic. That does indeed suggest a low ceiling for Clinton, but her floor is not so high: with a bad result in MN, WI, or PA, she could get both FL and OH and still lose the election.

Posted by DTM | March 6, 2008 7:12 PM

The polling this early understates Obama's strength, because he is still less well known than Hillary or McCain. If he wins the nomination then he will not have that problem.

This poll also represents a ceiling for Hillary; she can not do any better and only worse if she makes it to general election and starts getting hammered by the GOP. This polling represents something of a floor for Obama; he will go higher in a general election.

Obama will win all of the so called big states that have gone for Hillary. Does anyone seriously think CA or NY would go GOP this year? Give me a break.

But only Obama can win the swing states, the purple states, and even perhaps some of the red states. Hillary would also be a drag on the downticket candidates; Obama would be an immense lift.

Obama is so clearly the most electable; Hillary is a loser and a corrupt one at that. Who knows what scandal is waiting to explode with the Clintons? What's hidden in their tax returns? What scandals have Bill and Hillary been involved in since 2000?

Posted by cm | March 6, 2008 7:12 PM

I also miss any poll numbers for each state -- there's just red or blue, no indication of how much ahead or behind the candidates are in each.

Granting the limited usefulness of early polling in General, Matt, the Wash. Post gives Obama a 12 point lead over McCain nationally, and Clinton only a 6 point lead. Those percentage points have to be somewhere amongst the individual states in the Survey USA map.

Posted by Spenser | March 6, 2008 7:17 PM

Matt,

The sample size per state of 600 is more than large enough to be predictive, but there are other problems:

1. Using registered voters tends to skew polls pro-Democrat. Obama may contend he will have better GOTV than Dems have historically, but this would be a change.

2. Not rotating Clinton and Obama builds in a bias

3. Awarding states inside the margin of error is not valid.

4. Awarding Obama EVs in Nebraska is not valid. In order to do this, you would have to do three separate 500 respondent polls in the three CDs.

Posted by ephus | March 6, 2008 7:20 PM

McGovern's strength was in the West -- which he won solidly in the primaries. Winning in fact just about every state West of the Mississippi. But it didn't mean anything in terms of the GE. (His coalition was very similar to Obama's -- drawing in a lot of new young voters, independents and moderate Republicans.)

Posted by esmense | March 6, 2008 7:22 PM

McGovern's strength was in the West -- which he won solidly in the primaries. Winning in fact just about every state West of the Mississippi. But it didn't mean anything in terms of the GE. (His coalition was very similar to Obama's -- drawing in a lot of new young voters, independents and moderate Republicans.)

Posted by esmense | March 6, 2008 7:23 PM

Hillary is radioactive in a general election. She would enter with the highest negatives ever...more than half the country would hate her. Now even large amounts of Democrats would hate her.

But it's not all about winning, it is about governing for whoever wins. And Hillary could never bring this country together to solve our biggest problems. In fact she would only divide it further.

Wherever Hillary is, she divides and polarizes. It's her nature.

Posted by cm | March 6, 2008 7:26 PM

Here are much more useful maps from Chris Bowers that take into account leaners. Obama crushes McCain, while Clinton is tied with McCain.

http://www.openleft.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=4374

Posted by bob | March 6, 2008 7:31 PM

"what is it with HRC and her supporters continually insulting BHO supporters?"

They're losing.

"the Wash. Post gives Obama a 12 point lead over McCain nationally, and Clinton only a 6 point lead."

That's a poll of "adults," IIRC. Useless.

Posted by Knemon | March 6, 2008 7:32 PM

My methodological objection is the 'fuck-the-other-Dem' factor: there are going to be a few Clinton and Obama supporters right now who'll say that they'll vote for McCain, but there's a long time between now and November.

That said, if this turns out to be a general election campaign that's based around October cabloid townhalls in Dayton and St Petersburg, I will be looking for high buildings surrounded by concrete.

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | March 6, 2008 7:32 PM

The polling this early understates Obama's strength, because he is still less well known than Hillary or McCain. If he wins the nomination then he will not have that problem.

Conversely, Obama's weaknesses are still mostly unknown to the voting public due to Democrats giving his record a pass and the media being in the tank for the "MOvement Man with the Soaring Oratory."

Up on the block, people will grow used to his black preacher style of speech and begin looking at his very liberal voting record and his shady associates.

His Centerpiece, his anti-war speech of 2002 that has so flummoxed Hillary with the Lefties she needs - completely blunted by McCains people. Who will observe and then run ads of Obama and all the people like him that opposed Bush out of ideology, not facts. Obama and Vladimir Putin saying the same things, so too Tariq Assiz, Baghdad Bob, and Saddam Hussein Himself in speeches. Jacques de Villipen, the smug French Lefty. All the people bribed to denounce the decision to enforce 17 defied UN SEcurity Council Resolutions by Saddam's Oil-for-Food corruption. Like Kofi and his Klowns.

The ex-SDS member that persuaded Obama to give an anti-War speech in the 1st place to please his Far Left Jewish donors and to "rekindle the good days of the Vietnam Protest Movement".

Yeah, the youngster with less executive and national elected experience than anyone who has ever run for President, even Warren Harding - will show his silver-tongued superiority and his one-speech Greatness of Better Judgment than anybody outside anti-war speakers like Putin, Saddam, Ayman al-Zawahiri, Susan Sarandon, Teddy, every Muslim political party leader, Jane Fonda...

Not that Hillary should be taken at her word that she ever was a legitimate Co-Governor and Co-President with true executive experience a CEO or General's wife would be laughed at for claiming came from their marriage.

Posted by chris ford | March 6, 2008 7:33 PM

Stacy:

Sorry, this race is over.

http://www.newsweek.com/id/119010/page/1

I agree. Comeback Kid Bill Clinton said his wife needed to win Ohio and Texas.

The Clinton campaign will mount a legal challenge to argue Texas doesn't count but for all practical purposes you can stick a fork in it.

Posted by Peter K. | March 6, 2008 7:36 PM

"less executive and national elected experience than anyone who has ever run for President"

More than Lincoln.

Posted by Knemon | March 6, 2008 7:41 PM

chris ford -

Nice post...but you forgot one very important thing: Obama was right on Iraq. Hillary was wrong.

Posted by JLTTravis | March 6, 2008 7:45 PM

Looking at this poll, I wonder if it wouldn't be useful to look beyond the two candidates and think of this as two parties within a party. Obama represents one party; Clinton another. Obama proposes nothing less than a redefinition of the democratic party, something the party has desperately needed ever since the Nixon's implementation of the Southern Strategy. Interestingly, part of the reason that we have to redefine the party is that we won many of the battles that came to define us: civil rights, abortion rights, and so on. Clinton represents the last version of the party that so struggled to give itself a mission after these victories. This is why her name is so intimately associated with the word "triangulation." She wants to awaken old antagonisms and fears, because that's the environment in which her thinking makes sense. And the tension between the two candidates' supporters, between the young and the old, the optimistic and the fearful, is the direct product of these warring intra-party impulses. It's actually quite normal for there to be enthusiasm for an evolutionary step, coupled with fear of what that step will entail, all within the same organism. One thing is absolutely certain, though: we will end up taking the step, sooner or later. It's just a matter of time.

Posted by alex | March 6, 2008 7:48 PM

Okay here goes:
The first lady stuff matters.
In every human endeavor it matters. It is the zone of proximal experience as defined by vygotskii about a hundred years ago: we reach developmental levels differently when in a zone
that has mentors or tools that speed developmental milestones or leaps.
Traditionally in the training for work at a high level one gains profound awareness and depth when one has a deep abiding relationship with a master.
We see this in the arts, in medicine, in the partnering of policemen young to old. It is the cornerstone of apprenticeship models and internships in medicine and business. it is the i was there model. The up close model.
In Hillary's case she was trained to begin with as a lawyer and as a political activist and as a student activist when she began a life partnership with Bill. That is different than any political spouse we've had in the white house. They started as equals. she had as much promise as he did, an array of talents and a profound ability to network for change.
He decides to make his stand in the wake of watrergate in his poor sometimes backwords state of Ark. In those cynical times he seeks office. She is a defacto campaign manager. She has experience organizing political campaigns: she organized for Mc Govern in Texas. His elected office pays shitty and she gets work that helps make it possible for him to stay in politics; I know what this is like because my wife helped support me through grad school and she makes more than I do as a teacher: it lets me be a teacher
and not live in poverty.
Not only does this high achieving young politico feminist lawyer subvert her own path to support his she suffers innumerable attacks as a lefty feminist politicians wife who keeps her name in marriage and is not retiring. In spite of all the jokes assholes make about their marriage its always been clear that they keep council with each other about issues and politics, that they are each other's best sounding board. Curiously though being a wife means she can't have the real job that involves her in policy. As first lady she leads fight about schools and education but she can't have the bobby kennedy sidekick job: those days are over.
He almost runs in 88: she talks him out of it: he's not ready. the shot is there but he's young and green still. He runs in 92 and with her helping neutralize his high negatives he wins.
She is a totally different kind of first lady. Office in the west wing. Has unprecedented power. Remains his closest adviser. But because of her education, training and talents it isn't the nancy reagan model of involvement. it has a kind of legitimacy to it especially because we knew that about them. They told us that is how it was. they said it was two for one. he always said she was the more talented one.
In the white house she is there at every turn. She was intimately involved in every issue and wrinkle and situation. Lets not be stupid. Read Stephenopolis' book. Read back articles from the times: she is the surest path to getting his ear.
She goes through the hoorible time they had getting a transition in place, getting people voted on. She bites off the suicide mission of sweeping health care reform. She travels in support of every iniative. She campaigns and is involved. She talks policy in the media. She is part of what the right wing attacks.
They are a profoundly modern partnership type of marriage deeply informed by their feminist MS. magazine/our bodies ourselves type of equality.
She saves his administration just as she saved his 92 campaign. She is a magnet for controversy and hate herself. Its an extraordinary public profile. She lends him a kind of trust that picking gore for vp did. They make each other better just as clinton gore did. She lends him a less slick more trustworthy image just as gore did and he makes her more exciting and more vital and less nerdy just as he did for gore.
The sex scandal elevating hillary to worthiness to run for the seat eleanor almost ran for and that bobby did run for is actually a false story: she had that status and gravitas and favorability anyway. But she runs and guliani drops out when he both has cancer and realizes he can't beat her: against anyone else he stays in and cancer helps him win. Her listening tour (helped along by visions of eleanor and bobby and designed and executed by Wolfson) is totally pitch perfect and she storms to a win.
She becomes a very effective senator right away. she wins over the working class republican upstate beleagered voters: amazing really.
Her book is a best seller: her second best seller.
And she raises money for every body in the dem party for the next five years.
She gets the committee assignments that help her state AND give her the gravitas that bill didn't have when he went to the white house.
The white house experience is extraordinary. Most of us feel that deep in our bones. Yet with so much clinton hate and women hating crazies in the arena its almost impossible to put into words.
And her judgement? She had the sense to wait to run until she really was ready and not just famous. Obama lacked the patience to wait and invents thew self serving Audacity of now to jump in as a neophyte.
I know that there are a few laugh lines in here for hillary haters but that's the jist of the experience deal.

Posted by Michael C. | March 6, 2008 7:49 PM

Okay here goes:
The first lady stuff matters.
In every human endeavor it matters. It is the zone of proximal experience as defined by vygotskii about a hundred years ago: we reach developmental levels differently when in a zone
that has mentors or tools that speed developmental milestones or leaps.
Traditionally in the training for work at a high level one gains profound awareness and depth when one has a deep abiding relationship with a master.
We see this in the arts, in medicine, in the partnering of policemen young to old. It is the cornerstone of apprenticeship models and internships in medicine and business. it is the i was there model. The up close model.
In Hillary's case she was trained to begin with as a lawyer and as a political activist and as a student activist when she began a life partnership with Bill. That is different than any political spouse we've had in the white house. They started as equals. she had as much promise as he did, an array of talents and a profound ability to network for change.
He decides to make his stand in the wake of watrergate in his poor sometimes backwords state of Ark. In those cynical times he seeks office. She is a defacto campaign manager. She has experience organizing political campaigns: she organized for Mc Govern in Texas. His elected office pays shitty and she gets work that helps make it possible for him to stay in politics; I know what this is like because my wife helped support me through grad school and she makes more than I do as a teacher: it lets me be a teacher
and not live in poverty.
Not only does this high achieving young politico feminist lawyer subvert her own path to support his she suffers innumerable attacks as a lefty feminist politicians wife who keeps her name in marriage and is not retiring. In spite of all the jokes assholes make about their marriage its always been clear that they keep council with each other about issues and politics, that they are each other's best sounding board. Curiously though being a wife means she can't have the real job that involves her in policy. As first lady she leads fight about schools and education but she can't have the bobby kennedy sidekick job: those days are over.
He almost runs in 88: she talks him out of it: he's not ready. the shot is there but he's young and green still. He runs in 92 and with her helping neutralize his high negatives he wins.
She is a totally different kind of first lady. Office in the west wing. Has unprecedented power. Remains his closest adviser. But because of her education, training and talents it isn't the nancy reagan model of involvement. it has a kind of legitimacy to it especially because we knew that about them. They told us that is how it was. they said it was two for one. he always said she was the more talented one.
In the white house she is there at every turn. She was intimately involved in every issue and wrinkle and situation. Lets not be stupid. Read Stephenopolis' book. Read back articles from the times: she is the surest path to getting his ear.
She goes through the hoorible time they had getting a transition in place, getting people voted on. She bites off the suicide mission of sweeping health care reform. She travels in support of every iniative. She campaigns and is involved. She talks policy in the media. She is part of what the right wing attacks.
They are a profoundly modern partnership type of marriage deeply informed by their feminist MS. magazine/our bodies ourselves type of equality.
She saves his administration just as she saved his 92 campaign. She is a magnet for controversy and hate herself. Its an extraordinary public profile. She lends him a kind of trust that picking gore for vp did. They make each other better just as clinton gore did. She lends him a less slick more trustworthy image just as gore did and he makes her more exciting and more vital and less nerdy just as he did for gore.
The sex scandal elevating hillary to worthiness to run for the seat eleanor almost ran for and that bobby did run for is actually a false story: she had that status and gravitas and favorability anyway. But she runs and guliani drops out when he both has cancer and realizes he can't beat her: against anyone else he stays in and cancer helps him win. Her listening tour (helped along by visions of eleanor and bobby and designed and executed by Wolfson) is totally pitch perfect and she storms to a win.
She becomes a very effective senator right away. she wins over the working class republican upstate beleagered voters: amazing really.
Her book is a best seller: her second best seller.
And she raises money for every body in the dem party for the next five years.
She gets the committee assignments that help her state AND give her the gravitas that bill didn't have when he went to the white house.
The white house experience is extraordinary. Most of us feel that deep in our bones. Yet with so much clinton hate and women hating crazies in the arena its almost impossible to put into words.
And her judgement? She had the sense to wait to run until she really was ready and not just famous. Obama lacked the patience to wait and invents the self serving Audacity of now to jump in as a neophyte.
I know that there are a few laugh lines in here for hillary haters but that's the jist of the experience deal.

Posted by Michael C. | March 6, 2008 7:50 PM

Nick Beaudrot has the same maps, shaded to illustrate margin of victory. Illuminating.

Posted by jack lecou | March 6, 2008 7:50 PM

Okay here goes:
The first lady stuff matters.
In every human endeavor it matters. It is the zone of proximal experience as defined by vygotskii about a hundred years ago: we reach developmental levels differently when in a zone
that has mentors or tools that speed developmental milestones or leaps.
Traditionally in the training for work at a high level one gains profound awareness and depth when one has a deep abiding relationship with a master.
We see this in the arts, in medicine, in the partnering of policemen young to old. It is the cornerstone of apprenticeship models and internships in medicine and business. it is the i was there model. The up close model.
In Hillary's case she was trained to begin with as a lawyer and as a political activist and as a student activist when she began a life partnership with Bill. That is different than any political spouse we've had in the white house. They started as equals. she had as much promise as he did, an array of talents and a profound ability to network for change.
He decides to make his stand in the wake of watrergate in his poor sometimes backwords state of Ark. In those cynical times he seeks office. She is a defacto campaign manager. She has experience organizing political campaigns: she organized for Mc Govern in Texas. His elected office pays shitty and she gets work that helps make it possible for him to stay in politics; I know what this is like because my wife helped support me through grad school and she makes more than I do as a teacher: it lets me be a teacher
and not live in poverty.
Not only does this high achieving young politico feminist lawyer subvert her own path to support his she suffers innumerable attacks as a lefty feminist politicians wife who keeps her name in marriage and is not retiring. In spite of all the jokes assholes make about their marriage its always been clear that they keep council with each other about issues and politics, that they are each other's best sounding board. Curiously though being a wife means she can't have the real job that involves her in policy. As first lady she leads fight about schools and education but she can't have the bobby kennedy sidekick job: those days are over.
He almost runs in 88: she talks him out of it: he's not ready. the shot is there but he's young and green still. He runs in 92 and with her helping neutralize his high negatives he wins.
She is a totally different kind of first lady. Office in the west wing. Has unprecedented power. Remains his closest adviser. But because of her education, training and talents it isn't the nancy reagan model of involvement. it has a kind of legitimacy to it especially because we knew that about them. They told us that is how it was. they said it was two for one. he always said she was the more talented one.
In the white house she is there at every turn. She was intimately involved in every issue and wrinkle and situation. Lets not be stupid. Read Stephenopolis' book. Read back articles from the times: she is the surest path to getting his ear.
She goes through the hoorible time they had getting a transition in place, getting people voted on. She bites off the suicide mission of sweeping health care reform. She travels in support of every iniative. She campaigns and is involved. She talks policy in the media. She is part of what the right wing attacks.
They are a profoundly modern partnership type of marriage deeply informed by their feminist MS. magazine/our bodies ourselves type of equality.
She saves his administration just as she saved his 92 campaign. She is a magnet for controversy and hate herself. Its an extraordinary public profile. She lends him a kind of trust that picking gore for vp did. They make each other better just as clinton gore did. She lends him a less slick more trustworthy image just as gore did and he makes her more exciting and more vital and less nerdy just as he did for gore.
The sex scandal elevating hillary to worthiness to run for the seat eleanor almost ran for and that bobby did run for is actually a false story: she had that status and gravitas and favorability anyway. But she runs and guliani drops out when he both has cancer and realizes he can't beat her: against anyone else he stays in and cancer helps him win. Her listening tour (helped along by visions of eleanor and bobby and designed and executed by Wolfson) is totally pitch perfect and she storms to a win.
She becomes a very effective senator right away. she wins over the working class republican upstate beleagered voters: amazing really.
Her book is a best seller: her second best seller.
And she raises money for every body in the dem party for the next five years.
She gets the committee assignments that help her state AND give her the gravitas that bill didn't have when he went to the white house.
The white house experience is extraordinary. Most of us feel that deep in our bones. Yet with so much clinton hate and women hating crazies in the arena its almost impossible to put into words.
And her judgement? She had the sense to wait to run until she really was ready and not just famous. Obama lacked the patience to wait and invents the self serving Audacity of now to jump in as a neophyte.
I know that there are a few laugh lines in here for hillary haters but that's the jist of the experience deal.

Posted by Michael C. | March 6, 2008 7:51 PM

The map for Clinton is terrible. And it's terrible for the Democratic Party. Oregon has a vulnerable (and terrible) Republican Senator up for re-election this year, and Washington's governor is facing a rematch of a race she won four years ago by 129 votes.

Both states have large metro areas that are liberal, but both are almost exactly equally offset by huge, rural agricultural areas which are very conservative. Furthermore, Washington has a large number of active military bases and personnel (many of whom, like the Stryker task force have faced multiple deployments to Iraq), and though Hillary thinks she has some sort of military experience based it seems primarily on making horrible judgements and votes on when, where and how to use the military, I doubt many active-duty soldiers and sailors see her as a comrade in arms.

Obama, on the other hand, as he has demonstrated over and over again in this race does very well with Westerners, and he will win both states. Good grief, I don't even want to think about the conversations I'm going to have to have with my family if it's Clinton versus McCain. You see, people actually like McCain (for bad reasons, I believe but it's there just the same) and they like Obama. But Clinton does not play well here (at least in my experience) and it will be a long, long election season with her as the nominee and an almost certain re-election of the worthless Gordon Smith.

Posted by kidkostar | March 6, 2008 7:55 PM

If you add in the fact that Michael C. double-posted, Hillary has seventy years of experience (and 16 years of key proximal experience).

Posted by RD | March 6, 2008 7:56 PM

A lot of people are scoffing at these maps because they don't match up with 2000 and 2004. People don't believe that Obama could ever win in Jesusland or a Republican could win in the United States of Canada. Electoral history is against this intution. Obama is not Kerry or Gore, and McCain is not Bush. Each of them is going to put states in play that were not in play for their immediate predecessors. Michael Barone is largely right about this. For example, I think the South is definitely in play for the Democrats: of course Florida, but also LA, WV and Arkansas if it's Hillary, and Missouri and Virginia if it's Obama.

"She would enter with the highest negatives ever...more than half the country would hate her."

Bush had higher negatives in 2004. She does not nor will she ever have 50+ percent negatives unless she gets elected. The idea that Hillary couldn't win is wrong. She's less likely to win big, but she would probably beat McCain.

Posted by Colatina | March 6, 2008 7:58 PM

"less executive and national elected experience than anyone who has ever run for President"
More than Lincoln.

Posted by Knemon | March 6, 2008 7:41 PM

Er, you're not getting the reason most people here get into that point. It's not a challenge to say: prove Obama can be great, like this: "is so, can be great as Lincoln! is not, is an inexperienced hack!"

Why they are bringing it up is regarding electibility.

And to bring up Lincoln as a comparison on that front is, truthfully, apples and oranges. Though it's an understatement that he had a really tough time winning:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election%2C_1860

Summary:

Is not applicable nor convincing to say that Lincoln was inexperienced when people push the inexperienced thing. I am sure that when Lincoln was elected plenty of people that both didn't and did vote for him were real scared.

Posted by artappraiser | March 6, 2008 8:10 PM

Michael C., even if all that were true, here's what the nation will focus on:

"She is a magnet for controversy and hate herself. "

I'm concerned with taking the White House back and then getting Democratic initiatives through. Because of how the majority of the nation already feels about her, it would be tough.

Posted by ZednCu | March 6, 2008 8:11 PM

The only thing that these projections tell me is that McCain is going to the next POTUS. In what is universally acknowledged to the toughest election for the GOP in recent history, both of the Dems are up by less than 10 electoral votes at this time, and both will lose if a single state switches.

I believe that McCain will win all the states that Bush won in 04, as well as Pennslvania, New Jersey and maybe Connecticut with the help of Lieberman.

Posted by Chicounsel | March 6, 2008 8:17 PM

p.s. on the Lincoln thing.

This is what I see said when people bring that up as a counterargument against the inexperience argument:

"Take a chance on the inexperienced Obama! Maybe he will turn out as good as the inexperienced Lincoln did!"

Not exactly the best bumper sticker idea, I'd say.

Posted by artappraiser | March 6, 2008 8:27 PM

Chicounsel, you really suck at math.

Posted by 1st Grade | March 6, 2008 8:27 PM

Michael C.

You seem to define experience as "experience being in the public eye." That's well and good, but it's not actually experience governing. I'm pretty sure that, defining experience that broadly, I could provide a bio for Obama as long as the one you posted. There is, after all, a difference between experience and relevant experience.

Posted by alex | March 6, 2008 8:27 PM

I just watched American Gangster last night and Frank Lucas was right there by Bumpy Johnson's side for years and then took over the whole dope trade in Harlem and took it to even higher levels! It was teh up close model, the i was there model! his years as Bumpy's driver and confidante.....that gave him the knowhow and moxie and confidence to take over!

In other words Michael C is right!!

Posted by yeah | March 6, 2008 8:29 PM

Michael C.:

You're a teacher? I hope to hell you don't teach English composition, spelling, or grammar.

Posted by hello | March 6, 2008 8:34 PM

I am absolutely inexperienced in political campaigns or governance. Yet upon waking up and finding myself in the White House, I could do a million times better than Bush Jr. instantly.

The "experience" argument always has to be specified to "experienced at what, and to what effect".

Posted by El Cid | March 6, 2008 8:40 PM

You're a teacher? I hope to hell you don't teach English composition, spelling, or grammar.

To be fair, Michael seems to be very, very stoned.

Posted by calling all toasters | March 6, 2008 8:56 PM

Previous polls had shown McCain beating Hillary, and that would certainly be the case by November. The reason these polls are different is that although Obama has been subjected to negative campaigning by both McCain and the Clintons, Hillary has had a free ride. Therefore she looks better than she deserves to at this point, but once Obama were no longer contending, she would be bashed down to size. All her previous dirt would be exposed ad nauseum on Fox News,etc. Also, many Obamacans, such as myself, have been so turned off by her bitchy personality as shown in this campaign, that we could never in a million years vote for her. McCain is simply more likeable than Hillary.

Posted by Tamsin Crozier | March 6, 2008 9:03 PM

Speaking as a Democrat who not only wants to see our party retake the presidency but also expand its majorities in Congress and, in general, expand its coalition and reach across the country to put greater parts of it into play -- in other words, ditch 50%+1 and offensively compete in states outside the Gore/Kerry paradigm plus one more state (be it Ohio or Florida) -- I've got to say that I find the Obama map a lot more appealing. He's winning more states and, if one looks at the percentages, is competing more strongly in a lot more states that are currently in the McCain column.

Posted by jbryan | March 6, 2008 9:08 PM

The results for both candidates are bunk. Obama partisans who are asked now are going to say they will vote for McCain rather than Hillary. Same for Clinton partisans.

Neither is going to happen. Both candidates are going to trounce McCain in a Reagan/Carter style landslide.

Posted by PHB | March 6, 2008 10:00 PM

I'd vote for General Zod over Clinton:

http://www.zod2008.com/

In fact, if she wins the nomination, I plan to write General Zod in. No joke. And I live in a swing state. :)

And if she does get the nomination, and lose 45 plus states, which she will, I will be here to rub your faces in it the day after the election.

Mind you, I think McCain is a crazy old man who will wreck the country, and I think that 97% of the members of the Republican establishment are inhuman scum. So it certainly is not out of any affection for McCain or the Republicans that I say that.

Seriously though, if everything else wasn't enough, aren't you Clinton supporters at least embarrassed by her recent praise of McCain's leadership abilities? Disgusting. She is evil, evil, scum. If anything, the right wing hate machine, while hating her for (in part) the wrong reasons, was, if anything, too easy on her. She is the worst woman in U.S. history.

Posted by LarryM | March 6, 2008 10:37 PM

Beaudrot's version makes it quite clear that Clinton's support quickly falls off once you get West of the Mississippi or South of the Ohio. This is a pretty serious problem.

Posted by DTM | March 6, 2008 10:43 PM

"The results for both candidates are bunk. Obama partisans who are asked now are going to say they will vote for McCain rather than Hillary. Same for Clinton partisans.
Neither is going to happen"

As an Obamacan, I voted for Obama because of his foreign policy. Hillary's foreign policy is very similar to McCain's. Both voted for the Iraq war authorization and the Iran resolution. Hillary favors cluster bombs and shuns diplomacy without imposible preconditions. Hillary wants to get out of Iraq so as to invade Iran. Under Hillary we would still be the most hated country in the world. I'd probably vote for Nader (again) which would help McCain, of course.

Posted by Tamsin Crozier | March 6, 2008 11:03 PM

Oh, and Bowers' analysis addresses the "floor" issue.

"Solid Obama": 163.

"Solid Clinton": 77.

Posted by DTM | March 6, 2008 11:14 PM

By the way, can anyone provide some links to anti-Hillary web sites? I have relatives in PA and I'd like to provide them some links. Accuracy is not an issue.

Oh, and anyone know of any dedicated anti Hillary 527s? I'm going to be sending them some donations.

Posted by LarryM | March 6, 2008 11:32 PM

i'd just like to point out that MY writes:

Arkansas, West Virginia, Pennsylvania, Michigan or New Jersey where the map shows Hillary winning and Obama losing

when in fact, if MY had looked at the maps, it's CLINTON that actually LOSES Michigan while OBAMA WINS it.

Hmm... Kinda shoddy post/analysis, I'd say. And funny that in over 60 comments, in over six hours no one noticed his glaring error, even while commenting upon the Michigan votes themselves.

This is why I worry about the Internet. We are too busy thinking of our quick response or our witty comments or how to best express "our" own opinions that we don't even see the facts in front of our own faces...

Sigh, technology.

Posted by mac | March 6, 2008 11:44 PM

I don't believe that for one minute.

DTM, you'll say anything at this point.

Posted by Tim K | March 6, 2008 11:44 PM

chris ford -
Nice post...but you forgot one very important thing: Obama was right on Iraq. Hillary was wrong.
Posted by JLTTravis

Nice try, but brainless Lefty rote-speak.

He was right, but only because he opposed the War on Lefty ideology and Muslim sympatico, not on logic or judgment.

That doesn't make Obama the Superior choice over all others.

It merely places him along with all the other people that gave strong speeches against the US going into Iraq,

Like Vladimir Putin.
Like Saddam Hussein himself.
Like Susan Sarandon and Barbara Boxer.
Or Tariq Aziz or Baghdad Bob in their "Superior judgment" speeches of 2002.
Or Ayman al-Zawahiri's two heartfelt speeches denouncing "aggression against brother Muslims".
Or Teddy or Kofi and the other bribed UN Klowns.
Or Supreme Ayatolla Khamenei of Iran who opposed the War as "stupid".
Or Jacques de Villepin or "Red Ken" Livingston, the Muslim-friendly communist mayor of London.
Or certain kids in college and high school and at Muslim centers in America that were just as "astute" as Obama and just as "ready to handle all America's affairs."

Yeah, just the sort of fine, "Great Judgment" leaders like Obama is.

All of them, including Saddam and Al Qaeda and Kucinich and Putin were as "right as Obama" and Hillary as "wrong as Powell, McCain, Bush, Kerry, Blair, Feinstein, Gephardt, etc."?

I know what side I have more faith in for being right far more than they are wrong.

The American people are not so much upset over going in as Bush botching the postwar and effectively sticking us there for 5 years for a people, outside the Kurds who have been great, Americans could care less live or die.
**********************
"less executive and national elected experience than anyone who has ever run for President"
More than Lincoln.
Posted by Knemon

Except that you are wrong. Wrong on three counts actually, when measuring Obama against Lincoln.

1. Lincoln had drilled with militia troops since he was in his mid-teens. He had about 6 years in arms, including cavalry, scouting, and Indian warfare experience and training. He was appointed to an executive military position as an independent commander during the BlackhawkWar. Obama never was in the military. We don't even know if he has ever even fired a weapon.

2. Lincoln was a National Party Leader of a new Party, the Republicans, and is credited as one of the founders. He was an executive political leader, and helped select Fremont as the 1st candidate in 1856.

3. The real Lincoln was not a "country lawyer". What he was was one of the best paid lawyers out West, with his own private railroad car with personal telegraph operator - and on the executive boards of three major railroads organized out of Chicago. He was recruited by two of the biggest East Coast railroads and offered 50,000 by one to take a senior executive spot, a huge sum at the time. He was so well compensated because he was an industry leader, rationalizing routes and what rail lines had to do to foster national growth out West, doing the key interactions with other carriers - rail, river, Great Lakes shipping - then going with the laws and regs needed to be rubberstamped with a little Lincoln cajoling - at several State Legislatures. The most important for its confluence of the major rivers and endpoint and embarkation point for Great Lakes shipped products being the State of Illinois.
He ran with "spin" that he was just a plain ol' country lawyer because at the time railroads were the most important and profitable industry in the USA and leaders of railroads screwed one AMerican for every 2-3 that railroads improved the lives of. It would be like someone running today who was a commanding military officer and Party Leader who also was a 10-year senior exec with the oil companies. You would seek, as Lincoln did well, to minimize the private industry exec experience.

Obama - again - no military executive experience, no private industry executive experience, no government executive experience. Just two years in a national office of any kind. Less than Warren Harding, even.

Besides Lincoln, people mention Obama is no less experienced than JFK. Not even close. JFK commanded forces in WWII. He had 14 years in national office. Still, he was thought to be inexperienced and admitted he had early disasters he attributed to it.

Posted by chris ford | March 6, 2008 11:47 PM

Clinton's "experience" is a track record of war and triangulation. If you want that, you might as well vote for McCain--at least he triangulates against the bad guys. More experienced too.

I think one thing people are missing is that for the last two decades the right-wing talk radio and book mills have gone after Hillary for bullshit conspiracy-theory Vince Foster type stuff. Attacks designed not to win elections among moderates but to sell books to whackos.

Then Obama sort of went after her for the war just as we started to stop caring about Iraq (God forgive us) and tried to portray the 90s as good, but not good enough.

So she's been attacked from the far right and from the netroots, but she's never really faced an organized well-funded attack that would actually intended to persuade voters in the middle of the road. (And Bill hasn't since 1996, and I'm not sure he'd hold up so well today). There's a lot of shady ethical stuff in there that will bother even people who saw the impeachment as the total bullshit that it was. Apparently, the gloves are coming off in Clinton vs. Obama, so I guess we'll find out how solid Clinton's floor really is.

Admittedly, the same logic is true of McCain, too. The far right hates him for opposing torture and the tax cuts, I hate him for crudely flip-flopping on same. The middle might be bothered more about his hypocrisy over lobbyists, for example.

Posted by Consumatopia | March 6, 2008 11:52 PM

"By the way, can anyone provide some links to anti-Hillary web sites? ... Accuracy is not an issue."

Spoken like a true Obamabot, LarryM. You have provided a motto for your entire crowd. Even Matthew is buying in.

"She is evil, evil, scum."

Far be it for me to provide strategy to you folks, but perhaps you ought to stop writing lines for Samantha Power. It's one thing when online Obamabots bare their fangs, but when a Obama top advisor does it, the whole thing looks a bit bad to the voters.

Posted by Petey | March 6, 2008 11:53 PM

Yeah the ever classy Samantha Power.

A monster? seriously? This is the person he has as his chief foreign policy adviser?

Posted by Tim K | March 7, 2008 12:02 AM

Petey,

As you know from our prior discussions, I'm actually not that much of an Obama fan - I regard him as the lesser of three evils. Of course, why honestly acknowledge that when it gets in the way of your narrative? Anyway I kind of get the impression that Samantha Power isn't looking at comment threads for her lines.

And frankly I don't give a fuck what a Clinton supporter thinks, because anyone who can continue to support that devil woman after everything she has done has a screw loose. Or, like you, they want to elect a president who will kill brown people, but would prefer a Democrat, who will kill brown people AND give them another entitlement, instead of a Republican, who will JUST kill brown people.

Fuck you.

Posted by LarryM | March 7, 2008 12:09 AM

"Yeah the ever classy Samantha Power. A monster? seriously? This is the person he has as his chief foreign policy adviser?"

They're panicking in a very serious way.

Don't forget that Obama was able to win his Senate seat and get this far in the Presidential race without having to ever take a punch. They don't have a clue on how to respond to getting hit.

Obama is like Steve Nash in game 1 against the Spurs last year. Once the bleeding starts, it's not going to stop.

Posted by Petey | March 7, 2008 12:10 AM

"And frankly I don't give a fuck what a Clinton supporter thinks, because anyone who can continue to support that devil woman after everything she has done has a screw loose. Or, like you, they want to elect a president who will kill brown people, but would prefer a Democrat, who will kill brown people AND give them another entitlement, instead of a Republican, who will JUST kill brown people."

Are you actually Samantha Power, LarryM?

Posted by Petey | March 7, 2008 12:14 AM

Well Petey, if you are right, I hope you are happy with your landslide loss in the general. Because I know I'll be happy.

Oh, and losing the house and senate, as the Republican base turns out and the Democratic base stays home. But I won't be happy about THAT part; as little love as I have for the contemporary Democratic party, I have much less for the Republicans.

Posted by LarryM | March 7, 2008 12:15 AM

Obama will fire Power probably and move on, but the NAFTA reversal will hurt her a lot more. Even the idiots in our country can see this one. Obama got lucky on the timing.

Posted by ZednCu | March 7, 2008 12:16 AM

So sad to see Petey reduced to a common Daily Kos troll.

What a douche.

Posted by blah | March 7, 2008 12:18 AM

Can Clinton supporters really cling to the bogus "experience" slogan now that McCain has locked it up?

Posted by ZednCu | March 7, 2008 12:18 AM

Well LarryM has officially gone off the reservation.

Posted by Tim K | March 7, 2008 12:20 AM

Matt,

You need to get away from your computer and travel in these states. By talking to voters from all sides, you will get a sense of what the public wants. This map is meaningless because you have discounted the humanity of the voters. There are really good reasons why all three candidates appeal to different segments of the population. It does not mean that one side is more righteous than another. However, by focusing on the delegate or electoral map of the race, your reporting lacks context and meaning.

Posted by EWard | March 7, 2008 12:24 AM

"So sad to see Petey reduced to a common Daily Kos troll. What a douche."

You're not getting the correct Obama talking points, blah. You should be calling me a "monster" or a "devil", not a douche.

The campaign has decided that digging deeper will get them out of the hole.

Posted by Petey | March 7, 2008 12:25 AM

Petey:

It's nice to have an ally around, if I may be so bold as to say so.

Posted by Tim K | March 7, 2008 12:30 AM

Petey,

You think president McCain is going to sign that UHC bill that the Republican house and senate is going to pass?

Posted by LarryM | March 7, 2008 12:30 AM

Petey, you're much funnier when you brag about all the profits you made on Intrade.

Or make basketball predictions.

Posted by blah | March 7, 2008 12:31 AM

It's nice to have an ally around, if I may be so bold as to say so.

If you're looking to suck each other's dicks, get a room.

It is interesting, though, to see that every fucking election eventually seems to devolve to the mean, and the mean ain't that high. Still, if it makes some people a few dollars better off, tant pis.

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | March 7, 2008 1:22 AM

Kidkostar may be right, but I still don't see McCain winning Oregon by 5 points over Hillary but losing by 8 to Obama. Hillary may not be too popular in much of the state, but this 13-point swing calls the validity of the whole survey into question for me.

And the Democrats may have to endure a perfect storm in Denver, which could change everything.

Posted by Geaghan | March 7, 2008 1:29 AM

I like Petey. He's a concern troll from way back I respect. Concern trolling is a legitimate game, and he's good at it.

I wondered why he had gone for Edwards after sticking up for Clinton's hawk advisors and Joe Lieberman. I wondered about his mind numbing obsession with mandates (marginally good policy, cosmically and obviously retarded politics for Democrats to spend political capital for an unpopular policy that insurance companies will love anyway). How could somebody obviously intelligent get something so obvious wrong? Now that he's going for Clinton--even promising to go Nader on us if Obama wins, everything kind of makes sense--he's just always been some sort of DLC/centrist/hawk or loves the Clintons for some other reason. He supported Edwards because he felt it was Clinton's best shot.

He's smart and funny and he uses the bizarre twilight medium of comments to blogs in deeply creative ways. He annoys the crap out of me, he totally fooled me with his Edwards act, and his political advice is utterly disingenuous. But from an aesthetic perspective, I salute him, and I'm glad his beautiful kind exist in this world. He's not a common Daily Kos troll--he's a really damn good troll.

I mean, we're freaking psuedonyms. Why should we be honest and sincere? Shame on you all for buying into the delusion.

Either that or he just went crazy when Edwards gave up the ghost, but, hey that's reasonable too. 'Tis the season. He'll be better some day.

Posted by Consumatopia | March 7, 2008 1:51 AM

Washington State for McCain? No way in hell. He couldn't beat Nader around here.
Everyone who will admit to being a repub hates him.

Posted by merlallen | March 7, 2008 2:26 AM

Obama is like Steve Nash in game 1 against the Spurs last year. Once the bleeding starts, it's not going to stop.

Hillary Clinton is like the Mavs last year in the playoffs! Unbeatable in the first round! Oh wait...

Posted by Killjoy | March 7, 2008 2:35 AM

How could somebody obviously intelligent get something so obvious wrong?

I keep seeing this, but as an Yglesias reader since late '03, I've never seen any evidence of Petey's supposed "intelligence." Can you point to a comment he's made over the years that is remotely thought-provoking or insightful? He doesn't make many grammatical mistakes, it's true, but what else? The dude exhibits not a glimmer of self-awareness, a quality common to finer minds and absent in mediocre ones. Sliming blog comments sections with little more than smarmy two-line dreck and laughable predictions, it seems to me the man's standout trait is simply unearned arrogance.

This theory that Petey's a superb performance artist, creating the ultimate concern troll persona, is an interesting one. Sadly, geniuses on the internet are so rare. Why not assume that he is what he appears to be: an especially obnoxious attention-seeking fool?

Posted by Ryan W. | March 7, 2008 5:01 AM

A map this early based on opinion polls that awards states within the margin of error isn't to be taken seriously. That shouldn't be allowed in an entry-level stats class.

You may talk about Obama not being vetted, but it looks like he's still winning while Clinton and McCain are unleashing the same attacks on him on experience and foreign policy. However, as Chait pointed out recently in TNR, Obama can't go after Clinton the way McCain will due to the Democrats being the party of feminists, not the party of chauvinists. He can't attack her for her lack of actual experience, which is mostly based on her being a first lady in both the White House and the Arkansas governor's mansion, without looking a bit sexist.

If Clinton gets the nomination and goes against McCain, she'll be laughed off the stage for claiming experience. Much of her experience is being a punching bag for Republican rhetoric, which isn't going to be a selling point in the general. In addition, a lot of us supported her throughout the 1990's because the GOP attacks on her were just so disgusting: calling her a murdering communist who was having secret lesbian affairs and hated America, mom and apple pie and stole money. This endeared her to the Democratic base because these attacks were so unfair. However, these attacks also worked among both independents and the GOP base. Not everyone reads Krugman's good columns on why Whitewater was bullshit, so if you're just a low-to-medium information voter, all you heard for much of the 1990's was either Hillary Clinton being involved in dirty money or being cheated on. That meant that she came to represent for a lot of people corruption. Bill is the one who was elected president, so they would hear about his economic policies when the news would be on in the background while making dinner, doing housework, paying bills, etc. Hillary would tend to come up when a scandal was being investigated or she was calling another of Bill's mistresses a lying whore. McCain needs Clinton to run to get the base to rally around him.

Also, if you don't think that McCain will have a field day with the FALN pardons, you're in for a surprise.

Posted by Reality Man | March 7, 2008 5:32 AM

Re: You think president McCain is going to sign that UHC bill that the Republican house and senate is going to pass?

McCain has a shot at winning the White House but the GOP's chances of taking back Congress are virtually nill.

Posted by JonF | March 7, 2008 6:24 AM

"I like Petey. He's a concern troll from way back I respect. Concern trolling is a legitimate game, and he's good at it."

I'm not "concerned" about Obama. I'm opposing him.

"or (he) loves the Clintons for some other reason. "

You should've read what I was writing about Senator Clinton in 2007. I wasn't very complimentary.

"I mean, we're freaking psuedonyms. Why should we be honest and sincere?"

Sincerity comes and goes depending upon the occasion, but we should be honest. It's a lot more interesting that way.

Posted by Petey | March 7, 2008 6:28 AM

"Either that or he just went crazy when Edwards gave up the ghost, but, hey that's reasonable too. 'Tis the season. He'll be better some day."

I mean, I've explained many times why I'm supporting Clinton over Obama. It's not a particularly complex explanation.

Have you not seen those threads, or do you think I'm simply lying about my voiced rationale?

Posted by Petey | March 7, 2008 6:33 AM

"Hillary would tend to come up when a scandal was being investigated or she was calling another of Bill's mistresses a lying whore."

The essence of the Obama candidacy. Ken Starr, indeed.

Posted by Petey | March 7, 2008 6:41 AM

Petey, you claim to prefer Clinton to Obama because of their respective health care plans. The implication is that you understand the nuances of health insurance policy and politics and have come to a reasoned conclusion. But you NEVER make any substantive comments and arguments about it. Never. You never point out what the differences in the plans actually are, or what the consequences of these differences would be.

"Unearned arrogance" is a completely apropos term.

Posted by Barbar | March 7, 2008 6:54 AM

"The implication is that you understand the nuances of health insurance policy and politics and have come to a reasoned conclusion."

That is indeed a reasonable inference to make.

Posted by Petey | March 7, 2008 6:59 AM

Hilarious.

Posted by Barbar | March 7, 2008 7:02 AM

Tim K,

If by "say anything" you mean "note when empirical data supports my hypothesis", then sure, I will "say anything at this point".

Geaghan,

Why do you find that difference in Oregon implausible? Oregon, like Washington, is likely to be much more favorable for Obama than Clinton because it is a combination of a young upscale urban area (Portland, or Seattle in the case of Washington) and Western-libertarian areas in the rest of the state. Obama has demonstrated that he can draw unprecedented levels of support in places like Portland or Seattle while at least keeping it somewhat close in Western-libertarian areas. Clinton can do neither of those things, and there is nothing else for her to do in states like Oregon and Washington to compensate. Hence the big difference in states like Oregon and Washington.

Petey,

I know you are fond of guilt by association arguments. So, have you checked out your ally Tim K's political leanings lately? Looks like you need to declare yourself guilty.

Posted by DTM | March 7, 2008 7:17 AM

"I know you are fond of guilt by association arguments. So, have you checked out your ally Tim K's political leanings lately? Looks like you need to declare yourself guilty."

Tribally, I should be an Obama supporter. It really took a perfect storm on policy to push me into the Clinton camp.

Posted by Petey | March 7, 2008 7:20 AM

It really took a perfect storm on policy to push me into the Clinton camp.

You don't know jack shit about policy. You're a stupid poser. Can you please STFU now?

Posted by Barbar | March 7, 2008 7:24 AM

"You don't know jack shit about policy. You're a stupid poser. Can you please STFU now?"

The next three months ain't going to be easy for you, dude.

Posted by Petey | March 7, 2008 7:29 AM

Why? Because you're going to be blabbing about how important policy is to you while obviously HAVING NO IDEA WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT? What kind of stupid loser are you? You obviously know nothing at all about health care policy. Nothing, nada, zilch. And yet you make dozens of comments per day here on how it's really important and that's why you're supporting Clinton. Isn't that pathetic and sad?

On the other hand I'm actually sitting here responding to you, so well.

Posted by Barbar | March 7, 2008 7:37 AM

Petey,

By the way, I want to note again that I don't think you are lying. You just have no foundation for many of the things which you say, and are generally unwilling to consider contrary evidence or arguments.

In that sense, I do believe you are a bitter ex-Edwards supporter whose support for Clinton is at root motivated by the fact Obama knocked Edwards out of the race, and in a way that contradicted the very confident public predictions you had been making. And I believe that your stated reasons for supporting Clinton are mere rationalizations. But I am sure that you believe your rationalizations, which is possible because of your manifest unwillingness to critically examine your own beliefs.

Posted by DTM | March 7, 2008 7:42 AM

Is it possible we could ignore the drama-queen for one fucking thread? I mean I understand that there are few things more fascinating than Petey, but does every single MY comment thread need to be dedicated to Petey's mad rants followed by a hundred people trying to psychoanalyze him? Fuck Petey. He's a child. Ignore him already.

Posted by Petey-lash | March 7, 2008 7:53 AM

Matt, don't you mean it depends more on whether the Democrat effectively counters the demagogic attacks McCain will run on his or her global warming plans?

Posted by aleks | March 7, 2008 7:53 AM

"whose support for Clinton is at root motivated by the fact Obama knocked Edwards out of the race"

As stated, I think the Edwards campaign failed because of its inability to overtake Clinton, not Obama in the early states. I always thought Obama would be one of the Final Two candidates, just as most observers did.

And I bear more bitterness toward the Clinton campaign than the Obama campaign for their behavior towards Edwards, some of which I thought to be pretty sleazy.

"I believe that your stated reasons for supporting Clinton are mere rationalizations. But I am sure that you believe your rationalizations"

So I'm not a liar, I'm just an idiot. OK.

You just keep thinking that.

We're going to stomp you in this race. The Democratic nomination is going to be decided by Democrats. Your faction is has only a minority of the votes in the Party, and you're thus going to lose.

And when you do, think back to summer 2007 when Obama decided that pandering to General Electric and Marty Peretz and wealthy donors was more important than standing with the Democratic Party on universal healthcare. That's the moment when Obama set his supporters up for their coming disappointment.

Posted by Petey | March 7, 2008 7:59 AM

"I believe that your stated reasons for supporting Clinton are mere rationalizations"

And finally, I've said this before and I'm beginning to think I'll say it many times again, but a bizarrely large percentage of Obama supporters simply can't conceive of anyone making a decision on this race on policy grounds.

Policy doesn't matter to them, and so they naively decide that it must not genuinely matter to anyone else.

Posted by Petey | March 7, 2008 8:04 AM

Petey,

As an aside, at this point I am not particularly frightened by your political predictions. Maybe if you got one right, you would be more credible.

Anyway, I just want to note that I do in fact know people who prefer some of Clinton's current policies, but of course one major problem with her candidacy is that in many respects her stated positions today are not consistent with her positions in the near past. Indeed, her strategy was to eliminate the policy gap between her and her rivals to the greatest extent possible, and then argue for her candidacy on the basis of personal attributes (e.g., "experience") and process (e.g., "I have fought the VRWC and I am still standing").

So, I actually think there would have been a lot more people whose reasons for supporting Clinton were based in policy if she had stuck with the sorts of policy positions she had favored prior to her Presidential campaign. Of course, that would have made your switch from Edwards to Clinton even harder to rationalize, but I am sure you would have managed.

Anyway, she didn't do that, and decided instead to reposition herself for the primaries. So, the reason there are not a lot of people supporting her on policy grounds today is that she deliberately tried to make the contest about personal attributes and process issues, not policy.

Posted by DTM | March 7, 2008 8:18 AM

Petey,

Oh, and you are obviously not an idiot either, and instead are reasonably clever. But like many clever people, you are using your cleverness to rationalize, rather than to analyze. In other words, you are using your cleverness to delude yourself, and indeed it often takes a pretty clever person to succeed at such a task.

Posted by DTM | March 7, 2008 8:25 AM

"So, the reason there are not a lot of people supporting her on policy grounds today..."

Actually she's winning the race so far precisely because there are a lot of Democrats supporting her on policy grounds.

The Obama cadres are so caught up in personality and biography that it just doesn't really register for them that policy going forward might matter to the majority of Democrats far more than the passion play we're all watching take place.

And the out of touch perspective that they thus have means that the next 3 months is going to be hard for them. They're going to have great difficulty wrapping their mind around how the voters couldn't see the same wild, thin mercury vision that danced in their minds.

When you think of your opposition as crazy, when you can't even imagine walking in their shoes, it's all generally a pretty bad sign about where your own particular caravan is headed...

Posted by Petey | March 7, 2008 8:35 AM

"In other words, you are using your cleverness to delude yourself"

Or in other words, you're calling me an idiot again. OK, again.

We're still going to stomp your ribs in over the next 3 months, and it's still going to take you a while longer after that to figure out exactly what hit you, since you're not willing or able to get much of a sense of what drives your opposition.

Posted by Petey | March 7, 2008 8:45 AM

Petey,

Well, again it turns out your beliefs are unfounded.

First, Clinton is actually losing.

Second, by far the most important factor cited by those who do support Clinton is "experience", not any particular policy position.

But anyway, you are right that people who are out of touch with what is really going on in politics will make bad predictions. If you were inclined to self-reflection, that might tell you something.

Posted by DTM | March 7, 2008 8:48 AM

Alaska. An Obama ticket puts both an Alaska House and Senate seat on the table that probably won't be on a Clinton ticket. Put Alaska into the national spotlight, and the corruption stories that have stayed mostly local become Macaca '08. If Clinton doesn't compete in Alaska, the national media's not going to make it up there and the upstart Dem candidates will have a hell of a time making anything of it.

There are a number of other cases, many of which Matt points to, that similarly point to Obama's favor, but Alaska is the clearest one to me.

Posted by Zach | March 7, 2008 8:49 AM

Petey, you have literally nothing to say about the specifics of health care policy, but write things like:

We're still going to stomp your ribs

The Obama cadres are so caught up in personality and biography

Policy doesn't matter to them, and so they naively decide that it must not genuinely matter to anyone else.

But anything about policy? Nothing. Because you are a stupid poser. If you want to prove that you care about policy, then write something about it. Write about concrete differences in proposals, write about the likely effects of those differences. Isn't this the greatest issue of all time? So why the fuck don't you know anything about it?

Posted by Barbar | March 7, 2008 9:17 AM

Your faction is has only a minority of the votes in the Party, and you're thus going to lose.

Well, our "faction" currently has more pledged delegates, will have an even greater take of pledged delegates by the time this is all over and we've won at least six more states, and our "faction" is only slightly behind now in superdelegates and continues to roll out new endorsements every day. That doesn't appear to be a minority of the votes, and it doesn't appear to be losing.

And when you do, think back to summer 2007 when Obama decided that pandering to General Electric and Marty Peretz and wealthy donors was more important than standing with the Democratic Party on universal healthcare.

Yeah, gosh, pandering to Marty Peretz. Because there's nothing more the uberhawk defender of Likud politics loves more than someone who argues constantly against the Iraq adventure, opposes going into Iran, and pushes ever more greater emphasis on diplomacy. And wealthy donors? Obama is the candidate here who's relying upon wealthy donors? Bad enough you make such laughably bad predictions; it's a shame you have to leave your facts at the door, too.

Posted by jbryan | March 7, 2008 9:41 AM

Just because someone has an interesting bio and personality doesn't mean that his supporters only care about that and not policy. For me, those are only tools used to move policy forward. After all, the US government is not a college policy seminar. His Senate record is more substantive than hers. I'm supporting him most of all because of his foreign policy views, not his pretty rhetoric. You're playing into false dichotomies. The only defense of mandates that you've put forth in this thread is that the redistribute wealth. Redistribution is secondary reason for UHC. The first is that it helps those without health care beforehand and is more efficient. Citing redistribution as a reason we should be obsessed with mandates instead of mandates or political feasibility just doesn't cut it.

In addition, I think some of her policies, such as freezing interest rates for five years, are nuthouse-level crazy. She doesn't know how interest rates affect inflation, which is rather important because that's one of the most direct ways the government can manipulate the economy. Just because someone disagrees with you on policy or care more about foreign policy than mandates doesn't mean they don't know about policy or care about policy. Also, considering you were supporting a charismatic guy with a good backstory yet was running away from his DLC Senate record, you might not want to throw that accusation out there.

""Hillary would tend to come up when a scandal was being investigated or she was calling another of Bill's mistresses a lying whore."

The essence of the Obama candidacy. Ken Starr, indeed.

Posted by Petey | March 7, 2008 6:41 AM"

Do I work for the Obama campaign? No. Am I the Obama campaign? Nope. I'm just a guy noting something on a blog. First of all, it's rather revealing that's the only thing you get out of my comment about you ignoring facts you don't like. Can you really deny that that was what a lot of low-information voters saw in the 1990's? You can't run on being vetted by the media and then ignore how you interacted with the media and how the media played you during the 1990's.

Also, Peretz's rhetorical tricks to explain his support for Obama in the face of the fact that Clinton is closer to his crazy Likudnik views speaks more to just how Peretz has been blinded with Clinton hatred than anything the Obama campaign has done. Never mind the fact that Clinton has a smaller donor base of large donors, often cronies and corporations. The fact that Obama has a broader base of individual donors doesn't matter to you because some of them may be well off, so you cry "GE!" at the top of your lungs. I'm starting to wonder if you're a socialist not because of any deep principles, but out of some type of bitterness. You just seem to be bitter about a lot. Threads wouldn't devolve into people psychoanalyzing you if you didn't make it so easy.

Posted by Reality Man | March 7, 2008 9:57 AM

Also, for all of the dumping on Samantha Power, it is worth pointing out that Clinton's actions led to a worsening of conditions in Bosnia while Power was living there and lost friends to the violence there. Hillary Clinton freaked out about sending troops to Bosnia after reading Kaplan's book and gave it to Bill to read, which convinced him going in would be another Vietnam. As a result, the Serbs continued to pound Bosnian Muslims and the genocide continued. When the UN safe area in Srebrenica was about to be destroyed, she was on the phone with members of the American press and government to try to get them to do something to no avail. It fell and a lot of the thousands of people living there died in the ongoing genocide. I would probably hold some bitterness to Clinton too if I was her. In her book, she documents how Clinton did nothing to get our local employees at our embassy in Rwanda out after the assassination even though we could have, so most of them died. Clinton only would ask about the genocide with regard to one woman he met while he was in office. Once she was safe, he pretty much ignored the issue.

Posted by Reality Man | March 7, 2008 10:28 AM

I'm not "concerned" about Obama. I'm opposing him.

I know. But you're "concerned" about progressives who still support Obama. But your support for a warmongering triangulator and the absolutely absurd reasoning that you put behind that support indicate you're either temporarily crazy or long-run dishonest.

You do make some good predictions, though usually those predictions are grounded in identity politics and local affairs that don't really seem related to your actual normative argument. Clinton might win the nomination on identity politics and comfort with a name people trust (even though they shouldn't), but that doesn't prove the falsehood that Clinton's victory would be good for progressivism. It would be an epic disaster.

Posted by Consumatopia | March 7, 2008 10:47 AM

Samantha Power spoke the simple truth, in a situation where the truth wasn't allowed by the rules of the game. I actually love her non-apology apology, but, sadly, Obama does need to let her go in my opinion.

And as for that fucking loon Petey, we should probably just ignore him. but I'm as guilty as anyone at being sucked in. The fact is, that while it would be entirely resonable for a person of his professed views to decide that Obama isn't progressive enough, it makes no sense at all for someone of those views to support Clinton. Which just proves that Petey is a lying troll.

And I do suspect that it's all some sort of performance art. I mean, supporting a candidate whose campaign is being run by Mark fucking Penn, and then having the audacity to claim he can't support Obama becuase he is being advised by Goolsbee. I mean, no one, not even Petey, is that fucking stupid.

Posted by LarryM | March 7, 2008 10:48 AM

And this whole "it's all about the policy" crap. Any thinking person has to admit that policy wise they are pretty close. Now, one could pick one over the other on policy grounds, but anyone who hates the opponent the way that Petey hates Obama HAS to have non-policy reasons for doing so.* Which is fine, except that Petey falsely claims not to.

*myself, for example. While I DO think that there is a meaningful difference between the candidates on my central issue, the gap is small, and that's not why I loath Clinton. I loath her because she is a selfish, lying, power mad, evil piece of shit.

Posted by LarryM | March 7, 2008 10:56 AM

Petey couldn't predict 6 o'clock at 5:30

Posted by sean | March 7, 2008 11:36 AM

My theory is that Petey is a trial lawyer. He argues like one working for some big corporation. Knows a lot of info and speaks confidently, however he is far from objective. He'll leave out and ignore inconvenient facts and spin everything his client's way, even if seems silly. Past errors are forgotten as if they never happened.

Obama, perhaps unwisely, bashed Edwards for making tons of money as a trial lawyer while he was a community organizer. Perhaps Petey took this personally?

Posted by Peter K. | March 7, 2008 11:55 AM

DTM writes: Oregon, like Washington, is likely to be much more favorable for Obama than Clinton...

Agreed, but Clinton could easily win there too, thanks to Oregon's convincing migration into the blue column. The 2/3 of Oregon's landmass that is "McSame Country" has a population of only 684,000, while the other congressional districts have a combined population of 3 million and they've been heavily Democratic. Oregon last had a Repub governor in 1987, and its congressional delegation is 5/7 Democratic. No state is more antiwar than Oregon, and Bush is extremely unpopular here. Either Obama or Clinton can win by pushing the similarities of Bush/McSame. Oregon is no less likely to support a Democrat than Washington.

Posted by Geaghan | March 8, 2008 12:52 AM

State-by-State

Comments (120)

Search

Books by Matthew Yglesias

Recent Comments

Recent Posts

Weekly Archives

Categories