This is malarkey. First, the RNC runs this:
And now they attack for trying to re-set the counter?
Malarkey indeed.
Thursday, July 17, 2008
Friday, May 16, 2008
In Media Watching News...
Apparently, Trent from Pink Is the New Blog is on the Hillary bandwagon.
In far less important news, the AP may have made a big shift this afternoon when Charles Babington was noted, seemingly for the first time, as the AP's Presidential campaign correspondent at the bottom of the wire service's article on Obama's response to Bush's Hamas comments. Rasmussen stops daily tracking polls, the Dems stop going for each others' throats, and now this -- guess the general election really is starting.
In far less important news, the AP may have made a big shift this afternoon when Charles Babington was noted, seemingly for the first time, as the AP's Presidential campaign correspondent at the bottom of the wire service's article on Obama's response to Bush's Hamas comments. Rasmussen stops daily tracking polls, the Dems stop going for each others' throats, and now this -- guess the general election really is starting.
Wednesday, May 14, 2008
McCain and the NRA
Ambinder is covering the NRA endorsement better than we could, so check that post out.
This is less interesting for its position as for its style. As McCain tries to chart his path between swing voters and the conservative base, he will be seeking endorsements from a variety of staple conservative interest groups. While some may choose to dodge the election entirely and others may throw personal history and voting records to the wind to issue glowing endorsements, this may be the first of many painfully honest statements from key GOP leaning organizations. More from the AP:
"We've had our disagreements, everybody knows it. I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on those. We're not foolish enough to ignore the vast areas of agreement in which John McCain has been a friend to gun owners."
This is less interesting for its position as for its style. As McCain tries to chart his path between swing voters and the conservative base, he will be seeking endorsements from a variety of staple conservative interest groups. While some may choose to dodge the election entirely and others may throw personal history and voting records to the wind to issue glowing endorsements, this may be the first of many painfully honest statements from key GOP leaning organizations. More from the AP:
National Rifle Association chief Wayne LaPierre says Republican John McCain isn't in lockstep with the group on every issue, but the nation's gun owners aren't "foolish enough" to ignore their common ground.
...
LaPierre was critical of Democrats Barack Obama and Hillary Rodham Clinton, saying both are pandering to gun owners by "mouthing pro-Second Amendment words."
Elation, But...
The Mississippi First is fantastic news - there is no other way to put it. The decline of the GOP brand, a regional party's loss in its region, the failure to tie a conservative Dem to Wright or Obama - any of one these would be reason alone to dance in the streets. Add on Cole sending up warning flares, and it just keeps getting better - even if he may not be around for long. But...
We should be cautious not to get ahead of ourselves. As nice as it is to see the GOP seemingly collapse into total disarray, the fight in November has yet to be fought. The Democrats won in 2006 thanks to focus and discipline in message, candidate selection, and funding. To borrow from Alan Greenspan, we should be wary of falling prey to irrational exuberance when the time comes to make the tough decisions in the coming months. There is little question now that the 50 State strategy is paying dividends, but Dean's playbook calls less for throwing the hail mary in the all 110 GOP seats seemingly easier to take than the MS01 than building operations that make victories like Childers' possible when the opportunities present themselves.
Make no mistake, every Republican should be watching their back this cycle. This will help us across the board as those who would ordinarily focus on raising money for their colleagues instead batten down the hatches and leave nothing to chance on the home front, but if the blogosphere is awash in fundraising pleas premised on little more than "The MS01 was R+10, so we can win in..." we may start putting our eggs into the wrong baskets.
Of course, it's difficult for me to fill in a sample district, because R+9 districts include the AZ02 where Thrasher could do it this time, the CO04 where Musgrave is again in danger, and the IN08 which was one of the big pickup Dem pickups in '06 thanks to Brad Ellsworth. Hunting season's open, folks!
We should be cautious not to get ahead of ourselves. As nice as it is to see the GOP seemingly collapse into total disarray, the fight in November has yet to be fought. The Democrats won in 2006 thanks to focus and discipline in message, candidate selection, and funding. To borrow from Alan Greenspan, we should be wary of falling prey to irrational exuberance when the time comes to make the tough decisions in the coming months. There is little question now that the 50 State strategy is paying dividends, but Dean's playbook calls less for throwing the hail mary in the all 110 GOP seats seemingly easier to take than the MS01 than building operations that make victories like Childers' possible when the opportunities present themselves.
Make no mistake, every Republican should be watching their back this cycle. This will help us across the board as those who would ordinarily focus on raising money for their colleagues instead batten down the hatches and leave nothing to chance on the home front, but if the blogosphere is awash in fundraising pleas premised on little more than "The MS01 was R+10, so we can win in..." we may start putting our eggs into the wrong baskets.
Of course, it's difficult for me to fill in a sample district, because R+9 districts include the AZ02 where Thrasher could do it this time, the CO04 where Musgrave is again in danger, and the IN08 which was one of the big pickup Dem pickups in '06 thanks to Brad Ellsworth. Hunting season's open, folks!
Monday, May 12, 2008
Another Reason Not To Care
With West Virginia rapidly approaching, and forecasting a major win for the Clinton campaign, it's worth taking a look at the state a little beyond the cursory poll numbers that are flashing like a neon sign of demographic problem .
For one, the Democrats have failed pretty miserably in West Virginia despite picking the winner of its primary for the last two years. "In 2000, Al Gore won seventy-two percent of West Virginia Democratic Primary voters and lost the state's general election to George Bush by six percent; in 2004, John Kerry won sixty-nine percent of West Virginia Democratic Primary voters and lost the state's general election to George Bush by thirteen percent." This isn't to say that the demographics of West Virginia can't tell us something about how other states will vote, but we should be wary of making a mountain out of a molehill that we can't conquer.
This isn't to say that the Democrats should write off the state - we hold two of three congressional districts and both senate seats - but we should be aware that national Democrats haven't fared particularly well in the Mountain State in recent cycles.
Also, not to hate on West Virginia, but this excerpt from the poll is comical, if not telling: "West Virginia Democratic voters appeared to be in denial about the delegate projections. Asked who would be the next president, regardless of whom they personally supported, 31 percent said Clinton; 27 percent, Obama; 26 percent, McCain; and 11 percent were undecided." So the person predicted most likely to win the general, in the eyes of the West Virginia democratic voters, is the person least likely to make it out of the primary. So much for a better informed electorate.
For one, the Democrats have failed pretty miserably in West Virginia despite picking the winner of its primary for the last two years. "In 2000, Al Gore won seventy-two percent of West Virginia Democratic Primary voters and lost the state's general election to George Bush by six percent; in 2004, John Kerry won sixty-nine percent of West Virginia Democratic Primary voters and lost the state's general election to George Bush by thirteen percent." This isn't to say that the demographics of West Virginia can't tell us something about how other states will vote, but we should be wary of making a mountain out of a molehill that we can't conquer.
This isn't to say that the Democrats should write off the state - we hold two of three congressional districts and both senate seats - but we should be aware that national Democrats haven't fared particularly well in the Mountain State in recent cycles.
Also, not to hate on West Virginia, but this excerpt from the poll is comical, if not telling: "West Virginia Democratic voters appeared to be in denial about the delegate projections. Asked who would be the next president, regardless of whom they personally supported, 31 percent said Clinton; 27 percent, Obama; 26 percent, McCain; and 11 percent were undecided." So the person predicted most likely to win the general, in the eyes of the West Virginia democratic voters, is the person least likely to make it out of the primary. So much for a better informed electorate.
Clinton Brings in the House
This letter and PowerPoint from the Clinton campaign were circulated around the internet in the days following the Indiana and North Carolina primaries. At the time, they were covered for little more than their place in the narrative of Clinton's last gasps before an eventual departure. Now that we're perhaps a bit better adjusted to the concept of Clinton staying in the race, however, it's interesting to look at what the message actually contains.
On the surface, it's a standard reassertion of the arguments that she's made before - she performs better with older, Hispanic, and rural voters. The decision to frame the issue by way of the House victories in 2006 and the competitive seats in 2008, however, is a bit of a new twist. Looking at the midterms, and equating her successes in those districts with the victories eighteen months ago, there are a number of implicit arguments. Apart from the argument that she wins in competitive districts, and presumably by extension in competitive states, there's an attempt to construct an argument by analogy. That the victories in those difficult districts during the 2006 race were the product of special people with a special message, and now she is that special.
The other argument, and probably the most important one, is connected to the 2008 midterm elections. If it's true that Clinton outperforms Obama in the competitive districts, then it stands to reason that democratic candidates in competitive districts would benefit from having her at the top of the ticket. At this point, it's essential to remember that the letter and PowerPoint weren't written for the public. Not that they were intended to be hidden from the blogosphere or the voters, but they created for superdelegates. Now, if we're to believe that superdelegates are exclusively concerned with winning the presidency, then her argument is an important one in that it shows strength in competitive districts, but this is nothing new. But if we consider the notion that some superdelegates are concerned, perhaps not to a level of parity with the presidency but concerned nonetheless, with the congressional outcomes, then the decision calculus may be far different than is being discussed publicly. From a game theory perspective, if the payoffs of the two candidates in the presidential race are comparable, but the payoffs in the congressional elections are radically different, the optimal choice would be to pick the candidate that ensures the best congressional outcome.
Of course, none of this is to say that Clinton would perform best in the swing districts or bring the best outcome in the House and Senate, but this seems to be the argument she's making, and it's one that bears further examination than the implicit assertions she's putting forward. As the special elections in Louisiana and Mississippi progress, we're starting to get a sense of some of the congressional terrain for 2008, and most of it has more to do with the GOP failing than anyone at the top of the ticket.
On the surface, it's a standard reassertion of the arguments that she's made before - she performs better with older, Hispanic, and rural voters. The decision to frame the issue by way of the House victories in 2006 and the competitive seats in 2008, however, is a bit of a new twist. Looking at the midterms, and equating her successes in those districts with the victories eighteen months ago, there are a number of implicit arguments. Apart from the argument that she wins in competitive districts, and presumably by extension in competitive states, there's an attempt to construct an argument by analogy. That the victories in those difficult districts during the 2006 race were the product of special people with a special message, and now she is that special.
The other argument, and probably the most important one, is connected to the 2008 midterm elections. If it's true that Clinton outperforms Obama in the competitive districts, then it stands to reason that democratic candidates in competitive districts would benefit from having her at the top of the ticket. At this point, it's essential to remember that the letter and PowerPoint weren't written for the public. Not that they were intended to be hidden from the blogosphere or the voters, but they created for superdelegates. Now, if we're to believe that superdelegates are exclusively concerned with winning the presidency, then her argument is an important one in that it shows strength in competitive districts, but this is nothing new. But if we consider the notion that some superdelegates are concerned, perhaps not to a level of parity with the presidency but concerned nonetheless, with the congressional outcomes, then the decision calculus may be far different than is being discussed publicly. From a game theory perspective, if the payoffs of the two candidates in the presidential race are comparable, but the payoffs in the congressional elections are radically different, the optimal choice would be to pick the candidate that ensures the best congressional outcome.
Of course, none of this is to say that Clinton would perform best in the swing districts or bring the best outcome in the House and Senate, but this seems to be the argument she's making, and it's one that bears further examination than the implicit assertions she's putting forward. As the special elections in Louisiana and Mississippi progress, we're starting to get a sense of some of the congressional terrain for 2008, and most of it has more to do with the GOP failing than anyone at the top of the ticket.
Wednesday, May 7, 2008
Looking to November
We may catch back up on the primary noise later, but for now I wanted to call attention to this Krugman post, and what will likely be some recurring themes throughout this general election season. This graph brings to the forefront what will be two major issues in the election - the economy and the Republican party. The former's impact will be obvious, as pocketbook voting is as tangible an electoral theory as any commentator could hope for, but the reflection of the GOP on John McCain will be far more ambiguous. Despite attempts to quantify and qualify its nature now, the development of this issue will be the biggest question of the general election season. If McCain turns the election from the Democrats vs. the Republicans to McCain vs. Obama vs. The Bush Legacy, we could be in for a very strange ride.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)