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.
The State of the Race
Lets stipulate a few things.
(1) Hillary Clinton is not, by staying in the race, going to win the nomination. She is hopelessly behind in number of states won, certainly going to lose the pledged delegate count, incredibly likely going to end up with less of the popular vote, and increasingly in trouble with the superdelegates. (Since OH, during some of his worst weeks of the campaign, Obama has picked up something like 2x the number of supers than she has).
(2) Staying in the race does not give her much more credibility to be the nominee if Obama has a colossal skeleton fall out of his closet before the convention, as she could still sweep in during such an unlikely scenario.
(3) Despite the fact that the math has not really changed since March 4, the media is no longer going to give HRC a free ride on the chances of her being the nominee. Starting last night, as the pundits saw an ever diminishing Clinton lead in Indiana, the narrative quickly became Hillary Clinton: the candidate without a chance. Even if there is a pathway to the nomination (necessarily including Florida and Michigan, and trying eek out a lead in the popular vote, thereby convincing the superdelegates to turn to her), the media seems unwilling to continue to give her the benefit of that doubt.
When you think about this, and a whole lot else, it is easy to justify calls for Clinton to exit the race. In fact, some who have supported her are already making that call. It is much more interesting, however, to think about the advantages of a continued Clinton presidential campaign, albeit one with a much different purpose and tone than has been the case for the last few weeks.
Mark Ambinder's "7 Reasons Why Clinton Should Stay In The Race" contains some very interesting things to think about, and that I hope the Clinton campaign is thinking about.
In particular I'd like to highlight:
(1) Florida and Michigan - If Clinton drops out, Florida and Michigan's delegates may be seated. This is good. I'm not sure, however, if the damage to the Demotratic party's reputation can be repaired as effectively as if Clinton is able to make a deal with the Obama campaign (behind closed doors) trading a seating of the delegates for her dropping out. There is a subtle but important difference here. If Clinton stays in the race and the delegations are seated, Florida and Michigan voters will have a champion for their cause, and once she endorsses Obama, they will likley move that way as well.
(3) Embarrassment - Obama's campaign says they are willing to "take our chances" with a Clinton-less election in WV. I wouldn't be as confident as they are, particularly with the party as polorized as it currently is, that Obama will win. This is particularly the case if her voters feel upset and vote in protest for their candidate, and Obama's supporters have much less motivation to turn out with the election all but certain. This could be incredibly problematic from my point of view. Despite his mathematical lock, it is important for the Obama campaign to truly understand that they are going to get the nomination with very slightly more than half of the electorate. If he can't even win states when he is really the only person running, this could be seen as particularly damaging, and a sign that the party is not willing to coalesce behind him. And we all know how these talking-heads talking-points turn into the truth rather than act as a reflection of it.
(5) The Party - This is the most important, and from what I can tell, least thought about, of Ambinder's points. With both candidates continuing the campaign into the rest of the states, they are building organizations and mobilizing voters that will be invaluable in the fall. This is done with money that can't be spent on the general election and in states where Democrats generally don't have a whole lot of infrastructure. This is a unique opportunity.
To these points I would only add one more:
With Obama as the only candidate from our party still in the race, there are two effects on John McCain. (1) He just can't quite credibly attack one candidate. Yes, he has been taking shots at Obama, but they seem to receive less attention and fall a bit flat. This is good for us for obvious reasons. (2) He gets less media attention. Once we shift into "general election mode" the campaign is going to start providing more coverage to all of these weekly campaign themes that have been going on. Yes, they have been covering a bit, but not as much as they will. Less media time for McCain the better. That doesn't mean that the party in general, and Obama in particular, can't go after McCain, it just means the media won't be obsessing over the GOP quite yet.
All of this is dependent, of course, on one thing: A positive message from Hillary Clinton. The remaining phase of her campaign could be about the Democratic party, her history and accomplishments, and her policy proposals. It should not be about Obama, or even be a contrast to an Obama candidacy. This has the advantage of, at the moment being good politics. Going negative didn't seem to work against Obama (think Wright, Bittergate, and Gas Tax Holiday). She won PA by 9 points, a good accomplishment but not the blowout that was expected, and she got less of the vote in NC and IN than expected. She can continue to connect with blue collar voters and champion their issues (John Edwards, anyone?) . In addition, this will give her the opportunity to rebuild her image, particularly with the party elite. Such a tactic, through negotiations, could be beneficial in other ways. She could negotiate a retiring of her campaign debt, possibly wrangle the offer of the VP Slot, and build credibility with the rest of the party.
Bottom line is, the Clinton campaign is not going to withdraw right away. She has sent staff to South Dakota, continues to have them in Oregon and has events planned in both states, plus West Virginia and Kentucky. If she continues to run the campaign she has in the last month, the negative reputation she has (re)developed is likely deserved. If she stays in the campaign but changes the purpose and tone of her project, she can potentially make up a lot of the ground that the Party has lost since March 4.
(1) Hillary Clinton is not, by staying in the race, going to win the nomination. She is hopelessly behind in number of states won, certainly going to lose the pledged delegate count, incredibly likely going to end up with less of the popular vote, and increasingly in trouble with the superdelegates. (Since OH, during some of his worst weeks of the campaign, Obama has picked up something like 2x the number of supers than she has).
(2) Staying in the race does not give her much more credibility to be the nominee if Obama has a colossal skeleton fall out of his closet before the convention, as she could still sweep in during such an unlikely scenario.
(3) Despite the fact that the math has not really changed since March 4, the media is no longer going to give HRC a free ride on the chances of her being the nominee. Starting last night, as the pundits saw an ever diminishing Clinton lead in Indiana, the narrative quickly became Hillary Clinton: the candidate without a chance. Even if there is a pathway to the nomination (necessarily including Florida and Michigan, and trying eek out a lead in the popular vote, thereby convincing the superdelegates to turn to her), the media seems unwilling to continue to give her the benefit of that doubt.
When you think about this, and a whole lot else, it is easy to justify calls for Clinton to exit the race. In fact, some who have supported her are already making that call. It is much more interesting, however, to think about the advantages of a continued Clinton presidential campaign, albeit one with a much different purpose and tone than has been the case for the last few weeks.
Mark Ambinder's "7 Reasons Why Clinton Should Stay In The Race" contains some very interesting things to think about, and that I hope the Clinton campaign is thinking about.
In particular I'd like to highlight:
(1) Florida and Michigan - If Clinton drops out, Florida and Michigan's delegates may be seated. This is good. I'm not sure, however, if the damage to the Demotratic party's reputation can be repaired as effectively as if Clinton is able to make a deal with the Obama campaign (behind closed doors) trading a seating of the delegates for her dropping out. There is a subtle but important difference here. If Clinton stays in the race and the delegations are seated, Florida and Michigan voters will have a champion for their cause, and once she endorsses Obama, they will likley move that way as well.
(3) Embarrassment - Obama's campaign says they are willing to "take our chances" with a Clinton-less election in WV. I wouldn't be as confident as they are, particularly with the party as polorized as it currently is, that Obama will win. This is particularly the case if her voters feel upset and vote in protest for their candidate, and Obama's supporters have much less motivation to turn out with the election all but certain. This could be incredibly problematic from my point of view. Despite his mathematical lock, it is important for the Obama campaign to truly understand that they are going to get the nomination with very slightly more than half of the electorate. If he can't even win states when he is really the only person running, this could be seen as particularly damaging, and a sign that the party is not willing to coalesce behind him. And we all know how these talking-heads talking-points turn into the truth rather than act as a reflection of it.
(5) The Party - This is the most important, and from what I can tell, least thought about, of Ambinder's points. With both candidates continuing the campaign into the rest of the states, they are building organizations and mobilizing voters that will be invaluable in the fall. This is done with money that can't be spent on the general election and in states where Democrats generally don't have a whole lot of infrastructure. This is a unique opportunity.
To these points I would only add one more:
With Obama as the only candidate from our party still in the race, there are two effects on John McCain. (1) He just can't quite credibly attack one candidate. Yes, he has been taking shots at Obama, but they seem to receive less attention and fall a bit flat. This is good for us for obvious reasons. (2) He gets less media attention. Once we shift into "general election mode" the campaign is going to start providing more coverage to all of these weekly campaign themes that have been going on. Yes, they have been covering a bit, but not as much as they will. Less media time for McCain the better. That doesn't mean that the party in general, and Obama in particular, can't go after McCain, it just means the media won't be obsessing over the GOP quite yet.
All of this is dependent, of course, on one thing: A positive message from Hillary Clinton. The remaining phase of her campaign could be about the Democratic party, her history and accomplishments, and her policy proposals. It should not be about Obama, or even be a contrast to an Obama candidacy. This has the advantage of, at the moment being good politics. Going negative didn't seem to work against Obama (think Wright, Bittergate, and Gas Tax Holiday). She won PA by 9 points, a good accomplishment but not the blowout that was expected, and she got less of the vote in NC and IN than expected. She can continue to connect with blue collar voters and champion their issues (John Edwards, anyone?) . In addition, this will give her the opportunity to rebuild her image, particularly with the party elite. Such a tactic, through negotiations, could be beneficial in other ways. She could negotiate a retiring of her campaign debt, possibly wrangle the offer of the VP Slot, and build credibility with the rest of the party.
Bottom line is, the Clinton campaign is not going to withdraw right away. She has sent staff to South Dakota, continues to have them in Oregon and has events planned in both states, plus West Virginia and Kentucky. If she continues to run the campaign she has in the last month, the negative reputation she has (re)developed is likely deserved. If she stays in the campaign but changes the purpose and tone of her project, she can potentially make up a lot of the ground that the Party has lost since March 4.
Tuesday, April 29, 2008
The danger of McCain
John McCain has an uncanny ability to convince reporters that he is principled, rather than inconsistent. More than anyone from recent memory, McCain is, prima facia, assumed to be honorable and correct. Things he says would often be lambasted if spoken by other politicians. Case in point is the difference in perspective between Marc Ambinder at The Atlantic, (who generally has one of the most level headed, analytical, Election '08 process blogs out there) and Ezra Klein at The American Prospect regarding some statements McCain made about future troop withdraw from Iraq.
Both Ambinder and Klein quote this:
Ambinder's commentary, after adding in some more of the quote is this:
Klein, on the other hand, sees this:
Take a look at the full context on Ambinder's blog and judge for yourself. Ok, so how meta is this post? My point is not really to get into the weeds on McCain's statements. It seems pretty clear that he specifically rejects the South Korea model before he accepts the South Korea model (which he did even more specifically on the Charlie Rose Show, here). What I want to highlight is Ambinder's perspective. If Marc can't get this one right and feels a reflexive need to defend McCain against the scurrolous attacks of the Democrats at The Huffignton Post and the DNC, how can we expect the MSM will even come close? More evidence of why we would be in a much better position if we had a nominee to highlight these issues, rather than expecting the media to do it for us as we fight eachother.
Both Ambinder and Klein quote this:
Chris Matthews pressed McCain on the issue. “You’ve heard the ideological argument to keep U.S. forces in the Middle East. I’ve heard it from the hawks. They say, keep United States military presence in the Middle East, like we have with the 7th Fleet in Asia. We have the German…the South Korean component. Do you think we could get along without it?” McCain held fast, rejecting the very policy he urges today. “I not only think we could get along without it, but I think one of our big problems has been the fact that many Iraqis resent American military presence,” he responded. “And I don’t pretend to know exactly Iraqi public opinion. But as soon as we can reduce our visibility as much as possible, the better I think it is going to be.”
Ambinder's commentary, after adding in some more of the quote is this:
...the full context of the interview he gave in 2005 suggests that he modeled aWhere does Ambinder get evidence that McCain is euphamizing soldiers as military advisers rather than changing his position on whether we should have a real contingent of soldiers in Iraq? Nope, I have no idea either.
long-term US commitment to Iraq on South Korea, albeit with a big difference: a major corps would not necessarily have to embed itself in the country. Soldiers, euphamized as "military advisers," would maintain a presence. But McCain has never said that he favors keeping combat troops in Iraq for an indefinite period of time.
Klein, on the other hand, sees this:
The point isn't that McCain flip-flops, which he does. It's that his strategic
thinking on matters like Iraq is curiously soft and immature. He's never come
out with a statement explaining why he ceased believing that we should reduce
our footprint and lower our visibility, nor how the last few years convinced him
that the Iraqi people, far from resenting our presence, would in fact prefer to
host our troops for the next century or so.
Take a look at the full context on Ambinder's blog and judge for yourself. Ok, so how meta is this post? My point is not really to get into the weeds on McCain's statements. It seems pretty clear that he specifically rejects the South Korea model before he accepts the South Korea model (which he did even more specifically on the Charlie Rose Show, here). What I want to highlight is Ambinder's perspective. If Marc can't get this one right and feels a reflexive need to defend McCain against the scurrolous attacks of the Democrats at The Huffignton Post and the DNC, how can we expect the MSM will even come close? More evidence of why we would be in a much better position if we had a nominee to highlight these issues, rather than expecting the media to do it for us as we fight eachother.
Monday, April 7, 2008
Pertinent but Unrelated
From the recent summit in Bucharest:"While Ms. Rice and Mr. Lavrov talked, the two presidents danced with a Russian folk troupe, prompting Mr. Putin to declare Mr. Bush “a brilliant dancer.” (NYT)Picture is of "Tap Dancing & Waiting for McCain" President Bush, not "Russian Folk Dancing & Trying to Pretend He's Still Relevant to International Diplomacy" President Bush. There curiously seem to be no pictures of the latter.
Sunday, April 6, 2008
Non-NCAA North Carolina News
A new North Carolina poll is out, showing Obama leading by 23 points up from 7 only a month ago. Political Wire jumps onto more defection numbers, these reflecting that 56% of Clinton supporters would go McCain over Obama in November, despite the myriad reasons that these numbers are almost worthless.
The more interesting notes, however, are that this poll reflects similar gains that Obama has been making in Pennsylvania and that 77% have followed the Bosnia scandal. Despite 63% of respondents agreeing that "most politicians lie or embellish the truth when discussing their own accomplishments," 23% and 25% agree that it's a very important and somewhat important issue, respectively. While it's unlikely that Clinton will be giving a concession speech under media-induced sniper fire, persistent press problems and continued internal turmoil with the resignation of Mark Penn are ensuring that the campaign slips on any footholds it might stumble across. If Clinton expects to make this a competitive race again, and to convince the vast swathes of the party who believe that it ceased to be one some time ago, these problems cannot persist.
The more interesting notes, however, are that this poll reflects similar gains that Obama has been making in Pennsylvania and that 77% have followed the Bosnia scandal. Despite 63% of respondents agreeing that "most politicians lie or embellish the truth when discussing their own accomplishments," 23% and 25% agree that it's a very important and somewhat important issue, respectively. While it's unlikely that Clinton will be giving a concession speech under media-induced sniper fire, persistent press problems and continued internal turmoil with the resignation of Mark Penn are ensuring that the campaign slips on any footholds it might stumble across. If Clinton expects to make this a competitive race again, and to convince the vast swathes of the party who believe that it ceased to be one some time ago, these problems cannot persist.
Thursday, April 3, 2008
Peak Obama
The Times falls even further from the mark this evening with this article by Adam Nagourney. I've been growing progressively more irritated by some of his arguments since this one on "three breaks" Hillary Clinton needed to win the nomination, ignoring that each of the three were integrally intertwined, but this piece might be a new low.
Titled "Obama's Support Softens in Poll, Suggesting Peak has Passed," Nagourney argues rather straightforwardly that, because Obama's favorables among Democratic Primary Voters have dropped from seven points, to the only rock-star level of 62% among Democratic primary voters, it's the beginning of the end. Never mind that Obama was actually behind Clinton in the head-to-head nomination polls a few weeks ago, and that he was "weaker" in September with a favorable rating of only 52% (DPV), albeit with more respondents yet to pick a side. Also ignore that his favorability ratings among all respondents remain virtually unchanged from the two prior polls. This isn't to say that he will be stretching to new heights in the popularity contest, but he is at the very least soundly beating Hillary Clinton. If this is the beginning of the end for Obama, I shudder to think of what it is for her.
The (Good?) Long Road
Though the article called “Clinton’s Persistence could help Obama" has rather little to do with Clinton's longevity and it's direct impact on Obama, Katharine Seelye takes a much needed step back from the minute-by-minute fluctuations of the Democratic primary race. Mired in the Rev. Wright muck for much of the last few weeks, it's been easy to lose sight of a contest whose landscape is rapidly changing for the better.
When the prospect of a protracted nomination fight first appeared, I wasn't convinced it was an inherently bad thing. While the GOP might be given time to coalesce around a candidate, there would be no opponent for them to be defined in opposition to and the news media would be far less interested in covering the elect than the yet-to-be elected.
Of course, the intra party squabble also ran the risks that were realities in early March. In the fight for daily tactical advantage, the end goal can fade from sight. While the Wright controversy will likely be seen as little more than a bump in the road, or perhaps even a fortuitous occurrence if only for coming before the convention, there was little gained from the "monster" rhetoric and backhanded McCain endorsements that created the climate where the infamous defection poll's results were unsurprising.
If the campaigns can maintain their current tenor - whether they’ve come about because Hillary has given up or sees more to be gained by stating positive - the long primary may be far better for the party than most pundits dared to hope.
When the prospect of a protracted nomination fight first appeared, I wasn't convinced it was an inherently bad thing. While the GOP might be given time to coalesce around a candidate, there would be no opponent for them to be defined in opposition to and the news media would be far less interested in covering the elect than the yet-to-be elected.
Of course, the intra party squabble also ran the risks that were realities in early March. In the fight for daily tactical advantage, the end goal can fade from sight. While the Wright controversy will likely be seen as little more than a bump in the road, or perhaps even a fortuitous occurrence if only for coming before the convention, there was little gained from the "monster" rhetoric and backhanded McCain endorsements that created the climate where the infamous defection poll's results were unsurprising.
If the campaigns can maintain their current tenor - whether they’ve come about because Hillary has given up or sees more to be gained by stating positive - the long primary may be far better for the party than most pundits dared to hope.
Wednesday, April 2, 2008
We might as well give up.
They're generally spot on, but the kids at On Call have got this one all wrong. I think this is the most important endorsement he's got. Who needs Joe Lieberman or John Hagee when you have Heidi Montag? I didn't think McCain had a hope, but now that he's got the teen implant crowd, I'm going to have to rethink my entire analysis of the election.
Thursday, March 27, 2008
Obama/Bloomberg? Obama/Clinton?
There has been a bit of buzz around regarding Mike Bloomberg introducing Barak Obama today. There seems to be something appealing to people about a Obama/Bloomberg ticket. I think Jennifer Skalka at On Call gets it pretty much right about the chances of such a ticket, however.
What is most interesting is her final reason for why such a ticket is unlikely:
I'm not sure I'm as convinced as she is that this is a real possibility, given all of the enmity generated by the campaign. I'm also not quite as willing to ignore her second point about the need to pick someone with a geographic advantage. That being said, the world in which the Obama campaign has to woo back the Clinton supporters in a firestorm 3 month process sure is depressing. The easiest way to solve that problem would be a joint ticket. I'm just not sure what Clinton gets out of the deal. And can Obama continue to be the "change" candidate with a Clinton on the ticket?
What effect would this have on down-ticket races? In some ways you would see the good of uniting the party without the bad of needing to focus on specific states during the general election. At the same time, the worry that Clinton drives Republican turnout more than Obama or McCain would likely apply as much to her as VP as it would to her at the top of the ticket. But with six more months of working to unite the GOP and brandish his Conservative bonafides, McCain may have less of a problem doing that himself than was once thought.
What is most interesting is her final reason for why such a ticket is unlikely:
Reason 4: And finally, I think the longer this Dem fight continues, the more likely it is that Obama has no choice but to run with Hillary Clinton. Yes, I know this potentially violates my Reasons 2 and 3. And, yes, I know they're scratching each other's eyes out. I also know that she's provided the GOP with their talking points -- Obama isn't ready to be commander in chief or a steward of the economy. But, how are the dissatisfied masses of her supporters, after a possible floor fight, going to be placated? Ok, Obama/Clinton is no longer looking like The Dream Ticket -- even the folks at the Kodak Theatre debate might, these days, cringe at the suggestion. Call it The Misery Ticket. And let's get on with it.
I'm not sure I'm as convinced as she is that this is a real possibility, given all of the enmity generated by the campaign. I'm also not quite as willing to ignore her second point about the need to pick someone with a geographic advantage. That being said, the world in which the Obama campaign has to woo back the Clinton supporters in a firestorm 3 month process sure is depressing. The easiest way to solve that problem would be a joint ticket. I'm just not sure what Clinton gets out of the deal. And can Obama continue to be the "change" candidate with a Clinton on the ticket?
What effect would this have on down-ticket races? In some ways you would see the good of uniting the party without the bad of needing to focus on specific states during the general election. At the same time, the worry that Clinton drives Republican turnout more than Obama or McCain would likely apply as much to her as VP as it would to her at the top of the ticket. But with six more months of working to unite the GOP and brandish his Conservative bonafides, McCain may have less of a problem doing that himself than was once thought.
Wednesday, March 26, 2008
Implications of Gallup's Dem Defections
Two interesting points on the Gallup survey I linked to earlier, which finds that 28% of Clinton supporters would defect to McCain if Obama were the nominee versus 19% of Obama supporters who would do the same if Clinton were the nominee.
1) From Pew Research via Brian Schaffner via Mark Blumenthal, this type of threatend defection is not uncommon. In 2000, 14% of McCain backers said that they would vote for Gore rather than Bush. Two points here. First, 14% is a long way off from 28%. Second, and this is a point that Schaffner makes, Bush had over 7 months to recover from the diletarious effects fo the primary campaign. How long the Democratic nominee (likely Barak Obama) has to recover has a lot to do with when Clinton chooses to make an exit. If it is not until August at the convention, leaving Obama only 3 months to convince the base that they should come out to the polls, we may see a very different result.
2) More convincingly, Blumenthal points out that:
1) From Pew Research via Brian Schaffner via Mark Blumenthal, this type of threatend defection is not uncommon. In 2000, 14% of McCain backers said that they would vote for Gore rather than Bush. Two points here. First, 14% is a long way off from 28%. Second, and this is a point that Schaffner makes, Bush had over 7 months to recover from the diletarious effects fo the primary campaign. How long the Democratic nominee (likely Barak Obama) has to recover has a lot to do with when Clinton chooses to make an exit. If it is not until August at the convention, leaving Obama only 3 months to convince the base that they should come out to the polls, we may see a very different result.
2) More convincingly, Blumenthal points out that:
the Gallup analysis focuses solely on self-identified Democrats that say they vote in primaries. It does not cover to the ability of the two Democrats to attract independent or cross-over support from those who say they do not vote in Democratic primaries.The implication of this is that while the Gallup poll shows a large difference in defections between Clinton and Obama to McCain (28% vs. 19%), the polling questions and methodology do not take into account the independents who would defect from Obama to McCain if Clinton were the nominee. In fact, Blumenthal goes on to note
Pew's Scott Keeter reportedIn fact, according to a new poll by NBC/WSJ, Obama may have an easier time bringing in Democrats than the Gallup poll suggests.
that roughly equal numbers of voters are Obama-not-Clinton or
Clinton-not-Obama in matchups against John McCain. It would be
interesting to replicate those calculations using the Gallup Daily
data, although the fact that Obama gets 44% and Clinton 45% against
McCain suggests that the rough parity in these defector/cross-over
groups persists.
Because among Obama voters, Clinton has a net-negative personal rating
(35-43) while Clinton voters have a net-positive view of Obama (50-29).
Taken together, this appears to be evidence that Obama, intially,
should have the easier time uniting the party than Clinton.
Party Leaders' Dilemma
Brendan Nyhan applies the classic economic coordination and collective action problems to Dem party leaders' reluctance to take sides on the current primary battle. (h/t Marc Ambinder)
This analysis is quite convincing, except that the potential benefits may be starting to outweight the potential costs for party leaders of taking action. Nancy Pelosi is making some public moves to validate Obama as the eventual nominee by taking his position on the responsibility of superdelegates, and Harry Reid is making cryptic comments about potential actions being taken to ensure that we have a nominee before the DNC in August.
With new analysis from Gallup suggesting that 28% of Clinton supporters say that they would prefer McCain to Obama, any back room deal, which does not come off as truly the wish of Hillary Clinton risks alienating a large chunk of the Democratic party base. Just like the potential damage caused by superdelgates overturning the popular will of Democratic primary voters to support Clinton over Obama (based on delegate math or on the popular vote) at the convention, this type of action has potentially dire consequences. This is particularly important to conisder in light of 2008 Congressional elections. In close races in the Northeast, where a realignment is on its way to being fully completed, such as CT-04, NY-25, NJ-03, and in heavily Hispanic districts in the West such as NM-01, AZ-01, NV-03, turning off the Democratic base and causing them either to vote for McCain or, more likely, not to vote at all, could be particularly problematic. Chris Shays might be able to do enough to capture Obama voting independents in order to secure reelection if the Democratic base does not come out to support Jim Himes.
Party leaders likely need to act in order to avert a disaster caused by a chronically competitive presidential primary, but they also need to tread lightly.
This analysis is quite convincing, except that the potential benefits may be starting to outweight the potential costs for party leaders of taking action. Nancy Pelosi is making some public moves to validate Obama as the eventual nominee by taking his position on the responsibility of superdelegates, and Harry Reid is making cryptic comments about potential actions being taken to ensure that we have a nominee before the DNC in August.
With new analysis from Gallup suggesting that 28% of Clinton supporters say that they would prefer McCain to Obama, any back room deal, which does not come off as truly the wish of Hillary Clinton risks alienating a large chunk of the Democratic party base. Just like the potential damage caused by superdelgates overturning the popular will of Democratic primary voters to support Clinton over Obama (based on delegate math or on the popular vote) at the convention, this type of action has potentially dire consequences. This is particularly important to conisder in light of 2008 Congressional elections. In close races in the Northeast, where a realignment is on its way to being fully completed, such as CT-04, NY-25, NJ-03, and in heavily Hispanic districts in the West such as NM-01, AZ-01, NV-03, turning off the Democratic base and causing them either to vote for McCain or, more likely, not to vote at all, could be particularly problematic. Chris Shays might be able to do enough to capture Obama voting independents in order to secure reelection if the Democratic base does not come out to support Jim Himes.
Party leaders likely need to act in order to avert a disaster caused by a chronically competitive presidential primary, but they also need to tread lightly.
GOP Attrition and the Presidential Elections
Darryl or I will write a real introductory post at some point, but I figured I'd just start writing before we had time to construct something cohesive.
One thing that has become quite apparent about the 2008 Congressional elections is the sorry state of the GOP. 5 GOP Senators are not seeking reelection, as compared to 0 Dems. 26 GOP House seats are open this cycle, as opposed to 7 Dems.
None of this is new information, and the attrition of GOP candidates, either new or currently serving, continues day by day. The latest is in NY-25 where the GOP's only candidate, Peter Cappuccilli Jr., has recently withdrawn his candidacy due to health concerns (h/t Hotline On Call).
What is particularly interesting is that even as the bloodbath that is the current state of the Democratic presidential race continues, causing a disadvantage for either Barak Obama or Hillary Clinton against GOP nom. John McCain, GOP incumbents and challengers continue to abandon ship.
McCain has, so far, been succesfull in distancing himself from the dismal reputation of the Bush Administration. The question in November will be, can Republican congressional candidates do the same? And will the disarray at the top of the Democratic ticket help Republicans retain seats? Right now, it doesn't look like if the GOP candidates think it will be enough.
One thing that has become quite apparent about the 2008 Congressional elections is the sorry state of the GOP. 5 GOP Senators are not seeking reelection, as compared to 0 Dems. 26 GOP House seats are open this cycle, as opposed to 7 Dems.
None of this is new information, and the attrition of GOP candidates, either new or currently serving, continues day by day. The latest is in NY-25 where the GOP's only candidate, Peter Cappuccilli Jr., has recently withdrawn his candidacy due to health concerns (h/t Hotline On Call).
What is particularly interesting is that even as the bloodbath that is the current state of the Democratic presidential race continues, causing a disadvantage for either Barak Obama or Hillary Clinton against GOP nom. John McCain, GOP incumbents and challengers continue to abandon ship.
McCain has, so far, been succesfull in distancing himself from the dismal reputation of the Bush Administration. The question in November will be, can Republican congressional candidates do the same? And will the disarray at the top of the Democratic ticket help Republicans retain seats? Right now, it doesn't look like if the GOP candidates think it will be enough.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)