I am loathe to ever admit I am wrong about the horserace aspect of my election analysis. Wrong about anything else in my life, such as career choices, lifestyle choices, and relationship choices? Sure, I'll admit that, I've made mistakes in those areas, but not about my horserace analysis of elections. I was wildly wrong about the 2004 primaries, but only wrong about the 2004 elections because I banked on the incumbent rule, which unexpectedly (at least, somewhat unexpectedly) has collapsed in recent years. However, over 300 people personally told me in late 2004 / early 2005 that I had given them false hope for a Kerry win in 2004. And so, imagining the hundreds of thousands who didn't have a chance to tell me that in person (in late 2004, MyDD was the second largest progressive blog in the county, and might have temporarily moved to #1 on Election Day 2004), I resolved to never be wrong about election predictions again, no matter who I pissed off. And so, after spending three years tweaking my methodology, I finally struck gold in 2006-2007. I called the CT-Sen Lamont-Lieberman election within 1%, I surpassed any professional forecaster in terms of accuracy in my 2006 federal elections, and even recently called the exact 51%-45% finish in the MA-05 special election (all of which were to the consternation of many at the time for not being pro-Democratic / progressive enough). I thought I was invincible in terms of forecasting elections, and so I boldly proclaimed that Barack Obama had already lost the 2008 presidential primaries because I believed he had lost the primarily non-Christian, progressive creative class vote that had served as his base early in the campaign.
I didn't think it was possible for Obama to win without that vote, and I still don't think it is possible for him to win without that vote. However, at the time I thought he had basically lost that vote with a series of events that culminated, but did not start, with the gay-bashing McClurkin event in South Carolina. Now, it seems to me that maybe he just pissed them off with that event, but he didn't lose them for good. At this point, with the time to make a final decision looming, and faced with a primary election that, no matter the inaccuracy of the media narrative, is still primarily a choice between Clinton and Obama, the progressive creative class has decided that it still prefers Obama to Clinton no matter what Obama may or may not have done wrong so far. This is the vote that Obama absolutely needs in order to win either Iowa or New Hampshire, and it seems as though he is keeping enough of that vote in order to stay competitive in both states.
Without any question, 2.67% is close enough for Iowa to be considered a statistical tie. Even though Clinton remains the favorite, Obama could quit easily win the state if the election were held tomorrow, much less if it were held in 50 days. In any analysis, 2.67% in a state with as strange a system as Iowa is virtually meaningless. And yes, Edwards clearly isn't done yet, and Richardson is quite finished, either. However, only Obama remains close enough in New Hampshire to be almost certain of a victory there following a win in Iowa, and only Obama is close enough nationally to be pretty much guaranteed of sweeping to the nomination should he defeat Clinton is both Iowa and New Hampshire. Obama is Clinton's main opponent three ways from Thursday, January 3rd
Now, I am never going to endorse either Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton in these primaries. There is no way I could spend so much time working on the residual force issue, which basically puts me at odds with both candidates, and end up endorsing one of them. If I were to endorse someone who overtly favored residual forces at this point, it would invalidate most of the work I have done in the primaries so far, and I would deservingly become an object of mockery. I also have serious problems with what I perceive to be Obama's insider elitism. However, I can't ignore that one of he two leading candidates for the Democratic nomination is potentially the best identity vessel for my ideal progressive coalition to come around in the history of American politics, bar none. I mean, even though I am a white guy who grew up in the suburbs of Syracuse, New York, I can say without a hint of irony or doubt that Barack Obama is easily the candidate with whom I can most clearly identify. It isn't even close. I am a highly educated dude with a serious academic background who moved to one of the forgotten areas of a major city and became something a community organizer. Even after I left Chicago following Obama's 2004 victory, I saw the potential Obama coalition come together before my eyes as my 50-50 white-black neighborhood that threw out the local machine, was the first to endorse the new African-American mayor of Philly back when he was in fifth place, and as a white guy from the suburbs like myself became the partisan representative for one of the poorest, most Democratic, and most diverse areas on the entire eastern seaboard. I haven't just seen the Obama / long-term progressive coalition of largely creative class non-Christians and largely working class non-whites come together, I have lived it. It is totally doable. The local Philly machine even jokes about what is happening out here, saying that the media waits to see what the 27th ward does before it endorses (aka, the local white liberal establishment waits to hear what its neighborhood affiliates "on the street" say before doing anything). It can be done, and I can't deny a deep desire on my part to eventually see it done. Even before I made the identity politics synthesis back in April 2005, I have been writing about my hopes for this for four years. And I know that other people must be thinking about this too, because you don't get a non-flame war diary with 255 comments in November of 2003 without striking a real nerve.
There is a desperate, progressive desire to see the two most left-wing demographic groups in the entire country, working class non-whites and creative class non-Christians, to from a governing coalition in America. Despite their extreme diversity, their massive growth rate gives them the potential to do just that. Such potential is epitomized, at least identity-wise, in Barack Obama. Now that he is pulling closer in both Iowa and New Hampshire, I have to believe that, despite his repeated fuck-ups, the members of his potential coalition have decided that his fuck-ups are less important than the decision at hand. Given his seeming unwillingness to embrace this coalition, I don't know if that is the right decision to make. Also, I could be quite wrong about what is happening in the early states, or at least about why it is happening. However, after living in pursuit of this dream for so long, I have to think that is what is happening on the ground. Even if Obama wins, I worry it could all horribly backfire and self-destruct if the coalition isn't ready to be embraced by the person leading it, and as I said there is no way I am going to endorse him before Iowa, but I have to admit it is still something I will be watching closely over the next fifty days. It is the promise of a coalition that means a helluva lot to me, and I can't ignore that forever no matter how bad it may make past predictions of mine look.
As an anti-spam measure, there is a 24-hour waiting period after registering before new users can comment. blog advertising is good for you
blog advertising is good for you
