The Morning After

by: Mike Lux

Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 06:18


Some early reflections on Super Tuesday, although this one is going to take lots and lots of thought and analysis and the smoke still hasn't cleared it. It was a wild night.

First on the Republican side, just because it's less interesting. So I'll start with that and finish with stuff that's more interesting.

Mike Lux :: The Morning After
Romney today, in addition to adjusting to the fact that he ain't going to get to the promised land in 2008, is taking calls from the anti-McCain mujahideen- my friend Rick Santorum, Dobson, Limbaugh, Coulter, DeLay, Glenn Beck, etc.- begging him to stay in the races- that they put a last-ditch effort to get to a brokered convention. Huckabee is thinking about that whole VP thing, and is no doubt waiting to see what McCain offers and what Romney does before making any more decisions. If both of those guys stay in, and if the aforementioned right-wing megalomaniac brigade put resources into a master strategy, there is still a chance, albeit pretty small, of keeping McCain below 50% ,but we should obviously be planning for him to be the nominee. It's likely that folks will consolidate around him, the establishment will rally around him, etc. A deal in terms of McCain and Huckabee in terms of President/Vice-President could end this thing quickly rather than less, although Huckabee would probably stay in the race to keep Romney from consolidating the right-wing support. If Romney and Huckabee both keep going, it will be fascinating to see how the Limbaugh and DeLays and Coulters of the world position themselves going into the next round and whether they keep consolidating behind Romney and pushing Romney.

On the Dem side, both sides are spinning their asses off, and they should be. Both sides have reasons to claim victory. It was kind of an amazing night that way. The fact that they came out almost dead even in terms of delegates won is really remarkable. At least at this moment, not having done all the analysis I would like to do yet, I would agree with the emerging conventional wisdom that Obama is much better positioned to win going forward. The money edge that he has, not only his cash-on-hand, but his ability to keep raising even more money online could really hurt Hillary as we go into the next phase of the campaign. And the next few states are definitely tending towards Obama. Having said that, Hillary and her people keep surprising me. Every single day of this campaign that they have done well, I have gone into Election Day thinking they were in trouble. I thought that in NH like everyone else in the world. In Nevada, I thought that the Culinary Workers' Union would matter more than it did, and I thought Obama would edge her out there. And I went into yesterday thinking Obama had the momentum, was on the rise, and that she was going to get beat in most of the big states. Every single time, she's come back and beaten my expectations, and I think that's a tribute to how well-organized her campaign is and how tough she is as a candidate and the fact that she's been able to hang onto white women voters, even though women voters big change voters, far more then men.

It looks like Hispanic voters stuck with Hillary. It doesn't surprise me that she won them, but it does surprise me that they stuck with her in as high as percentage as they did, given the Kennedy endorsement and some of the big radio and Latino newspaper endorsements that came out in the last few days. I thought her hanging onto such a big portion of the Latino vote was such a big story. And in general, her winning very big and important states like CA, NY, NJ and MA in spite of the Obama momentum, and winning by the margins she did, was a very big deal.

On the other hand, you have to give the Obama campaign credit for really going in and organizing all of these different caucus states and all of these different states that he was paying attention to. He cleaned her clock in a bunch of very small white states that Hillary paid no attention to whatsoever: states like ND, AK, ID, and KS (which was easier because it was his home state). The fact that he was able to win in places like that- states where there are hardly any black voters- is a testament to his campaign's organizational ability. And the fact that they end up scoring victories in places like CT, MO, and maybe NM was very impressive. Given how far Hillary was ahead a few short days ago in the nationwide polling a few days ago, how well he did in this national primary was really a hell of an accomplishment.

So both campaigns have lots to brag about, and both have a lot to worry about. Neither campaign has consolidated anything. Going forward, Obama has the edge in money and in the next few states, both organizationally and demographically. Look for Hillary to really make a major push in contesting Virginia. That's her best shot over the next couple of weeks. It's a state that demographically looks a bit more like Tennessee than it does Alabama. It's the one place in next week's "Potomac Primary" where she has a chance. She's got to dig in somewhere between now and March 4 (OH and TX), because one loss after another is really going to hurt her. So look for her to really make a stand in Virginia and to find another state someplace where she can really dig in. On the Obama side, they have to figure out a Hispanic strategy. With Texas looming on the horizon, they are going to get murdered in that very big state if they don't figure this out fast. And I don't know why that campaign hasn't figured out why to organize Hispanics earlier. They should have done it a long time ago. They should have done it in Nevada, if nowhere else among the early states, but I think it's been really stupid on their part to not do more with Hispanics. But they've got a month now before Texas to really focus on that constituency. Kennedy helps there, but clearly not enough. And the Obama campaign is really going to have to dig in. The campaign has to really target that community to have any chance in Texas.

Also, the Clinton campaign has targeted the hell out of white women voters and has done a great job turning them out. The Obama campaign will never win them, but has got to figure out how to improve that percentage.

This will be very interesting going forward.

Final note: I have one big question I need help figuring out from the OpenLeft.com community: what the hell is the deal with CT vs. MA? MA has more students and more creative class liberal types, plus it had the big three endorsements. Why did Obama get his ass kicked in MA and win CT?


Tags: (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
The Morning After | 40 comments
My guesses: (4.00 / 1)
1.) Students might not be registered voters in MA.
2.) Boston is an historically racist city.
3.) The defeat wasn't as bad as it looked.  I believe that Obama closed some ground in MA.
4.) I believe that Clinton's field guy (from the Kerry campaign) is from Boston.
4.) Obama might not be liberal enough on his positions for Boston.

more (0.00 / 0)
blue collar in ma

[ Parent ]
MA vs. CT (0.00 / 0)
Grew up in MA and now at school in CT, so that's my background on it.

1. Kerry, Kennedy and Patrick don't really have machines. Mayor Menino of Boston does and he endorsed Clinton. Mayor DeStefano of New Haven does and he endorsed Obama. I don't remember if Hartford's mayor endorsed Obama, but Obama cleaned up there too. Endorsements matter a lot more when they bring votes directly rather than through media and optics.
2. There is a strong alliance between blacks and hispanics in much of CT. Clinton absolutely crushed Obama in hispanic MA cities like Lowell, Lawrence, Fall River and New Bedford. That didn't happen in CT as far as I can tell.
3. The lower-middle class is more Democratic in MA by a long-shot. Remember, until 2006 CT had more GOP Reps than Dems, and we've got Joementum. That is the money in Fairfield, but Nancy Johnson and Rob Simmons were winning on working-class votes. Those people aren't in the pool for the closed CT primaries.
3a. That said, MA has semi-open primaries while CT has closed primaries. I'm surprised that didn't cut the other way more than it seems to have. I haven't seen the numbers for MA independents though.


MA resident here. (0.00 / 0)
I voted for Obama, but I think a big reason Obama did less well is our governor, Deval Patrick.  Patrick resembles Obama in many ways:  African-American, didn't grow up wealthy, did well academically and went to Harvard, and ran a positive campaign with the slogan "Together We Can."  Hack, they've even campaigned for each other.

So in 2006 Deval won a 3-way race with a hair under 50% of the vote.  I kind of figures that the 48ish% which Deval got was Obama's ceiling, as Deval's opponents were both weaker than Clinton.  

Additionally, Deval's governorship has been OK, but not spectacular.  His impressive grassroots movement (if it still exists) got him into office, but has not been effective in getting his proposals to move through the legislature.  So he's been unable to implement most of his agenda.  I think experience looks a bit more appealing than the unternished outsider.

Finally, Boston Mayor Tom Menino was pulling heavily for Clinton.  I got robocalled by both him and his wife, and his machine was operating at full steam.  (Menino endorsed one of Deval Patrick's opponents in the 2006 primary, but after the candidate imploded he did nothing to really help him.)  Anyway, Obama won Boston, but it was by an anemic 54% of the vote, compared to the 2/3 of the vote which Deval Patrick received.


The conservative Dem thicket in MA politics (0.00 / 0)
Patrick has been slowed down by the conservative Dem leadership in the MA legislature.  And these Travaligni/Reilly Dems were all behind Clinton.

Also, Patrick's under-50 showing in the 06 Dem primary needs context: the third person running was Chris Gabrieli, who stole some progressive voters and independents Patrick otherwise would've won.


[ Parent ]
Explaining MA (4.00 / 1)
I lived in Boston for 4 years and was involved in the progressive community up there, so here's a breakdown (and reply to shlenny).  

1.  Not sure about the students, but the turnout overall seemed very very low, which likely benefited Clinton.  
2.  Wrong on the Boston-is-racist theory.  See election of Patrick, Deval.
3.  Let's get to the real reasons.  The establishment liberal vote was divided.  Barney Frank is a staunch progressive, one of the more progressive Dems in the House -- but he's a Clinton supporter.  Why?  Because his sister is Ann Lewis, a longtime Clinton adviser and friend.  Frank carries a lot of weight with older, upper-income progressives in his district, which includes places like Newton -- Obama barely won there, and he needed to win big.  Frank's also a big hero among many gays, who may have gone for Clinton (see Provincetown).
4.  The conservative and machine Dems were behind Clinton.  Boston's Mayor Menino was behind Clinton.  Yes Obama won Boston, but not by as much as he could've.  And Menino's political connections run throughout much of the Boston area.  Meanwhile there's an undercurrent of conservatism in the MA Dem party: the people who voted for Tom Reilly over Deval Patrick in the 2006 primary, and the Dems who've been against same-sex marriage.  They were the base behind former MA house speaker Tom Finneran, and they're still behind MA senate majority leader Robert Travaligni (a Menino ally).  Look at Brockton, Braintree, Quincy: all Clinton, by a ton.  

I don't know CT as well, but my hunch is that conservative and machine Dems there still went for Clinton (they're Lieberman's Dem base), but the progressive coalition (the Lamont supporters) broke for Obama -- and they weren't divided the way they were in Massachusetts.

So maybe the shortest answer is: Barney Frank.  Kennedy and Kerry were nice and helped erase much of the 37-point deficit that existed 3 weeks ago, but Frank (likely the heir to one of those senate seats) might've had enough influence to keep otherwise progressive voters in Hillary's camp.


Bill Russell (0.00 / 0)
"I didn't play for Boston," he once said, "I played for the Celtics."

[ Parent ]
Why Obama didn't need to win CA, NJ or NY - and what's next. (0.00 / 0)
"And I went into yesterday thinking Obama had the momentum, was on the rise, and that she was going to get beat in most of the big states. Every single time, she's come back and beaten my expectations, and I think that's a tribute to how well-organized her campaign is and how tough she is as a candidate and the fact that she's been able to hang onto white women voters, even though women voters big change voters, far more then men."

This is the big mistake - Obama DOES have the momentum - you can see it by looking at his soaring trend upward (http://www.pollster.com/08-US-Dem-Pres-Primary.php).  This trend will continue, but there just wasn't enough time between SC and Feb 5th for that trend to overtake Clinton's existing lead.  Especially in California.  I don't know why anyone EVER thought he would win California.  He did extremely well there and made up lots of ground, but he hardly even tried in California.  Why do I say that?  Look at the numbers, he has SO much money but was outspent by Clinton in California, she also ran WAY more ads than he did - and she did it with many different ads in many different markets. He had fewer ads and spent less money and wasn't even IN the state.

Hillary had to spend so much money and time to even keep California close.  That says a lot about the momentum that Obama has.  Also, same for MA, she was leading there for months - by huge margins.  Kennedy and Kerry were not deployed ONLY in CA or MA, they were part of the national campaign that helped him win a huge number of states yesterday.

Looking at all the polls over the last few weeks, we should have expected Sen. Clinton to easily win CA, MA, NY, NJ - and she did - but she had to work so hard that she lost her voice, and she had to spend so much money.

Going forward, Clinton now has to survive an entire MONTH of loosing before she gets a possible big win.  And after last night, you can bet that every Obama donor went back online and gave another $50.  That's going to mean that Obama will have 4-5 times as much money to spend - and will easily win at least 5 out of the next 7 contests coming in the next 7 days.  In Washington state alone he has an amazing advantage (it's a caucus, he's raised more money there than any other candidate, R or D).  Think about how all these upcoming wins are going to affect his trajectory in terms of national polling and electability.  He's soaring - and it's only going to get higher.

This might sound crazy, but even if somehow Hillary comes out with more delegates, do you really think that the Obama movement - and the progressives, independents, democrats, etc who have been supporting him are going to support a Clinton nomination that is decided by elites in the party?  No way.

If Obama doesn't get the nomination because of super delegates, 2008 is looking a lot like the convention in 1968.  The democratic party needs to understand that Obama's candidacy has changed this primary from a party primary - to a national primary in the broadest sense.  It is an opportunity to enlist millions of new people into the party - but they will only sign up if it's Obama's party.

Obama's trajectory and his groundswell of support cannot be translated into a Clinton candidacy, if she's the nominee - the excitement dies.


MA vs. CT (0.00 / 0)
I'd guess the Menino machine was a big part of it, as others have suggested. While Obama cleaned up in Cambridge, Brookline, and other very liberal strongholds, I think he needed to win Boston by similar majorities (65-35ish) to have a chance of overcoming Clinton's advantages in the southeast and west of the state, and he didn't come close to that.

Plus, there is the paradoxical result in the exit polls that while in both CT and MA approximately 40% of votes said the Kennedy endorsement was important, Obama won those votes 62-36 in CT but only 50-47 in MA.

Finally, Obama lost the white Catholic vote by 35 points in MA, but only 20 in CT - might be a reflection of the Menino machine in Boston.


DemfromCT at DailyKos (0.00 / 0)
Attributes the Obama win to Lamont voters and disgust with Lieberman.

CT was a key win for Obama, as a core Democratic state with a primary, a category he hasn't done well in.  Good for him.


Ohio better for Obama on 3/4 (0.00 / 0)
Mike, your narrative has Obama devoting what sounds like major resources to Texas, which is the worst possible state for him (32 percent latino). Texas is really going to be Clinton's last stand. It's also a primary state.
For Obama, why not Ohio instead. Yes it's more blue collar (advantage Clinton) and a primary state (Clinton), but it's more midwest (advantage Obama), latino population less than 2 percent (Obama) and more activist (years of right-wing trickery have activated the Democrats in that state--advantage Obama).
Texas will have 193 delegates up that day, and Ohio will have 141. Taken in conjuction with Obama wins likely to take place elsewhere between now and March 4th, wouldn't Ohio be a better investment?

Ohio definitely better, but Obama can contest both (0.00 / 0)
I don't think Obama faces an either/or here.  He'll have the money -- and he has the enthusiasm on the ground -- to fight hard in both Ohio and Texas.

Ohio could be a good state for Obama.  Very much against the war and traditionally more isolationist (see Obama's strong support throughout the Midwest, Plains, and Rockies so far).  Sizable African-American segment to Dem electorate.  Hurting economically; but this might help Clinton.  Obama could clinch Ohio by attacking Clinton's support of NAFTA and, by corollary, courting Sen. Sherrod Brown, who represents the new actively progressive wing of the party there.

Texas is much better for Clinton -- but that's exactly why if Obama wins there, that could be the decisive blow.  Huge Latino population.  Traditionally more hawkish.  Smaller African-American base.  Should go Clinton all the way.  

Here's the catch: she may only have enough money to fight in one.  If she figures she has Texas and goes to Ohio, Obama could steal Texas from her.  If she stays in Texas, then Ohio is Obama's for sure -- and he could have enough time and money left over to squeak out a win in Texas, just like he did in Missouri and New Mexico.  


[ Parent ]
Disagree (0.00 / 0)
TX is 1/3 caucus, 2/3 primary.  If he can improve with latinos and white women there, he should be able to squeek out a win in the final delegate tallies, though perhaps not the popular vote totals.

The Politics of Bruno S.


[ Parent ]
OH and TX. (0.00 / 0)
I think he has the resources to contest both, and strategically needs to contest both. While it is true that Obama's toughest state left is TX, if he can figure out a way to win all 3 of the remaining big states, he can end a convention fight right there. He will probably have momentum after a string of Feb wins, and will have a lot more money. I think that makes winning TX possible.    

[ Parent ]
Mike is right: the fight will be in Virginia (0.00 / 0)
Virginia is Hillary's next firewall.  

-- Washington = Obama.  It has CA's white liberals, with only a 9% Latino population and 8% Asian population (compared to 35 and 12 in CA, respectively).

-- Louisiana = Obama.  South Carolina redux.

-- Nebraska = probably Obama.  Ben Nelson is the only statewide elected Dem, he's for Obama, and it's a caucus.  Plus, red states in the plains and rockies are breaking for Obama.  Why?  Because these places are historically more isolationist; they hate the war, and so they have a clear choice.  Red states in the South are much more hawkish (even among Dems), so they're going to Hillary, unless they have a lot of African-Americans, tilting them to Obama.  This is why Hillary won Oklahoma and Tennessee.

So it follows that:

-- Maine = probably Obama.  Huge anti-war sentiment up there.  Much more isolationist historically.

-- Maryland = Obama.  Large African-American middle class provides a large chunk of the Dem electorate (and Reps. Cummings and Wynn are both Obama supporters).  Young creative class folks provide much of the rest.  Older liberals in Montgomery County (GOP Rep. Connie Morella's old base) will go Hillary, but it won't be enough.

This leaves Virginia.  Not as many African-Americans as SC, AL, or LA.  More hawkish, lots of military.  Big creative class suburban population in the DC suburbs, but it's not Seattle.  Obama will carry heavily-black Richmond City and among rural African-American voters throughout much of Southside and Tidewater.  Clinton could do well in military-dominated Hampton Roads.  But around half of the Dem primary voters are in Northern Virginia.  This will be where Hillary makes a stand in the next week.

And she'll need to be selective . . . because as we see from other posts here, she's likely out of cash.


I don't think ... (0.00 / 0)
Hillary is anywhere near out of cash. Remember, she outraised Obama by a significant margin in Q4. Yeah, he blew her away in January, but she had the edge going in. And she spent WAY less than him yesterday. There were 8-10 states she didn't spend a dime in, whereas he competed everywhere.

He probably has more on hand now, but only by a small margin.  


[ Parent ]
She outspent him.... (0.00 / 0)
by a lot in CA.

And the reports I'm hearing are that she's getting close to using some of her own money....


[ Parent ]
Look at the big picture (4.00 / 4)
I understand as well as anyone that these races are decided state-by-state, and that the national polling means next-to-nothing.

But when you look at the big picture of things, I make two observations.

First, Hillary is winning in states where the dominant city still has a Democratic machine that sides with her. To wit, Menino's machine in Boston hands her Mass., she wins New York, she wins California on the back of the LA party machine.  My guess is both New York and Philadelphia helped her in New Jersey.  And these are all primary states.  Obama, on the other hand, wins the caucuses which are more bottom-up affairs, and the primaries in purple states where the Democrats have less of an old guard.

If this pattern continues to play out as it has, Hillary is pretty well spent.  She won't get Ohio, and Texas is iffy for her.  Pennsylvania and Wisconsin are the only two states left where I see her even having a fighting chance.

Second, while she clearly has targeted the white women, if you drill down into the polling, they are not her most reliable nor her most decisive supporters.  Where she consistently wins by wide margins is among the over-65 crowd.  And those folks vote more often and more consistently than do the youth crowd, Obama's bread and butter (and this is actually one argument in her favor for Ohio, which is quite senior-heavy demographically).

That said, I don't know how you carve seniors away for Obama. One of my mom's friends, age 68, clings to the he-took-his-oath-on-the-Koran lie even after I sent her the Snopes link debunking it.  One thing those of us under age 60 don't often understand to the depth of which it is a part of an older person's personality is that SENIORS HATE CHANGE.  Remind yourself of it often, and then remind yourself again.  They don't want to change doctors, they don't want a new car, they don't want a new house, they don't want a cell phone with a camera, and they may even be old enough to still rail against the breakup of AT & T.  So Obama supporters may just have to concede the 65-plus demo to the Clinton camp.

But there is absolutely no reason to concede white women in the 18-64 age cohort.


Very sharp (0.00 / 0)
gas28man is right.  Age is Hillary's best friend.  Clinton represents more of the same; Obama is a huge break with the past.  It's why he didn't bother fighting in Florida (it's why she did); it's why she won Arizona.  It helped her in New York too, I bet (the Upper East Side of Manhattan has the largest concentration of elderly people in the world).

If Obama really wants to get serious about under-65 women, then he needs to play up choice in his message more.  It's been Hillary's trump card with women, especially through direct mail, criticizing Obama's "present" votes on choice issues in Illinois.  He needs to fight back -- and better yet, make a play for single moms by talking more about child care and middle-class tax relief.


[ Parent ]
A good percent of that population.... (0.00 / 0)

...of Seniors who HATE CHANGE - will die before November...

That could be a problem in the general.


[ Parent ]
change. (0.00 / 0)
I think the change message is more powerful with womwn than the choice message is, given that both candidates are pro-choice.

[ Parent ]
Ohio seniors (0.00 / 0)
About 13 percent of the population (65 and over).
Virginia about 11 percent.

[ Parent ]
More senior stats &c (0.00 / 0)
CT and MO, both around 13%.  Same for WI.  TX, only 9.9.  MD, only 11.6.  WA, only 11.5.

So OH and VA should be ok for Obama.  I don't think any state becomes unwinnable (or even that uphill) for him because of seniors alone.  Add seniors to Latinos and Asians, though, and the demographics are much less favorable for him.  

Then again, the way to beat demographics is messaging and attention on the ground.  Obama can give her the seniors and make a move for Latino voters (which worked for him in New Mexico, anyway).  Given enough time, he could pull this off in Texas -- and it could become the story of the campaign.  We could see feature pieces all about How Obama Won Texas Latinos.


[ Parent ]
I worked in NYC (0.00 / 0)
And I think the Hispanic vote is much harder to peel away than you could imagine.  The Hispanic voters not only took my lit and smiled, but cooed about how much they loved her...men and women.

So I think makes Texas pretty non iffy.  There are Hispanic populations now near most urban/suburban areas.  I thik this makes VA good for her.



"Incrementalism isn't a different path to the same place, it could be a different path to a different place"
Stoller


[ Parent ]
Seniors and women. (0.00 / 0)
Good point re seniors. The reason I didn't mention them is precisely because I think they are more loyal to Hillary, and women under 65 more of a swing group.  

[ Parent ]
This whole ananlysis of yours re age is an insult (0.00 / 0)
From the reason olders voters voted for her is the racist assumption that Obama is a Moslem to the fact that they hate change is just invective masquerading as analysis.

Has it ever occurred to you that they, unlike maybe you, have the life experience to ask real questions?

Like change is good  but ...to change to what?

How are you going to make that change.?

Is that a change that will just be different or even ultimately worse or will it be a change that makes life better for people? Really important questions that life has taught are important to ask after all the hoopla.

They actually have standards by which to judge amorphous messages.

And Ezra Klein makes an intriguing observation, that others have made including myself..He wants to change poltics, she wants to change policies.  And if anybody reads history you will find that policies...like Social Security...are the initial engine which can and does change the poltics.  He's wrong and she's right.

"Incrementalism isn't a different path to the same place, it could be a different path to a different place"
Stoller


[ Parent ]
Except when you see the policies... (0.00 / 0)
I think this is where I started to shift towards Obama in recent days.  To me neither of them have good policies.  Their policy differences are small and they are mostly centric.  Yawn.  

At least Obama gives the party the opportunity to excite new voters bring Independent leans into the fold and perhaps offer such long coattails as to begin to marginalize the Bush Dogs in our party.  If I can't get good policies I would rather see a change in politics.  If neither candidate is going to seal the deal by buying the populace with policies that will turn their lives around for generations, then let's at least build more power for the party so that the next candidate with real progressive policies will have a better chance to enact real change by leading the majority party.


[ Parent ]
An insult to whom? (0.00 / 0)
I do business intelligence on products for seniors for a living, so I am intimately familiar with their preferences.  They would not be insulted to hear that they don't like change.  They'll gladly tell you so themselves.  Something you acquire with age is a comfort with frankness.

You're also drawing the wrong conclusion about my anecdote about the woman who believes Obama swore his oath on the Koran.  It's not that she cared whether he was Muslim (she has converted religions twice herself).  It's that she saw it as unpatriotic and improper.  Propriety matters to them.

I will tell you one thing that really does insult older Americans: younger people that don't listen to them.


[ Parent ]
I've read Clinton's issue statements....Have you read Obama's? (0.00 / 0)
"Like change is good  but ...to change to what?

How are you going to make that change.? "

Ummm... really?  It's all here, and it's your own fault if you choose not to read about it:

http://www.barackobama.com/iss...


[ Parent ]
A Nitpick (0.00 / 0)
You write:
And in general, her winning very big and important states like CA, NY, NJ and MA in spite of the Obama momentum, and winning by the margins she did, was a very big deal.

I would not include New York in that sentence.

The bigger deal might well be that Obama got more delegates out of Illinois (his home turf) plus New York (her home turf) than Clinton did.

Visit DebateScoop for political candidate debate news and analysis.


Interesting spin (0.00 / 0)
My first reaction last night was that Barack was winning all the states where neither he nor Hillary have a snowball's of winning in November, whereas Hillary won where either Dems are sure to win, or swing states. Some exceptions obviously (IL, CO), but for the most part the distinction holds, especially with Hillary now apparently leading in NM. He also won all the caucuses, which are by definition lower turnout than primaries, and Hillary won the overall populate vote.

I dunno about you, but to me none of this suggests Barack is a particularly good general election candidate.


[ Parent ]
Missed some. (4.00 / 1)
MO, CO, DE, NM, CT are all potential swing states, as is IA which he won earlier. More importantly, though, how candidates do in a primary isn't a very good predictor of how they do in a general election.

[ Parent ]
Look at the numbers.... (0.00 / 0)

He held the largest political rally in the history of Idaho - it couldn't be any clearer that Obama is the only way we even have a chance against McCain.

[ Parent ]
Agreed. (0.00 / 0)
I didn't mean to include NY in that sentence.

[ Parent ]
Greenwich Democrates are Obama's base n/t (0.00 / 0)


I you want health care, work hard. If you want universal health care, vote for liberals.

MA - Last Day Deciders (4.00 / 1)
Has anyone thought about the large break for HRC in last day deciders?

It's interesting that people who decided in the last week or month broke heavily for BHO, but those that decided in the last 3 days broke evenly and those that decided in the last day broke for HRC.

Does this possibly suggest that many previously committed HRC voters were affected by his surge/endorsements into considering voting for BHO, but then on the last day decided they'd stick with the HRC.

That's what this seems to say to me. They were duly enticed, but when push came to shove, they went back into the HRC corner.

Any thoughts?


Hanging tough. (0.00 / 0)
As I said, I think it is impressive how the Clinton campaign has taken these surges for Obama- after IA, after SC/Kennedy endorsements- and still hung in there and won some of their previous leaners back, as you suggest. Part of it is a really strong mail program, I think part of it was the extremely well choreographed national town hall thing.

[ Parent ]
I was told 6 months ago re Conn. (0.00 / 0)
that because of the intra party dissension, I am sad to report, that arose from the Lieberman-Lamont race that the campaign was having a hard time.

It must have allowed Obama to organize outside of th eparty structure.

And after how much more she supported him than Obama ever did...I am unhappy that he endorsed Obama.  

"Incrementalism isn't a different path to the same place, it could be a different path to a different place"
Stoller


very difficult for Clinton to win new voters over (0.00 / 0)
with that in mind she needs to get her voters our there, every last one of them to neutralize Obama's groundgame.   What she could do is this.. send out fliers/mail/email to all the women on her donor list with the headline, "We're on the verge of losing big, the chance for a female president has been lost... Unless you show up!"    A  desperate appeal to women voters to get off their butts or the chance has been lost...   Not sure if that would work but her campaign needs to motivate the base in these caucus states.

Clinton's California victory margin, Latinos and Asians (0.00 / 0)
Why Latinos and Asian Americans Went for Hillary

[The reason Hillary won is because the Latino and Asian American votes remain emergent, not yet insurgent.

Emergent voting blocs respond to leaders in their community. If the candidate wins the leader, she wins her followers. Insurgent voting blocs instead respond to calls for change, and may focus more on single issues or agendas. If a candidate stakes out a good position, she captures the community. Hillary played the politics of emergence.]

[Latinos and Asian Americans in California are overwhelmingly Democratic, and will likely remain so for a very long time because of Reep immigration demagoguery. But they also tend to be more mainstream and conservative.]

[So Hillary won by old party-style top-down appeals to Latinos and Asian Americans. Dems shouldn't rest thinking that this strategy will hold for long. Younger Latino and Asian American voters were energized by Obama, and formed a visible and crucial part of his GOTV ground troops. They had an impact. Roberto Lovato notes that Obama was able to bring down Hillary's overall 4-1 advantage among Latino voters to a 3-2 advantage by Super Tuesday. It could be argued that Obama's bottom-up machinery hasn't yet taken full advantage of the pent-up energy amongst young Brown and Yellow voters.]



The Morning After | 40 comments
Donate to Open Left








Friends of the Earth thanks the OpenLeft community for the ideas you generate and your contributions to the progressive movement.

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
SEARCH

   

Advanced Search