Open Left - electability

IL-Sen: Electability As Corruption

Chris Bowers — Sat, 03 Jan 2009 17:51:37 GMT

A new story in the Chicago Sun-Times indicates that, the day before Blagojevich's calls were taped, Harry Reid pushed Blagojevich not to appoint the three leading African-American politicians in Illinois (after Barack Obama, of course). According using "electability" as the rationale, Reid did advocate on behalf of two candidates, one of whom, Attorney General Lisa Madigan, attempted to remove Blgaojevich via judicial coup. If the Senate's move to block Roland Burris wasn't already viewed as a political move rather than one of ethics, this story should put an end to that once and for all.

More in the extended entry.

From the story:

Days before Gov. Blagojevich was charged with trying to sell President-elect Barack Obama's U.S. Senate seat to the highest bidder, top Senate Democrat Harry Reid made it clear who he didn't want in the post: Jesse Jackson, Jr., Danny Davis or Emil Jones.

Rather, Reid called Blagojevich to argue he appoint either state Veterans Affairs chief Tammy Duckworth or Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan, sources told the Chicago Sun-Times.

Sources say the Senate majority leader pushed against Jackson and Davis - both democratic congressmen from Illinois - and against Jones - the Illinois Senate president who is the political godfather of President-elect Barack Obama - because he did not believe the three men were electable. He feared losing the seat to a Republican in a future election.

This story is not denied by Reid's office.

So, is Reid blocking Burris because of the ethical cloud surrounding Blagojevich, or because he thinks Democrats will lose the seat if Burris is the U.S. Senator from Illinois? The answer is probably both. Further, if Reid and Senate Democrats are motivated at least partially by "electability," to what extent is that "electability" based on fear of Illinois not backing another African-American, even after Barack Obama and Carol Mosley Braun previously held this seat? It is fairly obvious that played a role. Yet further, to what extent was Madigan's attempt to remove Blagojevich from office based on her personal Senate ambitions? It is also kind of funny that Reid considered Tammy Duckworth more "electable," even though she couldn't win a Democratic-leaning congressional district in Illinois despite receiving more DCCC backing in 2006 than any other Democratic candidate. She barely even won her primary.

One of the major problems here is the corruption associated with the concept of "electability" itself. Not only is it anti-democratic, but in truly retrograde fashion it reinforces oppressive cultural perceptions--such as African-Americans being unelectable, and Democrats needing to turn to veteran's in order to shore up foreign policy credentials--rather than challenging them. To a large extent, the Constitutional method of appointing Senators, rather than holding special elections, is itself to blame. Additionally, the lack of intra-party democracy and top-down elitism of our political process is also to blame. None of these problems would have occurred if we had simply held an election, and engaged in the radical experiment of letting the people decide.

Concepts like "electability" are part of a broader corrupting system. Selling Senate seats for cash may be obviously corrupt and illegal, but using political leverage to clear primary fields and rule out entire groups of people from holding office isn't much better.

The End of Electability

Chris Bowers — Wed, 21 May 2008 20:12:28 GMT

One of the best developments for Democratic Party this nomination campaign has been the dramatic decline of "electability" as a factor in the party's nomination process. Comparing the percentage of voters who cited electability as their top concern in 2004 and 2008 makes this clear:

% of Dem Primary Voters Citing "Electability" As Main Candidate Criteria

State	2004	2008	Net Decline
Arizona	34%	10%	24%
California	43%	10%	33%
Connecticut	44%	10%	34%
Delaware	44%	6%	38%
Georgia	35%	6%	29%
Iowa	26%	8%	18%
Maryland	44%	9%	35%
Massachusetts	40%	10%	30%
Missouri	37%	6%	31%
New Hampshire	33%	6%	27%
New York	44%	10%	34%
Ohio	35%	6%	29%
Oklahoma	27%	10%	17%
Rhode Island	44%	6%	38%
South Carolina	32%	6%	26%
Tennessee	37%	8%	29%
Vermont	31%	10%	21%
Virginia	36%	10%	26%
Wisconsin	33%	7%	26%

Across the board, every state that had an exit poll in both 2004 and 2008 shows massive drop off in the focus on electability. Even if identity appears to be the top vote determining factor in 2008, that is still a step up from 2004. Democrats are voting in record numbers for the candidate they want, not just the candidate for whom they will settle because they think s/he has the best chance to win. Further, broadcasting to the entire nation that Democrats don't really like their nominee that much, but they will vote for him anyway because he has the best chance to win, is a terrible way to sell the party and the nominee. It makes it appear that Democrats don't stand for anything except winning. Also, it takes the focus away from the positive qualities of the nominee, and makes him appear to be a lukewarm compromise from the start of the campaign.

Electability died in this primary season. Good. As long we win in November, it should be a long time before the party is dominated by that unproductive concept once again.

Forging Electability

Chris Bowers — Wed, 23 Apr 2008 19:42:08 GMT

Yet another annoying, but almost certainly true, prediction for the primary season is that, over the next six weeks, we are going to here a lot of electability arguments. When hearing these arguments, keep in mind that any general election electability argument based on results of Democratic nomination events is nonsensical. No matter how high turnout has been, and no matter what states or demographics either candidate has won, the simple fact is that neither of them have won the voters necessary to win the general election. It will take at least 62,000,000 votes (Bush's 2004 total) to win the general election, and so far neither candidate has managed even 25.0% of that total. Further, the voters in primaries are in no way representative of the voters in general elections. For example, winning Iowa or New Hampshire in a caucus or primary does not mean someone can win Iowa or New Hampshire in a general election, because you are dealing with entirely different electorates in general elections than in primaries and caucuses. The same holds true for demographic groups. Winning white Catholics, or Independents, or Latinos, or high-income voters in a primary or caucus is not reflective of an ability to win those groups in a general election, because you will be dealing with entirely different sets of those voters in a general than in a primary or caucus.

The real electability we should be worried about are not asinine arguments over how nomination event performance reflects on general election performance, but rather how we make sure that no matter how long the nomination campaign goes on, that Democrats win the general election. Here are six simple steps we can take in order to make this happen.

More in the extended entry.
Three Steps Toward Nomination Campaign Transparency
The first step is making sure that even if the nomination campaign goes all the way to the convention, that there is transparency in the process along the way. This will help to provide clarity on how the nominee will be, and allow the public a better understanding of the process. Here is what needs to be done:

Superdelegates should endorse by July 1st: As Howard Dean, Harry Reid and others have argued, superdelegates should indeed make their preferences known by July 1st. With the final superdelegate selection events taking place on June 21st, this is hardly an egregious demand. If we know where every superdelegate stands, then we will have a clearer picture of who the nominee will be.
Edwards and uncommitted delegates should endorse by July 1st. Another source of obscurity in the nomination campaign are uncommitted delegates from Michigan, and also the thirty-one Edwards delegates. In order to arrive at a nominee with a reasonable amount of time to take on McCain, all of these delegates should make their preferences known by July 1st. And that includes John Edwards himself, too.
Campaign delegate transparency: Both the Clinton and Obama campaigns should provide detailed projections of where they believe the delegate count stands. This means listing which superdelegates they believe support them, how many delegates they believe they have won from every state and territory, and also which delegates they plan to challenge at the credentials committee. Doing so will narrow down the list of disputed delegates to a concrete, comprehensible number that will provide great transparency in the process.

Taking these three steps will either produce a presumptive nominee by July 1st, or at least give the public a clear understanding of how the convention and credentials challenge process will unfold. By removing obscurity and uncertainty from the process, the public will be able to understand the nomination campaign, and begin to focus on the general election with plenty of time to defeat McCain.

Three Steps to Combine The Campaigns
Now, even if the process becomes transparent, we might not have a nominee until July 1st, or even August 26th. So, other steps need to be taken to ensure that our resources and attacks can maximize their effectiveness to win the general election without pre-emptively ending the nomination campaign. Here is what needs to be done:

Stop all public, intra-party attacks on June 4th: Once the voting is over, the nomination campaign will be entirely in the hands of delegates. As such, there will no longer be any need for either Clinton or Obama to make public attacks against each other. All remaining aspects of the nomination campaign can be handled in private discussions with the 4,415 or however many delegates themselves. Once there is no need to reach out to Democratic voters in the nomination campaign, both Obama and Clinton should cease attacking each other altogether, at least in public.
Combine Field Campaigns after June 4th: Once the nomination voting is over, there will be no need to have multiple Democratic field campaigns. It would simply be a waste of resources to have two separate field campaigns running, since they would both be performing exactly the same tasks. To remove this redundancy and maximize resource effectiveness, Obama and Clinton should combine field campaigns on June 4th.
Combine anti-McCain paid media campaigns: For exactly the same reasons given in the first two bullet points, Obama and Clinton should combine their anti-McCain paid media efforts after June 4th. If we are running two separate anti-McCain paid media campaigns, we will waste money on overhead, and end up with a muddled message. Creating a joint paid media operation for anti-McCain media would be a necessary step for the two campaigns to take if the nomination campaign extends past June 4th.

A seventh and final step that the two campaigns could take would be to pledged to transfer all of their available cash on hand to the DNC in the event they do not become the nominee. The guaranteed joint ticket should also be considered. While that might seem unworkable now, if the campaign is dragging into August, if the public attacks stop, and if the other coordination is already taking place, a joint ticket might seems like a no-brainer.

I think this is all doable. If we can pull it off, then I will be quite confident in our ability to unite the party and defeat John McCain in November, even if the nomination campaign goes all the way until the convention. Hell, if we can pull this all off, then I might even be in favor of it going all the way until the convention.

We'd Win This Football Game If It Were Basketball

Chris Bowers — Mon, 21 Apr 2008 23:29:03 GMT

This odd statement from Bill Clinton sums up quite a few things about the campaign:

Following a rally for his wife's campaign at Market Square in Pittsburgh, former president Bill Clinton suggested his wife would already be the nominee -- if she were running under Republican party rules.

"If we were under the Republican system, which is more like the Electoral College, she'd have a 300-delegate lead here," he said. "I mean, Senator McCain is already the nominee because they chose a system to produce that result, and we don't have a nominee here, because the Democrats chose a system that prevents that result."

Yes, and Mitt Romney would have been tied with John McCain in delegates if Republicans used the Democratic system. However, Clinton and Obama are not following the Republican system, and McCain and Romney were not following the Democratic system. This is a fact the Obama campaign appeared well aware of, but the Clinton campaign did not. The strange belief that winning eight or nine large primary states by narrow amounts, and ignoring virtually all other post-January states, would lead to victory in a proportional delegate system appears to be the largest strategic mistake of the campaign. Obama's massive caucus victories in Alaska, Colorado, Idaho, Kansas, Nebraska, North Dakota and Washington actually netted him more delegates (+85) as Clinton netted from her victories in California and New York (+84), despite vast population differences and monetary requirements to win the two groups of states. The Obama campaign executed a strategy to grab delegates wherever they were, and often found cost-effective ways of doing so. Their strategy worked, and Clinton's did not.

Whatever arguments someone wants to make about the democratic nature of the smaller state caucuses that Obama maximized, the fact is that in a delegate-based system, Obama's "get delegates wherever they are," strategy has proven superior to Clinton's media-focused strategy of claiming popular vote victories in a few large states. It also demonstrates the nonsensical nature of Clinton's electability argument to superdelegates, which is largely based on her having won popular vote victories in large states. Post-South Carolina, Clinton focused on the larger states, and ended up behind in delegates even though the campaign secured the victories it sought. Why is a campaign more electable because its strategy didn't work? Obama didn't pursue the caucus and small state strategy out of a belief that it was the moral thing to do, just as Clinton did not pursue popular vote victories in the large states because of an obscure ethical argument. Instead, both sides pursued strategies they believed would lead to victory. That Clinton is behind in delegates despite securing the popular vote victories in the large states its campaign sought is demonstrative of weakness the campaign's weakness terms of electoral strategy. If anything, it shows that Clinton is less electable than Obama, not more.

The Clinton campaign successfully executed its campaign strategy--it just didn't work. While is very nice that the strategy might have worked under different rules, it is more likely that if the rules were different, then the Obama campaign would have pursued a different strategy. Further, that the Clinton campaign did not employ a strategy to work under the rules presented to the candidates at the start of the primary season is indicative of strategic myopia that would lead to another bad strategy even if the rules changed. If you can solve the problem presented to you under one set of rules, why should we have any confidence you could solve a different problem under a different set of rules?

On Hand-wringing

Chris Bowers — Tue, 01 Apr 2008 21:47:05 GMT

The TPM interview with Harold Ickes today is definitely worth a read. First, I agree with most, but not all, of this:

Ickes added: "It seems to me that there's this great desire to rush to judgment...this has been a genteel debate for God's sake. People are wringing their hands, `oh, we're gonna tear party apart.' The party's a lot sturdier than these hand wringers in Washington would have you believe."

I wouldn't call the campaign "genteel," what with the racialized discussion, but I also don't think that there is a big risk of long-term damage to the party at this point, or that the extended campaign is a negative. The most dangerous scenarios for the party would be if Clinton secured the nomination without winning the popular vote, and / or if there is no presumptive nominee by the end of June. However, I just don't see either scenario as particularly likely right now, since Obama remains on course to lock up the nomination at some point between May 20th and June 21st. Considering the organizing that will have been done in virtually every state by that point, considering that the general election matchups remain tied, and considering what will be Obama's overwhelming financial advantage on McCain, I still feel confident we are headed toward an Obama Presidency. After another two or three months of nearly exclusive focus on Democrats, we will still have twenty weeks to take on McCain, unite the party, and win back the White House. Maybe I should be more worried about this situation than I am, but at this point it won't be long before the voting begins anew, which will inject new life into the nomination campaign, and clear out some of the dead air we have been experiencing since mid-March.

Now, with all that said, here is some hand-wringing by Ickes himself:

"Look what the Republicans did to a genuine war hero," Ickes said, in a reference to John Kerry.

"Super delegates have to take into account the strengths and weakness of both candidates and decide who would make the strongest candidate against what will undoubtedly be ferocious Republican attacks," Ickes continued. "I've had super delegates tell me that the Wright issue is a real issue for them."

In a reference to Wright's controversial views, Ickes continued: "Nobody thinks that Barack Obama harbors those thoughts. But that's not the issue. The issue is what Republicans [will do with them]...I think they're going to give him a very tough time."

Oh no, the Republicans are going to attack us! Whatever shall we do? Surely, Republicans will lay off attacking a different nominee, say Hillary Clinton. Talk about lame hand-wringing.

Here is my question: what attacks, exactly, will Obama face in the general election that will be worse than what he has faced in the primary campaign? Will it be worse than arguing that he is a Muslim who attended a madrassa? Will it be worse than selected exceprts from Rev. Wright played on every single news channel for weeks on end? Will it be worse than the most recent Democratic President saying McCain is more qualified to be commander in chief than Obama?

No, it won't be any worse. In fact, Obama will actually have a much easier time in the general election, media wise, than he has had in the primary. The reason for this is simple: in the general election, the most prominent Democrats in the entire country, the Clintons, will not be reifying every single right-wing attack against Obama. It has become a truism in politics that when both Democrats and Republicans are delivering the same message on a given topic, that message will invariably become conventional wisdom nationwide. Right now, when it comes to both Rev. Wright and qualifications to become President, Obama faces the triangle of Republican attacks, corporate media, and Democratic complicity in those attacks. In the general election, the Democratic complicity will be removed.

The media environment for Obama will actually be easier in the general election than in the primary. The argument that Obama won't be able to withdstand the oh-so vicious Republican attacks is nonsense, because he is weathering those attacks right now, even when Democrats are helping Republicans out in those attacks. This isn't even my theory-this is the theory put forth by Clinton senior staffer Peter Daou. If Obama can get past he primary and still outperform Clinton against McCain, then he is pretty much a sure bet to win the Presidency. The rest is just a bunch of hand-wringing by nervous, Clintonista types.

Beating McCain Is Not A Message That Will Beat McCain

Chris Bowers — Mon, 31 Mar 2008 03:25:35 GMT

Here are two general rules that Democratic candidates and elected officials should follow but which, unfortunately, many of the most prominent ones often violate:

Never say how holding a certain policy position will help either you, or other Democrats, win elections.
Don't encourage rank and file Democrats to vote a certain way for the sake of winning elections.

The first point should be obvious enough, and I have harped on it many times before. Whenever a Democratic candidate or elected officials claims that Policy Position X will help get Democrats elected, it unavoidably results in the implication that Democrats only hold Policy Position X in order to get elected. In so doing, Democrats look like spineless, valueless, power hungry jackasses who think they can fool the country. The end result is that, by talking about how Policy Position X will help them get elected, Democrats. See Why People Don't Think Democrats Believe What They Say, On "Big Ideas" And Bill Clinton, and also Lack Of Convictions Versus Lack of Courage for more on this point.

#2 is a somewhat less obvious point, though still an important one none the less. Sure, Democrats want to win the general election, and finding a candidate who can defeat McCain is on the minds of many Democratic primary voters. However, when Democratic politicians encourage voters to choose a candidate based on electability, then they begin to drag Democratic primary voters down to the same spineless, soul-less, valueless level. Suddenly, not only do we have politicans who only believe in things in order to get elected, but not those politicians were nominated by voters who don't believe in anything, either. At that point, the party is really in a world of hurt. Both the leaders and the followers don't believe in anything except getting elected. That is not the image the Democratic Party needs, especially considering that only now is it recovering from twenty years of death by meta talk from the DLC.

Now, here is where the problem comes in (emphasis mine):

Neither of us will reach the number of delegates needed. So I think that that is, you know, the reality for both of our campaigns. And all delegates have to assess who they think will be the strongest nominee against McCain and who they believe would do the best job in bringing along the down-ballot races and who they think would be the best President. And, from my perspective, those are all very legitimate questions, and as you know so well, Mark, every delegate with very few exceptions is free to make up his or her mind however they choose. We talk a lot about so-called pledged delegates, but every delegate is expected to exercise independent judgment.

Clinton has already received a decent amount of flack for this quote, but I think for the wrong section. Clinton is technically correct that all delegates can vote for whoever they want, even though the pledged and add-on delegates are required to sign statements of good faith that they will support who they were elected to support (I'm not sure how that is an expectation to exercise independent judgment, but whatever). The real problem is that of the three factors Clinton thinks delegates should take into account, electability concerns are the first two factors. How empty and soul-less are she expecting the party to be?

The Clintons have long been the masters of telling Democrats that they need to fall in line in order to win elections, so the aburdity of making an electability argument when you are losing an election is probably lost on them. However, the simple fact is that we are not going to beat John McCain by saying that we are going to beat John McCain. That is just not a winning message. Independents and Republicans may not be able to vote in closed primary states like Pennsylvania, but that does not mean they are forbidden from hearing media on the campaign. Now that the Clinton campaign appears to be reduced to an electability pitch to superdelegates, this constant talk about electability is actually making her less electable. If Hillary Clinton's campaign is going to have any chance whatsoever, it needs to start making a case as to why she would be a better President, not just a more electable Democratic nominee.

A Hidden McCain Advantage?

Chris Bowers — Fri, 28 Mar 2008 19:40:35 GMT

It is with growing concern that I have been following the Rasmussen daily tracking poll over the past two weeks. Starting on March 15th, a survey that included interviews from March 11-14, John McCain broke out of a tight contest and took a 47%-42% lead over Barack Obama. From that day forward, McCain's lead has been a minimum of 6% over Obama, a lead that he replicates over Hillary Clinton and which has also been reflected in Rasmussen statewide polls.

Now, while Rasmussen was terribly wrong in 2000, and while it is headed by a Republican, its track record in both 2004 and 2006 was pretty solid. Also, while the other seven Obama vs. McCain non-tracking polls conducted entirely since March 11th show Obama ahead by an average of 1.3%, there is an important difference between Rasmussen and those seven polls. Specifically, Rasmussen is an automated, IVR style poll that does not use live interviewers, while the other seven non-tracking polls all utilize the more traditional, live-interview survey methodology. As such, I am worried that we are seeing a "Bradley effect" or "Wilder effect" between the IVR polls, and the live-interview polls. Perhaps people are telling an automated survey something that they would not tell a real life person.

Is there a hidden McCain advantage, based on a Bradley effect, where he is actually ahead by 5-8%? It is one possibility, and I find it quite worrying. It is also entirely possible that Rasmussen simply is wrong, given that their national polls have almost always been out of step with other national polls this year. For example, on the even of Super Tuesday, Rasmussen showed Mitt Romney tied with John McCain nationally, although the actual voting bore out very difficult results. It might also be possible that Rasmussen is using far too tight of a "likely voter" screen, especially given that the general election is so far away and that the Democratic campaign in 2008 has consistently demonstrated an ability to bring out some less than likely voters.

It is very, very difficult for me to believe that John McCain can win this election, given the enormous structural advantages Democrats have this year (fundraising, partisan self-identification, the general mood for change). My gut tells me that once Obama emerges as the presumptive nominee in the minds of the electorate, that he will gradually start to pull away from McCain and win comfortably. However, another part of me also worries that what Matthew Yglesias wrote today is true, and that in terms of electability, we were always deluding ourselves that either a woman or an African-American were ever really all that "electable" nationwide:

I heard a liberal Obama skeptic remark a couple of months ago that it would be a strange day in America when the correct answer to the question "who's the most electable" was "the black guy." I think that's right, and it's a reminder that though the cliché is to say that Democrats are torn between two very strong candidates, in some ways we're torn between two very weak ones.(...)

Given the extreme strong underlying pro-Democrat fundamentals, it's very hard for me to imagine how a "generic Democratic white dude" like Chris Dodd or John Edwards or, indeed, John Kerry would lose in this environment.

I don't know how likely it is, but the Rasmussen poll suggest that it is indeed possible that Obama does not hold a small lead over McCain, and instead actually faces a decently sized, 5-8% deficit at this point in the campaign. Might a live-interview "Bradley effect" be inflating Obama's (and Clinton's) numbers outside of IVR polls? Might Obama and Clinton always have been further behind McCain than live-interview polls would suggest? It is certainly a possibility, and a worrying one to consider.

Nomination Campaign Reduced To Lengthy Electability Argument

Chris Bowers — Mon, 24 Mar 2008 15:50:41 GMT

OK, I'll say it: the nomination campaign is played out. After more than a year of settling the primary field, releasing dozens of policy papers, watching more than twenty debates, determining the key differences between the candidates, examining the evolving rhetoric and stump speeches, settling the primary calendar, building national organizations, and following the ups and downs of the polls, it seems that all we are left with is a lengthy, and increasingly boring, electability argument.

One the one hand, the Clinton campaign is arguing that only Hillary Clinton can win the general election, because she has passed the "Command in Chief test," because she has won enough states to win the electoral college, because she has already taken on the Republican Noise Machine and won while Obama has not been similarly vetted, because she has won "the big blue states" needed to win the general election, because she won Ohio and no one has ever won the general election without winning Ohio, and because she wins the key swing demographics like Latinos and working class whites. On the other hand, there are repeated implications from the Obama campaign and Obama supporters that there is no way Hillary Clinton can win the nomination because she can't win the popular vote, because she can't catch up in pledged delegates, and because the delegate math is stacked against her. And even beyond the arguments made by the Clinton and Obama campaigns, there is a third discussion about whether either Democrat can win if the nomination is not decided until the convention, or even if the rifts the party has opened up are too wide to heal in time.

Basically, after fourteen months of hashing out the differences between the candidates on virtually every other metric, with four weeks until the Pennsylvania primary, with no revotes in Florida and Michigan, and with less than 20% of the voting actually remaining, it seems that all we have left is a long argument about electability. That is a problem because, let's face it, long arguments about electability are really boring because they are ultimately unprovable and go nowhere. Even when discussions on race puncture the narrative, they are also couched in "electability" terms. Does Jeremiah Wright make Obama too racially polarizing to win the general election? Has Hillary Clinton alienated African-Americans too deeply to win the general election? It is a frustrating, boring catch-22, where the nomination campaign has become entirely an argument about who can win the general election, but we can't reach the general election because we can't settle the debate about who would perform better in it.

What isn't boring is the vast array of groups lined up to take on Republicans in the general election, a fully fledged left-wing conspiracy that, at long last, will be able to swamp the right in terms of activism and money spent. What isn't boring is the Responsible Plan to end the Iraq war, where an effort organized outside of the traditional institutional structures of party committees and think tanks now has over twenty-five endorsements from Democratic congressional candidates. What isn't boring is finding new and innovative means of attacking John McCain via search engine optimization, which is an effective, direct, quantifiable means of activism that anyone can accomplish simply through the use of embedded hyperlinks. We have built up a huge infrastructure utilizing new coalitions, new institutions, and new organizing techniques, and I am excited to see them in action. Unfortunately, it can't really take off yet because we are still slogging through an endless electability argument in a primary campaign with no end. In fact, even though I live in Philadelphia, I find the nearly dozen state legislative primaries to be more interesting than the presidential primary. The fact is that we already pretty much know that the campaign will continue past Pennsylvania, and we also already know the pledged delegate counts in the two main Philadelphia congressional districts (PA-01 will go for Obama 4-3, while PA-02 will go for Obama 6-3).

Barring something shocking, like the Michigan delegation being seated as is, the delegate math is clearly laid out before us, and Obama will slowly slog toward clinching the nomination sometime between May 20th and June 21st. For now, unfortunately, we are stuck in a holding pattern of an endless electability argument. I don't think that this sort of campaign will carry with it the benefit of the first two months of the year, where an intense, high-profile Democratic nomination campaign was largely helpful to the party. That is demonstrable by McCain taking the lead in general election matchups over the past two weeks. Without any voting to maintain interest between Mississippi and Pennsylvania, the void has been filled with electability and race (with the latter really being about electability). That is not the kind of discussion that Democrats need to win, because when Democrats talk about electability, no one believes what Democrats say.

Dumbest Campaign Argument Contest

Chris Bowers — Thu, 13 Mar 2008 00:24:27 GMT

Atrios:

Campaigns Make Me Stupid

I appreciate that campaigns spin and that to some extent it's so expected that they spin that they have to. That is, they're assumed to be putting the best spin on whatever happens so if they get more honest for a moment it'll be interpreted to mean that things are even worse.

And a lot of spin is delivered with a bit of a nudge and a wink. You know, "I know you're not going to buy this really but I have to say it anyway because it's my job." This campaign, however, there's been a lot of completely ludicrous stuff being said humorlessly, with no nod and wink attached. It's painful.

Now, I love campaigns and following the electoral side of politics. However, I do so mainly because I am interested in strategy, numbers, and using elections as a vehicle for progressive change. However, like Atrios, I often find the spin around campaigns to be depressingly stupid. I could just never work in communications where I would have to spout off obviously stupid spin, or work in non-partisan media where apparently everyone's job is to repeat that spin.

But here is an interesting question on campaign spin so far: what has been the stupidest campaign spin of this election cycle? I'll be equal opportunity on this one, and list arguments, one for each major remaining campaign, that I found especially stupid this year:

Clinton's "winning the big blue makes me electable" argument. Not only is the claim the winning primaries makes a candidate able to win general elections dubious, but the argument that winning big state primaries is especially retarded. I can't remember California ever deciding a Presidential election (I wasn't around in 1968). General election polling, financial resources, swing states, swing demographics and a proven ability to turn out new voters are all vastly superior means of determining general election "electability."
Obama's "Republicans will compromise with me" line. Talk about not learning anything from the last fifteen years of politics. Democrats can never apply the same level of pressure against the vast majority of congressional Republicans as various conservative apparatuses can. The conservative base frequently primaries Republicans we can barely scratch touch in general elections, strips them of committee assignments over which we have no control, bashes them in conservative media where we don't get a say, and dries up fundraising to which we were never contributing. We just can't pressure most Republicans the way conservatives can. Even the specter of general election defeat does not compare with the pressure the conservative movement can leverage against congressional Republicans.
McCain's "talking about NAFTA will cause us to lose Afghanistan" bit. While there is a lot to choose from when it comes to McCain, that was one of the more garbled arguments I have ever seen a politician make.

Surely, I am just scratching the tip of the iceberg here. What do you see as the dumbest bit of campaign spin in 2008?

The Clinton Campaign's Contradiction On Media and Electability

Chris Bowers — Mon, 03 Mar 2008 21:59:02 GMT

Hillary Clinton on beating the Republican Noise Machine:

Well, I don't think Karl Rove's going to endorse me. That becomes more and more obvious. But I find it interesting he's so obsessed with me. And I think the reason is because... (LAUGHTER) ...we know how to win. I mean, you know, I have been fighting against these people for longer than anybody else up here. I've taken them on and we've beaten them.

So, Hillary Clinton can beat the Republican attack machine in the media. However, if Hillary Clinton can beat back Republican attacks in the media and win, then why is her campaign complaining that the press has been so favorable to Barack Obama? Greg Sargent:

The sight of Hillary advisers attacking the press is suddenly everywhere -- and there's been a shift in the tone of the attacks that is striking. The suggestion is no longer merely that the coverage of Hillary is unfair and that the treatment of Obama is glowing, something that Hillaryland insiders have complained of for a long time.

Rather, the new suggestion is that the press is reveling in Hillary's downfall, and that this lust to see Hillary lose is driving coverage.

Yesterday, for instance, top Hillary adviser Howard Wolfson opined that "every time" the Obama campaign has leveled personal attacks against HIllary, "the press has largely applauded him." Another key Hillary surrogate, Pennsylvania Governor Ed Rendell, echoed this line, saying that the media has "relished" Hillary's "fall" with "glee."

Tensions between the Hillary campaign and the media boiled over yesterday. After news outlets began asking questions about Matt Drudge's "scoop" that unnamed Hillary staffers "circulated" a photo of Obama in Somali garb, Hillary spokesperson Phil Singer hit back at the media during a breakfast with reporters, suggesting they were happily allowing themselves to be led around on a leash by Drudge when he offered the chance to write negative stories about her.

"I find it interesting that in a room of such esteemed journalists that Mr. Drudge has become your respected assignment editor," Singer said.

Wasn't Clinton's ability to beat back these attacks supposed to be a big selling point for her on the electability front? In fact, wasn't it also supposed to be a big problem for Barack Obama, who the media supposedly favors? Clinton campaign memo from mid-February:

The GOP Attack Machine Will Redefine the Democratic Candidate; Hillary Has Withstood That Process. As soon as the Democratic nominee is selected, the entire force of the GOP attack machine will bear down on that nominee. This attack machine has been built and honed over decades; it is formidable, and employs all forms of media, from talk radio to major newspaper columns to television, email, blogs, websites, direct mail, and extensive ground networks. It was able to skew public perceptions of two well-respected Democrats, Al Gore and John Kerry, creating impressions about them that were wildly out of step with reality. Hillary Clinton has withstood the full brunt of that machine and actually emerged stronger.(...)

So far, the Republicans have been laying low. Sen. Obama has never faced a credible Republican opponent or the Republican attack machine, so voters are taking a chance that his current poll numbers will hold up after the Republicans get going. With Hillary, the GOP has already tried just about every attack and has failed. Those attacks are already factored in her ratings, where she remains competitive against Sen. McCain. But when it comes to Sen. Obama this is a big unknown, and the likelihood is that his negatives will rise.

Now, pardon me for asking, but if Clinton is so well prepared to handle media attacks, and Obama is so poor at it, then why is Clinton's campaign complaining about unfavorable media coverage titling the election to Obama? Am I the only one who thinks those lines of thought are contradictory? More from John Aravosis:

Hillary's campaign had made the topic of the day "what will the Republicans throw at Barack Obama in the fall?" They're talking about Rezko today, they've race-baited Obama repeatedly in the past, and we've had reports that they've recently been sending reporters information branding Obama a Muslim.(...)

Hillary's campaign has already said that they are throwing the kitchen sink at Obama. They will discuss, are discussing, all the bad things that the GOP will throw at Obama in the fall.
So, what will the Republicans throw at Hillary in the fall?

Lots... But I'm not going to be discussing the details of those stories today because I don't want to make our candidate damaged goods in the fall. You will notice that neither Obama's campaign nor Obama's official, or unofficial, surrogates are talking about the Clintons' past or present scandals, the Clintons' negatives, what a Clinton run for the presidency will to Democratic congressional races and governor races across the country.

It does not make any sense to argue, on the one hand, that you are more electable because you are better at handling media attacks, but then, on the other hand, to argue that you are losing the campaign because of media attacks. It also does not make sense to argue on the one hand, that Obama is winning the campaign because of favorable media coverage, but then, on the other hand, to argue that Obama is not electable because he can't handle media attacks. Further, it does not make sense to argue that Obama is untested against Republican attacks, even though during the primary he has faced attacks on his experience, on Rezko, on his past drug use, on the possibility that he is a Muslim, and general race-baiting either directly from the Clinton campaign or from pro-Clinton surrogates. Not only are those exactly the same attacks he will face in the general election, but when both Democrats and Republicans are attacking along those lines, shouldn't the attacks be more effective? So far, being attacked on these fronts by both Clinton and McCain has barely damaged Obama at all.

This doesn't add up. Either Obama is not as strong as Clinton in handling media attacks, or he is not. You can't start complaining about media coverage and still expect people to believe that you are more electable because you are better than handling media attacks. However, right now that seems to be exactly what the Clinton campaign is doing. Unless the Clinton campaign is arguing that some sort of media conspiracy to build Obama up during the primary, only to later knock him down in the general, this doesn't add up. The irony of holding the latter position is that it is exactly the sort of crazy conspiracy that wingnuts and pundits alike have accused the Clintons of engaging in for the past twenty years.

Obama Gaining In The General Election, Too

Chris Bowers — Mon, 04 Feb 2008 12:40:06 GMT

In addition to Super Tuesday polling, there were four general election polls released the last week. According to all four polls, John McCain holds a narrow lead on Hillary Clinton, while Barack Obama holds a narrow lead on John McCain. The averages are McCain 47.3%--44.5% Clinton, and Obama 47.5%--44.0% McCain.

This is certainly good news for Obama. When discussing "electability," data points such as these need to be considered. However, it should also be noted that whenever a candidate is rising in polls for his or her party's nomination, that candidate also rises in polls for the general election. For example, from June through October, when Hillary Clinton was improving her standing for the Democratic nomination, she also performed much better than Obama in general election polls. This trend works in reverse as well, since McCain's low point in general election polling and Republican nomination polling both occurred in July and August.

This trend points to a conclusion about electability that should have been obvious all along: the candidate who wins the Democratic nomination will almost certainly be our most electable candidate. Not only is a candidate's general election polling fortunes closely connected to his or her current trend in the nomination campaign, but it should be obvious that the candidate who actually wins the most elections is the most electable candidate. This is especially the case when one considers that very few Republicans ever vote for Democrats in general elections, and when one considers that the relatively few closed primary states where independents can't vote tend to be in deep blue areas that even Michael Dukakis could win, like New York and Massachusetts.

As long as our nominee doesn't stumble to the nomination ala 1984 when Mondale clinched the nod through super delegates despite Gary Hart winning almost every state toward the end, whoever wins the nomination will be our most electable candidate. Whichever candidate is trending up in terms of the nomination will always be our most electable candidate in the general election.

Clinton vs. McCain, an Electoral Disaster

worldtrippers — Fri, 25 Jan 2008 16:16:29 GMT

Hillary Clinton vs. John McCain. The most hated, partisan Democrat versus one of the most independent, well liked Republicans. A race we can win?

I'm not talking about the reality of either candidate here. I'm talking public perception. And I'm not talking about ridiculous General Election polls. But we face a real choice soon, so who we want Representing out party this fall, and who can win in the fall. Right now, the two most likely nominees look to be John McCain versus Hillary Clinton. And I see some real problematic issues for Democrats is this is the race this fall, and I will elaborate below.

I believe that Hillary Clinton facing John McCain is a potential electoral disaster for Democrats this fall. And this is why, no GE polls included, just cold, hard facts and projections.
The Issues that Will Matter this Fall

Iraq War

If we are to win in November, we need to provide a stark contrast to Republicans on the War in Iraq. John Kerry did not do this in 2004. Did you know what John Kerry wanted to do in Iraq? Exactly.

Look at John McCain's voting record on Iraq versus that of Hillary Clinton, from ontheissues.

Voted YES on authorizing use of military force against Iraq. (Oct 2002) - BOTH
Voted YES on $86 billion for military operations in Iraq & Afghanistan. (Oct 2003) - BOTH
Voted YES on requiring on-budget funding for Iraq, not emergency funding. (Apr 2005) - BOTH
Voted YES on designating Iran's Revolutionary Guards as terrorists. (Sep 2007) - BOTH
Voted NO on redeploying troops out of Iraq by July 2007. (Jun 2006) - BOTH

Only at the end of 2006, when public tide was firmly against the war, did Hillary change her stances. But for all purposes, their war voting record is, for 85% of their time together in the Senate, IDENTICAL.

Reform: Ethics, Campaign Finance, and Lobbyists

One of the reasons that we won back the House and the Senate in 2006 was the fact that Americans were sick of the ethics mess in Washington, and sick of corruption and special interests taking over in Washington.

So what we need is a campaign between one candidate is for reform, and another who stood out in the primary as not being willing to reduce the influence of special interests in her campaign.

Yes. Her. "Lobbyists are people, too"

McCain did push campaign finance reform, and supports publicly financed campaigns. He also has his own issues with lobbyists, but he did help author the landmark ethics reform with, uh, Barack Obama. But with Hillary Clinton, this powerful, persuasive message is off the table, and potentially, could be used against Hillary.

Big loss for Democrats, especially if we get perceived as the party of lobbyists and special interest because of our candidate taking more Lobbyist money than anyone else.. And it only gets worse. Hillary has taken more PAC and Lobbyist money than any candidate, Democrat or Republican, and far more than McCain (source: Open Secrets ). How will that play against the Maverick from Arizona?

Norman Hsu anyone?

Earmarks

Just look at this list, of the amount of pork-barrel spending by each Presidential candidate in the most recent budget.

Hillary Clinton: $530 Million
Chris Dodd: $100 Million
Joe Biden: $67 Million
Barack Obama: $40.6 Million
John McCain: $0

So who's the one that is going to bring change to Washington? The #1 pork barrel spender in the Senate, or the man who rails again "the bridge for nowhere" and Hillary's "Woodstock museum"? Or the man who (in this instance, at least) stood up and actually matched his rhetoric with action?

In a time when voters are looking for someone who is different, McCain can win this argument. Handily.

Experience

McCain has the sad, but unfortunately important designation. His stance on the War is far more consistent than Hillary's. He has served in the Military, and he's running on the same argument as Hillary, experience. A comparison of their experience in raw numbers, years.

John McCain
Legislative: 26 (4 Congressional, 22 US Senate)
Executive: 0
Foreign Policy: 10+ (Senate Select Committee on POW/MIA Affairs, Senate Armed Forces Committee)
Military: 13 Military, Including spent five and a half years in a POW camp.
Other: 4 (Navy Liason to the US Senate)

Hillary Clinton
Legislative: 8 (8 Senatorial)
Executive: 0
Foreign Policy: 5 (Senate Armed Forces Committee)
Military: None
Other: 20 Years as either Arkansas first lady, or First Lady, part time lawyer, etc.

I think it's clear who wins the experience battle. Does that mean Hillary, the wife of a former President, will try to run on change?

Likeability

Last, but not least, take a look at these Favorables and Unfavorables.

Clinton	Favorable 47%	Neutral 11%	Negative 41%	Net Fav: +6%
McCain	Favorable 34%	Neutral 26%	Negative 22%	Net Fav: +23%

So, for Hillary to win, she has to do one of two things. #1, improve her favorability, or #2 Bring McCain down. Considering that we've known her for 16 years, it's almost impossible for Clinton to change her public perception enough to overcome this barrier. So its bring McCain down, with a nasty, negative campaign. Kinda like what Romney tried in New Hampshire. How did that work out for him?

Now, this is not to say that Hillary will lose in the fall. But I want to show that, GE polls notwithstanding, there are reasons that Hillary is a weak candidate against someone like John McCain. We cede the independents, and hope that turnout isn't too high, and try to win in the same states that Kerry and Gore tried, hoping that this time, we do it. We have to deal with her public perception, with McCain's far more positive perception, and all these factors point to an upward battle for Democrats.

Just a warning.
Crossposted at NithinCoca.com

Clinton and Obama Both Catch McCain

Chris Bowers — Fri, 25 Jan 2008 12:53:41 GMT

According to the most recent polls from the six organizations that have polled the general election since New Hampshire, both Clinton and Obama are tied with McCain:

McCain: 46.3%--46.2% Clinton
Obama: 44.0%--43.7% McCain

This makes me feel a lot better, since it means that even if McCain wins the Republican nomination, the Democratic nominee will have the advantage. ~~First, because he accepted matching funds, McCain will be broke from February 6th through September 1st, both Clinton and Obama will be on the air virtually continuously. Second,~~ McCain is riding a huge, soft favroables peak right now, that can only go down during the general election. If McCain is tied with Clinton and Obama at his peak before the real spending and attacks begin, then he is actually the one facing an uphill battle, not Clinton or Obama. With a less than enthusiastic theocon base and an anti-McCain conservative media elite, both Clinton and Obama should have an overwhelming on the ground, donor, and buzz generator activist advantage, too.

This is good news. Right now, while I favor Obama to Clinton, I consider the general election much more important. In fact, I even consider the primaries in IL-03 (Pera vs. Lipinski), MD-04 (Edwards vs. Wynn), and IA-03 (Fallon vs. Boswell) more important than the Presidential primary when it comes to changing the Democratic Party. You better believe I would be more than happy for either Clinton or Obama to become President, especially if we win a couple of primaries against Bush Dogs and pick up a net of six Senate seats or more. Some might not agree, but that would probably be the most progressive government in the history of D.C., at least according to the standards of contemproary progressivism. The pre-Vietnam era of Kennedy / Johnson might be the only more progressive example I can think of.

Update: Looks like I was wrong about McCain and matching funds:

McCain has secured a loan using his campaign's assets as collateral...but not future funds from the federal match... and has not opted in to the nomination funding system. The FEC has approved million of dollars worth of matching funds, but McCain can't spend them until March and hasn't decided whether he'll need to.

I thought that McCain took out a loan using his matching funds as collateral. Still, at worst right now that means Clinton and Obama are tied with McCain.

Update 2: I should note that while I would be very happy to see either Clinton or Obama become President, that doesn't mean I consider them ideal candidates or that I would stop criticizing them.

Race Taking Center Stage In Democratic Primary

Chris Bowers — Thu, 10 Jan 2008 19:59:21 GMT

So far in the blogosphere, opinion on whether or not a Bradley / Wilder effect n New Hampshire contributed to Clinton's victory seems drawn along racial lines. Yglesias and Digby don't think so, or at least hope it didn't play a role. Among African-American bloggers such as Jack and Jill Politics, Field Negro and Skeptical Brotha, the Bradley effect is cited as one of the major reasons, if not the major reason, for Obama's defeat. I'm still undecided on the matter, but I lean toward a mushy middle position of a mild Bradley / Wilder effect, that was a partial cause but not a majority cause for Clinton's victory. I offered a thorough breakdown of what the causes of the polling to results gap in an article yesterday.

No matter what was the actual cause, it is probably accurate to say that African-Americans are more likely than whites to think that white voters lied about supporting Obama in New Hampshire. There has been long-standing semi-anecdotal, focus group evidence that African-Americans were more concerned than whites about white Democrats nominating Obama. Also, to no one's surprise African-Americans do perceive greater racism in America than do whites, as its easier to pick up such things when you are on the business end of them. My question in this post is not to definitely determine whether or not there was a Bradley effect in New Hampshire, but to ask if the perception of such an effect will help or hurt Obama as the primary season moves forward.

On the one hand, the perception of a Bradley effect could have a demoralizing impact on the African-American vote for Obama, which would obviously be a negative for his campaign, for the Democratic Party in general, and for the African-American community. On the other hand, it could solidify African-American support for Obama, and spur on even more African-American activist for Obama, due to a perception that more work and organization will be needed in order to overcome white racism in the primary season. I honestly have no idea which scenario is more likely. In Survey USA polls of South Carolina before and after Iowa, Obama gained 26 points among African-Americans, and 19 points among whites. He can still win narrowly South Carolina even without the boost he received from white voters, but he probably can't win South Carolina without the boost he received from African-American voters. So, this is a very important question for the Democratic nomination season.

No matter what happens, as Jack and Jill politics predicted, race will take center stage in the Democratic primary in a way it hasn't in the past year. Recent comments by Andrew Cuomo, Stuart Rothenberg, and Jesse Jackson Jr. are a testament to this. The specific impact it will have on the overall campaign remains to be seen.

Clinton Campaign: Obama Can't Win Because He's Too Liberal

Chris Bowers — Sat, 05 Jan 2008 02:59:13 GMT

So says the Huffington Post:

Obama faces the prospect of severe and hostile vetting from his primary opponents, however. Upon her arrival in New Hampshire this morning, Hillary Clinton signaled that she intends to play on Obama's as yet unexploited political weaknesses: "Who will be able to stand up to the Republican attack machine?" she asked at an appearance in Nashua.

Hillary's aides point to Obama's extremely progressive record as a community organizer, state senator and candidate for Congress, his alliances with "left-wing" intellectuals in Chicago's Hyde Park community, and his liberal voting record on criminal defendants' rights as subjects for examination.

Wow, that second paragraph makes me like Obama a lot more. I guess I'm not one of those self-hating progressives that think being left-wing makes someone unelectable. In a primary campaign, in order for an attack like this to succeed, it requires liberals and progressives to believe that their ideals are in a minority nationwide, thus required a move to the center in order to win a general election. Smashing that belief among the Democratic rank and file would be an important behavioral change within the party.

Then again, since Edwards is attacking Obama from the left, the Clinton attack probably won't work anyway:

Edwards' staff also immediately began to take shots at Obama: Appearing on MSNBC this morning, Edwards' manager David Bonior described Obama as a sellout to corporate America: "Barack Obama's kind of change is where you sit down and you cut a deal with the corporate world."

If your opponents are attacking you from both sides, the end result is probably that both attacks seem manufactured.

Don't Kid Yourself - The MAN is Going to Win

Luigi Montanez — Thu, 03 Jan 2008 14:49:44 GMT

With votes finally about to be cast for the 2008 presidential primaries, we can all breathe a sigh of relief that the end of this silliest of seasons is within sight. But before a single vote is tallied, let me make this simple observation: The MAN is going to win. The MAN always wins, and until something earth-shattering happens in American politics, the MAN will always win. Call it the Law of MAN.

Who da MAN? Well this year, that's Hillary Clinton and John McCain, of course. You see, the MAN is the Media's Anointed Nominee.

Two, three, and sometimes even four years before a given presidential election, Washington D.C.'s intelligensia and punditocracy proclaim who the next nominee for each party will be. Because many of these very serious people have a strong voice or influence in the mainstream media, the meme gets repeated throughout the country and a MAN for each party is determined well before anyone throws their hat into the ring. That's what I mean by the Media's Anointed Nominee.

When there's an incumbent president up for re-election, the MAN is obvious for his party. Bush in 2004. Clinton in 1996. But how about Kerry in 2004? After Gore announced he wouldn't run in late 2002, Kerry became the MAN for the Democrats. He was, after all, the most serious, electable Democratic candidate. And in early 2004, he was the guy to beat (or so said the media). Then Dean came along and Kerry found himself in the absolute dumps in the Fall of 2003. But the Law of MAN always holds, and sure enough Kerry staged an "improbable" come-from-behind victory in Iowa and from there on out it was smooth sailing.

Let's formally define it:

The Law of MAN states that the Media's Appointed Nominee, or put in another way, Conventional Wisdom's early frontrunner for a party's presidential primary, will always win his (or her) party's nomination if he or she does not drop out of the race.

The Law of MAN has held in every single primary season for both parties since the election of 1964, the first complete modern media campaign cycle. It started with Barry Goldwater, who was so certain of his nomination that in the middle of JFK's first term, the two men made plans to criss-cross the country together in one jumbo jet as a new form of campaigning. It's a shame we never got to see that.

After Goldwater's stinging loss to LBJ in 1964, Nixon quickly became the MAN for the Republicans for 1968, nearly four years before his eventual election. The worse the loss, the quicker a MAN is determined, especially for Republicans. Sitting president LBJ was obviously the MAN for the Democrats, but he dropped out unexpectedly in March of 1968, and so the Law of MAN's final clause about dropping out kicks into effect.

After Nixon's ascension to the White House, Ted Kennedy became the MAN for the Democrats, but Chappaquiddick in 1969 ended his candidacy well before he could formally announce. Due to the shock of Watergate, the 1976 race's 20-person field was so wide open for the Democrats that there was no MAN for them, and thus unknown Jimmy Carter was able to win the nomination and then the White House. Immediately after Ford's loss, the Republicans knew who their MAN was for 1980: Ronald Reagan.

In 1984, early favorite and Carter VP Walter Mondale beat back insurgencies by Gary Hart and Jesse Jackson to hold on to the Democratic nomination. Interestingly, 1988 on the Democratic side was the only primary race that sort of violated the Law of MAN. Gary Hart was the MAN until a sex scandal hit him and he dropped out of the race. He would re-enter the race just before the Iowa caucuses, but the damage had been done and Dukakis became the nominee. Since he technically did drop out, I think the Law of MAN stands. On the Republican side, the Law of MAN easily held for VP Bush.

Throughout 1991, the MAN/golden-boy Bill Clinton consistently led in the national polls (and the ladies' hearts) well before he formally jumped into the race. He too was rocked by some of those pesky sex scandals, but he was able to recover by Super Tuesday and earn the moniker of the "Comeback Kid." Bob Dole's status as the MAN for 1996 was never much in doubt, despite the challenges from the right by kooks Pat Buchanan and Steve Forbes. Our current president was the MAN for Republicans in 2000 as soon as it was obvious that he'd coast to re-election as Governor of Texas in 1998.

We've been already over Kerry in 2004, so let's focus on the current primary season. Think back to a few years ago. Who was the media already appointing the frontrunner for their respective party? McCain, who had become Bush's lapdog in 2004 and was not-so-quietly getting Bushies to commit to him, became the MAN for the Republicans in 2008 during the 2004 campaign. That status was solidified after George Macaca Allen's defeat in November 2006. And of course, after Kerry's heartbreaking loss, the media was quick to annoint Hillary as the front-runner with non-stop stories on how she had perfectly positioned herself for 2008.

And so it will go. Clinton is the MAN, as is McCain, and neither have dropped out. They may not win the Iowa caucuses today. But you can be sure, after the first week of February, that the Law of MAN will have held. History wouldn't have it any other way.

Progressives In the Democratic Primary: Comparing 2004 and 2008

Chris Bowers — Wed, 02 Jan 2008 19:19:42 GMT

Have progressives and progressivism made more of an impact on the 2008 Democratic primary than in 2004? This is a very large question that I think we need to spend a lot of time analyzing, but given that Iowa is tomorrow the question probably isn't answerable yet. I want to believe that progressive Democrats have advanced on our performance in 2004, and I think preliminary reviews show that to indeed be the case. In the extended entry, I provide the outline of this case.

Policy Shifting Left. Compared to four years ago, proposed policy among Democratic frontrunners has shifted to the left in virtually every area.
- Iraq. Invading Iraq is now accepted a bad idea, whereas four years ago Howard Dean was the only top-tier candidate who opposed the invasion. The main policy debate is over when to withdraw and whether or not to leave a residual force.
  <.li>Health Care. Unlike four years ago, the rhetoric goal of health care proposals is universal coverage. Candidates now attack each other for not offering universal coverage, whereas four years ago not a single top-tier candidate was proposing universal health care.
- Energy and Global Warming. Four years ago, energy and global warming did not play a prominent role in the campaign. This time around, probably due to the efforts of Al Gore and others, not only is it a main issue, but all of the top candidates have very good proposals on it. This, clearly, is an advance for progressivism.
- Upholding the Constitution. Four years ago, there was little dissent in the field on Republican efforts to increase executive power and strip away civil liberties through measures like the Patriot Act. Now, restoring both civil liberties and constitutional checks and balances has become an issue, even if not a central one. Most candidates have also moved to the left in this area, even if only Chris Dodd has been a leader.
Grassroots Activism Ramping Up. With Clinton, Edwards and Obama all sporting equal or greater numbers of activists than the Dean campaign in 2004, the number of small donors and campaign volunteers has significantly increased from 2004. Attendance at political events is well up from four years ago, as is the audience for progressive media. Most campaigns have advanced netroots outreach departments. In terms of sheer numbers, grassroots activism is well up from 2004.

On the negative side, despite the overall increase, the influence of the progressive grassroots on the campaign has not increased. Small donors are the same percentage of overall donors that they were in 2004. The Draft Gore movement of 2007 failed, unlike the Draft Clark movement of 2003. No clear "netroots favorite" emerged, and the establishment just isn't as scared of any of the top three Democrats as they were of Dean four years ago. While we made a dent on residual forces, many of the issues we focus on, such as the use of Republican talking points, the need for partisanship, and civil liberties / checks and balances, did not become major issues for the voting public. So, while our overall activist numbers have increased, barring a surprising John Edwards victory tomorrow, grassroots progressive influence on the outcome, relative to the establishment, appears to be static. Then again, no matter what happens, Edwards will outperform Dean and have done so against much tougher competition, so perhaps that is progress.
Electability. Electability took a major tumble as a campaign issue this time around, which surely is progress for progressives. Further, while electability has typically meant "moving to the center," when it was discussed in this campaign, mostly it meant poll numbers, handling Republican media attacks, and raising money. Combined, these two developments severely undercut the prominence longstanding argument that Democrats must move to the center in order to win. That argument is still floating around, and we are still some distance from "Democrats must be progressive populists in order to win" becoming conventional wisdom, but we are gaining ground. Again, more progress will be made if Edwards wins Iowa, since if Obama wins Iowa the "Democrats must be bi-partisan in order to win" narrative will gain ground.

The ideal progressive candidate probably would have been someone who managed to cram the leadership of Dodd, the residual force position of Richardson, the rhetoric of Edwards, and the combined activist support of Obama and Edwards into a single package. A candidate like that would have unified the netroots, scared the crap out of the establishment, and basically dominated the entire course of the campaign. Woulda, coulda, shoulda, but it just didn't happen. Even so, I think progressives gained ground in terms of influence within the party from 2004 to 2008. If we continue to fight hard, I am hopeful that no matter who wins, we will continue to gain ground in the future.

A Preview Of The Fact-Free Edwards Media Narrative

Chris Bowers — Mon, 31 Dec 2007 19:47:28 GMT

Virtually the entire media narrative on the Democratic nomination campaign has been Clinton's "experience" vs. Obama's "change." If Edwards wins Iowa, the national media will, at least for one weekend, be forced to think of a new narrative that includes him. Stuart Rothenberg, one of the more reliable producers of clueless conventional wisdom, provides us with a preview of what that narrative will be:

Democrats must decide whether they want a candidate who is angry and confrontational, and who sees those favoring compromise as traitors (Edwards), or a candidate who presents himself as a uniter (Obama), or a candidate who presents herself as someone who understands the ways of Washington and can get things done (Clinton).

Ah, the angry, far-left, confrontational Democrat narrative. Reminds of of the heady days of the Dean campaign. Of course, Rothenberg thinks that anti-corproate rhetoric this will turn off voters:

The former North Carolina senator is running a classic populist campaign that would have made William Jennings Bryan (or Ralph Nader) proud. Everything is Corporate America's fault. But he's also portraying himself as fighting for the middle class and able to appeal to swing voters and even Republicans in a general election.

Edwards certainly would dispute that there is an inherent contradiction between his populist rhetoric and his alleged middle class appeal. But his approach to problems is likely to frighten many voters, including most middle class Americans and virtually all Republicans.

Yes, surely anti-corporate rhetoric will turn off voters. People love big business. Or rather, as I show in the extended entry, outside of Congress, corporations are the least popular institutions in the country, and railing against them has easily made John Edwards the candidate who polls best in the general election against Republicans.
First, corporations are incredibly unpopular:

Gallup Poll. June 11-14, 2007. N=1,007 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3.

"I am going to read you a list of institutions in American society. Please tell me how much confidence you, yourself, have in each one: a great deal, quite a lot, some, or very little. . . ."

Big Business
Great Deal: 7%
Quite A Lot: 11%
Some: 39%
Very Little: 38%

The only other institutions in which people have less confidence are Congress and HMOs. Yeah, people will really hate the anti-corproate rhetoric coming from Edwards. They also think that large corporations have way too little influence in Washington:

"And now a question about the power of different groups in influencing government policy, politicians, and policy makers in Washington. Do you think (READ EACH ITEM) have/has too much or too little power and influence in Washington?"
Big Companies
Too Much: 90%
Too Little: 5%

Corporations are so popular that people want to see corporate influence reduced in Washington by a 16-1 margin, or more than the influence of any other institution in the country. And the above poll actually oversampled Republicans:

The Harris Poll® was conducted by telephone within the United States between November 8 and 13, 2005 among a nationwide cross section of 1,011 adults (aged 18 and over). Figures for age, sex, race, education, number of adults, number of voice/telephone lines in the household, region and size of place were weighted where necessary to align them with their actual proportions in the population.

In theory, with a probability sample of this size, one can say with 95 percent certainty that the overall results have a sampling error of plus or minus 3 percentage points of what they would be if the entire U.S. adult population had been polled with complete accuracy. Sampling error for the sub-samples of Republicans (335), Democrats (311), and Independents (254) is higher and varies.

This anti-corporate rhetoric has also taken a real toll on Edwards in general election matchups against Republicans. Over the past month, only three polling firms have tested all three the leading Democrats against all three of the top Republicans, CNN, Zogby and Rasmussen. Edwards clearly polls the best in these polls, which are the only currently available apples-to-apples comparisons of how the top three Democrats currently fare in the general election.

Top Dems Vs. Huckabee
Rasmussen
Edwards 49%--37% Huckabee
Obama 45%--41% Huckabee
Clinton 47%--43% Huckbaee
Edwards eight points better than the field

CNN
Edwards 60%--35% Huckabee
Obama 55%--40% Huckabee
Clinton 54%--44% Huckabee
Edwards ten points better than the field

Zogby
Edwards 47%--41% Huckabee
Obama 47%--42% Huckabee
Huckabee 48%--43% Clinton
Edwards one point better than the field

Vs. Romney
Rasmussen
Edwards 50%--34% Romney
Obama 45%-41% Romney
Romney 44%--43% Clinton
Edwards twelve points better than the field

CNN
Edwards 59%--37% Romney
Obama 54%--41% Romney
Clinton 54%--43% Romney
Edwards nine points better than the field

Zogby
Obama 53%--35% Romney
Edwards 50%--38% Romney
Clinton 46%--44% Romney
Obama six points better than Edwards

Vs. McCain
Rasmussen
Edwards 46%--39% McCain
McCain 45%-43% Obama
McCain 49%--43% Clinton
Edwards nine points better than the field

CNN
Edwards 52%--44% McCain
Obama 48%--48% McCain
McCain 50%--48% Clinton
Edwards eight points better than the field

Zogby
Obama 47%--43% McCain
McCain 46%--42% Edwards
McCain 49%--42% Clinton
Obama eight points better than Edwards

So, Edwards outperforms Clinton in all nine apples to apples matchups, by an average of 9.8%. He also outperforms Obama in seven of the nine matchups, including all six of the non-Zogby matchups, by an average of 3.6%. Rather than making him less popular, it seems that railing against the least popular, non-congressional institution in the country has made Edwards the most popular Democrat among the nation as a whole.

Now, it should be obvious that railing against the least popular institution in the country should make you more popular. But hey, Stuart Rothenberg is one of the best examples of how clueless some beltway pundits really are about popular opinion. BooMan Tribune has more on this.

Fully Explaining Why I Am Cheering For Edwards In Iowa

Chris Bowers — Fri, 28 Dec 2007 21:46:19 GMT

In the extended entry, I attempt to fully explain my decision to cheer for John Edwards in Iowa, a decision about which I feel pretty certain now. This is, of course, my decision alone, and is not meant to reflect on anyone else on Open Left.
Policy
I basically agree with Matt's post from Tuesday that the Democratic field of Presidential candidates is not addressing, or even really mentioning, some of the most crippling problems we face as a country: American Empire / national security state, and the war on drugs / cradle to prison superhighway. In looking for a candidate to support, those are two enormous issues that I would like to see addressed. That no one, except maybe Kucinich, is talking about those problems is a real disappointment in the Democratic field. As such, while I will support and work for no matter who wins the nomination, I also won't delude myself that that candidate will accomplish what I think needs to be done to fix the country. At the same time, I have also listed what I see as the positive qualities in several of the candidates., and how I will be dissatisfied with the nominee since we can't find them all in a single package.

Further, I have also explained in the past that I was seeking to evaluate the three leading contenders for the Democratic nomination on a core list of seven policy issues that, collectively, would tackle the underlying causes that led us to war in places like Iraq. On those issues I think Obama and Edwards are about as good as each other, and both better than Clinton. However, throw in health care, and I have to conclude that Edwards is my policy favorite among the top three.

Electability
In terms of electability, I understand that Edwards will be handicapped in the general election by accepting matching funds, while Obama and Clinton will not be. However, Edwards starts ahead of Obama and Clinton in terms of general election polling, so I think this front is basically a wash. Clinton might be slightly ahead of Obama in this category, given current polling, and Obama might be slightly ahead of Edwards, given the financial situation, but the margins are narrow and difficult to determine based only on polls and financial figures. Besides, I think that all three look good electorally unless McCain is nominated on the other side, in which case it will be difficult no matter who is nominated. Obama versus McCain might be a problem area, but I actually don't see a path for that matchup to occur. If Obama does well in Iowa, then McCain won't win New Hampshire, and thus won't win the nomination. If Obama does not do well in Iowa, then McCain might win New Hampshire, but it won't matter because Obama won't win the nomination. We might get Obama or McCain, but we won't get Obama and McCain.

Also, electability is why I am only looking at the top three Democrats right now. At this late date, I don't see how anyone except Clinton, Obama or Edwards can win the primary. I also don't see how an endorsement of anyone else can promote progressive power in such a short time span.

In My Gut
Apart from policy and electability, I have long sought a candidate who would be able to forge the rising, younger, progressive, non-white and / or non-Christian coalition about which I have written, and a candidate who will work with, and use the language of, new progressive media. The former is clearly Obama, at least in terms of potential, as I have written on numerous occasions for quite a long time now. The latter is clearly John Edwards, considering his campaign's frequent use of the word progressive, adopting terms like neocon, not firing campaign bloggers when they were attacked by right wing media, and talking about fighting corporate interests. (Again, I am only looking at the top three here.) Clinton understand the threat of the conservative movement, and even coined the term "vast right-wing conspiracy," but during the campaign Edwards has been more vocal in the type of language I seek.

So, do I go with a figure who could potentially catalyze the type of coalition I seek, or with the candidate who stands with, and uses the language of, new progressive media? As I discussed a couple weeks ago, this is a difficult choice, and not one I with which I will ever be fully satisfied. However, in the end, I once again side with Edwards. Basically, this is because I don't think Obama is trying, or is even wants, to put together the non-white and / or non-Christian coalition I am talking about. While I want both goals, I feel as though improving the rhetorical position of progressivism is more achievable in this cycle, and I feel as though John Edwards is better at that than Obama and Clinton.

Overall
I hope that this post comprehensively explains my decision-making process in voting for Edwards, and why it isn't a clear enough, or satisfying enough, choice that I am willing to take it to the level of activism in the primary. Granted, I have conducted some activism, since I donated to two Presidential campaigns this cycle, Edwards and Richardson, and since I appeared in a television commercial for Bill Richardson.

The nature or level of this endorsement probably won't satisfy anyone, including Edwards supporters. I should also note that my order or support hasn't changed at all in about two years. During 2006, Feingold was my first choice, and Edwards was consistently my second choice. An Edwards-Feingold, Edwards-Spitzer, or Edwards-Sherrod Brown ticket would work for me. I don't really worry that waiting this long reduces my influence on the process, because I'm happy with the impact I made on residual forces in the campaign. There is only so much one person can focus on in a campaign, and if I had to do it all over again, I would still focus mainly on policy and progressivism in general. For me, those are always more important than any single candidate. Besides, I honestly was undecided during most of the campaign, variously moving between Dodd, Edwards, Obama, Richardson and unsure, not to mention frequent changes in my second place choices (which, at different times, briefly included Clinton and Kucinich). If a blogger loses his or her honestly, then she or he loses everything.

I don't begrudge people who are undecided, generally dissatisfied with the field, and / or who support different candidates. If Al Gore had run, I probably would have supported him. If Feingold had run, I probably would have moved to Wisconsin. If Dodd or Richardson had gotten more traction, this entire equation might have changed. If it comes down to Clinton vs. Obama, I think I will cheer for Obama. On the morning of January 3rd, I'll put up the one and only Open Left poll on the Democratic nomination.

It was a difficult decision to make. In the comments, feel free to offer alternative rationales.

Why No One Believes What Democrats Say, Part 6,254

Chris Bowers — Thu, 27 Dec 2007 23:35:47 GMT

Evan Bayh on Bhutto:

"When there are unfortunate calamities like this, the Republicans [will say], 'See. See what we told you? We have to have someone who's strong to defend America at a time of concern.' Well, Senator Clinton is strong," he said. "And she's experienced. And she's tough enough to defend this country and do it in a way that's true to our values, the civil liberties we cherish, and that's one of the reasons why I'm supporting her."

Few things irritate me more about prominent DLC types than their tendency to preface virtually everything they propose for Democrats with how that something will help Democrats get elected. They do it all the time. I know that an election is close, and electability will be a concern for some. Still, it is one thing to say that Bhutto's assassination shows that we need an experienced hawk to defend America, and quite another to say that Bhutto's assassination shows that we need an experienced hawk to defend America because otherwise Republicans will attack us. The former isn't very good, as it consents to a conservative view of foreign policy. However, the later is even worse, since it implies we need to adopt a conservative view of foreign policy in which we don't really believe so that we can accrue more political power. One buys into Republican and conservative frames, while the other buys into Republican and conservative frames while simultaneously making Democrats look like valueless, power hungry politicians who think they can trick the rubes who are the American people. And so, in addition to making Democrats look weak on national security, DLC types like Bayh end up reinforcing a second insidious conservative narrative: that Democrats are a bunch of soulless, liberal elites who think they are better than most of the backward rubes who live in America.

The electability language of the DLC is so colossally bad for Democrats as a whole that it is difficult to think of a less effective way for Democrats to get elected than continuing to utilize said language.