by Jonathan Singer, Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 05:23:08 PM EST
It's about time for an open thread... What's on your mind?
by Jonathan Singer, Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 05:23:08 PM EST
It's about time for an open thread... What's on your mind?
I agree with the above comment. The abiding storyline from Nevada will be Obama's petulance. As I described it in an earlier post, "an unforced error".
I've done an analysis in a spreadsheet of the Democratic delegate race that people might find interesting. It's what I believe Obama needs to do to win the nomination, state-by-state, must notably winning California. It's quite a tall order. I'll have the Republican race up tomorrow on my blog.
Edwards influence on the race is gone. He won't be making "kings" of anyone this cycle, nor for the balance of his political career in all likelyhood. It has been fairly obvious from the beginning he would endorse Obama if his endorsement had any impact. Now that it no longer has any effect, he may hold off and just endorse the obvious winner to save face.
Never say never, but I can't see ANY POSSIBLE SCENARIO for Obama to win the Dem nomination. His campaing relies on a hands on approach to get his charisma across adequately. There just isn't enough time and resources left to have the effect he had on Iowa in the remaining states.
Basically the campaigns spent half their available campaigning time and funds before Iowa even voted. The remaining 50% has to be spread between 49 states.
Nevada kind of puts the lie to the idea that Obama automatically moves the polls when he personally campaigns. In the first two Nevada polls after New Hampshire, Clinton led by 3 in one and Obama led by 2 in the other. Yet, 11 days after New Hampshire, 11 daus during which both candidates spent most of their time in Nevada, Clinton winds up winning by six. And that's even with the brand-new endorsement of what was supposed to be Nevada's most politically powerful union providing the wind at his back.
You're putting this race to the convention. Despite your call that Obama would have more delegates, do you really think Obama can come out of the convention as the presidential nominee with the Democratic establishment behind Clinton?
Given that a majority of SDs are uncommitted, its really a stretch to say she has the support of the establishment. If the SDs start to flock to her now or after Feb 5, then your statement has merit... until then, while she DOES have a lead in SDs, both have relatively small amounts of the overall available numbers. Those SDs will make the difference, and while the Clintons have a lot of power in the party, Obama has some powerful people backing him as well. Momentum is clearly on her side however so it may not come down to the SDs being an issue anyhow... or they may start flocking. Super Tuesday could make a big difference... heck just the SPIN out of super Tuesday could make all the difference... remember Mondale in 84. While Obama's path is difficult and Hillary looks like she will probably win, its never over until its over.
Yes, but we still support the nominee whether it is Obama or Clinton.
I honestly don't understand how anyone could believe that Hillary has no core beliefs. I just can't even come to terms with that sort of mentality.
It's like there's this group of Democrats who believe that Rush Limbaugh is wrong about everything, except for the subject of Hillary Clinton, where he is 100% correct.
Even IF it were true that Hillary has "no core beliefs", she is still a Democrat, and party labels do matter.
People who would vote Republican because the Democratic nominee is an individual they don't like are we cult-followers, not serious voters. Serious voters understand, for example, that Supreme Court nominees will come out of a very different pool of candidates depending on whether POTUS #44 is a D or an R.
Even if I despised Hillary, I would still vote for her in November for at least three reasons: Rush Limbaugh's fat head would explode; little Sean Hannity would die of apoplexy; and leggy Ann Coulter would choke on her own bile. These may be minor consolations, but wouldn't they make another Clinton administration just a little easier to stomach?
If you want to know what Hillary believes in, go to her website.
But you don't really want to know so you won't go to the website, because you aren't really interested. You just want to disparage her candidacy.
I suggest you take some time to watch her, listen to her. Seriously, just keep an open mind and give her a second look, I think you'll start to wonder where a lot of your preconceptions came from.
Yes, 4-8 more years of peace and prosperity. Oh, the horrors...
I hate to say it but its time for Edwards to quite the campaign and let Obama have a clean shot at Hillary. He's our only hope to stop the Clintons.
I'm a Dem. Ward Chair in NM and living in dread of Hillary being the candidate. She believes in nothing except what the pollster tells her and literally makes me sick to my stomach.
I think you will find Edwards actually helps Obama.
If Edwards quits I think a good portion (certainly at least 40%) of voters will go to Clinton while if he stays there is a good chance all Edwards delegates would go to Obama (assuming the DNC would allow that).
(In SC, for example, where Obama is 3rd among white voters, I would think the margin Obama enjoys would disappear overnight if Edwards pulls out.)
Personally I think Clinton will either win outright because Obama will lose many white voters. However, if the convention is brokered I expect Clinton to be the nominee and Obama the VP.
I tend to agree on the brokered convention aspect (not on the rest), unless Obama has a lot bigger delegate count, but that seems unlikely. They will either be close or she will have a lead but not enough IF it goes to the convention. At that point, we see a Johnson/Kennedy situation with the rolls reversed this time.
If 40% went to Clinton then 60% (or close to it) go to Obama. He would b +20% in that case.
I'm pretty much in the same camp -
Hillary is so owned by the Corporations it makes me sick. As I said at the top of the thread I'm a Ward Chair and I know so many folks who won't work for Hillary. When a picture of McCain came up on the telle last night I told my roomie to take a look at the next president of the United States.
Look if John Mccain wins the republican nomination I am worried about our chances in November
I have been fearing for months now , ever since January of last year that sooner or later the republicans will come to their senses and realize that if they want to have a chance of keeping the white house they would nominate John Mccain.
It seems they are coming to their senses and thats trouble for the democrats .
I'm telling you when the 527s start posting commercials of him and Bush from 2004 all friendly, he will take a big big hit. Polls suggest it will open close with either Obama or Hillary against him (with both leading the others). I think either can take him down... btu I agree HE is our toughest opponent. Go Mitt!!! 15% is not bad for pulling out of the state. Wonder what grabs bigger headlines tommorrow? NV or SC
I don't think McCain is going to hack it in the YouTube era. He is too old, too hot-tempered, too erratic. As much as the media tries to cover for him, there are just going to be too many unfiltered McCain moments for the public to remain comfortable with him. He's not the same guy he was in 2000.
I certainly would prefer he not be the nominee but I feel quite optimistic about our chances against him.
I agree with the fear...but not the explanation that Republicans are coming to their senses. It's more that John McCain almost ran a general election campaign through the primaries. At first, Huckabee and Romney and Giuliani appeared to roll over him. But in time, I think McCain continues to get elevated because base in the GOP is so fractured that a guy who isn't really an issues candidate....namely McCain.... does a good job of filling in as Bush's "heir apparent".
By contrast, this isn't working on the Democratic side for Obama because it's a two-person race, as opposed to the Republican free-for-all.
Still I agree that Democrats do not want a McCain-Clinton contest. There's no way for Hillary to run to the right of McCain on the war. And as a result, to win she has to try and make economic issues in the general everything. But in the states where that message is most receptive population and representation in the Electoral College is declining. By simply going to the West and South again, the GOP likely wins a squeaker in '08. Obama wouldn't be able to avoid the close race...but by be able to hammer McCain on the war...he might be able to make inroads in key states.
SurveyUSA is the best pollster in SC race. Here's their last poll.
McCain 31, Huckabee 27, Romney 17, Thompson 16, Paul 5, Rudy 2
McCain 33, Huckabee 30, Romney 15, Thompson 16, Paul 4, Rudy 2
ARG is the worst pollster....
zogby was good for nevada and iowa
I believe Clinton's margin is much bigger in terms of popular votes based on entrance poll. Mason-dixson's prediction of 9 pts win is perhaps more accurate. The stupid relignment, allocation of delegate again screwed up clinton big time in NV.
I'm not sure how it would... NV is different from Iowa in that once you pick a candidate you are with them unless they are non viable. Supporters can't cross over to others like they can in Iowa to help diffuse another candidate... so Obama people couldn't go to Edwards group in an effort to put Hillary in third in the precint. Lots less gamesmanship than in Iowa.
I am an active Demo in Indiana and if Hillary is the candidate, we have lost our chance to knock off a very unpopular GOP governor, will lost control of the state house of representatives, will lose 1 to 3 congressional seats and county offices all over the state........doom and gloom is starting to set in.
Brilliant strategy. Notice how the Obama supporters all seem to believe this is a very clever bit of spin on the campaign's part.
If you go to the Obama website, it proudly announces the Nevada results: 13-12 in delegates for Obama. Like a spoiled child.
Obama himself is a spoiled boy. This is exactly I absolute hate his candidacy, it is contrary to the value system I have.
You have to earn everything.
What an absolute ignorant statement...unless your value system is one of NOT giving a damn about people at all or working for the betterment of the country. Then I'd agree your system is th opposite of his.
Wow. I can't believe it, but it's true. I hope Clinton beats the pants off of him.
DemoDan so your trying to tell me that Hillary will cause dems in Indiana to vote for the Gop or stay home? Please guy, what would Indiana prefer Obama? Will he help a red state become a blue state?
Actually I think Obama would have a better shot in Indiana than Hillary, but I don't think it goes blue unless Bayh is on the ticket...a nd even then it will be close.
Ok. Now that Edwards has done the fade in Nevada its obvious he's not going to make it. So what am I left with?
I've got a candidate who loves her some Lieberman and I've got another candidate who loves him some Reagan. Great. Will someone please show me a real damn Democrat in this group? Having been a Democrat all my life there will never be a circumstance where I will ever vote for a Republican. So I'll vote for the Dem nominee in the general. But damn if I can understand how the hell rank and file Democrats can vote for them some luke warm Democrats who never met a GOP talking point and an issue frame they didn't like.
"The Buck Stopped Here"
It's what we here call 'the change election'. It's all about 'bringing the country together'.
I agree that we, as progressives, won't get our first choice, JRE. But he changed the debate, pushed it to the left. Now we have to work on a more local level, getting rid of Republicans and Bush Dog Dems in the house and in state houses.
Nevada, per usual, was more predictable than the typical state. I posted here last week that I would be quite surprised if Hillary didn't win. I live in Henderson and it always felt like a Hillary advantage. Female politicians fare well in Clark County, and Clark County dictates the course of events in Nevada politics. I was confident the middle age to older union women would stick with Hillary, regardless of culinary leadership preference, something I stressed in a desmoulins diary.
A few days ago I posted on Las Vegas Gleaner that this reminds me more and more of Lamont/Lieberman. The netroots did an awesome job in the primary but that led to remarkable overconfidence, ignoring how dramatically the playing field would change in the general. Independents and Republicans would not be impressed by the hatred of Lieberman. Then throughout the fall the poll gap led to desperate claims, like surreal GOTV edge by Lamont, anything to deny the inevitable Lieberman edge, which was based on logical numbers among vital blocks, and longstanding strength able to overcome a flail by a newcomer.
Obama is a far superior candidate to Lamont so this is closer, but many of the dynamics are familiar. Target Hillary was knocked off in the opening round, producing similar misplaced netroots euphoria to '06. Hillary's strength among women was never going to roll over and disappear. But lately we're seeing the predictable overreaction to non-events like the Michigan percentages. Or Obama's lack of a concession speech. Hey, I guess everyone's got to pick an angle, or ten, every day. Big picture observing is more apt to identify the survivor, IMO, than daily obsession over irrelevancy.
IMO, the race is over. I posted throughout fall '06 that Lamont/Lieberman screamed a 9-12 point race, based on raw math and logical distribution. Similarly, I've never been able to adjust Obama above Hillary, factoring the trump card gender-based edge, fortified by the memory of economic prosperity in her husband's terms. No way a vague foreign conflict remains the overriding #1 issue cycle after cycle, even if young Democrats are prepared to scream Iraq as if the page never turned from 2006.
I'll give the examples of my two sisters and aunt. They are all typically apolitical but favor Hillary strongly, as does my mother, a longtime voter. Virtually every day they express concerns about housing realities and gas prices, and rising costs at the grocery store and elsewhere. Iraq is now a brief once-a-week topic, on average.
The netroots is invaluable in obscure primaries like Tester in '06, and things like instant fact checking and the recent blitz on Chris Matthews, but traditional factors will continue to dictate the presidential nominee and the presidential result.
Agreed with most of it about insurgency campaigns going bad. The Lieberman-Hillary equating...hard to accept. Some of Hillary's staffers helped Lamont iirc, but it wasn't enough and there wasn't enough time to really get at Lieberman's bases of support.
I think the emotional content of people's views going back to the Cold War are indeed expending themselves. There's some realization that Iraq is a matter of a supermajority, not merely 50%+1, and moderate Republicans are the crucial last bloc that has not yet given up on the enterprise.
On the Other Side, the war-as-solution crowd has also reached emotional expenditure. The end is near on Iraq, but Iraqis control the events that force the decision.
I first "got involved" in politics in college in the 1960s. For various reasons and from time to time, my husband and I have encountered the delegate issue. My impression of the comments here and elsewhere concerning the "number of delegates" is that a "number of people" need to pause and take a deep breath. The Democratic Party's process has evolved over the years; so, it is wise to familiarize ones self with the rules. In general--in a number of states (and, it sounds similar to what the Nevada chair is trying to say) there are different types of delegates. In many cases, they are not allocated following the "beauty contest" upfront that may be the caucus or the first step. Eventually, through the county and state conventions, pledged delegates are identified to reflect the intent of the voters. But, there are other categories of delegates. The superdelegates (elected officials, DNC reps, party officials) are an unpledged component of that delegation that may vote according to their individual determination. AND: If memory serves, there may be additional unallocated reserve delegates that are appointed by the chair near the conclusion of the process. (Each State's rules will vary somewhat.) From the comments attributed to Obama's campaign, there appears to be a disparity with what the Nevada chair says is the case. Translation: Down the road--if things progress as is--the likelihood is that Senator Clinton would receive the additional share per her obvious, well-reported win in Nevada. I am suggesting that Senator Obama's campaign may be asserting the somewhat erroneous position about Nevada delegate "allocation" prematurely because most people do not yet understand the rather complicated delegate allocation process (including the ready reporters.) So, please, take some time to read the rules. Christinep
Hillary's strength among women was never going to roll over and disappear.
I amazed that so-called pundits have had such a hard time grasping this rather obvious fact. Hillary started the year with 33% (give or take) of the Democratic voters who were die hard unmovable supporters, to a great extent driven by the symbolic and emotional commitment to electing the first female President in 230 years.
The more Hillary is attacked by her opponents and demonized by the media (even on a night when she wins), the more this 33% digs in their heels. The Democratic Party needs to figure this out pretty darn soon because this 33% (who are the backbone of the Democratic voter block) have resentment that is reaching the boiling point.
What control does the Party have over the media. And don't play that bullshit martyr crap... she has been every bit as vicious of a candidate the last few months, probably more so. The party doesn't control the media... the candidates attack each other. When she stops having Bill throw tantrums then you can whine. (Funny how Bill's tantrums both happened the day before NH and NV)
And if you honestly think 33% of Democrats leave or vote GOP because she isn't the nominee you are just delusional.
Maybe it would be better off asking why the other 67% are die hard supporters. Bush has about 30% die hard supporters too... the rest of us hate him. That 67% can make you really happy or really lonely very fast.
The campaign has been flailing around wildly since New Hampshire. They were really in a decent position then if they had just stayed positive and cautious, which is what had gotten them as far as they got.
Good thing we got a glimpse at the man behind the curtain before it was too late.
He can dish it out, but he can't take it. No class- he expects everything handed to him (besides his papers)
CNN barely played her "Victory" speech- only a clip of it- I waited a long time for that and that bugged me- I didn't even get to hear her "so this is how the west was won" line which sounded like it could have been a good one.
yes, quite interesting ....
The ugly atmosphere was certainly fueled by overreaching by the Culinary Workers Union, which faced accusations of strong-arming workers into supporting Obama. While Bill Burton, Obama communications director, told me those charges had been "debunked" on Friday, it was clear they were still roiling workers. I interviewed Sylvia Antuna on Friday, after her account of CWU intimidation was dismissed by both the Las Vegas Sun and the Obama campaign. Even if she was just one potential voter, her tale of coercion by CWU Obama supporters was disturbing. But it was clear on Saturday that she wasn't alone. "It has been really bad," cocktail server Nicky Nicolescu told me Saturday before the caucus began. "We could have a black president or a woman president, it should be great, but the union made this deal for power." Nicolescu said her boss was more help getting her free from work to caucus than the union was.
The Culinary Union shop stewards tried to throw Chelsea Clinton out of the Paris casino on Friday when she went there to campaign.
Clinton ended up winning at the Paris caucus 69% to 31%.
Core values of Senator Hillary R. Clinton
Are that everyone in this country should have opportunity open to them and expanding the opportunities for the middle class economically is the key to making this happen. She herself rose from modest middle-class background through educational opportunity.
She is committed to social justice and civil rights and has a very strong and formidable record of actual achievement. She is dedicated to improving the lot of the nation's children and to extending quality affordable health care for all.
Internationally she has stood up for human rights and the rights of women--most notably in her address in China.
Her foes have perpetually underestimated her and it appears they are doing so even after her impressive victory in Nevada. She is an astute politician and understands not only the practice of governance but the art and practice of politics.
She has guts and determination and is showing it now.
Any further questions about her core values?
If you're hanging your hat on a war vote, and you're an Obama supporter, you're being disingenuous. Obama wasn't in the senate in 2002 when the war vote came to the floor. His insistence that he gave a speech against it and would have voted against it is bunk. Complete bunk. Obama doesn't get to say what he "would have done." He didn't have the kinds of pressures on him that the congress did.
Obama also was also conviently away when the kyle-liebermann measure went to the floor. So.. he didn't vote on THAT either. He also voted "present" over 150 times as a state senator - many of those times having to do with choice. You should know that "present" means that you refuse to take a stand.
Now talk to me about someone who won't take a stand. For chrssakes.. Clinton has been hammered for decades for the stands she took and for the things she's done. If you dont' see it, it's because you simply wont.
I don't remember there being a shift in the political climate during the 90's. We had just gone through 12 years of Reagan-Bush, and there was a virtually unopposed Republican noise machine. Liberalism was nowhere to be found in the mainstream.
When Clinton was elected, he tried to get the country moving in the right direction again. The essential reason we didn't get major progressive reforms like healthcare isn't because of tactical mistakes, although that's become the narrative. The reason is because the mood of the country was fundamentally receptive to the sort of criticisms that sunk Clinton's plan.
After the 1994 election, Clinton scaled back his ambitions, pursued a much more incremental strategy, and wound up having a fairly successful presidency. I think any good progressive should feel a measure of disappointment towards what we got out of the 90s, but I strongly believe the root of the problem was the country, not Bill Clinton. There's no question that the country ended up better off than we would have if a Republican had been in charge all those years.
I feel that there's been a significant change in the mood of the electorate and their willingness to hear liberal ideas, and we now have at least some ability to fight back against the right-wing noise machine. It does concern me that Hillary, having been once bitten, might be too cautious and not seize this opportunity to the fullest extent possible. But if that's the worst-case scenario, I'll take my chances. A reputation for boldness hasn't exactly taken over many other people within the Democratic Party, either.
The Reno Gazette took off their full video of the Afternoon with Obama. I was wondering if you know where else it can be found or better still if there is a transcript of it anywhere. Thanks!
The attack against Senator Clinton for "Centrism" has been frequently leveled, and generally takes the form as argued above by code blue.
Of course, the real question is what are these so-called Progressive values? Whose agenda and what values?
All too frequently the word "progressive" (and usually capitalized) is being used not to refer to the values that were pursued by the true progressive movement in the United States.
This is a gross misrepresentation. True progressives of that era (Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson, for example) were not isolationist, but married ideas of social reform and reigning in corporate power with civic enlightenment and beautification (for example parks) with internationalist pro-democracy ideals.
Both Senator Clinton and Senator Obama are heirs to this tradition in their support of health care reform and an activist U.S. foreign policy that promotes democratic values--to cite just two examples.
Many who call themselves progressives in today's context are, it seems, not true progressives in the sense of advocacy of a progressive internationalist foreign policy--and yet such policies are part of every Democratic Party platform going back certainly to Franklin Roosevelt and probably also to Woodrow Wilson.
Both Senator Clinton and Senator Obama have centrist and progressive ideas and either one of them would strive to govern from the progressive center, as defined by the mainstream democratic tradition, if elected.
This is not trivial but important. Those who advocate for this so-called "fundamental change" need to be more explicit about what it is precisely they are advocating for.
The voters have every right to know what it is you stand for and have a chance to vote up or down. It appears that caucus attendees--including large numbers of hispanic workers and women--are backing Senator Clinton, and the next few weeks are going to be very telling.
It is simply not enough to be against something--against Bill Clinton's NAFTA proposal or even against George Bush. This will not be enough.
Criticizing Bill Clinton's administration or his advocacy of NAFTA sounds good--but it may have almost nothing to do with solving the problems that America faces right now.
The way our politics is supposed to work is--you get to say what your proposals for fundamental change are--and then the voters get to decide.
That's what is happening right now in the primary and caucus states.
We shall soon learn the verdict.
Had Obama won and Hillary had refused to congratulate Obama and thank her volunteers, the press would have made that the top topic on the Sunday morning shows.. What did you hear about it this morning? We hear about the Clinton machine, maybe we should hear more about the Obama machine...