Obama turned out a good number of his base but the caucus system is slightly unpredictable + it just worked out that this time Obama lost.

South Carolina will be a win.

If he had not won the media primary he'd be on the verge of collaspe right now.

That being said, Obama is tanking now because voters are paying attention, and low and behold, those of us who said all along there was no "movement" where right.

Obama's movement was a cynical creation of his campaign.  They hoped that if they built it voters would come after back to back wins in IA and NH.  Clinton didn't play along.  The one two punch and the freight train of momentum that would have followed vanished.

Now voters in the rest of states are left to decide on relatively short notice.  They take a quick look and vote.   Obama doesn't have 9 months to drop $15 million on them and send supporters knocking on each door 10 times.

More voters are making solid, sound choices based on real issues and real experience, and not going for hype or hope or a roll of the dice.  

His attacks on Clinton's are not helping either.  Voters over 35 remember the Clinton years, we lived through them.  Many of us have a great deal of respect for the Clinton's despite some faults on their part.

Also, I think his comments about not being good at running a beauracracy and wanting to do more of the vision thing while delagating may have hurt him more than the Reagan thing (a double whammy none the less).  After 7 years of Bush being absent and delagating to Cheney, I think some voters said WTF when they heard that.

I think he is going to come out firing at the debate which might change the dynamic.

On the arms being tied.

WHile I know that Obama and his supporters will never complain about the near free ride they are getting in the press, Democrats should be troubled.

The media has weighed in on this race.  We see it in tv and print.

Matthews, Carlson, Brazile (yes media member), Robinson, Alter, Norris, Rich, the list is a mile long, of elite, establishment reporters, pundits and columnists who have jumped into this race and worked hard on Obama's behalf.   It is disgusting to see them work to influence and outcome.

The media really wants Clinton to run a nice and friendly campaign and let Obama win -- but make it look good, like she tried.   Everytime she or Bill try to fight and try to win the media jumps and down and screams how unfair it all is.

One very pragmatic reason I think the youth vote is gradually disappearing is because it takes a lot of work to make this demographic turn out.  Obama did an incredible job in Iowa, but he had the benefit of six months of organizing in that state and an eight-figure expenditure number.

It was an impressive achievement, particularly given how many politicians have gone by the wayside because of supposedly massive youth support that never showed up.  But after Iowa, I had to caution a number of people that they shouldn't necessarily assume Obama had rewritten the book on American politics based upon a single data point.

Meanwhile, Hillary has a big edge among the older voters who show up for every election and don't need to be reminded.  How dreadfully boring - and effective.

Super Tuesday will be the acid test for Obama's ability to turn out the youth vote, because obviously there's no time to put together anything like the Iowa GOTV model in all those states.  I think the smart money is on expecting things to work the way they've always worked, but I'm at least willing to have my thesis tested by empirical results.

This is the problem with depending on the youth vote. Apparently it only works when you have lots of time to round them up and make sure that they go vote. Every candidate I remember who has been dependent on the youth vote to win has eventually lost. You have to expand your voting base.

The story isn't Ronald Reagan, it's Bill Clinton.

The notion that Nevada caucus goers cared about Obama's "Reagan" statements is preposterous, it's blogger puffery.

The Clinton strategy is to suck the media oxygen out of Obama's sails with the only tool at their disposal, Bill Clinton. If the voters can't hear Obama's message of hope and change, they won't vote for him.

That's the real story of the totals you're referring to.

And, yes, Barack Obama is losing primaries because

a) he is off his message of hope and change
b) the media oxygen is going to Bill

There's a reason that the Clinton's attacked Obama's message and belittled it. Obama's message works.

When was the last time you read a story that the 2008 election was about change? Well, that's because the 2008 election has now become about Bill Clinton.

That strategy has real perils for Senator Clinton.

a) because it opens her up, early in the primaries, to the potential for "Party Elder Revolt" against the Clinton Wing...

and

b) it is setting Senator Clinton up for some very, very, very nasty and persuasive attacks in the general. This election WILL BE about Bill Clinton. You're either sanguine about that or not.

But, no, thinking that Obama's misquoted and misconstrued comments about Reagan meant anything to anyone outside the thin slice of Democrats who worry over this stuff on blogs is missing the real story.

There's one story in the Democratic Primary right now, and it's all about Bill Clinton.

So Obama went on GMA today to whine about how the Clinton's are being too mean to him?

Pass the smelling salts!

Someone needs to inform the Obama's that this is Presidential politics. Further, if this is how Obama is going to over-react to what has been a very, very, mild and civil campaign, it gives me no confidence in his ability to withstand the the ruthless GOP attack machine.

All of the candidates have spouses who are strongly advocating for their respective spouses. Bill Clinton has every right to make his case as he sees fit.

Further, whatever the media thinks about Bill Clinton is irrelevant. Ultimately, it's for the voters to decide.

And if the the election results and exit polls from NH, MI, and NV are any indication, the voters seem support the conclusion that Bill Clinton knows what he's doing.

Seriously, Jerome, you are becoming a joke with these posts.  I am an Edwards supporter and never much listened to all of your critics whenever you would write a post criticizing Obama.  But it has just been too much now.  Every other day you write a post criticizing Obama, which, in and of itself is fine.  However, where are your posts criticizing Clinton?  It's not like there is nothing to criticize.

So, I join with Obama supporters in calling bullshit.  How anyone can read a post anymore about Obama by you and take it seriously is beyond me.

His tolerance of anti-gay sentiment on the campaign trail is likely another reason his support is waning  among true progressives.  Talking about lessening the power of homophobia in the church while campaigning with virulently anti-gay religious leaders in those same churches is appalling and LGBT Americans and their allies have noticed.  If you haven't noticed, please read http://homophobama.blogspot.com/ for a good overview of the Obama campaign's homophobia problem.

Simple: Obama won the youth vote by a high margin in Iowa because of the high percentage of resident students of Illinois who temporarily registered for the Iowa Caucus to vote for Obama. Obama tried to repeat this in Nevada by asking folks to register as democrats for a day just to vote for him but Bill Clinton realized this and call him out.

The proportion of youth vote in Iowa was therefore an outlier which is not likely to be repeated.

Well I don't think Obama's campaign helped itself with the whole, Reagan was great, Bill not so much narrative in NV.  He had merely hinted of this in the past, when he said that the problems in Washington were there before GWB, meaning the Clintons and 90s. It also didn't help that they tried to paint Bill as a racist who was calling Obama's entire campaign a fairytale vs. his record on the war.  He certainly has Bill Clinton's attention now, and Bill may be a past Pres, but he still commands the mic, Obama's campaign made a mistake in taking him on.   I have no problem with this as long as Bill Clinton continues to get Hillary's message out.

These posts may contain information, but Jerome just isn't credible anymore.  And I say that sadly.  This was once the best of left political sites.  And on good days it still is, just not when Jerome posts anything about O.

There are many great ways to critique Obama.  But the bias here shows because Jerome just pulls out whatever is handy and throws it at a wall.  Some of it sticks, because some of it is right.   But a shit-flinging monkey isn't a marksman because once in a while he hits a target.

Obama is losing for a number of reasons.  1)  His Queen of Mean campaign, that worked so well in Iowa, is dead.  Women shamed Iowan women by rejecting it in NV, MI, and NH.  That's the most important part.  In Iowa, he ran the Q of M against Hillary, and Iowan women were sympathetic to it.  They choose to see Hillary in that light.  Hillary's more open campaigning since has killed that sorry storyline  2)Hill has deep, wide support that goes back 15 years, it was always going to be a hurdle ot overcome.  3)Obama cannot win among Dem's so he has had to reach out to more conservative voters, which has alienated his more Dem base, 4)Competence may be a more prevailing concern for rank and file Dem's than a lofty sense of "change" that appeals to the elite, 5)latinos, latinos, latinos, 6)older voters, 7)Hillary always could have gotten more of the youth vote than she started with, she just had to talk to the youth, low hanging fruit, she's doing that now.

I read Josh Marshall's theory about Clinton hurting his standing within the Democratic party, etc.

But here's my question, doesn't everyone who hears him criticize Obama take it with a grain of salt?  He isn't campaigning on behalf of John Edwards - choosing one Democrat over another, he's campaigning on behalf of his wife. Who doesn't know that Bill Clinton is Hillary Clinton's husband?  Who doesn't know that spouses are probably going to be for spouses?  

And he's gotten sort of a mixed response from the press.  So I'm not even sure his attacks on Obama hurt Obama all that much.  Although I am sympathetic to the theory that Clinton has the ability to knock Obama out of the press and reduce his coverage.  Indeed, I think the reason Bill Clinton has stepped forward was to try to blunt the media adoration of Obama.  

To the extent Bill Clinton had an effect in Nevada, I think it was visiting the casinos back rooms and chatting up caucus goers.  It is true that dishwashers at a casino rarely get lobbied by former Presidents for their votes.

I do think it could be a problem for Hillary in the long run if Bill Clinton remains front and center.  But I honestly don't see that happening.  I expect him to play a visible role in SC, but after that I think there will be a push to every corner of the Feb 5th states by all campaigns with as many surrogates as possible.  Bill Clinton will be one of those for his wife, but I think the nature of the spread out schedule makes it less likely he'll be pushed to the front (unless the media insist on putting him there).

Liberal voters are now aware of the gay bashing tour Obama launched with McClurkin in SC, and I imagine many of them are not pleased.

Wow, how many misstatements of fact can occur on the front-page of MyDD?  I feel like I'm reading the Washington Post.

1) Obama did not lose Nevada.  He will emerge with 1 more delegate than Hillary.  Obama organized the caucus with the purpose of taking the majority of the delegates - which he did.  Any differences in "popular" vote are noise, as you know as well as anyone the caucus system has nothing to do with popular votes.  So stop distorting the facts.  In reality, IA, NH and NV were pretty much a tie.

2) Obama did not create a "Reagan" problem- the press did in inaccurately and out of context quoting him.  He said nothing different about Reagan than what -gasp- Bill Clinton has said.  This is the mainstream media seeking to either prop Hillary up to make it a contest or to take Obama down.  Sorry you're participating in it.

3) Bill Clinton is using his position as former President (something VERY different than Elizabeth Edwards or Michelle Obama), his CREDIBILITY as former President to state falsehoods about voter suppression.  When put on the spot, the Clinton campaign has not pursued anything legally.  That is NOT asking him to "tie one hand behind his back" - that is asking him to be honest.

4) It was the Hillary camp's surrogates (talking about "shuckin' and jivin'", drugs, etc.) that started this race thing.  Talk about blame the victim.

So you know... OpenLeft has replaced MyDD on my No. 2 list of blogs (Kos #1 of course) precisely because of this pro-Clinton spin from the editors of the site.  We're not stupid.

That was tough

"Obama lost his THIRD in a row"??  NH and NV counts as two in my book. Wishful thinking on his part I guess. Please come out and endorse Clinton so at least we can dispose of your bogusly claimed neutrality.  Ridiculous. This website is going down the tubes...

...another entry from Jerome on how Obama's candidacy is doomed.

He may be right, but he needs to give it a break.  His gal is going to win and that will be the end of all this "change" nonsense.

Let the party continue.

Some info for those interested in this stuff (I am). Unions in Nevada and in the coming general election:

http://www.financialarmageddon.com/2008/ 01/unions-on-the-u.html

Without Obama in the race, Edwards would be doing better among liberals for sure.

But a lot of the Wall Street, Chicago and Hollywood money Obama has raised would not have gone to Edwards. It would have gone to Clinton or stayed in people's wallets.

On the other hand, I read a few months ago that some of the big fundraisers in Chicago were worried about Obama's lack of traction against Hillary. The ones who had been close to Clinton but backed Obama were worried about losing access if Clinton won, and the ones who genuinely wanted an alternative to Hillary thought Edwards or Biden would have done more with the money and media hype Obama has had.

That article appeared before Obama started surging in Iowa, though.

When Jerome accepts his lucrative paid position on the Clinton campaign after she gets the nomination I guess he'll be exposed for what he is.

Edwards' biggest problem is his own Senate record and moderate stances.  If he had come up as a progressive in the party and was known as one during his career then there would be a more organic movement around him.  Many progressives chose Obama's new vision over Edwards' explanations of his moderate past.

Another fact-flawed post in which Jerome attacks Obama, what a shock. Let's count the problems here:

1) Obama was pointing out that Reagan left a legacy, something that Clinton and other presidents did not do.

2) Despite incorrectly claiming that Obama "adores" Reagan, he ignored the fact that Reagan and HW Bush are on Clinton's list of favorite presidents.

3) Comparing IA, NH, and NV trends side-by-side, despite the fact that these are three very demographically different states. Oh, and a lot of people were pointing out after Iowa that only one state had finished, but apparently three states can decide the primary.

4) Ignoring that actual trends. Obama saw sharp rises in his numbers in NH and NV, just not enough to catch Clinton. In Nevada he cut a 25-point deficit to a 6 point loss -- and that's despite losing the very liberal vote and low youth vote turnout. In the meantime, he's likely to beat her in SC, and has been rising in FL, CA and nationally.

The real picture here is that Obama has been rising a lot since Iowa, but as of yet not enough to catch Clinton. Whether or not he can is uncertain, but it looks like he'll at least do well enough to extend the primary to after Feb 5th.

As seen in a couple of his earlier responses, Jerome likes to make snarky remarks and pretend there's nothing wrong with what he's claiming, without actually addressing the problems in his analysis. Let's see if you're different here, Jerome.

It seems to me that Obama's only real shot at winning was about the MOMENTUM.  He lost that, and that's why he is losing.  I think if he had won New Hampshire, Nevada, and on to South Carolina, he would have collapsed the Clinton campaign - it does seem that way, though her national numbers could have given him a good fight.  The momentum now is hers, I don't see how he regain enough of it to get the nom.

Although it's possible.  You know, after Iowa, I read all the posts to some of the blogs, from people claiming they have been on campaigns for 20 odd years, etc., and then giving their analysis of Hillary's "fall" and how she was over and done, how they had been "right" all along at what would happen and then they arrogantly explained how it would play out according to their infinite wisdom, even expressing some pity for her and her supporters- waving her away as if she was already a relic of the past- well, they were WRONG.  And I would hate to turn into that- so I'll say it's still possible he could turn it around.

I also want to know how much money Obama has.  He spent the most in Iowa by several million and has BY FAR the most field offices in many states (not that that has helped him).

Sure is '08 money raised has been good, but what has he been spending?  Can he still go head to head with Clinton and really play in on 2/5 states?

Obama's problems are deep and true. I just have a feeling that, while Obama will probably win South Carolina, Clinton will easily cruise to the nomination, winning most of the big states by double digit margins. Obama needs to do better with women and better with registered Democrats. The latter becomes particularly importants in those closed primaries on Super Tuesday where only Dems can vote. His relying too much on the young vote has surely hurt him, and his lose among liberals is equally as troubling.

Over and over I see comments on this thread saying that Obama convinced people of his worth in Iowa and just didn't have time to do the same in Nevada.

Look at the rest of the calendar. If Obama was short of time for retail politics in Nevada, he'll have no time for most of the states to come.

Sounds like a formula for losing.

Also, people seem mystified about why there is a shift to Clinton among the very liberal. Look at how  Obama has campaigned recently (even without the praise of Reagan). His emphasis is not on recapturing power for the progressive movement, but on being "above" politics. To a lot of us, that sounds like he is abandoning the fight for progressive goals in order to get along. That's probably not entirely fair, but if liberal wait too long without hearing a battle cry they understand from Obama, they will look elsewhere.

but he's not blaming himself, and tweaking his message to speak to the concerns of Democrats. I think he's getting poor advice. Seems he lost NV partly because he hadn't enough preparation on the ground, not enough of his supporters there to help, apparently not even tables for them to meet up and gather as a group. What's amazing is his supporters don't blame him, they blame Hillary and think she's in charge of everything and ought to have had Obama's tables set up for them?  So, he may be losing the Democratic base that makes up our party, but he's keeping everyone who likes to blame Hillary.  What's it mean? This can't be good for our party. Where's the hope, not to mention where's the empathy, in that empathy deficit he highlighted just yesterday.  

And CGT too, and I'm saying that as an obama supporter. Most of what you say is just factual, and the rest just pushes on my slight tendency towards obama worship (hey, to love a candidate is to love a candidate) and I like that.

Finally, I like a winner, and I want obama to confront all of these things. It will be interesting to see if he can pull it out in the next couple of weeks. I think he can, but we'll see. I think the Reagan thing and the running a primary as if it were the general are interesting critiques of obama. I just wonder if he can pull it all together.

In sum, I see a big difference between musing about a candidate's chances based on a theory, and actively shilling for a candidate, and I don't think Jerome is doing the latter.

On the other hand, pushing back on Bill, who is sort of upstaging Hillary, and making the hardball tactics of the Clinton's explicit for all to see may actually be a winning tactic, because it's an aspect of the Clinton's that many feel ambiguous about.

1. He was never going to win Nevada. Its a machine state and was frankly a poor choice for a western primary. But it was always in the Clinton's bag.

There is no such thing as 'very liberal' in Nevada.

2. He lost NH by 2 points. Granted those two points may end up costing him the presidency but his current predicament has absolutely nothing to do with losing his base.

Here's what I think happened wit the youth vote.

I don't think they give a rat's ass about Reagan. If that were true, we'd see MORE youth supporting Hillary than they did in New Hampshire.  That wasn't the case.  If anything, Obama solidified his lead among youth after briefly losing the 25 - 29 year old vote to Clinton in New Hampshire.

Youth come out when you target them and speak to them.  The candidates spent months courting younger voters in IA and NH.  They spent about a week doing so in Nevada.  Top that off with the fact that this caucus was a relatively new event in Nevada, school was out of session, many Nevada schools are commuter schools - making canvassing difficult - and the fact that an early caucus time made it difficult for young voters who work the night shift to participate and you've got a dramatic decrease in the number of youth turnout.

For what it is worth, while young voters made up a smaller share of the electorate this time around, youth turnout was still way up over 2004 levels (when only 9,000 voters total participated), and three times as many young people participated in the Democratic Caucus as did the GOP caucus.  

Democrats are still maintaining a strong lead among young voters and Nevada could be a swing state in the general election.

More on this here.

he made the comments to regarding Reagan.

I am beginning to think Obama is screwing up on purpose so as to find a graceful way to exit from the scene.

The Rezko trial is coming up, and regardless of whether or not Obama did anything wrong, just the association with a mob-connected slumlord will sink him.

I have my theory about Obama and Edwards and whether there is any "deal" is in the works.  Something is going on and something is going to happen quickly.

Jerome's analysis is sadly unpersuasive.

Jerome directs our attention to a few, isolated factors, then suggests that his hand-picked factors caused Obama to narrowly lose Nevada.  This kind of gross oversimplification certainly is the bread and butter of political columnists and pundits, and it is apparently consumed with gusto by the chattering classes, but it is, in reality, a misleading oversimplification. (FWIW, Obama barely, narrowly lost Clark county, but won the rest of the state of Nevada.)

Obama was WAY behind in Nevada going into the final weeks of the caucus. I am sorry to break the news to Jerome, but the state of Nevada is NOT a great fit for Obama.  (By the way...northern and rural Nevada is an even worse fit for Hillary...so yes...she was at a disadvantage there.) Hillary had the entire Clark county political machine (very potent) behind her, and they worked their brains out for her.  And her narrow victory is substantially owed to them and their admirably hard work.  On the face of it, Obama had no business even being competitive in Nevada.  

In fact, had Obama not received the Culinary endorsement (and the SEIU endorsement), he would probably have lost Nevada by double digits. That would have been totally predictable.  Instead, with that endorsement, and over a million dollars in ads, and an incredible organization, Obama closed the gap to essentially eke out a tiny loss, and a tie, if not victory, convention delegate wise.  

Obama's Nevada results were flat out incredible.

Instead of recognizing this fact, and it is a fact, Jerome decides to spin Obama's results negatively, telling us he would have won if he had had more support among the 18-29 years olds and liberals.  

Uh yes, Obama also might have eked out a win if he had had more support among any other group as well.  Take your pick: women, 29-35 year olds, over 40, hispanics, african americans, professionals...the list can go on and on.  

There is a real artificiality to analysis such as Jerome's that pretend to explain a large, multi-factored, multi-faceted election result using pat, simplistic explanations.  Hey, I got an idea. Let's simplify this election stuff for mass consumption: that election was decided by soccer moms and values voters. Yuck.

Resist simplistic explanations.  Real life is never that simple. The results in Nevada had a thousands mothers, not the three that Jerome has decided to toss his readership today.