I disagree. I would need to know a lot more. I would also assume home team advantage. I would wonder if this is more an example of a Democratic wave year, which by the way, in trying to make this about Obama, no one is noting. What if it's more a case of an example of what all the generic indicators have been showing. That it's not specific to Obama but the fact people are identifying with Democrats in general? Let's say it is this (not that I'm certain, but let's say it's true) then this too would affect strategy, would it not? Then it would mean that candidates could feel more at easy to run on Democratic values. Didn't this candidate run on some of those too? Wasn't he unabashedly Democratic in his appeal as a candidate-- ie, running against FISA, for UHC, using the Democratic brand rather than running away from it? Do you now seem the deeper problems I have with this analysis. It's not about Obama, or CLinton, but how we may, by coming to quick CW, be missing out on something more fundamental than Obama or the Presidential run.
No. Why? Changing the parties, and the location, doesn't change the dynamic that makes me skeptical of the argument about national coattails. You conflate Schwartznegger's local appeal in CA with national coattails outside of his homestate. It maybe interesting and can be spun by the GOP, but it doesn't make your point about national coattails. Indeed, I suspect none of you would accept such an argument if the GOP did make it.
I said the exact opposite of what you attribute to me at the beginig of your post. It's all chatter until people start formulating strategies because foolishly they accept the chatter as fact. i.e., Obama has coattails across the country due to the example of that victory in IL so that means we should take our resources and cut commercials across the country in close races with Obama in it. Indeed, you just wrote something similar in your post with the cut regarding Clinton.
Thank you for this post. This is exactly the point of remaining skeptical as to why Foster won his district. These outside factors may have helped, but in terms of winning the district going forward, and winning other districts, we need to keep the narrative firmly focused on those things that will actually matter rather than draining resources and time on strategies that may not have mattered because we don't bother to question our own assumptions.
I get that many of you are trying to spin this, and that the Democratic party has been running on these over statements for much of this primary. I remind you that whether its Clinton or Obama , we will face significant hurdles in the general that no one is discussing for various reasons. Some of it ID politics related to race. Some of it, about what are the battle ground states related to long term 50 state strategies. Some of it for various reasons on various topics. Let me put this another way- if you want to win, the best approach isn't to come up with a CW and run with it without being skeptical of it. It's the question it to make certain an idea has been fully vetted. Has that happened here, or are we once again like with Kerry accepting a lot of CW as truth?
Clinton could say it, and it wouldn't change the faultiness of the argument, which is about extrapolating from a local win as to what it means for a national campaign. I repeat-- this is the equivalent of saying that Daly of Chicago has national coattails because he can help a candidate win in Chicago. Its the equivalent of Clinton making the same argument about NY state.
This is about what CW is accepted and how that affects our chances of winning in Nov because the CW leads to poor tactical choices. Not candidate choices, tactical ones.
I remain skeptical. In 2004, many Democrats said a lot of things about how Kerry was the man to beat Bush for a lot of CW reasons, and those people were wrong. I was one of those people who fell for the CW.
Frankly, the problem many of you face isn't me. Put another way, what happens when you go outside of your bubble to use these arguments in the GE with regard to strategies run and tactics used. I am not sure. I just know it's not a good idea to start off on a bunch of false ideas about a candidates strengths and weaknesses. People are even going as far as to say that a win by Foster in IL somehow says that Obama can beat McCain with regard to independents for coattails. Why exactly? Would you accept that argument if this were AZ and McCain argued that a candidate he endorced beat a Democrat who Obama beat there? If not, then that is the extent you should be skeptical here.
Et tu Singer? Let me sum it up like someone over at Open Left did. This argument is the equivalent of arguing that Daly of Chicago has national coattails just because he helped a local candidate win. No one would seriously make such as an attribution, but here that's exactly what we are being asked to believe. I know there is narrative and CW so nothing really matters here, but the argument would be valid if the indies were in a place where they weren't already inclined to endorse an Obama picked candidate over McCain. Ie, some neutral territory in which we could gauge this beyond narrative and CW. It certainly would give Obama a boost if this were something more than that.
I don't know if they are lying or not, but the idea that they would say vote Mr 100 Years War after 8 years of Bush destroys any notion that they are reasonable or analyzing where we are in this country. This is true whether its an Obama supporter or Clinton. I saw a major diary with something like 1300 comments over at daily kos in which the Teacher Ken (I believe an Obama supproter, but not certain) who said he wouldn't vote for Clinton if her names on the ballot, and then blah blah blah. Because after I read that, I stopped reading and left the diary. I didn't care about his reasoning. He lost me at I wouldn't vote for Clinton over McCain. My next thought is who was recommending this crap on a site that until recently was about electing Democrats over Republicans. Then i decided I didn't care, and I elft. Frankly, I am getting like that with some posters. I really don't care what they say because its all this over the top (I hope) crap meant to enflame rather than figure things out.
I called the Clinton supporters who say they aren't going to vote for Obama if he wins idiots and not Democrats. THat they will vote for McCain is dumb. That they are engaging in personality politics. Clinton or Obama is 100 times better than Mr. 100 Years War. BUT, that has nothing to do with this discussion. THis is about not putting false argument that try to extrapolate things that you can not and that many of you already are running with as a valid reasaon to push the conversation even further into the ground here and else where. It's about skepticism for the purpose of producing the best result rather than candidate support for the purpose of blinding following because you are afraid your candidate will lose.
This is the ultimate source of my frustration. I don't care who down rates you for pointing out the obvious. I note they attack you for pointing out the behavior that they exhibiting, which by the way, to those of you doing it, only goes to prove the point since you are clearly misuing the rating system here.
Maybe it was an overreaction on my part, but it's the result of frustration with how quickly will run with arguments now, no matter how flimsy. If they posted, provisos, and said, maybe this isn't true just once, rather than taki ng every assertion they throw out there as gospel then I would feel differently. But quitely frankly below even this monring you have folks like Bob Johnson arguin g how this is "bad for Clinton." It just goes further and further, and I don't see the value of creating these false arguments for candidates. This is how we got stuck, and then didn't try to improve Kerry. Accepting these electability arguments without question.