Hillary or Obama?

[Mister Tee]

taki, I'm glad I was able to turn someone on to The Keys. I'm not as doctrinaire about the system as Lichtman is -- I'd be loathe to declare a one-key election over the way he has (though he did get both 2000 and '04 correct), and I think some keys are debatable (how do you rate incumbent party contest or scandal this year?) -- but it certainly makes more sense than such media inventions as "the bin Laden video/the Bush DUI swung the election".

I also agree that this could be a realigning election, which is why it's so dispiriting the Clinton camp (Mark Penn, anyway) seems so stuck in the 16-state strategy Dukakis first unveiled.

Wes, you seem to be spouting talking points from Hillary's camp. Obama has won about as many primaries as Hillary has -- in addition to all those caucuses -- and, while she's won some of the bigger states, he's taken a number of important swing states: Wisconsin and Virginia, for two. And Damien is right on two counts: Texas is over, and the result is ambiguous -- Hillary barely won the popular vote, possibly aided by Limbaugh-inspired GOP crossovers; Obama won the delegate count. And counting Michigan in the Hillary column when Obama's name wasn't even on the ballot is absurd.

[Damien]

Texas is the real bellwether at this point. It represents the core of both candidates' minority bases. Obama has the blacks and Clinton the hispanics. Until Texas is decided, this election isn't decided.

The only place Obama has been consistently victorious is in states with Caucuses with only a couple giving any measure of support to Clinton. This suggests that Obama is better poised to win in situations where there's "discussion" and a popular vote isn't required. However, the national election is different.

What we have to look at are the shifting states. The ones that determine the election. We know that California, New York and most of New England will go Dem as will Illinois. The states you have to be most concerned with are Florida, Ohio and Michigan. These states are must wins for either party. And if you look at the victor in all three states, it's Hillary. You guys may not want to accept that fact, but whether Tee is right and fundamentalist nutsos won't be a factor and any Dem will win, we have to think about who's likely to win the states that are most important for Dems to carry to win the national.

Texas was decided the other day. Clinton won the primary, but Obama took the caucuses and emerged with more delegates.

One cannot claim straight-faced that Clinton won in Michigan and Florida. As had been ageed upon prior, no one campaigned in those states, and only Clinton was even on the ballot in Michigan. And everyone had agreed that those results would not count. It is so quintessentially Clintonian, that she now has the gall to claim those delegates should be seated -- and shows how this vile person will -- like her vile husband -- do anything to get elecetd.

The argument that because she won the primary in certain big states she then would do better there in the general election is sophistry. These are Democratic primaries, and winning them -- even when they are "open primaries" is no indication of how Republicans and independents will vote in the general election. According to polls, Obama would be a much stronger candidate than Clinton in most states.


By the way, I love the name of this article, "Hilary Rodham Nixon"
http://www.metrotimes.com/editorial/story.asp?id=12579

[Big Magilla]

I completely forgot about Jerry Brown even being in the race in 1992. He disappeared as quickly from the national scene then as Giuliani has now.

I voted for Jerry Brown in 1992. Everyone I knew was desperate to stop Clinton from getting the nomination.

Brown has remained active in public life, going on to be Mayor of Oakland. Isn't he now California Attornry General or Secretary of State?

Attorney General.

[OscarGuy]

Texas is the real bellwether at this point. It represents the core of both candidates' minority bases. Obama has the blacks and Clinton the hispanics. Until Texas is decided, this election isn't decided.

The only place Obama has been consistently victorious is in states with Caucuses with only a couple giving any measure of support to Clinton. This suggests that Obama is better poised to win in situations where there's "discussion" and a popular vote isn't required. However, the national election is different.

What we have to look at are the shifting states. The ones that determine the election. We know that California, New York and most of New England will go Dem as will Illinois. The states you have to be most concerned with are Florida, Ohio and Michigan. These states are must wins for either party. And if you look at the victor in all three states, it's Hillary. You guys may not want to accept that fact, but whether Tee is right and fundamentalist nutsos won't be a factor and any Dem will win, we have to think about who's likely to win the states that are most important for Dems to carry to win the national.

[taki15]

Since the polls show him competitive at North Carolina, Texas, Colorado and North Dakota, to mention a few, then why should he not?
At least this time money will be no problem for the Democratic candidate.

This could be a realigning election. Just because the two last ones were decided at Florida and Ohio that doesn't mean that will be the case forever.

[OscarGuy]

You don't really expect him to campaign in states that haven't gone Dem in decades...come on. He's not that stupid...and if he is, then he doesn't understand electoral politics and will likely lose.

Now, having said that, if he truly respected the Dems in those states, he would pledge to push for an elimination of the electoral college and let the will of the entire populace be the voice, not the will of a handful of states and even those states aren't adequately distributed.

[taki15]

Thank you so much Mister Tee. That was a fascinating recollection of the 1992 primaries.

I must tell you that after you mentioned it I looked for the ''Keys to the Presidency'' and I am quite familiar with them by now. I agree with you that unless a miraculous economic recovery happens the next months, combined with a sectarian recocnciliation in Iraq and massive troop withdrawals, then the Democrats are going to win comfortably even if they nominate the proverbial yellow dog.

I also agree that Obama is for all intents and purposes the nominee and the only reason that noone in the media admits it is because they have so much fun with the horserace, and of course the ratings.

Those people who mention that superdelegates could deliver the nomination to Clinton forget two things:
1)They aren't that stupid to not know that doing it means they are going to be stigmatized for the rest of their lives and their political careers would be effectively over.
2)The majority of those uncommited superedelegates are from states which the team Clinton have repeatedly insulted, demeaned and made clear that have no intention to contest in the general election.
On the contary, Obama has campaigned hard everywhere and promises to do the same at November. Now that must mean a lot to the Democrats from Idaho, Kansas, North Carolina or Alaska.

[Mister Tee]

taki, to answer your question about the '92 campaign -- it was relatively quick, but far from easy. I'll try to be as brief as possible in describing it:

There was, effectively, no Democratic Iowa caucus; everyone conceded the state to popular IA Senator Tom Harkin. Early polls from New Hampshire showed Clinton leading MA Senator Paul Tsongas roughly 40-20%, with others splitting the rest. Then the Clinton campaign was hit by two massive media feeding frenzies -- the first over his alleged ten-year affair with Gennifer Flowers (he certainly had some encounter with her, but there was never evidence of anything long-lasting), the second over whether he did anything sneaky to get out of the draft in the late 60s. This twin hit changed the polls dramatically: suddenly it was Tsongas with the 40-20 lead (for some reason, the other candidates all stayed stagnant). Clinton did his famous "I'll be with you till the last dog dies" blitz of the state, and on Election Day had closed the gap to roughly 33-26. This was obviously still a substantial win for Tsongas, but Clinton pushed the idea that his gains in the last few days made him "The Comeback Kid", and actually gained momentum out of it. (It also created a situation that I contend lasts to this day: the press corps, seething that a candidate declared dead refused to stay buried, became Clinton's mortal enemy)

A few minor contests followed -- small state primaries and caucuses won by Tsongas, Jerry Brown, even Bob Kerrey. Clinton didn't have his first win until Georgia. The week after GA, however, was Super Tuesday -- at that point, an almost entirely Southern affair -- and Clinton absolutely romped in the states at stake. The following week, having assumed the populist mantle, he was able to crush Tsongas in Michigan and Illinois, and became the clear front-runner.

To the surprise of many, Tsongas took this as a signal to drop out of the race (lack of money may have been most of the problem). This was not how primary races usually went -- people stayed in as long as they were making decent showings, and there was every reason to think Tsongas had some prospects ahead. The absence of Tsongas made Clinton the effective nominee in most people's minds (the considered-flaky Jerry Brown was basically the only opposition remaining), and the press declared it meant Bill should win every race from there on. The comeuppance wasn't far off: Connecticut came the following Tuesday. The state had been expected to go for New Englander Tsongas; Clinton hadn't even campaigned there. Brown inherited the free-floating Tsongas support, and ended up winning by 1 percentage point. This set off massive anti-Clinton coverage in the press: the public had buyers' remorse! They didn't want him after all! And it set up a showdown with Brown in New York, several weeks off.

Joe Klein accurately referred to that period as the Pinata Primary -- everyone who cared to took a whack at Clinton, led by the Murdoch Post, but very much including Brown, who took an I-could-give-a-fuck-about-the-party attitude. (Clinton didn't do himself much good, since this was the time when he uttered his infamous "I didn't inhale" --a technically true statement that had weaseliness all over it, and even got a sneer out of Billy Crystal at taht year's Oscars).

Clinton ended up winning by a strong margin, but the damage was serious: just post-Illinois/Michigan, he had been leading Bush the Father by 8-12 points; after NY, he trailed by about the same. And worse was to come: Ross Perot announced he was a candidate, and polls started showing a three-way split, often with Clinton running third. Clinton had to stagger through the later primaries -- picking up plenty of delegates but being told by the press his cause was hopeless. People openly questioned if Clinton would consider surrendering the nomination for someone "electable". I told a friend of my wife's during this time that I thought Clinton would win the election; he later confessed he thought I'd totally lost my mind.

But it all came around. Just before the convention, Clinton jumped to first in the three-way match-up. A day or two into the convention, he had a double-digit lead. Perot got the message, and dropped out (not permanently, as we know); Clinton's post-convention lead was as high as 30 points -- souffle-like, but a clear sign the public had decided against another Bush term. Even when Perot came back into the mix in October, his totals were only half what they'd been in the Spring. Clinton's lead never disappeared, and he won a far easier election than either of Bush II's.

Part of my reason for predicting Clinton during those dark Spring months was confidence in his magnetism: charismatic candidates tend not to lose elections (a reason to feel confident about Obama as well, assuming he's the nominee). But even more important: it was clear the public had decided against the incumbent, and when they do that, they'll go pretty much anywhere for an alternative. Democrats moan about, How could the public have chosen Reagan?, but the fact is, in 1980, Carter had screwed the pooch -- anyone could see it was a terrible environment in which to run for re-election, and even the "unelectable" Reagan was able to win handily.

This year is, by a considerable margin, WORSE for the incumbent party than either 1980 or 1992. I've mentioned the Keys to the Presidency book here several times. The theory of the book is that parties are judged on their incumbencies in 13 separate categories (charisma, foreign policy success or failure, short term or long term economic growth, etc.). Having six or more keys turn negative is viewed as fatal for the incumbent party. If the charismatic Obama is the Democratic nominee, 10 keys will be negative for the GOP -- the worst electoral environment since the foundation of the two-party system. Even if it's Hillary, it'd be nine keys...the same as faced by Hoover against FDR. You can dismiss this system -- most in our news media do, and instead obsess about daily scandal/meaningless bullshit. But history bears out this preponderance-of-the-evidence approach, so I trust it far further.

[Damien]

I completely forgot about Jerry Brown even being in the race in 1992. He disappeared as quickly from the national scene then as Giuliani has now.

I voted for Jerry Brown in 1992. Everyone I knew was desperate to stop Clinton from getting the nomination.

Brown has remained active in public life, going on to be Mayor of Oakland. Isn't he now California Attornry General or Secretary of State?

By the way, Olberman went ballistic on Ferraro and Clinton last night. Good stuff!

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008....30.html

[Big Magilla]

I completely forgot about Jerry Brown even being in the race in 1992. He disappeared as quickly from the national scene then as Giuliani has now.

The longer this primary fight continues the more both Clinton and Obama look petty. Obama is between a rock and a hard palce. If he doesn't say anything he appears to be weak. If he does, he's accused of stooping to Clinton's level. For her part, she seems to know when something has gone too far and brings out the mea culpas showing her vulnerable side enough to increase her level of support.

We get that both candidates are where they are because of their support from women and African-Americans. Not having anyone who looks like them get this far before, there is a natural tendency on the part of women and African-Americans to want someone who looks like them to succeed, but both candidates have a lot more going for them than their origins.

Ferraro's remarks, taken out of context though they may have been, were foolish. They not only trivialize Obama but Clinton by reflection, as well. It's not an excuse that Ferraro has said about herself that she wouldn't have been on the 1984 ticket if she weren't a woman.

If the candidates can manage to keep to the high road from now until this thing is settled, whoever emerges as the nominee should win, but the voting public is fickle. Many a candidate has looked like a winner before the election only to lose in the end for a myriad of reasons. After Nixon, Reagan and the two Bushes, I am nowhere near as confident as Mister Tee that the American electorate will elect the right man...or woman.

[taki15]

I have to disagree with your parenthetical statement, kaytodd. Whatever the feeling right now in the heat of campaigning, either Democrat is likely to win the election this Fall, given the incumbent administration's hideous approvals, the ongoing unpopularity of Iraq, and the recession that's only going to get worse in the coming months. This, in fact, is why Hillary's pushing so hard, despite the mathematical mountain she needs to climb: she lived through 1992, when Bill had been left bleeding after Jerry Brown's kamikaze attacks -- far worse than anything Obama's enduring now -- but carried the day easily because the election is always a referendum on an unpopular incumbent party. She knows that whoever emerges from this fight -- Russert, Matthews and the rest of the gang's protestations aside -- will, barring divine intervention, be the next president.

Mister Tee, I was really wondering if that is true.
Some analysts say that indeed, this primary is rather tame compared to others. But there are also others who are predicting doom and gloom for Democrats if the battle continues. I love to hear opinions from you and Big Magilla, considering your experiences from previous elections.

Then again seeing McCain and Romney being in love only weeks after they were tearing each other apart, I have little doubt that the same will probably happen with Obama and Clinton when the dust settles.

By the way, what happened in 1992 between Clinton and Brown? From what I have read, it wasn't such an eventful primary and Clinton had it wrapped up pretty quickly.

[Greg]

Ferraro is leaving the Clinton campaign.

[OscarGuy]

This might get me lynched here, but I haven't read much of what Ferraro has said, but I think she has a point. If Obama were not black, I don't think he would be the contender he is. I think he would be similar to Edwards and other white contestants. The only difference is that he's half-black. He's able to parley that into an increased turn out in the black community and younger voters who want to appear hipper. I think if he were saying the same things and were caucasian, Hillary would have beaten him a long time ago.

Race doesn't matter to me, I go based on the best candidate, but I think race is an important part of Obama's campaign strategy whether he wants to come out and say it or not.

[Mister Tee]

I thought she would realize that she has so much to offer the nation and her party even if she does not become president. But she and her followers are apparently willing to throw out their decency and character, to burn her bridges with the Democratic party leadership and to hurt Obama's chances in November (not that they would be that great in the best of circumstances) in her lust for that nomination.

I have to disagree with your parenthetical statement, kaytodd. Whatever the feeling right now in the heat of campaigning, either Democrat is likely to win the election this Fall, given the incumbent administration's hideous approvals, the ongoing unpopularity of Iraq, and the recession that's only going to get worse in the coming months. This, in fact, is why Hillary's pushing so hard, despite the mathematical mountain she needs to climb: she lived through 1992, when Bill had been left bleeding after Jerry Brown's kamikaze attacks -- far worse than anything Obama's enduring now -- but carried the day easily because the election is always a referendum on an unpopular incumbent party. She knows that whoever emerges from this fight -- Russert, Matthews and the rest of the gang's protestations aside -- will, barring divine intervention, be the next president.

Ferraro's first statement may have been not completely ill-intended -- it was of a piece with Gloria Steinem's less flaming op-ed from February (if more poorly phrased), which expressed women's unhappiness at seeing one of their own passed over for a man with (in their view) lesser credentials. But Ferraro's subsequent comments, digging in, have crossed the line, and need to be actively repudiated. I think the Clinton camp has done at least some dog-whistle racial appealing, and I think the Obama camp has occasionally promoted a "racist" accusation where it wasn't in evidence (as with Hillary's LBJ/MLK comment, which was obviously about the difference between an inspiring motivator and a skilled law-creator, not between a black and white man). But Ferraro's saying "I think they're racist for coming after me" is an absurdity; unless the Clinton camp wants to keep talking about this into infinity, they'll cut her loose.



Edited By Mister Tee on 1205349523

[kaytodd]

I am having a harder time giving Hillary and Ferraro the benefit of the doubt. To say the least, Hillary's campaign has shown over and over it will be very "aggressive" in their pursuit of this nomination. Among her most dependable voters this year are rural whites, working class/blue collar whites, white senior citizens and whites who have not attended college. Think of the large numbers of those voters in the suburbs of Philly and Pittsburgh and in the rural areas of Pennsylvania. The campaign probably figures the message "Obama got ahead because he is black" would resonate with them.



Edited By kaytodd on 1205346940