http://www.theonion.com/content/news_briefs/fearmongers_warmongers?utm_source=slate_rss_1
Let's stop with the "mongering" charges, please? They're annoying.
Friday, March 28, 2008
Tuesday, March 18, 2008
The Obama Speech
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/03/a_more_perfect_union.html
If, for whatever silly reason, you harbored any doubts about Obama's intellectual capabilities, please dismiss them immediately. These were the words of an intellectual heavyweight. I don't think we're going to see a speech like this for a fairly long time.
He managed to tread very lightly over the issue of race, all while being quite frank about things and saying things that needed to be said. He also managed to answer the silly charge about him being a Muslim, without ever addressing it. If nothing else, his description of Trinity Church proves that he is not a Muslim.
He also didn't attempt to dodge his past. He embraced it. He said to the world, "This is who I am. If you don't want to vote for me, then don't," but more elegantly than that. I admire that, and I also think it was the best option for him, even if it doesn't pan out.
But MOST impressive? He managed to weave the speech into his populist campaign narrative. Mitt Romney did not do that with his religion speech, I don't think. Obama did. He brought in that story about "Ashley" (which was mostly unrelated), and he spoke of how corporations are to blame for people's problems, rather than . Obama managed to incorporate the themes of his campaign into a powerful speech.
Ultimately, it is that campaign narrative which continues to turn me away from Obama; I simply disagree with his beliefs on corporate greed as the culprit for what ails America.
He remains an impressive figure, though, and one whose words are worth studying. Someday, if Barack Obama becomes president, this will be his Checkers speech. It may well go down as one of the more important speeches of the 21st century.
More importantly, though, what will it matter? Will people read this? I doubt it, sadly.
My opinion: this was a powerful effort. It would have been better if he weren't running for president and could simply speak freely rather than having to weave it back to that ugly narrative. But for what it was, it was well done. If it doesn't affect his campaign and he loses to Hillary Clinton, I will still admire him for making the speech.
If, for whatever silly reason, you harbored any doubts about Obama's intellectual capabilities, please dismiss them immediately. These were the words of an intellectual heavyweight. I don't think we're going to see a speech like this for a fairly long time.
He managed to tread very lightly over the issue of race, all while being quite frank about things and saying things that needed to be said. He also managed to answer the silly charge about him being a Muslim, without ever addressing it. If nothing else, his description of Trinity Church proves that he is not a Muslim.
He also didn't attempt to dodge his past. He embraced it. He said to the world, "This is who I am. If you don't want to vote for me, then don't," but more elegantly than that. I admire that, and I also think it was the best option for him, even if it doesn't pan out.
But MOST impressive? He managed to weave the speech into his populist campaign narrative. Mitt Romney did not do that with his religion speech, I don't think. Obama did. He brought in that story about "Ashley" (which was mostly unrelated), and he spoke of how corporations are to blame for people's problems, rather than . Obama managed to incorporate the themes of his campaign into a powerful speech.
Ultimately, it is that campaign narrative which continues to turn me away from Obama; I simply disagree with his beliefs on corporate greed as the culprit for what ails America.
He remains an impressive figure, though, and one whose words are worth studying. Someday, if Barack Obama becomes president, this will be his Checkers speech. It may well go down as one of the more important speeches of the 21st century.
More importantly, though, what will it matter? Will people read this? I doubt it, sadly.
My opinion: this was a powerful effort. It would have been better if he weren't running for president and could simply speak freely rather than having to weave it back to that ugly narrative. But for what it was, it was well done. If it doesn't affect his campaign and he loses to Hillary Clinton, I will still admire him for making the speech.
Saturday, March 15, 2008
Responding to a Couple of Articles
http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/03/14/ive_said_a_few_times/
Stephen Waldman goes to work to dispel a strange heresy, I think, in his book. The Founding Fathers did not agree on the substance of every issue and proposal, including something like the role of government in religion.
James Madison, America's most underrated intellectual, believed that state-sponsored religions resulted in religious laziness from the people and persecution of minority religions. He set out to ensure that the government did not promote a state religion. Not everyone agreed with him, or with Jefferson's "wall of separation," for that matter. The first amendment is fairly nuanced and complex as is.
As it is, I see this statement as a triumph:
Compared to our past, and to most other countries, we have relatively little religious conflict and have seen one barrier after another fall. Religious "sects" once persecuted as false and heretical – Quaker, Catholic, Unitarian, Jehovah's Witness and Southern Baptist -- later sent men to the White House. At various points in recent years, we've had five Catholic Supreme Court Justices; five Jewish Cabinet secretaries, and five Mormon U.S. Senators, and stunningly little controversy resulted. We've witnessed a Ramadan dinner at the White House; a Hindu priest opening a session of the House of Representatives; and a Buddhist sworn in as Navy Chaplain.
This is what I would call a victory for "dispositional conservatism." Religious tolerance grew organically and naturally out of societal structures and values, rather than out of government coercion. The Founders created a somewhat-ambiguous system that lent itself to this sort of change.
I thought this was a good article and a nice summation of a very controversial topic. People often denigrate originalism, but looking to the history is a good way to see what the debates were then and to see how they apply to now. After all, if we're not happy with something, we can always change it through the system, rather than by circumventing the system or by misappropriating language and purposes.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/03/playing_by_obamas_rules.html
Geraldine Ferraro has hurt herself far more than anyone else, almost as if she were taking a bullet for Clinton so that Clinton can continue to fight. At this point, there is simply no way to win the black vote for Clinton. Her only hope, from a very pessimistic racial perspective, is to win more of the white vote. Having people like Ferraro throw fire out there is tactically sound.
For a fire-breathing reactionary populist, Pat Buchanan is a great writer. His point here is worth considering:
John F. Kennedy would not have gotten 78 percent of the Catholic vote had he not been Catholic. Hillary would not have rolled up those margins among white women in New Hampshire had she not been a sister in trouble. Mitt Romney would not have swept Utah and flamed out in Dixie were he not a Mormon. Mike Huckabee would not have marched triumphantly through the Bible Belt were he not a Baptist preacher and evangelical Christian. All politics is tribal. The first campaign this writer ever covered was the New York mayoral race of 1961. Republicans stitched together the legendary ticket of Lefkowitz, Fino and Gilhooley, to touch three ethnic bases. Folks laughed. No one would have professed moral outrage had anyone suggested they were appealing to, or even pandering to, the Jewish, Italian and Irish voters of New York. People were more honest then.
It's an interesting point. For good reasons, we have become more sensitive to concerns about race. But here, I think, we take discretion too far, to the point where some people even avoided talking about Romney's wins in Nevada and Utah from a religious perspective. Romney had the support of 95% of Mormons in Nevada, who constituted over a quarter of the caucusers. How can you argue that he didn't benefit from his Mormonism in those states?
At the same time, being a member of a "tribe" sometimes hurts. Romney may very well have won Iowa if he were an ardent Protestant rather than a Mormon. His loss in Iowa, in retrospect, torpedoed his campaign. Can we make a similar argument about Obama?
Let's be clear on this. Obama is not winning the nomination because he is black. He's winning the nomination because he has run a fantastic campaign; it would have been very, very easy for things to go wrong at roughly 236 stages of the campaign, in addition at many points in his life before this. Looking at the way it has shaken out, though, and looking at Obama's voters, it's just impossible to ignore Obama's race in trying to grasp his enormous success at this point in his life.
The popular idea that "Obama would have won the nomination already if he were white" is a silly proposition, I think. Why?
1. Obama has formulated part of his campaign upon moving past racial lines. For sensible reasons, such an argument resonates a bit less for a white candidate than a black candidate.
2. Buchanan argues that Obama would not have gotten the keynote address at the 2004 DNC if he were white. This is an uncomfortable topic to discuss, but I think it's probably true. I went to the archives to check this claim out.
DNC Keynote Speakers
1976: Rep. Barbara Jordan (TX)
1980: Not sure. The 1980 Dem convention was a mess.
1984: Gov. Mario Cuomo (NY)
1988: St. Treasurer Ann Richards (TX)
1992: Rep. Barbara Jordan (TX)
1996: Gov. Evan Bayh (IN)
2000: Rep. Harold Ford, Jr. (TN)
2004: St. Sen. Barack Obama (IL)
Cuomo and Bayh were white governors. The other four speakers were members of Democratic Party protected groups. None were as inexperienced as Barack Obama.
Obama's speech was electrifying and brilliant. But would he have gotten to make that speech otherwise?
I accept Buchanan's claim here.
3. Bill Clinton, often called the "first black president," was extremely popular among African-Americans. Hillary Clinton would have latched onto this group, along with women and her labor constituency, making her largely unbeatable. Jay Cost wrote about the Mondale coalition for Clinton back in New Hampshire. Obama would more likely be Mondale's Gary Hart than the nominee, I think. Now, Hart had a VERY good chance to win in 1988 and was only derailed by an affair. That's probably where Obama would be characterized. Clinton would have won the nomination. Obama might have gotten the VP slot, or he might not have. Either way, Obama would be the clear frontrunner for the next cycle.
The Obama coalition is, to a man, strange. He is attracting African-Americans in droves, along with well-off "Starbucks Democrats." It is a weird coalition that does not make sense on economic terms.
Race is a difficult topic to navigate, and indeed, Obama has overcome obstacles that I cannot even fathom to get to this point. But to simply ignore the evidence, to me, is a greater sin than being controversial. And I can't make a case that he would have derailed the Clinton machine without the overwhelming support of African-Americans, or that he would have emerged as a viable presidential candidate before the age of 45 without that keynote address.
Stephen Waldman goes to work to dispel a strange heresy, I think, in his book. The Founding Fathers did not agree on the substance of every issue and proposal, including something like the role of government in religion.
James Madison, America's most underrated intellectual, believed that state-sponsored religions resulted in religious laziness from the people and persecution of minority religions. He set out to ensure that the government did not promote a state religion. Not everyone agreed with him, or with Jefferson's "wall of separation," for that matter. The first amendment is fairly nuanced and complex as is.
As it is, I see this statement as a triumph:
Compared to our past, and to most other countries, we have relatively little religious conflict and have seen one barrier after another fall. Religious "sects" once persecuted as false and heretical – Quaker, Catholic, Unitarian, Jehovah's Witness and Southern Baptist -- later sent men to the White House. At various points in recent years, we've had five Catholic Supreme Court Justices; five Jewish Cabinet secretaries, and five Mormon U.S. Senators, and stunningly little controversy resulted. We've witnessed a Ramadan dinner at the White House; a Hindu priest opening a session of the House of Representatives; and a Buddhist sworn in as Navy Chaplain.
This is what I would call a victory for "dispositional conservatism." Religious tolerance grew organically and naturally out of societal structures and values, rather than out of government coercion. The Founders created a somewhat-ambiguous system that lent itself to this sort of change.
I thought this was a good article and a nice summation of a very controversial topic. People often denigrate originalism, but looking to the history is a good way to see what the debates were then and to see how they apply to now. After all, if we're not happy with something, we can always change it through the system, rather than by circumventing the system or by misappropriating language and purposes.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/03/playing_by_obamas_rules.html
Geraldine Ferraro has hurt herself far more than anyone else, almost as if she were taking a bullet for Clinton so that Clinton can continue to fight. At this point, there is simply no way to win the black vote for Clinton. Her only hope, from a very pessimistic racial perspective, is to win more of the white vote. Having people like Ferraro throw fire out there is tactically sound.
For a fire-breathing reactionary populist, Pat Buchanan is a great writer. His point here is worth considering:
John F. Kennedy would not have gotten 78 percent of the Catholic vote had he not been Catholic. Hillary would not have rolled up those margins among white women in New Hampshire had she not been a sister in trouble. Mitt Romney would not have swept Utah and flamed out in Dixie were he not a Mormon. Mike Huckabee would not have marched triumphantly through the Bible Belt were he not a Baptist preacher and evangelical Christian. All politics is tribal. The first campaign this writer ever covered was the New York mayoral race of 1961. Republicans stitched together the legendary ticket of Lefkowitz, Fino and Gilhooley, to touch three ethnic bases. Folks laughed. No one would have professed moral outrage had anyone suggested they were appealing to, or even pandering to, the Jewish, Italian and Irish voters of New York. People were more honest then.
It's an interesting point. For good reasons, we have become more sensitive to concerns about race. But here, I think, we take discretion too far, to the point where some people even avoided talking about Romney's wins in Nevada and Utah from a religious perspective. Romney had the support of 95% of Mormons in Nevada, who constituted over a quarter of the caucusers. How can you argue that he didn't benefit from his Mormonism in those states?
At the same time, being a member of a "tribe" sometimes hurts. Romney may very well have won Iowa if he were an ardent Protestant rather than a Mormon. His loss in Iowa, in retrospect, torpedoed his campaign. Can we make a similar argument about Obama?
Let's be clear on this. Obama is not winning the nomination because he is black. He's winning the nomination because he has run a fantastic campaign; it would have been very, very easy for things to go wrong at roughly 236 stages of the campaign, in addition at many points in his life before this. Looking at the way it has shaken out, though, and looking at Obama's voters, it's just impossible to ignore Obama's race in trying to grasp his enormous success at this point in his life.
The popular idea that "Obama would have won the nomination already if he were white" is a silly proposition, I think. Why?
1. Obama has formulated part of his campaign upon moving past racial lines. For sensible reasons, such an argument resonates a bit less for a white candidate than a black candidate.
2. Buchanan argues that Obama would not have gotten the keynote address at the 2004 DNC if he were white. This is an uncomfortable topic to discuss, but I think it's probably true. I went to the archives to check this claim out.
DNC Keynote Speakers
1976: Rep. Barbara Jordan (TX)
1980: Not sure. The 1980 Dem convention was a mess.
1984: Gov. Mario Cuomo (NY)
1988: St. Treasurer Ann Richards (TX)
1992: Rep. Barbara Jordan (TX)
1996: Gov. Evan Bayh (IN)
2000: Rep. Harold Ford, Jr. (TN)
2004: St. Sen. Barack Obama (IL)
Cuomo and Bayh were white governors. The other four speakers were members of Democratic Party protected groups. None were as inexperienced as Barack Obama.
Obama's speech was electrifying and brilliant. But would he have gotten to make that speech otherwise?
I accept Buchanan's claim here.
3. Bill Clinton, often called the "first black president," was extremely popular among African-Americans. Hillary Clinton would have latched onto this group, along with women and her labor constituency, making her largely unbeatable. Jay Cost wrote about the Mondale coalition for Clinton back in New Hampshire. Obama would more likely be Mondale's Gary Hart than the nominee, I think. Now, Hart had a VERY good chance to win in 1988 and was only derailed by an affair. That's probably where Obama would be characterized. Clinton would have won the nomination. Obama might have gotten the VP slot, or he might not have. Either way, Obama would be the clear frontrunner for the next cycle.
The Obama coalition is, to a man, strange. He is attracting African-Americans in droves, along with well-off "Starbucks Democrats." It is a weird coalition that does not make sense on economic terms.
Race is a difficult topic to navigate, and indeed, Obama has overcome obstacles that I cannot even fathom to get to this point. But to simply ignore the evidence, to me, is a greater sin than being controversial. And I can't make a case that he would have derailed the Clinton machine without the overwhelming support of African-Americans, or that he would have emerged as a viable presidential candidate before the age of 45 without that keynote address.
Friday, March 14, 2008
The Obama Range of Outcomes
PECOTA, Baseball Prospectus' wonderful forecaster of baseball players, projects a value they call the "Beta" Number, which has to do with ranges of outcomes.
A Beta of 1.00 is average
A Beta above 1 means that there is a higher level of variance in potential outcomes.
A Beta below 1 means that there is a lower level of variance in potential outcomes.
Check out BP's definition of Beta, if you get a chance.
I love "range of outcomes" type questions. Really, the question is, what can Barack Obama become over the rest of his life? There are a few outcomes.
A Beta of 1.00 is average
A Beta above 1 means that there is a higher level of variance in potential outcomes.
A Beta below 1 means that there is a lower level of variance in potential outcomes.
Check out BP's definition of Beta, if you get a chance.
I love "range of outcomes" type questions. Really, the question is, what can Barack Obama become over the rest of his life? There are a few outcomes.
7. The Retry: Obama could hang around the Senate, regroup, and go for it again in 2012 or 2016, depending on who wins in 2008. I think Obama for Governor in 2010 is more likely, though.
So, what's Obama's beta? It's pretty high, I would say, probably around 1.10.
Tuesday, March 11, 2008
Mississippi
There's a long time between now and the next contest. For now, I'll look at Mississippi. Pennsylvania, my current home state, warrants lots of analysis, though. :)
Exit polls showed me two interesting things:
1. Obama struggles to win Southern whites in these Democratic primaries.
Whites went for Clinton 73-26. Blacks went for Obama 90-10. The two races were roughly even in Mississippi.
2. Obama actually lessened the gender gap this time. He won men 61-37, but he also won women 57-42. That's quite interesting.
Still, whatever happened today is pretty irrelevant, I think, as far as momentum goes. There's over a month until PA (April 22), and a lot of stuff can happen in a month. Whatever momentum Obama could retake after tonight is fairly irrelevant for the next race.
Here's what matters here on out:
1. Pennsylvania: If Obama wins PA, it's probably over.
2. The overall popular vote: If Obama has a larger share of the primary popular vote at the end of all of this, Clinton has a really difficult case to make, considering Obama's exceptional caucus performances.
3. What happens with Michigan and Florida.
4. The delegate count
5. The superdelegates.
All are worth watching, and it makes for a very exciting cycle.
Exit polls showed me two interesting things:
1. Obama struggles to win Southern whites in these Democratic primaries.
Whites went for Clinton 73-26. Blacks went for Obama 90-10. The two races were roughly even in Mississippi.
2. Obama actually lessened the gender gap this time. He won men 61-37, but he also won women 57-42. That's quite interesting.
Still, whatever happened today is pretty irrelevant, I think, as far as momentum goes. There's over a month until PA (April 22), and a lot of stuff can happen in a month. Whatever momentum Obama could retake after tonight is fairly irrelevant for the next race.
Here's what matters here on out:
1. Pennsylvania: If Obama wins PA, it's probably over.
2. The overall popular vote: If Obama has a larger share of the primary popular vote at the end of all of this, Clinton has a really difficult case to make, considering Obama's exceptional caucus performances.
3. What happens with Michigan and Florida.
4. The delegate count
5. The superdelegates.
All are worth watching, and it makes for a very exciting cycle.
Thursday, March 6, 2008
Faulty Logic
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/03/tough_math_on_the_democratic_s.html
So how has Obama fared in those states that are the crucial building blocks of a Democratic general election strategy? He's won his home state of Illinois, plus Wisconsin, Washington and Minnesota. Together, these states account for 51 electoral votes. Clinton has won her home state of New York, as well as California, New Jersey and Michigan, representing a total of 118 electoral votes. This sum deliberately leaves out Ohio and Florida, which will be hotly contested in the fall. ...
The Democratic Party is indeed developing a general election problem, and it's only partly because Obama and Clinton will be sniping at one another for the next seven weeks. Obama, the leading candidate, still hasn't shown he has appeal in a large battleground state that will be pivotal in the fall. In this sense, Pennsylvania is where Obama's back, and not Clinton's, is up against the wall.
I reject this line of reasoning outright.
Obama will not be competing against Clinton in the general election. He will be competing against McCain. Ohio was perhaps Obama's greatest flop in this election. 66% of Ohio Democrats would be happy if he won the nomination. They will vote for him enthusiastically.
The parties will mobilize the necessary voters. Obama and Clinton have both proven capable of mobilizing voters. The fact that Obama is losing to Clinton in battleground states does NOT mean that he will not be able to capture that support in the general elections. In other words, something like "approval voting" would be ideal, here. It would paint a much different picture, too. "Oooh, 65% of Ohio Democrats approve of Obama as the nominee! They'll come out and vote for him!"
Throughout the campaign, Obama has turned out more Democrats than McCain has turned out Republicans. There was no party standard-bearer for the Republicans this year. The Democrats nominated a Clinton, for Christ's sake!
Let's not go crazy here with differences in support between the two candidates. Either Democrat would be a formidable foe for McCain in the general.
So how has Obama fared in those states that are the crucial building blocks of a Democratic general election strategy? He's won his home state of Illinois, plus Wisconsin, Washington and Minnesota. Together, these states account for 51 electoral votes. Clinton has won her home state of New York, as well as California, New Jersey and Michigan, representing a total of 118 electoral votes. This sum deliberately leaves out Ohio and Florida, which will be hotly contested in the fall. ...
The Democratic Party is indeed developing a general election problem, and it's only partly because Obama and Clinton will be sniping at one another for the next seven weeks. Obama, the leading candidate, still hasn't shown he has appeal in a large battleground state that will be pivotal in the fall. In this sense, Pennsylvania is where Obama's back, and not Clinton's, is up against the wall.
I reject this line of reasoning outright.
Obama will not be competing against Clinton in the general election. He will be competing against McCain. Ohio was perhaps Obama's greatest flop in this election. 66% of Ohio Democrats would be happy if he won the nomination. They will vote for him enthusiastically.
The parties will mobilize the necessary voters. Obama and Clinton have both proven capable of mobilizing voters. The fact that Obama is losing to Clinton in battleground states does NOT mean that he will not be able to capture that support in the general elections. In other words, something like "approval voting" would be ideal, here. It would paint a much different picture, too. "Oooh, 65% of Ohio Democrats approve of Obama as the nominee! They'll come out and vote for him!"
Throughout the campaign, Obama has turned out more Democrats than McCain has turned out Republicans. There was no party standard-bearer for the Republicans this year. The Democrats nominated a Clinton, for Christ's sake!
Let's not go crazy here with differences in support between the two candidates. Either Democrat would be a formidable foe for McCain in the general.
Wednesday, March 5, 2008
Post Super Twos-day Thoughts
It's best not to count out the Clintons, ever, I suppose.
I hate to attempt to boil down a defeat to one thing, and with Obama's loss in Texas, I think it's hard to make this case. But really, the 10-point loss in Ohio has to be related to the NAFTA-flap, no?
Why on Earth would a Canadian official say that Obama told him that his anti-NAFTA position was just "rhetoric?" How can that possibly benefit anyone?
Again, I don't believe in conspiracy theories, but this is a "qui bono" situation. Who could possibly benefit from that sort of thing coming out of Canada? Ohio Democrats take their opposition to NAFTA seriously. Hillary Clinton and the Republicans benefit from Obama's big loss in Ohio. He might have lost either way, but I can't imagine that he would have lost by 10 points.
Still, in the end, Obama has the upper-hand. Intrade likes Obama at 73/27 or so, which is quite high. He's way ahead in pledged delegates, 1,366 to 1,222. He's ahead in the national popular vote, by about 300K votes, even with Florida in the count and some of his caucus state votes excluded (Iowa, Nevada, Washington have not released specific popular numbers). PA's got a lot of colleges and he's got a lot of time to campaign there; Rendell's influence should not be overstated; endorsements just don't matter all that much (though I think that he's Hillary's VP if she wins the nomination, which pretty much requires her winning Pennsylvania).
Obama also could (and will) squelch Clinton's momentum soon. He will win Wyoming (caucus), and he will win Mississippi (large black population). Then it's a month and a half to win Pennsylvania. As a current PA resident, I might get to see both candidates. I would see either, if they came down Rt. 15.
The real significance of Super Twos-day? It's pretty obvious. Clinton can continue. Obama is the rightful frontrunner, but Clinton absolutely has a base of support and can win the nomination.
One other thing: the Clinton campaign, in some ways, adopted the Rudy strategy: they waited for Ohio, a state in which they knew they would be strong, and punted a lot of other contests. It wasn't quite the same, but they were looking to Ohio right after Super Tuesday, really. It worked for them.
There's a matrix you could draw about strategies and success:
I think both campaigns played their cards correctly, for the most part. It worked for Clinton. It didn't work for Giuliani.
This type of table is a useful thing to think about in these situations. The best strategy doesn't always work, and a bad strategy sometimes does work.
I hate to attempt to boil down a defeat to one thing, and with Obama's loss in Texas, I think it's hard to make this case. But really, the 10-point loss in Ohio has to be related to the NAFTA-flap, no?
Why on Earth would a Canadian official say that Obama told him that his anti-NAFTA position was just "rhetoric?" How can that possibly benefit anyone?
Again, I don't believe in conspiracy theories, but this is a "qui bono" situation. Who could possibly benefit from that sort of thing coming out of Canada? Ohio Democrats take their opposition to NAFTA seriously. Hillary Clinton and the Republicans benefit from Obama's big loss in Ohio. He might have lost either way, but I can't imagine that he would have lost by 10 points.
Still, in the end, Obama has the upper-hand. Intrade likes Obama at 73/27 or so, which is quite high. He's way ahead in pledged delegates, 1,366 to 1,222. He's ahead in the national popular vote, by about 300K votes, even with Florida in the count and some of his caucus state votes excluded (Iowa, Nevada, Washington have not released specific popular numbers). PA's got a lot of colleges and he's got a lot of time to campaign there; Rendell's influence should not be overstated; endorsements just don't matter all that much (though I think that he's Hillary's VP if she wins the nomination, which pretty much requires her winning Pennsylvania).
Obama also could (and will) squelch Clinton's momentum soon. He will win Wyoming (caucus), and he will win Mississippi (large black population). Then it's a month and a half to win Pennsylvania. As a current PA resident, I might get to see both candidates. I would see either, if they came down Rt. 15.
The real significance of Super Twos-day? It's pretty obvious. Clinton can continue. Obama is the rightful frontrunner, but Clinton absolutely has a base of support and can win the nomination.
One other thing: the Clinton campaign, in some ways, adopted the Rudy strategy: they waited for Ohio, a state in which they knew they would be strong, and punted a lot of other contests. It wasn't quite the same, but they were looking to Ohio right after Super Tuesday, really. It worked for them.
There's a matrix you could draw about strategies and success:
| Optimal | Sub-Optimal | |
| Successful | ||
| Unsuccessful |
I think both campaigns played their cards correctly, for the most part. It worked for Clinton. It didn't work for Giuliani.
This type of table is a useful thing to think about in these situations. The best strategy doesn't always work, and a bad strategy sometimes does work.
Tuesday, March 4, 2008
Ohio Exits...
Overall exits from Ohio:
Clinton - 52%
Obama - 48%
Too close to make any calls...
Also, Texas was something like 49/48 Clinton. VERY close races tonight.
Clinton - 52%
Obama - 48%
Too close to make any calls...
Also, Texas was something like 49/48 Clinton. VERY close races tonight.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)