Finally, a realistic look at Clinton's odds
Every now and then I find myself discouraged with the state of the nominating process. The side issue distractions, the polls, the surrogates, the media coverage, etc..
I have to remind myself of the big picture. In reality the nomination has been settled for some time.
Super delegates are just trying to figure out how to address this fact without alienating voters, supporters and contributors. So many news sources have been portraying this race as still a close contest, many are unwilling to admit even the possibility of defeat. It's understandable.
It can be easy to succumb to the petty and just plain wacky political coverage. Just when I'm ready to throw up my hands in indignation I come across something honest. This has happened to me twice recently. Today it came in the form of this article:
http://www.slate.com/id/2190556/pagenum/all/#page_start
An honest assessment of the state of the race was just what I needed after a long and tiring week.
I have to remind myself of the big picture. In reality the nomination has been settled for some time.
Super delegates are just trying to figure out how to address this fact without alienating voters, supporters and contributors. So many news sources have been portraying this race as still a close contest, many are unwilling to admit even the possibility of defeat. It's understandable.
It can be easy to succumb to the petty and just plain wacky political coverage. Just when I'm ready to throw up my hands in indignation I come across something honest. This has happened to me twice recently. Today it came in the form of this article:
http://www.slate.com/id/2190556/pagenum/all/#page_start
An honest assessment of the state of the race was just what I needed after a long and tiring week.
Advertisement
http://www.slate.com/id/2190556/pagenum/all/#page_start
May 3, 2008 11:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
I handicap at 5%. Buy intrade w/ BO at 73.5
May 3, 2008 11:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks Opus, I couldn't get the link to highlight!
May 3, 2008 11:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
I was having trouble with that too, but found that you have to use the "link" button in the post window. Click on that, then copy your link into the box. The link wil appear wherever you have the cursor-highlighted text in the body. For some reason, in the comments section all one has to do is copy and paste.
May 4, 2008 12:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
That's my pet peeve with the site right now - to embed a link in a comment, you need to type html directly, but to put a link in a blog posting you have to highlight the text, click their button, and type the URL into a popup box. That the box in which you type the URL is modal (meaning you can't get at the rest of the application while the popup is there) means that if you want to cut-paste the URL (rather than risk mistyping it), you must:
1. Highlight the text you want to have as a link
2. Switch to another tab to select and copy your URL
3. Now click the link button to get the popup
4. Paste your URL into the popup box
It works, but it's cumbersome. And that there are two different ways to enter a link, one which works only in blog posts, and the other which works only in comments, is more confusing and frustrating.
It's the usability, stupid!
There.... I'm done venting on this now.
May 4, 2008 11:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
It's on the little toolbar thingee. It's the only way to get a working hyperlink (as far as I know) when you post.
May 4, 2008 3:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
MSNBC appears to be focusing on Option #2.
May 3, 2008 11:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
They're delusional.
May 4, 2008 2:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
ARGH!
WENCH HILLARY OR WINGMAN MCCAIN?
EITHER WAY THEY LOOK THE SAME!
DAMN THE CANNONS
FULL SPEED AHEAD
THE WENCH HILLARY WANTED ALIVE OR DEAD!
ACQUIRE! DESIRE! MERGE! MARAUD!
THE PRIMARY SEASON WILL BE DETERMINED BY FRAUD!
DILUTE! DILUTE!
ARGH!
May 4, 2008 12:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
So far, Slate is the only media outlet that has finally detoxed.
I don't know what drugs the rest of the media - including the blogs - have been on, but I haven't seen such an epidemic of bullshit since 2002 when Bush was trying to sell the war.
When I read this last night, I said I was putting Timothy Noah in my will.
Someone being clear-eyed and realistic as a journalist these days is so rare I thought the whole thing had gone extinct.
The blogs have sucked in their coverage of this race. Just sucked.
The whole thing has really shown the weakness of online media - and that weakness is almost no original sources - everything is gleaned from somewhere else. No new thought on things - just more from campaigns and MSM reports, 2 and 3 days old.
Thank god Slate has one sane person writing for them. I was ready for Bedlam.
May 4, 2008 9:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yes indeed! I agree 1000%!
May 4, 2008 11:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
I don't even see it so much as an issue of being realistic. I think that the MSM is being dishonest about this issue. They know that Obama has it, but they are unwilling to put it out there. Why? Well, there's a few layers to that answer.
May 4, 2008 10:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
Phenomenal article - GoatLife, are you here? You better read this, honey, and get those meds and that support system in place. This post is getting recommended.
May 4, 2008 11:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
Maybe you haven't been following TPM closely recently Carol, but goatlife is clearly an Obama supporter. Lest that give you a heart attack gotalife is still the same crazy he always was (I won't call him a Clinton supporter out of respect to the actual Clinton supporters on this site).
May 4, 2008 12:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's more complicated than that. "Goatlife" is a "pet name" that many of us have been using for gotalife ever since it was revealed in one of the troll-competition threads that some people actually thought that was its name. That prompted another poster, I forget his former name, to commandeer the screen name "goatlife" and start using a goat avatar. So now "goatlife" is ambiguous.
May 4, 2008 12:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's true. I'm feeling conflicted.
Continue the snarky name and avatar? Maintain two accounts, one for substance? Or just be bi-polar?
What's a goat to do?
May 4, 2008 5:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
I resent your parody of that Hillary supporter.
Vote for Bill's wife in 2008!
May 4, 2008 6:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
I've run the numbers and will be posting this evening about what how poor Clinton's chances will be after May 6. But for a sneak peek...
To win the delegate count, Clinton would need to persuade 70% of the uncommitted delegates to vote for her.
To win the popular vote (including FL but not MI), Clinton would need to win all the remaining states by a 60-40 margin (which will never happen).
And this projection is based on the most optimistic NC/IN polls for Clinton that are out there, so the numbers will likely be even worse for her.
If this interests you, check back this evening.
May 4, 2008 12:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Count Michigan using the new 59/69 proposal, and she'd still need 58% of everybody left. If she averaged 58% in the remaining primaries, she'd still lose the pledged, so 58% of remaining supers would have to decide to override the pledged.
May 4, 2008 1:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Here's the post:
http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/2008/05/the-beginning-of-the-end-or-ho.php
May 4, 2008 6:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
As a Clinton suporter who does not subscribe to the idea that the nomination is settled, let me make my case. I can do that AFTER having read the article in question, and WITHOUT serious disagreement with the broad conclusions the article draws.
Here is essentially HOW I do that:
(1)SD's are not bound by ANY criteria, except to cast their votes in the best interests of the Democratic Party as they see it at the time they have to declare. That is a fact. Tradition, history, logic, tactics - all these things may play a part, but they do not HAVE to play a part.
(2)Sen. Clinton's case rests entirely on 4 more or less sequential steps: winning an overwhelming majority of the remaining contests; closing the PD count; closing the popular vote count; and then convincing the bulk of the 300-odd remaining SD's that her star is dramatically ascending, where her opponent's star is dramatically headed the other way.
It is really as simple as that. Her chances are presently somewhat remote, but each successive victory along the closing road helps to improve them. Each successive win gives her a greater STRUCTURAL chance to pull it off. If Sen. Obama wants to close this out, all he has to do is achieve some combination of a few small wins (or perhaps even just ONE big one), and it's over. Until he actually DOES that, we're all dealing in the realm of speculation, and I don't think anyone on either side has any choice except to carry-on.
I know that Obama supporters really DO agree with me on that deep down, becuase there is far too much argumentative assertion about this for anyone to really accept that it is a "done deal". People do not tend to waste a lot of energy on arguing that 2+2=4. We all accept that as a fact, and don't debate it. This situation is very different. There are many unresolved elements to it.
May 4, 2008 12:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
You managed to contradict yourself within the space of a single sentence. Superdelegates aren't bound by ANY criteria... except the interest of the party. That's a rather important criterion, isn't it though. How is it in the interest of the party to take away the nomination from the candidate who won more delegates, brought many new voters, and proved to be the superior fundraiser?
May 4, 2008 12:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
one_wilson, thanks for representing the Clinton position coherently.
Certainly, many Obama supporters lack confidence. I'm not one of them. I argue vociferously for the inevitably of an Obama nomination only because so many doubt it. I assure you, if half the country believed that 2 + 2 = 5, I would argue passionately against it.
It's interesting to me that you say that Clinton only needs to "close the gap" in the popular vote. That's clearheaded, as I think that many people are the impression that winning the popular vote is a realistic possibility for her.
But when Obama wins the popular vote and the pledged delegate count, I just don't see how Clinton's going to be able to convince 70% of the uncommitted supers to vote for her. If they were to do so, wouldn't you agree that this would create a massive schism within the party, as rightly or wrongly, there will be a widespread perception that the party stole Obama's nomination? The likelihood of that occurring seems to me to be best possible reason to vote for Obama.
May 4, 2008 1:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Genghis,
If it were about the numbers, Hillary would have bowed out a while ago. They can do that math as well as anyone.
This primary has been, for a while now, a backroom game. The outcome will tell us a lot about where the Democratic Party wants to go.
I do wish, however, that people recognize that a primary is not a general election. The Dems can put whomever they like on the ticket and for whatever reason. Their rules can be arbitrary and (as we've learned this season) often are.
I'm hoping they will move away from the dynasty issue -- which is probably not good for the party, but definitely not good for the country. Several months back I kept telling people to go back to the 1850's -- and especially the 1856 and 1860 elections -- to get a clue about what happens when a party gets into factionalism on a grand scale.
We will see!
May 4, 2008 2:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Can does not equal should. The primary system, flawed as it is, has the trappings of democracy. If it were simply up to the party insiders, why bother with a primary at all? The fact is, because party members believe that their votes can and should matter, if party insiders act against the conclusions of the voters, it will be perceived as a "theft" and create incredible anger among Obama supporters. It doesn't matter what the rules permit. If superdels, in their infinite wisdom, were to give the nomination Hillary, the party would explode into turmoil.
May 4, 2008 3:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, the correct word here is "trappings".
The primary season as we know it, is a relatively recent invention. Even in campaigns like 1968, there wasn't even a 50 state primary. And backroom politics isn't always so bad -- it's how we ended up with Harry Truman.
The superdelegates are an invention to ensure that the Dem Party stays on track. What defines "on track"? The leaders of the party. Think of the primary as a state-paid-for opinion poll; which is the reason why some states allow for cross-over voting. There is no "stealing" of an election if the superdelegates choose not to front the popular vote person. After all, Hillary can easily argue that had the Dems adopted the GOP "winner take all" set of rules -- there would have been no Obama after SuperTuesday.
I suspect this argument has already been made. Many times.
Now, I agree that the Dem Party might explode if that happens. (Of course, it might explode if it doesn't as well -- only the Dems could get enough animosity built up. And this is the second time it could happen, the election of 1860 was a mess for the Dems.)
I would see the explosion of the Dems as a potentially good thing -- if it opened the door to a true viable 3rd party. (By viable, I don't mean the Greens, I mean something that had real bite in election results as Teddy Roosevelt, George Wallace, and Ross Perot did as heads of their respective 3rd parties.)
The Dems are at a terrible crossroads (for them): the Clintons are tight with Wall Street; and the Dems have the myth of the FDR coalition, which hasn't played for at least 20 years, and now the influx of the old-GOP stalwarts. The GOP stalwarts (Wall Street) represent money, but they also have goals directly opposed to the working class. That's why this primary has been so great: the politicians in the Dem Party are actually going to have to make a real decision.
That's why I'm watching closely to what the Dems decide to do. I may not agree with their decision, but it's their party to break. And it's our option to join (or form) a new, credible 3rd party.
May 4, 2008 3:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
PS In my last paragraph, I should be explicit. When I say "it's their party to break", I am referring to the Dem Party Leaders. The regular party members only can have their say during the primary or caucus. And don't kid yourself, this is a two-tiered system. Even the name superdelegate implies that!
May 4, 2008 3:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
I prefer "automatic delegate". And I would very strongly prefer that the Democratic party not break. Not this year. I have a very strong feeling that the superdelegates share this preference which is why I'm not worried about a Clinton nomination. Not this year.
May 4, 2008 4:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
;-)
May 4, 2008 4:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
one-wilson, thank you for bravely supporting your case. As an Obama supporter, however there are a couple of factors that I never hear addressed from Clinton supporters, perhaps you can help me.
1) While it is true that the SD's are free to make their own decisions, and the assumption is that they will take the party's best interests to heart. It is deducted by Obama supporters that this decision includes counting pledged delegates, since the eventual number of delegates are the agreed-upon metric by which the party decides. When a new criterion is added, we are left scatching our heads. Most of us don't get our panties in a bunch, as we know that Obama is also leading by the metric the Clinton campaign would have everyone believe, but it is shifting the argument to a different set of criterion.
2) MANY of us live in caucus states where we happily played by the rules and participated in a very viseral and involved local process. Many of us had the joy of political discussions with neighbors we had never met, and in the case of my caucus got to the bottom of a lot of differences without any hard feelings. It was a wonderment of active democracy. In the ever present shift in criterion, these models of personal participation are not even counted. Part of the argument that makes a popular vote even plausible, by numbers, requires one to discount the vast numbers of people that participated in caucuses. Those number are not added in.
While we do agree about the mathematical rules of addition, we who have participated in caucuses find it marginalizing, and disingenuous for it to be suggested that our efforts mean nothing because they don't serve a candidate who ignored part of the process.
This is a major reason why Sentor Clinton does not receive much sympathy, or agreement from those who do not support her. It is not just her opponent she wants to diminish. It is all of the people who participated BY THE RULES - the only way we had to participate - that is under attack.
My wish is that you understand this as you consider her chances. They exist at the expense of a LOT of people.
May 4, 2008 3:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Caringthinking, I'll take you on since you make fair points.
1) The votes of elected delegates, primary or caucus, count for precisely what they count for - their votes, 80 percent of the convention total. The superdelegates were specifically created not to be bound by primary/caucus results. Everything beyond that is spin. Obama has the easier spin here, a simpler argument and fewer uncommitted superdelegates he has to make it to - he only needs a third of them to put him over. Still it is all spin, on both sides, trying to tell the superdelegates that they "should" do this or that.
2. Yeah, Hillary has dissed caucuses. She is not saying that delegates chosen by caucus don't have a right to be seated - she's merely saying that Obama's ability to hoover up red state caucuses won't count for much in a general election, and superdelegates should feel free to let caucuses count for their own chosen delegates and nothing more.
The uncommitted superdelegates would like to wrap this sucker up more than anyone, because almost definitionally they feel no loyalty or moral obligation one way or the other. It would only take a third of them to close the deal for Obama. If they are holding back it is for a reason, and one wilson is right - Obama supporters know it. The uncommitted supers are holding back because Obama, in spite of his big lead in elected delegates, has not closed the deal.
If you are an uncommitted superdelegate, you are probably going to go with the margin of elected delegates, i.e. Obama, unless you smell box office poison in November.
It is that simple. So far they don't, but even though a black guy has never been cast in the lead, there is the vague uneasy whiff that we have seen this movie before.
May 4, 2008 5:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
132 delegates to Jimmah Carter's vote!
Carter all but told Wolf the Blitzer that his SD vote belonged to the one with the most pledged delegates as he had told the Daily Telegraph earlier
By Wed Obama will have picked up another 98-100
May 4, 2008 12:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Honesty requires looking at oneself in the mirror. I leave the gentle reader to decide which of the candidates is most uncomfortable with that.
May 4, 2008 1:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
With your avatar, I'd be very scared to look in a mirror!
May 4, 2008 5:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Me too.
May 4, 2008 9:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
I can, however, sing the blues without shame
May 4, 2008 9:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Recommended!
May 4, 2008 2:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
The problem for the supers is not to hand Hillary the excuse that the election was "stolen" from her. She is desperately looking for an alibi for her failure. If she could have caught up in popular votes at least, she'd have had a rallying cry to complain about for four years.
The supers were stuck in the situation of having to put up with her until June to end it, hoping the voters would put her out of her misery. But the voters, led by the rightwing MSM which wants to drag this out, get easily swayed by bullshit. Hopefully, the people of Indiana and North Carolina can do us all a big favor and close the lid on this once and for all.
Hillary is fighting for the post-game narrative. she needs victimhood. She needs martyrdom. The supers have wisely avoided a big showy movement to Obama that would seem "premature". (Note that when the tables were turned, Hillary had no problem racking up 100+ supers before Iowa even voted. Now when she's down, she's complaining about letting the people speak)
May 4, 2008 2:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Since the Democrats have already spotted the pubs 2 large states, it's hard to believe it really matters whether Clinton or Obama wins.
May 4, 2008 2:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
First, if neither delegate gets the pre-established minimum number of votes to nail the nomination, there is NO MORE MATH. Clinton does not have to pass Obama up. She has to win emough pledged delegates to keep him from getting to that magic pre-established number. And such is the case.
Therefore, the super-delegates are free as the wind. They can even draft Gore. There is NO WAY that Obama can impose himself on the Democratic party.
The fact that super delegates are at the present moment going against th popular trend only makes Obama look all that more elite.
May 4, 2008 3:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Maybe to you, but anytime someone who grew up with a single mother is considered elite next to a graduate of Wellesley and an alum of Yale, then up is down.
She's worth about $110 million.
Come the fuck on.
May 4, 2008 3:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Tena, by "elite" he obviously meant superior.
May 4, 2008 5:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ok - I was having a bit of trouble trying to figure it all out anyway - the comment was way less than clear.
May 4, 2008 7:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
What popular trend? The one that took place for a month after SuperTuesday?
It's difficult to have a trend in this primary season since we aren't replaying the same election with the same populace over and over.
States have their own individual character and where they come in the primary season doesn't really change that.
If anything, Obama's numbers in PA, OH, and IN are much higher than they were two months ago.
So: is that the trend you were referring to?
May 4, 2008 4:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
The fact that super delegates are at the present moment going against th popular trend only makes Obama look all that more elite.
Then how do you account for all of the Supers that endorsed Clinton before the primaries and caucuses even started? Given your logic, wouldn't that make her elite as well?
May 4, 2008 8:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
I've been loving on this article ever since it came out - it's the first indication I've seen that the internet is finally coming off that weird drug trip it's been on - where it seems like Hillary has a realistic chance.
May 4, 2008 3:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hillary has a chance until the last dog dies!
Why don't you like my wife?
May 4, 2008 6:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, honey, why don't you? Wouldn't you rather have her home - y'all could slide into such a nice cozy well-feathered retirement and spend every waking moment together - make up for lost time.
May 4, 2008 7:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Our relationship is complex.
May 4, 2008 9:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
I can't comment individually on the many sincere differences expressed here, but I'll try in good faith to reference some of these questions:
(1)I think the REAL problem at the heart of all this is that the Democratic Party has found itself split ALMOST right down the middle. It may well have been better for our chances in November if we could have made a more decisive choice about our nominee earlier, but that just isn't where we're at. We are instead in the position of (to clean this up a little) "picking fly specks out of pepper", as a boss of mine used to say. I've said in here numerous times recently that if there is "blame" to be attached to this dilemma, it should go to the voters - not Sen. Obama or Sen. Clinton.
If there is a silver cloud to this drama, it would be that the race has inspired enormous interest and enthusiasm. I would hope we could carry that into the fall, regardless of who wins.
(2)There is absolutely no doubt that to take the nomination from Sen. Obama when he leads (even by a little) in every objective, measurable category would cause enormous disruption.
The only POSSIBLE excuse for that would be if it could be fairly concluded (by results in this last phase) that something had decisively CHANGED: That for whatever reason, we were no longer where we had started, and voters had clearly and dramatically shifted their preference from Sen. Obama to Sen. Clinton. In that perhaps unlikely (but potentially possible) outcome, all I can say is that I'm glad I'm not a SD, because that would present a classic Hobson's Choice.
(3)Let me say a little about my personal attitude:
I've said in here before that I can be a hard fighter for what I believe, but I'm not suicidal. I also believe in a FAIR fight (within the rather broad latitude allowed in politics to describe "fair"). I have no interest in (and will not support) any effort to prolong this beyond the point where a fair outcome is clearly established. For example, if Sen. Obama wins both events next Tuesday, I'm out.
Stumbling to the Convention, holding no legitimate cards to play, and hoping for some kind of favorable negotiated, back-room settlement holds no interest for me - either personally, or with respect to the future of the Democratic Party.
I leave open (for NOW) the possibility that a SHIFT as described above might be legitimate grounds for reconsidering the basic nuts and bolts outcome. That would need to be clearly demonstrated by election results, and not simply by argumentation.
May 4, 2008 4:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
I would agree that if Clinton loses both IN & NC, even narrowly, the campaign should end. Assuming both losses, it's hard to see many of the mid-level staffers sticking around in spite of what Clinton herself decides to do. They will likely be heading to the door because of their own calculation that it's over. While the campaign would have no future, the staffers certainly do and they'll begin to tend to those.
A split decision on Tuesday is bad for Clinton as well. Midnight is approaching and she's running out of time to change the dynamic. She needs to win both on Tuesday.
May 4, 2008 6:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
I must agree.
The ONLY chance now for Clinton is a cataclysmic shift of opinion on a national scale. Something so profound, it would leave no doubt as to whom is more electable.
On another note, I think the supers are just hiding behind political cover. As I said in the original post, I believe they know who the nominee will be.
Many want the clock to run out so there aren't any chances of something game changing. They can then look Clinton supporters in the eye and say "we gave her every benefit of the doubt".
It's ironic. I've wanted the super delegates to step in and end this already for the sake of party unity. Having our eventual nominee beaten and bloodied is not good. Perhaps it is better to wait though. Alienating supporters from either side would be suicidal. So long as Sen. Clinton is being put forth as viable choice, the race must continue.
May 4, 2008 6:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
I also think the Supers have been waiting, because it would be bad if Supers were the ones who pushed one of the delegates over the top of the threshold.
If all the primaries were finished, and neither met the 2025 threshold, then it's the Supers who decide. If they trickle in and let a final primary be the deciding factor, then it seems much more 'legitimate'.
May 4, 2008 8:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
I've run the numbers and posted a blog showing just how hard it will be for Clinton to win, even if she she does better than expected on Tuesday.
http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/2008/05/the-beginning-of-the-end-or-ho.php
May 4, 2008 6:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Two self-plugs in one thread, Genghis?
At least allow some of the pleasure to find it on the right side of the page first...
May 4, 2008 6:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Don't count out a superdelegate coup!
I've served two terms, but I've got a wife! And we are owed, big time!
May 4, 2008 6:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
How in the world does one blame voters for their choices? I'm totally mystified by this -
May 4, 2008 7:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
I've read through about four threads today. And there is a strange absence of trolls. Not total absence. But like the skeeters after a snap freeze...not a bother today.
And as I have predicted...things become ever so much more fun when their buzzing is reduced.
I realize that many of you are going to have to wind down the tension. It will be over soon, and I hope you'll all be as adroit in analyzing issues as you have been in crunching numbers.
But Mrs. Clinton's motivation is simpler. When you get into that rarefied air of Presidential politics, it is very hard to let go. There's no tomorrow for Hillary, no 2012 or 2016. McCain is a loser. Even with the Repug's usual cash bulge, and he doesn't have it.
She's just waiting to see if Obama explodes. Obama, by the same token, is in a holding pattern, trying to preserve the possibility that Hillary will support him - "enthusiastically", as they say. And it is possible. VP isn't, but an alliance is, because once you get into that rarefied air, etc., you'll take second or third best, just to get to ride on Air Force One sometimes.
The two biggest subjects of analysis are the polls and the media. Both are aimed at "the people", at divining from some sociological point of view their desires.
The problem is that lots of people lean this way and that. They aren't interested in in having their consciousness "constructed" via crosstabs or focus groups. And their attitude toward final polls - that is, elections - is different from their attitude toward opinion polls. I know - the theory of opinion sampling says that all that variation cancels itself out. But the names of candidates are just images or containers at this point. It could be that everybody likes the image of Obama, and dislikes that of McCain. But if you tell them that McCain can provide fairly distributed medical care, a real (as opposed to fake) education, and a free lawyer if you get arrested, then image will not rule.
In other words, most people understand at the DNA level that Democrats have better intentions, and Republicans have better bankers and lawyers. This is why even the trolls on this site are constantly arguing, in effect, that Obama is somehow "not pure", and that the slightest impurity sends him back to the bottom of the heap. This is the essence of Bill Clinton's "strong but wrong" rap concerning Bush. And in a sense, this is why Hillary remains minimally "viable" as a Presidential candidate, despite the fact that it is now obvious that she will tell any lie (Tuzla), swift boat any opponent ("Shame on you, Barack Obama") and make any false promise (gas tax relief): she won't be worse than Mc Cain, whatever happens!
I'm not sure about Obama. I'm not sure he understands exactly how completely unrelated his Presidency will be to this campaign. The two most important things are these: Democrats could really use as large a majority as they can get. Better Obama should win by a few points and the Democrats gain 30 House and 8 Senate seats, then to have Obama win big and his coattails be short.
The other thing is that Obama will get a chance to sell himself as a Lincoln, as a Roosevelt, because several kinds of shit are just waiting for him to win in order to hit the fan with terrifying force.
Will it be military confrontation with China over Taiwan, over oil, over Western Hemisphere meddling? Will it be armies of middle-class homeless, homes in foreclosure? Will it be gasoline at $5, at $7?
Or will it just be smaller hordes of wealthy investors trying to get their money out of the US before it's too late? Obama says he personally likes Warren Buffett. I hope he's not too stuck on Warren, because I think nationalization of the oil industry is a possibility. Heck, nationalization of Big Pharma could help get to universal medical care. And if the price of bread (and a few other things) goes too high, we might have to send soldiers out to...grow food.
Like the tip-over point for global warming - the change of which Obama speaks is coming. With McCain, it would stay hidden longer, and the lies cooked up to hide it would be ever more elaborate...because the point would be to allow the rich to sell this country short, to pull their money out of it.
We have experienced politics for decades as a choice between options, each of which has advantages. Now we will experience life in a country that has to risk much in order to stay free.
People don't expect to trust Hillary or McCain. With them, you are "trusting" that we the people have some permanent value to the rich. Global labor arbitrage puts that in doubt, and people know it. The problem with the media is that they are constantly angling to increase their own importance in the decision making process - not realizing that the barbarians at the gates is a different type of no-spin zone. The problem with the polls is that they constantly ask people what they want, what they prefer - without reference either to what is right, or to a situation in which all the outcomes are painful.
Obama, I think, is anxiously waiting for the chance to start campaigning for THIS kind of trust. "We will follow, Father Abraham..." There won't be time for the decades of trial and punishment the Republicans have earned (and so many Democrats spend their time wanting). There will only be time to offer the financial world the chance to cooperate - before the part of the financial world that doesn't cooperate is expropriated ruthlessly, in America's determined effort to survive.
The best comparison to the US has been Russia, for some time. Their government was about to become a wholy owned subsidiary of their businessmen.
Obama doesn't need a preacher. But he will have to say, at some point, "I have come not to bring peace but a sword." He cannot be President during an Era of Good Feeling. The American government must emphatically arise from the bathtub wherein it hath already been drowned.
There will be more than one whiff of grapeshot before it's over. Or else it is over; and we can stop worrying.
May 4, 2008 8:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Not so wild about the Russia analogy.
Russia has traded a wild West oligary for hard-core, brutal authoritarianism, with many dead or imprisoned dissenters along the way.
Can we come up with another analogy?
May 4, 2008 10:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
This completely ignores the fact that the states that Senator Obama quote-unquote "won" do not count.
May 4, 2008 11:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
...the states that Senator Obama quote-unquote "won" do not count...
Certainly they count...for the republicans in November.
May 5, 2008 1:41 AM | Reply | Permalink