That, and Donna Brazile. Donna rocks.
So I'll probably be up late tonight, watching John King working the maps; pinching, squeezing, pushing ... ugh, I just totally grossed myself out.
I propose a drinking game for tonight's primary results: every time King stumbles over the name of a county in Oregon, take a drink. And if you don't think that will give you enough chances, here's a partial list: Clackamas, Multnomah, Wallowa, Deschutes (bless you!), Yamhill, Tillamook, and ... Clatsop!
("My friends they come around, say Clatsop Clatsop Clatsop Clatsop...")
But what to do about Kentucky? If we take a drink every time they mention working class white voters, we'll all be unconscious before the Oregon polls even close. Or whatever they do up there in their elitist, vote-by-mail state. What's with you, Oregon? Why can't you have messed-up voting machines and ballot shortages like all the other states?
I suggest a drink every time the phrase "Florida and Michigan" comes up during the Kentucky returns. We'll hear that a lot, but not so much that we'll wake up thinking Larry King carried 64 percent of the suspender vote in Malheur County.
prediction:
Kentucky - Clinton 62, Obama 30, Edwards 5, Bill Monroe 3
Oregon - Obama 60, Clinton 39
Tuesday, May 20, 2008
Monday, May 19, 2008
Obama's terrible problem with white voters
Sorry for the snark. One of my pet peeves has been the tendency for media to overplay the supposed "white-voter-gap" for Obama. Here in Minnesota, Obama won decisively. Some states he's done better with whites, some worse, but it is much more complicated than "Obama does/does not appeal to white voters." It has a lot to do with geography and culture, and sure, racial attitudes play a role, but Obama has shown he can appeal across a very broad spectrum of voters.
Anyhow, the pics from the Portland rally (75,000 people) are impressive no matter how you look at them.
Thursday, May 15, 2008
VEEP VEEP!
Some intriguing chatter about vice presidential picks lately. I saw a story that says Mike Huckabee is now at the top of McCain’s short list. One thing about McCain, he is not dumb. Huckabee may not be from a swing state (I think Arkansas will be in the R column in any election not featuring a Clinton on the ticket), but he can deliver the very key evangelical vote, especially in states like Florida and Ohio.
Huckabee has some truly nutty ideas and will turn some off with his very religious politics, but those voters are likely not to vote R anyhow. What he does bring is a lot of star power and likeability to the ticket. And he is not, as McCain has said about himself, “old as dirt.”
I just remember when Huck said the Wal Mart voters were the wind beneath his wings. Brilliant! That guy can connect with those voters, and bring them out, in a way that a Pawlenty or a Romney never would. Huckabee would be a great choice for VP.
And then there is the much-talked-about Obama/Clinton ticket. Some are now saying that if Sen. Clinton wants it, Obama will have to give her the job because she has so many delegates and so much support. But I can really see strong arguments both ways. Obama has been criticizing Clinton as part of the problem in Washington; it’s going to be tough to turn around and pick her as VP. And who wants Bill Clinton roaming the White House, bored, looking for trouble?? Not BO, I would bet.
But still. Hillary Clinton, like Huckabee, has proven to be a formidable campaigner who appeals to working class people (and not just whites; Latinos are also a very strong group for her). IF the two could get along, and IF their staffs didn’t start sniping at each other and IF they could ship Bill off to Tahiti or something, this matchup could really generate some excitement. But those are big ifs, don’t you think?
So what's your opinion? Any favorites for VP?
Oh, and I found this; The Hill went to every senator and asked if they’d be interested in the VP slot. Some of the replies are pretty funny: Joe Lieberman said, “I already have the T-shirt.” Larry Craig (of all people) also had a good response: “I would say, ‘No, Hillary.’”
Huckabee has some truly nutty ideas and will turn some off with his very religious politics, but those voters are likely not to vote R anyhow. What he does bring is a lot of star power and likeability to the ticket. And he is not, as McCain has said about himself, “old as dirt.”
I just remember when Huck said the Wal Mart voters were the wind beneath his wings. Brilliant! That guy can connect with those voters, and bring them out, in a way that a Pawlenty or a Romney never would. Huckabee would be a great choice for VP.
And then there is the much-talked-about Obama/Clinton ticket. Some are now saying that if Sen. Clinton wants it, Obama will have to give her the job because she has so many delegates and so much support. But I can really see strong arguments both ways. Obama has been criticizing Clinton as part of the problem in Washington; it’s going to be tough to turn around and pick her as VP. And who wants Bill Clinton roaming the White House, bored, looking for trouble?? Not BO, I would bet.
But still. Hillary Clinton, like Huckabee, has proven to be a formidable campaigner who appeals to working class people (and not just whites; Latinos are also a very strong group for her). IF the two could get along, and IF their staffs didn’t start sniping at each other and IF they could ship Bill off to Tahiti or something, this matchup could really generate some excitement. But those are big ifs, don’t you think?
So what's your opinion? Any favorites for VP?
Oh, and I found this; The Hill went to every senator and asked if they’d be interested in the VP slot. Some of the replies are pretty funny: Joe Lieberman said, “I already have the T-shirt.” Larry Craig (of all people) also had a good response: “I would say, ‘No, Hillary.’”
Tuesday, May 13, 2008
Please, no more "Country Roads" references...
Ok, West Virginia is the site of a primary today. Sen. Clinton will win it by a very large margin, and I am so looking forward to the ensuing discussion of What It All Means.
Look, Clinton clearly wrote some states off, and Obama is writing this one off. So the big win will not mean much. It won't make a big dent in the delegate lead and probably not in the popular vote totals.
Some are talking about the possibility of racism hurting Obama in states like West Virginia. I suppose it's possible that in the fall election this could shave a couple of points off of Obama's totals in some states. But I just don't think it's going to have a big impact overall. Time will tell.
Prediction: Clinton 60, Obama 40.
Look, Clinton clearly wrote some states off, and Obama is writing this one off. So the big win will not mean much. It won't make a big dent in the delegate lead and probably not in the popular vote totals.
Some are talking about the possibility of racism hurting Obama in states like West Virginia. I suppose it's possible that in the fall election this could shave a couple of points off of Obama's totals in some states. But I just don't think it's going to have a big impact overall. Time will tell.
Prediction: Clinton 60, Obama 40.
Wednesday, May 07, 2008
The End in Sight
Well, that was fun.
A memorable night in American politics; we went to bed not knowing the winner of the Indiana primary. But the overall outcome was clear: Sen. Obama had regained the momentum toward the nomination and Sen. Clinton is running on fumes ... to use a gasoline reference, which seems timely.
Congratulations to all who participated in these two primaries, regardless of what candidate they voted for. They have a right to feel proud of their contributions to our democratic process.
Lots of interesting things on the CNN interactive map.
Much has been made of the so-called racial divide amongst voters, but look how Obama did in nearly all-white counties like Tipton, Carroll, Vanderburgh (where Evansville is): scoring in the 40s, even the high 40s is not bad at all. It's counties like these that kept the totals close enough to give Obama an opportunity to win with results from the big urban counties like Marion and Lake. In the end, he fell just short, but it was much closer than almost anyone predicted (especially me.) And 61-39 Obama in Hamilton County?? That's a surprise.
Another thing that jumped out at me were the numbers on the Republican side. Huckabee won 10 percent of the vote. Ron Paul won 8 percent. Mitt Romney (remember him? The hair guy! No, not Edwards, the REPUBLICAN hair guy!) won 5 percent.
Are you kidding me? A guy that has been out of the race for months, who has already endorsed McCain and is fishing for a VP nod, still pulls in 5 percent? The total Republican vote opposing the anointed candidate who has the entire R establishment behind him and no one campaigning against him is * over * 20 * percent?!?
Something's not right with that picture. But please, go on and talk about how the Democrats are divided.
A memorable night in American politics; we went to bed not knowing the winner of the Indiana primary. But the overall outcome was clear: Sen. Obama had regained the momentum toward the nomination and Sen. Clinton is running on fumes ... to use a gasoline reference, which seems timely.
Congratulations to all who participated in these two primaries, regardless of what candidate they voted for. They have a right to feel proud of their contributions to our democratic process.
Lots of interesting things on the CNN interactive map.
Much has been made of the so-called racial divide amongst voters, but look how Obama did in nearly all-white counties like Tipton, Carroll, Vanderburgh (where Evansville is): scoring in the 40s, even the high 40s is not bad at all. It's counties like these that kept the totals close enough to give Obama an opportunity to win with results from the big urban counties like Marion and Lake. In the end, he fell just short, but it was much closer than almost anyone predicted (especially me.) And 61-39 Obama in Hamilton County?? That's a surprise.
Another thing that jumped out at me were the numbers on the Republican side. Huckabee won 10 percent of the vote. Ron Paul won 8 percent. Mitt Romney (remember him? The hair guy! No, not Edwards, the REPUBLICAN hair guy!) won 5 percent.
Are you kidding me? A guy that has been out of the race for months, who has already endorsed McCain and is fishing for a VP nod, still pulls in 5 percent? The total Republican vote opposing the anointed candidate who has the entire R establishment behind him and no one campaigning against him is * over * 20 * percent?!?
Something's not right with that picture. But please, go on and talk about how the Democrats are divided.
Tuesday, May 06, 2008
A Primary That Matters
For both NC and IN, this is the biggest political event in recent memory, perhaps the biggest primary election ever for two states that vote so late in the season. And there are a lot of blogs and media sites covering it, so we all can share the excitement at least a little.
Here's something from the Indianapolis Star's political blog; a Top Ten Moments of the 08 Primary. My favorite entries:
"3. Obama playing a game of three-on-three basketball in Kokomo, erasing any doubts about his playing ability.
2. Clinton drinking a shot of whiskey at a pizza pub in Crown Point, erasing any doubts about her drinking ability."
If you haven't already, get out and vote!*
http://blogs.indystar.com/politics/
(*applicable to IN and NC residents only. For IN residents,
some restrictions apply.
Here's something from the Indianapolis Star's political blog; a Top Ten Moments of the 08 Primary. My favorite entries:
"3. Obama playing a game of three-on-three basketball in Kokomo, erasing any doubts about his playing ability.
2. Clinton drinking a shot of whiskey at a pizza pub in Crown Point, erasing any doubts about her drinking ability."
If you haven't already, get out and vote!*
http://blogs.indystar.com/politics/
(*applicable to IN and NC residents only. For IN residents,
some restrictions apply.
Monday, May 05, 2008
Indiana and North Carolina
The consensus is that Sen. Clinton will win Indiana and Sen. Obama will win North Carolina.
My feeling is that it's a relief to see the candidates discussing something other than Rev. Wright. Even thought the main topic for the last week has been Clinton's ill-advised gas tax holiday, at least it's legitimate policy disagreement, rather than guilt-by-association and overhyped controversy.
One of the blogs I've read says my old stomping grounds of Kokomo and Howard County will be a "bellweather" region, so whoever wins there will win the state, by that reasoning. And I see Obama visited an old farmstead near Tipton, where some ancestors of his lived--also within spitting distance of some of my relatives.
I think the Wright thing damaged Obama a little too much for him to come back from in Indiana, but this was always a state in which I would've expected him to have a tough time. If anything, I am surprised by how receptive Hoosiers have been to Obama. Some are saying it will be close in IN, but I'm expecting a respectable double digit win for Clinton that will nonetheless not be a blowout and not give her a big delegate advantage.
In North Carolina, I expect an Obama win of anywhere from 5 to 20 points. Where he ends up in that range will have a big impact on how the race proceeds. A big win would mean a significant delegate and popular vote advantage, that would make Clinton's road a lot tougher. A close win for Obama and Clinton can claim momementum, blah blah blah. She still can't win, probably, but we'll certainly be in for some furious campaigning for the last few states.
A Clinton win in NC would be, in her words, a game-changer.
Predictions
Indiana: 56 Clinton, 44 Obama
North Carolina: 54 Obama, 46 Clinton
My feeling is that it's a relief to see the candidates discussing something other than Rev. Wright. Even thought the main topic for the last week has been Clinton's ill-advised gas tax holiday, at least it's legitimate policy disagreement, rather than guilt-by-association and overhyped controversy.
One of the blogs I've read says my old stomping grounds of Kokomo and Howard County will be a "bellweather" region, so whoever wins there will win the state, by that reasoning. And I see Obama visited an old farmstead near Tipton, where some ancestors of his lived--also within spitting distance of some of my relatives.
I think the Wright thing damaged Obama a little too much for him to come back from in Indiana, but this was always a state in which I would've expected him to have a tough time. If anything, I am surprised by how receptive Hoosiers have been to Obama. Some are saying it will be close in IN, but I'm expecting a respectable double digit win for Clinton that will nonetheless not be a blowout and not give her a big delegate advantage.
In North Carolina, I expect an Obama win of anywhere from 5 to 20 points. Where he ends up in that range will have a big impact on how the race proceeds. A big win would mean a significant delegate and popular vote advantage, that would make Clinton's road a lot tougher. A close win for Obama and Clinton can claim momementum, blah blah blah. She still can't win, probably, but we'll certainly be in for some furious campaigning for the last few states.
A Clinton win in NC would be, in her words, a game-changer.
Predictions
Indiana: 56 Clinton, 44 Obama
North Carolina: 54 Obama, 46 Clinton
Friday, May 02, 2008
Email From Indiana
Got an email recently from an Indiana voter with some questions on the two Dem candidates. This voter was trying to make a decision and asked questions about where the candidates stood on 1) alternate fuel sources, 2) mortgage crisis, and 3) the Iraq war.
With some minor modifications, I’m pasting my reply below. I am very interested in the IN primary and have been following it closely. With the tough time that Obama has had recently, I expect Clinton to be the choice for Hoosiers (that seems so weird to say!!) but there is still a chance Obama could surprise there, or that it could at least be close.
Anyhow, I would be VERY interested to hear from other Hoosiers or North Carolina residents on what the primary campaigns have been like there and any thoughts they may have on the candidates. Most of you have my email address, or you can leave comments here…
So, what follows is my reply:
I'll start by saying both candidates are, in my opinion, very well qualified and will probably bring some good people in to work on these problems. Sen. Clinton is very smart and I think she would do a great job. I just like Obama better, I think he can do a better job of bringing people together, creating consensus, improving our standing in the world, etc. He's had to endure a lot of attacks and controversies in the past month from the media and his loose-cannon ex-pastor, but he's continued to keep his cool and keep pushing forward, and I think that's a good sign.
Clinton, in my opinion, is kind of an old-school Democratic who is not as likely to be innovative and not as likely to build consensus. I could be wrong. But that's how I see it.
Specifically on the questions you raised:
The energy question is not an area I'm an expert in. However, I do know Obama went to Detroit and told the automakers point-blank that they needed to make more efficient cars with higher mileage standards. I'm sure Clinton supports that in principle too. If we look at Bill Clinton's term, we see a President who was OK on the environment, did some good things as far as designating national parks, etc., but didn't really make the environment a top issue. He also didn't do anything too memorable in the area of energy policy. (At least not that I remember.)
I think the next president is going to have to make the environment and energy (the two are closely linked of course) a top priority. That means fighting some very powerful interests. I believe Obama is better positioned to do that. He makes the claim that he doesn't take money from lobbyists, which is true, with a caveat—he has taken individual contributions from people with who work for oil companies--as opposed to the firms that lobby for oil companies. But he is in general not as beholden to special interests as Clinton and McCain would be.
In the area of financial issues/home mortgage crisis, I think both candidates have good ideas on some possible solutions and would be a lot more proactive than the current administration, or McCain. The whole issue is an example of why free markets are not a panacea. People are losing their homes and their savings; it's not enough to stand back and "let the market work." Because sometimes it doesn't. My guess is that Obama, as a former community organizer, would have a much better feel for how these problems affect working people. But that's just a guess.
On the war in Iraq. Both Dem. Senators now oppose it, both are committed to bringing troops home as quickly as possible while still doing it in an orderly fashion, both say they want to emphasize diplomacy and minimize any upheaval caused by a US withdrawal. Both may be underplaying the difficulty of doing that. That war is a horrific mess, and anything we do to end our involvement is going to come with some very big risks. The only worse thing than doing something, though, is doing nothing and letting the anti-American hatred continue to fester there and in other parts of the Middle East. That's just my opinion, of course.
So both have pledged similar strategies. But they come from different backgrounds and will likely have different approaches overall in the foreign policy area. Clinton has shown herself to be a mainstream, maybe even slightly conservative Democrat when it comes to foreign policy. In my opinion, she has made a classic Clintonian calculation that voters see Dems as "weak" on military and foreign policy matters, so she has to appear more conservative to counter that. In a way, that's smart. And I don't think it's even as calculating as it sounds—many old-school Dems are pretty conservative when it comes to foreign policy. Bill Clinton's foreign policy was not really significantly different than that of previous administrations.
Obama, I believe, is charting a slightly different course, with a big emphasis on diplomacy and multi-lateral cooperation. I think we do need to improve our image overseas, and nothing would send a stronger signal that we are going to re-connect with the world than to elect an African American with a funny name. Now, some voters are not particularly interested in the idea that America has to get along with other countries; they prefer being the superpower and throwing our weight around. I don't think that's possible anymore, and it certainly hasn't worked out well for us in the past 7 years.
Who will do a better job of getting us out of Iraq? I don't know. I think Obama will do more to improve our image and bring other nations to the table to work on the problem, but can he be tough, I think is the question that skeptics will ask. Aside from the point that "being tough" may be part of our problem, I can't answer the question. We all have to take our own measure of the man.
I hope that helps. I believe either candidate is deserving of your vote.
With some minor modifications, I’m pasting my reply below. I am very interested in the IN primary and have been following it closely. With the tough time that Obama has had recently, I expect Clinton to be the choice for Hoosiers (that seems so weird to say!!) but there is still a chance Obama could surprise there, or that it could at least be close.
Anyhow, I would be VERY interested to hear from other Hoosiers or North Carolina residents on what the primary campaigns have been like there and any thoughts they may have on the candidates. Most of you have my email address, or you can leave comments here…
So, what follows is my reply:
I'll start by saying both candidates are, in my opinion, very well qualified and will probably bring some good people in to work on these problems. Sen. Clinton is very smart and I think she would do a great job. I just like Obama better, I think he can do a better job of bringing people together, creating consensus, improving our standing in the world, etc. He's had to endure a lot of attacks and controversies in the past month from the media and his loose-cannon ex-pastor, but he's continued to keep his cool and keep pushing forward, and I think that's a good sign.
Clinton, in my opinion, is kind of an old-school Democratic who is not as likely to be innovative and not as likely to build consensus. I could be wrong. But that's how I see it.
Specifically on the questions you raised:
The energy question is not an area I'm an expert in. However, I do know Obama went to Detroit and told the automakers point-blank that they needed to make more efficient cars with higher mileage standards. I'm sure Clinton supports that in principle too. If we look at Bill Clinton's term, we see a President who was OK on the environment, did some good things as far as designating national parks, etc., but didn't really make the environment a top issue. He also didn't do anything too memorable in the area of energy policy. (At least not that I remember.)
I think the next president is going to have to make the environment and energy (the two are closely linked of course) a top priority. That means fighting some very powerful interests. I believe Obama is better positioned to do that. He makes the claim that he doesn't take money from lobbyists, which is true, with a caveat—he has taken individual contributions from people with who work for oil companies--as opposed to the firms that lobby for oil companies. But he is in general not as beholden to special interests as Clinton and McCain would be.
In the area of financial issues/home mortgage crisis, I think both candidates have good ideas on some possible solutions and would be a lot more proactive than the current administration, or McCain. The whole issue is an example of why free markets are not a panacea. People are losing their homes and their savings; it's not enough to stand back and "let the market work." Because sometimes it doesn't. My guess is that Obama, as a former community organizer, would have a much better feel for how these problems affect working people. But that's just a guess.
On the war in Iraq. Both Dem. Senators now oppose it, both are committed to bringing troops home as quickly as possible while still doing it in an orderly fashion, both say they want to emphasize diplomacy and minimize any upheaval caused by a US withdrawal. Both may be underplaying the difficulty of doing that. That war is a horrific mess, and anything we do to end our involvement is going to come with some very big risks. The only worse thing than doing something, though, is doing nothing and letting the anti-American hatred continue to fester there and in other parts of the Middle East. That's just my opinion, of course.
So both have pledged similar strategies. But they come from different backgrounds and will likely have different approaches overall in the foreign policy area. Clinton has shown herself to be a mainstream, maybe even slightly conservative Democrat when it comes to foreign policy. In my opinion, she has made a classic Clintonian calculation that voters see Dems as "weak" on military and foreign policy matters, so she has to appear more conservative to counter that. In a way, that's smart. And I don't think it's even as calculating as it sounds—many old-school Dems are pretty conservative when it comes to foreign policy. Bill Clinton's foreign policy was not really significantly different than that of previous administrations.
Obama, I believe, is charting a slightly different course, with a big emphasis on diplomacy and multi-lateral cooperation. I think we do need to improve our image overseas, and nothing would send a stronger signal that we are going to re-connect with the world than to elect an African American with a funny name. Now, some voters are not particularly interested in the idea that America has to get along with other countries; they prefer being the superpower and throwing our weight around. I don't think that's possible anymore, and it certainly hasn't worked out well for us in the past 7 years.
Who will do a better job of getting us out of Iraq? I don't know. I think Obama will do more to improve our image and bring other nations to the table to work on the problem, but can he be tough, I think is the question that skeptics will ask. Aside from the point that "being tough" may be part of our problem, I can't answer the question. We all have to take our own measure of the man.
I hope that helps. I believe either candidate is deserving of your vote.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)