bounce (0.00 / 0)

Personally I don't by the big Iowa bounce theory.  Just doesn't make sense when you consider how many eventual nominees lost Iowa.  This is true for democrats and republicans.  It seems like 'fuzzy math' to me.

Luckily, it won't be long until we find out.  :-)

---

by: RalphB @ Sat Dec 01, 2007 at 18:51:26 PM CST

I also (0.00 / 0)

apparently can't spell 'buy'.

---

by: RalphB @ Sat Dec 01, 2007 at 19:13:15 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Momentum and past (0.00 / 0)

Chris explained this in a previous post.  The boost a candidate gets from Iowa only lasts for about 2 weeks, and peeks between 3 - 7 days after Iowa.

Most election years the New Hampshire primary was weeks after Iowa.  This gave time for the "bounce" to fade and candidates to recover.  That is why in the past candidates could still win in New Hampshire even after losing Iowa.  This year, the New Hampshire primary is so close to Iowa's caucus that it's going to be right in the middle of the peek of the Iowa bounce.

If New Hampshire was 2 weeks or more after Iowa, then Chris's model wouldn't hold up.

---

by: dmineau @ Sun Dec 02, 2007 at 10:57:53 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Actually (4.00 / 1)

the boost would last, there would just be a chance for other candidates to respond.

For the record, the NH/IOWA model is mine.

---

by: fladem @ Sun Dec 02, 2007 at 15:18:02 PM CST

[ Parent ]

my apologies n/t (0.00 / 0)

---

by: dmineau @ Thu Dec 06, 2007 at 10:44:11 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Inflated Poll Theory #....? (0.00 / 0)

Sounds like the return of the Clinton inflated poll theory, to me.

---

by: JoeCHI @ Sat Dec 01, 2007 at 19:14:59 PM CST

maybe (4.00 / 1)

I was ready to write a long objection, but you already wrote it in the concluding section.  Certainly we can all agree that Obama supporters can have a lot of hope and can see that a victory is possible.  After all, things felt grim in September.

New Jersey politics at Blue Jersey.

---

by: Hopeful in NJ @ Sat Dec 01, 2007 at 19:15:42 PM CST

Interesting (0.00 / 0)

Well, I think what this shows is that Obama has a pretty good chance of winning the nomination. However, it will probably be difficult for him to keep the momentum up for the entire next month, meaning everything still needs to go his way, and in that regard Clinton seems to clearly still be the frontrunner.

---

by: Korha @ Sat Dec 01, 2007 at 19:31:25 PM CST

She is the front runner, from national polling. (4.00 / 3)

Again, she was frontrunner all this year in everything.  Do you understand striking the iron, when hot?  It is hot, and the right time.  Almost less than 30 days away.  And Clinton was leading from what?  Since, conception.  If anything, this should show everyone what soft support means.  I am in Iowa, and she is not winning ANYTHING.  I will write a seperate diary on this.  But from the ground, etc., she is not even a second choice.

---

by: icebergslim @ Sun Dec 02, 2007 at 00:32:31 AM CST

[ Parent ]

If you're right.... (4.00 / 4)

Then we'd better start having a conversation starting right now about whether Obama is ready for prime time or not. We need to very carefully consider whether Obama is capable of winning a general election against Rudy Giuliani or John McCain.

I could be convinced otherwise, but my feeling right now is that this is a disaster about to happen. Will Americans who voted George W. Bush into office - and we need a lot of them - really vote for a candidate who has been in the Senate for about a third of his term (and spent most of it campaigning), who comes off as professorial and intellectual, and who has a Muslim-sounding name?

Does Obama have the stomach for playing dirty? Or the ability? Because he's going to have to.

Maybe I'm wrong and Obama's the best candidate we've had in some time. I don't know. But it's something Democrats need to think long and hard about.

---

by: Jason C. @ Sat Dec 01, 2007 at 20:12:50 PM CST

OBAMA CLOSING NATIONALLY (4.00 / 1)

ZOGBY POLL OF NOV.21(Telephone poll)

Clinton 38
Obama 27

Rasmussen tracking poll:
Last 3 days Clinton 38, 37 AND 36
Obama  24, 27, and 27

The margin has gone from 14 to 10 to 9

We have not seen any other national poll's after Nov. 21st to verify both Zogby AND RASMUSSEN.

Bottom line is the trend line is moving in all poll's towards Obama EVEN ALBEIT SLOWLY.

---

by: BDM @ Sat Dec 01, 2007 at 20:29:43 PM CST

[ Parent ]

wonder if kos will apologize? (0.00 / 0)

nah unlikely

some folks should eat some crow if zogby turns out right....

---

by: aiko @ Sat Dec 01, 2007 at 22:05:05 PM CST

[ Parent ]

phone poll is different than internet poll from zogby (0.00 / 0)

and i know that kos has made that distinction.

Unless you mean his DOA's for Obamas campaign after the whole Mclurkin deal. I'm sure there was some kind of qualifier.

---

by: afterthought @ Sat Dec 01, 2007 at 22:06:41 PM CST

[ Parent ]

As a southener (4.00 / 1)

by birth, though not necessarily inclination, I can't think of a way in hell Obama will win any state in the south.  Unless the republicans nominate Alan Keyes.  I don't care what opinion polls might show, it just ain't gonna happen.  If Guiliani is the nominee, then Connecticut and New York are very much in play as well.

I expect that Clinton would also lose big in the south, with the exception that she would win Arkansas and I'd give her a good chance in Florida against Guiliani or McCain.

I'm very afraid that the democratic party is going to repeat the mistake of '04 and let the media pick their candidate.  I sure hope that one can be found but I do not see an electoral strategy for an Obama win in '08.

---

by: RalphB @ Sat Dec 01, 2007 at 20:46:42 PM CST

[ Parent ]

what the hell are you talking about? (4.00 / 3)

"If Guiliani is the nominee, then Connecticut and New York are very much in play as well."

No. No they are not. I think making a statement like that discredits basically everything else you say.

Giulianni is not popular in New York, and if you honestly think that NY and CT -- two Democratic Machine States that are solidly liberal -- are going to go for Giulianni after ACTUALLY THINKING ABOUT IT IN A GENERAL ELECTION, you are completely off base.

Also, the media wants Hillary Clinton - they tolerate Obama. James Carville is an 'analyst' on CNN and gets time with Russert on Meet The Press.

So, you are wrong. Painfully, ridiculously wrong. You are so wrong, in fact, that I think you should feel pretty bad about it.

Wrong.

---

by: afterthought @ Sat Dec 01, 2007 at 21:15:20 PM CST

[ Parent ]

BS (4.00 / 1)

Please see the post below.  The statewide polls that I have seen, and everyone is so batshit for, show a loss for Obama.

Since you have no stats for thinking the media wants Clinton, I guess it wouldn't help if I pointed to the Annenberg atudy which showed Obama getting extremely positive press coverage while Clinton was the reverse.  You're probably not of the fact-based community anyway.

By the way, you might want to fix your shift key or are you just trying to be an ass? 

---

by: RalphB @ Sat Dec 01, 2007 at 21:28:59 PM CST

[ Parent ]

BS on your BS (4.00 / 2)

Pre-primary statewide polls aren't going to trump history.

NY is a Democratic state.
You argued that NY would pick Rudy over Obama.
Rudy is a Republican.
History and common sense tells me otherwise.
Same is true with CT.
You are saying that Rudy Giulianni -- who's campaign is fatally flawed anyway -- is going to beat Obama in two solid Dem states. That is just plain absurd. You can use numbers to support your absurd conclusion, but it fails the bad joke test in my book.

and again, Obama's campaign lackeys aren't given a platform like Clinton's campaign lackeys are. Carville - a post debate spinner on CNN with no disclosure of his ties to Clinton.
Carville -- interviewed on meet the press without any Obama counterpart.

You can say that Hillary gets disproprotionately negative coverage [although we all know the media treats Edwards like a redheaded stepchild] -- but that's because (1) she's the frontrunner according to the media (2) fox news will do more stories bashing the frontrunner and (3) Hillary Clinton has ties to some seriously corrupt people.

Maybe -- MAYBE -- Clinton gets harsher coverage on if you take Fox out of the equation. Either way, her campaign has a disproportionate amount of access to the media - she can shape and establish narratives, which is what matters.

And again, your claim that Obama would lose NY, PA, and/or CT in the general is just completely and utterly ridiculous, and I think it hurts your credibility on every other claim you make.

---

by: afterthought @ Sat Dec 01, 2007 at 21:50:13 PM CST

[ Parent ]

More BS (0.00 / 0)

I shouldn't have to remind you that prior to Elliot Spitzer, NY had a republican governor from 1995 to 2006.  Please don't conflate NYC with NY state.  They really are not the same and not nearly so liberal as you seem to think.

---

by: RalphB @ Sat Dec 01, 2007 at 22:05:34 PM CST

[ Parent ]

GOVERNOR IS NOT PRESIDENT - I was talking about presidential elections (4.00 / 1)

and there are plenty of Dem machine states with Republican govs - that's because they serve as a check on the machine. They still vote Dem for president.

---

by: afterthought @ Sat Dec 01, 2007 at 22:08:57 PM CST

[ Parent ]

sorry about the caps and the general rudeness (4.00 / 1)

i was just lookin to start trouble.

although i certainly do disagree with you, i recognize that you have some evidence for your claims. I just reject that evidence.

i sometimes enjoy the challenge of being a jerk while making an argument. that's because in order to win an argument while being a jerk, your contentions have to have even more merit than they would have were you simply civil and mature about things. i think this is one of those times.

mission accomplished.

---

by: afterthought @ Sat Dec 01, 2007 at 22:21:15 PM CST

[ Parent ]

No problem (4.00 / 1)

I'm a professional jerk myself at times.  I really want a democratic win in '08 and I'm suspicious because Obama seems to get such really good press.  It reminds me of Kerry and Dean in '04 when the party in Iowa let the press pick the nominee with a disastrous result.  I don't want to be set up for a fall like that again but I'm afraid it's coming.

---

by: RalphB @ Sat Dec 01, 2007 at 23:18:47 PM CST

[ Parent ]

he doesn't get good press (0.00 / 0)

they treat him like a lightweight on CNN and they accuse him of being muslim in the WaPo.

The media may not engage in a lot of personal attacks against him, but that's because they have no ammo for personal attacks against him.

---

by: afterthought @ Sun Dec 02, 2007 at 11:21:21 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Re NY - Afterthought Is Right (4.00 / 3)

I live in NY and people here are sick of Giuliani, even more so with Sex on the City scandal.  His numbers were in the crapper pre-9/11 and they have returned to that level.  To give you an idea of how poor Giuliani's numbers are in NY, the guy can't top 45% against anyone and this is home state.  An October Quinnipiac University poll had the following NY numbers for Rudy:

Clinton 50%
Giuliani 36%

Obama 45%
Giuliani 45%

Guiliani 45%
Edwards 44%

Hardly encouraging when you are tied with people NY voters are not especially familiar with.  If Rudy can't carry NY, what makes you think he can carry Connecticut, New Jersey or any other blue Northeastern state?

Frankly, as 9/11 fades so does Rudy.  I think Huckabee is a far more problematic candidate for the Dems than Rudy.

---

by: jmnyc @ Sat Dec 01, 2007 at 22:39:53 PM CST

[ Parent ]

duh (4.00 / 1)

Do you not think that NY voters know who Obama and Edwards are at this point?  Edwards was on the ballot in '04 and most peoples memories can be longer than their cocks.

---

by: RalphB @ Sat Dec 01, 2007 at 23:21:25 PM CST

[ Parent ]

You Confuse the Politically Active (4.00 / 2)

with average voters.  I can tell you talking with my family members who are not politically active but vote that Obama and Edwards have name recognition but their vews are not well known.  Big difference.

Again, you avoid the Giuliani issue.  The people in NY do not like him anymore.  He is back to his 9/10/01 poll numbers which sucked.  Not only can't he beat any of the Dem Presidential candidates, he can't beat his successor Mike Bloomberg in a hypothetical match-up.  What makes you think this guy can carry his home state?  I'd bet my last dollar he'd lose NY by 10 points against any of the Dems.

---

by: jmnyc @ Sun Dec 02, 2007 at 09:05:02 AM CST

[ Parent ]

NJ (0.00 / 0)

I live in NJ and I think either Hillary or Edwards would win here but Obama would not.  My best guess is that Obama would win NY but lose PA and CT plus NJ in the Northeast.  That's not too good.  Hope I'm wrong.  Monday gets us down to one month to Iowa with the last ten days being in slow mo due to the holidays.  Three weeks to break the momentum.  Not long.

---

by: David Kowalski @ Sat Dec 01, 2007 at 21:16:46 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Your hope is well founded (4.00 / 2)

because you are wrong.
What could possibly lead you to believe that SOLID DEMOCRATIC STATES would not go for the Democratic nominee in 08?

Oh, it's that great economy...
that great housing market...
that awesome healthcare...
the great progress in iraq...

Yea, things are definitely looking up and Americans are going to want another dose of that good ole Republican party.

Really? Obama loses NJ/PA?!?!?!

Is this bizarro world?

---

by: afterthought @ Sat Dec 01, 2007 at 21:25:03 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Not so solid. (0.00 / 0)

Kerry beat Bush in CT 53-47.  And let's not forget poor Ned Lamont who lost to Bush Bootlicker and Warmonger Joe Liberman 40-50.

The northeast looks a lot more solid on a map than it actually is--some of the states (MA, VT, NY) are solid blue, but others are barely blue.

---

by: Cat Servant @ Sun Dec 02, 2007 at 10:04:04 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Both of your points are irrelevant, given today's political climate (4.00 / 1)

"Kerry beat Bush in CT 53-47"

Yea, and that was a decent margin since Bush had a stranglehold on the dialog. 6 points in 04 is more like 16 points in 08.

The Republican brand is currently trashed. It was not trashed in 04.

"let's not forget poor Ned Lamont who lost to Bush Bootlicker and Warmonger Joe Liberman 40-50."

Lieberman took about 1/3rd of the Dem vote. Those people will vote Dem in the presidential election, they just happen to be low-info Democrats. They may be stupid, but they are loyal.

Also, CT lost 2 Republicans in 06. Shays is probably gone by 08.

The fact that a grassroots, left-winger like Lamont could pull 40% of the vote shows how liberal and anti-war the electorate is.

---

by: afterthought @ Sun Dec 02, 2007 at 11:19:27 AM CST

[ Parent ]

I hope you're right! (0.00 / 0)

But I'd really like to see Obama start to do better among people who are not wealthy, college-educated, or African-American.

---

by: Cat Servant @ Sun Dec 02, 2007 at 12:21:22 PM CST

[ Parent ]

PA (4.00 / 2)

I am in PA, and I know it will be a battle, but I will personally guarantee that we can win PA for Obama against any of the the Republicans.  We are ready to hold it against any of the Dems for that matter if it comes to itl

My job is not to represent Washington to you, but to represent you to Washington- Obama
Philly for Obama

---

by: Luam @ Sun Dec 02, 2007 at 00:49:22 AM CST

[ Parent ]

As someone else (0.00 / 0)

who lives in New Jersey, can you please tell me which Republican candidate beats Obama in Jersey, or in Connecticut, or in Pennsylvania?

---

by: expatriatedjerseyan @ Sun Dec 02, 2007 at 07:54:49 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Which ones? (0.00 / 0)

Rudy, McCain, maybe Mitt if the media pushes the successful businessman, hereditary thing.  Not Fred Thompson and not Huckabee.  NJ loves the hereditary Republican with a tinge of moderation and a heavy dose of aristocracy like Kean (the original) and Whitman. The real thing like Bret Schundler or GW Bush gets easily rejected.  You do need enough experience to be credible (sorry Kean, Jr.).

The town I'm living in is a nice example of the Republican base in Jersey.  White, suburban, middle class.  The college educated, professional types in town are more likely Democrats but the upper level blue collars (the largest group) are hugely Republican.  In town elections, an Italian surname (vs. a non-Italian one) is worth 300 to 500 votes or 10 to 15% of the vote.  The town went for Bush around 4:1 IIRC in 2004.  That is their vote.  Largely anti-tax but also a bit pro-prejudice and organized along ethnic lines.  The anti-immigrant and barely disguised anti-black screeds against Obama would get some traction.  It was pro-cop although thast is weakening because they have way too many and it is driving up taxes.  The previous chief made sure locals got no traffic tickets.  That's clearly gone and they are very ticky tacky.

---

by: David Kowalski @ Sun Dec 02, 2007 at 14:14:07 PM CST

[ Parent ]

I don't buy it (0.00 / 0)

I would think maybe on Rudy, but he's just absolutely loaded down with scandal. The whole Judith thing, plus exposure of his true role in 9/11 will really damage him, and his main advantages to tri-state area voters would be his social moderation on abortion, marriage, and guns, and it is going to be incredibly hard for him to speak openly on those things in New Jersey and Connecticut, and not get slammed for it elsewhere, and just as hard for him to push conservatism in the red states and not get slammed for it in Jersey and CT.

McCain - incredibly easy to tie him to Bush, whose lowest approval rating of any state in the country is in New Jersey.

Mitt - same territory as McCain with ties to Bush, completely unprincipled, total embrace of the far right won't be popular in New Jersey, and as it is he's having trouble breaking 40% in most polls against Democrats in states that went for Bush in 2002.

I understand where you're coming from on the whole moderate Republican thing, but there are a lot of Republicans who aren't in love with that image, much less Democrats. Tom Kean Sr. is really the only example over the last 30 years who has demonstrated any kind of serious political viability in New Jersey as a moderate Republican.  With Whitman, in 1993, a year where Democrats were getting killed statewide, she won over Florio 49% to 48%, and four years later over McGreevey with 48% to 46%.  2008 is going to be a heavily Democratic year in a state that is more Democratic each year than the year before, and is chronically underpolled as far as Democrats go.  I have every confidence that Obama (or any Democrat) would beat the Republican in New Jersey by at least 5%.

---

by: expatriatedjerseyan @ Sun Dec 02, 2007 at 17:38:09 PM CST

[ Parent ]

I am not sure (0.00 / 0)

about Clinton in Florida.

What bothers me is that she doesn't do as well among independents in Florida as Kerry did in 20004.

---

by: fladem @ Sat Dec 01, 2007 at 23:46:34 PM CST

[ Parent ]

I agree here. (4.00 / 1)

My father lives in Pensacola.  Have been having him performa a "who do you like" poll, all year.

He told me that some of his golf buddies, republican, gave to Obama.  Rememeber, the religious right hijacked the republican party.  These are pragmatic republicans who do not like GWB.

Now he has been asking, will you vote for Hillary.  The face turns red, and the anything but Hillary is out enforce.

That is what she is.  Divisive.  You either like her or not.  No room to grow. 

---

by: icebergslim @ Sun Dec 02, 2007 at 00:39:34 AM CST

[ Parent ]

How important is the south? (4.00 / 1)

I'm not going to take the Tom Schaller viewpoint and argue for running against the south, but winning there isn't necessary to clinch the presidency and being competitive in plenty of states there is a long-term project.

Clinton would put Arkansas in play and Edwards might do the same for West Virginia (high union density) and North Carolina (favourite son). Virginia would probably be just about in play with everybody, but dependent on how much of a lock Mark Warner is to win, whilst Florida could be competitive if its trend towards the GOP reverses. Everywhere else, even if a few polls have shown some signs of competitiveness, would be a real stretch and certainly not needed to get 270 votes.

As for Giuliani, I can't see him getting NY and NJ isn't likely to be much better but some of his policies as mayor did benefit the more upscale residents of Connecticut. However Democrats will be really pushing GOTV in CT-04, where Jim Himes is challenging Shays, and Giuliani won't be able to pull Lieberman's trick of pretending to be against the war, because Lieberman could only do that because there was no serious Republican in the race and the Republican base won't stand for anything but full-blooded enthusiasm for killing anyone slightly brown. In the end, I think Obama could win CT by at least 10.

Forgotten Countries - a foreign policy-focused blog

---

by: Englishlefty @ Sun Dec 02, 2007 at 07:56:38 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Arkansas will probably go Democratic (4.00 / 1)

It is virtually a lock if Clinton and Edwards are the nominee, and Obama has a great chance there as well, but this might be up in the air if Huckabee is the nominee - but he continues to perform poorly there, so perhaps against one or two of the matchups we may lose.

Kentucky seems very competitive this cycle, as is WV, VA, MO where currently it would follow Edwards>Clinton>Obama, as rural votes are going to be the victory in these states (Where Edwards has the most strength). NC is put in play with Edwards, and Florida is in play with everyone, but its hard to determine who is the strongest there (Probably Clinton due to minority/cuban voters, or possibly Edwards due to Northern Florida). Texas should also be competed in, not because it is really competitive, but because it will be in 4-12 years as it is a demographic ticking timebomb, the bush effect has wore off, and it would be a nice state to have on anyone's trophy for their 2012 reelection bid.

---

by: KainIIIC @ Sun Dec 02, 2007 at 12:08:16 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Texas's demographics (0.00 / 0)

Are an excellent point.  I began to write a long response to Englishlefty's comment, and it's so long it ended up as a diary.  Responding to you, though:

I agree that Arkansas looks good as a pick up (whether the candidate is white or not).  I think NC could very well be competitive, but a strong candidate against Sen. Dole would be crucial.  We all know Florida is always in play, but I don't see it happening this cycle; all I can offer as evidence there are recent statewide Republican successes and my impression of northern Florida, where I spend 3 weeks a year.

Missouri votes for the winning candidate quite often (24 of the last 25 elections? something like that), and given the Democratic momentum and Sen. McCaskill's '06 defeat of an incumbent, I think MO is trending our way as well.

What do we do after this, though?

That's why I find the comment about Texas so interesting, with the growth of its cities and the Democratic Party ID % of its significant Chicano population.

---

by: Jay Hazen @ Sun Dec 02, 2007 at 13:32:40 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Rudy is finished (4.00 / 1)

We need to focus on McCain and Huckabee.

Six months ago, I thought Obama was more electable than Clinton. I have serious doubts about that now, though. We will see how he handles the pressure over the next month.

Join the Iowa progressive community at Bleeding Heartland.

---

by: desmoinesdem @ Sat Dec 01, 2007 at 20:57:00 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Agree on Rudy (4.00 / 1)

Stick a fork in him.  This scandal regarding hiding expenses for his affair with Judy Nathan is just getting worse.  They have now discovered a $400K pre-payment to Amex and the use of police escorts for Nathan is all over the NY papers.  And once the reporters are done digging on this story, they will also start digging on his affair with Christine Lategano (now Nicholas) who was Rudy's first Press Secretary to see if there are any accounting irregularities there.  There is major blood in the water and this will quickly become a feeding frenzy.

Frankly, the Repub who scares me is Huckabee and he is quickly gaining traction.

---

by: jmnyc @ Sat Dec 01, 2007 at 22:49:25 PM CST

[ Parent ]

However Huckabee has his own problems (4.00 / 1)

Such as his support for the fair tax, lack of foreign policy experience, and the complete lack of enthusiasm for him among the GOP establishment (vs the evangelical base). He is a charismatic guy but I think he also looks good in comparison at this point because Rudy, Romney and Fred all have such big problems.

---

by: ukit @ Sat Dec 01, 2007 at 23:45:04 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Huckabee's old Jesus and death penalty answer (0.00 / 0)

Huck once stated that Jesus was for the death penalty because he did not object to his own crucifiction.  http://thinkprogress...

Now that Huckabee has merited more scrutiny on his past by surging to the lead, the scrutiny will dig up more nonsense like what was reported by Think Progress above.

John McCain won't insure children

---

by: magster @ Sun Dec 02, 2007 at 11:12:06 AM CST

[ Parent ]

re: (0.00 / 0)

The answer above to the Jesus question is the least of  his concerns. Huckabee has the entire conservative establishment gunning for him, at least as far as stopping him from winning Iowa (which will stop his campaign cold in its tracks).

This guy has to worry about the right-wing smear machine with Faux News + talk radio idiots. If he can survive this thrashing from his own party, then I'll start to worry about him. Considering how much pull these talk radio guys and Fox seem to have with Republicans I can't imagine him overcoming this obstacle.

I'm sure most of ya'll don't watch Fox or listen to idiot talk radio but I can assure you Huckabee is taking a major thrashing. Even Ann Coultier has come out against him. If any of you guys have any doubts just take a listen to Sean Hannity or Limbaugh for a few minutes and you'll see how strongly they have come out against Huckabee.

End this war. Stop John McCain. Cindy McCain is filthy rich.

---

by: wiretapp @ Sun Dec 02, 2007 at 12:00:15 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Who can beat whom (4.00 / 1)

More than any other year in my memory, I think it depends on who the candidates are.  Giuliani seems beatable by any Dem, almost anywhere, because of the almost endless supply of scandals that are finally starting to get traction. In fact, I doubt he gets the nod.  Huckabee and Romney are the most likely GOP candidates at this point. Huckabee could beat Obama in the South, I would think, but I can see many of the old Rockefeller type GOPers in the Northeast and Pacific states and young seculars plus just enough suburbans picking Obama to put him over the top in an Obama-Huckabee race. 

But an Obama-Romney race is something else, with both of them "exotic" in one way or another.  There the GOPers who might pick Obama over Huckabee would seem to be ok with Romney, unless he panders so much to win the South that he gets scary.  But against Obama he probably wouoldn't have to, unless it looks like people are going to just stay home.  Then Obama has a real chance.

Clinton-Huckabee would probably play out like Obama-Huckabee except that she would do better, and female singles might give her a real edge if they vote in large enough numbers.  Clinton-Romney would probably be closer, but she would still win that one.

McCain is making a bit of a comeback as the flaws in Giuliani become more obvious, but age will still catch up with him, and he isn't the straighttalker any more.  Giuliani shouls be finished by the Feb 5 primaries, and Thompson was finished right after he started. 

All of this makes the time between Feb 5 and the conventions really critical, because we will have putative nominees, but lots and lots of time for attacks, scandals, etc, maybe even a discussion of issues, and buyers' remorse may set in.  It would seem to behoove the candidates to stay in yhe race as long as possible in case things change by the convention.  After all, you're not nominated until you are officially nominated.  Things may really end up surprising us all.

John McCain--He's not who you think he is.

---

by: Mimikatz @ Sun Dec 02, 2007 at 12:24:51 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Keep in mind VP choice (4.00 / 1)

when considering Obama's electability. I think we all agree he'd be crazy not to pick someone with executive experience and foreign policy cred. Imagining him with someone like Wes Clark (OK, probably not him because of the Clinton ties, but someone of his caliber) changes the equation quite a bit IMO. We shouldn't be afraid of nominating the most charismatic, candidate just because, on his own he lacks qualities that can easily be compensated for with a VP and later, in his cabinet.

---

by: ukit @ Sat Dec 01, 2007 at 23:58:12 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Yep (0.00 / 0)

That's what they said about Bush and it worked for him.

---

by: RalphB @ Sun Dec 02, 2007 at 00:34:59 AM CST

[ Parent ]

I'm talking electability (4.00 / 1)

And in that sense, yeah, it did.

---

by: ukit @ Sun Dec 02, 2007 at 00:44:48 AM CST

[ Parent ]

I'd go for an attack dog (4.00 / 1)

Obama's never yet won a particularly tough race and though he's not done too badly in the primaries (McClurkin aside) he hasn't yet had to go full-blown negative. I have no idea whether or not he can do that.

If he can, he can win. If not, he needs to pick an attack dog as VP. Not a centrist, not somebody designed to pick up a particular state or demographic, but somebody who knows how to respond to attacks in kind.

Edwards might work, although I have to doubt that he's on any VP lists. Somebody like Sherrod Brown or Tim Ryan might work, although that would lead to attacks on experience for both members of the ticket (although if the candidate is Rudy we have a decent counter-punch). Russ Feingold would work.

But if Obama isn't willing to hide a horseshoe in the metaphorical boxing gloves, he needs to pick as VP someone who is.

Forgotten Countries - a foreign policy-focused blog

---

by: Englishlefty @ Sun Dec 02, 2007 at 08:01:43 AM CST

[ Parent ]

I link to this in a comment I made below (4.00 / 1)

But it's worth linking to again.

http://www.youtube.c...

It's not flamethrower language, if you will, but it's a response, and one that I was impressed by. Also, just check his attitude at the J-J event - he was passionate, especially when speaking about his willingness to fight back against attacks from Republicans.  I know what his reputation is, and sometimes as an Obama supporter I wish he was a little sharper, rhetorically speaking, when going against Republicans. But I know he has it in him, especially on the counter-attack.

---

by: expatriatedjerseyan @ Sun Dec 02, 2007 at 08:35:45 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Stickland will be the VP (0.00 / 0)

choice.  A VP is worth about 3 points in his own state, and Ohio is really the ballgame for both sides.  2006 showed a powerful Democratic trend.

Had Gore nominated Sen. Graham from Florida, he would be President.

---

by: fladem @ Sun Dec 02, 2007 at 09:50:27 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Webb fits description. (4.00 / 1)

John McCain won't insure children

---

by: magster @ Sun Dec 02, 2007 at 11:14:18 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Obama Could Win The GE (4.00 / 5)

Obama has run a great campaign so far, and I think voters are ready for a real change, not a change back to the 90s and the Clintons.  To me that is the wrong change.  The Clintons had their chance and screwed it up.  I don't think the second time will be any better, and could be worse for the dems.  Obama will bring a fresh outlook that has been long missing from DC.  It makes me excited to see what those new changes will be.  By the way I still support JRE.  I think he is the most progressive and has changed for the better and he would keep getting better as time goes on.  But Obama is my second choice.

---

by: todaynownottomorrow @ Sat Dec 01, 2007 at 20:27:06 PM CST

Frank Rich.... (4.00 / 2)

opines that the Republicans should be afraid, very afraid, of an Obama nomination:

http://www.nytimes.c...

---

by: ArthurKC @ Sat Dec 01, 2007 at 21:26:09 PM CST

[ Parent ]

You place too much faith in fladems polls (0.00 / 0)

I checked quickly, so I could still have my recollections off, but....he does his polling by the ORDER OF THE FINISHING, not by the SIZE OF EACH PERSON'S MARGINS. I contend that it's the margins that have great significance.

Fladem measures the changes in NH after a win in Iowa, but he does not measure how the amount of the Iowa victory impacts the NH numbers.  He measures how victory in NH affect national polls but again he doesn't address the margin of victory.  Historically remember in 1992 Nh decided nothing, not even Fla, not till NY in March did we have a nominee.

Kerry beat Dean by almost 20 points in Iowa, that was not a small margin, but a large margin. It was also so far out of the media's expectations that it was astonishing. Kerry had gone up by more than 20 points and Dean had descended by more than 20 points. That provided the needed kick up in NH, which by the way Kerry had led there until the fall.

I worked the Iowa caucuses in the last 2 weeks of 2004,it was apparenent that Kerry was rising, Dean falling and Edwards coming in from behind.

If the order of finish is Obama, Clinton, Edwards with small differences between them, it will not kick Obama into high gear. It won't be surprising, it may even be expected by the media.  And if Huckabee beats Romney that will soak up the media air because that would be news.  A close finish between the 3 Dems or even the top two Dems will not pierce the wall that at the moment Hillary has in NH.  They would keep slugging it out because Obama has the money.

"Incrementalism isn't a different path to the same place, it could be a different path to a different place"
Stoller

---

by: debcoop @ Sat Dec 01, 2007 at 20:35:24 PM CST

Bump in NH (0.00 / 0)

The expectations for Clinton and her huge leads nationally that has gone on for so long that a defeat for her in IA will give a substantial boost to the winner.

Remember the RCP avg right now in NH IS 10.2 FOR cLINTON

hUCKABEE IS ALREADY AHEAD OF rOMNEY IN ia BY ONE POLL AND WITHIN A PT OR TWO IN ANOTHER POLL, SO HIS WINNING IS NOT SO SURPRISING ANYMORE.

---

by: BDM @ Sat Dec 01, 2007 at 20:45:18 PM CST

[ Parent ]

I agree with you (0.00 / 0)

Obama beating Clinton by a point or two in Iowa would not generate the same bounce as beating Clinton by 10 points.

Also, it's vital to remember that the media were eager to pile on to finish off Dean. I think that if Hillary loses IA and NH narrowly, the media will try to help her regroup, rather than sticking the knife in her.

Join the Iowa progressive community at Bleeding Heartland.

---

by: desmoinesdem @ Sat Dec 01, 2007 at 20:54:57 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Media (0.00 / 0)

See Howard Kurtz' article in the Nov 30 WaPO, "The Candidate's 'Catch Ne if You Can'".  The national people covering Hillary have grudges because she has been (rightfully) avoiding them and their gotcha horse race questions in an attempt to get a message through.  They want their cushy press bus and free food and they want to dominate the show.  Hillary is in big trouble if she loses Iowa because payback is a bit**.

---

by: David Kowalski @ Sat Dec 01, 2007 at 21:22:19 PM CST

[ Parent ]

I don't think the media will help her (0.00 / 0)

But the media really hated Dean.  They still hate Dean.  10 points isn't enough even I think.  I forgot to say that when I was in Iowa that it was apaprent that despite his money, Dean was disorgainzed and complacent at the same time. My daughter worked for Kerry, friends worked for Dean.  It was obvious which was the disciplined campaign and which was not. Hillary might lose but she won't collapse.

To get a real bounce he needs that Iowa not be close.  He needs her to be third.

"Incrementalism isn't a different path to the same place, it could be a different path to a different place"
Stoller

---

by: debcoop @ Sat Dec 01, 2007 at 21:50:08 PM CST

[ Parent ]

quite possible (0.00 / 0)

if the trend continues --she will be third

---

by: aiko @ Sun Dec 02, 2007 at 07:48:49 AM CST

[ Parent ]

If Obama and Huckabee Win Iowa (0.00 / 0)

The storyline will be that this is the year of the upset, where voters rejected the choices offered by the establishment. The press is not going to sleep on an Obama upset over Clinton if it happens. I'd expect you'd see big bumps for both Barack and Huckabee were they to win.

---

by: ukit @ Sat Dec 01, 2007 at 23:52:27 PM CST

[ Parent ]

A good challenge (4.00 / 1)

and some of the data does not support your distinction.

Let's take the Iowa effect on New Hampshire

In 1988 Gephardt beat Simon by only 4 in Iowa (31-27) and was expected to win.  He got a 13 point bounce by winning.

There is one opposite case: Dole in '96 won Iowa by 3.  This was largely interprited as a poor showing, and as a result the second place finisher (Buchanan) went from 11 to 27. Dole himself got almost no bounce out of New Hampshire.

I do not agree with you on your analysis of New Hampshire and 1992.  New Hampshire saved Clinton, and gave Tsongas and enourmous bounce nationally. It effectively eliminated Kerrey (I know, I worked for Kerrey in '92) and Harkin. 

---

by: fladem @ Sat Dec 01, 2007 at 23:58:01 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Thanks for the kind word but..... (4.00 / 1)

My point about 92 was only that NH was not decisive.  In 1992 it was a differnt narrative dynamic than in 2004....and I think we are projecting 2004 into this years contest. It is not clear what will be the dynamic.

Hillary has lead nationally, but she has never had a significant lead in Iowa...indeed in spring and summer she was 3rd. So winning or losing by a few points in Iowa is not a story. 88 Gephardt/Simon is not the same....and neither was the eventual nominee.

But I have to say aha!!! when you said you supported Kerrey in 1992. Obama, Bradley, Kerrey even back to McCarthy and yes Adali Stevenson.  They were all the same kind of what I would call mushy minded, candidates more interested in process than in policy.  I never supported a single one of them....though please I am too young for Stevenson.

You can't be happy to have seen what Bob Kerrey has become...the kind of Dem who thought the 93 health care plan was too socialistic. The epitome of the DLC, trash your party Dem.

Well here are some quotes from Obama that should strike a memory cord. Some quotes from a post he wrote in Dkos on 2005, before he thought of running...so he was more honest.

http://digbysblog.bl...

  ""How can we ask Republican senators to resist pressure from their right wing and vote against flawed appointees like John Bolton, if we engage in similar rhetoric against Democrats who dissent from our own party line?"

And this

"A pro-choice Democrat doesn't become anti-choice because he or she isn't absolutely convinced that a twelve-year-old girl should be able to get an operation without a parent being notified. A pro-civil rights Democrat doesn't become complicit in an anti-civil rights agenda because he or she questions the efficacy of certain affirmative action programs. And a pro-union Democrat doesn't become anti-union if he or she makes a determination that on balance, CAFTA will help American workers more than it will harm them."

The passage above reminds me of how Joe Klein talked in the 90's and even  until the recent present that the way to prove your bona fides as a Democrat is to dis your base.  I disagree wholeheartedly with every word that Obama wrote above. 

I don't see why his progressive supporters don't see that these are words and ideas that the DLC has wholeheartedly promulgated.  What I want to know is who's really the one stuck in the past? And how is this "understanding" he's talking about any different than the 90's concept of triangulation?.

Is he really the guy you think he is?

.

"Incrementalism isn't a different path to the same place, it could be a different path to a different place"
Stoller

---

by: debcoop @ Sun Dec 02, 2007 at 02:48:10 AM CST

[ Parent ]

I am not for Obama (0.00 / 0)

I am for Edwards.  Your assumption is incorrect.

In 1992 Kerrey was to the left of Clinton and Tsongas. 

My work projects only what the National Polls will look like after New Hampshire.  They do NOT predict the winner.  Same with my work on the impact of Iowa and New Hampshire.

I do not understand why the '88 case is not relevent - you really don't distinguish the case at all.

---

by: fladem @ Sun Dec 02, 2007 at 07:52:44 AM CST

[ Parent ]

The day after an Obama win (4.00 / 3)

in Iowa will be a momentous day in the history of this nation.  You can't equate that with anything which has happened in the past.  It will go directly at the heart of his weakest point - the cynicism that America will not vote for a Black Man.  This isn't South Carolina we're talking about, it's Iowa.  That day people will look at him differently and look at themselves differently and realize that yes we are a better nation than we give ourselves credit for.  And it will explode the myth that young people won't get involved in politics.  The combination of the two won't cause a ripple, it will be a tidal wave.

---

by: DD2 @ Sat Dec 01, 2007 at 20:41:57 PM CST

30% in Iowa tells you little (4.00 / 2)

Iowa has so few blacks that racism has never been much of a factor. It's not 51% of America.  It's not NJ or Conn. or other states where there are sufficient numbers of black Americans to pierce the consciousness...and have an impact on the political world.

I think racism is now so unacceptable to everyday American morality that people don't even know it exists in them. It is buried that deep.  It comes out as other things, but its birthing ground is racism. I know lots of Democrats who are racists but won't acknowleldge that in themselves.

And let's remember that one of the things that elected Rudy Giuliani mayor of liberal New York was the race hatred (the outer boros mostly) from having had an African American Mayor

"Incrementalism isn't a different path to the same place, it could be a different path to a different place"
Stoller

---

by: debcoop @ Sat Dec 01, 2007 at 21:59:48 PM CST

[ Parent ]

So what does Obama do now? (0.00 / 0)

  Obama, I think, is now where Howard Dean was in early December of 2003 -- he's moving in the establishment's perception from from "entertaining sideshow" to "oh crap, he might actually WIN this thing". When Dean reached that stage -- which roughly coincided with Al Gore's endorsement -- the media suddenly got extremely vicious with him, and began the process of taking him down, with the acquiescence of Republican interest groups and faux-Democrats more concerned with preserving their institutional power than with actually winning elections.

  It could be that the wretched hit piece in the Washington Post on Thursday was the first salvo in the elites' effort to take Obama down for good. He better be ready.

  More broadly, if Obama emphasizes his differences with Hillary Clinton (*cough Iraq vote cough*), I think he'll keep on building his lead. If he reverts to blurring his differences, he'll lose his momentum.

  The Iraq vote issue is critical. A candidate who opposes the war because she "doesn't agree with the way it's been handled" is vulnerable to fluctuations in perceptions on how the war's going. A candidate who opposes the war in principle need not worry about such matters. And in that department, at least, Obama's a far sturdier general-election candidate than Clinton.

"We judge ourselves by our ideals; others by their actions. It is a great convenience." -- Howard Zinn

---

by: Master Jack @ Sat Dec 01, 2007 at 21:31:02 PM CST

Obama is not Dean (0.00 / 0)

Obama has many friends among the establishment and elite you speak of and some of the media is rooting for him in a real way--not just a horse race kind of way.

Obama isn't Dean. He is better!

---

by: aiko @ Sat Dec 01, 2007 at 22:12:38 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Perhaps so (0.00 / 0)

  But Hillary Clinton remains very much the establishment favorite. There's a reason she's the DLC's choice, and there's a reason her campaign staff is rife with so many Republicans, and there's a reason Rupert Murdoch and Wall Street have thrown so much cash at her.

  In 2004, the establishment successfully thwarted the grassroots (to a disastrous outcome in the fall for the Democrats and for America, but I'm sure the DLC crowd didn't mind). This time around it seems that they're having a harder time doing so. Whether this is because Hillary's a weaker candidate than they thought, or Obama's a stronger one, or the Dem grassroots have gained clout in the last few years...who knows. But we'll find out soon enough.

  Obama has seen NOTHING of organized smears yet. Like I said, he BETTER be ready. Edwards remains my choice, but Obama's an attractive candidate in many ways, and most importantly, he's not DLC. So I hope his surge is real.

"We judge ourselves by our ideals; others by their actions. It is a great convenience." -- Howard Zinn

---

by: Master Jack @ Sat Dec 01, 2007 at 22:21:53 PM CST

[ Parent ]

This modern media doesn't ever root for Democrats (4.00 / 1)

They push him only for the horse race.  They will turn on him the second the Repubs have a nominee.

"Incrementalism isn't a different path to the same place, it could be a different path to a different place"
Stoller

---

by: debcoop @ Sun Dec 02, 2007 at 02:54:14 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Not if it's Huckabee (0.00 / 0)

The economic royalists would go batshit over Huckabee.  They'd have no problems helping Clinton beat him.  That's why I think it's liklier to be Romney.  That would be an interesting race in some ways, as would be Clinton-Romney. 

John McCain--He's not who you think he is.

---

by: Mimikatz @ Sun Dec 02, 2007 at 12:35:54 PM CST

[ Parent ]

On Huckabee (0.00 / 0)

  I think that if he were to get the nomination, he'll be easily convinced to serve the royalists. He'd just offer us another heap of "compassionate conservatism"....

"We judge ourselves by our ideals; others by their actions. It is a great convenience." -- Howard Zinn

---

by: Master Jack @ Sun Dec 02, 2007 at 14:45:54 PM CST

[ Parent ]

I don't think (0.00 / 0)

Obama has been viewed as "An Entertaining Sideshow".

---

by: nolalily @ Sun Dec 02, 2007 at 12:14:31 PM CST

[ Parent ]

He has been... (0.00 / 0)

  ...by the Hillary-is-inevitable crowd, which includes most of the beltway punditocracy.

  To them, Barack Obama was just a foil for Hillary to provide the illusion of competition and give them something to write about.

  Except the competition's no longer an illusion.

"We judge ourselves by our ideals; others by their actions. It is a great convenience." -- Howard Zinn

---

by: Master Jack @ Sun Dec 02, 2007 at 12:30:20 PM CST

[ Parent ]

yep (0.00 / 0)

Chris I was going to complain about your post because I want Obama to remain the underdog for as long as feasibly possible. After reading the entries, however, I realize that there will be enough naysayers, even among the progressive left--that I don't really have to worry about Obama being perceived as the front runner any time soon.

Anyhow--I agree with your analysis 100%. And sure margins will matter, but from what we are seeing it won't be a close finish in Iowa. And in NH a close second can be defined as a win.  SC will go for Obama. He will probably lose NV (they are dem and politically challenged). So if we are lucky everything will come down to Feb 5th.  At which point Obama may finally be the front runner and people will either vote for change or not.

Pretty god damn exciting. Now we just have to get through the next three weeks!

---

by: aiko @ Sat Dec 01, 2007 at 22:22:56 PM CST

If he doesn't win Iowa and NH he won't win SC (0.00 / 0)

There is no basis for your thinking there won't be a close finish.

"Incrementalism isn't a different path to the same place, it could be a different path to a different place"
Stoller

---

by: debcoop @ Sun Dec 02, 2007 at 02:56:55 AM CST

[ Parent ]

The end of the Dynasty era in politics? (4.00 / 2)

The thing that excites me about Obama making this a competitive race is the upending of the foreign policy establishment, the upending of a good deal of the Democratic party establishment, and the end of the Bush/Clinton/Dole era of politics that will have lasted 20 years.

I think there are probably a large number of Democrats and independents that have no desire for a renewal of the Clinton machine -- I would be ever so happy if Carville, Begala, et al would be washed away with GWB, et al.

Obama would crush Romney or Huckabee; the only candidates that could beat Obama, Giuliani and McCain, are very unlikely to get the Republican nomination.

---

by: Ron @ Sat Dec 01, 2007 at 22:52:50 PM CST

Nice piece (4.00 / 2)

Well-reasoned, well-argued, and given all the appropriate caveats and considerations to counter-arguments.  Good stuff. 

I'd point out a couple things worth adding:

1-This year could see the biggest Iowa bounce and Iowa/NH bounce yet, as I don't believe we've had a front-runner come along who's candidacy rested so much on the inevitability of the candidate (correct me if I'm wrong on that).  Pollster.com did a piece suggesting that perhaps a large portion of Hillary's support in SC is soft, and I suspect nationally that's true as well.  A loss in a Iowa, even a close loss, pretty much kneecaps a big part of her campaign.  Not all of it, mind you, but certainly a big part of it.

2-We are in early Dec right now and the caucuses are a little over 30 days away, but it's not clear what that means in "campaign time".  People talk about a week or two weeks in a campaign being a lifetime, and certainly look at how perceptions of the campaign have changed since mid-Nov.  However, its not obvious how the campaigns will be effected by having the last 16 days play out over the holiday weekend.  Will people be tuning in extra close because they have free time, thus amplifying the impact of political events?  Will people be distracted by last minute shopping, family, travel, etc, thus diluting the impact of political events?  We don't really know.  Its certainly possible, however, that come ~Dec 18th, the campaigns will no longer be able to effect voter preferences.  We could be only 2 weeks away from the de facto end of the primary season in Iowa. Also no way to know how that will effect momentum either...

Purely speculative on my part, but perhaps, if its true that Obama is set to announce a big endorsement today (Sunday), its because he really does think he needs to cash it in before, say, a week before X-Mas, or it will be worthless in IA. 

It seems to me that campaigns will have to treat Dec 18th or so as the end of regulation, and then play the following 16 days as a sort of over-time that might not even matter.

Just thought I'd add those two things...

---

by: mopper8 @ Sat Dec 01, 2007 at 23:20:11 PM CST

I am going with Dec. 21, (0.00 / 0)

the Friday before Christmas, as the Iowa campaign end date. Everything after that will be of the feel good nature.

And in terms of bounce: the bigger they are the harder they fall. 

---

by: aiko @ Sun Dec 02, 2007 at 07:45:25 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Good point (0.00 / 0)

Even if voters are tuning in past Dec 20th or so, attacking an opponent would, I think, come off as tasteless during the holiday season and probably provoke a backlash.  Which gives whoever is the leader in Iowa at that time a big advantage, and also plays to Obama's strengths, as he's managed to best even Edwards as a positive campaigner...

---

by: mopper8 @ Sun Dec 02, 2007 at 10:38:43 AM CST

[ Parent ]

I have a headache (4.00 / 4)

I predict you'll look back at this post after the primaries and realize how wrong you were.

I've seen some jujitsu analysis in my lifetime, but this is off the hook.

And the posts on here pointing out concerns over Obama's vulnerabilities are things we should be paying attention to.

Everyone wants to gloss over these areas - especially race because it shouldn't be an issue - and it shouldn't be. But it will be. And greater than people want to admit -- especially in states like Ohio that we need.

---

by: GregNYC @ Sat Dec 01, 2007 at 23:25:56 PM CST

I Completely Agree (4.00 / 2)

with all of this.  If Obama wins Iowa, he wins NH.  I think he is the favorite right now in Iowa.  In fact, if I had to bet I would put Clinton third (as Edwards shows significant strength among second choice candidates.  After NH he would have a pretty significant National Lead.

I absolutely believe at this moment Obama is the front runner.

But there is a significant amount of time between New Hampshire and Feb 5th:  nearly a month, so it wouldn't be a national race yet.  The intermediate events: Nevada and South Carolina are spread out far enough to offer Clinton the chance to fight back.  Nevada in particular looks pretty important.

And I would add one caveat - a difference of 3% - or about 4,000 votes, may very well determine the difference between first and third in Iowa.

---

by: fladem @ Sat Dec 01, 2007 at 23:42:11 PM CST

New DM Poll (0.00 / 0)

Desmoines Register Poll just came out:

Obama 28
Clinton 25
Edwards 23

Clinton dropped 4 pts from their Oct. poll and Obama gained 6 pts. Edwards remained the same.

This gives a little more amunition for Chris's claim.

---

by: BDM @ Sun Dec 02, 2007 at 00:02:43 AM CST

[ Parent ]

That may be the first one (0.00 / 0)

where Obama's lead is close to outside the MOE.

Still close, though.

---

by: fladem @ Sun Dec 02, 2007 at 00:59:26 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Second one (0.00 / 0)

Obama led by 4 in a November 14-18 poll for the WaPo and (I think) ABC.  At the time, it looked like a clear outlier but not so much now.

We've got Newtonian physics here.  An object (or candidate) in motion tends to stay in motion.  It may be really hard to turn things around as I expect that most of the TV ad time between now and Christmas has been already snapped up.  At best, something needs to be accomplished between now and December 23 (a Sunday complete with the Sunday papers and talk shows) and set in motion heavily a week before then.  Obama's surge, per the Register poll is pretty specific.  He's got a 48-19 lead in the under 35 demographic up from around a tie.

The media has been very negative to Edwards, negative to Clinton, and positive to Obama.  Any Democrat, however, will get bad treatment from February 6 through election day in November.

---

by: David Kowalski @ Sun Dec 02, 2007 at 14:40:17 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Think hard on his untested vulnerabilities (4.00 / 1)

Hillary has never attacked him the way the Republicans with the media's help will attack him..  Consider the wretched Washington Post column a taste of what's to come.  I don't think he has a snowbell's chance in hell to win the general.

He's never had to run a real tough race.  Never.

Not in the State Senate nor running for the Ill. Senate seat.  He ran against Alan Keyes for heavens sake!!!
The one tough race was against Bobby Rush for the Congressional seat and he lost.

Even in this presidential race there have been no meaningful, sustained assaults on him.  Certainly not by the other candidates.  The Republicans have ignored him....the press has treated him pretty kindly.  But if he's the nominee, the Republican will go after his skin, his intellect, his elitism, his name, his wife henpecking him, his equivocating answers as he tries to get us all to get along, the miscegnation of it all, his religion, his church....god I'm not evil or clever enough to think up all the lies and distortions they'll throw at him. 

And the Russerts and the Matthews will gleefullly aid and abet the narrative.  Then the Washington Post, the Poltico, and Pat Healy and Adam Nagourney of the NY Times will start talking about how badly he''s handling his campaign and what does this mean for how he'd run the country.

These will all be new attacks....new to the media...new to the country....and worst of all new to him.  He's used to adulation and given his temperment, he's going to be unable, unwilling and baffled as to how to respond. There will be a learning curve but it will be too long to matter.

Subtlety, which he has in some abundance, will not be much of a weapon against the R's or their 527's with coffers swelling, smelling blood .... or a vicious, sneering racist bazooka like Rudy Giuliani or the smiling Huckabee. 

As to Hillary. I have know her for 15 years, so I trust her instincts She is more of a progressive than her husband ever was, she's more partisan than he ever was, she's tougher than he is.  She is actually more partisan than Obama and that's what I like about her.  And I guess it's his lack of partisan zeal that excites you. To me that is a fatal flaw.

. 
________________________________________

"Incrementalism isn't a different path to the same place, it could be a different path to a different place"
Stoller

---

by: debcoop @ Sun Dec 02, 2007 at 03:10:02 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Considering Obama (0.00 / 0)

is currently in a dead heat with the Clinton machine in Iowa and closing fast in New Hampshire, you're going to have to come up with a new line pretty soon. He's being tested right now, and he's doing quite well IMO.

Frank Rich's column on Obama says it better than I ever could:

http://www.nytimes.c...

---

by: ukit @ Sun Dec 02, 2007 at 03:29:29 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Tell me who is attacking him? (4.00 / 3)

Answer....no one

This comment below from Rich is just nonsense. 

"It's far from clear that they would remotely know how to construct a Plan B to counter Mr. Obama. The repeated attempts to fan "rumors" that he is a madrassa-indoctrinated Muslim - whether on Fox News or in The Washington Post, where they resurfaced scurrilously on the front page on Thursday - are too demonstrably false to survive endless reruns even in the Swift-boating era."

They will,  they have ...demonstrably false is irrelevant  false is irrelelvant.  you should hope that if he is the nominee that he is not as credulous and foolish as you are being.  If you don't think they will wolf whistle every deeply hidden racist feeling, you better think again. And don't think they won't be heard and unconsciously acted upon.

These next paragraphs by Rich are painful in their foolishness...what poltical fantasy world is he inhabiting? 

"The drumbeat of approval has been remarkably steady. Last year Mark McKinnon, a top adviser to both the 2000 and 2004 Bush campaigns, admiringly called Mr. Obama "a walking, talking hope machine" who "may reshape American politics." Andrew Ferguson devoted pages in The Weekly Standard to raving about "Dreams From My Father," Mr. Obama's memoir, before dismissing its political sequel, "The Audacity of Hope." Rich Lowry, the editor of National Review, keeps trying to write anti-Obama articles but they're so mild that they never really contradict his judgment of a year ago that the senator from Illinois "is the only presidential candidate from either party about whom there is a palpable excitement." Even Tom Tancredo, the most virulent immigration demagogue of the G.O.P. presidential field, has spoken warmly of Mr. Obama.

Perhaps most striking is the case of Shelby Steele, the archconservative scholar who shares Mr. Obama's mixed-race heritage. Though he has just written an entire book, "A Bound Man," to argue (unpersuasively, in my view) that Mr. Obama "can't win," he can't stop himself from admiring the guy throughout. Peggy Noonan wasn't being tongue-in-cheek when she wondered in The Wall Street Journal last month whether Mr. Obama "understands the kind of quiet cheering he is beginning to garner from some Republicans." In her view "they see him as a Democrat who could cure the Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton sickness." "

No the Republicans love him so much they won't fight him tooth and nail!!!!!! ha!!!! Of course they will fight him tooth and nail. They are not disarmed by him they just haven't bothered YET to spend any energy attacking him. They will get ready.  In 2004 they prepared for Dean, they got Kerry, that didn't stop the RNC from calling him a flip flopper, and the Swifties from concocting lies.

Rich is a lousy poltical prognosticator...he's been good on the religious right....but he's just an ordinary, MSM writer...after all he thinks Dowd is the cat's pajamas.

"Incrementalism isn't a different path to the same place, it could be a different path to a different place"
Stoller

---

by: debcoop @ Sun Dec 02, 2007 at 04:00:10 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Glad I got up early and read this comment... (4.00 / 1)

....it's negative but I gotta say you nailed it. Anyone who thinks Obama, a guy who cannot take it to his opponent rhetorically, will survive the general is freakin' delusional, sorry Chris, this is a deeply racist country.

If you examine polling prior to Obama and Hillary's entering the race going back through the years you will see a majority of those polls saying they would never vote for a black or a woman.

What changed?

People now say when asked that they would have no problem doing so.

I just hope we don't get a chance to find out who's lying to themselves come the general election.

I also think Obama would make a terrible President on his merits; such as they are.

Peace, Health and Prosperity for Everyone.

---

by: ACitizen @ Sun Dec 02, 2007 at 05:31:50 AM CST

[ Parent ]

This is why... (4.00 / 2)

Rural, moderate voters resent the Democratic party.  Because the party of "tolerance" and "inclusiveness" takes such a condescending attitude towards them.  Why do you think there's such anti-intellectual backlash?  Maybe its the disdain you treat the country, never elect a black president, only responsive to negative ads, etc. 

Instead of electing the candidate you think rural voters and moderate republicans and independents will like, why not vote for a candidate you actually like? 

That rationale always perplexed me.  If anything, liberals and Dems have a terrible record in predicting what will and wont' be popular with electorate writ large, so why continue to engage in that, and instead, just elect the candidate you like the most?

---

by: mopper8 @ Sun Dec 02, 2007 at 10:29:29 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Exactly (0.00 / 0)

Exactly, great point.

---

by: Korha @ Sun Dec 02, 2007 at 15:39:00 PM CST

[ Parent ]

If we concede (4.00 / 1)

that we can never nominate a black candidate because race politics WILL inevitably derail their election, I guess you have a point. I personally don't believe that. The point Rich made which I thought was insightful, was that the ability to stir up racial hatred isn't a win-win for the GOP. It may win them votes in the South where they already have a solid majority, but a strategy like that is anathema  to their long-term brand and to the swing voters that both parties need to win. It's exactly what they don't need right now.

Listen - it's a bit odd for you to accuse Rich of inhabiting a fantasy world when you are so one-sided in your analysis towards Clinton. I'll be honest - both Obama and Clinton have strengths and weaknesses in a general election, just as all of the GOP candidates this time around have weaknesses. My point is that to say Obama won't have been tested if he wins the nomination, while he is going up against perhaps the most well-funded, disciplined Democratic candudate in recent memory is ridiculous on its face. I know your not going to claim Clinton isn't going down without a fight:)

---

by: ukit @ Sun Dec 02, 2007 at 14:18:18 PM CST

[ Parent ]

I know Democrats in of all places suburban CT (0.00 / 0)

who are racist...don't know they're racist....and when polled would say they coud vote for a black person...but when November came they would vote for the Republican

Not yet, I think  and I don't think that the only reason he would lose.  He's never been attacked hard....ever...even non racist attacks...it's a long learning curve and he won't have enough time.  the race issue will affect the contest at the margins.

But we should always assume the media is biased toward the Republicans

"Incrementalism isn't a different path to the same place, it could be a different path to a different place"
Stoller

---

by: debcoop @ Mon Dec 03, 2007 at 02:36:29 AM CST

[ Parent ]

If we're going to let identity politics dictate our choice (0.00 / 0)

your argument should be for Edwards, not Clinton. In fact, Clinton should be your last choice.

In a Gallup poll from 02/07, 11% said they would not be willing to vote for a woman, versus 5% for a black candidate. In a Newsweek poll from July, a full 14% said they wouldn't vote for a woman, versus 8% for a black candidate. If we're going to make this argument, then we should be most afraid for Clinton's prospects based on the numbers.

---

by: ukit @ Mon Dec 03, 2007 at 03:17:24 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Tough Race (0.00 / 0)

Hillary also has never ran in a tough race and thus has never been tested. gULIANI DROPPED OUT IN ny AND lAZIO WAS A FILL IN WITH NO CHANCE. She won on the coat tails of Al Gore who had over 800,000 votes more in NY than her.

Her 2nd race in NY was a laugher with really no opposition.

---

by: BDM @ Sun Dec 02, 2007 at 07:44:35 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Coattails? (0.00 / 0)

I see that both Gore and Clinton won in NY in 2000, and that Gore got more votes.

I don't see how that equates to coattails.  (Who is to say Clinton didn't win in spite of Gore?  I'm not making that argument, but I don't see causation in this correlation.)

NY is still a majority-Democratic state, and Rick Lazio was seen as a placeholder by a lot of general election New Yorkers. Rather than return to the campaign itself, I'll just toss in 2 cents and say I've heard this coattails argument before and find it unconvincing, with little more than circumstantial evidence.

---

by: Jay Hazen @ Sun Dec 02, 2007 at 14:30:24 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Nevada will go for HRC (4.00 / 1)

I actually think the DNC made a mistake picking NV as the representative western state to hold an early primary. They should have gone with CO, or NM or even AZ. The dem party in NV is controlled by a few elite--its a machine state and there is no support for non-machine candidates.

---

by: aiko @ Sun Dec 02, 2007 at 08:04:38 AM CST

[ Parent ]

My best guess says that Edwards will be the nominee... (0.00 / 0)

at some point in the next few weeks I imagine general electability to be a major topic.

---

by: cosbo @ Sun Dec 02, 2007 at 01:47:18 AM CST

For all of you who say Obama can't respond (0.00 / 0)

Here's a short YouTube clip from Senator Obama addressing the Coalition of Black Trade Unionists:

http://www.youtube.c...

If you think he's going to sit back and take it, if you think that he will be negligent and sheepish in response to the broadsides coming from Republicans, you're dead wrong.  He's always been against the war, and no one in the Democratic field has more authority to come out strongly against McCain, Romney, Giuliani and the like. I'd also encourage you to just take a second look at his Jefferson-Jackson Speech.  He's capable, he's unafraid, and he will win.

You also have to recognize that the Republicans are not many with their fielded candidates whatsoever.  Chances are whoever the nominee will be is someone who will alienate not just the wingnut, Christian conservative base, but also those people who went with McCain in 2000: relatively pragmatic conservatives, libertarians and independents, who are largely pro-life and anti-tax, but are honest, are against the war in Iraq and are somewhat socially liberal. The first group won't turn out at all, which is good news, especially combined with Obama's crossover appeal and hopeful ability to mobilize the Democratic base in places like Mississippi (largest African-American population in the Union, as a percentage of population) and increasingly Democratic populations in places like Virginia, where he can at least force Republicans to spend money (and maybe even win), whereas with other candidates the GOP would have had a lock.

But this part is even better: the second group may still turn out, and chances are, they'll turn out for Obama more so than any other Democratic nominee.  They see in him the integrity and change they feel the country needs, even though they're Republicans and disagree with him on some things. I'm not saying that this constitutes a large number of people, but the fact of the matter is that Obama not only will fight back against the boilerplate Republican smears, but his politics will bring in not just liberal Democrats, not just moderate Democrats, not just Democratic-leaning independents, but even a few Republicans. Considering the margin of Kerry's loss in a Republican year, this can make up the difference and then some. Just take a look at the one poll that came out in August.

http://news-releases...

In an open ended question where registered Iowa Republicans (likely caucus goers or not) were asked to state a preference for the next president, 6.7% chose Obama. I rest my case.

---

by: expatriatedjerseyan @ Sun Dec 02, 2007 at 08:31:49 AM CST

Not Yet...Hillary Still Leads (0.00 / 0)

Hillary is still the frontrunner.  Iowa is too close & is NOTORIOUS for fluid, meaningless polls at this point.  She leads everywhere else.  Timing is everything, polls a month out are nothing.  Still, of course, the winds are blowing Obama's way.

---

by: howardpark @ Sun Dec 02, 2007 at 11:04:58 AM CST

Lots of good comments here on a post that.... (4.00 / 1)

....well, I think Chris just decided to whack that beehive and see what came out.

What came out of course is almost 100% Horse-Race. Next time we get huffy about the corporatist press and their reliance on such narrative just remember this thread.

I think it's too close to call but more interestingly to me is this:

Is the CW that whoever wins IA and NH, assuming it's the same person mean the race is over?

I don't think so. If Hillary does not win both the race goes on. What happens if Obama and Edwards split these.

Does any of it matter considering Hillary has a real lead for Super Tuesday?

Guess we'll get to find out.


Peace, Health and Prosperity for Everyone.

---

by: ACitizen @ Sun Dec 02, 2007 at 11:20:43 AM CST

Some things to note (4.00 / 1)

1-Since Iowa started caucusing first in the nation for the Dem primary in 1976, nobody has ever one both Iowa and NH and then lost the nomination overall.

2-Its debatable how "real" Clinton's lead nationally is.  For example, as I noted in my post above, there is pretty good evidence that Clinton's 20 pt lead in SC is almost 50% soft...i.e. that on hard support, Clinton and Obama run neck-and-neck at around 18%, and then Clinton has 20% "soft" support, which, as Jay Cost has noted multiple times (see here for the most in-depth discussion), horserace coverage has a self-fulfilling prophesy aspect in the early parts of campaigns.  Voters react to the information they have on hand; early on, the only information they have is what little they pick up in the papers; that tends to be horserace coverage.  So, the dominant media narrative in the summer was "Clinton the inevitable/frontrunner", which in turn actually helped drive her poll numbers up by imparting the information to voters that she's the only real candidate.

Of course, when voters on Feb 5th go to vote, they'll have a lot more information available to them--a month of coverage of the Iowa caucus, the NH primary, the SC and Nevada elections, etc.  They also likely will have information from the campaigns themselves, as the candidates start pouring money into states beyond Iowa and NH.  All this new information will help dramatically change public opinion.

This is most-likely why, btw, we see Iowa "bounces" in NH and nationally.  The results of the election and the reasons for the election provide valuable information to voters.  Sure, Obama and Clinton and Edwards haven't been campaigning at all here in Colorado/Florida/wherever, but they were over in Iowa, and those Iowans sure do seem to like Obama (or whoever)!  That, in addition to exit polls that tell us what issues helped sway voters, will drive media coverage as well, which will help get out the message of the winning campaign (which will also get to give a victory speech that will get a lot of play on the news, essentially a fantastic, free national ad). 

---

by: mopper8 @ Sun Dec 02, 2007 at 12:44:31 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Like the dudes who really dig Romney say..... (0.00 / 0)

.....past performance is no indicator of future profits.

Frankly, although I do enjoy a little 'horse-race' myself, I view the reaction to this post and the others like it all over the blogosphere as a profound waste of time.

None of what is contended here is really very important to what's going on.

If I could I'd be up in IA working for my candidate, Edwards, cannot do that so here I am reading what other are talking about. Good for the brain sometimes...

Sometimes not....

OrangeLand has sunk into a vile sea of, 'my candidate is good...yours, and thus by extension you personally, bad...ugh...ugh...ugh...'

That's why I'm here mostly at least here, so far, the worst of the Kool-Aid drinkers have yet to show up.

Yet.


Peace, Health and Prosperity for Everyone.

---

by: ACitizen @ Sun Dec 02, 2007 at 15:39:55 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Historically speaking (0.00 / 0)

Historically, no democrat winning both IA and NH has been denied the nomination.

Now things can change so you never know.

---

by: BDM @ Sun Dec 02, 2007 at 16:37:12 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Interesting (0.00 / 0)

You are dead right.

Here's another one: The last Republican candidate to win both Iowa and New Hampshire was Gerald Ford in 1976.  Every race since has seen split decisions. 

---

by: fladem @ Sun Dec 02, 2007 at 22:18:01 PM CST

[ Parent ]

I don't buy Fladem's analysis (4.00 / 1)

I don't think the historical analysis holds. In elections past a change in expectations would often cause the money to dry up, candidates simply couldn't afford to stick it out through the summer to get to the big states. Well this cycle not only is the money already in the bag, a lot of big states are front loaded. Does anyone really think Hillary, even with some worse than expected performance in New Hampshire can't hold out to Feb 5?

It just doesn't make any sense to compare this year to even 2004 still less 1984. Last time around people like Gebhardt were all in money wise by Iowa, they simply couldn't afford to remain at the table. But that would not seem to be the case for any of the Dem top tier, each would seem to have the resources to run the sprint to Feb. 5.

Just off the top of my head I suggest that Obama needs to have a clear national victory on Feb 5 just to keep him in the ball game. Without a decisive win I don't see that he gets the Superdelegates. While an article I read today said the large majority of Superdelegates have not yet committed, of those that had Clinton was holding a two to one lead. Hillary still holds some clear institutional advantages and absent a meltdown isn't going anywhere.

There seems to be a clear swing towards Obama among the Left Blogosphere and now you are seeing some movement in the polls. But in the end hope is not a plan.

To be the Change candidate you have to display more Boldness than I have seen, instead on issue after issue you see more tentativity than I would like. In my ideal race we would be Unleashing our Inner FDR and not whispering 'wouldn't be prudent'.

---

by: Bruce Webb @ Sun Dec 02, 2007 at 14:22:03 PM CST

Agree in part (0.00 / 0)

Superdelegates only comprise about 15% of the overall delegate pool. Even if Clinton wins 2/3 of them, she only gets a 5% edge. Superdelegates almost certainly won't matter.

That said, I agree that Clinton remains the favorite. Those who bet thousands directly on these things (at intrade, wsex.com, and others) are telling us that Clinton is still about 70% to win the nomination. That seems high to me, but not way too high. Clinton remains the favorite... barely. 

And regarding to your final paragraph - I agree. The main problem is that of the two major non-Hillary candidates, one (Edwards) has a past that is suspicious to the left and one (Obama) has a present that is similarly suspicious. Neither, therefore, is able to be an ideal change candidate.

ACitizen's point regarding the obnoxiousness of the horserace obsession is well-taken. I'm at least as guilty as the average bear. 

---

by: Tom Gilpin Jr @ Sun Dec 02, 2007 at 19:09:12 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Obama Surges Ahead in Iowa, among likely caucus goers. YES!!! (0.00 / 0)

Obama pulls ahead for Democrats in Iowa Poll

Obama -- 28%

Clinton -- 25%

Edwards -- 23%

And there was great rejoicing in Mudville.  :-)

Hillary's people and corporate interests in this country just crapped themselves, because they've been telling their candidate that she was going to get a walk to the Democratic nomination.  Unfortunately for them, and fortunately for all of us and the United States of America, the people still have a say in who leads this country.  Thank you Iowa, for helping to put us back on the right track.

Obama 08, time to win one for the American people!

---

by: AaronBBrown @ Sun Dec 02, 2007 at 19:12:30 PM CST

Canvassing in Iowa for Obama (0.00 / 0)

I was up in Ottumwa Iowa in late October, and we'll be back there next weekend.  And I can tell you from speaking directly with people who confirmed they will be caucusing for Obama, Clinton and Edwards, Senator Obama is gaining ground every week.

Clinton supporters seem to be acting out of fear, fear that the Clinton campaign and Hillary have been playing up since she started her run, but the American people have had a belly full of fear, and they're sick of it.  She should've run this campaign in 2004, she's a little late with this message now, and by 2008 it won't work at all anymore.

Edwards supporters seem to be holding fast, at least that's what they say, many of them refusing to voice their second choice when asked, an important question because Iowa allows a second choice in caucuses if your candidate gets less than 15%.

Obama's appeal in Iowa and here in St. Louis seems to cut across all racial, social economic, gender and age groups, even political ideologies, with many Republicans voicing their support.  And anyone who's heard Barack Obama speak in person knows that he's the real deal.

Barack Obama's Speech at the Jefferson Jackson Dinner

Time to save this country people, and there's room on the Obama train for everyone, Democrat and Republican, conservative, moderate and liberal, won't you jump on board?

Obama 08, the right choice for America

---

by: AaronBBrown @ Sun Dec 02, 2007 at 19:32:51 PM CST