Latest SC polls are showing a big Edwards surge. I’ll go out on a limb and say he takes second place from Hillary. To borrow from Romney’s phrasebook, that would leave Obama with two golds and two silvers, Clinton with two golds and two bronzes, and Edwards with two silvers and two bronzes. A third place finish would take some of the wind out of Hillary’s sails. My impression is that she has already shot all the ammunition she could find against Obama. Then if SuperObama gives one of his brilliant speeches in victory, that will be what people remember, not the debate performances of Clark Obama Kent.
Fresh off the SC win, Obama absolutely needs to make inroads among Hispanics. A Richardson endorsement would be big, as would that of a major Hispanic entertainer. Spanish language ads from prominent endorsers might tip some California votes Obama’s way.
Finally, what do we do with Edwards? I think we keep him around after SuperDuper Tuesday. He’ll pick up some stray delegates here and there, and put himself in position to be a kingmaker rather than a queenmaker. If you won’t vote for a black and you won’t vote for a woman, you might as well vote for Edwards and with any luck those Edwards delegates will eventually go over to Obama.
They’ve called second place for Clinton at CNN. Obama cruised to first as expected.
Obama is in good shape, Clinton continues to be viable and then some (I don’t think this puts her on the ropes), and while the big question might be “will Edwards call it a day”, my intuition says he won’t pack it in yet.
I think the next set of primary returns favor Clinton, as polled & expected, but not enough so as to be a Clinton coronation. Obama could win a few and won’t lose by huge margins where he loses, but Clinton will walk off with the lion’s share of non-counting Florida + SuperDuperTuesday.
Expect Clinton’s feisty rhetoric to switch to Republican targets and start acting like the Dem nom is a done deal. Can’t lose —further sniping at Obama will go sour on her, acting like the nomination is hers already can be a useful tactic, and the same confrontational politics that makes some Dem voters unhappy when the target is another Democratic candidate will appeal to a larger contingent of Democratic voters when the target is a likely Republican adversary.
Obama has to give the speech of his life tonight and fire people up. He is an outstanding, spectacular orator so expect him to make good on it. Dreams and visions time and political heros. Obama won’t fire on Clinton directly so much as try to make it sound like he is the voice of justice and freedom and opportunity and political optimism, in contrast to which all other candidates just want to keep the seat warm for a few years.
Nah, nobody was expecting the scale of this blowout. That Obama might win by 10-15%, sure. That he’d pick up more than twice as many votes as Clinton - nope.
Clinton’s game lately has been to prepare to quickly change the subject after Obama’s SC win, to minimize its impact. That seems to have been part of the motivation for the ‘seat the MI/FL delegations’ gambit: make Florida the story, get SC out of the picture - fast. Then win in FL, against no opposition, and pretend it’s a big deal.
55-27? That’s gonna be hard to get out of people’s minds.
It’s clear that Edwards prefers Obama to Hillary, and it’s clear from the exit polls that Edwards took a lot of white male votes that would have likely gone to Hillary. If Edwards stays in, he’s going to help Obama win pluralities across the South.
I agree that Clinton will likely do better than Obama on Super Tuesday, with the caveat that if her money situation isn’t great, that could tip the balance somewhat. But if Obama can win 6-8 states a week from Tuesday, and keep his losses close, it’ll be anybody’s race.
I doubt it. That was great last summer when she was riding high in the polls, but now it really is a contest, and if she can’t explain why people should vote for her rather than Obama, then people won’t vote for her rather than Obama.
Because he’s certainly explaining why people should vote for him instead of her.
I think the problem isn’t who the target is, but what sort of shot she’s firing.
Trying to make mountains out of molehills of minor associations with unsavory characters - people don’t want to hear it. Dems especially are tired of this stuff - and if anyone should be especially tired of it, it should be the Clintons, after Whitewater, Travelgate, Blowjobgate, and all the other stuff that was lobbed at them.
But if she believes that she’s better on the issues, then she should explain why she doesn’t want to commit to getting all but a few thousand troops out of Iraq by the summer of 2010, why planning for a longer, slower departure is a better idea. She should explain why her more hawkish approach to Iran is better. She should explain why her universal health care proposal is better - which it is, I’ll grant her that. Or why, contra Obama, there’s no good reason to increase the cap on Social Security contributions anytime soon. And if there’s a difference between his climate change plan and hers, she should make the case for why hers is better.
People are hungering for a real debate over real issues. People are fed up with “you associated with a slumlord back in 1995” or “that isn’t what you said back in 2000.” People DO want to know how we can get out of Iraq, whether they’ll still have decent jobs this time next year, and if they don’t, how they’ll pay for health care.
And the fact is, there are strong arguments for why Clinton’s better on a bunch of this stuff. So she should make those arguments, rather than creating bullshit issues that nobody cares about.
And with 99% of the Dem precincts in, over 529,000 people voted in the Dem primary in SC today. Last week, only 443,000 voted in the GOP primary there.
Not really. Obama got 83% of the AA vote in SC. He got 81% of the AA vote in Nevada. The performance was pretty much expected. And considering that he didn’t even equal Jesse Jackson’s performance there when JJ ran (he got 64%, I believe compared to Obama’s 55%), it’s pretty underwhelming.
Everyone does this. Obama did the same in Nevada. And how is Hillary going to win FL without opposition? Isn’t Obama in the ballots? Isn’t Obama campaigning there against their agreement? Where is Obama’s integrity?
I don’t think that anyone in this campaign will get any appreciable bounce off of anything prior to Super Tuesday. Obama lost NH after winning in Iowa, remember. Clinton lost SC after winning in Nevada. I think each state will decide on their own. Obama hardly improved his AA vote in SC - with only a 2% rise.
Even with Edwards there, Clinton will take Super Tuesday with a 300 - 400 delegate count lead, at least. The polls seem to suggest it.
I think people are just wishing that Obama will close the gap. The polls do not indicate it. Clinton remains strong in so much more states. Super Tuesday will create the only real momentum in this race and it will be for Clinton.
The exit polls do not support your analysis. People voted based on their preference. The MSM attempt to paint the Clinton’s campaign tactics as dirtier (which is not supported by the facts) hardly mattered.
Clinton has almost exactly the same position on Iraq as Obama. Clinton has not totally ruled out increasing the cap on Social Security. She merely wants to wait for the recommendations of the bipartisan effort that she wants to push when she’s President. Clinton, however, has a better grasp on the economy than Obama and has a better grasp of foreign policy, IMO. It’s the competence and not necessarily the position that’s driving support for Clinton.
The issues are clearly articulated by both campaigns and there is not much of a difference in their positions except with health care (Clinton has the upperhand here and has the backing of almost all the experts).
I disagree that showing how Obama flip-flopped or lied or how he has ties with REZKO is BS. That speaks to his integrity, electability and his ability to weather the attacks in GE. That’s relevant.
I don’t have the energy or inclination to rebut all of your post. But I’ll do my part on this first sentence. You’re simply wrong . Not only did Obama do better than JJ, it was in a primary and not a caucus, and it was against two serious opponents.
Hillary and Obama essentially tied among non-black men (29-27). Hillary did much better among non-black women, but given the nearly equal showing among (mostly) white men, gender seems to have been a bigger factor than race.
And more people voted for Obama on issues than on personal qualities. So much for the myth that people are voting for his charisma. At least in SC, not the case according to the voters.
If the Republicans had a singular solitary candidate that they and the media were anointing as “The Republican to Beat in the General Election”, I might, perhaps-maybe, be concerned that an obvious Democratic frontrunner had not emerged.
Instead, we can decide at, at least if not more so, the same leisurely rate that they pick a [del]sacrificial lamb[/del] candidate. (Umm, OK, it’s still a contest. McCain could certainly make it a contest. The rest, in their dreams. But he Republicans aren’t annointing anyone yet). Take our time?
Isn’t it nice to have more than one genuinely viable Dem candidate?
Strategy maven versus Politican visionary. Both, if not necessarily at the top of their game (she may be, not sure that he doesn’t have lotsa room to grow), formidable opponents. Both very much potential Republican-beaters. Momentum in the general election favors them both. Is this not exciting? Admire them both for what they bring to the table, (unless what they bring is vote-aversive to you). Different set of talents and skills. Different approaches to getting things done. Me, while pragmatically guided to the gravity of what Clinton can get done (aka = any damn thing she decides she wants done, with voluntary cooperation of many of her opponents) , I think Obama could energize the fundamental American belief in all that we could be, that we set out to be and dreamed of being, but have not achieved, and in some cases have not as of het had the political courage to attempt to achieve. If his ability to motivate the general public translates into more political power than Clinton’s more pragmatic mechanisms, then we’d all be better off if he, rather than her, faceslaps the Republican candidate. (both could).
I am totally fine and fantastically happy with it as a “beta test” that whichever strategy & approach secures the nom is the best candidate to go forward in the general.
May the best Dem candidate ( and strategic strenghs compared against each other) win. I pledge my support, financial (such as I can afford) and otherwise, to whoever comes out on top.
I just checked my sources. Thanks for the correction. But I still don’t see it as all that surprising. Obama got 81% of the AA vote in Nevada - he got 83% in SC.
I’m waiting with bated breath on the rest of the rebuttals.
The average of polls at realclearpolitics.com had Obama at +11%. The final outcome was Obama by nearly 30%. That’s a bigger difference in outcome vs. polls than NH. So it is surprising in that sense.
It is also surprising in the sense that he did much better among white voters than everyone had expected. He tied Hillary among white men. No one predicted that. He won in every age group except 65+, and across the entire ideological spectrum. We won among men and women. He won among white young people by an overwhelming margin.
The Black vote was actually lower than predicted, but Obama did 3 times better than predicted. How can you possibly chalk that up to predictable racial politics?
The exits polls must be especially worrisome for the Clintons.
Analyzing the vote by age and race, she didn’t outright win a single category. “Non-Black” 29 and under went overwhelmingly for Obama. Edwards won the 30 to 59 “Non-Black” group with about 40% and Obama got 23-25% of them. Only in the 60 and over “Non-Blacks” did she tie for first.
Even more so this polling speaks to the ineffectiveness of the “Sic Bill on him” tactic. For those who felt Bill Clinton’s involvement was “important”, more voted for Obama.
More voters felt that Obama was more likely to beat a Republican nominee.
The media will now be a constant free advertisement for Obama on the road to Feb Five. They will overplay it of course. But this will give him the opportunity to play his message the way he best delivers it. He needed this win and beating expectations in every demographic is killer. This slug-fest will go on for a while I think.
Now I wait to see if my fantasy prediction about Richardson comes to pass … I know I said by the Sunday talk shows, but I’ll hedge and say maybe Tuesday after the State of the Union on Monday night. Gotta play the news cycles.
81% AA vote. He will get a win by simply getting a decent showing among whites. I get that the margin was great but considering that most of the margin came from the AA votes and that AA composition would not be as great in the Super Tuesday States, I don’t see how it would amount to much of a momentum beyond the media mileage that it will elicit. It doesn’t change the narrative one bit. Clinton will still take every state on Super Tuesday with the exception of Illinois and Georgia.
I would think that is an effect of the composition more than anything else. Survey after survey reflect that Democrats in general think Clinton as the better candidate to beat Republicans. And the General Election head-to-head polls seem to be shifting to reflect this.
You’re shifting the goalposts here. The previous question was whether this was surprising. Now you’re arguing about whether it will give him momentum. That’s a different question. You say it won’t get him momentum beyond media mileage. That’s like saying it won’t win him much but delegates. Media is half the battle. And I don’t think the margin itself is what will give him momentum. But the fact that he won across racial and demographic lines will.
The vote is also widely seen as a repudiation of Clinton’s tactics–indeed the exit polls showed that among those who felt Bill’s influence mattered, they voted overwhelmingly for Obama. That suggests pretty strongly that his influence was negative.
What is your basis for that assumption? I am a white male voter who supported Edwards in '04, and am supporting Obama this time around (though I would have been OK with an Edwards victory). Hillary has never entered the equation. I know plenty of other white male southern voters who have bounced back and forth between Obama and Edwards without ever considering a vote for Hillary.
Obama’s campaign has stated that the networks told them they could not run national advertising and exclude Florida. So the campaign consulted with the South Carolina Democratic Party Chair–to whom they had made the original pledge–who told them that the ads would not violate the pledge.
Clinton, on the other hand, has been campaigning in Florida, hosting conference calls with Florida voters, and now wants to seat Florida delegates.
I want to be cautious about that sort of analysis. South Carolina has open primaries, and some of these numbers might reflect Hillary-hating Republicans crossing over to cast a vote against her.
27% of the turnout was from those who had never voted in *any *primary before. That suggests to me that the increase–at least in large part–was not die-hard Republicans crossing over as much as new people being brought into the process.
Nothing in the result was surprising. It followed the narrative to the letter with very little deviation even if the margin was not expected. And when I say that it will only give him media mileage, I’m discounting how effective the media mileage is at getting the votes. There were no significant bounces in every contest so far and I think the reason is that the results did not change the narrative. Super Tuesday is the only primary day that could change the narrative to a shift to Obama or a relentless wave for Clinton. Polls indicate Clinton will take Super Tuesday with an overwhelming lead.
I would argue that advertisments are a much much bigger violation of their pledge more than conference calls that only reach your supporters - despite what the South Carolina Democratic Party Chair said. Do you seriously think that the SC Dem Party Chair will say no to HIM?
The point is that Obama’s campaign called her since South Carolina was the one affected by Florida’s violation of the rules. The pledge was made to the states that were hurt, and the other three states had already voted, so it was left to SC to rule on the pledge. If she’s such a pushover, the Clinton campaign should have asked for permission as well…oh, that’s right, she couldn’t, since she had no plausible argument for why she wasn’t in violation.