Unfortunately Obama doesn’t come across as well as Hillary in debates. Stump Obama is Superman, Debate Obama is Clark Kent. What I’d like to see maybe about Saturday is Edwards endorsing Obama. It seems a perfect storm may be about to sink the Good Ship Billary: McCain is the presumptive nominee and Democrats want someone who can beat him, backlash over Bill’s heavy-handed campaigning, the Kennedy endorsement, Obama fighting back with class. Add an Edwards endorsement and it may be enough.
Edwards was smart not to immediately endorse. If he does it Friday or Saturday, then it gets play all weekend. Better to have two news cycles than one.
Incidentally, that poll seems to give the lie to the conventional wisdom among media talking heads that Edwards supporters in the South would flock to Hillary as the “white” candidate. Instead, in a two-candidate poll they seem to be flocking to Obama as the “non-Hillary” candidate.
Well it is at least considerably more than the slightly less than 25 million each of them raised the last 3 months of '07. Enough to spring for a Super Bowl ad I’m betting.
Gloria Molina had said that she would make an endorsement before Super Tuesday.
And if Richardson is going to endorse, today really should be the day already - it would make for an iintersting question at the debate tonight and get some air time. Of course I’ve been expecting one every day since SC so my handicapping the timing of these things obviously stinks.
The biggies want to have an impact. What timing maximizes it?
I think Friday about 3pm or so. This gets you on all the talking head shows Friday night and if no fresher news comes in, you’re the talk of the Sunday talk shows too.
Unfortunately, and I think it is no small coincidence, they lined up the Democratic debate with the season premier of Lost. I think this will hurt Obama and play better for Hillary, not by a whole lot probably, but at this point every little bit counts. Far more people will tune in for Lost and rely on the post-debate spin, which on CNN will likely bend towards Clinton.
Incidentally did anyone catch A Daily Show last night? John had Peggy Noonan on, and after enough of her getting little digs in at Edwards and Obama, but more so at the theme of populism in their messages, Stewart seemed to have had it and went almost ‘Crossfire-esque’ on her. He also, I think, officially-unofficially endorsed John Edward’s endorsement of Barack Obama.
Due to the writers’ strike I don’t want to link to the interview, but if you can catch it, say on the repeat today, it is worth it. For what it stood for and what it could potentially mean as far as influence goes, I think it was one of the better interviews I have seen on the show.
Like other hopefully like minded folk as myself, they will Tivo Lost and watch the debate. Or vice the verse. I’m really watching this one close as Obama is gaining a lot of ground and quickly…
Yep - Hillary has not said how much she has raised, we’ll see.
The National Journal has declared Obama the most liberal Senator. Conventional wisdom says this helps him in the primary and hurts him the general. I think that’s probably right, to an extent. But the Republicans are going to paint him as liberal no matter what happens. The National Journal imprimatur probably doesn’t matter that much. Thoughts?
The GOP’s certain to use it against him in the fall.
And it looks to me like a bullshit methodology. Two reasons: first, the weighting sucks, given the number of votes. By the time you take 99 votes, some are going to be a LOT more important than others. The most important vote out of a group that big is going to be way more significant than the 99th most important. Ten or twenty times as important, I’d say. The NJ weightings only go from 1 to 3. So, for instance, the vote for fully funding a withdrawal from Iraq counts only 1.5 times as much as the bill that would keep Mexican trucks off U.S. roads.
Second, and more important in this instance, is that the methodology for dealing with missed votes sucks terribly. If you’re running for President, you’re going to miss more than a few votes. But the votes that you’re present for probably won’t be a random sample, but rather votes that were more important to take a stand on. And the votes you were absent from were more likely to be where your vote wasn’t needed.
When your party doesn’t have a huge majority, those votes you make are likely to be the ones where your vote was needed for your party to have a chance to win the vote.
Unless you come up with a way of dealing with this, um, nonresponse bias (to use a standard term in a very nonstandard sense :)), you’re going to come up with some weird results. And that’s how Obama went from 16th and 10th out of 45 Dems in 2005 and 2006, to 1st out of 51 in 2007. The NJ simply pretended that the sample of votes Obama was there for represented the whole, and came up with a screwy number.
One way of putting the question is this: which is more damaging in the general election, the fact that you voted with Bush on Iran, or the fact that you are considered liberal by the National Journal?
Exactly that; well, aside from the way the networks seem to be trying to push for Hillary, particularly CNN and even Fox.
At least when you watch the debates though, you get the entire context of the question and answer. Obama also tends to reason out his answers more, which makes them not to useful when they are cut down to mere sound bites. The less people see of the actual debate the easier it is to get away with spinning it, which ever way, afterwards.
I agree, but the latest polls are indicating he’s doing quite well, so people are looking past those sound bites a bit. He’s stopping in CT brielfy on Monday - I’m planning on being there to listen to him,we’ve been rallying folks all week…and it’s working.
Lost vs Debate, might be a moot point. It looks like, at least on the left coast, the debate goes from 5-7 and Lost 8-10. It doesn’t say if/when CNN will repeat the debate, though they did last night’s, but at least for those that don’t have to fight traffic or work late, it might not be an issue. I don’t know what it is like for the other time zones though.
All evidence suggests Obama benefits. That said, I think the number of true independents – i.e. ones who don’t even know what primary they’d vote in at this point – is smaller than some people believe. I think most independents probably lean clearly one way or the other, but resist party labels. That’s just my gut talking.
Oh, and I’m pretty sure 15 of the contests are open to independent voters. I can’t remember the specific states, but California is one of them.
I have to admit, I was wrong on both counts. The timing with Lost was a non-factor, hell, there is even a bonus episode of Countdown in between. Where I was really wrong though was CNN’s bias, Wolf Blitzer made a horrible moderater and asked Hillary some really stupid questions. It was nice to hear the audience actually boo him.
So even though there is a thread for the debate its self I just wanted to pop into this one right quick and say ‘my bad, I spoke too soon’.