USA Presidential Politics - 2008

[ryberg]

Well, Derrick Jackson of the Boston Globe this mornng writes that it's a bit of hypocrisy for Clinton to make her remark about "hard-working Americans, white Americans" after pounding Obama so hard for stereotyping re Americans in small towns. Then he says just what I was suggesting the other day -- "Clinton choked on the black vote" -- after citing those same polls from last year and referencing the various race remarks by the Clinton crew later.

But most interesting to me is the comment that Clinton is being very misleading on the white vote claims she makes about Obama and electability, as Obama has been the choice of white voters in places like IN in the same percentages that Bill Clinton was, en route to the White House in 1992. He says you have to go all the way back to Carter to find a Democrat who got close to 50% of the votes of white folks.

Gee... As astute as she is, politically, and as focused as she is on demographics and this white voter "problem" Obama has, you would think she would be aware that he's actually pulling percentages in this regard just lime her own husband did...

Steve

[MWC]

It's really kind of sad.

Hillary could go out with class, and the admiration of many people who didn't support her candidacy -- such as myself. Ron's complaints to the contrary, I think many of our perceived criticisms here have been along the lines of expecting a better sort of decorum from Hillary, and/or looking for an emotional connection that was sincere on our part, but deployed seemingly cynically and only as needed by Hillary.

As many problems as Obama's spiritual advisor caused him -- at least he had one. Hillary needs some spiritual growth to be able to claim her place in the American Pantheon. I would be glad for her to do so, I truly would.

[beerbreath]

Originally Posted by MWC

It's really kind of sad.

Hillary could go out with class, and the admiration of many people who didn't support her candidacy -- such as myself. Ron's complaints to the contrary, I think many of our perceived criticisms here have been along the lines of expecting a better sort of decorum from Hillary, and/or looking for an emotional connection that was sincere on our part, but deployed seemingly cynically and only as needed by Hillary.

As many problems as Obama's spiritual advisor caused him -- at least he had one. Hillary needs some spiritual growth to be able to claim her place in the American Pantheon. I would be glad for her to do so, I truly would.

Her staying in is just proving what I have said all along,all she cares about is herself.Her true colors are showing for all the world to see.

[ryberg]

WV doesn't matter in the context of winning this campaign anymore. They will talk like it does, however, ignoring the math. It will be a first down on the final drive of a game where the team getting it is behind by 4 touchdowns. This will not stop the lying to the people, however. And the longer it goes on, the more bitter her supporters get, or will be when she finally doesn't get nominated.

Then repeat all that but replacing WV with KY...

Steve

[ryberg]

It should be interesting to see this DemConWatch graph when it's next updated:

Steve

[ryberg]

Hapless, I tell ya: word today is that the PR guy McCain brought on just last week to run the Republican convention already had to quit because of ties through his firm with the military junta running things in Myanmar/Burma.

Actually I have the impression -- does anyone else? -- that it may be a combination of hapless, with McCain, and an attitude thing, like he thinks he's somehow above being held accountable for such things or something. He tends to sort of summarily reject whatever is brought up against him and then immediately step up the anger if/when anyone pursues it. There is that thing about the lobbyist, and the campaign finance ethics questions, and then using his wife's plane, too, and now the reference to the Keating 5 has come out. Oh, and that one where the pastor tried to ask whether he actually called his wife those things in front of other people. And questions about Hagee and the like.

If I were a Republican, I'd be encouraged by the Dems' ongoing fighting and their tendency to find ways to lose the White House, but I'd also be wondering if this "angry and don't want to talk about it!" sort of stance isn't going to hurt him, in the end.

Geez, he even refused to go on and talk about religion there a while back, despite the importance of that to so many conservatives and despite the free national coverage it could have provided his, the financially poorest campaign of the three.

Gotta wonder...

Steve

[Jacko]

Pragmatic Politics, Forged on the South Side

Interesting article here

Excerpts....

“There are some people who say he’s not strong enough on this or that, that he’s wishy-washy, that he’s trying to have it both ways,” said Abner J. Mikva, a former congressman and mentor to Mr. Obama. “But he’s not looking for how to exclude the people who don’t agree with him. He’s looking for ways to make the tent as large as possible.”

..........................


An untraditional politician who at times uses traditional political tactics, Mr. Obama, 46, was portrayed in dozens of interviews with political leaders and longtime associates in Chicago as the ultimate pragmatist, a deliberate thinker who fashions carefully nuanced positions that manage to win him support from people with divergent views.

...................

Even moments that supporters see as his boldest are tempered by his political caution. The forceful speech he delivered in 2002 against the impending Iraq invasion — a speech that has helped define him nationally — was threaded with an unusual mantra for a 1960s-style antiwar rally: “I’m not opposed to all wars.” It was a refrain Mr. Obama had tested on his political advisers, and it was a display of his ability to speak to the audience before him while keeping in mind the broader audience to come.

..............................

“What’s fascinating about Barack is what he’s trying to do is reframe and change the discourse so you build support for liberal alternatives within the electorate,” said Will Burns, a former aide whom Mr. Obama also consulted on the speech. “He has an ability to frame stuff so it’s not an all or nothing proposition.”

[ryberg]

Pretty quiet around here...

I guess it's a good thing we're not a major news outlet, or we'd have to start pretending the race was closer than it really is, you know, just to fill the space and maintain interest!



Pursuant to previous discussion, this may be of interest, and I think in a general sense, corroborates what I was giving as my impression of racism and sexism over the course of this campaign:

Obama's race is the 'elephant' in the voter booth

U.S. Sen. Barack Obama’s race and inflammatory racial remarks made by his former preacher negatively affect how likely voters view the candidate, according to a new Herald-Leader/WKYT Kentucky Poll.

More than one in five likely Democratic voters surveyed said being black hurts Obama’s chances of winning an election in Kentucky, compared to 4 percent who said Obama’s race helps him.

Although more than half of respondents said his race isn’t a factor in the election, many of those surveyed also said racially charged remarks by the Rev. Jeremiah Wright will play an important role as they decide whom to support in the May 20 primary.

Wright’s remarks are important or very important to 43 percent of those polled. Among white voters, his statements were important to 46 percent, compared to only 11 percent of black voters.

“Race is still the elephant in the room, and the Rev. Wright issue hits at remaining racial prejudices and fears that people here might have,” said Saundra Ardrey, head of the political science department at Western Kentucky University.

Meanwhile, U.S. Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton’s gender is not a major factor for those surveyed. Eleven percent saw Clinton’s gender as a positive, which was only slightly less than the 14 percent who viewed it as a negative. Clinton’s gender didn’t matter to 63 percent of those polled.

The telephone survey of 500 likely Democratic voters was conducted from May 7 through May 9 by Research 2000 of Olney, Md. The poll has a margin of error of plus or minus 4.5 percentage points...

Just one survey in one place, of course, but FWIW. Perhaps what you were saying about gender, Mel -- that many people don't live and work and interact with people of another race, but everybody interacts with the other gender every day -- works both ways. Perhaps that exposure to and interaction with women on the part of men (or for that matter, other women) who might otherwise be inclined towards sexist views have positively affected the situation and broken down older views to some extent, while the continued distance in everyday life of many regular old white folks, for example, from black people or Asian or Latino people or whatever group, has left tendencies toward racist views more in place.

Again, maybe my views are too limited, but when I think about this campaign, I see of all sorts of stuff that has to do with race swirling around Obama and talked about directly and with intense scrutiny in the press and often cited as negative (of course including, but not limited to, focus on this by Clinton herself), but I don't see all sorts of stuff having to do with gender swirling around Clinton and talked about directly in the press and often cited as negative (not from Obama, not from much of the press). Or to put it maybe more bluntly, she's simply more accepted without question as a serious candidate for leading the country as a woman -- and not just in Manhattan but also in Kentucky -- than he is as a black man. As far as I can see.

Steve

[Jacko]

Originally Posted by ryberg

Pretty quiet around here...

I guess it's a good thing we're not a major news outlet, or we'd have to start pretending the race was closer than it really is, you know, just to fill the space and maintain interest!



Pursuant to previous discussion, this may be of interest, and I think in a general sense, corroborates what I was giving as my impression of racism and sexism over the course of this campaign:

Just one survey in one place, of course, but FWIW. Perhaps what you were saying about gender, Mel -- that many people don't live and work and interact with people of another race, but everybody interacts with the other gender every day -- works both ways. Perhaps that exposure to and interaction with women on the part of men (or for that matter, other women) who might otherwise be inclined towards sexist views have positively affected the situation and broken down older views to some extent, while the continued distance in everyday life of many regular old white folks, for example, from black people or Asian or Latino people or whatever group, has left tendencies toward racist views more in place.

Again, maybe my views are too limited, but when I think about this campaign, I see of all sorts of stuff that has to do with race swirling around Obama and talked about directly and with intense scrutiny in the press and often cited as negative (of course including, but not limited to, focus on this by Clinton herself), but I don't see all sorts of stuff having to do with gender swirling around Clinton and talked about directly in the press and often cited as negative (not from Obama, not from much of the press). Or to put it maybe more bluntly, she's simply more accepted without question as a serious candidate for leading the country as a woman -- and not just in Manhattan but also in Kentucky -- than he is as a black man. As far as I can see.

Steve

Unless, of course, you are one of the many Republicans who just despise her, many for reasons that I believe have something to do with her being a woman..... (I'd be VERY wary of a poll that might not interpret the real reasons why one likes a candidate or not when considering racism and sexism....)

Obama's race obviously has not hurt him too much despite all the Wright things, the name and the false radical Muslim association......IMO and in the opinion of many pundits, even once we get to the general, "Swift-boating" just will not work in this election...could we all finally be tired of this type of approach?

Look, I believe that racism and sexism will play a roll here in this election......of course it will... ..just as ageism will play a roll.
I also believe that it plays both a positive AND a negative roll in terms of getting votes for less than rational reasons...on all sides.

[ryberg]

Originally Posted by Jacko

Unless, of course, you are one of the many Republicans who just despise her, many for reasons that I believe have something to do with her being a woman..... (I'd be VERY wary of a poll that might not interpret the real reasons why one likes a candidate or not when considering racism and sexism....)

Obama's race obviously has not hurt him too much despite all the Wright things, the name and the false radical Muslim association......IMO and in the opinion of many pundits, even once we get to the general, "Swift-boating" just will not work in this election...could we all finally be tired of this type of approach?

Look, I believe that racism and sexism will play a roll here in this election......of course it will... ..just as ageism will play a roll.
I also believe that it plays both a positive AND a negative roll in terms of getting votes for less than rational reasons...on all sides.

Well that's all fair enough, and I'm not trying to fight a pitched battle here or anything. I find both racism and sexism to be despicable (as I've said) and agree with JL's comment that we should be more alert and be on guard against them, especially in the press, for example. I just couldn't help but note the relevance to our discussion of that article and poll and some seeming support that the view I expressed might be on target.

However, on your first point, there, you may be right, but note that the poll referenced was one of likely Democrat voters. So maybe I should edit the phrase of mine you bolded to read, "she's simply more accepted without question as a serious candidate for leading the country as a woman (even) by Democrats than he is as a black man." But I'm not sure that makes me feel much better about the situation!!! If anything, worse...

I do hold out hope, still, that what you say about Swift Boating is right. That is, what you say about it perhaps not working because enough people are sufficiently tired of it (not that it will still be done, of course!). Not trying to be to cocky about the election, because nobody who ever wanted a Democrat elected president has any room to be cocky about the prospect, but it does strike me as kinda funny that Republicans seem to be salivating over the opportunity to go into Swift Boat mode, seemingly failing to recognize the extent to which such negative attack approaches have themselves failed, this year. It's like the second of a platoon of running backs, watching the first pound the line up the middle over and over for very little gain, itching to go in himself and try the very same thing.

If it works for them, well of course they'll be happy. If it doesn't show any more results than it did for Clinton, in the end... Well boy are they going to feel like idiots, in retrospect, not to have realized that in the first place.

Steve

[roni]

Originally Posted by ryberg

But most interesting to me is the comment that Clinton is being very misleading on the white vote claims she makes about Obama and electability, as Obama has been the choice of white voters in places like IN in the same percentages that Bill Clinton was, en route to the White House in 1992. He says you have to go all the way back to Carter to find a Democrat who got close to 50% of the votes of white folks.

Steve

Are you comparing Obama's vote in the primary to Bill Clinton's vote in the General Election?

What are the numbers and from which elections do those numbers come, please.

thanks

[ryberg]

Not to swerve from something after bringing it up, but this also was interesting to me. I have certainly had such thoughts.

The Upside of Being Knocked Around

So, now that it might finally be over (or maybe close to it, possibly, perhaps), does Senator Barack Obama come out a bloody mess, or a battle-tested warrior?

In recent weeks, a wiseguy consensus seems to have settled on the former: the idea that Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton has so weakened Mr. Obama in the race for the Democratic nomination — so diminished him, distracted him, exhausted him — that he could be a grievously damaged nominee . . .

But there is a competing view that says that Mrs. Clinton, rather than being a spoiler, has in fact been an unwitting mentor to Mr. Obama, a teaching adversary who made him better. Could competing against Mrs. Clinton have improved Mr. Obama as a candidate in the same way that competing against Larry Bird and Magic Johnson in the 1980s made Isiah Thomas and Michael Jordan champions in the 1990s?...

The author then compiles 6 reasons he thinks so, of which I personally find "She made him a giant-killer" (in reputation/image, at least) and "She helped define him" (really in a lot of ways the same point) to be the most impressive. (Of course, these could be seen as more just a natural consequence of having competed against and then lost to him, so I'm not sure how much "credit" in the normal sense would be due her...)

Again, FWIW.

Steve

[ryberg]

Originally Posted by roni

Are you comparing Obama's vote in the primary to Bill Clinton's vote in the General Election?

What are the numbers and from which elections do those numbers come, please.

thanks

No problem. (I originally posted that bit from the iPhone or I would have done it then.)

Clinton's diminishing of black voters

The author notes:

37% white vote for Obama in PA
37% white vote for Obama in NC
40% white vote for Obama in IN
39% white vote for Bill Clinton in general election in 92

He also notes 83% of the black vote in the latter, rather similar to percentages Obama is getting now.

May not be a perfect match, of course. But pretty similar for being labelled a recipe for failure by the spouse of someone who won on it.

Steve

[Jacko]

Originally Posted by ryberg

Not to swerve from something after bringing it up, but this also was interesting to me. I have certainly had such thoughts.

The author then compiles 6 reasons he thinks so, of which I personally find "She made him a giant-killer" (in reputation/image, at least) and "She helped define him" (really in a lot of ways the same point) to be the most impressive. (Of course, these could be seen as more just a natural consequence of having competed against and then lost to him, so I'm not sure how much "credit" in the normal sense would be due her...)

Again, FWIW.

Steve

I think melliedee may have made that point early on....that the extended fight with Clinton may make him a "battle-tested warrior" better prepared for the general......and so he is it seems.

Despite many predictions to the contrary, he weathered it all ..... flag pins and patriotism, Rev. Wright, purported radical Muslim affiliation, Weatherman bombings, Rezco , bittergate.....etc. etc. and continues to increase his lead. We (on both sides) generally just did not buy into the negative hype. Indeed, the largest measurable result seems to have been an increase in Hillary's negatives along the way. North Carolina, Indiana and ultimately the super delegate counts were the measurement of the success or failure of these attacks imo....he wins.....at least in the primary challenges.

I wonder if the same concerns about his ability to "weather the storm" and overcome the challenges, will end up with the same result in the general? Just wonderin', that's all.

It is pretty amazing he is where he is given all of those challenges in the primary....And Hillary may be an even more formidable opponent than McCain, his incumbent President, and a devastated Republican party that recently cannot seem to hold even the previously most solid of seats of government?

[roni]

Originally Posted by ryberg

No problem. (I originally posted that bit from the iPhone or I would have done it then.)

Clinton's diminishing of black voters

The author notes:

37% white vote for Obama in PA
37% white vote for Obama in NC
40% white vote for Obama in IN
39% white vote for Bill Clinton in general election in 92

He also notes 83% of the black vote in the latter, rather similar to percentages Obama is getting now.

May not be a perfect match, of course. But pretty similar for being labelled a recipe for failure by the spouse of someone who won on it.

Steve

We'll be able to do a direct comparison of Obama's general election totals to Bill Clinton's in 1992 in November.

Comparing primary vote share with general election vote share is not exactly an exercise in legitimate comparisons.

The three primaries noted by the author, those had different levels of openess to non-Democratic registered voters, did they not?