Tag: Election 2008

Spinning the Saturday Sweep.

How will the Clinton campaign rationalize the losses over the weekend? It’s not pretty. Said Senator Clinton: “‘These are caucus states by and large, or in the case of Louisiana, you know, a very strong and very proud African-American electorate, which I totally respect and understand.’ Noting that ‘my husband never did well in caucus states either,’ Clinton argued that caucuses are ‘primarily dominated by activists” and that “they don’t represent the electorate, we know that.‘” So, “activists” and African-Americans, not “real” Dems. Got it. As for Bill Clinton’s take: “‘Her campaign’s broad appeal is largely to people who need a president,’ Clinton told an audience in Silver Spring’s Leisure World retirement community tonight. ‘Very often they are working and busy and dont go to these caucuses.’” Sure. I guess holding them on a weekend probably didn’t help either. As a commenter at TNR wryly characterized the spin last night: “Clearly there’s been a massive flood of Latte sipping African American knowledge workers into rural Maine.“

Mind you, I’ve said before that caucuses may not be the best way to organize a statewide election. But, given both the breadth and depth of Obama’s leads in caucus states all across the country, Sen. Clinton’s continued losses speak less to the inherent problems of caucusing than to the inherent problems of the Clinton campaign. As I said yesterday, if her campaign is any indication of the managerial talent we can expect from a Clinton presidency, the prognosis is not good. To wit, it’s poorly managed, woefully disorganized, suffers from a lack of “activist” enthusiasm, and — like a certain Republican administration I could mention — clearly had no Plan B. (Also, apparently, Sen. Clinton wasn’t apprised of her dismal funding situation until after Iowa. Another managerial coup.)

Krugman Jumps the Shark.

“Why, then, is there so much venom out there? I won’t try for fake evenhandedness here: most of the venom I see is coming from supporters of Mr. Obama, who want their hero or nobody.” He’s been teetering on the brink for awhile now. (Not for nothing did TNR deem his last anti-Obama column the “least surprising NYT column ever.”) But NYT columnist Paul Krugman finally, irrevocably jumps the shark with his column this morning, which blames the “cult of personality” around Obama for all the venom in the Democratic race at the moment, and claims Obama is turning the Democratic party into “Nixonland.” Um, yeah.

First off, it doesn’t seem like Krugman gets out around the blogosphere much, since every political board you can find out there is strewn with Clinton supporters saying wildly intemperate things. (I’m sure he’s suffering from a selection bias — given that he’s invariably writing anti-Obama pieces, he probably gets a lot more prObama hate mail.) Second, there’ no mention at all of any of the shadier tactics employed by the Clinton campaign over the course of the past few months, of course (and he cherry-picks rather drastically when it comes to discussion of the race card.) No, the problem for Krugman resides only in Obama cultists and a vast media conspiracy. Right.

When it comes to economics, Krugman is usually a sound thinker, even if I do think he has a tendency to belittle the progressive position on matters of political economy. (The title of his recent book, The Conscience of a Liberal, makes it plain.) But, when he strays off the economics reservation to dabble in history or politics, hoo boy. This column, frankly, is partisan hackery of the first order.

Education: The Real Cleave?

“Generally speaking, the more education a Democrat has, the less likely he or she is to support Hillary Clinton, and the more likely to support Barack Obama.” For all the talk of age, race, gender, and class divergences, some analysts at Gallup see a different dynamic at work in the Obama-Clinton race: education. “In short, education is a highly significant predictor of Democrats’ vote choices…Gender, too, is a predictor, but is essentially overwhelmed by the impact of education.”

In fact, a worthy regression analysis of poll data over at dKos pushes the point further: “It is educational attainment, rather than income level, that appears to be the driving force behind Obama’s ‘upscale’ support. In fact, there is some weak evidence that Obama actually does a bit better in states with lower median household incomes, once we control for educational attainment (but, the effect was not quite statistically significant enough to make the final cut). Trust me — I looked and looked for this one, analyzing variables such as household income, per capita income, home values, home ownership, unemployment rates, and union membership. The idea that Clinton does better with working class voters seems to be a myth; she does better with voters without college degrees, but not working class voters per se. To the extent any such effects exist, they appear to point in the opposite direction of the conventional wisdom.” (Speaking of which, there are number of CW-defying findings in this regression analysis, and it’s worth a look-see.) Update: Poblano has more.

Update 2: The WP parses more data and finds the same education cleave. “In each of the states where the Post subscribed to exit polls (and voters were asked about their level of education), Clinton did better among non-college than college-educated white voters. She also outpaced Obama among non-college whites in all 14 of these states, but beat him by more than a single percentage point among college graduates in only five.“

Crook: An Easy Call.

“Republicans, of course, are bound to dislike his liberalism – but what is there for Democrats to think about? Why are they even having this conversation? They have been waiting an awfully long time for a politician like Mr Obama. If, having come so close, they still manage to nominate Mrs Clinton, I think it is a choice they will regret for years and maybe decades.” In the Financial Times, Clive Crook sees the Democratic choice for Obama as a no-brainer.

The Fall Girl.

In another sign that the Clinton campaign may actually be reeling more than it lets on after Super Tuesday‘s failed knockout, Patty Solis Doyle is out as campaign manager, to be replaced by longtime Clinton aide Maggie Williams. This shake-up isn’t a huge surprise, as it’s been telegraphed ever since Iowa. Still, given that the campaign is already looking shaky and is desperate for good news at the moment, the timing is not ideal for the Clintons.

The Maine Event.

Wow. Make that 5-for-5. Senator Obama wins the Maine caucus going away. (Final tally: 59%-40%.) I have to say, I didn’t see this one coming — I expected Sen. Obama to lose close. Either Obama’s starting to pick up real momentum, the Clinton campaign is just terrible at caucuses (which doesn’t speak well of Sen. Clinton’s ability to “manage the bureaucracy”), or everyone severely misunderestimated the impact of the King endorsement.

Well, at any rate, good job by Team Obama in Maine, and hopefully the completed weekend sweep bodes well for Tuesday’s big Chesapeake/Beltway primary: Virginia, Maryland, and the District of Columbia. Sen. Obama is favored in all, but, of course, nothing’s certain, and the margins matter. (By the way, New Hampshire and Massachusetts? Not to rub it in, but the Pine Tree State just made y’all look kinda silly.)

Saturday Sweep.

In the Caribbean, South, Midwest, and West, Senator Obama goes four for four, winning Nebraska (68% to 32%), Washington (68% to 31%), Louisiana (56% to 37%), and the Virgin Islands (90% to 8%) handily. Now, that’s a good day’s work. (As you can see from the picture, Maine is next…which looks to lean Clinton at the moment. We’ll know more tomorrow.)

Cleveland Rocks.

“Obama’s frequent talk of hope strikes some people as naive. It leads others to question his toughness. But Obama understands something his critics do not: Change requires vision and optimism, shared sacrifice and mutual trust. Hope can sustain those elements; a presidency defined by political tactics cannot.” The Cleveland Plain Dealer, Ohio’s biggest paper, backs Barack Obama. “America needs a fresh start. Barack Obama is the Democrat to provide it.”

Obama’s Constitutional Experience.

“Katyal, who has been called in by both senators, described what sounded like a typical establishment vs. insurgency split between the two. Clinton ‘comes at it a bit more from a top-down perspective,’ he said, ‘as in, “elites are likely to know what the right answer is.” She’ll likely talk to the Nobel Prize winner, but maybe not be as likely to talk to the people on the ground affected by the policies./ Obama, on the other hand, talked to Katyal for two hours when the Military Commissions Act, which sought to limit the Guantanamo detainees’ right to bring appeals in federal court, was being debated in the Senate. He wanted to know how the proposed law would play out directly for the detainees, and Katyal was representing Salim Ahmed Hamdan before the Supreme Court.“

Slate‘s Emily Bazelon examines how Obama’s years as a con law professor influence his judicial thinking. “Obama’s immersion makes the law professors in his inner circle giddy. In addition to the sweet relief of a candidate who has promised not to keep marching to the drummer of executive power, and who wants to protect rather than diminish the right to privacy, the Obama lawyer team loves their man because he goes toe to toe with them. As Harvard law professor Martha Minow puts it, ‘He has at his fingertips the whole historical context of the moments in which our Constitution has been stretched, or has been in jeopardy, and when presidents have tried to bring it back. This isn’t an afterthought for him: “Oh, I’ll go consult my lawyers.”‘” This probably goes a way toward explaining why Obama has the backing of so many anti-Gitmo lawyers.