Obama, Barack

It would be kinda fun to see Hillary take this thing after all, wouldn't it?

Two more primaries, and two more relatively static results in the Democratic race for President.  The media meme about yesterday's results is that Obama beat expectations, so Hillary should drop out, but the racial breakdowns in IN and NC remained almost unchanged from earlier Primaries.

Obama won black voters overwhelmingly, getting 91 percent in NC and 90 percent in Indiana.  Clinton won white voters convincingly, getting 60 percent in NC and 61 percent in IN.

As race seems to have the most consistent correlation with vote preference in this primary, the actual results from state to state aren't varying that much from what can be predicted by the demographics and turnout projections.  FiveThirtyEight.com had some long predictions yesterday, using polling and some complicated statistical analysis, but they came very close to being right simply by using racial breakdowns and turnout predictions.

I'll also note the strange meme wondering whether Obama can collect enough votes from whites motivated by race, even while nobody is mentioning that black voters are consistently and overwhelmingly supporting the candidate who shares their skin color.

As I've said since Super Tuesday, the Dem race seems pretty static to me, despite the roller coaster of coverage.  The 2008 general election will likely hinge on whether the eventual Democratic nominee (still almost certainly Obama) can win over enough of Clinton's supporters, given the unprecedented length and vigor of the Democratic race.  Yesterday's exit polls indicated yet again that Democratic voters are becoming more attached to their candiate and more averse to the other candidate:

Nearly six in ten Obama supporters in Indiana say they would be dissatisfied if Clinton were the nominee -- that's (I believe) the high percentage of Obama supporters who have ever said that.

In both IN and NC, two thirds of Clinton supporters say they'd be dissatisfied if Obama were the nominee -- I believe that's the highest number recorded for that question, too.

The percentage of Clinton voters who say they'd choose McCain over Obama in a general election is approaching 40% in Indiana. Put it another way: in North Carolina, less than HALF of folks who voted today for Hillary Clinton are ready to say today that they'd definitely vote for Obama in a general election.

The general election will be decided based on this.  Obama supporters are convinced that Democrats will come home, because they're motivated by issues and Obama is right on their issues.  I understand the importance of issues, as you've seen from criticisms of the GOP over the years, yet I still think many voters are motivated by personalities and biographies, and while I don't doubt that many Clinton supporters will eventually support Obama, I think a significant percentage (10 percent?  20 percent) will not, due to the animosities and attachments created during this Primary.

And those are the key questions for November:  How many Clinton supporters will not support Obama, and how well can Obama do with white voters, given his inability to win them in the recent Democratic Primaries?

cnn.com; politico.com

Tim Russert reports Hillary Clinton has cancelled all morning show appearances.  MSNBC reports Clinton has cancelled all events scheduled for tomorrow.  The folks on Ben Smith's blog at Politico are cheering for a Clinton concession and pull out of the race.  Allegedly, 7% of her votes in Indiana were from folks planning on voting for McCain in November.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0508/Russert_Clinton_cancels_morning_show_appearances.html#comments

according to CNN, Obama picked up 4 more delegates than Clinton tonight. 

Terry McAuliffe refuses to answer any questions about another loan by HRC to her campaign.  Bill Clinton's face is said to be redder than a tomato. 

A shame I don't have cable; sounds like I'm missing a lot of fun.

(And is Monroe Co., Indiana where IU is?  It went 66% Obama-33% Clinton.  Lake County was a disappointing 55% Obama-45% Clinton.)

Obama may have only won 9 counties in Indiana, but I'm almost tempted to say they were the right ones.  Same he couldn't have gotten one or two more big ones, or several of the smaller ones. 

http://online.wsj.com/article/declarations.html

"Mr. Wright seems to me to be part of the great "barbaric yawp," as Walt Whitman called the American people fighting, discussing, making things and living. I like the barbaric yawp. I don't enjoy it when it makes me wince, but at least when I am wincing, I know the yawp is working."

For several weeks, though the Rev. Wright and "bitter" stories, that I doubted they would have much impact among Democratic Primary voters (who I think mostly have made their decisions weeks or months ago), and that I wanted to see exit polling from Pennsylvania to see if those stories had any impact among Democratic Primary voters:

They didn't, as most of these figures are close echoes of the exit polling for other recent Democratic Primaries in midwestern states, and are eerily similar to Ohio's exit polling:

Clinton has now won white men in 12 states and Obama has done the same in 10 states.

Obama did win more than nine in 10 black voters, continuing his unbroken support of African-Americans. And Clinton continued her trend of winning white women in all but a couple of contests.

There are other breakdowns, among education level and income, which were also roughly as expected and as we've seen before.

To me, the great determining (and unanswered) question of the 2008 general election is who wins white voters, especially white male voters.  If Barack Obama is the Democratic nominee (which I still think is a near certainty), can he convince white voters who haven't supported him in Democratic primaries in key states like Ohio and Pennsylvania to support him in a general election?  Or, to put it another way, which factor will have a stronger correlation to candidate support in November - demographic factors like race, gender, income, etc. or partisan/issue factors?

UPDATE:  Here's another more explicit and detailed comparision between OH and PA exit polls.

And both Clinton and Obama can now make the case to superdelegates that they lead in the much-ballyhooed popular vote.

Found this at opinionjournal.com (adjunct of the Wall St. Journal)

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120873309012529689.html?mod=hpp_us_inside_today

David Brooks, in the cratering NY Times, has an Op-Ed in which he discusses Barack Obama's transformation during the Democratic Presidential primaries:

Back in Iowa, Barack Obama promised to be something new — an unconventional leader who would confront unpleasant truths, embrace novel policies and unify the country. If he had knocked Hillary Clinton out in New Hampshire and entered general-election mode early, this enormously thoughtful man would have become that.

But he did not knock her out, and the aura around Obama has changed. Furiously courting Democratic primary voters and apparently exhausted, Obama has emerged as a more conventional politician and a more orthodox liberal.

I know it's the New York Times, and it's heretically critical of The One, but read the whole thing.

(As a matter of fact, yes, I do seem to remember someone writing something similar some time ago...)

Obama's current policy on Iraq (as of today, it changes around a lot) is to withdraw our forces to nearby bases outside of the country and run missions into Iraq to aid the Iraqi forces when violence escalates.

As much as the DNC and his campaign are touting McCain's campaign as running for "Bush's 3rd Term" what kind of change is Obama selling here?

As the NY Times even pointed out:

"A rapid transfer of responsibility to Iraqi forces and withdrawal to large bases was attempted in 2005 and 2006, with disastrous results when the Iraqi units proved incapable of halting major attacks, and sectarian violence worsened."

Obama's policy on Iraq is what even left leaning media sources consider one of the Bush Admin's most disastrous tactics.

Obama's Iraq policy doesn't just include one of the Bush Admin's tactical mistakes... Obama's plan makes those tactical mistakes the entire strategy!

McCain may share some of Bush's policies on Iraq, but he shares the ones that worked. Unlike Obama he isn't pushing the failed policies as a grand new strategy and calling that "change."

You add that to Obama's repeated assertions that we would need UN, and thus Chinese/Russion permission, to take action on humanitarian issues, genocide, and regional conflicts he'd give the green light to China to take Taiwan by force, for the genocide in Sudan to continue, for Iran to renew its nuclear weapons program, etc with absolutely no real pressure or worry about it leading to a possible intervention...

Obama is the "change" that tyrants, oppressors, and America's enemies can believe in!

http://online.wsj.com/article/declarations.html

..."she lies even more than is humanly possible, or even politically usual."

From Gallup:

A sizable proportion of Democrats would vote for John McCain next November if he is matched against the candidate they do not support for the Democratic nomination. This is particularly true for Hillary Clinton supporters, more than a quarter of whom currently say they would vote for McCain if Barack Obama is the Democratic nominee.

Of course, if there ever was a candidate who could botch the opportunity being created by Democratic infighting, it's John McCain.

UPDATE:  And then this:

There are going to be some women that think Clinton was treated unfairly in this process because of her gender, but very few of them will be able to harbor the kind of lingering resentment toward the Obama campaign that would preclude them from supporting him in the fall.

Is there a "conventional wisdom" assumption that Hillary's supporters are more likely to support Obama than the reverse?  If so, why?

Sorry that I'm posting so much about Barack Obama lately.  There's just not very much else that has captured my attention.

About that popular vote margin which Obama's campaign is claiming as somehow nearly binding on Democratic superdelegates:

In the race for the most popular votes in the Democratic Party's presidential primary contests, Sen. Barack Obama's lead over Sen. Hillary Clinton is about 711,000 votes -- not including Florida or Michigan -- according to Real Clear Politics.

Of Sen. Obama's 711,000 popular-vote lead, 650,000 -- or more than 90% of the total margin -- comes from Sen. Obama's home state of Illinois, with 429,000 of that lead coming from his home base of Cook County.

That margin in Cook County represents almost 60% of Obama's total lead nationwide.

Interestingly, Sen. Obama's 429,000-vote margin in Cook County alone is larger than the winning margin of either candidate in any state.

Interesting stuff.  First, congratulations to the Cook County Democrats.  They should be proud of carrying their hometown candidate to such an overwhelming margin, and their political operation may just be the best in America.

Second, some other interesting figures (Figures from Real Clear Politics as well.):  Clinton's margin in New York state was 317,000.  Her margin in California was 421,000. 

Using vote totals that include Florida and Michigan (giving Obama credit for Michigan's "uncommitted"), Obama's margin is about 87,000 out of some 27 million votes cast.

Mandate?

It's always strange to see names which are well-known only to Illinois politics (like Senate President Emil Jones) pop up in national politics.

From TalkLeft, which I assume is supporting Clinton (or at least the author of this post is):

Barack Obama frequently cites his impressive record as an Illinois state legislator as an indicator of his experience in running for President.

Turns out, according to former Chicago reporter Todd Spivak, all of his legislative accomplishments were in his final 7th year and were handed to him by his mentor, Ill. State Senate President Emil Jones.

The TalkLeft post is mostly quotes from a longer piece in the Houston Press, which is just brutal.  Our old local boogeyman, Chicago State University, also features prominently.

I said right after Sen. Obama's speech on race in America that I didn't think it would "work."  This may be one of the rare times that I actually get something right. 

According to this poll, of the 80-something percent of respondents aware of both the controversy and the speech, 52 percent are less likely to support Obama for President.

More:

Among whites, the "less likely" answer came from 51.3 percent. Among blacks, it was 56.2 percent. (!) Among Hispanics, 54.5 percent. (The sub-sample sizes for blacks and Hispanics were 85 and 46, so it's possible that maybe it's too small a sample to get a really good reading on these demographics).

Among Republicans, the "less likely" crowd was 53.7 percent, among Democrats it was 47.6 percent, among Independents it was 55.6 percent.

Obama's unfavorables have hit 51 percent (an all-time high?) as well.

Discuss.

From Politico.com:

One big fact has largely been lost in the recent coverage of the Democratic presidential race: Hillary Rodham Clinton has virtually no chance of winning.

Her own campaign acknowledges there is no way that she will finish ahead in pledged delegates. That means the only way she wins is if Democratic superdelegates are ready to risk a backlash of historic proportions from the party’s most reliable constituency.

Unless Clinton is able to at least win the primary popular vote — which also would take nothing less than an electoral miracle — and use that achievement to pressure superdelegates, she has only one scenario for victory. An African-American opponent and his backers would be told that, even though he won the contest with voters, the prize is going to someone else.

I completely agree with that.  I have a hard time envisioning Clinton winning the nomination.  Perhaps if she wins every remaining Primary, but even then it's unlikely.

So at this point, given that my not-quite-favorite John McCain has won the GOP nomination, I'm mostly just an interested observer of the Presidential race.  And it's actually been quite fun.  The Dem primaries have been fantastic political theater, and I've said that the national conversation we've been having about superdelegates and proportional representation and the like have been very good for America.

Which is really a long-winded disclaimer:  I don't think that I am basing my analysis of the general election based on any strong preference for the GOP nominee. 

So here goes:  At this point, I agree that Obama is the most likely Democratic nominee.  But, contrary to what seems to be the conventional wisdom, I don't see him as any kind of favorite against John McCain.  I just don't anticipate that Obama adds anything to the coalition that John Kerry assembled in 2004, other than perhaps a greater margin among voters under the age of 30 (Kerry got 54 percent). 

I actually think it's likely that Obama loses chunks of Kerry's voters.  For example, looking forward, I think Obama will do worse than Kerry among white voters (Kerry got 41 percent),  voters aged 60+ (46 percent), Catholics (47 percent), Jewish voters (74 percent), veterans (41 percent), and gun owners (36 percent).

First, do you think Obama will almost certainly win the Dem nomination?

Second, in a McCain-Obama matchup, who has the advantage and why?

Obama wants us to ignore the Wright controversy to stop the divisive racial discussions going on (not to sweep an extremely embarrassing association under the rug, of course) and to move on to the important issues facing America!

No problem, I say! While remaining so closely associated with Wright is probably the most baffling political move Obama could have made, it's mostly an appearance problem than a substantive one unless someone finds evidence he actually agrees as opposed to doing a lot of mind boggling things that might give the appearance that he does.

...

What's Left After Wright?

Ambition, dishonesty, status quo Democratic Party policies, status quo foreign policies, a reliance on hope instead of convincing arguments to defend any of these policies, less overall relevant experience than George Bush had back in 2000, and like Bush roughly no experience with foreign policy issues to base related policy on... but if we can get him a time machine he can defend those foreign policy decisions with something other than "hoping" he's right.

The alternatives for Democrats are unfortunately not all that encouraging either. It makes me wonder if they'd appreciate the opportunity to bring Richardson back in for a second interview:

I may not have agreed with Richardson on many issues, but for a Democrat, he was the prize bass. They threw him back and kept the minnows.

Long version here.

I saw this yesterday, and while it's only one poll, (and it's Gallup), I thought it was worth discussing.

Interesting tidbits:

McCain came roaring back, winning the New Hampshire primary and then clinching the Republican nomination. His current favorable rating represents a gain of 26 points since last summer, including an 11-point increase since he won enough delegates to ensure his nomination on March 4.

And:

Both Obama and Clinton have slightly higher favorable ratings among Democrats now than they had in February, suggesting that the negative infighting that has characterized the Democratic campaign in recent weeks is not damaging either candidate's image in the eyes of the party faithful.

And:

McCain gets an extraordinarily high 52% favorable from Democrats and independents who lean Democratic, while Obama gets a 39% favorable rating from Republicans and Republican leaners. Clinton, on the other hand, receives only a 20% favorable rating from Republicans and Republican leaners.

McCain is also helped by the fact that he receives an 87% favorable rating from Republicans, higher than the 80% and 79% that Clinton and Obama, respectively, currently receive from Democrats.

So I'm one of 13 percent of Republicans who do not have a favorable impression of McCain.  Figures.

A few months ago I pointed out the e-mail smears floating around on the internet about Barack Obama being an extremist Muslim or a racist Christian. Both rumors appeared to be completely unsubstantiated as Factcheck.org pointed out.

Recently, however, a great number of clips of sermons from a Reverend Wright have surfaced which seem to show that there was a much greater anti-white and anti-American sentiment being preached at the Church, and to much applause and cheers by the members.

And what the Factcheck.org folks failed to mention was that this particular pastor that was dismissed as just one controversial one of many was closely associated with Obama, a fact that was reported the previous summer in great detail by the NY Times:

In the 16 years since Mr. Obama returned to Chicago from Harvard, Mr. Wright has presided over his wedding ceremony, baptized his two daughters and dedicated his house, while Mr. Obama has often spoken at Trinity’s panels and debates. Though the Obamas drop in on other congregations, they treat Trinity as their spiritual home, attending services frequently. The church’s Afrocentric focus makes Mr. Obama a figure of particular authenticity there, because he has the African connections so many members have searched for.

...

He has said that he relies on Mr. Wright to ensure “that I am speaking as truthfully about what I believe as possible.” He tends to turn to his minister at moments of frustration, Mr. Wright said, such as when Mr. Obama felt a Congressional Black Caucus meeting was heavier on entertainment than substance.

...

“If Barack gets past the primary, he might have to publicly distance himself from me,” Mr. Wright said with a shrug. “I said it to Barack personally, and he said yeah, that might have to happen.”

The NY Times notes that Wright strongly influenced Obama's writings, with one of his sermons being the inspiration for the title of the "Audacity of Hope."

It seems a strange person with political aspirations to be so closely associated with, especially since it was obviously no secret that he regularly cursed America and blamed whites for nearly everything up to and including attempting genocide against people of color by creating/disseminating AIDS. It seems even stranger that he remained so closely associated with the conspiratorial anti-American whackjob for so many years while quickly rising through a political career.

While he somewhat distanced himself in the past, saying they didn't agree on everything, with the release of the far more inflammatory rhetoric being plastered all over the web and the media, he's finally firmly and clearly denounced the Reverend's statements. But as was noted last summer by the NY Times, it was something the two had discussed as something that may become necessary as opposed to it being a candid denunciation.

While Obama has been quick to deny, and many of his supporters quick to defend, the occasional incidents which had an appearance of being unpatriotic, including statements by his wife, this association makes it harder to believe that they were all just misstatements or being pragmatically patriotic through action, not shows of patriotism.

I've been quick to defend him on some issues, such as the radical Muslim accusations, the lapel flag pin fiasco, and the idiotic middle name focus. Some of his actions have been confounding for a presidential candidate though, where a deep devotion to one's nation is typically considered a prerequisite, even if it is in the pursuit of improving it with recognition of its flaws. The Pledge of Allegiance issue in particular seemed to show his utter disregard about the importance of appearances, especially in pretty basic ceremonial activities. It means something to people, and disregard of that makes them wonder.

Being so closely associated with someone who was so blatantly unpatriotic and openly anti-white will just help affirm these doubts in the minds of many, and create doubts in the minds of those who might have otherwise dismissed everything else. He could have and should have distanced himself from this loon years ago. Instead he waited until the absolute last minute and after it could easily be depicted by his political opponents as a denunciation of convenience... which even I am starting to see it as.

This is just baffling to see with a presidential candidate. But it's starting to make scenes like this seem less like flukes:

I've said it before, and I'll say it again... 2008 is the Dems' to lose, and they're spectacular at doing so.

John McCain, Hillary Clinton, and Barack Obama are all at least superficially supportive of an earmark moratorium.

That's a great sign that maybe earmarks (and the corruption that often accompanies them) have finally become a significant political issue.

    I had heard rumblings of this earlier this weekend, that Clinton would start making overtures about Obama being the VP nominee with her the top name on the ticket.  I say "Dear God, No..." for a few reasons:  first, the one thing that might make me vote Democrat this year is Obama at the top of the ticket.  The one thing that will make me run, not walk, and pull that lever for McCain will be having Clinton at the top of the ticket.  I brought this same point up in another thread; I can't conceive of any possible universe in which I would vote for Hillary Clinton, and having Obama as the VP will not sway my decision.

    The second reason:  I see this as a play made from a position of weakness on the part of Clinton.  She's been consistently losing the delegate count post-New Hampshire; she knows it, Obama knows it, and I know it.  She's now got to win something like 60% of the remaining delegates to win the nomination.  Does anyone think that's possible?  I don't.  She's in a weak position, and will likely get weaker. 

    I haven't drunk the Kool-Aid on Obama; I don't think he's the greates thing since sliced bread, but for him to even entertain this overture is a monumental waste of time and energy, and I believe he should get the word out, that this is a non-starter.  It could be like that scene in "A Bridge Too Far", when the British airborne commander, at Arnhem, is asked by a white-flag carrying German soldier if he would like to discuss surrender terms, replies "We'd like to, but we can't accept your surrender! Was there anything else?" -- "I'd like to talk with you about your offer of being the Vice President, but I can't right now."

    The final reason I think this is a bad idea for Obama to even consider is that, if he were to be the VP nominee, I think he'd risk being tainted by the nearly inevitable anti-Clinton attacks during the general election.  I just think he'd be "guilty by association" if he tried to run for the Presidency again, in the future (meaning, running as an incumbent VP succeeding Clinton, or as the John Edwards of 2012).

    That being said, there's still a long time to the election.  Who knows what will happen...maybe Clinton will be decisively beaten; maybe there will be a brokered convention for the Democrats; maybe Obama does accept this move; and maybe the horse will learn to sing.

    We'll see...

HG

I don't have the energy to do (laughably bad) predictions of tonight's Democratic Primaries, so I'll just point to polling aggregators for each state.

• Ohio
• Rhode Island
• Texas
• Vermont

I must say that I hope the Democratic race doesn't end tonight.  Not because I favor Sen. Obama or Sen. Clinton as an easier matchup for Republicans, but because this whole process (superdelegates, proportional representation, etc.) has been incredibly entertaining for a "process junkie" like myself, and I think these all-too-rare discussions of electoral rules and such are good for our national discourse every now and then as well.

I'll be getting most of my news fix tonight from Politico.com, for what little that's worth.

UPDATE:  Heh.  Matt says that my predictions are a "failsafe."  Indeed.