Obama Should Worry About This

Yesterday I wondered what type of narrative the media would adapt coming out of Super Tuesday, and how they would choose to cover the race moving forward.  Up until yesterday hype was a huge part of the coverage, as it alway is leading up to a big event, whether it be Super Tuesday or the Super Bowl.  

Obama has enjoyed the most hype.  Largely because of his huge rallies that are full of energy.  Obama has fed off this hype and the positive coverage it brings.  But will that last?  Can he sustain the energy and the interest going forward.  Will the media play to it as they have in the past weeks?   Maybe not.

Adam Nagourney, writing in the NY Times, is looking at the voter demographics, while at the same time wondering if large crowds turn into votes (link to article below):


In other stories around political horn we have the media seems to know becoming very focused on the delegate count, as well as looking down far down the road pondering potential outcomes in Texas, Ohio, and Pennsylvania.  The media seems to moving in the direction of covering the process.

The Washington Post writes up the upcoming Virginia primary.  There is no mention of rallies, nor quotes from the candidates highlighting backs and forths, etc.  The article is focuses largely on demographics and regional differences in the states.  Again, more on the process.

From the WaPost:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/con tent/article/2008/02/06/AR2008020604500_ 2.html?hpid=topnews&sid=ST2008020htt p://www.http://www.washingtonpost.com:80 /ac2/wp-dyn?node=admin/registration/regi ster&sub=AR

Obama has a strong delegate count, a run of primaries ahead of him that he should win, and all the money he will ever need to campaign.  But I wonder what happens if the sizzle fades.  What of the media doesn't fuel the hype anymore, and instead moves into covering the nuts and bolts aspects of the game from here on?  Might some younger voters lose interest as the process drags on through the spring?

If this campaign becomes about delegates, and demographics, and process, instead of about personalities and events, then I think Obama may be at a disadvantage in the long run.

Tags: 2008 Presidential Elections, Barack Obama, Democratic primaries (all tags)



nothing like a grind to take off the shine

A long, two person campaign undermines Obama's key advantage: new, fresh faced change candidate. He looks more and more like same old politico. It also opens up opportunities for the press to look at the murkier periods in Obama's history.

Hence the Obama camp's desperation for Clinton to run out of money and drop out now. And their refusal to debate. Obama can't take much more scrutiny, he needs settings his campaign controls.

by souvarine 2008-02-07 05:39AM | 0 recs
Appears Clinton has enough money

Just nowhere near has much as Obama.

She raised 15 million in January, plus chipped in 5 more herself.  That 20 million.   Obama raised over 30.

She has raised 4 million since Tuesday.  Obama 7 million.

So the issue isn't running out of money, it is being outspent by large amounts.   Obama's money is what really helped him ring up big wins in caucus states.  He could shell out on the ground game.

I suspect the campaigner-in-chief, will have to switch gears and become the fundraiser-in-chief.  That would hurt them on the trail, but it is probably my guess is that is what will happen.

by dpANDREWS 2008-02-07 05:44AM | 0 recs

This diary and your comments are lame, but I enjoy reading it to get a full sense of your desperation. "Campaigner-in-Chief"? "Fundraiser-in-Chief"? Laughable. The jealousy is obvious. I bet you boasted about Clinton's $ and institutional advantages a year ago. Now that the tables are turned you are grabbing onto anything.

by Lawdawg 2008-02-07 08:09AM | 0 recs
Grow up son

I state some simple facts.

Is my math wrong?

by dpANDREWS 2008-02-07 10:18AM | 0 recs
Re: nothing like a grind to take off the shine

"A long, two person campaign undermines Obama's key advantage: new, fresh faced change candidate."

Except that his standing among Democrats has steadily risen as the process has gone on.  There was a time a few months ago when Hillary led by nearly 30 points over Obama.  The expectations game perhaps got ahead of him for Tuesday, but the fact that he ran basically even with Clinton speaks volumes about his viability as a candidate.

He does have some structural disadvantages (weakness among Latinos, heavy reliance on younger voters), so to me the real question is how he expands his base.  But, as I said before, his following has grown as the process has gone forward, so perhaps he is up to the challenge.

by the mollusk 2008-02-07 05:54AM | 0 recs
Re: nothing like a grind to take off the shine

He is not running even with her among Democrats - he is relying on the help of Independents in red states.  How may delegates would he have without them?

by ocli 2008-02-07 06:04AM | 0 recs
Re: nothing like a grind to take off the shine

He is a competitive candidate, and they both have grown over the campaign. Obama's recent rapid rise is related more to one pretty strong candidate dropping out in a competitive race than to Obama's rising appeal. Democrats think he would be a good president, even I agree with that, so he is competitive with Hillary.

He has worked very hard to knock off Hillary with negative information, but he hasn't dented her appeal. She has not had as much success getting negative information about him into the media.

by souvarine 2008-02-07 06:13AM | 0 recs
Re: nothing like a grind to take off the shine

Thanks for the civility of your response.

But your original comment said that he will fade as a candidate as time goes on.  I actually think the more people see and hear of him the more they like him.  If you think that Edwards' support has gone largely to Obama, I think that just further underscores the case that he is very popular with Democrats and can win the party's base and perhaps expand the coalition.

By the way, I agree that either one would make a great President.  I support Obama, but if Hillary is nominated I will vote and volunteer just the same.

by the mollusk 2008-02-07 06:34AM | 0 recs
Re: nothing like a grind to take off the shine

Thanks for making strong arguments, I want Hillary to win but on this blog I'm more interested in what is really happening. If Obama wins I will sulk for a while but come around and do everything I can to make him win.

That Obama will fade is a reasonable but too strong interpretation of what I wrote. I no longer think Hillary can do much to win over Obama supporters. At best, if she went very negative, she could discourage some of his softer support, but at the risk of her own. In that sense you are right, Obama's strong support has risen to be comparable to Clinton's (maybe 40% each?). Given that they are evenly matched in strong support it seems to me that a longer campaign  hurts him more among undecideds and soft supporters, since new things look worn over time and newness (change) is a lot of his appeal. To fight a fading appeal among soft supporters he has to hurt Clinton, so he has more need to attack in a long campaign. It appears to me that he is more on offense since Feb 5th, but as the campaign goes on that strategy has the same risk for him as it does for Clinton.

by souvarine 2008-02-07 07:44AM | 0 recs
Re: nothing like a grind to take off the shine

A point you are mostly missing (on purpose?) is that this is now a two-person race; it is completely natural for a race to tighten as the field is narrowed down from, what, seven candidates to two.

HRC is ahead in all practical terms except the pure state count. The two big obstacles for BO are:

1. The popular vote count. HRC is well ahead. After 2000, who can possibly imagine that the Dems will in the final analysis nominate the candidate that lost the popular vote?

2. Pledged delegate counts inc MI and FL, as a majority of the Democratic Party is in the final analysis not going to be willing to accept a decision that excludes these states because of an arcane dispute between the State Dem parties and the DNC.

by Nordicus 2008-02-07 07:57AM | 0 recs
Re: nothing like a grind to take off the shine

Do you know the vote counts at this point?  

I thought it was within a 1% difference between Obama and Clinton.  

Also, I'm not sure what would be worse:  Losing the popular vote by a fraction of a percent but winning the delegate count, or arguing to throw out the whole (already agreed to) system because of a minor discrepancy between the vote count and the delegate count.

I don't think it's "natural" for a two-person race to be tighter than a three-person race unless a substantial amount of Edwards' support has now gone to Obama.  That is important because Edwards' support tends to come from the most liberal elements in the party and the argument against Obama is typically that he is too centrist.  Apparently Edwards' supporters didn't get the memo?  In other words, why didn't Edwards' support go to Hillary?  (BTW, I'm not convinced it is as simple as that, but that's the argument you need to make in order to show that Edwards' leaving has tightened up this race.)

by the mollusk 2008-02-07 09:00AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama Should Worry About This

The Clinton Spin on this website is funny!

by tom32182 2008-02-07 05:40AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama Should Worry About This

I know exactly what you mean...every morning I come her and listen to their desperation to get HRC elected and it gets so friggin old. And the minutiae that gets churned here over and over.

I support Obama but if Hillary's the candidate I will support her 100%. Meanwhile, for HRC supporters, it's like Obama is the friggin anti-Christ.

It's like listening to a bunch of 12-year-old fanboys.

by desertjedi 2008-02-07 05:55AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama Should Worry About This

yeah, you can gauge Obama's momentum by the ugliness of the commentary.

by the mollusk 2008-02-07 05:56AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama Should Worry About This

Obama's speaking in Omaha today.  (Obama, Omaha, Obama, Omaha...hmmm...)

We'll see if he earns a large crowd there at the Civic Auditorium there.  It's a mid sized arena that seats 10,000.

by IowaCubs 2008-02-07 05:43AM | 0 recs
he will keep getting big crowds

That is what the Nagourney article is about, how does the enthusiasm translate into votes? The argument is that they don't translate into enough votes.

by souvarine 2008-02-07 05:47AM | 0 recs
Re: he will keep getting big crowds

It translated into >5 million votes on Tuesday.

by the mollusk 2008-02-07 05:57AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama Should Worry About This

continuing to refuse to debate will look bad on Obama

by sepulvedaj3 2008-02-07 05:44AM | 0 recs

they will likely agree on one debate before texas and Ohio.

one debate per week is not even close to a serious suggestion.  Nobody can seriously think that either of them can take that much time off from campaigning and meeting voters.

by d 2008-02-07 07:35AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama Should Worry About This

I don't think you really believe what you're typing, but if you actually do let me explain it to you: her "debate-a-week" scheme is a transparent ploy to gain political points off his refusal to debate once a week.

The reason he won't debate once a week is because it's a ridiculous demand. There have been 18+ Democratic debates, a record number, and he has agreed to at least one future debate. Agreeing to one a week would bog him down when he needs to gain ground and establish himself in states where he is not a known quantity. Debates do not achieve this because only wonks watch most debates.

It's a smart move on Clinton's part because it's win-win. She can either sidetrack his campaign or, as she knows, just gain a couple points off his refusal. Make no mistake, it's just a ploy and not an honest challenge.

by beanbagz 2008-02-07 05:48AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama Should Worry About This

It is not a bluff, she would happily debate once a week. How many debates will Obama agree to? Or do you think he will just buy the election and skip debates?

by souvarine 2008-02-07 05:51AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama Should Worry About This

I'm sure she would, she has comfortable leads in many upcoming states that he would otherwise be expected to handily win. She also has a dynamite surrogate in Bill Clinton who can draw big crowds by himself and campaign for her while she's dragging Obama into the weeds.

Look, salute an effective strategy from your favored candidate, that's fine. It's a smart move. But feigning outrage over this is either silly or dumb, take your pick.

by beanbagz 2008-02-07 05:53AM | 0 recs

Obama has no feigned outrage deficit, if anything Clinton is outmatched in that category.

But you have to admit that there is a tension between decrying the influence of money in politics and refusing to debate so as not to dilute a cash advantage.

by souvarine 2008-02-07 05:58AM | 0 recs
Re: outrage

You sort of have a point, but I think it's pretty heavily mitigated by the source of his fundraising. Without spiraling into yet another Rezko argument, Obama has kept away from PAC money and lobbyist money and has drawn his support much more heavily from small donors.

That may change if Hillary's fundraising strategy pays off, but up until now he has gone toe-to-toe with her money advantage and has not resorted to the sources she has dipped into. Now that it's pulling to parity and he's pulling ahead she wants free press.

He's smart not to give it to her this way, because she would cook up some trap for him for every debate while he was trying to concentrate on campaigning. Not that she ever expected him to accept her offer. Nor does anyone outside of her diehard supporters (and I'm talking the core of the core) really want a debate every single week.

Most people have lives. Even us latte-chugging college educated layabouts with money falling out of our pockets.

by beanbagz 2008-02-07 06:03AM | 0 recs
He is going to have to give in

He will compromise on 2 or 4.  But he can't not do it.  The media will hammer him.   Some voters will too.  But lets face it the media gains from the  debates and if Obama denies them he will be biting the hand that feeds.

by dpANDREWS 2008-02-07 06:22AM | 0 recs
why don't they just debate all the time?

I mean continuously.  only a five minute break every hour.

that way they wouldn't have to meet any of the voters.

One debate a week?  that is a ridiculous suggestion.

There are only 3 debates for the general election.

And I think 18 has already been plenty.

I assume they will do one debate before the Ohio & Texas stuff.

by d 2008-02-07 07:31AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama Should Worry About This

if she really is low on cash, that would be a good way to keep her name out there too.  plus i'll admit that she tends to do a little better in debates than he does.  it's a smart move on her part, but it does come off a little desperate.

by the mollusk 2008-02-07 05:59AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama Should Worry About This

Why wasn't Clinton suggesting additional debates before now?  This is obviously desperate and more of a ploy than anything. I am sure they will have one or two debates over the next month or so but one a week is ridiculous. She is worried that he will continue to gather momentum by racking up wins over the next 8-9 primaries/caucuses. The only way to diffuse that is by having debates (where I admit she is strong).

by Lawdawg 2008-02-07 08:15AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama Should Worry About This

Eventual the " Yes we Can" becomes stale. Last night on the O'Reilly factor Juan Williams claimed Hillary  won Super Tuesday. And when you think about hes right. The Kennedy clan got taken out to the woodshed and Oprah and Caroline did no good. I wonder if the results we switched would the press call that a draw? Hell no. The press would say Hillary is toast and let the cornation of King Barack proceed.

by Safe at Home 2008-02-07 05:50AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama Should Worry About This
No, it'll be the same old story:
Obama can only win primaries where there are lots of blacks voting.
by Ga6thDem 2008-02-07 06:07AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama Should Worry About This

I think the ship has sailed on that talking point.

by Steve M 2008-02-07 06:10AM | 0 recs
Could be amended

States with large AA and student populations or caucus states.

His money and his grassroots supports makes him hard to beat in caucus states.  

By the way, where are the unions?   What are they doing for Clinton?

by dpANDREWS 2008-02-07 06:16AM | 0 recs

AFSCME will be pretty active in VA and MD, though I doubt they can overcome Obama's demographic advantage in MD.

by souvarine 2008-02-07 06:22AM | 0 recs
Re: unions

You mean this AFSCME?  

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_3mw49mk_ x0

by dpANDREWS 2008-02-07 06:26AM | 0 recs
What happened to unions?

Maybe the Peru Trade Deal is what happened to unions.

by jfoster 2008-02-07 08:33AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama Should Worry About This

I should have said wine drinkers and African Americans. That seems to be the entirety of his support. Caucuses are heavy with wine drinkers.

by Ga6thDem 2008-02-07 06:28AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama Should Worry About This

where was the wine?  I missed it at my caucus.

by d 2008-02-07 07:37AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama Should Worry About This

I don't care how many debates we have had thus far. There has nly been one, one damn debate, where they were one-on-one. That's not enough!

Of course Obama thinks it is because he is all flash and no steak. he is afraid people will see that there is no "there" there.

by americanincanada 2008-02-07 05:57AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama Should Worry About This

Does anyone here have anything to offer but fanboyism?

by desertjedi 2008-02-07 05:59AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama Should Worry About This

I don't know, the mollusk and beanbagz are making pretty solid arguments. Maybe you could learn from their example.

by souvarine 2008-02-07 06:19AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama Should Worry About This

A compelling argument for HRC is Obama's fully-resourced but very weak performance in CA, which would leave the state dangerously exposed to St. John in the general election.  The results in Florida have less force, but I think she can make the argument to the superdelegates that you kiss Fla. goodbye, too with Obama.

by Bob H 2008-02-07 06:01AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama Should Worry About This

MO also. He won the cities and the college towns but lost everywhere else. If he can't compete outside those two areas he can't carry the state in Nov.

by Ga6thDem 2008-02-07 06:06AM | 0 recs
You and Bob make sound points.

Obama was wrong when he said he was sure he could get her supporters, but that she couldn't get his.

Fact is some of Clinton's supporters are the most likely to give McCain a long long.  Hispanics and older voters, not to mention Jewish voters, and Catholics, all backing Clinton by wide margians, all will look at McCain if Obama is the nominee.

FL would be toast.  

As for the red state thing.  It is such nonsense.   It is Clinton that is actually winning in the conservative areas ... the rural areas.   Obama is mining the traditional deep blue urban areas.   But what is even funnier is that the media forgets all the states are blue states during primary season.   A Democrat wins ALL of them.

by dpANDREWS 2008-02-07 06:10AM | 0 recs

Please stop commenting about something you obviously know nothing about.  McCaskill beat Talent in 2006 based on the same map that Obama beat Clinton with on Tuesday. Democrats in Missouri have never won in rural areas but rely on racking up big margins in KC and STL. If Clinton gets the nomination and wins in MO, her victory map will look exactly like Obama's on Tuesday. Please research MO before making ridiculous claims.

by Lawdawg 2008-02-07 08:20AM | 0 recs
Re: Wrong

Why continue with that kind of squeaker strategy when you don't have to? If you have a candidate who can get the rural votes and win by a larger margin why not go with them?

by Ga6thDem 2008-02-07 05:48PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama Should Worry About This

She could make that argument about California, but it would be disingenuous. Obama was 20+ points behind there at the end of January. She was also heavily favored in early ballots (as in Florida) giving her an institutional advantage he could never enjoy.

The endorsements and a lot of legwork almost closed the gap to single digits in California, but it was not an example of the real electoral process.

I know a lot of you guys hate Obama (not you, I don't know if you do, I'm just saying in general) but Clinton is MUCH more widely known. Like it or not, one of the reasons she has such appeal with less-educated and lower incomve voters is because they spend their days busting their asses at work and don't have the time to indulge in the political armchair generaling that most everyone here gets to play out. They don't hear about Obama much, so they don't know his name.

That's why Super Tuesday was hers to lose. That's why he can't accept her debate offer. He has to get out there and rally his forces everywhere he can and dump every dime into TV and radio adds in the hopes he can get his message out to people on their way to work or watching Letterman at night.

Obama will not get his name known in an endless series of debates. He gets his name known by holding rallies and meeting people. It's his strength so it's what he does. Making fun of it all you want, but it works for her the same way that Hallmark channel thing probably worked for Hillary.

by beanbagz 2008-02-07 06:11AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama Should Worry About This

She could make that argument about California, but it would be disingenuous. Obama was 20+ points behind there at the end of January.

Now this just not true.

Field    1/25-2/1/08    Clinton 36    Obama    34   
Rasmussen    1/29/2008    Clinton    43    Obama    40   
SurveyUSA    1/27/2008    Clinton    49    Obama    38   

Please don't make stuff up to support your argument.

by Denny Crane 2008-02-07 07:33AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama Should Worry About This

I told you guys last night that the press is starting to turn on Obama. The Golden Child failed to knock out Hillary so they are turning on him now. They are going to start looking under every rock and examining every vote.

by Ga6thDem 2008-02-07 06:04AM | 0 recs
Run its course?

Even Obama himself looked bored with his speech Tuesday night. He needs some new material.  Repeated exposure to the same speeches results in diminishing returns.

And the Rezko stuff is only going to heat up in the next few weeks as witnesses are cutting deals with the prosecutors. Obama has yet to provide a credible answer about his real-estate dealings with Rezko.  Are we supposed to beleive he and Michelle, two extremely intelligent people, need Reskos help to buy their own home?

http://firedoglake.com/2008/02/06/nobody s-hands-are-perfectly-clean-in-politics/

Tuesday night I saw one candidate who looked like she had won the night, and another who looked disappointed. Now I see one who is willing to engage and debate and one who is not. The media is going to fall out of love with this guy real fast.

We'll see what happens.

by ocli 2008-02-07 06:10AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama Should Worry About This

Obama appeals to rebellious nature.
He LIES - presenting his campaign as one in which "they told us it couldn't be done" - "they told us we can't win", etc.
This just makes his followers more determined - like telling kids they can't do something.

But who is "they"??

Certainly not the Media and Dem establishments that have promoted him 24/7 from the gitgo.

Obama is a con.

by annefrank 2008-02-07 06:29AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama Should Worry About This

And Hillary is corrupt.  She has been bought off by the Drug and Oil companies and you are all too blind to see it.

Don't want a candiate who doesn't owe something to the special interests?

The people own Obama and that is the way it should be.

by A from Phoenix 2008-02-07 07:07AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama Should Worry About This

Are you suggesting that oil and pharma has contributed nothing to Obama?

by Denny Crane 2008-02-07 07:23AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama Should Worry About This

Obama had rezko buy his yard for him...

Google it.

by sonofdonkeykong 2008-02-07 07:52AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama Should Worry About This

Umm, who voted for the energy bill giving big oil so many breaks? Oh yes, Obama did.

by del 2008-02-07 03:16PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama Should Worry About This

lol. Because HRC wasn't the inevitable nominee when she started. How sad for you.

And how sad for HRC that she has the stories about Frank Giustra, Denise Rich, Norman Hsu, Aaron Tonken, Peter F. Paul, Sant S. Chatwal, the IPA, Yah Lin Trie, John Huang, James Riady, Johnny Chung, Roger Tamraz, Jeffrey Epstein, John K.H. Lee, Pauline Kanchanalak, Ng Lap Seng, Abdul Rehman Jinnah, Ron Burkle, and Vin Gupta waiting to be sprung on her again.

by illlaw1 2008-02-07 02:34PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama Should Worry About This
Obama accepted Hsu's donations.
Obama's advisors are comprised of former Clinton admin officials.
So - not much difference there.
by annefrank 2008-02-08 06:40AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama Should Worry About This

Um. If that's the sum total of your response it appears that there is a substantial difference.

by illlaw1 2008-02-09 06:27AM | 0 recs
Re: You and Bob make sound points

I don't understand how you can talk about Obama winning in only deep blue areas in Missouri and California, but fail to mention that he won Kansas, North Dakota, Colorado, Utah, and Alaska. As we all know, these are bastions of unabashed liberalism. Say what you want about caucuses being undemocratic or an inaccurate representation of voters, but the Democrats in these states are for the most part not 1) Black 2) Limousine liberals 3) Young. So he obviously has appeal in rural and conservative areas. Also, its not like Clinton's supporters would be so turned off by the prospect of an Obama nomination. He has a a 76% favorability rating among  ALL Democrats. Its more that the demographic groups you named like Clinton better, not that they dislike Obama. However, all the Clinton supporters on this site have failed to address Hillary Clinton's obvious problem among independent voters and moderate Republicans, who like Obama, but many of whom do not like Hillary at all for many reasons, and would be especially important given that McCain has tremendous pull among these voters.

by smartdg35 2008-02-07 07:20AM | 0 recs

1.  Hillary's 'problem' with Republicans and Independents is getting repeated a lot, but what is the evidence for it?  Edwards was the guy getting most of that vote back when he was in the race.   So what's the evidence that the Edwards support has gone to Obama?

2.  Obama's red state wins might mean something, or they might not.  Republicans are great at getting out the vote when it counts ... in the General Election.   This was Bill Clinton's much-maligned point when he said that South Carolina primary outcome is meaningless because they always go Republican in the general.  

I'd love to see exit polls or opinion polls indicating what was driving the votes in those red states.  It certainly is interesting.  

by mnicholson0220 2008-02-07 07:36AM | 0 recs
There are no "red states"

I will guarantee you ... bet you 1 million dollars, a Democrat will win  every single ... all 50 ... primaries and caucuses.

But if you want to truely ask who will play better in red states that could possibly flip, maybe it is Clinton.   Look at Missouri as a classic example.   Obama won the counties that Democrats always win in the general.  In and around St. Louis, and Kansas City. Clinton won the rural votes, which in the general are the areas we lose, and cost us the state.

by dpANDREWS 2008-02-07 07:45AM | 0 recs

I have repeated this in many diaries. Please stop using MO as an example of Clinton/Democratic strength in rural MO. You don't know what you are talking about. McCaskill beat Talent in 2006 by winning big in KC and STL. Democrats never carry counties in rural MO. If Clinton gets the nomination and ultimately wins MO, it will be because of KC and STL. I doubt she will carry any counties outside those two metro areas (with the possible exception of Boone County (University of Missouri - Columbia)). Please research the state before misusing it in your analysis.

by Lawdawg 2008-02-07 08:25AM | 0 recs
I don't disagree with you really

I just think the media and some of Obama's supporters have been pushing this absurd idea that because Obama's wins a "red state" primary that he may play later in red states.  

by dpANDREWS 2008-02-07 08:30AM | 0 recs
Re: I don't disagree with you really

You may be right, but MO is not a good example for this argument. I don't mean any ill, but I know MO quite well and the rural areas are not Democrat friendly. Clinton will never campaign outside of the STL/KC metro. But that could be enough in 2008.

by Lawdawg 2008-02-07 08:36AM | 0 recs
Recipe for a loss

Look at the two times McCaskill ran.  She got creamed in the rural areas the first time and lost.   The urban vote wasn't enough to overcome that.

The second time around she campaigned hard in rural areas.  She lost them but she cut into the vote more, just enough that the second time around the urban areas were able to out weigh them.

by dpANDREWS 2008-02-07 08:39AM | 0 recs
Re: Recipe for a loss

Her loss to Blunt was based on many factors but it is true that she was able to reduce her losses in the rural areas in 2006 against Talent. My point is that just because Clinton beat Obama in those areas does not mean that she will do any better there than Obama in the GE against McCain. It cuts both ways (Obama showing overwhelming strength in areas that are vital to any D winning in MO). In the end, I don't think MO is a good example for you to use in this diary. It is misleading to think that Clinton is more competitive in rural MO and that that would translate in the GE.

by Lawdawg 2008-02-07 08:45AM | 0 recs
Re: Recipe for a loss

One thing I forgot, McCaskill endorsed Obama (as I am sure you know). She obviously thinks he has a better chance of winning MO and also has better coattails there than Clinton. McCaskill has said as much recently.

by Lawdawg 2008-02-07 08:47AM | 0 recs
Re: Recipe for a loss

She knows there is no chance a woman would consider her for VP.

by souvarine 2008-02-07 09:50AM | 0 recs
Re: Demographics


Hillary does not have a problem with independents and republicans?

I don't believe that you are not aware of this.

by d 2008-02-07 07:46AM | 0 recs
Re: You and Bob make sound points

I think what people are saying is that in the contest where he goes head to head with Hillary, he showed strength in urban areas, but not in rural areas.  Kansas, Utah, N. Dakota and Alaska weren't really contested by Hillary.  That just doesn't translate into having appeal in rural/conservative areas.  He won them fair and square, but not because he had great appeal in those areas.

Additionally, the fact that he won those caucuses does not mean he'd do well there in an GE.  There are at least some Dems in every state, so someone is going to win the primary/caucus.

by Denny Crane 2008-02-07 07:39AM | 0 recs
obama doesn't have appeal in Kansas?

Do you live in Kansas?

Do you know people in Kansas?

Did you caucus in Kansas?

Hillary chose not to compete.  I assume that she either thought she could not win there or she just didn't care about the democratic voters there.  Either one is insulting.

Simply because there so many republicans in Kansas, most democrats there have a very good idea of what the republicans think about the democratic candidates.

by d 2008-02-07 07:56AM | 0 recs
Re: obama doesn't have appeal in Kansas?

Or because she didn't have the resources Obama did.

by souvarine 2008-02-07 08:04AM | 0 recs
Re: obama doesn't have appeal in Kansas?

obama set up campaign staff in Kansas about 6 to 9 months ago.  I assume she had resources at the time to do the same.

by d 2008-02-07 08:26AM | 0 recs
Re: obama doesn't have appeal in Kansas?

She raised $100 million in 2007. Stop with the lack of resources argument. She purposely avoided the smaller states to win big in CA, NJ, etc. It worked to some extent but she underestimated Obama's organization. His strategy is working brilliantly. It may not be enough, but for someone that you and others gave no chance, Obama is doing quite well.

by Lawdawg 2008-02-07 08:33AM | 0 recs
Re: obama doesn't have appeal in Kansas?

Obama had the better Feb 5th strategy. I have to believe Clinton would have done better in tiny caucuses if she had devoted just a few resources to them. Obama's strategy wasn't enough, he was really trying to eat into Clinton's women and Latino support and get one big state win, but he failed badly.

I never underestimated Edwards or Obama in general, Clinton always had significant hurdles in the primary. It became clear early that Obama would be the challenger, I though Edwards would have been a better challenger ideologically. I did underestimate Obama's field before Iowa, and I admitted I was wrong.

by souvarine 2008-02-07 09:56AM | 0 recs
sebelius is very popular.

She won about 58% of the vote for re-election.

The state is overwhelmingly republican. But even overwhelmingly republican states, given the right candidate and right circumstances, will elect democratic candidates, just as Massachussetts elects republicans.

Kansas registration is about like this:

50% republican
25% unaffiliated and others (do not assume that these voters lean Democratic)
25% democratic

by d 2008-02-07 10:06AM | 0 recs
more info on kansas:

You seemed concerned about female elected officials:

Sebelius is the second female governor.
She was the Insurance commissioner (this is a statewide elected office) for 8 eight years before being governor.  She won that election in the horrible republican year of 1994.  Before that she was a state legislator for a district in Topeka.

The first female governor was Joan Finney (D) 1990-1994.

We had a female senator for about 12 or 18 years:  Nancy Landon Kassebaum (R).  She was very popular amongst both Republicans and Democrats.  She would fit into the  category of something like Lincoln Chafee, Olympia Snowe, Jim Jeffords, Dwight Eisenhower, etc.

There have been quite a few elected statewide offices held by women.

I do not see a bias against electing woman to statewide office in Kansas.  In some ways, they seem to have a bit of an advantage in that they are generally viewed more favorably than male candidates.

Hillary Clinton, however, is not viewed favorably.

by d 2008-02-07 10:22AM | 0 recs
A few things

He California he won the SanFrancisco Bay area.  In Missouri he won St. Louis.  In both states he lost rural areas.

As for the rest you mention some were caucus states and Clinton basically ceded the caucus state.   That was well covered headed up to Feb 5.

Furthermore, I bet if you look at Kansas he did best in Lawrence, and if you look at Colorado, I bet he did best in and around Boulder.

I am not making this stuff up.  It is starting to written up in local and national papers.   Obama's strength's are urban centers, and areas surrounding universities.

by dpANDREWS 2008-02-07 07:41AM | 0 recs
Re: A few things

I believe you without looking it up.  It is becoming common knowledge that his strength is in 3 areas:  youth - especially college students, African-Americans, and red state Independents.

On Tuesday he racked up many delegates on the basis of his support from red state independents in the mountain west.  These are people who have never liked either Clinton and were happy to vote against Hillary.  She knew they were a lost cause form the start and barely contested these states.  Obama's success in these states is no indication that he would win them in November - he is not popular among the white Republicans that dominate those states, or the right-leaning Independents who would vote for McCain.

Bottom line is that there is not one red state that Obama can get that Hillary cannot. In fact, she could get Florida and Arkansas where he could not.   These are the considerations that super-delegates will have.

by ocli 2008-02-07 08:07AM | 0 recs
Re: Red states that Obama will put in play

African American turnout in MS,LA,AL,GA,SC (voting rights states) presidentials is very high. Even if Obama can get it to go higher he still loses numerically.

by souvarine 2008-02-07 09:58AM | 0 recs
Please stop

Stop the MO analysis. You are clueless. Clinton will not carry rural MO in a general election. She may win the state but it will be because of big margins in KC and STL. McCaskill won that way in 2006 over Talent. McCaskill did cut into Talent's strength in the Springfield area but he still won those counties 58-42/55-45. Obama and Clinton will have the same strategy in MO -- win the metro areas big.

by Lawdawg 2008-02-07 08:30AM | 0 recs
I am not saying she will

That isn't my point.  

by dpANDREWS 2008-02-07 08:37AM | 0 recs
Re: I am not saying she will

Fair enough. I don't know what your point was though. Obama crushed Clinton in the very areas that are Democratic strongholds. I think this is very positive for MO. McCain will roll over wither Clinton or Obama in rural MO. Thus, both need to rack up big victories in STL/KC. Obama has proven that he can do that.

by Lawdawg 2008-02-07 08:41AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama Should Worry About This

A point you are mostly missing (on purpose?) is that this is now a two-person race; it is completely natural for a race to tighten as the field is narrowed down from, what, seven candidates to two.

HRC is ahead in all practical terms except the pure state count. The two big obstacles for BO are:

1. The popular vote count. HRC is well ahead. After 2000, who can possibly imagine that the Dems will in the final analysis nominate the candidate that lost the popular vote?

2. Pledged delegate counts inc MI and FL, as a majority of the Democratic Party is in the final analysis not going to be willing to accept a decision that excludes these states because of an arcane dispute between the State Dem parties and the DNC.

by Nordicus 2008-02-07 07:57AM | 0 recs
A few things

Take your partisan blinders off.  Clinton didn't cheat.  She played by the rules.  She didn't campaign.  She herself can't seat these delegates.

But these delegates may be seated.  The DNC (Dean is not fan of Clintons) has been working with MI and  FL since their decision and they are working with them now.  There may some sort of compromise fashioned.

If not, as Howard Dean has said, and some have posted on here, the decision to seat those delegates will be made by the credentialing committee, which has not yet been assembled.

by dpANDREWS 2008-02-07 10:04AM | 0 recs


Advertise Blogads