Thursday, July 31, 2008
Wednesday, July 30, 2008
Senior Lecturer Obama
The young law professor stood apart in too many ways to count. At a school where economic analysis was all the rage, he taught rights, race and gender. Other faculty members dreamed of tenured positions; he turned them down. While most colleagues published by the pound, he never completed a single work of legal scholarship.
The school had almost no black faculty members, a special embarrassment given its location on the South Side.
“On the national level, bipartisanship usually means Democrats ignore the needs of the poor and abandon the idea that government can play a role in issues of poverty, race discrimination, sex discrimination or environmental protection,” Mr. Obama said.
The school had almost no black faculty members, a special embarrassment given its location on the South Side.
“On the national level, bipartisanship usually means Democrats ignore the needs of the poor and abandon the idea that government can play a role in issues of poverty, race discrimination, sex discrimination or environmental protection,” Mr. Obama said.
Sunday, July 27, 2008
Paradigm Shift on Iraq
If the debate turns to whether or not to have major bases in Iraq, is it fair to say that their need as perceived by the American public will be directly related to the perceived need to contain Iran?
If so, debate about Iran in this election will be a direct evolution of the debate about Iraq.
Questions about Iraq:
What is the Iraqi constitution?
What is the current political situation in Iraq?
Who is Maliki and who are his supporters?
What has been the overt role of Challabi as of late?
What are some news sources, English language, that cover developments in Iraq that are beneath the radar of, say, The New York Times?
What exactly is the relationship between the Iraqi government and the US embassy?
When will the Status of Forces Agreement be negotiated?
What sort of leverage does each side bring to the agreement?
Just how important are major bases in Iraq to the US military?
If so, debate about Iran in this election will be a direct evolution of the debate about Iraq.
Questions about Iraq:
What is the Iraqi constitution?
What is the current political situation in Iraq?
Who is Maliki and who are his supporters?
What has been the overt role of Challabi as of late?
What are some news sources, English language, that cover developments in Iraq that are beneath the radar of, say, The New York Times?
What exactly is the relationship between the Iraqi government and the US embassy?
When will the Status of Forces Agreement be negotiated?
What sort of leverage does each side bring to the agreement?
Just how important are major bases in Iraq to the US military?
Saturday, July 26, 2008
Links to Remember
Working paper giving some support to the intuitive voter theory.
Econtalk podcast on polling
http://www.econlib.org/library/Downloads/y2008/Riverspolling.mp3
A lot of links came out of that econtalk episode.
1st- Did you know the Washington Post offers too many RSS feeds here?
I think I have decided to wait for Real Clear Politics to suggest an article for me rather than wade through all those on a daily basis.
2nd - In the podcast, Rivers discusses his polling methodology and how it differs from traditional random dialing polling. It is somewhat convincing that his method should produce more accurate results which is why this is a great link to a detailed weekly poll he conducts for the economist. Why doesn't the economist have an RSS feed for this? (I still haven't figured out how to make my own RSS feeds for sites.) If your in the mood for a bit of in depth poll analysis, this would be the place to start.
3rd - Here we have polling results for elections past, although I bet there is a better resource somewhere out there. Also, check out those historic exit polls.
4th - Uncommon Knowledge is a video series available through the Hoover website but without an RSS.
Hoover events are here. Again, no rss.
5th- fora.tv - the thinking person's youtube.
5 and a half - the website www.rove.com yields a picture of Karl Rove and a "This page does not exist" however, http://www.rove.com/maps/McCain-Obama-07-23-08.pdf yields an electoral map with a KarlRove&Co. Apparently NBC's First Read found this without the help of a homepage.
6 - Yahoo polls on the 2008 race conducted by Knowledge Networks. (no rss)
7 - audible.com - download audio books.
PS. Chris Mathews had an interesting prediction that the debate which will come into focus soon will be whether or not to have long term bases in Iraq.
Econtalk podcast on polling
http://www.econlib.org/library/Downloads/y2008/Riverspolling.mp3
A lot of links came out of that econtalk episode.
1st- Did you know the Washington Post offers too many RSS feeds here?
I think I have decided to wait for Real Clear Politics to suggest an article for me rather than wade through all those on a daily basis.
2nd - In the podcast, Rivers discusses his polling methodology and how it differs from traditional random dialing polling. It is somewhat convincing that his method should produce more accurate results which is why this is a great link to a detailed weekly poll he conducts for the economist. Why doesn't the economist have an RSS feed for this? (I still haven't figured out how to make my own RSS feeds for sites.) If your in the mood for a bit of in depth poll analysis, this would be the place to start.
3rd - Here we have polling results for elections past, although I bet there is a better resource somewhere out there. Also, check out those historic exit polls.
4th - Uncommon Knowledge is a video series available through the Hoover website but without an RSS.
Hoover events are here. Again, no rss.
5th- fora.tv - the thinking person's youtube.
5 and a half - the website www.rove.com yields a picture of Karl Rove and a "This page does not exist" however, http://www.rove.com/maps/McCain-Obama-07-23-08.pdf yields an electoral map with a KarlRove&Co. Apparently NBC's First Read found this without the help of a homepage.
6 - Yahoo polls on the 2008 race conducted by Knowledge Networks. (no rss)
7 - audible.com - download audio books.
PS. Chris Mathews had an interesting prediction that the debate which will come into focus soon will be whether or not to have long term bases in Iraq.
Friday, July 25, 2008
Sometimes the News Drives the Polls; Sometimes the Polls Drive the News
As Obama's trip wraps up, the media will increasingly turn its attention to the polls. The predominant theme in media discourse will be 'What's up with those polls?'. (To review Obama as Christ-->Obama as FlipFlopper-->Obama goes round the world-->Polls: WTF!?)
What happened? He went abroad, his trip was executed perfectly, no gaffes, he got adoring coverage, and yet the polls actually tightened during this period. Political analysts across the spectrum will be put to task explaining the conundrum. They will speculate: They don't appreciate a candidate speaking to a foreign audience? Is it energy policy? Is it Iraq? Are American's just a racist lot. (It's true the MSM shies away from the last interpretation).
Eventually it will be uncovered that the culprit is a structural weakness in Obama's appeal which has always been present. Getting to the root of this weakness will require even more national psychoanalysis.
Constant attempts to explain Obama's poor polling can do nothing but further harm him as a laundry list of everything that might cause him to be less than trusted is recited.(Since it has already been concluded that this election is a referendum on Obama and therefore no MSM will conclude that people actually like McCain.) Look for new terms to be invented to encapsulate negative beliefs about or demographic groups opposed to Obama. (Something like angry white men, working class whites, Closet Klansmen, whatever term will help members of the media to wrap their heads around the phenomenon.) And expect this term to be a ubiquitous part of the election until November. Also look for a flip-flopper echo effect. (ie. media says Obama's a flip-flopper-->Obama's polls lag-->media wonders if it's because Obama is a flip-flopper-->Perception of Obama as flip-flopper is reinforced.)
Phase two will include a revised look at John McCain. During this period Mccain may actually see increased ability to drive the discourse and will inevitably steer it to Iraq. (Cause that's what he does.) This will be his best chance to connect with voters who have yet to come up with an affirmative reason to vote for him. Were he a more nimble candidate, one with Karl Rove or Fred Barnes as a chief strategist perhaps, he could possibly use this opportunity to re-position himself on energy/the economy. As he is the one-note wonder, this period will simply be a hazardous one where his frequent mis-statements will receive greater scrutiny. (Possibly by a deflated media somewhat embittered to discover they could not coronate the president as they could the Democratic nominee.)
Perhaps this is a good thing as it keeps the focus on his issues. Better a murky debate on Iraq than a murky debate on the economy. But if he fails to communicate a clear plan on energy, housing, and his philosophy of sound economic management, and Obama does those things this will obviously be pointed to as his undoing.)
That's pretty much the dynamic from now until VPs are announced. Since both candidates remain rather undefined, the veep choice will be particularly important.
Since we're going to be talking about polling, whatever happened with those New Hampshire polls? And the California polls? Why were they wrong? Why do we care what the polls say until we can answer why they were wrong? Shouldn't we just be disregarding them or assume that they might be vastly overestimating Obama's support?
It's possible we'll go into election day expecting a giant Obama victory and be surprised to see him lose every battle ground. It already happened once on Super Tuesday.
What happened? He went abroad, his trip was executed perfectly, no gaffes, he got adoring coverage, and yet the polls actually tightened during this period. Political analysts across the spectrum will be put to task explaining the conundrum. They will speculate: They don't appreciate a candidate speaking to a foreign audience? Is it energy policy? Is it Iraq? Are American's just a racist lot. (It's true the MSM shies away from the last interpretation).
Eventually it will be uncovered that the culprit is a structural weakness in Obama's appeal which has always been present. Getting to the root of this weakness will require even more national psychoanalysis.
Constant attempts to explain Obama's poor polling can do nothing but further harm him as a laundry list of everything that might cause him to be less than trusted is recited.(Since it has already been concluded that this election is a referendum on Obama and therefore no MSM will conclude that people actually like McCain.) Look for new terms to be invented to encapsulate negative beliefs about or demographic groups opposed to Obama. (Something like angry white men, working class whites, Closet Klansmen, whatever term will help members of the media to wrap their heads around the phenomenon.) And expect this term to be a ubiquitous part of the election until November. Also look for a flip-flopper echo effect. (ie. media says Obama's a flip-flopper-->Obama's polls lag-->media wonders if it's because Obama is a flip-flopper-->Perception of Obama as flip-flopper is reinforced.)
Phase two will include a revised look at John McCain. During this period Mccain may actually see increased ability to drive the discourse and will inevitably steer it to Iraq. (Cause that's what he does.) This will be his best chance to connect with voters who have yet to come up with an affirmative reason to vote for him. Were he a more nimble candidate, one with Karl Rove or Fred Barnes as a chief strategist perhaps, he could possibly use this opportunity to re-position himself on energy/the economy. As he is the one-note wonder, this period will simply be a hazardous one where his frequent mis-statements will receive greater scrutiny. (Possibly by a deflated media somewhat embittered to discover they could not coronate the president as they could the Democratic nominee.)
Perhaps this is a good thing as it keeps the focus on his issues. Better a murky debate on Iraq than a murky debate on the economy. But if he fails to communicate a clear plan on energy, housing, and his philosophy of sound economic management, and Obama does those things this will obviously be pointed to as his undoing.)
That's pretty much the dynamic from now until VPs are announced. Since both candidates remain rather undefined, the veep choice will be particularly important.
Since we're going to be talking about polling, whatever happened with those New Hampshire polls? And the California polls? Why were they wrong? Why do we care what the polls say until we can answer why they were wrong? Shouldn't we just be disregarding them or assume that they might be vastly overestimating Obama's support?
It's possible we'll go into election day expecting a giant Obama victory and be surprised to see him lose every battle ground. It already happened once on Super Tuesday.
Thursday, July 24, 2008
Garbage Out
Obama has a problem: What do you do when you're a lightly accomplished one-term senator, a former state legislator from Illinois, a Harvard law graduate who has no substantive record of accomplishments, and you are running against a war hero whom polls show that Americans overwhelmingly view as far more fit to be commander in chief?
-Maggie Gallagher
Observations:
At this point, the Obama as globetrotter narrative has completely displaced the Obama as flip-flopper narrative.
Obama should be leading by like 20 points by now and although electoral map combinations that would produce a McCain victory are still far fewer than those which produce an Obama victory, McCain should be absolutely ecstatic about his current standing.
So far I have yet to hear any rationale for preferring Obama on the economy but McCain seems to be winning on energy.
Obama has been extremely lucky in terms of the extent of confusion currently surrounding the Iraq debate. (Is it possible some Democrats reached out to Maliki?) Also, his trip seems to be going well. Nonetheless, every single day spent discussing foreign policy is Obama -1, McCain +1. A steady drumbeat of popular economic proposals would be the nail in the coffin for the Republican party.
It does not get nearly enough mention that Barack won the Democratic primaries on a fluke. He lost all of the real contests in the primaries.
Theory:
People don't vote rationally, they vote emotionally. As such, they do not examine the candidates logically, but intuitively. Nonetheless, the essential information which people need to make their choice is usually conveyed and evaluated appropriately. Even in the extreme case of misinformation, for example, the "Obama is a Muslim" myth (because he is actually an apostate) it's a perfect stand-in for a more nuanced debate about multi-culturalism.
Another theory:
Obama is smart and talented. He seems to be a competent manager and is obviously a gifted orator. Nonetheless, no amount of talent can fully account for his meteoric rise. Even Kennedy was a war hero and had a wealthy prominent family that paved the way for him. In Obama's case we can only fully account for his rise on the basis that he is black.
At first, this may seem too obvious to be worth mentioning. But I'm not sure that people are really examining the depth, breadth, significance, and consequences of this fact.
As for depth, how long has Obama been trading primarily on the color of his skin. Did it help him to obtain his college scholarship? Is it possible that it was the deciding factor for his selection as the Harvard Law Review president? (Of course it was!)Was it a factor in getting his later post at the University of Chicago?
I have read that the Jefferson Jackson dinner in Iowa was a significant launching point for Obama's campaign. Having been there, I thought Obama was flat. Edwards was clearly head and shoulders above every other candidate in terms of raw stump speech ability. ie. If you take away Obama's blackness, you possibly take away every outstanding aspect of his career.
In regards to its significance, it shows just how powerful the Liberal guilt complex is as a driver of race relations. In many ways blacks like Obama can be like a white person in Asia. (I meant for this to be a jumping off point for a deeper analysis of the Liberal psyche and what I find so disagreeable about it, but I'm not up for it right now.)
So now we're on the verge of the affirmative action nightmare, a less qualified person in a position where we cannot afford to have anything but the most competent.
Take away his blackness and Barack Obama has done nothing of significance in his career. Take away his blackness and you take away his entire candidacy.
I wouldn't vote against someone just because they are black. Likewise, I wouldn't vote for someone just because they are black.
-Maggie Gallagher
Observations:
At this point, the Obama as globetrotter narrative has completely displaced the Obama as flip-flopper narrative.
Obama should be leading by like 20 points by now and although electoral map combinations that would produce a McCain victory are still far fewer than those which produce an Obama victory, McCain should be absolutely ecstatic about his current standing.
So far I have yet to hear any rationale for preferring Obama on the economy but McCain seems to be winning on energy.
Obama has been extremely lucky in terms of the extent of confusion currently surrounding the Iraq debate. (Is it possible some Democrats reached out to Maliki?) Also, his trip seems to be going well. Nonetheless, every single day spent discussing foreign policy is Obama -1, McCain +1. A steady drumbeat of popular economic proposals would be the nail in the coffin for the Republican party.
It does not get nearly enough mention that Barack won the Democratic primaries on a fluke. He lost all of the real contests in the primaries.
Theory:
People don't vote rationally, they vote emotionally. As such, they do not examine the candidates logically, but intuitively. Nonetheless, the essential information which people need to make their choice is usually conveyed and evaluated appropriately. Even in the extreme case of misinformation, for example, the "Obama is a Muslim" myth (because he is actually an apostate) it's a perfect stand-in for a more nuanced debate about multi-culturalism.
Another theory:
Obama is smart and talented. He seems to be a competent manager and is obviously a gifted orator. Nonetheless, no amount of talent can fully account for his meteoric rise. Even Kennedy was a war hero and had a wealthy prominent family that paved the way for him. In Obama's case we can only fully account for his rise on the basis that he is black.
At first, this may seem too obvious to be worth mentioning. But I'm not sure that people are really examining the depth, breadth, significance, and consequences of this fact.
As for depth, how long has Obama been trading primarily on the color of his skin. Did it help him to obtain his college scholarship? Is it possible that it was the deciding factor for his selection as the Harvard Law Review president? (Of course it was!)Was it a factor in getting his later post at the University of Chicago?
I have read that the Jefferson Jackson dinner in Iowa was a significant launching point for Obama's campaign. Having been there, I thought Obama was flat. Edwards was clearly head and shoulders above every other candidate in terms of raw stump speech ability. ie. If you take away Obama's blackness, you possibly take away every outstanding aspect of his career.
In regards to its significance, it shows just how powerful the Liberal guilt complex is as a driver of race relations. In many ways blacks like Obama can be like a white person in Asia. (I meant for this to be a jumping off point for a deeper analysis of the Liberal psyche and what I find so disagreeable about it, but I'm not up for it right now.)
So now we're on the verge of the affirmative action nightmare, a less qualified person in a position where we cannot afford to have anything but the most competent.
Take away his blackness and Barack Obama has done nothing of significance in his career. Take away his blackness and you take away his entire candidacy.
I wouldn't vote against someone just because they are black. Likewise, I wouldn't vote for someone just because they are black.
Tuesday, July 15, 2008
John McCain: Iraq War Hero
So Obama wants to portray his opposition to the surge as part of a more comprehensive national security strategy. This might just be the start of that election defining Iraq debate that I had been anticipating. Seems even more likely if Obama's unwillingness to change the subject when getting bad press turns out to be a persistent character flaw. Ultimately, Obama is going to run up against the fact that McCain also has a broader national security plan, ie. the global war against Islamic extremism. Obama faces the unfortunate reality of being up against the legislator most responsible for the successful surge and he would do well to simply change the subject. That's all he has to do in fact, talk about the economy every single day. Otherwise, his perfectionism, which does not allow him to concede a single issue, will be his downfall.
One other question which I'm a bit too lazy to really get into, but what does Obama do if while withdrawing troops, things get worse? Does he stop withdrawing troops? In which case what is the difference between his plan and McCain's? Or does he continue withdrawing troops, in which case how is his plan responsible or anything other than snatching defeat from the jaws of victory?
One other question which I'm a bit too lazy to really get into, but what does Obama do if while withdrawing troops, things get worse? Does he stop withdrawing troops? In which case what is the difference between his plan and McCain's? Or does he continue withdrawing troops, in which case how is his plan responsible or anything other than snatching defeat from the jaws of victory?
Obama plays twister, McCain plays hide and seek
Monday, July 7, 2008
Point #1
Looking at the electoral map today I came to the conclusion there are just a lot more ways for Obama to win it than for McCain. Starting from the Bush/Kerry map, if Obama merely picks up Iowa and Indiana he's got it. There's really no battleground states that McCain is likely to pick up. There are, however, a lot of other ways Obama could get over the top. This makes me think a radical shift in strategy might be appropriate for McCain, namely winning California. To do this he should 1. choose a Hispanic VP 2. introduce favorable immigration legislation with his name on it (again). This along with the fact that Hispanics have been moving toward the GOP and Hispanic animosity towards blacks might be enough to win California and Florida and keep the Southwest which basically allows McCain to lose every other battleground and still win.
If someone can explain to me why this is not possible I would appreciate it.
(Is this possibly what Jeb has had in mind all along?)
Point #2
Just as Obama has inoculated himself from charges of being a radical liberal, McCain needs to inoculate himself against charges that he is Bushy. This should mainly be in the realm of a positive (hopeful) message of reform and economic growth, which is in some way a significant departure from Bush policies. (But shouldn't be about Iraq)
Point #3
Eventually the candidates' past and present positions on Iraq are going to be understood and the issue will move from advantage Obama to advantage McCain. McCain's position was not the Bush position until Bush advocated the surge. He's on record criticizing Rumsfeld. To the anti-war people who were pro-war and are really anti-losing-war, they'll realize that McCain had it right all along. Obama meanwhile is stuck with an outdated position which he either has to maintain, against the rallying cry that he wants to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory, or make a dramatic change to a cornerstone issue. This last week has revived my original thinking which was, if it gets down to McCain and Obama it's gonna be all about Iraq. (Whereas Romney vs. Clinton for example would have made Iraq a complete non-issue.)
Point #4
I can't see McCain on intrade going much lower than 30 between now and the election. I can definitely see it moving to the upside. I still say, take McCain now, it's free money. (But take the profit when it comes.)
Point #5
The fact of the Obama shift is now crystallized in public opinion. He should take a small hit in the polls for this and it should taint the tone of coverage towards his campaign for the next couple weeks. (Every policy statement will elicit the question, 'Is this yet another shift'?) Has enough time gone by for it to show up in the polls already? I'm looking for shift-->media acknowledgment of shift--->public acknowledgment of shift--->polls reflect shift--->prediction markets reflect shift. I don't expect it to be big, but movement.
Point#6
Regarding Obama's apple pie campaign, he's got this problem where he wants to say 'I go to church everyday' but that might put the picture of Reverend Wright in people's minds.
Conclusions:
Buy McCain
Obama's shift is a long-term plus for him but reading that NYtimes editorial you know its a temporary negative and will induce further John Stewart mockery.
If McCain chooses Romney as VP I will puke, if he chooses a Hispanic he will be my hero.
As I said last post, McCain is not conventional GOP, as William Kristol explained about the 'staff shakeups'.
We still don't know anything about Obama, and that's why he can't be trusted. (And this should be the GOP refrain, not: flip-flop.)
Point #1
Looking at the electoral map today I came to the conclusion there are just a lot more ways for Obama to win it than for McCain. Starting from the Bush/Kerry map, if Obama merely picks up Iowa and Indiana he's got it. There's really no battleground states that McCain is likely to pick up. There are, however, a lot of other ways Obama could get over the top. This makes me think a radical shift in strategy might be appropriate for McCain, namely winning California. To do this he should 1. choose a Hispanic VP 2. introduce favorable immigration legislation with his name on it (again). This along with the fact that Hispanics have been moving toward the GOP and Hispanic animosity towards blacks might be enough to win California and Florida and keep the Southwest which basically allows McCain to lose every other battleground and still win.
If someone can explain to me why this is not possible I would appreciate it.
(Is this possibly what Jeb has had in mind all along?)
Point #2
Just as Obama has inoculated himself from charges of being a radical liberal, McCain needs to inoculate himself against charges that he is Bushy. This should mainly be in the realm of a positive (hopeful) message of reform and economic growth, which is in some way a significant departure from Bush policies. (But shouldn't be about Iraq)
Point #3
Eventually the candidates' past and present positions on Iraq are going to be understood and the issue will move from advantage Obama to advantage McCain. McCain's position was not the Bush position until Bush advocated the surge. He's on record criticizing Rumsfeld. To the anti-war people who were pro-war and are really anti-losing-war, they'll realize that McCain had it right all along. Obama meanwhile is stuck with an outdated position which he either has to maintain, against the rallying cry that he wants to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory, or make a dramatic change to a cornerstone issue. This last week has revived my original thinking which was, if it gets down to McCain and Obama it's gonna be all about Iraq. (Whereas Romney vs. Clinton for example would have made Iraq a complete non-issue.)
Point #4
I can't see McCain on intrade going much lower than 30 between now and the election. I can definitely see it moving to the upside. I still say, take McCain now, it's free money. (But take the profit when it comes.)
Point #5
The fact of the Obama shift is now crystallized in public opinion. He should take a small hit in the polls for this and it should taint the tone of coverage towards his campaign for the next couple weeks. (Every policy statement will elicit the question, 'Is this yet another shift'?) Has enough time gone by for it to show up in the polls already? I'm looking for shift-->media acknowledgment of shift--->public acknowledgment of shift--->polls reflect shift--->prediction markets reflect shift. I don't expect it to be big, but movement.
Point#6
Regarding Obama's apple pie campaign, he's got this problem where he wants to say 'I go to church everyday' but that might put the picture of Reverend Wright in people's minds.
Conclusions:
Buy McCain
Obama's shift is a long-term plus for him but reading that NYtimes editorial you know its a temporary negative and will induce further John Stewart mockery.
If McCain chooses Romney as VP I will puke, if he chooses a Hispanic he will be my hero.
As I said last post, McCain is not conventional GOP, as William Kristol explained about the 'staff shakeups'.
We still don't know anything about Obama, and that's why he can't be trusted. (And this should be the GOP refrain, not: flip-flop.)
Obama Shifts and the Anti-Obama Vote
Recently, Obama has opted out of public finance, and significantly shifted on just about every important issue. His policy shifts, to a certain extent, inundate him against the claim that he's an out of the mainstream left-winger. But they open him up to the claim that we still don't even know who he is. He barely has a record, including in the Illinois legislature where he voted 'present', and the short record he has now contradicts itself. Certainly he has gone a long way to prove that he is a 'typical politician' after all, something John Stewart has duly noted and begun to ridicule.
Today's The Note anticipates John McCain running a Bush-like campaign in that it will focus on national security. But that's clearly not John McCain's style, as his style is to do what seems to be the most illogical thing possible. John McCain is not the typical politician which is why he ends up confusing so many people with his trips to foreign countries instead of to swing states and with his economic policies that get bashed by Karl Rove in the WSJ.
A number of commentators, and Obama's strategists, have mentioned higher turnout as a key Obama strength to put certain states into play. Nobody mentions that it's possible the anti-Obama vote will also make a strong showing. I assumed as far back as New Hampshire that a significant portion of the Hillary vote was actually an anti-Obama vote. If it had been a weaker politician than Hillary we would have assumed this automatically but her stature masked it. Do you really think that Hillary became a working class hero overnight because people just fell in love with her? One explanation for those skewed polls involving black politicians in the 80s could be that the polls did not accurately reflect the animosity of those not supporting the candidate which causes their turnout rate to be higher. (Move Virginia and Missouri to the McCain column.) This is one reason why Hispanics might turn out for McCain by a lopsided margin. (Move Colorado and New Mexico to the McCain column.)
It is still true that Obama has gotten this far via cakewalk. Getting his senate seat was a cakewalk, and the majority of the states he won for the nomination were basically uncontested. In terms of tough victories all he can point to is Iowa.
Today's The Note anticipates John McCain running a Bush-like campaign in that it will focus on national security. But that's clearly not John McCain's style, as his style is to do what seems to be the most illogical thing possible. John McCain is not the typical politician which is why he ends up confusing so many people with his trips to foreign countries instead of to swing states and with his economic policies that get bashed by Karl Rove in the WSJ.
A number of commentators, and Obama's strategists, have mentioned higher turnout as a key Obama strength to put certain states into play. Nobody mentions that it's possible the anti-Obama vote will also make a strong showing. I assumed as far back as New Hampshire that a significant portion of the Hillary vote was actually an anti-Obama vote. If it had been a weaker politician than Hillary we would have assumed this automatically but her stature masked it. Do you really think that Hillary became a working class hero overnight because people just fell in love with her? One explanation for those skewed polls involving black politicians in the 80s could be that the polls did not accurately reflect the animosity of those not supporting the candidate which causes their turnout rate to be higher. (Move Virginia and Missouri to the McCain column.) This is one reason why Hispanics might turn out for McCain by a lopsided margin. (Move Colorado and New Mexico to the McCain column.)
It is still true that Obama has gotten this far via cakewalk. Getting his senate seat was a cakewalk, and the majority of the states he won for the nomination were basically uncontested. In terms of tough victories all he can point to is Iowa.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
