Analysis: Facing losses, Clinton recasts (2 Viewers)

So you would extend your no message/plan statement to McCain and Clinton as well? I can accept that a low-information voter might feel that way.

The truth is that all the candidates provide ample details on their websites and in speeches. You can debate how well the details are reaching the uninformed masses, but that doesn't mean the details aren't there.


Not worth it anymore...you completely missed it and it simply isn't worth my time to discuss with you.
 
You seem to make a habit of completely discounting the conventional wisdom without providing any evidence to back up your assertions.

Clinton's biggest problem, the moderate white male, is almost certain to go with McCain over Clinton. She has had no success at all with them, while Obama has cleaned up. If anything, they are more likely to decide the election than the traditional blue collar voter, who is no less likely to back Obama than an African-American would be to back Clinton. I really don't see how you can make the argument that Obama's voters are the reliable Democrats, while Hillary's voters are likely to go with McCain. Isn't Hillary's argument that she is going to rebound in Ohio and Texas precisely because the Democratic electorate in those states is more reflective of the traditional Democratic voting bloc?

First off, its worth me saying again that I recognize that a lot of people - people a lot smarter than me in this area - completely disagree with my opinion. I think you and a few others have raised good points on the issue on this board.
I think both candidates have serious problems running against McCain come November - which is the reason I think the democrats have screwed up as they usually do.
I base my opinion largely based on my knowledge of past elections. One thing that I have noticed is that CW is far more often wrong than right at this point in the game. One thing that is true about the Democrats in Presidential elections is that when they nominate a candidate closely allied with the more professional and urbane segment of the Party they lose. And, of course, that has been way more often than not over the past 40 years.
In 2004 Kerry was not th first choice of many of the urbane class, but he got a big boost after, and in large part won the nomination, after Dean self-destructed and that group favored Kerry afterwards.
Gore was sort of a hybrid in that his history made him attractive to the Reagan Democrats but he had clearly lost touch with his roots in that regard as evidenced in his campaign (and even more so by looking at what he has become today).
Obama is much more of that type of candidate than even Hillary is. I think it was RJ who posted a NYT article about it - characterized as upstream v. downstream voters. The latter have been breaking for Hillary. What is more is that they are also less active within the Party and therefore are not as represented in the primary process - certainly as compared to the yuppie set.
I am not saying Hillary wins enough of that demographic to put her over the top in the all important swing state - I am saying that she has a better shot at it, particularly with Bill campaigning for her, than Obama has.

One other thing. Every election you hear about how young people are coming out in droves, and are finally going to make a difference. It has never happened. There is a first time for everything, and hopefully this year will be different. But if you hear it every election cycle you tend not to believe it after a while.
 
remember vote or die. the michael moore movies?

i think swing areas for congress matter but this is a republican country.
they left couldnt defeat Bush which is sad.
 
Another point - I agree with everyone who says Hillary is making a huge mistake in not campaigning in a lot of these contests. I heard she isn;t even campaigning in Wisconsin. Wisconsin is a state she can do well in. I mean sure, Obama takes Madison, but everywhere else is ripe for Hillary.
She will lose her support in Ohio and Pennsylvania if she drps out of all these contests in February.
 
This hits close to home because I am guilty as charged:

Original%20Image01302008.jpg
 
Another point - I agree with everyone who says Hillary is making a huge mistake in not campaigning in a lot of these contests. I heard she isn;t even campaigning in Wisconsin. Wisconsin is a state she can do well in. I mean sure, Obama takes Madison, but everywhere else is ripe for Hillary.
She will lose her support in Ohio and Pennsylvania if she drps out of all these contests in February.

Hillary is just trying to win a nomination, Obama is trying to win a campaign. If Hillary wins the nomination by some miracle it's going to turn into a thumping in the general election by McCain. She's running all wrong in terms of the general election.
 
I did post the commentary by David Brooks about the difference between product consumers and experience consumers, with the former, basically "downscale voters," favoring Clinton and the latter, basically "upscale voters," favoring Obama. Obama is Gary Hart and Bill Bradley, with two differences--he is a much better public speaker with more charisma and he has the support of American-American voters in the Democratic support.

And I agree that conventional wisdom is often wrong, though a reason is that we cannot always predict whether the issues driving voter choices eight months from now will be the same issues driving voter decisions today.
 
And I agree that conventional wisdom is often wrong, though a reason is that we cannot always predict whether the issues driving voter choices eight months from now will be the same issues driving voter decisions today.

You are also dealing primarily with party activists. Even given the large turnout in places this year you are still dealing with a fraction of the number of people who will vote in November. The Democrats have shown almost a complete inability to select a nominee that can win in November since control of the nominating process was largely turned over to voters beginning in 1972.
 
Another point - I agree with everyone who says Hillary is making a huge mistake in not campaigning in a lot of these contests. I heard she isn;t even campaigning in Wisconsin. Wisconsin is a state she can do well in. I mean sure, Obama takes Madison, but everywhere else is ripe for Hillary.
She will lose her support in Ohio and Pennsylvania if she drps out of all these contests in February.

I agree that the big state strategy was a huge blunder. Her campaign was geared for big wins in IA/NH and had no plan past Super Tuesday. Obama planned a 50 state campaign from the start and is reaping the rewards.

Clinton has to win big in TX, OH, and PA to win the delegate race. A tie or close victory in any of them essentially dooms her campaign. I suspect she's spending more time in TX because the state is too close for comfort.
 
Jim, to some extent, I am jerry-picking my statistics. But in the last eight presidential elections (since 1976), the Democrats have won three, won in the popular vote in a fourth, and came close to winning a fifth.

Perhaps more significant, in the last two elections, the Democrats carried the popular vote in 2000 and were competitive in 2004, the results of which were still impacted in favor of the GOP by 9.11. And based on the enthusiasm and trunout on the Democratic side, it seems that in 2008 the Democrats are deriving strength from the dissatisfaction of Bush by two-thirds of the electorate.

And that's the wedge issue for the Democratic nominee in the fall campaign: Does McCain repudiate Bush. In the Republican primaries, supporting Bush's foreign policy has been popular. It won't be in November with McCain talking about staying in Iraq for how long and in effect attacking Iran absent another terrorist strike.

And I agree with Severum. Clinton planned on a blitzkreig campaign, not a war of attrition. If she loses in Wisconsin--and Charlie Cook is calling Wisconsin the gateway to the early April primaries with regard to momentum and money--she will have to win not just Texas and Ohio, but she will have to win my healthy margins. A loss in one of the two states really hurts her, and she needs more than two 52-48 wins with no real edge in delegates won.

Tonight, she is not just losing Virginia, she is getting blown, and the Virginia African-American vote isn't so large to be the sole explanation. And if she is losing by 25 percentage points in Virginia, the results in Maryland should be even worse for her.

PS Obama's margin of victory in Virginia is now 27 points, and the early results in Maryland show a 30 plus victory margin. Way too big. Obama in the exit polling is winning among women and white voters. And Clinton apparently will not be contesting with vigor Wisconsin. She can't give Obama how many srtates in a row--some by huge margins--and just barely win Ohio and Texas.
 
Last edited:
Jim, to some extent, I am jerry picking my statistics. But in the last eight presidential elections (since 1976), the Democrats have won three, won in the popular vote in a fourth, and came close to winning a fifth.

Perhaps more significant, in the last two elections, the Democrats carried the popular vote in 2000 and were competitive in 2004, the results of which were still impacted in favor of the GOP by 9.11. And based on the enthusiasm and trunout on the Democratic side, it seems that in 2008 the Democrats are deriving strength from the dissatisfaction of Bush by two-thirds of the electorate. And that's the wedge issue for the Democratic nominee in the fall campaign: Does McCain repudiate Bush. In the Republican primaries, supporting Bush's foreign policy has been popular. It won't be in November with McCain talking about staying in Iraq for how long and in effect attacking Iran absent another terrorist strike.

And I am jerry picking to some extent as well when I say the recent "success" of the Democrats have come from the extent that they have rejected the yuppie candidate - Dean in 04, Bradley in 2000. Perhaps Mondale is the exception to my way of thinking, but Democrats had no chance in 1984 anyway.
 
Jim, regarding the three candidates you mention, Bradley may have fared well in the general election against Bush and won; Dean lacked the discipline to win a party niomination, much less a general election; and Mondale was the party's establishment candidate in 1980 and stood little chance because of general displeasure with the Carter president and the popularity of Reagan.

I don't think it is an accident that on the Democratic side, the two candidates standing are Clinton and Obama. They have been the two strongest candidates in the Democratic race. Edwards was in several ways an attractive candidate, but his message was too hot and too negative.
 
Last edited:
And I agree that conventional wisdom is often wrong, though a reason is that we cannot always predict whether the issues driving voter choices eight months from now will be the same issues driving voter decisions today.


Conventional wisdom is even more unpredictable in the uncharted territory of this election. Beyond the norms -- clout, connections, policy, track record, charisma and any number of facets that routinely get hashed -- we're having to speculate for the first time on the impact of gender and race beyond the hypothetical. This makes predicting the support of subsets of voters a somewhat vain, though entertaining and enlightening process. It's a fascinating election to be witness to.
 
At least one person agrees with Clinton's strategy:

Mike DuHaime, a Republican consultant who managed Rudolph W. Giuliani’s campaign, said Mrs. Clinton was making the right decisions in trying to make the most of her strengths.

“Clearly, she has had success in larger states and there are a whole bunch of delegates at stake on March 4,” Mr. DuHaime said. “They are not trying to figure out who can win the most states; they are trying to figure out who can win the most delegates.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/13/us/politics/13assess.html
 

Create an account or login to comment

You must be a member in order to leave a comment

Create account

Create an account on our community. It's easy!

Log in

Already have an account? Log in here.

Users who are viewing this thread

    Back
    Top Bottom