U.S. Presidential Elections 2008

August1991 · February 19, 2008

Obama will win Hawaii. Wisconsin is a toss up and I think a true harbinger. If Obama wins, it will be his first "white state" primary. (Wisconsin's population is about 6% black.)

Recent polls show Clinton has a chance in Wisconsin at ending Obama's winning streak. According to an American Research Group poll conducted February 15 and 16, the two candidates are in a statistical tie, with Clinton at 49 percent and Obama at 43 percent. The poll's margin of error is plus-or-minus 4 percentage points. Watch the candidate stump in snowy Wisconsin »
Another poll of Wisconsin Democratic primary voters conducted by Research 2000 for Madison television station WISC also indicates the race is too close to call. The WISC poll had Obama at 47 percent and Clinton at 42 percent. The poll's margin of error is plus-or-minus 5 percentage points.

CNN

Republicans and Independants can cross over and vote in the Democratic race in Wisconsin. I think that will favour Obama. In addition, Wisconsin went for Bill Clinton in 1992 and 1996 so this is a state where a Obama victory will be significant.

Obama is hoping that a victory in Wisconsin will translate into a bandwagon for Ohio and Texas.

jbg · February 19, 2008

I think it would be worth looking at the red and blue states in 2000. Gore got Ohio, Pennsylannia and critically he lost Florida. In 2004, Ohio (and Florida) went for Bush. I don't think Obama could duplicate Gore, not against McCain. Even Hillary would have a hard time.

Gore didn't get Ohio (link).

bush_cheney2004 · February 20, 2008

For Senator Clinton, it is slowly slipping away. She is melting....melting.....melting...Obama has killed her (politically), and will take her broom to the Wizard. Several US cable news networks cut Hillary off mid speech in Ohio to feed Obama instead from Texas. He delivered another perfectly cadenced example of the political equivalent to ruby slippers.

capricorn · February 20, 2008

For Senator Clinton, it is slowly slipping away. She is melting....melting.....melting...Obama has killed her (politically), and will take her broom to the Wizard.

Bill has been rather speechless the last few days. Poor bugger, he must be getting an earful at home. :lol:

Several US cable news networks cut Hillary off mid speech in Ohio to feed Obama instead from Texas. He delivered another perfectly cadenced example of the political equivalent to ruby slippers.

He is tasting victory. In his speech it seems he made promises to every demographic in the country. No one can now claim he said nothing of substance. I'd sure like to see those promises costed.

Visionseeker · February 20, 2008

For Senator Clinton, it is slowly slipping away. She is melting....melting.....melting...Obama has killed her (politically), and will take her broom to the Wizard. Several US cable news networks cut Hillary off mid speech in Ohio to feed Obama instead from Texas. He delivered another perfectly cadenced example of the political equivalent to ruby slippers.

It's over for Clinton. Losing in Wisconsin sends serious signals through the DNC. MI and FL cannot be brought into the equation w/o a redo, and Obama would likely perform too well for it to matter.

Clinton not only needs to win both Texas and Ohio, but by a compelling margin (63-37). However both states are in play for Obama and I suspect he'll win one of them (and maybe both).

Watch for more "superdelegate" defections (to Obama) as the week plays out.

bush_cheney2004 · February 20, 2008

He is tasting victory. In his speech it seems he made promises to every demographic in the country. No one can now claim he said nothing of substance. I'd sure like to see those promises costed.

I have to give Senator Obama props for beating the Clinton machine at their own game, and he has better stand-up timing than comic Jerry Seinfeld. But I don't think the rock star status and cult of personality will last through November. Yes, he gave a taste of substance, but not as much as monotone senior citizen McCain.

August1991 · February 20, 2008

Gore didn't get Ohio (link).

You're right.

And Wisconsin has gone Democrat since Reagan.

For Senator Clinton, it is slowly slipping away. She is melting....melting.....melting...Obama has killed her (politically), and will take her broom to the Wizard. Several US cable news networks cut Hillary off mid speech in Ohio to feed Obama instead from Texas. He delivered another perfectly cadenced example of the political equivalent to ruby slippers.

Agreed.

This is a big night for Obama and this isn't a small victory. Obama has won a Democratic white state primary across all demographics according to exit polls. (He even beat Clinton among white women.) He's polling even in Texas and he may even cut Clinton's lead in Ohio and Pennsylvania to one digit. I think it's fair to predict that he'll win the nomination now. The super delegates will go along with the selected delegates.

----

What melted the Wicked Witch? Obama's a better speaker and he's a new face. And here's a throwaway idea: Monica Lewinsky sank Hillary. Alot of Dems don't want to back to that whole saga. If Hillary had been a widow (like Indira Gandhi) then maybe she would have got a sympathy vote. But Bill's hanging around like Eddie Murphy in Shrek.

Now the early posturing of the McCain-Obama match up will start. Obama is one heck of a liberal.

I'm always reminded of Joe Lieberman losing the nomination in Connecticut but winning in November. The Dem base is excitable and moved by emotion. They despise Bush and they view Obama as his opposite.

Edited February 20, 2008 by August1991

bush_cheney2004 · February 20, 2008

What melted the Wicked Witch? Obama's a better speaker and he's a new face. And here's a throwaway idea: Monica Lewinsky sank Hillary. Alot of Dems don't want to back to that whole saga. If Hillary had been a widow (like Indira Gandhi) then maybe she would have got a sympathy vote. But Bill's hanging around like Eddie Murphy in Shrek.

I'd buy that...Clinton never really connected because of all that baggage (she "wasn't some little woman 'standing by my man' like Tammy Wynette." The irony of this statement became apparent during Clinton's impeachment. - Wiki)...and this election cycle!

Now the early posturing of the McCain-Obama match up will start. Obama is one heck of a liberal.

Yep, the choice, if it comes to be, will be stark. And as you have described in detail, America usually rejects the left turn, no matter how smooth it is.

Edited February 20, 2008 by bush_cheney2004

capricorn · February 20, 2008

Yes, he gave a taste of substance, but not as much as monotone senior citizen McCain.

McCain's speech was excellent IMO. Monotone or not...they were not "just words"...they had meaning even for a Canuck who knows little about US politics.

bush_cheney2004 · February 20, 2008

McCain's speech was excellent IMO. Monotone or not...they were not "just words"...they had meaning even for a Canuck who knows little about US politics.

A agree with you...his speech was much better than last week. McCain will never be able to compete with Obama's oratory, but he does have substance backed up by experience. The federal campaign funding limit is putting pressure on Obama's campaign of "change". Unbelievably, his stubborn stance on Iraq may be an asset in the general.

I also heard a pundit bring up NAFTA tonight wrt Bill Clinton and Hillary's support as jobs go global. This brings Canada into the mix if protectionism rears its head.

Saw my first McCain bumper sticker today.......

August1991 · February 20, 2008

Yep, the choice, if it comes to be, will be stark. And as you have described in detail, America usually rejects the left turn, no matter how smooth it is.

IMV, McCain has all the fundamentals in place to do very well in November. But Obama is a bit of a wild card and McCain will have to be a good campaigner.

Around the water cooler today, we were talking about McCain's VP choices. I suggested that if the Dems chose Obama, McCain might choose Colin Powell. I don't think he would because it's not the Republican style to play that kind of politics.

Christ or Pawlenty or someone like that seems more likely.

bush_cheney2004 · February 20, 2008

IMV, McCain has all the fundamentals in place to do very well in November. But Obama is a bit of a wild card and McCain will have to be a good campaigner.
Around the water cooler today, we were talking about McCain's VP choices. I suggested that if the Dems chose Obama, McCain might choose Colin Powell. I don't think he would because it's not the Republican style to play that kind of politics.

Christ or Pawlenty or someone like that seems more likely.

The water cooler exchange is spot on...his choice is absolutley critical, balancing electoral college strategy with concerns about the party base. Colin Powell probably still has dust on his fingers from the UN speech (Bush legacy), so not a likely choice. "T-Pah" (Pawlenty) is only good for a slight bump in the Midwest. Playing the "black card" would be counter-productive.

McCain is a bit of a legend with us old Navy military types (and the anti-Kerry), but we also know he has a real bad temper that can explode at the slightest provocation.

August1991 · February 22, 2008

The water cooler exchange is spot on...his choice is absolutley critical, balancing electoral college strategy with concerns about the party base. Colin Powell probably still has dust on his fingers from the UN speech (Bush legacy), so not a likely choice. "T-Pah" (Pawlenty) is only good for a slight bump in the Midwest. Playing the "black card" would be counter-productive.

I tend to agree with Karl Rove on this one - the choice of Veep matters less than often imagined. Christ might help carry a difficult/critical state.

----

There is a wonderfiul scene in the movie A Man For All Seasons where Paul Schofield drops a candlebra (a bribe) into the river while a young, jealous and striving John Hurt looks on.

For McCain, Self-Confidence on Ethics Poses Its Own Risk
By JIM RUTENBERG, MARILYN W. THOMPSON, DAVID D. KIRKPATRICK and STEPHEN LABATON

Published: February 21, 2008

WASHINGTON — Early in Senator John McCain’s first run for the White House eight years ago, waves of anxiety swept through his small circle of advisers.

A female lobbyist had been turning up with him at fund-raisers, visiting his offices and accompanying him on a client’s corporate jet. Convinced the relationship had become romantic, some of his top advisers intervened to protect the candidate from himself — instructing staff members to block the woman’s access, privately warning her away and repeatedly confronting him, several people involved in the campaign said on the condition of anonymity.

...

NYT

Everyone is talking about this article. I read it and thought, "Ho hum." In fact, I enjoyed reading McCain's comments in his autobiography about the Keating Five episode.

The fact is that both Obama and McCain are honest politicians who mean well for their country. Neither is on the take. They are both driven by power and not material wealth. (This doesn't mean that they'd refuse a nice lifestyle.) Both, as politicians, have come into contact with people who want to use their power. (I'm sure journalists can easily dig up photos of unsavoury people standing beside both McCain and Obama.) Neither though is in the business of influence peddling.

These kinds of reports won't stick to McCain or Obama if only because they are too convulted.

There is one difference maybe. McCain has been in this game much longer than Obama and McCain has a far better idea of what lobbyists do and how they work.

But that simply raises a more fundamental point. McCain has far more experience in alot of things than Obama. Obama has accomplished little, has little experience and Americans have little to judge him on. We don't really know what Obama would do and he may not even know himself.

David Frum compared him to William Jennings Bryan who also ran for president on little more than his skills as an orator. In any case, we will have the next several months to get to know Obama.

Edited February 22, 2008 by August1991

BubberMiley · February 22, 2008

I tend to agree with Karl Rove on this one - the choice of Veep matters less than often imagined. Christ might help carry a difficult/critical state.

I doubt very much Christ would be willing to be second banana to McCain. Besides, I'm pretty sure he's a Democrat.

August1991 · February 23, 2008

I doubt very much Christ would be willing to be second banana to McCain. Besides, I'm pretty sure he's a Democrat.

Oops. I meant Crist.

jbg · February 23, 2008

I tend to agree with Karl Rove on this one - the choice of Veep matters less than often imagined. Christ might help carry a difficult/critical state.

The choice matters far more in this race on account of McCain's age and prior health problems. Also, for Clinton in 1992 Gore may have helped measurably by the contrast with Quayle, largely considered a joke by then.

August1991 · February 24, 2008

The choice matters far more in this race on account of McCain's age and prior health problems. Also, for Clinton in 1992 Gore may have helped measurably by the contrast with Quayle, largely considered a joke by then.

Gore delivered Tennessee so I suppose that's something. VP matters but just not that much.

I found a good blog about McCain's strategy against Obama in light of Clinton's loss. She mistakenly decided to contrast her experience to Obama's lack of experience when instead, she should have drawn an ideological contrast. This ties Obama down to issues (where he loses) and keeps him away from personality (where he wins).

With his unexpectedly decisive landslide victory in Wisconsin, Barack Obama has solidified his status as the Democratic frontrunner. His success owes less to his own political strategy than it does to a fatal mistake by Hillary Clinton. At the beginning of her campaign, Clinton made a decision to avoid an ideological battle with her rival and decided to frame the race as a choice between “experience” and “charisma,” between “work” and “words.” In other words she decided to fight Obama on personality, rather than the issues, and in terms of a compelling, appealing personality, Obama obviously wins. Clinton could have won an issues election – mobilizing the broad middle of the Democratic Party and leaving Obama to run to her left. She could have criticized him for preaching surrender on the war, for minimizing the reality of the terrorist threat, for calling unequivocally for big government and higher taxes, for rejecting the free trade heritage of Clintonism. Instead, she insisted that she and her opponent hardly differed on the issues, and it was only a question of who is better “prepared to take over as commander-in-chief from day one.” By emphasizing my “thirty-five years of work fighting for change” Hillary not only made herself sound older, but high-lighted the meaningless, trivial nature of the change she sought and, allegedly, achieved: most Democrats don’t like the results of the last thirty-five years of government policy.
...

John McCain needs to learn the lessons of Hillary Clinton’s failed campaign. If he tries to emphasize his obviously superior experience and preparation for the job, he’ll lose in a landslide. Obama can easily characterize him as “yesterday’s man” (as he did in his victory speech on Tuesday night) and emphasize his opponent’s advanced age by “graciously” saluting his “fifty years of service.” He thereby makes the point that he himself isn’t even fifty years old, confirming his vacuous declaration that “we are the change that we’ve been waiting for.”

McCain and the GOP can win the election, but only if they draw crisp, unmistakable distinctions on the issues. Voters should face big questions: do you think America will be safer if we surrender to terrorists in Iraq and elsewhere? Do you want to pay more in taxes to pay for a bigger government? Do you want to pay for your neighbor’s health insurance, or is the nation stronger when we emphasize individual responsibility? Do we want more freedom and opportunity or do we need more government supervision and regulation?

Michael Medved

I happen to think that Clinton lost for several reasons - not merely her choice of strategy against Obama. McCain should force Obama on to issues but he need not fear Obama's charisma.

Medved might have added that Obama's success currently is found with core Democratic Party constituencies. He's mobilized the youth vote like no candidate has done before, and his message of change is more than that - it contains the elements of a social movement.
But a youth revolution is not inevitable this year, nor is it clear that such voter activism will bridge the generation gap between young and old in the general election (the Social Security cohort remains America's most active voting consituency).

McCain's not Clinton, and the Arizona Senator's appeal will be broader than Clinton's in the wider population. Moreover, much of Clinton's probem is her husband, Bill, and the electorate's pre-buyer's remorse on the possibility of four-more years of hyper-partisan political battle in the classic co-Cintonesque model.

McCain's coming off as a Churchillian figure this year. With American forces deployed around the world - in both current, dangerous hot spots and decades-old alliance committments - qualities such as wise national security leadership offer potentially hard-to-beat political contrasts between the candidates. Add to that the fact that McCain out-campaigns opponents thirty years his junior, and the potential liabilities of the "age factor" are dramatically reduced.

American Powerblog

The fact is that Obama is very left wing, he has basically no experience running anything or commanding anything, he never served in the military and even his political experience is limited. He has a charming smile and a good way with words.

Anyway, to respond to Kimmy's comment in another thread, now McCain's people can sit down and start analyzing and researching and focus-grouping all the ways to beat Obama. The main campaign is very different from the primary campaign. Primaries are an insurgency. The main campaign is a ground war.

BubberMiley · February 24, 2008

The fact is that Obama is very left wing, he has basically no experience running anything or commanding anything, he never served in the military and even his political experience is limited.

But comparing who has been the best CEO of their own election campaigns, Obama has out-managed them all.

sharkman · February 24, 2008

I don't know if he has outmanaged them all or simply won over the voter with his charisma and a very good management team. It still surprises me, however, to see that Hillary has been beaten by him.

She had the nomination in her pocket and I believe eased up on the campaign early on, giving Obama a foot hold. Pretty happy to see her losing, however! Last night Saturday Night Live was even stumping for her, defending her against none other than Limbaugh on their news sketch. But its obviously too little too late. The back room deal to stump for her was probably made early last week when things were looking better for her.

August1991 · February 24, 2008

But comparing who has been the best CEO of their own election campaigns, Obama has out-managed them all.

Let's be clear. He has successfully managed one campaign to win the support of Democratic partisans. George McGovern also did that. Then again, McGovern was also a WWII bomber pilot and was a well known Senator because of his position on the Vietnam War.

In short, Obama has achieved nothing of note and is arguably the least experienced presidential candidate in a century or two.

Anyway, I think the Republicans would be wrong to harp on this fact. First, such a strategy just plays into the personality and image angle - where Obama is stronger. Second, Obama's lack of experience or any accomplishments will become apparent anyway.

McCain would be wise to keep to specifics and start an issue based campaign. This will show that Obama is a tax-and-spend, far left liberal with schemes that are half-baked and won't work.

Edited February 24, 2008 by August1991

scribblet · February 24, 2008

Haven't read the whole thread, but Obama is being treated with kid gloves by the media, I think generally people are afraid to go after him for anything for fear of being called racist.

Obama talks about change, so does Hillary, can anyone actually list what the changes are - cos I don't think anyone really knows do they. It's all hot air, and besides they have to have a majority in the house to get anything passed.

bush_cheney2004 · February 24, 2008

...Obama talks about change, so does Hillary, can anyone actually list what the changes are - cos I don't think anyone really knows do they. It's all hot air, and besides they have to have a majority in the house to get anything passed.

Correct...it's just more of the same political posturing. We even got Ralphie back into the mix today. The more things change, the more things stay the same.

Carinthia · February 24, 2008

Haven't read the whole thread, but Obama is being treated with kid gloves by the media, I think generally people are afraid to go after him for anything for fear of being called racist.

The media out and out love him for their own ratings reasons. Race only comes into play here because the media is thrilled that they have an ongoing story to sensationalize for months and months to come. Perhaps for years to come.

jbg · February 26, 2008

The media out and out love him for their own ratings reasons. Race only comes into play here because the media is thrilled that they have an ongoing story to sensationalize for months and months to come. Perhaps for years to come.

This is so typical of the Obama campaign. An eloquent but vapid speech by Michelle Obama, as excerpted by William Kristol (link):

But they can be repaired. Indeed, she had said a couple of weeks before, in Los Angeles: “Barack Obama ... is going to demand that you shed your cynicism. That you put down your divisions. That you come out of your isolation, that you move out of your comfort zones. That you push yourselves to be better. And that you engage. Barack will never allow you to go back to your lives as usual, uninvolved, uninformed.

For what it's worth, I predict a McCain victory. The popular vote margin will be slim, maybe 52% to 48% (if no independent or third party candidate such as Bloomberg) but the overall electoral margin will in some ways be similar to 1980.

The electoral margin in 1980 was 489 to 49. The popular vote margin was 50.7% to 41.0%, with 6.6% of the remaining 9.7% going to independent John Anderson (that vote including my parents, with mine going to Carter). I don't think that Bloomberg will run, so the numbers should look a lot like 1980, with the "independent" vote of that election split roughly evenly, but a similar electoral result.

bush_cheney2004 · February 26, 2008

....The electoral margin in 1980 was 489 to 49. The popular vote margin was 50.7% to 41.0%, with 6.6% of the remaining 9.7% going to independent John Anderson (that vote including my parents, with mine going to Carter). I don't think that Bloomberg will run, so the numbers should look a lot like 1980, with the "independent" vote of that election split roughly evenly, but a similar electoral result.

I voted with your parents in 1980...John Anderson. Senator McCain will prevail if he avoids blowing a gasket on national television.