West Virginia is Hillary Clinton's kind of state. Most projections have her taking the state by 25-35%. Fortunately for team Obama, it doesn't really matter. I'm most interested in seeing whether or not the irrelevancy of this contest will diminish the vote total. No one likes to go out and vote in an election that's already over, for a candidate who has already lost. Perhaps a bandwagon effect will give Obama a surprisingly good night, but the best he could hope for is to lose by only 20%.
If Hillary wins by more than 40% and there is a heavy turnout, she could net over 100,000 votes, and cable news may try to make the win seem significant, citing the plausibility of her taking the lead in the popular vote.
For those of you who still choose to closely watch this race, I want to direct you to a tremendous resource I've been reading lately, that Chris at the Outside Report got me hooked on. It's a blog with very detailed analysis and polling data, where the polls are weighted based on the polls past performance (and other factors). Check out FiveThirtyEight.com, and if you're interested, here is their WV primary preview.
Update from Buck B.
Further re-enforcing the "everyone-hates Republicans" thing I wrote about below, Democrats have, incredibly, won Mississippi's 1st Congressional District in a special election today....by eight points! This is a district Bush won with 62 percent of the vote in 2004. Republicans have now lost three special elections in a row this year, all in heavily Republican districts.
Oh, and as expected Hillary has officially cornered the market on ignorant white people who will likely vote Republican in November anyway. Congratulations, Sen. Clinton.
If Hillary wins by more than 40% and there is a heavy turnout, she could net over 100,000 votes, and cable news may try to make the win seem significant, citing the plausibility of her taking the lead in the popular vote.
For those of you who still choose to closely watch this race, I want to direct you to a tremendous resource I've been reading lately, that Chris at the Outside Report got me hooked on. It's a blog with very detailed analysis and polling data, where the polls are weighted based on the polls past performance (and other factors). Check out FiveThirtyEight.com, and if you're interested, here is their WV primary preview.
Update from Buck B.
Further re-enforcing the "everyone-hates Republicans" thing I wrote about below, Democrats have, incredibly, won Mississippi's 1st Congressional District in a special election today....by eight points! This is a district Bush won with 62 percent of the vote in 2004. Republicans have now lost three special elections in a row this year, all in heavily Republican districts.
Oh, and as expected Hillary has officially cornered the market on ignorant white people who will likely vote Republican in November anyway. Congratulations, Sen. Clinton.
Labels: 2008, Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, politics
She's not only merely dead, she's really most sincerely dead
3 Comments Published by Augur on Wednesday, May 7 at 8:39 AM.
Labels: Hillary Clinton, politics
Tonight may be the final Democratic debate. Lets use this thread for any debate predictions, and for anyone who is interested, to live blog comments on the debate. A few previews: WaPo, Politico & ABC.
Labels: 2008, Augur, Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, live blog, politics, predictions
Today's new Washington Post - ABC News Poll is very bad news for the Clinton campaign.
Her unfavorable numbers have jumped from 40% in January to a record high 54%. How can any of her surrogates make an argument based on electability while holding a straight face.
This is simple math: 100-54 = 4 years of John McCain.
One of the most stark changes in Clinton's numbers is the dramatic fall in the honest/trustworthy metric. As reported by the WaPo:
Clinton is viewed as "honest and trustworthy" by just 39 percent of Americans, according to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll, compared with 52 percent in May 2006. Nearly six in 10 said in the new poll that she is not honest and trustworthy.
Bosnia + her recent negativity (perception she'll say anything to win) + increased awareness of Mark Penn's Duplicity + increased discussion of past dishonesty by both Clintons + unanswered questions in tax returns (it doesn't seem like public service = $100 million).
In other news, the Huffington Post may now be discussing the next phase in the elitism message, if it sticks. Apparently in 1995, while talking about working class whites, Hillary Clinton said "Screw 'em" in a meeting.
Her unfavorable numbers have jumped from 40% in January to a record high 54%. How can any of her surrogates make an argument based on electability while holding a straight face.
This is simple math: 100-54 = 4 years of John McCain.
One of the most stark changes in Clinton's numbers is the dramatic fall in the honest/trustworthy metric. As reported by the WaPo:
Clinton is viewed as "honest and trustworthy" by just 39 percent of Americans, according to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll, compared with 52 percent in May 2006. Nearly six in 10 said in the new poll that she is not honest and trustworthy.
Bosnia + her recent negativity (perception she'll say anything to win) + increased awareness of Mark Penn's Duplicity + increased discussion of past dishonesty by both Clintons + unanswered questions in tax returns (it doesn't seem like public service = $100 million).
In other news, the Huffington Post may now be discussing the next phase in the elitism message, if it sticks. Apparently in 1995, while talking about working class whites, Hillary Clinton said "Screw 'em" in a meeting.
Labels: 2008, Augur, Hillary Clinton, polling analysis
Getting in Touch With Clinton, Obama
0 Comments Published by danproft on Tuesday, April 15 at 12:42 PM.
The argument between a Yale law grad and a Harvard law grad as to who is most in touch with working class Americans is like listening to a debate about which is the tallest skyscraper in Wichita.
Welcome to the Kabuki Theater that is the Democrat Presidential primary.
Hillary Clinton downs a boilermaker at a local watering hole in Crown Point, Indiana, and we are supposed to understand that symbolic act to mean she is a regular Johnny Punchclock?
We know instead that Hillary would bite the head off of a live kitten and drink the blood from its still twitching carcass if that should earn her one additional vote.
Barack Obama offers condescending statements about small town Americans who "cling" to "guns or religion or antipathy to people that aren't like them" at a San Fran funder with his effete, liberal friends, but he just chose his words poorly.
In response to the firestorm, we get glibness from Obama to make it all better, "Now I am the first to admit that some of the words I chose I chose badly, because as my wife reminds me, I'm not perfect," so said Obama.
Actually, Obama was not the first to admit it and he only reluctantly conceded the point after being pressed on the issue. Further, Obama's imperfection is not being hotly contested. It is rather his perfectly clear mischaracterization of those who have not embraced his candidacy.
But is not the pandering or the indignation that most clearly exposes both Clinton and Obama as tasked, in their minds, with having to save all of us mouth-breathing troglodytes across the American countryside from ourselves.
It is that both believe that they are entitled to make choices for which others should not be similarly endowed.
Both Clinton and Obama can send their children to expensive, private schools but believe that low-incomes families in failing school districts should not have such a choice.
Both Clinton and Obama can make millions of dollars through politics but target producers in the private sector with class envy politics and redistributive policies.
So is it Clinton or Obama who is the elitist? Yes.
Welcome to the Kabuki Theater that is the Democrat Presidential primary.
Hillary Clinton downs a boilermaker at a local watering hole in Crown Point, Indiana, and we are supposed to understand that symbolic act to mean she is a regular Johnny Punchclock?
We know instead that Hillary would bite the head off of a live kitten and drink the blood from its still twitching carcass if that should earn her one additional vote.
Barack Obama offers condescending statements about small town Americans who "cling" to "guns or religion or antipathy to people that aren't like them" at a San Fran funder with his effete, liberal friends, but he just chose his words poorly.
In response to the firestorm, we get glibness from Obama to make it all better, "Now I am the first to admit that some of the words I chose I chose badly, because as my wife reminds me, I'm not perfect," so said Obama.
Actually, Obama was not the first to admit it and he only reluctantly conceded the point after being pressed on the issue. Further, Obama's imperfection is not being hotly contested. It is rather his perfectly clear mischaracterization of those who have not embraced his candidacy.
But is not the pandering or the indignation that most clearly exposes both Clinton and Obama as tasked, in their minds, with having to save all of us mouth-breathing troglodytes across the American countryside from ourselves.
It is that both believe that they are entitled to make choices for which others should not be similarly endowed.
Both Clinton and Obama can send their children to expensive, private schools but believe that low-incomes families in failing school districts should not have such a choice.
Both Clinton and Obama can make millions of dollars through politics but target producers in the private sector with class envy politics and redistributive policies.
So is it Clinton or Obama who is the elitist? Yes.
Labels: Barack Obama, Dan Proft, Hillary Clinton
Check out this blog entry at the Huffington Post. It is by Joshua Roman, a friend of Urbanagora.
With Hillary gaining in both nationwide and head to head polling, and with the campaigns becoming dirtier and dirtier, there is a good chance the Clinton campaign will again hint at the formation of a joint ticket. This post discusses: the implications of a dream ticket, how Obama's campaign should respond if a joint ticket is suggested again, why people assume Hillary would head the ticket, who needs who as a VP, and the impact Hillary Clinton would have down ticket if she were Obama's VP.
In other news:
(1) My least favorite Democratic Rep. John Murtha has hit the trail in PA for Clinton. Prediction: within the next two weeks he will say something so stupid it will dominate the news cycle.
(2) More proof that Obama is a rock star. People bother watching videos of him just relaxing and talking on the phone.
(3) Senator Bird is still going strong.
(4) New Obama Girl hotness.
(5) As expected, very few will actually spend their rebate checks, but this isn't about economic policy, it's all about politics.
(6) Dr. Kevorkian to run for Congress! This will reinvigorate the assisted suicide debate. I remember talking to Dr. David Gill when he was running against Tim Johnson about this issue. Doctor Gill rejected my suggestions that he lose this element of his platform. In part because unlike Tim Johnson (arguably the single biggest disgrace to the U.S. Congress), Doctor Gill has integrity. Gill was convinced most of America was ready to support this. I'm not sure we are there yet, at least not in the Midwest, but it will be interesting to see this infused into the national debate.
(7) Interesting things are happening with Puerto Rico. They are moving up their primary. It didn't make much news, though it should have, but recently Puerto Rico changed its primary system from a caucus to a primary, and from being winner take all, to a hybrid proportional system. This move was evidently done to favor Obama. Obama is doing surprisingly well in Puerto Rico, due in part to a campaign blunder by the Clinton campaign. As I heard it, the Clinton campaign cancelled a meeting with the Governor of Puerto Rico, and Obama's camp heard about it and swooped in the next day. This agility appears to be paying dividends. It is curious that no other states have tried to increase their clout exponentially by making their Dem primary winner take all. Probably for fear of push back from the DNC.
(8) Hillary Clinton totally lied about Bosnia.
(9) My favorite GOP operative Roger Stone pwn3d Spitzer. Check it out. For more on Stone, you should seriously check out this amazing write up. I love his comic approach, his showmanship, and his rules to live by. Also, anyone who gets a tattoo of Nixon's face on his back is someone you don't want to mess with.
(10) David Brooks on Clinton's odds.
With Hillary gaining in both nationwide and head to head polling, and with the campaigns becoming dirtier and dirtier, there is a good chance the Clinton campaign will again hint at the formation of a joint ticket. This post discusses: the implications of a dream ticket, how Obama's campaign should respond if a joint ticket is suggested again, why people assume Hillary would head the ticket, who needs who as a VP, and the impact Hillary Clinton would have down ticket if she were Obama's VP.
In other news:
(1) My least favorite Democratic Rep. John Murtha has hit the trail in PA for Clinton. Prediction: within the next two weeks he will say something so stupid it will dominate the news cycle.
(2) More proof that Obama is a rock star. People bother watching videos of him just relaxing and talking on the phone.
(3) Senator Bird is still going strong.
(4) New Obama Girl hotness.
(5) As expected, very few will actually spend their rebate checks, but this isn't about economic policy, it's all about politics.
(6) Dr. Kevorkian to run for Congress! This will reinvigorate the assisted suicide debate. I remember talking to Dr. David Gill when he was running against Tim Johnson about this issue. Doctor Gill rejected my suggestions that he lose this element of his platform. In part because unlike Tim Johnson (arguably the single biggest disgrace to the U.S. Congress), Doctor Gill has integrity. Gill was convinced most of America was ready to support this. I'm not sure we are there yet, at least not in the Midwest, but it will be interesting to see this infused into the national debate.
(7) Interesting things are happening with Puerto Rico. They are moving up their primary. It didn't make much news, though it should have, but recently Puerto Rico changed its primary system from a caucus to a primary, and from being winner take all, to a hybrid proportional system. This move was evidently done to favor Obama. Obama is doing surprisingly well in Puerto Rico, due in part to a campaign blunder by the Clinton campaign. As I heard it, the Clinton campaign cancelled a meeting with the Governor of Puerto Rico, and Obama's camp heard about it and swooped in the next day. This agility appears to be paying dividends. It is curious that no other states have tried to increase their clout exponentially by making their Dem primary winner take all. Probably for fear of push back from the DNC.
(8) Hillary Clinton totally lied about Bosnia.
(9) My favorite GOP operative Roger Stone pwn3d Spitzer. Check it out. For more on Stone, you should seriously check out this amazing write up. I love his comic approach, his showmanship, and his rules to live by. Also, anyone who gets a tattoo of Nixon's face on his back is someone you don't want to mess with.
(10) David Brooks on Clinton's odds.
Labels: 2008, Augur, Barack Obama, David Brooks, heroes, Hillary Clinton, Joshua Roman, politics, pretty girls, Roger Stone
The truth about Hillary Clinton's foreign policy "experience"
2 Comments Published by Augur on Tuesday, March 11 at 2:17 PM.
Finally the Obama campaign is starting to hit back at Hillary's preposterous overstatements about her foreign policy experience. The media has been guilty of giving her a free pass on this issue, hopefully the memo released today by Greg Craig (Former Director of the Policy Planning Office at the State Department) will inspire the media to take a closer look at her foreign policy claims.
I want to be clear that I am not arguing Obama has as much foreign policy experience as Hillary Clinton. But he isn't guilty of (1) being casual with the truth and (2) trying to overplay a card that would surely be trumped by McCain in the fall. Clinton is guilty on both counts.
The Craig memo begins: "When your entire campaign is based upon a claim of experience, it is important that you have evidence to support that claim. Hillary Clinton's argument that she has passed "the Commander- in-Chief test" is simply not supported by her record."
Here's the section most likely to be quoted at length:
"There is no reason to believe, however, that she was a key player in
foreign policy at any time during the Clinton Administration. She did not sit in
on National Security Council meetings. She did not have a security clearance.
She did not attend meetings in the Situation Room. She did not manage any part
of the national security bureaucracy, nor did she have her own national security
staff. She did not do any heavy-lifting with foreign governments, whether they
were friendly or not. She never managed a foreign policy crisis, and there is no
evidence to suggest that she participated in the decision-making that occurred
in connection with any such crisis. As far as the record shows, Senator Clinton
never answered the phone either to make a decision on any pressing national
security issue - not at 3 AM or at any other time of day."
Craig then refutes her exaggerated claims about Northern Ireland, Bosnia, Kosovo, Rwanda, and China.
The first 'graph of the conclusion nails it:
"The Clinton campaign's argument is nothing more than mere assertion, dramatized in a scary television commercial with a telephone ringing in the middle of the night. There is no support for or substance in the claim that Senator Clinton has passed "the Commander-in-Chief test." That claim - as the TV ad - consists of nothing more than making the assertion, repeating it frequently to the voters and hoping that they will believe it."
I want to be clear that I am not arguing Obama has as much foreign policy experience as Hillary Clinton. But he isn't guilty of (1) being casual with the truth and (2) trying to overplay a card that would surely be trumped by McCain in the fall. Clinton is guilty on both counts.
The Craig memo begins: "When your entire campaign is based upon a claim of experience, it is important that you have evidence to support that claim. Hillary Clinton's argument that she has passed "the Commander- in-Chief test" is simply not supported by her record."
Here's the section most likely to be quoted at length:
"There is no reason to believe, however, that she was a key player in
foreign policy at any time during the Clinton Administration. She did not sit in
on National Security Council meetings. She did not have a security clearance.
She did not attend meetings in the Situation Room. She did not manage any part
of the national security bureaucracy, nor did she have her own national security
staff. She did not do any heavy-lifting with foreign governments, whether they
were friendly or not. She never managed a foreign policy crisis, and there is no
evidence to suggest that she participated in the decision-making that occurred
in connection with any such crisis. As far as the record shows, Senator Clinton
never answered the phone either to make a decision on any pressing national
security issue - not at 3 AM or at any other time of day."
Craig then refutes her exaggerated claims about Northern Ireland, Bosnia, Kosovo, Rwanda, and China.
The first 'graph of the conclusion nails it:
"The Clinton campaign's argument is nothing more than mere assertion, dramatized in a scary television commercial with a telephone ringing in the middle of the night. There is no support for or substance in the claim that Senator Clinton has passed "the Commander-in-Chief test." That claim - as the TV ad - consists of nothing more than making the assertion, repeating it frequently to the voters and hoping that they will believe it."
Labels: 2008, Barack Obama, foreign policy, Hillary Clinton, politics, strategy and tactics
Chris at the Outside Report now has a prediction thread up. It goes all the way to the convention. It's worth a read, as Chris is consistently rock solid.
As for my thoughts -- I am worried about Obama. This is more based on a gut feel, than rational analysis, but Clinton seems to be gaining momentum in the last few days. I'm not sure if it's enough to temper the aggressive climb Obama has shown in the last few weeks, but this is a predictions thread, so stands must be taken, even if it leads to my falling flat on my face:
Clinton takes Rhode Island and Obama takes Vermont.
Clinton takes both Texas and Ohio popular vote. The early calling of one of the two states, coupled with a better caucus strategy/trickery by the Clinton campaign either brings her very close or wins the TX caucus. Despite losing the TX popular vote, Obama either ties or wins TX on pledged delegates.
My rationale: (1) Democrats are fickle. We quickly get buyers remorse, and while we've pretty much picked Obama, we've waited in line at the cashier of democratic primary politics, and we're just about to check out. We fear the buyers remorse that may be coming. (2) Hillary's been winning the pop culture war with SNL, crazy as it sounds, I think her Daily Show visit tonight could be big. (3) Despite Obama's solid performance in the last debate, people started asking about the media handing this thing to her, crazy as it sounds SNL validated the Clinton campaign's complaint, and people trust fake news as much or more than real news. (4) The Obama NAFTA blunder will be on every paper in Ohio tomorrow, probably Texas too, but that's a big part of my rationale for Ohio.
If I'm wrong, here's my best guess at why: (1) Incredibly high OH turnout, and the bad turnout modeling in Ohio polls. (2) Some reports suggest Obama may be up in TX early voting, which shouldn't be the case given recent trend lines. (3) Not enough time for the NAFTA story to really sink in around Ohio, particularly among blue collar dems who really care about NAFTA, but might not always reliably read the news. (4) Polling models on Latinos in TX, way off. (5) My gut about her momentum is a few days ahead of reality, because of inside-the-beltway-think.
Assuming I'm wrong, if Hillary wins either OH or TX, she will stay in the race through at least Pennsylvania. The next two contexts should favor Obama, but after that, as Chris mentions, could be rough waters. And what will it say about Obama that he couldn't land his knock out punch after his massive spending spree leading up to March 4th.
As for my thoughts -- I am worried about Obama. This is more based on a gut feel, than rational analysis, but Clinton seems to be gaining momentum in the last few days. I'm not sure if it's enough to temper the aggressive climb Obama has shown in the last few weeks, but this is a predictions thread, so stands must be taken, even if it leads to my falling flat on my face:
Clinton takes Rhode Island and Obama takes Vermont.
Clinton takes both Texas and Ohio popular vote. The early calling of one of the two states, coupled with a better caucus strategy/trickery by the Clinton campaign either brings her very close or wins the TX caucus. Despite losing the TX popular vote, Obama either ties or wins TX on pledged delegates.
My rationale: (1) Democrats are fickle. We quickly get buyers remorse, and while we've pretty much picked Obama, we've waited in line at the cashier of democratic primary politics, and we're just about to check out. We fear the buyers remorse that may be coming. (2) Hillary's been winning the pop culture war with SNL, crazy as it sounds, I think her Daily Show visit tonight could be big. (3) Despite Obama's solid performance in the last debate, people started asking about the media handing this thing to her, crazy as it sounds SNL validated the Clinton campaign's complaint, and people trust fake news as much or more than real news. (4) The Obama NAFTA blunder will be on every paper in Ohio tomorrow, probably Texas too, but that's a big part of my rationale for Ohio.
If I'm wrong, here's my best guess at why: (1) Incredibly high OH turnout, and the bad turnout modeling in Ohio polls. (2) Some reports suggest Obama may be up in TX early voting, which shouldn't be the case given recent trend lines. (3) Not enough time for the NAFTA story to really sink in around Ohio, particularly among blue collar dems who really care about NAFTA, but might not always reliably read the news. (4) Polling models on Latinos in TX, way off. (5) My gut about her momentum is a few days ahead of reality, because of inside-the-beltway-think.
Assuming I'm wrong, if Hillary wins either OH or TX, she will stay in the race through at least Pennsylvania. The next two contexts should favor Obama, but after that, as Chris mentions, could be rough waters. And what will it say about Obama that he couldn't land his knock out punch after his massive spending spree leading up to March 4th.
Labels: 2008, Augur, Barck Obama, Hillary Clinton, politics, predictions
Bold Ad by Clinton in TX: This one's for Ann
1 Comments Published by Augur on Sunday, March 2 at 1:47 PM.
While browsing Hillary Clinton's campaign website, I saw this remarkable ad suggesting that deceased, former Texas Governor Ann Richards would support Hillary Clinton. The theme is "this one's for Ann."
It will be interesting to see how this plays. The ad itself is very effective, but it definitely has the potential to backfire. Richards' sons have already objected to the video. And in a higher way, it seems low to exploit the memory of a revered Texas political hero, and imply that Texas voters have a debt to Richards they can only pay by voting for Hillary Clinton. In this sense, the ad is exploitative and indecent.
It is a little tough to attack, because the Clinton camp will respond by saying, essentially that the ad was intended to honor Governor Richards memory, and that she was important to both Hillary and to history, and that Obama's campaign should be ashamed of itself for daring attack the dreams of little girls everywhere.
Update: Obama to run ads in Ohio featuring endorsements from former Presidents Harrison, Grant, Hayes, Garfield, Harrison, McKinley, Taft, & Harding.
It will be interesting to see how this plays. The ad itself is very effective, but it definitely has the potential to backfire. Richards' sons have already objected to the video. And in a higher way, it seems low to exploit the memory of a revered Texas political hero, and imply that Texas voters have a debt to Richards they can only pay by voting for Hillary Clinton. In this sense, the ad is exploitative and indecent.
It is a little tough to attack, because the Clinton camp will respond by saying, essentially that the ad was intended to honor Governor Richards memory, and that she was important to both Hillary and to history, and that Obama's campaign should be ashamed of itself for daring attack the dreams of little girls everywhere.
Update: Obama to run ads in Ohio featuring endorsements from former Presidents Harrison, Grant, Hayes, Garfield, Harrison, McKinley, Taft, & Harding.
Labels: 2008, Augur, Hillary Clinton, politics
