Obama '08?

But today is a pretty big day, so let's take a moment to see what we might learn.

1) On John Edwards: The Edwards campaign was a surreal experience that should inspire a doctoral dissertation or two. He was both the most progressive candidate on issues and the most electable on paper, and yet he did not get the support of most progressives or most professionals. This despite the fact that he actually ran a terrific campaign and, more than Obama and Hillary, defined it in a positive direction. That he forced the other candidates to respond did not end up mattering as much as the media's fascination with all things Clintonian, Obamian, and the egregiously awful coverage of Edwards. The Washington Post deserves special mention for its idiotic 1,300-word piece on his haircut and an even longer one on his house. Richard Cohen and Michael Dobbs both called him a liar and presented no evidence. The editorial board attacked him constantly. The New York Times also went in for the "How can you care about poor people when you're so rich?" line of questioning, which implies that poor people are unentitled to representation in the American political system, since it allows for only wealthy people to run. And Maureen Dowd was her usual awful, substanceless self, helping to set the tone for the rest, to the shame of all of us.

2) Rudy G. is gone. This proves the old adage that it is actually possible to underestimate the wisdom of the American people, even Republican primary voters. We New Yorkers kept telling you people that this entire idea is insane, but the media kept taking it seriously. We knew that to know Rudy is to hate Rudy and to be fearful of him getting anywhere near nuclear codes. Now everybody knows. I'll admit, it was a little scary.

3) McCain as the nominee is scary, too, because the media remain more in love with him than ever. Remember that picture of him hugging Bush? Put McCain in Bush's place and the punditocracy in McCain's place, and that's what we can prepare ourselves for. What's more, because the media love McCain and treat elections entirely as high school popularity contests, Republicans will not be held responsible for the last horrific eight years. Hillary Clinton is no match for McCain in this respect; they hate her, they love him. Obama is a match, but his anti-war position will be held against him, since most of the media were just as wrong as McCain about Iraq and feel themselves indicted by those of us, like Obama, who were right, and their natural defensiveness manifests itself in the form of petty vengeance. So-called liberal hawks, which is most liberals with a mainstream platform, will do McCain's bidding for the price of only being called by their first names on the bus. It's going to really suck.

4) Should Democrats run against McCain as too old to be president? I think so. It's dangerous, but so what? He may not be too old today, but what about four years from now? Ronald Reagan was already losing his mind by the time he left office. And he was younger than McCain will be. This is a high-risk strategy vis-à-vis the older part of the electorate, but I'd risk it. It will actually affect lots of people's votes.

5) So who does Edwards' departure help, Clinton or Obama? Depends on whether you think the fulcrum of the race is race or Clintonism and all it represents. The "I will only vote for a white person" vote is no longer split, but neither is the "I will never vote for that woman" vote. (Interestingly, there is not much of an "I will only vote for a man" dynamic on the Democratic side, as there certainly would be on the Republican side and will be in the general election.)

6) In any case, the Republicans have picked their only "safe" general election candidate, and the Democrats have rejected theirs. The assumption of many is that it's a Democratic year, so the party can afford to take risks. Let's see ...

I think this says more about media darlings, and really, unprofessional bias on the part of the media. We rely on the media to present to us the alternatives. When they choose not to, it helps no one, not just poor Mr. Edwards.

Bi-Polar Bear wrote:

I have modified my position and will vote for Hillary either as the candidate who emerges from the primaries or as a write in. I cannot vote for Obama and certainly not any of these weak sister republicans.

I confess, BP, that I simply cannot begin to comprehend your notions regarding Obama nor your how you plan to vote if Hillary does not win the nomination.

I asked this question a while back about who Edwards was helping....I'm inclined to believe that he was taking votes from Obama, thereby helping Clinton.

This throws Super Tuesday into a flux.

If the median Edwards supporter is mostly motivated by his program, most of his supporters should turn into Clinton supporters, because her program is more similar to his than Obama's. If, on the other hand, the median Edwards supporter is mostly motivated by Edwards's charisma, I would expect most Edwards supporters to switch to Obama.

maporsche wrote:

I asked this question a while back about who Edwards was helping....I'm inclined to believe that he was taking votes from Obama, thereby helping Clinton.

Not really - read this article, for example.

maporsche wrote:

This throws Super Tuesday into a flux.

That's for sure...

Thomas wrote:

If the median Edwards supporter is mostly motivated by his program, most of his supporters should turn into Clinton supporters, because her program is more similar to his than Obama's. If, on the other hand, the median Edwards supporter is mostly motivated by Edwards's charisma, I would expect most Edwards supporters to switch to Obama.

I think both explanations might be a little too optimistic about what determines people's voting.

Edwards, obviously, ran as the most progressive, even populist candidate - the only real leftist among liberals, so to say. So you'd expect his voters in the early primary states to have been on the most liberal end of the state, wouldnt you?

But that's not how it was. Edwards has performed especially well, or even best, among those describing themselves as conservative or moderate, among those who described things like immigration or terrorism as their priority, and in demographic terms, among older white males in smaller towns. (Lots of info on that in my Polls etc thread).

So perhaps there is a third motivation underlying Edwards' support so far: not ideology, not charisma, but identity. "Someone like them".

On that count, him dropping out should primarily benefit Hillary. The white, working class, less educated/lower income, relatively conservative voters who made up the core of his vote have, according to exit polls so far, been more resistant to Obama than to Hillary.

That makes this a bad news day for two reasons. For one, above all, the one candidate who spoke my heart is out. I just listened to his speech, and read it over, and that is the speech that needs to be heard in America today. It is the speech nobody else was making. I will miss him.

But secondly, I'm afraid that him dropping out will on top of that benefit Hillary over Obama, so that makes for double bad news.

Bi-polar BeaR, -- I don't agree with all of your premises or your conclusion, but recognize that you have given us an entirely rational, self-consistent and reasonable argument for your position. More than that you have captured the real issues concerning an untested and untried candidate, and correctly seen the connection on that point with GW Bush.

when he takes office and finds out his idealism is not going to work in a pragmatic real life governing situation (which may not be right but IS)

He is the left wing bush IMO. when he takes office and finds out his idealism is not going to work in a pragmatic real life governing situation (which may not be right but IS) he will not compromise or do what he needs to do to make progress even if it is not exactly what he had in mind. He is a for me or against me kind of guy. This is what I think. I don't trust it or him. It has nothing to do with his race or my intelligence.

Obama picks up endorsement from the NY Post.

Cycloptichorn

nah.... I snorted it.

I think that you are missing an important point, Nimh: that Edwards and Obama were splitting the anti-Hillary Dem vote.

• A quarter of voters would feel "dissatisfied" if Hillary Clinton were to win the nomination: but more of Edwards' supporters would than of Obama's.
  
  The question was: "No matter how you voted today, how would you feel if Hillary Clinton wins the nomination?" Despite the recent acerbity of the campaign, over three quarters of respondents said it would be satisfied or "somewhat satisfied". Almost one quarter, however, would not be.
  
  It takes some recalculating of the numbers to find out, but the share of primary voters who would be at least somewhat dissatisfied rises to 29% of Obama voters - and 38% of Edwards supporters. So despite the immediate rancour of the campaign having focused on the rivalry between Barack and Hillary, it's the Edwards voters who would be unhappiest with a Hillary nomination. Explanation? Despite the recent infighting, Hillary is still very popular among blacks - and thus among most Obama voters in the state.
  
  
• One in six voters would feel "dissatisfied" if Barack Obama were to win the nomination: resistance again centred among Edwards supporters (read: whites).
  
  Overall, 9% of the interviewed primary voters here said they'd be somewhat dissatisfied if Obama were to be the Democratic nominee; another 7% said they'd be "very dissatisfied". Not much fewer than if Hillary won - I guess it's safe to say that Democratic primary voters in South Carolina have little in common with A2K posters.
  
  Recalculation shows that 32% of Hillary voters and a disturbing 40% of Edwards supporters would be dissatisfied if Obama were to be the nominee. So although Edwards voters dont like Hillary, they like Obama even less.
  
  Not to hammer home my theory about the problems Obama will face among white males in a state like this.. but it's those who made up Edwards' base constituency here.

I don't usually look to Oklahoma as a bellwether of much of anything. I know people say this to you a lot, but you have to have been there to understand.

I wonder; is there a reluctance to be anti-Hillary when asked in person? Nobody wants to seem petty and mean.

That, plus Obama's star is rising lately. It tends to attract more people to the cause. If Hillary's numbers had been rising like Obama's had I would expect more people to go to her based on that. Bandwagons and all.

A short comment from an Obama supporter who actually lives in Oklahoma...

Among the urban Democrats I know, Edwards was definitely the anti-Hillary choice.

Many here do not see Obama as being electable, given the fact that many small towns in this state (as well as other Southern states) are still, regrettably, racist. They just don't think a black candidate can win against a white, establishment Republican.