« Bush On Obama | Main | Patti Solis Doyle's Letter » Maine Caucuses10 Feb 2008 01:43 pm Don't automatically assume that Barack Obama will win these caucuses, despite his edge in smaller contests. Maine has been bombarded with news about Clinton's victory in New Hampshire, and the "Baldacci Machine" -- Gov. John Baldacci -- is in her corner. Comments (53)
I'm not sure I've heard anyone saying that Obama is going to win Maine. The talk is all about older female voters coming out in force and giving the nod to Hillary 
Please, Marc, find us a credible example of someone assuming Obama would win Maine.
This blog is going downhill fast. This strawman argument (nobody who seriously follows this stuff is really confident of an Obama victory in Maine) follows yesterday's post about how Obama can't win big, blue states without a lot of African-Americans, that aren't IL (basically a sample size of two - CA and MA). I don't want to cry bias here because I don't know Marc or have a sense of his political alligiences, but whatever the cause, this is not good commentary.
You're somewhat mischaracterizing the situation in Maine. First, we have not been "bombarded" with news about Hillary Clinton's victory in New Hampshire any more than we have been "bombarded" with news about Barack Obama's wins in other states. There's been a lot of national news about both candidates, but there has not been a media narrative in Maine that is significantly tilted toward Hillary Clinton. The more accurate relationship to New Hampshire voters is that Maine voters likely have similar concerns as New Hampshire voters, and a similar affinity for candidates that they/we perceive as being "tried and true." Second, the endorsement of Governor Baldacci will not make a huge deal of difference, as Sue in another thread wrote, he is not particularly popular right now after failing to deal with state issues like tax reform. It's not that he's necessarily done a poor job as Governor, but that he doesn't have a lot of political clout with people other than committed Democrats. However, that said you are right to identify the state Democratic Party (not a "Baldacci Machine") as very well organized and if state party leaders have backed Hillary Clinton in large numbers that could make a big difference. That said, I'm not sure that's the case, I simply don't know either way. I haven't personally seen/heard the state party leaders really come out for either candidate, only the Baldacci endorsement which as I've said won't itself carry much weight. As an Independent Barack Obama supporter, I'm actually expecting Hillary Clinton to do very well in rural Maine based on a constituency of long-time Democratic voters who remember her being metaphorically spat-on in the 90's for no convincing reason and admire her persistence and resilience.
And Benjamin in one of the earlier comments tagged a point that I forgot, despite our similarities Maine voters really do have an independent streak. Especially when it come to New Hampshire .
It really seems like if HRC can't win Maine, that has to be seriously bad news for her. The demographics tilt her way, and New England is supposed to be the region where she's strongest. What might actually be helpful in terms of commentary, Marc, is some information about how well she's done in terms of organizing. Her caucus prep in other states has apparently been abysmal; has she done better here? Good reporting would be able to answer that question....
Obama's projections had him losing Maine, so the idea that anyone is automatically assuming he'll win is just ridiculous. Then again, I'm not sure we should expect any different from someone who is a member of the Harvard for Hillary group.
Any word on organizing in the Hillary camp? I know Obama's had a caucus organization set up for weeks. It's the sort that pulled out huge victories in CO, MN, ID, WA and NE. Does Hillary have anything to counter? Demographics be damned: if you don't organize, you lose. The only place it helped her was in Nevada with the Reid machine and the heavy Latino and elderly vote in Las Vegas (she lost the rest of the state and lost the delegate count).
Don't automatically assume Marc Ambinder knows what he's talking about.
i actually assume she will win, convincingly, largely on the strength of the woman vote--remember it is the only state with two republican women senators. in fact i am surprised that anyone is saying he will win maine. virginia is the real big test for these campaigns. hillary could turn the corner in virginia if she pulls it off.
As others have noted, I don't know a lot of informed people who are assuming Obama will "win" Maine. I think the consensus view is actually that Clinton has a natural advantage demographically, but it is possible that Obama will pull off an upset. But at this point, I really don't think it matters who "wins" any particular contest. It is all about pledged delegates now, and I would imagine the Obama camp is primarily just trying to keep it close enough to keep the split relatively even.
I grew up in Washington County, Maine and my family still lives there. The word I'm hearing is that Obama is quite popular--as is Hillary. Whoever wins, it won't be a lopsided blow out. My uncle gives the tip to Obama though. BTW, Obama just took the Fairfield Maine Caucus (barely): http://news.mainetoday.com/updates/022069.html
Um..I thought everyone assumed Hillary was going to win Maine actually. Obama has Noam's column up about how he's the underdog in Maine.
Just a thought: perhaps there is a bit of an over-emphasis on these older women voters who will supposedly come out in droves for Hillary. Her strategy in Iowa hinged these voters, who she courted assiduously with a very strong organization, and she still lost. Obama does well in caucus states b/c of strong organziation and he brings out new voters into the process. He may well lose, but he could pull it off. It would be a nice victory b/c the media has presented it as sort of a toss up.
Marc Ambinder - laziest writer in journalism. This kind of stuff is sloppy. Can you find me anyone who "assumes" Obama will win Maine? He may win Maine - given her awful performance in Washington, I wouldn't be at all surprised if she dropped the ball in Maine, as well - but she's got a lot of natural advantages, and there's nobody I'm aware of who thinks this is an obvious Obama victory.
I assumed that H would take the state until I went to my caucus in a very red town. 110 people showed up; 8 absentee ballots. Last election 6 people caucused. The election before that 22. We split 58 52; H to O; 4 delegates for H, 4 for O and 1 for the 3 undecided votes in town. Almost everyone in the room had never been in a caucus before. Everyone said they'd vote for whomever won the nomination. People were enthusiastic and eager to go to the state convention as delegates and alternates. The floor speeches were all about who could beat McCain and who would manage the federal government better. People like O on the war but weren't willing to hang H over it. Everyone was thrilled at younger people turning out, folks crossing party lines, and the turnout in general. No one spoke a word about race or gender. It was like being in a Norman Rockwell version of a Democratic Caucus. Anyway, if my red town in the middle of the state is any indication; Maine may be very close and the Ds are in great shape for November.
Even the Obama
Even the Obama campaign assumed they'd lose Maine in their delegate spreadsheet. I think Hillary will narrowly take it.
Just curious...are the Obama supporters who are totally sure he'll win Maine the same ones who refuse to believe Clinton raised $10 million? Because I can't find any Obama supporters who fit either of those descriptions. The straw man arguing around here of late has become rather stark.
"Maine has been bombarded with news about Clinton's victory in New Hampshire" ... so? That was ages ago, politically speaking, and they haven't been "bombarded" any more than the rest of us have with candidate debates and fund-raising and wins and losses over the past month. I have to agree with the other comments, I'm seeing a downward trend here with regard to the quality of the commentary. This used to be one of my favorite blogs, but from the observation of Mitt's "graceful" exit to these asinine observations, I'd have to say I'll take Yglesias, Drum or even Kos any day. Come on Marc.
Obama has demonstrated a consistent ability to get his shock troops to flood caucuses, where downscale voters are often far and few between. Many working people work Sundays -- but not many affluent liberals and college students do. If Obama doesn't win Maine, it's a huge disappointment for him.
I'm not trying to be snarky, but I'm not going to insult the Maine voters either..um, wouldn't they already know about New Hampshire? Unless they're just waking up after a coma, they would know Clinton won NH. This entire ' reminding them of New Hampshire' mess doesn't make sense/
Results are trickling in. Take them for the anecdotal evidence that they are ...
huh. Clinton replaced Solis Doyle. http://thepage.time.com/2008/02/10/maggie-williams-to-become-clintons-campaign-manager/
huh. Clinton replaced Solis Doyle. http://thepage.time.com/2008/02/10/maggie-williams-to-become-clintons-campaign-manager/
Marc, Don't you DARE tell me not to automatically assume Obama will win these caucuses. Obama supporters have been automatically assuming this since Obama's speech at the 2004 Democratic convention. You see, if you take the first letter of every word from that speech, it spells out: I. C.O.M.M.A.N.D. A.L.L. M.Y. S.U.P.P.O.R.T.E.R.S. T.O. A.U.T.O.M.A.T.I.C.A.L.L.Y. A.S.S.U.M.E. I. W.I.L.L. W.I.N. T.H.E. M.A.I.N.E. C.A.U.C.U.S.E.S. As you know, us Obama supporters are mindless automatons, who respond only to secret messages encoded in his speeches. I will tell you a secret: His Jefferson-Jackson speech contained another directive. The first letter of each word spells out: I. C.O.M.M.A.N.D. A.L.L. M.Y. S.U.P.P.O.R.T.E.R.S. T.O. A.U.T.O.M.A.T.I.C.A.L.L.Y. A.S.S.U.M.E. I. W.I.L.L. W.I.N. E.L.E.V.E.N. G.R.A.M.M.Y.S.
Obama took my town (West Bath) 63 to 24 with about 10 uncommitted. Final result was 69 to 24 for Obama. Lots of women and all ages represented!
Again, speaking as someone actually in Maine, I think some of the other comments point out a really important dynamic, the extremely friendly nature of the competition between the two here. I'm basing this mainly on talking with my parents who are caucusing in central Maine, but there really is a "we've got two great candidates" vibe, with a lot of enthusiasm about Democratic politics in general. Also, to the person above who is trying to paint a "low-income people have to work, so only affluent liberals and college students go to caucuses" scenario, that's lazy stereotyping. Neither you nor I have any idea who is attending the caucuses, especially since from everything I'm hearing the turnout is HUGE. Maine just doesn't have that many "affluent liberals and college students" so I would conjecture that the large turnout reflects broad participation.
I just returned from our Maine Caucus in heavily-republican Standish, ME a town of 9000. The caucus room was filled to capacity. Final tally Obama 75 votes: 9 delegates
I got me a nice shiny RSS reader a couple weeks ago, and Marc was one of the first blogs I added. However, over the last few days, I can't for the life of me figure out why. Marc, seriously -- who's assuming this? Links, plz.
Wow, just checked out the Turn Maine Blue link that someone posted above (www.turnmaineblue.com) and Obama is doing MUCH better in rural Maine than I had expected. I can't tell you how interesting this is, reading the results and matching that to the "character" of each reporting town (I'm a native Mainer). Regardless of who wins this thing, it was much more of a contest than I had realized, and the Obama campaign has done an incredible job appealing to people and mobilizing support in some very out of the way places.
i like you marc. --obama supporter
You know, Jeff, I was reflecting on that very same thing myself a few hours earlier. Marc's blog was one of the best for most of the primary. It was right up there in my bookmark list and I always liked to read it. He seemed fair, interesting and provided all the information and analysis I needed. I hope Marc is OK coz his blog is suddenly not anymore.
I think it's obvious what's going on in this blog. Whatever campaign gives the best scoops, that campaign gets better coverage and its spin promoted. A month ago it was Romney. Now it's Clinton.
We want thoughtful analysis, incisive observations, and personal anecdotes for the comments. No fair! Why do we get held to a higher standard than the blog author? And Benjamin, glad to know I'm not the only one. The change in character has been truly weird.
I have been watching alot of election coverage, and I have found the network analysis very shallow. I think Jeffrey Toobin and David Gergen has provided interesting commentary. I think continually framing the Democratic primaries in terms of race/gender/ethnicity is getting very over played. I think that are more interesting dynamics at work that are not getting the deserved play. Like when does Obama cross the experience threshold? (discussed below on this link)
Same thought here - read Marc constantly for the past few months. And I was rather durorised at the latest posts. I would guess that he really is behind Clinton, and the now real prospect that she might loose is really grating on his nerves.
But in the past couple weeks - worsening in the past few days - the low quality of the entries, the sloppy quality of the reporting, the weird comments he makes out of nowhere that are not even biased, just bordering on non-sensical, make me think there has to be something going on here. Agreed. Marc, I'm really getting tired of the insufficiently pro Obama quality of your reportage. I'm getting ready to cancel my subscription to the internets. Fired Up!
So much for the CW. Ambinder and Todd purvey the conventional wisdom. As is sometimes the case, they are wrong. Obama wins Maine rather easily. Bad sign for the Clinton campaign one would think. I'd be curious to hear the Clinton spin on this one and how Mr. Ambinder spins that spin.
You have to question if Marc Ambinder has even been reading the other political blogs, much less doing any original reporting. It looks like Obama is dominating in Maine, thus making M.A. seem clueless again.
when is the mainstream media ever going to get that the Republicans are gaming the Democrats and Obama is their TOOL - the cheating within the unregulated and disgracefully un-democratic caucuses where people DO NOT CHECK ID's and Republicans are crossing over to rig this system is the REAL STORY. For example, counties in Washington that went 70% for Bush have now gone 100% for Obama...this is fishy, fishy, fishy - as if Republicans suddenly want Drivers Licenses for Immigrants and Universal Healthcare??? C'mon Marc - do this expose - this is ridiculous and everything points to caucuses.
I'd be curious to hear the Clinton spin on this one and how Mr. Ambinder spins that spin. There's no spin necessary. The obvious explanation is that, again, Obama's enthusiastic shock troops overwhelm the opposition in caucuses. When he's up against Hillary in primaries -- where working class folks are on an even footing with their more affluent neighbors -- it's a much tougher fight, as the results demonstrate (Hillary has won more delegates from primaries than Obama has; it is his utter dominance of the less inclusionary caucuses that has given him the pledged delegate lead). Rules are rules, of course, and Obama is entitled to every delegate he can muster in either format. A delegate earned in a caucus is just as valid as one earned in a primary. But I hope we don't hear complaints about lack of "democracy" from the Obamabots when the superdelegates help Clinton seal the nomination. Given the modest size of Obama's lead in pledged delegates, it is almost certainly the case that Clinton would be leading if all those caucuses were primaries. (Think Obama would have taken 65% of Washington or Colorado's vote in a primary? Impossible).
I got no problem with Marc. I think he's been mistaken on a couple things lately and reality will update him pretty quickly, but the charm of blogs is that folks are unfiltered. And you've always got Andrew if you want a quick hit of Oboptimism. In the meantime Al Giordano is back... http://ruralvotes.com/thefield/
We of course have no idea what would have happened if all the caucuses had been primaries instead. The basic problem with any such counterfactual hypothetical is that the campaigns would have taken that difference into account when formulating their strategies, and we don't know what would have happened across the entire distribution of contests as a result.
CNN says 57-44 Obama with 59% reporting
Sure shows Ambinder knew nothing about Maine politics. The Baldacci machine? Never existed and sure wouldn't now, with so many folks mad at him about school consolidation.
I would turn all the caucuses into primaries if you would take away all the super-delegates. But I bet the HRC campaign wouldn't do it.
. . . and NBC calls Maine for Obama. Ha ha ha.
Colin...that's the best news I've heard all day! (And it's been a great day for good news!) I'm outta here...
That's got to hurt. Time to fire the whole campaign staff. I just go back to that image of Hillary Clinton landing in Iowa, in the helicopter, in that oversized green scarf. What was she thinking? Good for the State of Maine; they'll never regret showing Hillary the door. Okay, I love seeing Hillary lose. Lets turn the page for good: http://theseedsof9-11.com
"For example, counties in Washington that went 70% for Bush have now gone 100% for Obama..." perhaps you should put your half-baked "expose" back in the oven. please explain to me how bush could have won 70% of a DEMOCRATIC CAUCUS? Republicans ARE NOT on democratic primary ballots. That figure had to either come from the 2004 Republican Primary or the 2004 General Election, not the Democratic primary, which we are in now. If a county has "gone 100% for obama, thats in the Demo caucus. It could still be 100% of the same 30% that voted against bush in 2004. You know, Hillary does exceptionally well with those who didnt do too well in school... guess that includes math class.
|
Subscribe to this blog by Email Twitter || On Facebook || QIK Live Channel  Recent Posts
Monthly Archives
|
Copyright © 2009 by The Atlantic Monthly Group. All rights reserved.
| 
I actually don't think any of us politically attuned Obama voters assumed he would win Maine.
Only the media seemed to think so in the past week and even them have run lots of pieces toning that down in the past couple days.
Not only for short-term reasons as the one you mentioned but also because of the underlying demographics of the state. Remember that the last poll showed leading by thirty points (that was October).
That said, Maine voters HATE being compared to NH voters. So be careful there. And Gov. Baldacci is actually quite unpopular. The demographics though are still in her corner and the Obama campaign is on record they predict a narrow loss.
But thanks for reducing all Obama supporters to a delusional straw man.
Posted by Benjamin | February 10, 2008 1:53 PM