Obama, Clinton, McCain, And The General

Some points to start the day:

** The gap between Democratic and Republican party identification is larger than at any point since the Reagan administration, and, at that time, the gap favored the Republicans.

** Obama's advantages at the national level may be transient or illusory in the general election and magnified by Democratic advantages in larger states. Obama is losing white, working class voters to John McCain in critical states, and his advantage in the newer purple edge states like Virginia and Colorado are fairly transferable to other Democrats.

** The better Hillary Clinton does, the better she'll do in polls versus John McCain in the general election. It's true that she has a ceiling of about 52%, but her floor is much more solid than Obama's based on her demographic coalition, which is more traditionally Democratic than his. Note the new Washington Post / ABC News poll and the new Survey USA poll.

Comments

Marc,

Could you provide a link to evidence that supports your second point about Obama's "transient or illusory" advantages?

Thanks.

Posted by Vermonter | March 6, 2008 8:46 AM

Oh, C'mon Mark...do you really think that Obama's crossover republicans and independents are going to go over to Hillary as much as HIllary's core dems will go to Obama in a general.

I suppose you also think Hillary's Rush Limbaugh vote is going to stick with her in the general as well.

Posted by RKA | March 6, 2008 8:48 AM

Where are the Clintons tax returns?
2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005 and 2006 are all in their filing cabinet.

WHAT ARE THE CLINTONS HIDING?

Posted by jay | March 6, 2008 8:51 AM

Where are the Clintons tax returns?
2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005 and 2006 are all in their filing cabinet.

WHAT ARE THE CLINTONS HIDING?

Posted by jay | March 6, 2008 8:51 AM

are you trying to disenfranchise more than half of the democratic party with such bias comments?

maybe take a look at the slant of your posts for your readers who want information and not spin

we can go to HillaryClinton.com if we want what you are serving up these days

Posted by barbara levin | March 6, 2008 8:52 AM

Ambinder, these aren't points, just some loosely thrown together claims, based on Clinton talkingpoints. Please, try and find some hard evidence, not just Clinton spin. While you're trying the research experience, try documenting what happens when Clinton loses say 20% of the African American vote in the general. Not so nice, eh? The Democratic coalition has been African-American and woman based for a long time -and Obama has one of those constituencies nailed down. Hillary lost them in SC, thanks to Bill and the surrogates being racist. That's what destroys her for the general, and well it should.

Posted by shuang | March 6, 2008 8:57 AM

If Obama's strength in states like Colorado and Virginia is so transferable, why does he poll so much better?

From 2/13:

The latest Rasmussen Reports telephone survey shows that Barack Obama (D) currently holds a seven-point advantage over John McCain (R), 46% to 39%. However, if the Democrats nominate Hillary Clinton, McCain will begin the race with a fourteen point advantage, 49% to 35%.

Yea, that looks real transferable.

Posted by pls | March 6, 2008 9:02 AM

Sorry, the above post is a Colorado poll.

Posted by pls | March 6, 2008 9:04 AM

The better either Democrat does against the other, the better they do in general election match-ups.

There is no reason to assume hillary's negatives won't go higher. When Republicans start running ads about her career as a Defense attorney, do you really think she's going to keep her gigantic lead among women? Do you really think Independants will vote for a woman who slandered a 12 year old rape victim to get her perverted client off?

Good luck with that. Hillary isn't anywhere near the ceiling for her negatives.

Posted by soullite | March 6, 2008 9:06 AM

This is me coughing bullshit Marc.

You haven't written anything thing that rates a more evolved response.

Posted by Dirk | March 6, 2008 9:06 AM

I'm getting sick to death of this misnomer that Hillary can win CA, NY, NJ etc., and Obama can't. I don't know of anyone with any semblance of political awareness who could actually, with a straight face, claim Obama would lose New York or California in a general. And yet, the media lets the Clinton's spin away on this utterly ridiculous talking point.

Obama's camp should start claiming Hillary would never take the black vote in the general, because after all, she's proven unable to capture them in the primary.

Posted by CH | March 6, 2008 9:09 AM

This has to be your most pathetic post ever. There is no evidence that Obama's appeal to independents will be "transferred" to Clinton (especially if she's running against McCain). Yes, Obama loses some of the Democratic racist vote. The current polling, however, already takes that into account, and Obama does better than Clinton against McCain.

For all her & your arguments about the ability to win democrats in "big states," what's relevant is how they do in the key states against McCain amongst democrats, republicans & independents. The only analysis of this that I've seen shows that, at least as of today, Obama has a strong lead on McCain in electoral college votes (252 to 216), and that McCain TROUNCES Clinton (282 to 172).

http://www.nypost.com/seven/03052008/news/nationalnews/o_sacks_mac_but_mac_whacks_hillary_100530.htm

Posted by LLC | March 6, 2008 9:11 AM

What's the situation with the Texas caucus results?

Posted by tg | March 6, 2008 9:14 AM

If Hillary tries to steal this nomination, I can guarantee you that real Democrats will organize against her, either not to vote or vote McCain. It's time we cleaned out the filth of the Clintons and made our party Democratic again. Say no to racism, voter fraud, financial corruption and the Clinton rape club!

Posted by demsagainsthillary | March 6, 2008 9:16 AM

his advantage in the newer purple edge states like Virginia and Colorado are fairly transferable to other Democrats.

This might be the stupidest thing Marc has ever written. Of course, it's probably a stretch to say he "wrote" it. Looks more like a cut-n-paste from a Clinton staff email.

Posted by J.B. | March 6, 2008 9:18 AM

I agree with Dirk, this seems like, well, bs. On point 2, I would think that Obama's taking the fight to more states would spread mccain pretty thin in the general. or at least thinner than hillary. not that her campaign strategy thus far transfers directly to the general, but she seems to be sticking with the usual dem strategy of essentially writing off many states. On point 3, I would think that this year most dems and dem-leaning independents are going to be very motivated to vote no matter who the candidate is, just due to bush/iraq/economy/etc.

Posted by bs23 | March 6, 2008 9:20 AM

I actually agree with Marc Ambinder's assessment, and I imagine increasing numbers of Democratic insiders do as well. Face it, Obama planned to land a "knockout" blow Tuesday, and he failed utterly. He cannot close the deal. He can't win the Latino vote, but McCain certainly can. And demsagainsthillary is just plain wrong. Take a look at the data. Hillary consistently and strongly wins long-time Democrats, with the exception of blacks. Obama is running on the strength of the black vote, plus independents and Republicans in open primaries. The latter two camps are not likely to vote for him over McCain. And certainly the black vote will return to Hillary in the general. Had Obama's surrogates not fueled spurious charges of racism against Bill Clinton, much of the black vote would have stayed with her anyway. (Of course Bill made insensitive and stupid remarks that opened the door to those charges.)

Caucuses in small red states don't cut it, guys. Obama has run a smart campaign until the past week or two, while Hillary hasn't always done that. But the writing's on the wall. Obama can't do it this time. Clinton-Obama is a sure ticket for victory this fall.

Posted by ezr | March 6, 2008 9:26 AM

If those of Marc's readers who are bothered by his escalating and seemingly unabashed positioning as a Hillary shill were to stop reading and commenting on his blog for, say, two weeks, do you think he'd give a shit and consider making a move to honest journalism?
(I myself can't see why anyone would come to such a conclusion, but I just figured I'd put the offer out there on the table. And even though I think this post is just another example of Marc's amazing ability to stay unbiased in the face of this heated primary, I'm going to take the first step in starting this Boycott Marc "Hillary" Ambinder campaign. You see, I don't believe that Marc has been persuaded of anything - I retain my belief that the real Marc Ambinder still has integrity. What I think is that the Clinton operatives have kidnapped the poor fellow and have taken over control of his blog. I think that's a more charitable interpretation.)

Marc (or whichever Clinton operative is behind this), you're being a bit transparent with this last post. Try and include a tad more subtlety in the future and you'll lose less readers.

Sincerely,
Aeli
(aka former Reader of this increasingly painful-to-read blog)

Posted by aeli | March 6, 2008 9:27 AM

I didn't realize that Ambinder was Mark Penn's maiden name. How sweet.

Posted by Chris | March 6, 2008 9:32 AM

ezr, did it escape your notice that African Americans are the bedrock of the Democratic vote in many states? Or have you been blinded by drinking the Hillary Kool-Aid?

Posted by zilifant | March 6, 2008 9:35 AM

Marc Ambinder: A Reported Blog on Wolfson's Press Releases.

C'mon Marc, do like Sullivan & just come out & say you are for Clinton. This feigned neutrality is fooling no one & it is intellectually dishonest.

Posted by neilrlca | March 6, 2008 9:39 AM

Marc's been talking to Ross.

It was Ross Douthat's point from several months back that Obama has a higher *potential* ceiling than Clinton, who maxes out around 51%, but also a much lower *potential* floor. He may end up losing white working class union voters in PA and OH and MI because of his race. Consequently Hilary is the safe bet for the Democratic powers that be, whereas Obama requires, to quote an elder party statesman, a role of the dice.

The problem is that, unlike the Republicans, the Democratic party doesn't have any b*lls* and so will probably end up trying to *not* lose rather than trying to *win.* Boy the party is really pathetic at picking a candidate.

Posted by wj | March 6, 2008 9:43 AM

"And certainly the black vote will return to Hillary in the general."

If the election rules are changed at or near the convention to give the nomination to a rich White woman who demands the rules be changed to favor her over the party and a half-Black man who's followed the rules to the letter?

Yeah, that sounds like it will turn out great.

Posted by Arbitrarity. | March 6, 2008 9:44 AM

Mr. Ambinder: On what basis are you making the claim that Obama is losing white, working-class voters to John McCain in critical states?

Posted by journalist | March 6, 2008 9:46 AM

Obama and his supporters need to face the fact that he is not a viable general election candidate. He needs to step aside for the good of the party.

Posted by Tom | March 6, 2008 9:48 AM

If we've learned nothing else over the last, oh, forty years of electoral heartbreak, I would have thought that no person with an eighth-grade education and the merest familiarity with politics would immediately see the folly in this statement: "It's true that she has a ceiling of about 52%"

I wish that had been the first line of your post, Marc, so I could have stopped reading right there. What a great frickin' strategy: immediately write off 48% of the country and hope to god nothing goes wrong with the remaining 2.01% of your "base." Sorta like writing off the fastest growing region of the country and hoping to pick up every single state you need. How's that been working out, guys?

Incidentally, I seriously can't believe this guy and James Fallows get a paycheck from the same publication. They're not only playing in different ballparks, they're not even in the same league, and as it turns out Ambinder missed the cut for the JV squad.

I can't decide if I should continue pointing out what a hack Ambinder is, or drop it in favor of posting nothing but "Arrested Development" quotes. I lean toward the latter except there were only three short seasons of the show, while the former is a gift that keeps on giving and giving and giving and giving.

Posted by Jeff Larson | March 6, 2008 9:49 AM

"and his advantage in the newer purple edge states like Virginia and Colorado are fairly transferable to other Democrats."

Oh, man. This is a doozy. Note the use of "other democrats" rather than "Hillary." There are no "other democrats" in the race. And since Obama has run as something of an anti-Clinton, it's ridiculous to assume that Virginia and Colorado will embrace her the way they embraced Obama.

Posted by Helter | March 6, 2008 9:52 AM

"Obama and his supporters need to face the fact that he is not a viable general election candidate. He needs to step aside for the good of the party."

Up is down. Black is white. Bush was a good president. Welcome to Tom's Bizarro world.

Posted by Rid | March 6, 2008 9:57 AM

Not at all, zilifant -- and your question is especially ironic given that I'm biracial. I noted that Hillary wins the core Democratic constituency with the exception of blacks, and added that I believe blacks will return to her in the general. There are very, very few states that the black vote alone can deliver. The Latino vote will be absolutely essential. As for drinking the Hillary Kool-Aid, as you put it, please understand that I've tried very hard to fall for Obama. My education, income, and other demographics put me right there in his camp (except for the fact that I'm female, I guess). But I vote with my head and I'm a pragmatist. What I'm seeing when I look at the data, and what I'm hearing here in DC (which is strongly dominated by Obama supporters), is that Obama simply can't close the deal. Once it became apparent that McCain would be the nominee, and the Iraq war's importance became less pronounced, Democrats began to reassess the candidates. And as a realist I see that Hillary and Obama have complementary strengths that I believe would make them an unbeatable ticket in the fall. I would also, in a personal way, love to see Obama in office for 16 years rather than 8. Think of the differences he can make in that time by speaking directly to the black community in a way that whites cannot.

Arbitrarity, I don't agree that Obama has followed the rules to the letter (though he's generally run a smarter campaign). And it's ludicrous to talk about the candidates' wealth. The Obamas do just fine, thanks very much. They've been the product of elite institutions just as much as the Clintons have, and Mrs. Obama's income shot up startlingly when her husband was elected to the Senate. Their family income is very high.

Posted by ezr | March 6, 2008 9:57 AM

Ezr,

You say that blacks will return to Hillary in the general, but that Obama can't win Latinos because they'll go to McCain.

I believe Obama's doing better among Latinos in the primary than Hillary is with blacks.

Don't take the black vote for granted--esp. if Obama's denied the nomination while winning pledged delegates

Posted by CH | March 6, 2008 9:58 AM

ezr: "I actually agree with Marc Ambinder's assessment, and I imagine increasing numbers of Democratic insiders do as well. Face it, Obama planned to land a "knockout" blow Tuesday, and he failed utterly."

On what basis are you saying he planned to land a "knockout" blow on Tuesday. He actually won more delegates than he expected to. And coming from 20% down to almost win TX (and actually win more delegates) and to with a couple of points in Ohio until the bogus NAFTA story broke is a pretty good indicator of how he will do in the general.

BTW, interesting how the day after the election we find out not only was the NAFTA story bogus in regards to Obama, but it was actually the Clinton campaign that first reached out to Canada.

Posted by john | March 6, 2008 10:03 AM

ezr, one other point. I am trying to follow the logic of how the Iraq war became less important once it was determined that McCain was the Republican candidate.

McCain/Clinton in terms of foreign policy are A lot closer than McCain/Obama. This is particularly true in regards to Iraq.

McCain will be able to use the same lines on her that Bush used on Kerry.

If anything, with McCain the nominee, the Iraq War becomes even more important.

Posted by john | March 6, 2008 10:09 AM

Marc,

You have a typo in your piece: it should read "Some Talking Points directly from paid Clinton shills to start the day". Do you honestly think the sort of people who'd find their way to your blog wouldn't know what you're up to? Nice job of supporting your insupportable, purely theoretical "points". See ya nevermore.

Posted by TrueBlue Hussein | March 6, 2008 10:11 AM

Is this The Atlantic or HillaryClinton.com?

I'm confused...

Marc Ambinder or Mark Penn?

I'm sure they'd love you on board. Spin is powerful, especially when you can be confused to use it as logic. It's working.

Posted by s.mtz | March 6, 2008 10:15 AM

The one thing that is clear in this primary season is that Hillary cannot hold onto to substantial leads. Her numbers drop consistently - and if that pattern holds true in the general, as it will, she will lose handily to McCain. Ezr, you haven't thought through the implications of all of this - and you should. Clinton has an appalling record of scandal, falsehood, corrupt donors, and serial incompetence. She isn't a fighter, just a whiner, and McCain will rip her to shreds on every issue that counts. You can't assume that African Americans will turn out for her - and the youth vote certainly won't. That's two big demographics that should be solidly Democrat, but are unlikely to give the Clintons a pass. Nor should they - Clinton has lied, used racist surrogates and tried to suppress voters. That's not how Democrats behave, and I am damned if I will vote for a fake. I want my party back, and the Clintons gone.

Posted by maraschion | March 6, 2008 10:16 AM

I get very tired of HRC supporters patronizing Barack Obama with "What a wonderful person, he'd make a perfect vice-President!"

Its basically a slap in the face because of the inference that Obama's not seasoned enough yet. Obama should come out and say he will not, under any circumstance, take the Veep slot and put to rest all the faux-graciousness of HRC'ers.

Posted by CH | March 6, 2008 10:24 AM

Don't worry, CH, I don't at all take the black vote for granted. But it's hard to picture blacks breaking for McCain over Hillary. And my basic problem with the scenario you mention, of Obama being "denied" the nomination, is that many of his pledged delegates are based on the votes of independents and Republicans. My core belief about the primary process is that a party's nominee should be determined by registered voters of that party, and that those delegates should be awarded on the basis of primaries rather than caucuses. Has anyone done the math to determine whether Obama leads in pledged delegates among states with closed primaries?

Remember that the general election involves voting, not caucusing, and that the Electoral College is a winner-take-all system rather than a proportional one. The Democratic Party's nomination process is not reflective of the general election process and I find that problematic.

John, you asked about "the logic of how the Iraq war became less important once it was determined that McCain was the Republican candidate." I think I was unclear on that point. I didn't mean that the two were linked, but that they occurred simultaneously. Sorry for the confusion. One problem we Democrats seem to have is that we don't want to acknowledge some of the more nuanced points about Iraq -- in particular, that the surge has worked to some extent, and that we can't simply walk away from the situation we have created there. If we don't acknowledge those truths, and understand that a significant portion of the voting public is more concerned about the economy than Iraq (though of course those are intimately connected), we take a position that is rather out of touch with the more centrist view of many voters.

maraschion, I simply don't agree with you. As a biracial person living in Washington, DC, I don't perceive the same degree of disenchantment with the Clintons that you do among the black community. Instead, I see a lot of voters who have agonized about their choice. My own view is that a Clinton-Obama ticket would be our strongest option for the general election. Believe me, I have thought long and hard about the ramifications of that view. But we can certainly agree to disagree.

Posted by ezr | March 6, 2008 10:25 AM

I like Obama. But I'm put off him by his supporters, as evidenced on threads like this. Anything suggesting their man might not be as strong a candidate as Clinton must mean the author is a 'shill'.

Why is it that Obama-ites are such nasty, bullying zealots?

http://www.marbury.typepad.com

Posted by marbury | March 6, 2008 10:27 AM

One more thing Marc, do you not know any real live black people or something? Isn't there like one in your building you could run your "conclusions" by before you post things that make you seem like an idiot.

Posted by Dirk | March 6, 2008 10:29 AM

I am an Obama supporter but agree with Marc, I think she has the base, esp. women who always vote in larger numbers than men. I think he is a superior, smarter, and more decent person and candidate. I think he's a better leader and a brilliant guy. That's why I think it will be a joint ticket. She'll win the FL redo and PA, and become the nominee, contingent on him being offered VP, which he may or may not accept. That will be the peace pipe offered to the AF AM community. I don't see it playing out any other way that won't be really damaging for the whole party, UNLESS really grimy dirt about her is revealed in the next 6 weeks, which is entirely plausible and I would be delighted if that happens. Then she'll be escorted off the stage kicking.

Posted by minna | March 6, 2008 10:30 AM

The better Hillary Clinton does, the better she'll do in polls versus John McCain in the general election.

Judging from this, Marc's job as a paid blogger at the Atlantic is transient and illusory.

Posted by TIGHT | March 6, 2008 10:30 AM

One more thing Marc, do you not know any real live black people or something? Isn't there like one in your building you could run your "conclusions" by before you post things that make you seem like an idiot.

Posted by Dirk | March 6, 2008 10:30 AM

There's a reason "the base" is called "the base." It stays in the general. Otherwise, it wouldn't be "the base".

Posted by CH | March 6, 2008 10:33 AM

Ezr, yes, we can agree to disagree, but you are missing the crucial point here. It isn't about blacks breaking for McCain, it's about what happens is enough black voters stay home because they were turned off by the Clintons. That's a very real scenario, and one which I have heard a number of black Democrats embrace. You can't underestimate the very real likelihood of a Clinton loss of parts of the Democratic constituency here. We know that Republicans will be energized against her, not so much against Obama. We know she does not have the appeal to independents that McCain and Obama possess. We have seen her numbers drop consistently, sometimes from a 30 point lead to a solid loss. Those are all signs that Hillary is far less electable than Obama - a fact which national polls against McCain also show consistently. Obama ususally wins handily, Clinton seems to lose or win narrowly at best. That's why at the end of the day Clinton is a big risk, not an asset, With Obama, we have clear advantages, better organization, and a candidate who does not come with a disreputable spouse and decades of scandals. Really, this ought to be a no-brainer.

Posted by maraschion | March 6, 2008 10:38 AM

a significant portion of the voting public is more concerned about the economy than Iraq

This agree with them on the war so we can move on to "bread and butter" issues seems familiar.... but of course! President John Kerry so masterfully used it to win the election of 2004! How could I have forgotten?

Posted by drjimcooper | March 6, 2008 10:48 AM

To DH who says that thinking of Obama as a greeat VP is a slap in the face: horseshit. He is a great potential v.p.
he lacks the experience to be a perfect fit at the top of the ticket.
Not everyone is duty bound to agree with you or pussy foot around this notion of experience.
Some of think he is a neophyte, that he is only running now because He was afraid of having to wait eight years until a hillary presidency was over, and maybe another eight years until her VP was done and that he wasn't willing to risk it.
No matter how dynamic some find him that doesn't make him experienced or seasoned.
He's asking for our vote and if we decline to give it to him that is not a slap in the face.
If he really was ready he wouldn't have lost any states: it'd be over, it'd be an easier choice than it has been. he wouldn't need 90 % of the black electorate to get by anybody. If he wasn't so damned green he wouldn't have taken his name off the ballot of any state where people could vote. He has the crazy deaniac people voting for him and they abandoned their hero last time: what makes anyone think the fickle deaniacs won't abandon this savior too?

Posted by MichaelC. | March 6, 2008 10:51 AM

John, you asked about the basis of my statement that Obama hoped for a knockout blow Tuesday. One basis is his own published statements. The other is personal comments I heard from a couple of Obama staffers. They hoped to seal the deal this week and get Hillary out of the race.

I'm sorry, but I just don't think it means much in regard to the general election that he won more delegates in Texas. Their primary process is completely archaic, and I believe caucuses in general are very problematic. And it's not about "agree with them on the war." That's a very black-and-white view, and it's symptomatic of the far left's difficulties in this area.

CH, I really regret that you see my wish for a joint ticket as patronizing. It reflects my sincere belief, but if you see it as patronizing I can't change that. Perhaps you would find me more sincere if I were to attack your candidate? That seems to be the stock in trade for Obama supporters here. Interestingly, polling finds overwhelming Democratic support for both candidates staying in the race for now. More than two thirds of Democrats wanted Hillary to stay in even if she won only a single state Tuesday (either TX or OH). In my view, that indicates clear and widespread ambivalence about Obama among Democrats.

maraschion, I don't think I'm missing the crucial point (and I actually agree with some of what you noted). I just think the race will look very different in the fall. And while I'm sure my view is shaped by the fact that I live in DC, where blacks are both very active and very powerful politically, I simply don't believe black Democrats will stay home in November if Clinton is the nominee. I believe that is especially true if we put forward a Clinton-Obama ticket. I may, of course, be entirely wrong. But to opt out of the process would be self-defeating, to say the least.

drjimcooper, it's not a question of "agreeing with them on the war." It is, however, a question of not engaging in the black-and-white thinking that gets our party into so much trouble when it comes to presidential elections. I can't help this, but I'm a psychiatrist and I look at black-and-white thinking as a major problem for many people and, historically, for the Democratic Party. And now I have to sign off for an 11:00 appointment. A pleasure exchanging views with you all!

Posted by ezr | March 6, 2008 10:59 AM

About 40 out of 45 posts on this thread bashing the host for offering a few simple, mostly non-controversial observations.

Some of the same people attacking Mr Ambinder for arguing that Hillary's coalition is more traditionally Democratic and therefore likely more stable respond by referring to Obama's appeal to Republicans and independents. In other words, these commenters don't seem to have any idea what he's talking about.

Some of you seem to believe that Republican and independent crossovers are a stable base for Obama heading toward the Fall. Some of you may also believe in the tooth fairy.

Misreading polls like the Washington Post/ABC News one linked at the top may feed your illusions: A snapshot sample of all adults, with a large percentage not even registered to vote and 55% self-identified as Democrats is 1 step above "garbage in/garbage out," if that. It's tempting for someone who wants to believe in the change he hopes for to focus on the seemingly favorable top-line electoral head-to-heads - which are virtually meaningless for the reasons just stated - and ignore the nuts and bolts that may support Ambinder's contentions - which have been supported in poll after poll, such as Pew Research's comprehensive surveys.

For a more realistic - though at this point still science-fictional - view of the big horse race, look to the Gallup and Rasmussen tracking polls of likely voters, and try using your heads as well as your hearts for a change.

Posted by CK MacLeod | March 6, 2008 10:59 AM

Sorry, maraschion, just remembered that I wanted to note how much more trouble we'll be in this fall if Democratic women feel a sense of grievance and decide to stay home, should Hillary not be on the ticket. See how problematic this kind of identity politics is? It's astonishing how often the media overlooks this.

Posted by ezr | March 6, 2008 11:03 AM

Shorter CK MacLeod:

"Give me a break. This whole thing is the biggest fairy tale I've ever seen."

Posted by TIGHT | March 6, 2008 11:06 AM

Why on earth would we want to limit ourselves to a candidate with a 52% ceiling this year of all years?!?!?!??!!!!

With Obama heading the ticket, Rick Noriega has a realistic shot at taking out John Cornyn in the Senate here in Texas. Obama changes the denominator in these elections. Clinton's demographic is people who largely vote in every election. Obama's been able to win by bringing out people to the polls who are not nearly so reliable, and who will simply stay home - not often out of malice but inattention. We need those voters to come out in droves. We need them to identify themselves as Democrats. We need them to send progressive legislators to Congress.

We need Obama at the top of the ticket. It is the biggest no-brainer the party has faced in my lifetime.

Posted by Curtis | March 6, 2008 11:11 AM

"I simply don't believe black Democrats will stay home in November if Clinton is the nominee."

I would agree with this, were it not for the fact that for her to win the nomination, the rules are going to have to be changed specifically for her to win. Which also means that they were changed specifically for him to lose.

I don't think we can accurately predict the outcome of that scenario, but I think we can all agree that it's going to hurt in regards to the GE.

And if Mr. Ambinder is correct, and she currently has a ceiling of 52%, losing the even a medium size portion of the extremely reliable AA vote is going to make the election unwinnable for her.

Posted by Arbitrarity. | March 6, 2008 11:11 AM

Ezr, sure, women MAY stay home, but the point remains that Hillary can't make up the numbers among independents and Republican crossovers. Also, she rallies and solidifies the Republican base in a way that Obama does not. That's why she is far more likely to lose, while Obama has a much more plausible shot at winning.

Posted by maraschion | March 6, 2008 11:12 AM

ezr, thank you for the detailed responses. Unfortunately, on many threads on many blogs, supporters of both sides tend to just react and not try to talk things out.

You and I disagree both about the candidate of choice and who may have the better chance in the general, and that is okay.

Saying that, I will get picky. Your original post said Obama planned for a knockout punch, now you are saying hoped for one. Two different things.

One of the big differences in the two campaigns is that Obama's was always geared for the long term. It was the Clinton campaign which planned on a knockout punch on WSuper Tuesday and had not planned beyond that.

That is one of the reqasons why I prefer Obama. He may hope for something to happen but is prepared to handle whatever happens. Clinton does not.

Although I do see a big difference between Clinton and Bush (believe me I do) her campaign planning had not been unlike the planning for the war in Iraq.

Posted by john | March 6, 2008 11:17 AM

"The better Hillary Clinton does, the better she'll do in polls versus John McCain in the general election. It's true that she has a ceiling of about 52%, but her floor is much more solid than Obama's based on her demographic coalition, which is more traditionally Democratic than his." This makes no sense to me. If her support is more "traditionally democratic" then aren't those people in the democratic nominee's collumn no matter who the nominee is? Are you arguing that they would switch to McCain if Obama is the nominee?

Posted by thomas | March 6, 2008 11:47 AM

Also, she rallies and solidifies the Republican base in a way that Obama does not. That's why she is far more likely to lose, while Obama has a much more plausible shot at winning.

The above was conventional wisdom a few months ago. To believe it now suggests little familiarity with the state of thinking over on the right.

Hillary is the devil they know. Obama is someone they didn't know much about until recently. It hasn't fully filtered out to the broad mass of right-leaning voters, for whom Obama is still a novelty, but those who lead opinion perceive and are ready to portray the "Obamessiah" as a down-the-line left-liberal from an even further left, rather scary, and highly suspicious political and cultural background. I'm not talking about race, and anyway the reflexive playing of the race card is one component of leftwing culture that the right truly despises: I'm talking about Chicago - Wright, Farrakhan, Ayers, Alinsky, Michelle, Rezko, et al. - and a lot else.

Rallying and solidifying the Republican base - right-to-life evangelicals in particular, and also security voters and "bellicose males" - against Obama would likely be among the easiest political tasks of the last 40 years. My own personal opinion is that for every 81-year-old Republican mother who thinks Barry is cute, there might be a working class Reagan Dem who thinks he's an arrogant phony.

Hillary might do a lot better against real potential McCain voters than Barack - though we'll never know, of course, since there's only one election per candidate and no do-overs.

Posted by CK MacLeod | March 6, 2008 11:48 AM

Several commentators here have argued that Obama doesn't have enough experience--what experience does Clinton have? This is a poor argument and people posting here should know enough to stay away from it.

If Clinton gets the nomination, despite everything, it will be because the Democratic party is playing not to lose instead of playing to win; attempting to nominate a candidate that is most *like* the Republican establishment, and therefore better able to defeat it (hopefully) rather than taking a chance on the attractiveness of the party's own message. Obama is a risk, but his upside is very high indeed.

But the Democratic party can't even run itself, and no doubt will screw this one up royally.

Posted by wj | March 6, 2008 11:48 AM

CK MacLeod, you are absolutely wrong in your analysis. Look at how the rightwing commentators are trying to give Hillary a pass, while asking questions about Obama. They know that they can whip Hillary in the general, while they suspect that Obama might be the game changer. No-one is saying that deep red Republicans will shift, but then, given the poor state of the economy, Iraq, and his age, I can't imagine McCain being too credible on the key issues for Democrats or swing voters. As for the "background" you mention on Obama, that's pretty thin gruel compared to the financial corruption, the sexual perversions, the endless string of lies and evasions that make up Clinton-land. Voters expect Hillary to be a liar - and the Republicans will hammer her for it, supported by disillusioned progressives who kid themselves about the Maverick and want the Clintons gone. You wait for the "Hillary is a closet-lesbian, financial fraud who uses racism" stories to begin. That's much closer to the reality than your scenario.

Posted by maraschion | March 6, 2008 12:02 PM

If HRC gets the nomination look for a non-stop drumbeat from the right bringing up all the old scandalous stuff from the past. There will be relentless pressure about the Clinton's financial dealings since the White House. Waves of innuendo about how they got so wealthy, and what favors they owe as a result. And (oh boy) more scandals about Bill and his zipper.

McCain will likely stay above the fray. It'll be a nifty two-step for him. He can renounce the hard right that is pressing its anti-Clinton sleaze (high road), but he'll benefit from the energized right wing base. Meanwhile, because he's high road, he can do the nifty move of rejecting the sleaze machine on the right (which he'll say he can't control and indeed of which he has himself been a victim) AND the sleaze politics that HRC just used to push a popular African-American candidate off the political stage. Meanwhile he embodies the experience that Clinton is posturing at. She can't hit him effectively on Iraq. The ONLY card she'll have is the economy. It might be enough to stave off the electoral humiliation she would otherwise have. But only might. Clinton hatred + Clinton fatigue + bitter feelings after an ugly fight to the nomination will be ranged against the voters for whom the issues of the economy trump all else. She's got the lunch box vote and the vote of older women. And that's pretty much it.

Polls today don't capture this picture because for the moment Bill is safely stashed away off screen, and because the vast right wing conspiracy is holding its fire until it secures its desired candidate. Indeed, Karl Rove is serving up campaign advice to Hillary as we speak.

The Republicans should have no chance at the White House this year. But let them run maverick McCain against HRC, and they have as good a chance as they're going to get.

So the question that we should be asking today is just how stupid is the Democrat party?

Posted by Maggie | March 6, 2008 12:29 PM

I want some of what you're smoking if you think Obama's strength in NV, CO, IA, NH, MN, WI, OR, and VA transfer to Hillary. He's running 8-21 points better in head-to-head polls in those states, most of which have already seen him up close. Both run equally well in MO and NM and PA (yes, even though Obama is pretty far behind there right now), and Hillary runs better in OH though both win. Obama runs worse in NJ, MA, and FL (though both lose FL pretty badly).

Posted by John M. | March 6, 2008 12:40 PM

Look at how the rightwing commentators are trying to give Hillary a pass, while asking questions about Obama.

Conservatives are not just "asking questions about Obama" in, as you seem to imply, some attempt to affect the Democratic race and get the easier candidate. They're asking questions because they're well aware that Obama could be the opponent in the Fall - and the more they learn, the less they like him.

Limbaugh, Coulter, and other infotainers are a superficial phenomenon. If they represented the Republican Party, you'd be celebrating the chance to go up against Mitt Romney. Coulter hates McCain, and, though Limbaugh doesn't like him much, by last Tuesday he was more interested in pretending he could help the Democrats to overextend their primaries. It's mostly pretentious foolishness that fills up air time.

If Obama's the nominee you can count on the fact that virtually everything you like about him, and a lot more that you'd rather not think about at all, will turn conservatives against him - hard. It's a lot easier for at least some of them to pretend that Hillary's more moderate than she's been running, and would treat the country's enemies as her personal enemies (which they would be), responding viciously if not necessarily consistently.

Posted by CK MacLeod | March 6, 2008 12:41 PM

CK MacLeod, you need to read the more serious commentators, not just watch FOX. It is abundantly clear that conservatives want to fight Hillary in November. They clearly find her the weaker candidate, and are trying either to stop or damage Obama. That Clinton is dumb enough to help them with attack lines shows exactly how inept she is. Limbaugh may seem superficial to you - but people listen to him. No, not nice people, not intelligent people who think about arguments - but they listen. Obama has fewer weaknesses than Hillary. Put he on the ticket, and the Republican base will turn out to crush the Whore of Babylon and her vile spouse. Sure, they don't like Obama either, but they don't have the sheer rabid hate that the Clintons have generated for 16 years at this point. Clinton is our best shot to lose this thing. Obama gives us a shot at winning big.

Posted by maraschion | March 6, 2008 12:47 PM

maraschion, you don't have the slightest idea where I get my information. I assure you that Fox is not a main source for me - actually, I tend to prefer CNN because I dig their high-tech HD broadcasts (though I'll still take Brit Hume's show over anything on CNN and Jack Cafferty makes my skin crawl), but that's neither here nor there. I'm willing to guess that I spend a lot more time reading the major conservative magazines and sites, and conversing with conservatives, than you do.

For a while, only a few of us were arguing that Obama might be a lot easier to beat than Hillary. By now, opinion is split - and serious polls reflect serious slippage in Obama's numbers among conservatives and the electorate generally. Many serious observers worry that a Clinton resurgence may deprive Republicans of a chance to turn Obama into a Dukakis or a McGovern. Conservatives wonder if Obama doesn't have a "glass jaw" for criticism; if Obamamania isn't more of a creepy negative than a positive long-term, even assuming that the bubble hasn't already burst on that; if he isn't a rookie given to rookie mistakes; if his far left background and his connections to radicals of different types won't alienate the mainstream; if his Rezko problem isn't going to deepen...

I could go on and on and, if I thought there was much chance you really wanted to educate yourself about how rightwingers, when talking among themselves, view Obama, I could provide you with links.

Posted by CK MacLeod | March 6, 2008 1:06 PM

I'll be curious to see what your social circle says, CK, but you do realize that you now have little credibility as a serious analyst on Democratic issues? Frankly, I'd also ask whether you should so hastily dump Limbaugh. Coulter is an obvious case of mental illness, but Limbaugh still wields influence.

Posted by maraschion | March 6, 2008 1:15 PM

you now have little credibility as a serious analyst on Democratic issues

Oh yes I understand that before anyone can be seen as an objective observer, he or she must first have sworn a loyalty oath and declared undying belief in all Obama-approved talking points forever and ever, amen. Anyone who can even stand to visit a conservative site must be viewed as utterly irrelevant both for the present and, even more, after the Holy Change That You Believe In has taken place. Excuse me for living, and especially for thinking.

Bye now!

Posted by CK MacLeod | March 6, 2008 1:24 PM

How funny..I suggest that a conservative partisan may not provide the most reliable discussion of a Democratic primary and he/she/it gets all snippy and scurries off. Never did get to see all those fascinating links to "what conservatives really think" either. Ah well, such a loss to western civilization!

Posted by maraschion | March 6, 2008 1:29 PM

CK, we can excuse you for living, but if you are literate and still remain conservative, you really ought to try thinking.

Posted by zilifant | March 6, 2008 1:37 PM

As I feared, my attempt to reply with some links has been caught in a spam filter decision queue.

I have no idea when and if it will show up (last time I tried something like it, the post never showed up!).

Go to CONTENTIONS/Jennifer Rubin, the NATIONAL REVIEW/Yuval Levin, HOTAIR/Ed Morrissey on the glass jaw, and HUGH HEWITT on Rezkorama - if you want some up-to-the-minute looks at what conservatives are saying about the Big O and his big vulnerabilities.

Anyway, as I said in the trapped (?) post - I have to get to work here.

Seeyaround! (maybe better than "bye now").

Posted by CK MacLeod | March 6, 2008 2:16 PM

@CK MacLeod

Is that the hardcore conservative group you mentioned? Man, that's a pretty sad bunch. I mean, Hewitt, for heaven's sake! Mr Romney II himself - hardly insightful political analysis, really. As for Rubin, she seldom posts at sufficient length or with enough evidence for an argument. Levin argues that McCain has less chance against Obama than Clinton. Frankly, you seem to be contradicting your own argument by citing these people.

Posted by maraschion | March 6, 2008 2:42 PM

"Hardcore" is your word and apparently your interest, not mine, maraschion. I suggested that Rs and conservatives more generally will turn hard against BO if they need to. I don't pretend to speak for "hardcore" conservatives, whoever or whatever they are.

I'm not sure whether you really did more than skim the articles I suggested: Ad hominem's against Hewitt hardly answer the Rezko questions. Rubin and others at Contentions have been posting for a long time about Obama, and wondering about his vulnerabilities - which was the original question. I just gave you one sample. You read Levin differently than I do, or maybe you're reading some article other than his "Obama Fatigue" piece from today in which I don't notice any direct comparison of Obama vs Clinton as November candidates, but do see a lot of material suggesting fundamental weakness in the Obama coalition.

If you want hardcore conservatives on Obama, you might want to read Terry Jeffrey in HUMAN EVENTS on the Born Alive Act - and then explain to me why it's going to be difficult rallying religious conservatives if BO defeats HRC.

Anyway, I'd love to argue about it with you now, but I can't. I'll check back later on, even if this thread is dead or mostly dead.

Posted by CK MacLeod | March 6, 2008 3:02 PM

The latter two camps are not likely to vote for him over McCain. And certainly the black vote will return to Hillary in the general. Had Obama's surrogates not fueled spurious charges of racism against Bill Clinton, much of the black vote would have stayed with her anyway. (Of course Bill made insensitive and stupid remarks that opened the door to those charges.)

You are delusional if you think that much of the Black vote would have stayed POST RACE-BAITING. And, the thought that Obama's campaign fueled charges of racism, let me get you straight.

Black folk understand Dogwhistle Racial politics better than those that play it and we sure as hell recognize it...our SURVIVAL in America has depended upon it.

LONG before the MSM acknowledged what The Clintons were doing, Black radio, Black talk radio and The Black Blogosphere were taking notice of it.

There is a ClintonAttacksObama Wiki that has an Incidents Page that's at #44 right now.

You are as delusional as Harold Ickes was last week, when he said, ' there would be hurt feelings, but it would be made up in November'.

Preposterous.

Barack Obama has played by the rules.

IF

At the end of this,
1. He has more pledged delegates

And, they STEAL it for Hillary Clinton,

The damage between the Democratic Party and the Black community will be of catastrophic proportions.

I have an immediate family of 12. All of us loyal Democrats who have only missed elections due to illness. We vote primaries and generals, no matter what.

ONLY 2 will vote for Hillary Clinton.

2.

I do not believe my family is ordinary.

The Superdelegate situation is being discussed in the barber shops, the beauty shops, the coffee shops, and after Bible study - i.e., the common man and woman on the street - the ones who never get the headlines but do most of the working and living in the Black community. And, those dependable votes that no Democrat can win without.

If this is stolen from Obama.

You better get used to saying President McCain.

Posted by rikyrah | March 6, 2008 5:28 PM

Okay here goes:
The first lady stuff matters.
In every human endeavor it matters. It is the zone of proximal experience as defined by vygotskii about a hundred years ago: we reach developmental levels differently when in a zone
that has mentors or tools that speed developmental milestones or leaps.
Traditionally in the training for work at a high level one gains profound awareness and depth when one has a deep abiding relationship with a master.
We see this in the arts, in medicine, in the partnering of policemen young to old. It is the cornerstone of apprenticeship models and internships in medicine and business. it is the i was there model. The up close model.
In Hillary's case she was trained to begin with as a lawyer and as a political activist and as a student activist when she began a life partnership with Bill. That is different than any political spouse we've had in the white house. They started as equals. she had as much promise as he did, an array of talents and a profound ability to network for change.
He decides to make his stand in the wake of watrergate in his poor sometimes backwords state of Ark. In those cynical times he seeks office. She is a defacto campaign manager. She has experience organizing political campaigns: she organized for Mc Govern in Texas. His elected office pays shitty and she gets work that helps make it possible for him to stay in politics; I know what this is like because my wife helped support me through grad school and she makes more than I do as a teacher: it lets me be a teacher
and not live in poverty.
Not only does this high achieving young politico feminist lawyer subvert her own path to support his she suffers innumerable attacks as a lefty feminist politicians wife who keeps her name in marriage and is not retiring. In spite of all the jokes assholes make about their marriage its always been clear that they keep council with each other about issues and politics, that they are each other's best sounding board. Curiously though being a wife means she can't have the real job that involves her in policy. As first lady she leads fight about schools and education but she can't have the bobby kennedy sidekick job: those days are over.
He almost runs in 88: she talks him out of it: he's not ready. the shot is there but he's young and green still. He runs in 92 and with her helping neutralize his high negatives he wins.
She is a totally different kind of first lady. Office in the west wing. Has unprecedented power. Remains his closest adviser. But because of her education, training and talents it isn't the nancy reagan model of involvement. it has a kind of legitimacy to it especially because we knew that about them. They told us that is how it was. they said it was two for one. he always said she was the more talented one.
In the white house she is there at every turn. She was intimately involved in every issue and wrinkle and situation. Lets not be stupid. Read Stephenopolis' book. Read back articles from the times: she is the surest path to getting his ear.
She goes through the hoorible time they had getting a transition in place, getting people voted on. She bites off the suicide mission of sweeping health care reform. She travels in support of every iniative. She campaigns and is involved. She talks policy in the media. She is part of what the right wing attacks.
They are a profoundly modern partnership type of marriage deeply informed by their feminist MS. magazine/our bodies ourselves type of equality.
She saves his administration just as she saved his 92 campaign. She is a magnet for controversy and hate herself. Its an extraordinary public profile. She lends him a kind of trust that picking gore for vp did. They make each other better just as clinton gore did. She lends him a less slick more trustworthy image just as gore did and he makes her more exciting and more vital and less nerdy just as he did for gore.
The sex scandal elevating hillary to worthiness to run for the seat eleanor almost ran for and that bobby did run for is actually a false story: she had that status and gravitas and favorability anyway. But she runs and guliani drops out when he both has cancer and realizes he can't beat her: against anyone else he stays in and cancer helps him win. Her listening tour (helped along by visions of eleanor and bobby and designed and executed by Wolfson) is totally pitch perfect and she storms to a win.
She becomes a very effective senator right away. she wins over the working class republican upstate beleagered voters: amazing really.
Her book is a best seller: her second best seller.
And she raises money for every body in the dem party for the next five years.
She gets the committee assignments that help her state AND give her the gravitas that bill didn't have when he went to the white house.
The white house experience is extraordinary. Most of us feel that deep in our bones. Yet with so much clinton hate and women hating crazies in the arena its almost impossible to put into words.
And her judgement? She had the sense to wait to run until she really was ready and not just famous. Obama lacked the patience to wait and invents thew self serving Audacity of now to jump in as a neophyte.
I know that there are a few laugh lines in here for hillary haters but that's the jist of the experience deal.

Posted by Michael C. | March 6, 2008 7:48 PM

Hillary's "floor is much more solid than
Obama's"........it better be! She must
have 40 pounds on him.....

Posted by interferon | March 7, 2008 12:51 AM

rikyrah, I just have to point out that you need to be careful in your assumptions about my own race. Believe me, you don't need to "get me straight." I understand your feelings. Do remember, though, that Senator Obama is not descended from blacks who suffered transatlantic slavery. There is a fair amount of privilege and elite education in his background, including not only his own pedigree but that of his Kenyan, Harvard graduate-student father. He's not exactly your average African American man made good.

Watch what happens. If Clinton wins decisively in Pennsylvania and then wins do-over primaries (not caucuses) in Florida and Michigan, she will very possibly lead in the popular vote. And then you will have many Democrats believing Obama is stealing the election from her. The comparison to 2000 will be supremely ironic, as well as completely unavoidable. Please do not delude yourself into thinking that Obama can win the general election without the white votes, and especially the women's votes, that have gone to Clinton thus far.

Posted by ezr | March 7, 2008 3:00 PM