Portents: Democrats Pick Up Illinois 14

And if Clinton gets the nomination, it will all be for naught, as her "coat tails" drag the Dems to massive losses in the House ands Senate.

But hey, more and more I'm all for that. Creative destruction, as they say.

Posted by LarryM | March 8, 2008 10:35 PM

Is Foster a lackluster campaigner, or something? You're just gonna drop 'not an idea candidate' on us without any explication?

Posted by gussie | March 8, 2008 10:35 PM

Thank you for noticing. This is a huge win for Foster, for Democrats and for Obama -- who even set up a phonebank on his site specifically for Foster's election.

(And where was Clinton in helping us take Hastert's seat? I guess she was too busy taping SNL.)

Posted by evie | March 8, 2008 10:37 PM

I'm not sure why you are saying "huh." The translation of that quote is "you guys are laughing now, but you won't be laughing in November if Clinton gets the nomination." Of course, he can't SAY that for obvious reasons.

Posted by LarryM | March 8, 2008 10:37 PM

no wait, I forgot Illinois doesn't matter because Obama won it. That's why Clinton couldn't be bothered to help us take Hastert's seat.

Posted by evie | March 8, 2008 10:39 PM

The National Republican Congressional Committee is looking to the Democratic presidential race for their salvation. Literally.

This, undoubtedly, is true. LarryM nailed it. With Clinton at the top of the ticket, we can forget about any more croosh pickups like this one.

Posted by Jeff Larson | March 8, 2008 10:41 PM

To play the cynic here:

Isn't that seat likely to go back to the Republicans in November? A turnout of 90,000 in a congressional election seems awfully low to me, and the Dems probably took this because of lack of interest--something you are not likely to have in the general.

Posted by Robert | March 8, 2008 10:43 PM

You make a good point, Robert, but I think a big factor here is the advantage of incumbency, even a few months' worth.

And as I mentioned, I think this could be a relatively straightforward matter to hold this seat -- depending on the name on the top of the ticket.

Posted by Jeff Larson | March 8, 2008 10:48 PM

Actually, I'd say there's a good chance at retaining this seat.

If Obama is at the top of the ticket, even diehard Republicans know Obama will win big in IL. There is no motivation there and the GOP in the state is in such disarray that there are no appealing races to look forward too. Add to this the fact that many consider Oberweis too sleazy (this is his 4th race he's lost) and you've got a great shot at keeping this seat.

Posted by Jason | March 8, 2008 10:52 PM

Robert,

Maybe. Though ... you know what? Having a charismatic and popular presidential candidate for president from Illinois might just help turn out the vote for the Dems. Hmm, is there any such possible candidate available? Help me out here.

Posted by LarryM | March 8, 2008 10:52 PM

Sure, turnout is typically lower for special elections. But the thing is, incumbency yields advantages, and even candidates who narrowly win tough races in special election hold on to those seats more often than not. In other words: while Foster will still have another tough race ahead of him in November, it's ultimately better for him to have won today than lost.

And the thing is, the NRCC spent a million dollars on this race. They're not going to be able to drop another million (or more, honestly, which is likely what will be necessary to knock off an incumbent congressman) in November given their financial difficulties and given the many many many other seats they'll need to be concerned with. And frankly, now that Foster's won it, I think there are going to be many strategists inclined to direct more focus elsewhere -- the House Republicans are so in jeopardy this November that defending vulnerable seats is going to be a much higher priority than playing offense.

If Obama's on the top of the ticket, they can forget about it. And Weller's seat, too, for that matter.

Posted by jbryan | March 8, 2008 10:57 PM

LarryM - George Ryan? Oh, sorry, he is in jail. Milorad Blagejovich? Ooops, he is on the verge of jail...........Who's still running loose out there among Illinois politicians, anyway?

Maybe just wait until the Rezko trial runs it's course and see if there is anyone left standing.

Posted by robert ethan | March 8, 2008 10:59 PM

I think Democrats will have a good chance of holding the seat if Obama is the nominee. If not, they'll most likely lose it.

Posted by Mike | March 8, 2008 11:09 PM

Obama's coattails are likley to extend far beyond Illinois, as this very good analysis of polling data shows:

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/3/8/10246/00557/770/472129

Hey, superdelegates, are you paying attention to this? Maybe its time for you to push the clintons out of the race

Posted by RKA | March 8, 2008 11:16 PM

well, I have to assume that because the Republican party spent so much to not have a Democrat in there.... that it was considered very, very important to them (VERY IMPORTANT!)

and they lost.

....and I have to assume that Obama's endorsements and ads for Foster will be seen as important.. by both parties.

GO OBAMA !!

Posted by kevin | March 8, 2008 11:36 PM

Actually, there's no November general election for the House seat - this was a special election, and Foster is the new House Rep. Oh, and also an Obama superdelegate. So add 1 more for Barack.

Posted by south side | March 8, 2008 11:49 PM

NOT ONLY did Obama cut a commercial for Foster, he ALSO put his online phonebanking tool to work and got his email network of IL supporters to call for Foster!

Using numbers I got through the Obama website, I called about 30 people to convince them to make it to the polls to vote Foster! I know at least 3 other people who did this. I'd love to see how many total calls got made using Obama's network.

I didn't see anything about this in the news.

Posted by Tungsten | March 8, 2008 11:52 PM

Seats won in special elections rarely go turn back in the general. In 2004, Dems won SD-AL and KY-04, two Republican districts, and both reps faced re-match in November (of a presidential year) and both won very comfortably.

Posted by Daniel | March 9, 2008 12:06 AM

Ok, obviously there will be a November election for the next Congress. Whoops.

Posted by south side | March 9, 2008 12:07 AM

Actually, there's no November general election for the House seat - this was a special election, and Foster is the new House Rep.

Uh... yes, there will be a November general election. Foster won the special election, which means he fills out the remainder of Denny Hastert's term (which ends in January 2009). There will be an election in November to determine who serves in the seat for the next Congress. Foster and Oberweis both already won the primaries to contest that.

Posted by jbryan | March 9, 2008 12:15 AM

On Yglesias's post about this, from "Phil" - Best. Comment. Ever.

----
Apparently sick of convincing superdelegates, Obama has hit upon the innovative strategy of inventing new superdelegates.

Posted by phil | March 8, 2008 11:44 PM
----

Posted by Tungsten | March 9, 2008 12:29 AM

THAT'S GOT TO BE DISAPPOINTING AND EMBARRASSING FOR THE GOP!

http://OsiSpeaks.com or http://RealConservativesSpeak.com

Posted by KYJurisDoctor | March 9, 2008 12:49 AM

The republican morons like Iowa rep Peter King who used vile and abusive language against Obama is further going to destroy the republican party this fall. People like rep King who spread hatred are going to burn in hell for sure. People are sick and tired of hate mongering and fear mongering.

Unfortunately McCain is not man enough to condemn King's comments.

Posted by commonsense | March 9, 2008 1:01 AM

FOSTER WINS BECAUSE OF OBAMA!

"Using numbers I got through the Obama website, I called about 30 people to convince them to make it to the polls to vote Foster! I know at least 3 other people who did this...."

Well, I made 132 calls this morning for Foster using the Obama phonebank (and I know I wasn't alone)

Foster won because of Obama!

....the ads, the endorsements, the volunteering via his grass-roots campaign organizaton

....something that will not be overlooked by the Superdelegates

...Only Obama can get Democrats elected in Republican strongholds

....Hillary can't...Quite the opposite!

......and with more than 30 Republican congressional vacancies coming up in '08 that is very, very important.

Only Obama can get Democrats elected in Republican strongholds...(Hillary can't)

...something that WILL be noted by the Democratic party i.e. super delegates

Posted by Kevin | March 9, 2008 1:33 AM

Obama is a UNITER and STRENGTH to ALL DOWN TICKET DEMOCRATS.

Even a partisan HRC supporter has to realize that if it was her trying to aid a down-ticket Democrat in a GOP district . . .FORGET IT . . .the GOP candidate would have had an energized base carry a landslide.

Posted by EJ | March 9, 2008 1:51 AM

Unbelievable. This is not a good sign for the Clintons. This should have been an easy Clinton win with all of her momentum and resources pumped into the state this week. I was just praying Obama could pull out a tight win, but a 17 point victory - astonishing. It really puts this race into perspective. The nation has recoiled from the vicious Clinton campaign tactics. If Hillary loses Mississippi too, the message will be unmistakable. Hillary appears to have been rejected by the American people.

Posted by Carson | March 9, 2008 3:13 AM

Sorry all, accidentally posted on wrong thread - will repost appropriately :)

Posted by Carson | March 9, 2008 3:14 AM

The "traditional" Democrats - by that I mean those that vote based on "what works", name recognition, etc. - tend to be Hillary supporters. That's understandable. The "naive" amongst us support Obama generally, so we are often thrown to the side, told we're really not that important in the grand scheme of things, etc...

But... I think this is a HUGE selling point for Obama. The super-delegates can not possibly ignore this! Half of the battle with Presidential elections is the coat-tail factor. After all, getting the Presidency with an opposition Congress is pretty disappointing, and often fruitless.

It's clear: The biggest name in Democratic politics is a detriment to Democratic agendas.

Posted by socctty | March 9, 2008 5:03 AM

I agree that the unspoken message of the NRCC comment is that "we are praying that Clinton somehow manages to win the nomination, and, in doing so, manages to alienate the many new voters who have become involved in democratic politics this year, while being the catalyst who will do what no other Democratic candidate could do as well--unite the splintering factions of the Republican party." I live in Illinois and I did some GOTV neighborhood walking for Foster's campaign (after earlier supporting his more progressive opponent, John Laesch, who lost in a very close primary). I think it is probably true to say that Obama's ad and support did help Foster a great deal. But, remember that we are talking about Illinois, a state where Obama's influence goes a long way. It's not as clear that his "coattails" will be as long in other areas of the country, although, for reasons mentioned above, I am becoming convinced he'll give us a better chance in November. I still think Edwards would have been the best all around general election candidate, however. But that's water under the bridge. So congratulations to Bill Foster, and to Barack Obama on the convincing Wyoming win.

Posted by foster'slager | March 9, 2008 9:31 AM

The argument that gains in the house and senate depend on the presidential candidate's personal popularity is a rather weak one.

McGovern, for instance, lost in one of the worst blow outs in our history, but it was still a good year for Democrats down ticket. The same was true to a lesser extent in 1988 with Dukakis.

These were "change" elections in which the voters did really want change -- but they didn't trust the Democrat at the top of the ticket personally or his ability to make the right kind of change.

This year, whether the party makes gains in the house, and, most important, the Senate, will depend on factors other than just who is at the top of the ticket. But my guess is that this is a year, like 1972 and '88, when even a Republican win at the top won't make any difference to Democratic gains. In fact, a McCain win might, because it will perhaps be based on heavier support from independent ticket splitters than from the Republicans' hardcore "base," potentially be even better for Democrats down ticket than a win by either of the the current top Democratic contenders.

That's because all three of the remaining candidates provide some reason for voter distrust and unease that could affect voters' desire to see some checks and balance provided to their power; Obama's very minimal experience, elite hatred of Clinton and the difficult environment that will provide for her governance, McCain's too close embrace of the failed Bush administration.

Of the three, Obama and McCain, who both aim to win and are most likely to win with independent, ticket splitting voters, are, because of that strategy, the least likely to provide an extra boost for their own party down ticket. They are both running to some extent against some traditional parts of their party's coalition and are both depending on the same block of male independent voters for their win -- exactly the kind of "swing" voters who are most likely to split their ticket.

Clinton, on the other hand, while not as likely to win the "new" swing, independent, Republican leaning and moderate Republican male voters Obama is seeking is aiming for "more" -- more voters who are greater in number and more dependably Democratic but who often participate at lesser rates than more affluent, and more conservative and Republican, voters. That is; more working class voters and women, especially more working class women and working class youth (including minorities), more Hispanics and other immigrant groups, etc. These are voters who she has demonstrated her appeal to in the primaries and, voters who, when they do turn out, much more dependably vote for Democrats down ticket. If she gets the nomination and does energize these voters to vote in even slightly increased numbers in the GE, the Democrats are likely to do especially well down ticket in a year when they are likely to do very well anyway.

Posted by Anonymous | March 9, 2008 10:21 AM

The Clintonistas can lie to themselves all they want. Barack Obama is the best thing going in the Democratic Party today. The proof of the pudding is in the tasting and thanks to Obama, a Democrat in Illinois won in Republican territory.

Posted by Valdez | March 9, 2008 10:31 AM

GO HILLARY !!! (if you're a Republican)

Obama is the best thing for the Democratic party.

Talk about the coat-tail factor...he brings voters out in droves....he energizes them...they make the calls, go door to door....and they win.

He'll be able to help insure that the Democrats win many congressional seats come '08.

Hillary cannot do this...she will not help win any Republican controlled seats....just the opposite.

There will be more than 30 Rebublican vacancies in '08

Hillary (as the Democratic nominee) is the only hope for the Republicans in '08.

GO OBAMA ! ! (if you're a Democrat)

Posted by kevin | March 9, 2008 11:08 AM

Hillary (as the Democratic nominee) is the only hope for the Republicans in '08.
GO OBAMA ! ! (if you're a Democrat)
Posted by kevin

What you have now is a wave of secular rapture in Democratic ranks for the vague, but soaring speeches of the Black Messiah.

A man who dispenses delicious bromides and offers guilty whites, especially liberal Jews, the moral redemption they have craved for decades that only a Black President can achieve and thus purge their race-guilt. A man that cannot be attacked on an ultraliberal record by other Dem primary contestants without alienating the Lefty/Moveon.org/blind AA support Base. Any effort Hillary has tried has been clubbed down by the race card, "How-Dare-You-Go-Negative!!" card by proxies wielding those cards.

McCain has none of those impediments.

He is free to point out that Obama has less successful executive experience - military/private/government - than any nominee, ever.
And free to completely diss the Democratic Base - in the process of showing what a Hard Left record Obama has. Gun bans. Partial birth abortion. Cut and run. 800 billion in new government programs proposed. Captive to the Ethanol Interests. A naive waif in a dangerous world. Committed to scaling back the fight against radical Islamists globally, down to a game of hide 'n seek of half a dozen survivors in a vast hostile land where Americans are likely to be shot at on sight by the 160 million locals if we offend them by going there. (Iraq only has 23 million, half friendly to us). Pretending that catching or killing his "celebrity" terrorists will have any substantial effect on the global ideological struggle, or pretending that Muslims will love him for once being a Muslim..

No, right now the odds are against the Republicans.
Failed President, corruption issues, dead ideas like supply-side economics, the odious theocrat Base they have. Unpopular War. Economy in major trouble in a country that is palpably angry at America's decline economically and as a major, positive force globally.
But honestly, Republicans know they lose Obama's black, Moveon.org base anyways, and the rapture of youth and guilty Lefty Jews with his Black Messiah speeches will wear down. Yes, he doesn't have Hillary's negatives, but only because he is a tabula rasa - an empty vessel that Dem voters have filled with their own words and values and dreams - not his. He will be called out and forced to fill in that blank slate - dismaying voters on a range of issues where they are on both sides, but where they think Obama is with them on a particular side.

Republicans fear Hillary's strength with blue collar Reagan Democrats, working women, the elderly, and Latinos far more. Her intelligence and command of details that McCain lacks. Her ability to be strong and carry Swing States like Ohio, New Hampshire, Florida, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Tennessee, and Nevada far more.

Posted by chris ford | March 9, 2008 11:50 AM

Her ability to be strong and carry Swing States like Ohio, New Hampshire, Florida, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Tennessee, and Nevada far more.

Sorry, I missed the general election where she carried those states; would you please refresh my memory? A link to a Wikipedia article or something would be great if you don't feel like typing it out.

Posted by Jeff Larson | March 9, 2008 11:55 AM

Republicans fear Hillary

Yeah, but, like... they don't.

Posted by jbryan | March 9, 2008 11:59 AM

I'm mad as hell and not going to take it any more. You little Obamaites and your newfangled attitudes make me sick. Those of us who fought the good fight back in the 60's against the Nixon and establishment Republican machine should be naming the nominee: Hillary Clinton. She's a fighter, plus she knows that in order to truly bring people together you first have to divide them and beat the other side and their evil intentions to a pulp. Only then can you be a true uniter. You Obamatons need to learn your place.

Posted by ken | March 9, 2008 12:18 PM

Jeff Larson --

She has shown she can win demographics in those states that Democrats will need to win in November.

Obama's growing delegate count, on the other hand, is dependent to a very great extent on wins, mostly among elite voters, in heavily Republican states that have no chance of going Democratic in the fall.

In many ways, his primary strategy has been a repeat of the strategy that won the nomination for McGovern in '72 (relying heavily on affluent youth, independents and moderate Republicans with a majority of his wins coming from Republican states) plus, the African American vote (which in '72 mostly went for Humphrey).

Few of those independents or Republcans or young people showed up for McGovern in the general election. And many of the traditional Democrats who had supported Humphrey and Muskie just stayed home.

Even though there are many different dynamics in play today, it is still reasonable to worry about something similar happening if Obama wins with such a similar, and in many aspects fragile, coalition.

Obama's elite supporters dismiss and disdain all those working class voters and women who are voting for Clinton at the party's peril. He can't win without them. And he hasn't yet given any indication of what he will do to turn them into energetic supporters (that won't offend his more affluent independent and Republican supporters).

Also, given the fickleness of "independents" their support should be viewed with a bit of skepticism. These are the least dependable voters, most likely to change their mind at any point in the process -- what they do in the primaries provides no promise for what they will do in the general election.

Posted by roy | March 9, 2008 12:25 PM

"Reagan Democrats": dying by the hundreds each and every day, and we really ought to start a counter to tick down to the point at which better than half of them are in the ground and less than half of them remain. For now, some facts:

--Those who voted for Reagan as 55-year-olds in 1980 are, if they're still around, 83 this year; a 40-year old then turns 68 by Election Day.

--With the exception of its personal touch upon family members, no American aged 43 or under has an abiding memory of the Vietnam war; he or she certainly didn't "live through the whole Vietnam experience" in ways that one's elders did.

--Those who turn 18 this year are 25 years younger than 43-year-olds; those 25 years older are 68.

--Few are those under 35 who remember Jimmy Carter for anything beyond his job title.

--All but a few under 30 have no meaningful recollection whatsoever of the last GOP presidential blowout, and Ronald Reagan is known to most of them only thru history books and TV documentaries.

Just some things to think about as we casually plot out who's going to be running things around here for the next quarter-century or so.

Posted by FDR Republican | March 9, 2008 12:30 PM

mostly among elite voters

As opposed to the racist redneck block, or low/no information voters in Appalachia, or Hispanics that detest blacks? Yeah, those damn elites! Who do they think they are?

Posted by Johnson | March 9, 2008 12:38 PM

FDR Republican --

We know who will be running things. The same people who run things now; those who control the media and how votes and whose votes are counted.

The question is whether or not those whose interests aren't being served in this set up will at some point be energized enough to change the dynamic.

I don't see Obama representing that kind of change (for instance, he gets the vote of affluent youth but isn't gaining support from working class youth for whom change is really an imperative). Right now, those who have the most to lose in this system are also the most apathetic -- in part because they simply don't see anyone who truly does represent them in our political leadership.

But, if economic conditions worsen, and affect broader and broader numbers of people, that may change.

Posted by roy | March 9, 2008 12:49 PM

The essential nature of this contest between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton is a contest between one Democrat trying to raise the quality of our politics, build a durable Democratic majority, help elect other Democrats throughout the country, enact progressive values in Washington, and an utterly self-absorbed Joe Lieberman character interested in gaining power for herself at any cost, even if it means destroying the Democratic party, even if it means hundreds of Democratic politicians downballot lose, even if it means adopting Republican talking points and Republican tactics.

How can the Democratic Party choose to destroy itself? Suicide is irrational, and giving the nomination to Hillary means, best case scenario, that she wins in November and the Democratic Party atrophies, hemorrhages Senate seats, House seats, Governors, and any meaningful claim to represent the values of the millions of strong liberal and progressive voters out there in this country.

Posted by Andrew | March 9, 2008 1:09 PM

I’ve read this entire thread and several others for that matter. All I can say is, the Republicans must be doing cartwheels because of Hillary Clinton and her get the nomination at all cost mentality. She’s shown just what a lack of good judgment she’d show as President. I give you sixteen minutes arguing about one paragraph of a heath care plan during the last Ohio debate, never mind that it wouldn’t in a million years pass congress as she’s envisioned it. Hillary Clinton is indeed a fighter she is so convinced her ideas are the best ideas. She’s not only unwilling but also perhaps even unable to compromise. The basis of her being a fighter is essentially a mantra of rather than what she claims which is she has “experience” but rather “I know exactly what I’m going to do” and come hell or high water I’m going to do it.

If the super delegates decide to give Senator Clinton the nomination and she wins the general election. She’ll be looking at a deadlocked congress just like we have right now.

Why do I say this? It’s because of the math thirty-four US Senate seats are up for re-election this year. Twelve Democratic as well as Twelve Republican are considered to” “Safe” for the incumbents based on their approval ratings and the margins they’ve won by in the past. The other contests are considered to be completive and could go either way. Let’s look at some scenarios for a moment

The current composition of the Senate is thus.

51D/49R

Scenario 1 and 2
All the close contests go to one party or the other this is not likely to happen.

This gives the Democratic Party a filibuster proof majority.
61D/39R

This would allow for a Democratic minority to filibuster but not actually pass anything.
41D/59R

Scenario 3
For the sake of argument we’ll say it’s a perfectly even split in all the close contests. I’m not going to bother with all the other ways the contests could be distributed.

56D/44D

We have essentially the same as we have now one side can filibuster to prevent the other side from accomplishing anything.

Posted by SC Rose | March 9, 2008 1:32 PM

She has shown she can win demographics in those states that Democrats will need to win in November. Obama's growing delegate count, on the other hand, is dependent to a very great extent on wins, mostly among elite voters, in heavily Republican states that have no chance of going Democratic in the fall.

Republican states like Vermont, Connecticut, Delaware, Maryland? Heavily Republican states like Wisconsin, D.C., and Hawaii? Washington and Illinois? Man, the Republicans have a way stronger strangehold on the union than I realized. We're pretty much fucked come November.

Though I am reassured by Clinton winning those states that Democrats absolutely have to win in November, like Tennessee, Oklahoma, and Texas. It's a good thing she's also taken key swing states like Iowa, Virginia, Minnesota, and Missouri.

In many ways, his primary strategy has been a repeat of the strategy that won the nomination for McGovern in '72 [...] with a majority of his wins coming from Republican states [...]

Obama has won 26 states (plus D.C., which should be a state and counts as one in presidential elections). 12 of those have come from states won by either Al Gore or John Kerry; 14 of those came from states that were carried both times by George Bush.

By comparison, Hillary Clinton has won 14 states. 6 of those were won by Kerry or Gore; 8 were won by Bush.

This is a thoroughly moronic argument.

Obama's elite supporters dismiss and disdain all those working class voters and women who are voting for Clinton at the party's peril. He can't win without them.

I agree, Obama will have a very hard time winning a general election without some substantial bloc of the voters that are currently supporting Sen. Clinton. What Clinton supporters need to recognize, however, is that Sen. Clinton also absolutely cannot win without the people backing Obama: independents, the young, blacks, and well educated/affluent voters.

Both sides have put together coalitions of voters in this primary. Much as it may pain you, neither one of these coalitions is innately more legitimate; both coalitions have yielded general election losers (I see your McGovern and raise you a Dukakis/Mondale/Kerry); neither is a more key constituency of the party; and neither is dissmissable in any sense.

Regardless of who wins, the victor of the primary will need to mend fences within the party and bring together the supporters of his opponent. Winning in November will be impossible for either candidate if they cannot accomplish this. But frankly, I keep hearing from Clinton supporters that hers are the most legitimate Democrats, so I would imagine it'd be easier to convince them to stay in the Democratic fold than whatever independents and new voters Obama is winning over.

Also, given the fickleness of "independents" their support should be viewed with a bit of skepticism. These are the least dependable voters...

Least dependable, maybe, but they're still pretty freaking essential -- given that independents outweigh both Republicans and Democrats.

... most likely to change their mind at any point in the process -- what they do in the primaries provides no promise for what they will do in the general election.

Maybe so. But there's already a contest going on for them, given that right now they also have the ability to go and vote in the Republican primaries, but they're still choosing to vote in the Democratic primaries instead.

And honestly, while there's no guarantee of what they'll do in November, I'd rather bet on the candidate that's winning them over Clinton and McCain in overwhelming numbers than the candidate that's currently losing them.

Posted by jbryan | March 9, 2008 1:47 PM

Foster Victory = Obama. Coat-Tails. End of story.

Message to the DEM Party: sieze the Obama moment, or be lost.

Posted by Gregor | March 9, 2008 2:34 PM

Even bobby ethan wants Hillary to release her tax returns.

Posted by bobby ethan's deflated ego | March 9, 2008 2:36 PM

"independents, the young, blacks, and well educated/affluent voters."

I don't believe African Americans will abandon the Democrats in November, no matter who is at the top of the ticket, and I have no doubt that Clinton would ask Obama to be her VP if she gets the nomination.

On the other hand, it is much less likely that Obama would put her on his ticket, because it has been his strategy, in order to appeal to independents and Republicans, to both attack the record of Bill Clinton's adminstration and made direct character attacks against her (personally and frequently referring to her as dishonest -- in ads and in direct statements, not just through surrogates -- and arguing that she is "calculating" and "willing to do and say anything to win").

Clinton has run against Obama on the basis of experience and differences in policy. But Obama has run against Clinton on the basis of character and rejection of her husband's administration; in terms of a unified ticket and party unity overall, that is a much more divisive strategy.

As for independents, as I said earlier, they are not necessarily dependable voters. Neither are young voters. In fact, although affluent young voters do heavily support Obama and did turn out in larger than usual numbers in Iowa, that larger than usual turnout has not been sustained in other primaries.

Affluent voters will vote their self-interest. For some that will be with the Republicans as it always has been, others, especially among the "creative class" will still see their interest better served by the Democrats -- even if it is Hillary at the top of the ticket.

Posted by roy | March 9, 2008 2:41 PM

I don't believe African Americans will abandon the Democrats in November, no matter who is at the top of the ticket

But you think older Democrats or women will? That doesn't seem to be a smart move. A lot of blacks have been angered by this campaign, and given how necessary they are for Democrats to win in a LOT of key states, taking them for granted as a voting bloc would be dangerous.

As to the rest of your stuff: none of it alters what I said in the slightest, which is that Obama's coalition of voters would be every bit as essential to Clinton's success in November (if not moreso, given that his is larger) as Clinton's coalition would be to Obama. Neither of them can win without the other's supporters.

Do the young vote in lower numbers? Sure. But they've been turning out pretty strongly this cycle, they're key to building the party's future, and Obama has been winning them overwhelmingly -- 80% to 20% in Virginia, for instance. And no Democrat will win a general election without independents. Period. They may be fickle, but they're beyond essential, and there are no two ways about it.

Posted by jbryan | March 9, 2008 2:54 PM

i get it now! ken is really just a character poster, a simulacrum of a fervent Hillary supporter. in which case he's pretty funny and should keep going.

Posted by BA | March 9, 2008 3:02 PM

Yes, Obama has won some safely Democratic and Democratic leaning states -- states that are likely to go to the Democrats with either candidate at the top of the ticket. But he hasn't won enough of those states to be in contention without his string of wins in heavily Republican Southern and Mountain West states that will not go to the Democrats in November.

Clinton has, overall, done better in the Southwestern swing states that Democrats will need to win, and, as you mention, in the border states. (It will be interesting to see how she does in WVA, Kentucky and Indiana.) There's no reason to believe that Obama's win in Colorado indicates that Clinton couldn't win in Colorado (any more than there is any reason to believe that Clinton's win in California means Obama can't win there in the fall). In fact, with her proven strength among Hispanics she is likely to do quite well there. As for Missouri, Clinton won all the rural areas of the state -- Obama just barely squeaked out a victory because of heavy urban support. That support will go to either of the Democratic contenders in the fall -- it is what happens in the rural parts of the state that will determine whether the Democrats can put that in their column.

I've supported and worked on campaigns for and Democrats in Washington State and Oregon over the last 20 years. I think I know a little about the dynamics that have been pushing these states from swing states to more dependably Democratic states over that time. I see no reason to think that Clinton can't win those states in the general election.

Posted by roy | March 9, 2008 3:06 PM

jbryan-

I don't believe for a minute that Obama's support from African Americans is based on resentment or hatred of the Clintons. Or that Clintons history, in and out of office, has indicated that she takes the African American vote "for granted."

Obama and his supporters, on the other hand, do seem to think that the women's vote is something that can be taken for granted by Democrats. Yet, recent history has shown that when women split their vote (as they did in 2000 and 2004) between the parties, Democrats lose. And when they simply fail to show up (as they did in '94) Democratic losses are even more significant.

Posted by roy | March 9, 2008 3:19 PM

This stuff is just getting farcical now. Look, there's no correlation between winning a state in a primary and going on to win a state in a general election (except to the extent that that primary victory feeds off independent voters directly taken away from a Republican nominee). But even if there were, Obama has won more of those swing states: Iowa, Missouri, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Washington, Colorado, Virginia. That's compared to New Mexico, New Hampshire, Nevada, Ohio, and I guess we'll be charitable and toss in Arkansas. That's 71 electoral votes against 40.

Posted by jbryan | March 9, 2008 3:20 PM

Obama and his supporters, on the other hand, do seem to think that the women's vote is something that can be taken for granted by Democrats.

Bullshit. And you're not even arguing seriously now. "African Americans are all fine with the Clintons; Obama and his supporters are taking women for granted." These claims are based on nothing. You're just saying that your candidate is just fine and won't need to do anything at all to mend rifts in the party but that Obama needs to because he's run such a scorched earth campaign; she'll get all his supporters, he'll not get hers. It's stupid and there's no data or evidence to support this.

Posted by jbryan | March 9, 2008 3:23 PM

As we have gone over here many times now, Clinton's arguments for granting her the nomination--despite her (very likely) losing the pledged delegate contest by a substantial margin--depend on a series of logical flaws and factual misrepresentations. Unfortunately, a complicit media is perfectly willing to let those arguments remain unexamined since it is in their material interests to prolong this contest as long as possible.

That is why things like the SurveyUSA 50 state head-to-head polls, and now the results in this special election, are quite useful. Although they are imperfect evidence at best about who would be the better nominee, at least they are not the product of spin. And as such, they may help people see through Clinton's logical errors and misrepresentations.

Posted by DTM | March 9, 2008 3:25 PM

Obama and his supporters, on the other hand, do seem to think that the women's vote is something that can be taken for granted by Democrats.

You are a clown and a shill. Thanks for tipping your hand.

Posted by Catherine | March 9, 2008 3:30 PM

That's not what I said at all.

Most Democrats indicate that they like both candidates and would be happy with either at the top of the ticket. Most would even like to see both on the ticket.

I am simply arguing against some of the silly arguments made routinely against Clinton and for Obama by his more avid supporters.

Both candidates are going to have problems, as Democrats have had for the last 30 years, with middle class white male voters -- whether those voters call themselves Independents or not. That isn't based on who the candidates are personally, it's based in the policy differences between the parties and how those men see their interests. Both candidates are, simply as Democrats, going to do better than the Republican candidate with minorities, young voters, anti-war voters, creative class voters, immigrants, and, against McCain, most likely women.

As much as the Democratic party yearns to attract more of those male "independents," and even moderate Republicans, what is ultimately going to determine if they win the general election or not is how energized their traditional voters are. Which is why having both these candidates on the ticket would be a very good idea.

In my real life I own an after-market car parts manufacturing and marketing business. I know who those independent male voters are -- they're my customers. And, frankly, I see anything about Obama that would make them more likely to vote for him than they were likely to vote for either Gore or Kerry. Would they pick Obama over Hillary Clinton? Sure. But Obama won't be running against Hillary in the fall.

Posted by roy | March 9, 2008 3:44 PM

Sorry, the above should read "I DON'T see anything about Obama that would make them more likely to vote for him than they were likely to vote for either Gore or Kerry."

Posted by roy | March 9, 2008 3:48 PM

In my real life I own an after-market car parts manufacturing and marketing business. I know who those independent male voters are -- they're my customers.

That's great and all, but as they say, the plural of "anecdote" ain't "data."

And, frankly, I see anything about Obama that would make them more likely to vote for him than they were likely to vote for either Gore or Kerry. Would they pick Obama over Hillary Clinton? Sure. But Obama won't be running against Hillary in the fall.

But this is the point I tried to make to you before: when you're in open primary states, every independent vote one candidate gets is being taken away from both his primary opponents AND the other party's candidates. You're saying independents right now are just choosing to vote for Obama over Clinton. But that isn't true. Right now they're choosing to vote for Obama over both Hillary Clinton and John McCain, overwhelmingly.

In 2000, most of the independents flocked to McCain. In 2008, most of them went to Obama. We've seen the same thing over and over in state after state, whether it's Virginia or Wisconsin or wherever: instead of choosing to vote in the Republican primaries, they're choosing to vote in the Democratic primary.

Maybe they all will desert him in the fall. I don't know. General election polling doesn't indicate that this will be the case, but I don't pretend to be a seer -- it could happen. But I'd still rather start out with a heavy and decisive advantage amongst independents than start out with a steep deficit.

Posted by jbryan | March 9, 2008 3:54 PM

Look, I'm not arguing that there is reason to believe that Clinton is more, or less, electable than Obama. I think we have two good candidates. I'm not arguing for or against either of them.

Instead, I'm arguing that if Obama is elected he will be elected with the type of coalition that we know any Democrat needs to put together to win.

I am also arguing against the kind of reasoning that suggests Obama will win because he represents some kind of new coalition, and that Clinton will lose, and damage Democrats down ticket, because she does not.

I think the "new" coalition is hogwash -- and that putring too much faith in it, especially to the point of alienating or dismissing traditional Democratic voters, can work against the Democrat's greater interest. But I like the candidates just fine.

Posted by roy | March 9, 2008 4:05 PM

Fair enough, Roy. I don't think anyone's advocating that Obama should ditch the Democratic coalition -- arguments are only made as to the benefit of expanding it.

Posted by jbryan | March 9, 2008 4:18 PM

It is probably worth noting that Obama's "new coalition" is not new for him: he put together the same coalition in Illinois. Indeed, for those of us who know Illinois politics, including the distinction between Chicago, the collar counties, and Downstate Illinois, and who know how Obama has managed to appeal to the people in all three of these areas in relatively large numbers for a Democrat, the fact that he is able to repeat this success in many other regions of the country is hardly surprising.

Now, I could see how people unfamiliar with Obama's track record in Illinois could have started out somewhat skeptical about what he was trying to do nationally. But all the evidence available suggests he has indeed been able to scale up his success in Illinois to a national campaign. And at a certain point, a general skepticism has to give way to what the available evidence is indicating.

And I think that is what is happening with the superdelegates: in state after state, Obama is gradually demonstrating that he does indeed have the ability to draw a broader range of support than the Democratic Presidential candidates of the recent past. And while there are no guarantees in politics, I think the superdelegates are gradually becoming reassured that at worst Obama is going to be as strong as he will need to be to win the Presidency, and at best he will lead a successful effort to realign the national political coalitions in the Democratic Party's favor.

Posted by DTM | March 9, 2008 4:32 PM

Oh, but I want to note I agree that most of the members of the national Democratic coalitions of the recent past need to be part of the new Democratic coalition. But this is ultimately a question of margins, and I don't think it is unfair to state that many Clinton supporters are effectively arguing that if she is likely to beat him by just a small margin among just some of the members of the past Democratic coalitions, she is the stronger candidate. The truth is that to the extent Obama can expand the Democratic coalition, he could more than make up for a marginal loss among some traditional Democratic subgroups.

In other words, hypothetically it may be true that Clinton would do 5% better than Obama among subgroups such as white female registered Democrats over the age of 65 with incomes under $50,000 who live in Appalachia. But if Obama could just beat Clinton by 5% among independents and Republicans nationwide, his marginal advantage would completely swamp Clinton's marginal advantages (and that is even ignoring the Democratic subgroups where Obama is likely to do better).

And that is basically where we stand: Obama is already doing better when you add up the margins of the people voting in the Democratic Party's primaries and caucuses, and he is likely to do even better when you expand to the general electorate. And that is because the groups where he does better add up to a much bigger portion of the general electorate than the groups where Clinton does better.

Posted by DTM | March 9, 2008 4:43 PM

DTM --

As too frequently happens with Obama supporters, your description of Clinton's supporters is both simplistic and dismissive. Something Democrats can't afford to be in an election where their candidate must compete with a man who has proven appeal to many members of their own party.

Clinton's appeal is not limited to poor, elderly women. Many of the affluent white women who are voting for Obama now will happily vote for her, and in large numbers. She is also likely, with her long history on issues like health care, child care, family leave, etc. that are vital economic issues to working women and younger working class voters (although they often barely register with older men and more affluent voters in general), to bring working class women, of all ages, and perhaps even younger working class men, to the polls in larger than usual numbers.

Obama's ability to make large gains among independent men, on the other hand, may be limited by their distrust of his party's stand on the issues that usually motivate them; fiscal responsibility (an area where his association with the Kerry/Kennedy wing of the party won't help), tax policy, government regulation (of everything from guns to business to snowmobiles and mileage standards), social spending, etc. Independents are in large part "independent" because they distrust government in general and don't think too highly of either party. They are the voters most likely to see government and politicians as corrupt and to throw "the bums" of either party out when corruption becomes evident (as in 1994 and 2006).

For these voters, an great deal will depend on their final decision about which of the candidates is most trustworthy in terms of personal character.

McCain has a long history, of the kind of "real world" service these men respect, on which to argue "trust me."

Obama, not so much.

Posted by roy | March 9, 2008 6:27 PM

Dumb people = writers and posters who impugn a Candidate for President with the qualities they perceive in that candidate's "supporters."

Really dumb people = writers and posters who lack the intellectual capacity to determine, for themselves, the nature of a Candidate for President, and, take up the observation of that candidate's "supporters" to try and figure it all out.

Posted by Catherine | March 9, 2008 6:48 PM

roy,

As an aside, Clinton has not in fact uniformly won women, nor lower-income people, and so on, across the country. Rather, her support among such groups is strongly tied to certain regions, and that is an important factor in why Obama has a bigger overall coalition (his appeal is not as limited regionally as hers).

Anyway, the basic fact is that registered Democrats supporting either candidate are highly likely to convert to the other Democrat rather than McCain. That is because party identification is the most dominant factor in American Presidential elections (and indeed most statewide elections), easily trumping things like race, gender, class, and so on. Moreover, we happen to know from polls that both Obama and Clinton get reasonably high approval ratings from registered Democrats, so there is no reason to expect either of their supporters to break this pattern in large numbers.

So, I agree the vast majority of Obama's supporters who are registered Democrats are likely to switch to Clinton if she wins the nomination, even in the subgroups he is currently winning handily (absent her getting the nomination in a way his supporters view as fundamentally illegitimate). The same goes in reverse, however: the vast majority of Clinton's Democratic supporters will likely switch to Obama if he is the nominee, even in the subgroups she is currently winning handily.

Obviously, things are indeed more uncertain when it comes to independents and cross-over Republicans, since partisanship is not an explanatory factor for them. But that just makes it far less likely that Clinton will be able to convert Obama's independent and cross-over supporters if she is the nominee, which she would need to do to just start in the same position based on the primary electorate alone. Moreover, many potential independent and cross-over supporters simply are not voting in the primaries, either because they are not allowed to (in closed states), or because they simply declined to participate in a primary for a Party of which they are not a member (even if it is allowed).

So, the upshot is that there is almost no support for the hypothesis that Clinton's starting point general election base would be bigger than Obama's starting point general election base, given the nature of their coalitions and the likelihood of registered Democrats converting in higher numbers than independents and cross-overs to whomever wins the nomination. And in case that isn't obvious enough already, the head-to-head polls basically show the same thing.

As a final note, I agree that character and value issues will matter a great deal with independents and potential cross-overs. That is why it is not a surprise that Clinton does relatively poorly in those groups: outside of registered Democrats, she has relatively high personal negatives on such issues. And whether that is fair or not, it makes her a fundamentally weak candidate in a political situation where her own party is not large enough to win elections without significant independent and cross-over support. Again, this point was somewhat obvious well before the primaries started, but the primaries have helped confirmed it, as have the head-to-heads with McCain.

Posted by DTM | March 9, 2008 7:13 PM

DTM --

Nobody uniformly wins anybody. But at least an argument can be made for many Clinton voters based on their voting patterns in the past. We know they vote for Democrats. And we know that Democrats do better when they come out in stronger than usual numbers.

On the other hand, the argument is made over and over and over again that Obama will win voters who have consistently shown greater support for Republican candidates. And, these arguments are made without offering one concrete reason WHY he will be more successful with these voters than other Democrats have been, or one concrete strategy for being more successful with these voters. (The only argument I've seen is that he is doing better against Clinton in the primaries with these voters -- which is not at all a test of how he will perform against a Republican in the fall. Both Dukakis and McGovern did well with independents, and even moderate Republicans, in the primaries, but failed to win those groups in the GE).

My point is there are reasons -- perfectly good reasons based in life experience, world view, values and self-interest -- for why these voters are less likely to vote for Democrats.

How will Obama counter and overcome those reasons? What will he offer those voters?

Posted by roy | March 9, 2008 7:34 PM

DTM --

I realize my last post did not acknowledge this; I agree Obama is likely to get most of Clinton's voters. But he may not energize (that is, actually get them to the polls) working women -- a group that votes inconsistently and responds most strongly to very specific issues that aren't always strongly addressed by traditional male voters -- to the extent that Hillary will. Their votes were very important for Bill Clinton's victory in '92, and their failure to show up in '94 was very important to the Democrat's loss of the house in '94.

Posted by roy | March 9, 2008 7:41 PM

roy,

As an aside, I will note I already agreed that Clinton might do marginally better in some of her Democratic subgroups than Obama would. But of course the same applies to Obama and his Democratic subgroups: for example, it is not like young people have a great reputation for turning out either. Moreover, I again think it is extremely important to note that Clinton is not doing uniformly well among demographic groups across the country, but rather her support really depends on the region.

Anyway, we actually have already been discussing one of the fundamental reasons why Obama does better than Clinton among independents and cross-over Republicans. As you correctly noted, many of these people are not primarily ideological voters, and for them character and value issues take on even greater importance than usual. Obama has been very careful to establish and maintain a certain reputation among these voters, going all the way back to his time in the Illinois Senate (we could get into the details of how he has done this if you wish).

Clinton has not established a good reputation, in contrast, continuing right up through her conduct in this campaign. And predictably, the result is her consistently high negatives on relevant attributes among independents and Republicans. So, that is why Obama does better among these groups, and better in the current head-to-head polls as a result.

As a final note, I agree McCain is good at appealing to independents as well, which is why he was a wise choice by the Republicans (at least given the available choices). But the crucial thing to note is that McCain will be a tough opponent for Clinton too, and she has shown no ability to be able to counteract his strengths among independents. And given the number of independents today, Clinton cannot win on the strength of Democrats alone.

Indeed, would you argue that Huckabee is a stronger general election candidate than McCain, because Huckabee might do marginally better among certain core Republican subgroups? I wouldn't, and yet the arguments you are offering for Clinton are much the same. And again, the Republicans made a wise choice by going with McCain, and the Democrats appear to be in the process of making the same wise choice by going with Obama.

Posted by DTM | March 9, 2008 8:08 PM

roy,

Oh, and most of the people who will be voting in the general election don't like the war, don't like the economy, and don't like the current President and the way he has governed. All those things will help create an opportunity for the Democrats to expand their coalition, but they do have to choose the right candidate for that purpose.

Posted by DTM | March 9, 2008 8:19 PM

DTM --

But the harshest Republican character attacks against Obama haven't really started, and won't start in earnest until Clinton is out of the picture and the media is ready to help turn the guns on Obama.

Hillary Clinton really isn't evil and corrupt. In fact she is a very admirable woman who has been devoted to her family and to public service aimed at improving the lives of the most vulnerable people -- abused and disadvantaged children, the ill and elderly, people without access to legal counsel, etc., etc. And she is someone whose time in the Senate has been marked by her ability to get things done across the aisle, rather than by hostility and divisiveness. John Kerry isn't really a dishonest, unprincipled, "french" flip flopping, gigolo coward who lied about his military service, injured himself to gain unearned military awards, betrayed his country and his fellow soldiers, indulge in various financial shenanigans with his wealthy wife's money, etc., etc. Nor is Al Gore an elitist, pathological liar who claimed he "invented" the internet, lied about his posh childhood and tried to take credit for Love Canal, among many other examples of poor character and ineptness he was accused of by the opposition.

Everytime Democrats accept and adopt the character assasination of one of their party leaders they just make it easier for Republicans to do the same thing to next Democrat who comes along. Every time you describe Hillary in Republican terms, you reinforce the Republican party's negative branding of the ENTIRE party and its leaders. Including Obama.

The day Democrats realize this, and start standing up for the people who stand up for them, they may just start winning elections again.

Posted by roy | March 9, 2008 8:52 PM

All of this rings a little hollow, Roy, when uttered in defense of a candidate arguing that her primary opponent isn't qualified to be Commander in Chief and that a Republican would be a better choice.

Posted by jbryan | March 9, 2008 9:07 PM

roy,

I personally think that Obama has already demonstrated that he is quite adept at turning baseless attacks on his character against those attacking him, so I am not concerned about what McCain and the GOP might do. I also think that while on the one hand Clinton in the past has received a lot of undue criticism, on the other hand she has provided her critics with a lot more ammunition during her Senate career and during this nomination contest. And again, personally I think her conduct in this campaign in particular does in fact reflect poorly on her character and values.

But the broader problem with your argument is that Clinton is not actually entitled to the nomination, and Obama has demonstrated that regardless of what one might think about Clinton, in his own right he is a highly skilled politician and leader who can build the Party and attract new voters in many regions. So whether or not Clinton's failings as a politician are entirely her own fault, I don't see why the Party should feel compelled to nominate her as some sort of symbolic gesture, particularly not if she cannot manage to actually win the pledged delegate contest.

Posted by DTM | March 9, 2008 9:42 PM

DTM --

No one is "entitled" to the nomination. They all face the same hurdle to getting it -- gaining votes.

But, my arguments aren't for Clinton over Obama. I know what Clinton's liabilities are with independent voters. And I know what liabilities Democrats in general have with those voters.

My argument is that I don't see any reason to believe Obama doesn't also suffer from those same liabilities. Nor do I see any Obama supporters willing to offer concrete reasons for assuming he will overcome those liabilities.

Most important, I think elite liberals who think those liabilities can be overcome simply by "tone" are merely revealing their lack of familiarity with and understanding of those independent voters; their lives, their values, their issues.

Posted by roy | March 9, 2008 10:25 PM

This is a sign that conservatives are not necessarily spooked by the name Hussein or all the false rumors circulating out there:
http://acropolisreview.com/2008/01/barack-obama-muslim.html

Posted by TC | March 9, 2008 10:40 PM

roy,

As an aside, I don't think it should matter, but as it happens I am registered as an independent.

Anyway, first I'm not sure I understand what you mean when you say "liabilities Democrats in general have with those voters." Democrats in the past have sometimes done fine with independents, and independents are not exactly a static group anyway. So I don't think there is some generic truth to the proposition that Democrats have a harder time appealing to independents than, say, Republicans.

Second, I don't believe I used the word "tone". What I actually wrote is that "Obama has been very careful to establish and maintain a certain reputation among these voters, going all the way back to his time in the Illinois Senate." Establishing a good reputation is indeed about much more than "tone" (although how you speak to people is not entirely irrelevant either). It is a question of how you conduct yourself, including how you carry out your official duties, how you campaign, and so on.

Now, I noted above I would be happy to go into more detail about how Obama has gone about establishing a good reputation among independents and Republicans. But I am not sure that would be profitable, since you may not view me as a reliable source. But if your argument really does entirely depend on your not hearing anyone articulate Obama's strategy for independents in detail, then I am willing to offer my services.

Posted by DTM | March 9, 2008 10:49 PM

Portents: Democrats Pick Up Illinois 14

Comments (74)

Recent Posts

Monthly Archives