Michelle Obama Does Not Want To Talk About Rev. Wright
(Who blames her?) An excerpt, courtesy of NBC News, from tomorrow morning's Today Show.
MEREDITH VIEIRA: Michelle, do you feel that the Reverend Wright betrayed your husband?
MICHELLE OBAMA: I think Barack has spoken so clearly and eloquently about this.
MEREDITH VIEIRA: But do you personally feel that the Reverend Wright...
MICHELLE OBAMA: You know what I think Meredith? I think we gotta move forward. You know, this conversation doesn't help my kids. You know, it doesn't help kids out there who are looking for us to make decisions and choices about how we're going to better fund education.
More From The CBS News Poll: General Election
CBS and the New York Times also polled the general election.
At this stage, we're all poststructuralists; the horse race numbers have little to do with the reality of the November election. But again, the differences between the candidates reveal a lot about how the candidates are perceived by the electorate. Hillary Clinton does a little bit better than Barack Obama over John McCain, holding a lead outside the margin of error. (48 to 43 with leaners pushed for Clinton, 45 to 45 with leaners pushed for Obama.) The poll finds that a number of white women have left Obama's campaign to take a look at McCain, who actually ties (leads by 3) Obama among women overall. When was the last time there was gender parity in the electorate? Independents split between Obama and McCain and between Clinton and McCain; Clinton's margin comes from women.
THIRTY-NINE percent of Americans believe that Barack Obama would comport himself well in an international crisis, seven points lower than Clinton's score and 14 points lower than McCain's score. 31% of Americans think Obama would be swayed by special interests, but McCain scores equally well. Cindy McCain has a national favorability score of 50; Michelle Obama has one of 32, although Americans know her much less well.
THE PARADOX of the war continues to vex. 62% of Americans want to end the war within a year or two. Clear enough. But 77% want "flexibility" added to the decision-making rubric of their commanders in chief. That flexibility is predicated on the conditions in Iraq.
52% of Americans have a favorable impression of the Democratic Party. 33% of Americans feel the same way about Republicans. And Democrats lead by 18 points on the generic congressional ballot.
Snapshot Of The Democratic Race
The CBS News/New York Times poll out tonight is a high resolution snapshot of what the Democratic race looks like right now. The poll was taken over the weekend and on Monday and Tuesday, so some of the sample had yet to digest the full effects of Rev. Wright.
Propelling Obama forward more than any other force at this point is the expectation that he will be the nominee. When last polled by CBS and the Times, 70% of Democratic primary voters – a larger set than registered Democrats – said they thought Obama would receive the nomination. That figure, at that time, demonstrated quite nicely that contrary to claims, most Democratic primary voters could do the delegate math and were well informed about the likely course of events. That number has declined to 51% today. Presumably, those Democratic primary voters have not lost their math ability. Less than half of Democrats believe that Obama would have the best chance of beating John McCain, down eight from last month.
NONE OF THIS IS TO SAY that Clinton is doing all that much better. In fact, she’s down overall – losing to Obama among primary voters 46% to 38%. A third of Democratic primary voters expect her to win, and 37% believe she has the best chance of beating John McCain. A better measure here might be the smaller orbit of registered voters, where Clinton trails Obama by five points on this most important question, the question that serves as the central organizing principle for superdelegates. The potential minefield for Obama can be found when voters are asked to judge his personal qualities. He no longer wears a halo; Democrats view Obama and Clinton equally as favorably. But they view Clinton as much more patriotic – 55% say she is “very patriotic” versus 39% who say the same thing about Obama. Correspondingly, he remains much more trustworthy and honest in the eyes of Democratic voters.
THE CONVENTION is where most Democrats surveyed believe that the nomination will be settled, an expectation that helps Hillary Clinton enormously, as it indicates that voters will not be unpleasantly surprised by a hot summer of, well, something. A majority say they do not want party leaders and superdelegates to step in and end the race early, although Obama supporters are much less likely to support this view than Clinton voters are. I've written elsewhere that petulance, by which I mean a gathering ‘round effect common to polarizing enterprises, explains why a fair number of Clinton and Obama supporters right now say they would not support the opponent. It’s assumed that Clinton would have a harder time integrating Obama’s coalition into hers, but the data shows something else: 64% of Obama supporters would be satisfied if Clinton were the nominee, versus 50% of Clinton voters who say they'd be satisfied if Obama were the nominee. Indeed, 35% of Clinton supporters still say that they’ll support John McCain in the fall versus 23% of Obama supporters. The FACT of the support for McCain is not what’s interesting; it’s the disparity between Obama and Clinton. A slender majority of both candidates’ supporters are in favor of a dream ticket.
Obama On The Gas Tax Pause
Here is Barack Obama's response to Hillary Clinton's ad on a gas tax pause. You can tell by the text that it was shot on the road within the past two days. It's expensive -- 60 seconds -- and will run in rotation in both Indiana and North Carolina.
“I’m here to tell you the truth. We could suspend the gas tax for 6 months, but that’s not going to bring down gas prices long-term. You’re gonna save about 25, 30 dollars…or half a tank of gas. That’s typical of how Washington works. There’s a problem, everybody’s upset about gas prices – let’s find some short-term, quick-fix, that we can say we did something even though, even though we’re not really doing anything. We cannot deliver on a better energy policy unless we change how business is done in Washington. We’ve got to go out to the oil companies and look at their price-gouging. We’ve got to start using less oil and that means raising fuel efficiency standards on cars and developing alternative fuels. That’s the real honest answer to how we’re going to solve this problem. That’s what you need from a President someone who’s going to tell you the truth.”
Picketing At The DNC
THAT'S THE Republican Party of Florida having some fun.
About 200 Democrats from Florida did indeed picket outside the Democratic National Committee headquarters building on Ivy Street in Southeast Washington today. According to my colleagues at CongressDaily, Rep. Corrine Brown (D-FL) threatened to "shut down the convention" unless the full delegation were restored. Many of the protesters were members of LULAC, a Latino-rights group.
MISSING from the demonstration: Michigan Democrats.
Metrics For Clinton
A few metrics to consider this afternoon. Fox News has a poll showing with a fount of good news for Hillary Clinton, which should not surprise since it was fielded on Monday and Tuesday -- they're capturing the height of Obama's bad week. For six days, Gallup's track has indicated a tie in preferences. That's support for the theory that the party is, and will be, fairly evenly divided. And Clinton's stock is rising on the Intrade Prediction Markets (play along here), although Obama still commands a higher price.
Obama's Name NOT Toxic In New Jersey
Monmouth College's new poll shows Obama beating McCain by 10 points more than Clinton's margin over McCain. See here:
Obama's Name Now Toxic In Mississippi For One Democrat
Travis Childers, the Democratic congressional candidate who has the chance to flip Mississippi's first congressional district from Republican to Democrat, is so concerned with Mississippi voters falsely believing that he's been endorsed by Barack Obama that he has decided to cut an ad calling that claim "an attack."
Republican Greg Davis links Rev. Jeremiah Wright through Obama to Childers using a silly but apparently time-tested guilt by association advertisement. Childers's new ad protests. . His family, he says in the spot, "has heard the lies and attacks linking me to politicians I don't know and have never even met." (The Davis ad also refers to Hillary Clinton and Nancy Pelosi as well as to Obama, but the context of the past few days makes it clear that it's Obama Childers is referring to.)
LAST SUMMER, Obama bragged about his ability to expand the map for Democrats, to turn red states blue. He said that "If we just got African-Americans in Mississippi to vote their percentage of the population, Mississippi is suddenly a Democratic state." As was pointed out at the time, the problem in Mississippi for Democrats isn't black voters not voting their proportions -- it's the white voters who don't vote for Democratic candidates. (Actually, blacks voted well above this threshold in the 2004 general election.) Is Barack Obama's name now political poison in Mississippi?
The Atlantic's Boldest
A semi-regular corrections column.
1. In describing a superdelegate who pledged her support to Hillary Clinton today, I used the word "automatic," which, while accurate, is generally a term associated with Clinton campaign adviser Harold Ickes, and thus, not precisely neutral. This is less of a correction than an acknowledgment of the semiotic complexities of covering this race.
2. I described Jon Ham, who reported receiving a call from a pollster asking about Rev. Wright and Obama, as a Republican. I assumed he was a Republican because the organization to which he belongs and blogs for is known as a bastion of economic conservatism and libertarianism. Our brains have an heuristic for partisan sorting. In this case, it failed me. Mr. Ham informs me that he's been a registered Democrat since 1968.
3. A post yesterday on committee chairs who've endorsed Clinton and Obama missed quite a number of endorsements. Dorgan (Indian Affairs), Rockefeller (Intelligence) and Conrad (Budget) endorsed Obama. So that's eight chairs for Obama and three for Clinton.
McCain's Town Hall Meeting, Live Here
O'Reilly Teases Clinton Interview
On his Radio Factor program this afternoon, Fox's Bill O'Reilly called his interview with Hillary Clinton "the toughest" she's ever done. He implies that the two mix it up over sanctuary cities.
New NC Clinton Ad Features Maya A Using The P-Word
A "prayer."
Here's the script:
"Maya"
TV :60
Maya Angelou: Hillary Clinton is a prayer of every American who really longs for fair play.
Working men and women have had their jobs snatched from underneath them, their homes snatched away from them. And what we need, I think, is a person, a President who can make a difference in our country.
She intends to help our country become what it can become. She dares to say human beings are more alike than we are unalike.
I watched her become interested in public health and in education for all the children.
And I watched her stand.
I have found the person I think would be the best president for the United States of America.
Hillary Clinton: I'm Hillary Clinton and I approved this message.
With tech the way it is, why can't all the campaigns do this for all there events? Watch McCain's town hall here meeting at 2:00 pm ET.
Chelsea Picks Up A Puerto Rico Superdelegate For Her Mother
Chelsea Clinton just bagged a superdelegate for her mother. The youngest Clinton is campaigning today in San Juan, Puerto Rico. A few moments ago, at the Universidad del Sagrado Corazon, Luisette Cabanas, an unpledged superdelegate, announced her support for Clinton, giving the campaign the majority of automatic** delegates on the island.
Chelsea and her entourage are being hosted by superdelegates Fransisco Domenech and Senate President Kenneth Mclintock.)
** Obama supporters don't use the word "automatic" anymore, not even, I'd suspect, in normal conversation. So here's what I'll do: when Clinton picks up a superdelegate, I'll use the A-word. When Obama picks up a superdelegate, I'll use the S word. The semiotic complexities of the Democratic primary race are confusing.
MoveOn.Org Launches "$1M+" Anti-McCain Campaign
MoveOn.org today announced a month-long one-million dollar ad campaign designed to tie John McCain to President Bush on Iraq. The subject of the ad is straightforward enough, as is the response to the ad that the RNC has issued (MoveOn. Liberal group endorsed Liberal Obama for Liberal Reasons. Liberal.) The ad will air on national cable to jones up the influencers and donors, and in Iowa and New Mexico. Unless groups like MoveOn are willing to release their specific buy schedules, it pays to be a bit skeptical about the size and scope of their effort. In this case, I suspect that MoveOn will rely on contributions generated from those who approve the ad (the "right on, dude! effect) to reach their million dollar target.
THE TAG LINE of MoveOn's ad is superficially unremarkable and contextually misleading:
"100 years in Iraq? And you thought no one could be worse than George Bush." That the DNC and MoveOn and the Obama campaign have no compunction about taking John McCain's words out of context suggests to me that the battle to rectify the deliberate misinterpretation of McCain's remarks is over, no matter how times those of us with no real dog in the fight point that McCain really said something a bit different than what his opponents wanted him to say.
Supers Trickle
Barack Obama has taking a beating in the press and in the public polls, but the party's superdelegates don't seem to have been swayed. Today, Obama picks up the endorsement of Rep. Bruce Braley (D-IA) and Rep. Baron Hill (D-IN), while Clinton was endorsed by a Pennsylvania delegate, the head of the state's AFL-CIO.
CLINTON HAS picked 9 superdelegates since her win in Ohio. Obama has picked up 40. Since Pennsylvania, Clinton has picked up 5; Obama has picked up nine. There are 237 left. The trickle of superdelegates to Obama reflects two forces. One is that superdelegates are becoming more and more concerned with that if the party fails to unify quickly, it won't be able to unify, ever. The second is a conviction that because Obama will win (cross-reference the mathematical arguments), the party must draw hermetic circle around him as quickly as possible in order to avoid allowing any more of his magic to escape. This pressure is crossed by the superdelegates' own personal political concerns and their own personal preferences. So one one hand, the superdelegates face peer pressure and public pressure to coalesce around Obama; on the other, they nurture their private doubts.
A McCain Money Tidbit
A small, perhaps unrepresentative tidbit that points to a strong fundraising month for John McCain. A GOP source says that John McCain raised $1.5 million at a single fundraising event on Sunday at the Biltmore in Coral Gables, FL. Accouterments included a pig roast, salsa singer Willy Chirino, and even Jeb Bush, making a rare public appearance. Several prominent fundraisers for Mitt Romney and Rudy Giuliani attended.
April 29, 2008
Howey-Gauge Survey Of Indiana: Obama 47, HRC 45
An independent survey for Howey Politics Indiana conducted by Gauge Market Research gives Barack Obama 47% of the vote to Hillary Clinton's 45 percent. (The margin of error is 4.1% with a 95% degree of confidence.) Those of you following the gubernatorial race should note that Gov. Mitch Daniels (R) beats both potential Democratic opponents and Indiana University is the favorite Hoosier institution of higher education.
Clinton's "Trouble"
HILLARY CLINTON's new Indiana ad is tough. The Obama campaign calls it the "first attack ad" in Indiana. What they really mean is that they think it's demagogic. But these are facts: Clinton supports a gas tax pause and a freeze on foreclosures and Obama doesn't. He's said that both ideas are expedient and potentially harmful. The ad implies that Clinton favors action NOW and Obama does not. Clinton does not do Obama the courtesy of explaining his positions. Generally, you don't do that in political ads. Indeed, it's hard to do that even in a 30 second rebuttal ad, though I suspect that Jim Margolis already has one in the can, probably citing Paul Krugman.
Here's the script.
Hillary Clinton: I'm Hillary Clinton and I approved this message
Announcer: The economy's in trouble.
When the housing crisis broke, Hillary Clinton called for action: a freeze on foreclosures.
Barack Obama said, no.
Now, gas prices are skyrocketing, and she's ready to act again.
Hillary's plan: Use the windfall profits of the oil companies to pay to suspend the gas tax this summer.
Barack Obama says no, again
People are hurting.
It's time for a president who's ready to take action now.
The Gas Tax: Where's The Savings?
Had Barack Obama not interrupted his day to denounce his former pastor, he would have used some new language to describe the gas tax holiday proposed by John McCain and Hillary Clinton.
"This is the problem with Washington. We are facing a situation where oil prices could hit $200 a barrel. Oil companies like Shell and BP just reported record profits for the quarter. And we’re arguing over a gimmick that would save you half a tank of gas over the course of the entire summer so that everyone in Washington can pat themselves on the back and say that they did something."
Economist Jonah Gelbach weighs in:
"....one point that has gone largely unreported in the regular media is that a brief gas tax holiday would likely do little to reduce prices for consumers simply because in the short run the supply of gasoline is relatively fixed (in econese, the short run supply curve is close to vertical). As a result, a cut in the gas tax of brief duration will simply cause the pre-tax price of gas to rise. This would mean that the price paid by consumers would change relatively little, if at all (tho James Hamilton's post, linked below, suggests the consumer price might fall by as much as half the gas tax, which I think would be about 9 cents). Instead, the price received by oil companies would simply rise, providing them with windfall profits."
Gelbach is an Obama supporter; for more analysis that backs up his reading of the inelasticity of oil prices, see here.
Clinton's proposal, of course, would target the windfall profits and would in theory be revenue neutral, depending on how the tax is set up and collected. McCain's proposal would add to the deficit.
Who's Polling Wright In North Carolina?
Not we, insists the Clinton campaign. "Nope," says an Obama spokesman.
All questions were about the Obama-Wright relationship and whether that made me think more unfavorably about Barack Obama. Then they asked if I was more inclined now to vote for Hillary since this blew up.
The pro-Clinton 527s are operating in Indiana, not North Carolina. Yet. I know the Obama camp is polling regularly in North Carolina and I know they're conducting focus groups. But I do not know whether they've polled the Wright question. Maybe a media organization is doing this? Maybe the North Carolina GOP is testing for another ad?
Anyone else receive a call?
Michigan Dems Propose Delegate Solution
DEMOCRATS IN Michigan want Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and the Democratic National Committee to sign on to a compromise that would allocate a net of ten delegates to Hillary Clinton. Sen. Carl Levin, Rep. Carolyn Cheeks Kilpatrick,UAW President Ron Gettelfinger, and DNC Member Debbie Dingell outlined their proposal in a letter to Michigan's Dem chair, Mark Brewer.
The four want to allocate 69 pledged delegates to Hillary Clinton and 59 to Barack Obama. The approach splits the difference between the equal delegate proposal coming out of Chicago (g4 for each) and the 73-to-55 delegate split that the Clinton campaign would obtain from the results of the primary, with almost all of the uncommitted delegates being pledged to Obama. The four also write that they oppose the challenge by DNC member Joel Ferguson, which would give superdelegates a full vote and pledged delegates half of a vote.
THE PROPOSAL represents a climbdown of sorts for Michigan Democrats and is not likely to be well received at the Clinton campaign. DNC officials have said that, absent a deal between the two candidates, only the credentials committee can sanction a solution.
A senior Obama official said of the proposal, "we'll look into it."
OK, I'll engage in a smidgen of psychoanalysis. I'll do so through reader K., who supports Obama:
"It may be cynical, but I've started to think that Wright sees Obama as, in a way, a threat to his ministry. It would be difficult for him to preach that the government systematically destroys the lives of black people if a black man is sitting in the White House."
I know that many people inside Obama's campaign share this belief.
Rep. Ike Skelton Endorses Clinton
The chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, Ike Skelton, has endorsed Sen. Hillary Clinton.
Here's a statement from Skelton, released through his House campaign: "It is my intention as a delegate to the Democratic National Convention to vote for Senator Hillary Clinton because of her support in rural America, her commitment to National Security, and her dedication to our men and women in uniform."
A Democratic Candidate Distances Himself From Obama
A play from the National Republican Congressional Committee's playbook is executed to perfection. Travis Childers, a candidate for Mississippi's first congressional district, told reporters yesterday that Barack Obama hasn't endorsed his campaign, despite an ad by his opponent linking the two and Rev. Wright. Said Childers: "I've not been in contact with his campaign, nor has he been in contact with mine." The ad refers to efforts by Obama supporters to raise money for Childers through the MyBarackObama.com portal.
Here's a news reporter about the distancing. (Ignore the provocative headline).
CHILDERS NEARLY won a majority of the votes cast in the district, which would have allowed him to beat Republican Greg Davis and flip the seat without a run-off. Childers has a good shot of picking up the seat. Elections in Mississippi and Louisiana in two weeks may be the first real tests as to whether Republicans can turn into Obama into an effective boogeyman. Childers's eagerness to shrug off his party's frontrunner is a sign that some Democrats scare easily. A Democratic loss in that seat would not be helpful for Mr. Obama. The special election is set for May 13.
Obama Denounces Wright
EARLY THIS MORNING, after a long day of campaigning, aides showed Barack Obama extended excerpts from Rev. Jeremiah Wright's jaunty and freewheeling press conference in Washington. Obama, the aides said, was deeply, visibly angry. Two said he "insisted" that he hold a second press conference today to unequivocally denounce Rev. Wright's conduct and sever himself from Wright's fulminations. Obama did not want to let Wright hijack his campaign any longer. Five days was enough.
Judging by his square jaw and his posture -- rigid -- and his tone of voice -- elegiac and sad at points, and hard and resolute at others, Obama felt aggrieved and disrespected, especially by Wright's implication that Obama's speech on racial politics in Philadelphia was mere politics.
"I want to use this press conference to make people absolutely clear that obviously whatever relationship I had with Rev. Wright has changed, he said. "I don't think he showed much concern for me ... and what we are trying to do in this campaign."
"My reaction has more to do with what I want this campaign to be about.... in some ways, what Rev. Wright said yesterday directly contradicts everything that I've done during my life. It contradicts how i was raise and the setting in which I was raised; it contradicts my decision to pursue a career of public service. It contradicts the issues that I've worked on politically."
In Philadelphia, Obama said he "can no more disown him than I can disown the black community. I can no more disown him than I can my white grandmother." Obama has changed his mind, even to the point of insisting that Wright was not his spiritual mentor.
OBAMA HAS used the power of his rhetoric to end controversies before, and the campaign hopes now that Obama's angry soundbites will now replace some of Wright's more radical utterances on the cable news. The campaign won't say whether, in their North Carolina tracking polls, they discovered any fall-off among white voters. The bet they're making is that by extending the active phase of a story for at least one more day, they can prevent its long tail from influencing too many votes next Tuesday.
ALREADY THOUGH, the cable news coverage of Obama's speech is off on a different tangent: psychological pornography. They're scrutinizing the thoughts behind the thinking; whether Wright felt Obama was an ungrateful upstart; whether Obama felt betrayed by Wright; whether Obama is more embarrassed than ashamed.
Obama: Wright's "Rants" Show "Complete Disregard" for Obama. American People
Barack Obama is holding a remarkable press conference right now about Rev. Jeremiah Wright. Obama is angry. Wright's "rants," he said, were "a show of disrespect to me," and have created a "spectacle."
"I felt as if there was a complete disregard for what the American people are going through and the need for them to rally together to solve these problems. It not is the time for us not to get distracted, now is the time for us to pull together."
More...
Outraged Of The Day: "Pansy"
Gov. Mike Easley, known to Obama supporters now as "Hillary's top NC surrogate," used the word "pansy" this morning to favorably compare Hillary Clinton to Rocky Balboa. Eyebrows were raised; Clinton said nothing. The pansy, is, of course, a flower of exquisite delicateness, which is probably where the 19th century taunt originated. It's now seen as a slur, albeit a slur of a lesser register than others. Not the most comfortable choice of words, but was Easley really saying that Clinton made Balboa look like a gay person? Or just an effeminate weakling? Who wrote that line for him?
Not only does Barack Obama have more Senate endorsements than Hillary Clinton, he has more senior endorsements as well:
Reader MB writes:
So am I missing someone, or has Obama shut Hillary out among endorsements from Committee Chairs in the body in which they both serve? Kerry (Small Business), Leahy(Judiciary), .... Kennedy (Health, Education & Labor), Dodd (Banking), and now Bingaman (Energy.) I guess if you count the Rules Committee, Hillary has Feinstein.
Other readers who know better write in: what about Sen. Barbara Boxer? Daniel Inoyue?
That's five to three. Not a huge margin.
So -- nevermind.
Clinton To Appear On O'Reilly Tomorrow
Hillary Clinton will guest on the O'Reilly Factor tomorrow night.
Newest Atlantic Voice
Jeffrey Goldberg takes the plunge. The threefold benediction: may his blog keep him and sustain him; may it not drive him prematurely gray; may his name be inscribed forever in the scroll of brave souls who dared to read the comments.
Gas Tax And The New GI Bill
With gasoline averaging $3.60 a gallon, not surprisingly, President Bush says he's willing to take a look at "any ideas" that Congress puts forth to help consumers, including a gas tax pause -- the same proposal that spokesperson Dana Perino said yesterday was a non-starter.
JOHN MCCAIN likes the idea; he's been hammering Barack Obama for allegedly being insensitive to the economic despair faced by average driver-Americans. To pay for it, McCain would divert money from "general revenues," which is a fancy way of saying that he'd find other federal programs to cut. Hillary Clinton supports a temporary tax pause, too. She's fund it with a tax on oil company profits above a certain amount. Of course, suspending the gasoline tax would probably help oil companies a bit given the inevitable rise in demand that accompanies such incentive tinkering. At $18 cents a gallon, a consumer might save two bucks a pop on gas -- enough for a newspaper and a stick of gum. The CBO concluded that the average consumer would save $30 bucks over the course of the summer, assuming they fill out about 15 times. Why doesn't Obama support this? For one, it didn't help the economy all that much when it was tried in Illinois in 2000. Two, he sees it as a gimmick that will give consumers the impression that Washington is fixing the problem while in point of fact not fixing or even tackling the real problem at all. His environmentalist allies oppose a pause because they don't want people driving more than they already do.
COMESTIC PANDERING is one explanation for what Clinton and Obama are doing. But on another, even more sensitive issue, it's hard to argue that McCain is taking the politically expedient route. He opposes the "Post-9/11 Veterans Educational Assistance Act," essentially a GI Bill for Iraq and Afghanistan war veterans. Why? It can't be the cost -- about $4 billion a year, or less than one half of the cost of his gas tax pause. It can't be the company -- the bill is authored by Jim Webb and cosponsors include John Warner and Chuck Hagel. McCain's aides say he opposes the bill because the military fears that the incentives contained within it would persuade too many active duty soldiers to leave their service early and would, during a time of two wars, hurt overall readiness. (The U.S. military formally opposes the Webb bill.) McCain and Sen. Lindsey Graham have sponsored a competing bill (though they insist it is complimentary) that would tie the level of benefits given to the amount of service rendered.
IN THE END, McCain will face enormous pressure to vote for the GI bill that Webb (and 56 other senators) will debate on the floor toward the end of the month. His Senate office wants to work with Webb to find ways to provide more incentives to those who stay in the military longer. The core proposals of the Webb bill are likely to reach the White House, with or without McCain's support.
Here's the latest television ad from Hillary Clinton of "Park Ridge, Illinois," airing in Indiana.
Here's the latest from the American Legacy Project on Obama's "mystery" plan for job growth and economic recovery.
Here's SEIU's ad against McCain's health care plan, part of a national ad and spot ad buy.
Did McCain Reject A Longterm Presence of U.S. Troops?
Sam Stein at the Huffington Post has the quotes, the video and the headline: "Shocking McCain Quotes Unearthed" to suggest that he was skeptical of the idea, but the transcript of the interview, given in 2005, is more equivocal:
Here:
MATTHEWS: As a policy suggestion, is it something that we all want the world to know we`re eventually coming home and we might as well argue about when or...
MCCAIN: Sure we`re going to come home.
But the fact is that the key to it is not when the troops come home. It is when we stop reading -- today, Shuster just reported four brave young Marines were killed. It is the casualties that creates the discontent amongst Americans. We`ve been in Bosnia for, what, 10, 12, years, Kosovo for 10 years, South Korea for 50 years. Americans aren`t upset about that.
But we have got to get the casualty rate down. And that`s the transfer of well-trained and well-equipped Iraqis to handle the security situation.
Followed by this paragraph, parts of which are included in the YouTube video that the Huffington Post obtained from a Democrat:
MATTHEWS: Would you be happy -- we`ve been there to help get them democracy started. But would you be happy with that being the home of a U.S. garrison, like Guantanamo or Germany all those years, where we have 50,000 troops permanently stationed in that country?
MCCAIN: No. I would hope that we could bring them all home. I would hope that we would probably leave some military advisers, as we have in other countries, to help them with their training and equipment and that kind of stuff.
(CROSSTALK)
MATTHEWS: But you`ve heard the ideological argument to keep U.S. forces in the Middle East. I`ve heard it from the hawks. They say, keep United States military presence in the Middle East, like we have with the 7th Fleet in Asia. We have the German -- the North Korean -- the South Korean component. Do you think we could get along without it?
MCCAIN: I not only think we could get along without it, but I think one of our big problems has been the fact that many Iraqis resent American military presence.
And I don`t pretend to know exactly Iraqi public opinion. But as soon as we can reduce our visibility as much as possible, the better I think it is going to be.
One can question the wisdom of what McCain's proposing, but the full context of the interview he gave in 2005 suggests that he modeled a long-term US commitment to Iraq on South Korea, albeit with a big difference: a major corps would not necessarily have to embed itself in the country. Soldiers, euphamized as "military advisers," would maintain a presence. But McCain has never said that he favors keeping combat troops in Iraq for an indefinite period of time. Major questions remain: what constitutes an appropriate level of casualties? How will the US know when Iraq is stable enough for us to begin withdrawing troops? What will McCain's "military advisers" do? If Iraq erupts into chaos after troops leave, will the US retrench?
55,000 From 1.5 Million
Will Barack Obama's campaign reach its goal of 1.5 million donors by May 6? Does it even matter? 1.5 million is a nice, whole number and a great talking point, but 1.45m isn't exactly a failure. At $50 a pop, 1.5 million donors can fund a $75,000,000 general election campaign. The Obama campaign has kept mum about its plans for the general election, but here's betting they've done the math, too.
McCain's New Health Care Ad
Sen. John McCain's campaign will air this health care ad in Iowa starting today. It features McCain talking to an unseen subject just off camera, explaining in sober tones the features of his health care plan. There are a few implicit messages: McCain understands the problem; he's optimistic about solving it; he's not going to cede the terrain to the Democrats.
Once again, the top Republican House strategist has said publicly that Hillary Clinton would be the tougher Democrat for his charges to run against in the fall, and Obama would be the weaker candidate. The question imposes itself: why on earth would Tom Cole admit this? A large crowd will assume that he is attempting a fumbling Jiujitsu move by luring the Democrats into a false sense of remorse about almost nominating Obama because Obama, in fact, would be the more difficult candidate. Indeed, Democratic superdelegates might actually pay attention to what Tom Cole says. Or he could be telling the truth. I suspect that the actual difference in drag between Clinton, once nominated, and Obama, once nominated, would be fairly minimal, perhaps only a few knots' worth of headwind. In any event, the Democrats are likely to pick up House seats, so even assuming that Cole is telling the truth, what we're debating here is the size of the Democratic margin over Republicans.
HRC's Earmarks
Expect the $2.3 billion in earmarks that Sen. Clinton requested (a new record, it seems) to receive due attention from Sen. John McCain's campaign today. Most of Clinton's high-ticket requests involve homeland security funding and military construction and the Clinton folks will have no problem justifying the specific line items. But the overall amount turns them into a nice talking point for McCain.
McCain's New Health Care Ad
Sen. John McCain's campaign will air this health care ad in Iowa starting today. It features McCain talking to an unseen subject just off camera, explaining in sober tones the features of his health care plan. There are a few implicit messages: McCain understands the problem; he's optimistic about solving it; he's not going to cede the terrain to the Democrats.
McCain's Health Care Plan: It's About You
Here are excerpts from Sen. John McCain's speech in Tampa later today. He will unveil his national health care policy.
The key to real reform is to restore control over our health-care system to the patients themselves. Right now, even those with access to health care often have no assurance that it is appropriate care. Too much of the system is built on getting paid just for providing services, regardless of whether those services are necessary or produce quality care and outcomes. American families should only pay for getting the right care: care that is intended to improve and safeguard their health.
When families are informed about medical choices, they are more capable of making their own decisions, less likely to choose the most expensive and often unnecessary options, and are more satisfied with their choices. We took an important step in this direction with the creation of Health Savings Accounts, tax-preferred accounts that are used to pay insurance premiums and other health costs. These accounts put the family in charge of what they pay for. And, as president, I would seek to encourage and expand the benefits of these accounts to more American families.
Even so, those without prior group coverage and those with pre-existing conditions do have the most difficulty on the individual market, and we need to make sure they get the high-quality coverage they need. I will work tirelessly to address the problem. But I won’t create another entitlement program that Washington will let get out of control. Nor will I saddle states with another unfunded mandate. The states have been very active in experimenting with ways to cover the “uninsurables.” The State of North Carolina, for example, has an agreement with Blue Cross to act as insurer of “last resort.” Over thirty states have some form of “high-risk” pool, and over twenty states have plans that limit premiums charged to people suffering an illness and who have been denied insurance.
As President, I will meet with the governors to solicit their ideas about a best practice model that states can follow – a Guaranteed Access Plan or GAP that would reflect the best experience of the states. I will work with Congress, the governors, and industry to make sure that it is funded adequately and has the right incentives to reduce costs such as disease management, individual case management, and health and wellness programs. These programs reach out to people who are at risk for different diseases and chronic conditions and provide them with nurse care managers to make sure they receive the proper care and avoid unnecessary treatments and emergency room visits. The details of a Guaranteed Access Plan will be worked out with the collaboration and consent of the states. But, conceptually, federal assistance could be provided to a nonprofit GAP that operated under the direction of a board that included all stakeholders groups – legislators, insurers, business and medical community representatives, and, most importantly, patients. The board would contract with insurers to cover patients who have been denied insurance and could join with other state plans to enlarge pools and lower overhead costs. There would be reasonable limits on premiums, and assistance would be available for Americans below a certain income level.
More on this later.
April 28, 2008
College Democrats Superdelegates
The president and vice president of the College Democrats of America are superdelegates, and they've decided to solicit the opinions of their constituents.
Might this be a model for other superdelegates?
Obama On Wright:
In North Carolina today:
"I think certainly what the last three days indicate is that we're not coordinating with him. He's obviously free to speak his mind, but I just want to emphasize [that] he is my former pastor. Many of the statements he made both to trigger this initial controversy, and that he's made over the last couple days are not statements that I heard him make previously. They don't represent my views and they don't represent what this campaign is about."
NC's Easley To Endorse Clinton
Sen. Clinton's campaign confirms that North Carolina Gov. Mike Easley will endorse Sen. Clinton in Raleigh tomorrow morning. (AP reported this first.) Easley had previously endorsed John Edwards. I'm led to believe that Gov. Easley was upset at Obama's refusal to agree to a post-Pennsylvania debate in North Carolina.
Wright And Obama: Another Interpretation
Reader J.L. interprets Rev. Wright's remarks differently than I do, and differently, I'll add, than the Obama campaign does:
Wright is using the word "politician" primarily to characterize certain of Obama's actions and remarks. He is not --- repeat, not --- "essentializing" or "minimizing" or "publicly breaking up with" Obama. Nor is he "throwing Obama under the bus." Wright's "politician" remarks" can be understood only in terms of his own self-characterization. He has said, over the last few days, that, when he speaks from Trinity's pulpit or when he speaks to Obama as one of his members, he is speaking as a pastor, and should be judged in the context of the prophetic speech traditions of the black church --- not as if he were speaking as a politician. Likewise, Wright has said that, when Obama cancelled Wright's public appearance at his announcement speech, and when Obama has disavowed certain of Wright's remarks --- i.e., in the moments when Obama has spoken and acted in these ways --- he has been speaking and acting as a politician, and that nothing about Obama's and Wright's personal relationship and mutual respect should be extrapolated from Obama's remarks and actions. This is why Wright has been careful to remind, in all of his remarks, that Obama has not denounced him personally but, rather, has distanced himself from specific comments. Wright simply is stating the obvious. He is saying: "There are certain ways of speaking and acting that are appropriate to a black preacher, and Barack understands that --- our relationship does not depend on his agreeing with everything that I say and do. Likewise, there are certain ways of speaking and acting that are appropriate to a politician, and I understand that --- nor does our relationship depend on my agreeing with everything that he says and does." Look at Wright's interview with Moyers. There is no malice or discontent in his remarks, at all. Wright is saying: "Barack and I are big boys. We each get how things are. We get that I'm a preacher. We get that he's a politician. We get that each of us has a different role to play. We get it. The only ones who don't get it --- or who are making it convenient not to get it, although they're not as dumb as they would have us all believe --- are the media who are manufacturing this "controversy" to advance their own agendas. The sooner they grow up, the better the country will be." Capice?
The GOP Generational Time Bomb
It's no secret that Republicans have a brand problem; the gap between Dem and GOP party identification is greater today than at any point since the vanguard of the Reagan revolution, when Republicans held a double-digit advantage. Researchers at Pew have put a decade's worth of data through their analytical minds and come to the conclusion that the leading edge of the Democratic edge is among young voters. This isn't surprising, but it is noteworthy. Consider: Voters under 30 in the Midwest are twice as likely to call themselves Democrats as they are to identify as Republicans. 63% of women under age 30 identify as Democrats versus just 28% who call themselves Republicans. Democrats even have the affiliation of a majority of young men. A potential objection: that old canard, that young people are liberal and become more conservative? The historical data doesn't support it. When Bill Clinton was elected, a plurality of people under 30 identified themselves as Republicans. Same thing when Ronald Reagan was elected. Politically, today's cohort of 18-to-29 year olds came of age during the Bush presidency. It has turned them into Democrats.
In Bingaman, Obama Bags A Senator, Superdelegate
Sen. Jeff Bingaman (D-NM) has been in the Senate for 26 years and has bulldogged his way to (near) the top of the ladder in terms of who his colleagues respect.
He has today endorsed Barack Obama:
“Today, I am announcing my support for Barack Obama for president and declaring my intention to vote for him at the Democratic convention. Our nation faces a daunting number of critical challenges: reasserting America’s leadership in the world, meeting our needs for energy independence, addressing global warming, making healthcare accessible and affordable, positioning our economy to effectively compete globally, and extricating ourselves from the war in Iraq, to name a few. To make progress, we must rise above the partisanship and the issues that divide us to find common ground. We must move the country in a dramatically new direction. I strongly believe Barack Obama is best positioned to lead the nation in that new direction.”
Obama: "It's About You."
The new populist Obama is a lot like the old Obama, albeit with a drop of humility and self-awareness. Autobiography is destiny in politics. But for a man who has written about his life in great detail, he does not seem to enjoy the task of having to justify how his upbringing and family life fit into the typical Horatio Alger simulacrum that Mike Huckabee, for one, perfected on the trail. (I don’t blame him.)
Obama has rejiggered his stump speech a bit. A long paragraph about his mother and grandparents closed out his speech in Wilmington, North Carolina today, adding an eddy to the main current of his argument.
“Lately my opponents trying to make this election about me instead of about you, and they’ve been trying to say ‘well you know we don’t know him that well, we don’t know what he believes, we don’t know about his values’, despite the fact I wrote two books, it’s all there. What I believe, what I think, what my story is. Let me just close with a quick story about my family. I was raised by a single mom she had me when she was a teenager. She had me when I was a teenager and my father left when I was 2, so she raised me with my grandparents….”
And so on.
Earlier, Obama acknowledged that he hasn’t always been faithful to his pledge to avoid the games of what he calls the Old Politics, but he implies that the chokehold is too intense to escape.
“I noticed over the last several weeks, I told this to my team, you know we are starting to sound like other folks, starting to run the same negative stuff. And it shows that none of us are immune from this kind of politics. But the problem is that it doesn’t help you. Having politicians bickering back and forth doesn’t help you. Having them worry about superdelegates doesn’t help you. This election is not about me, its not about Sen. Clinton, it’s not about John McCain, it’s about you.”
The uber-populist line: “It’s about you.” Vox populi!
The crowd today loved it.
(As usual, I've stolen this transcript from CBS News's Maria Gavrilovic.)
RNC Uses Legal Threat To Rebut New DNC Ad
The Republican National Committee wants CNN and MSNBC to stop airing the DNC's new national television advertisement, calling it "false and defamatory" and illegally coordinated.
"This is a complaint about the facts that are being misrepresented in the ad, and this being a deliberate falsehood, that we are saying, stations have an obligation to protect the public from airing a deliberate falsehood," said Sean Cairncross, an RNC lawyer.
The RNC provided no evidence to support their change that the communication was illegally coordinated, aside for a few newspaper articles pointing out that some Democrats work for both a candidate and the committee, like pollster Cornell Belcher. DNC chairman Howard Dean said this morning that neither campaign saw or heard the ad before the put it out.
The RNC is ginning up the threat of legal action to give weight to their criticism of the ad's content. Cairncross would not say whether the party will sue CNN or MSNBC, the two cable networks airing the ad, if they refuse to kill it.
The RNC's content charge is not black and white. The DNC wrote the ad carefully. Nowhere does the narrator or any chyron state that McCain is fine with the Iraqi war persisting for 100 years. The visuals -- explosions, bloodied troops -- take care of that association.
It's worth pointing out that the qualitative difference between the North Carolina Republican Party advertisement and what John McCain has said about Rev. Jeremiah Wright is fairly tiny. Ostensibly, it's because Obama told Chris Wallace that Wright is a legitimate issue. But why would McCain change his position about the legitimacy of the Rev. Wright association based on something Obama said? From an ethical standpoint, injecting Wright into the campaign is legitimate or it isn't. It shouldn't matter what Obama believes.
"I saw yesterday some additional comments that have been revealed by Pastor Wright. One of them, comparing the United States Marine Corps with Roman legionnaires who were responsible for the death of our savior. I mean, being involved in that. It’s beyond belief. And then of course, saying that al Qaeda and the American flag were the same flags. So, I can understand. I can understand why people are upset about this. I can understand why, that Americans when viewing these kinds of comments are angry and upset."
For one thing, Wright didn't really say what McCain says he said about the flag. For another,
Wright was in the Marines. He was a corpesman in Vietnam. He voluntarily enlisted.
In the latest poll of Wisconsin voters, Barack Obama leads John McCain by four points; McCain leads Hillary Clinton by six points.
Wright And Obama
My best information is that Sen. Barack Obama and Rev. Jeremiah Wright have talked exactly once since the first baubble of controversy in early March. The conversation was not especially pleasant.
And worse, Wright's purpose now seems quite clear: to aggrandize himself--the guy is going to be a go-to mainstream media source for racial extremist spew, the next iteration of Al Sharpton--and destroy Barack Obama.
Maybe. But more likely, Wright is not content for the world to see him as a surrogate for Barack Obama, whom he regularly and repeatedly minimizes as a "politician." A paradox: when Wright's sermons first saw the bandwith of air on ABC News and elsewhere, Obama allies and Wright supporters begged reporters to broadcast and publish the full sermons and to provide relevant context. Well, now the cable networks are content to let Wright talk for as long as he desires; CNN seemed to jettison their entire schedule last night in order to broadcast Wright's entire speech to the NAACP. Everyone wanted Wright's full context: now they have him.
A Solid Polling Day For Clinton
The numbers look good for Hillary Clinton today. Gallup's track is still essentially tied -- the fourth day in a row.
SurveyUSA has Clinton up by nine in Indiana, perhaps helping to raise expectations for Clinton. ARG has Obama up by 10 in North Carolina.
Most importantly, AP-Ipsos has Clinton leading John McCain outside the margin of error in a national preference question; Barack Obama and McCain are essentially tied.
Gay Groups Say No To Factionalism
Factionalism within the gay rights movement may take a breather in 2008 Joe Solomnese, the president of the Human Rights Campaign, with 700,000 members nationwide, said that the group is coordinating its efforts with other major gay rights groups, including -- most importantly, Tim Gill's Gill Action Fund. The Gill Action Fund burst on the scene after the 2006 elections, when my Atlantic colleage Josh Green revealed that the group spent $15 million on 70 targeted races; his analysis of campaign finance records suggested that the Gill bundling was the often the decisive factor in those races. Gill's success was an implicit rebuke to the politics applied by the Human Rights Campaign. (Gill doesn't play in federal elections -- the group is a 501(c)4 -- and HRC does.)
This cycle, HRC and Gill Action are sharing plans. HRC plans to train 1,500 political activists at "Camp Equality" in 13 cities. They've identified 5 million sympathetic voters nationwide. Florida and California will be of particular interest to HRC; both states face potential same-sex marriage bans this year.
President McCain And The Democratic Congress
In Tampa tomorrow, Sen. John McCain will formally unveil his national health care reform plan. So -- specifics are TBA. The politics, unfortunately, for McCain, are more easily limned. I've not spoken to a single Republican who believes that a President McCain would operate in a political environment that is conducive to Republican policies; Democrats are likely to retain (or expand) their majorities in both the House and the Senate. As outlined so far, McCain's health care proposals don't seem terribly novel. He's more concerned with cost and less concerned with the uninsured; he has expressed sympathy for those who don't have health insurance, and he'll need to find a way to connect his affect to real policy. He's proposed to means-test Medicare, which will be a non-starter even for many Republicans. Same with expanded health savings accounts and association health care plans, which will be DOA in a Democratic Congress. Other ideas, like allowing drugs to be imported from Canada, enjoy wide support. The philosophical hinge of his plan seems to be accountability. Doctors and hospitals that perform well will be rewarded; those that don't, won't be. (Leave No Patient Behind?)
The upside for a President McCain is that the Democratic Congress will face enormous pressure from below to Do Something About Health Care. So McCain, at this point, has little incentive to offer an olive branch; why negotiate now and start from a point of weakness?
Wright Politics
## The Obama campaign knows that Wright is throwing Obama under the bus, and they're of two minds about the political repercussions. On the one hand, they want him to shut up, knowing that the press is likely to repeat the Crazy Uncle soundbites more than they are the intelligent, learned theologian soundbites. The public associates Obama with Wright; the more they think of Wright, the more they think of Obama. They do not believe that the tour will rehabilitate Wright's image with those voters who were offended by the comments.
## On the other hand, Wright's decision to publicly break up with Obama by essentializing him as a politician may well generate some distance between himself and Obama; perhaps the public may perceive the distance; the more outré Wright becomes, the easier it is for Obama to say -- look at what he says, and look at what I say. The campaign is also thankful that Wright decided to speak out now, rather than in, say, October.
## The Obama campaign is also watching racial prejudice angle carefully. The backlash generated by overtly/covertly racist appeals using Wright will burn a line between valid and racist that the media will carefully patrol.
Indiana Voter/Photo ID Law Upheld
Details here.
The plurality opinion was written by Judge John Paul Stevens.
Basically, the challenge to the law requiring voters to show photo ID at the polls was found to be lacking in actual evidence of harm. The court did not rule out future challenges to laws like this one, but indicated that they would weigh them as applied.
What Is Wright Up To?
On Rev.Wright's revenge tour, there's not much to say, other than that he seems to very much enjoy the attention, seems to believe that he's been the victim of a massive, racist conspiracy, seems to equate criticism of him with Jesus's crucifixion, and seems not to care about Barack Obama's politics or aspirations anymore.
Dean Repeats June As Date Of Decision
Item: Howard Dean wants the race decided by the end of June.
Analysis: Here is what Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and Howard Dean fear: if Clinton winds up winning six out of the final ten contests (a likely scenario if she wins Indiana), the voting will end on June 3 with Clinton having clear momentum, having narrowed the popular vote gap (or, with the addition of only Florida, having won the popular vote), having narrowed the delegate gap (with the assistance of the rules challenges)... and given that undecided superdelegates have said that their primary criterion for determining who they'll choose is who has the best chance of beating John McCain in the fall, there's no real reason for those superdelegates to choose in June. They'll have MORE information about electability in July or August... so why choose in an environment with less info?
Hence the public pressure on superdelegates.
April 26, 2008
Clinton Camp Challenges O To Lincoln-Douglas Debates
A communique from Arlington to Chicago on the hotline:
April 26, 2008
David Plouffe, Campaign Manager
Obama for America
P.O. Box 8102
Chicago, IL 60680
Dear David:
The attention, excitement and energy around this presidential election is unprecedented. The stakes could not be higher for our country and the American people. The economy is sliding into recession, our men and woman in the Armed Forces are fighting two wars abroad, and our country is reeling from the harsh legacy of the Bush-Cheney Administration. The American people are choosing a direction for their children and families. They have a right to hear from those who want to be their leaders. Our Democratic primaries reflect the keen interest of the American citizenry in this election. Our primaries have brought millions of new people into the political process and invigorated a national conversation about the best solutions to meet our challenges.
Senator Clinton believes deeply that political debates are a vital part of our democratic process. It is the American way to place our would-be leaders side by side to hear them articulate and defend their ideas; to challenge each other on their visions for the future; to answer the tough questions about their plans, their records and their judgments; and to celebrate their achievements.
Senator Obama has declined the invitation from CBS and the North Carolina Democratic Party to appear for a debate at North Carolina State University tomorrow evening. Senator Obama has apparently declined the invitation of the Indiana Debate Commission to appear for a debate in Indiana next week. Senator Obama has not responded to Senator Clinton’s challenge to debate in Oregon. Will there be no debates in other upcoming states? The American people, of course, deserve more. They deserve debates before casting their votes. They deserve debates just like the states who have participated in this invigorating process before them.
I understand that Senator Obama has raised the point that there have already been more than 20 debates this election cycle. However, only four of those have been between Senator Obama and Senator Clinton. We can all agree that many important issues have received scant attention during previous debates, including such important topics as education and the energy crisis.
This year marks the 150th anniversary of the famous Lincoln-Douglas debates, a series of public debates across Illinois where two candidates put their ideas, their visions, and their values before the American people. I have no doubt that Senator Obama, who hails from that great state, understands how valuable and vital these national conversations were to the heart of America. We can surely meet the standard our forbearers did. Our final two primary candidates to date have had three fewer debates than Lincoln and Douglas held in single state over 60 days in 1858.
And if we debate, Americans will come. Recent debates have attracted record numbers of viewers – more than 10 million for the last one. And a great number of voters in recent primaries have said that the debates in their states were important to their decision.
Senator Obama himself suggested the last debate in Philadelphia did not provide enough opportunity to talk about issues that “matter[] to the American people.” A Lincoln-Douglas style debate would certainly provide that opportunity. There would be no questions from the media. There would be equal time and equal opportunity to grapple with the important policy questions we are facing today. As Douglas put it, the two candidates would meet “for the purpose of discussing the leading political topics which now agitate the public mind.”
In the spirit of the Lincoln-Douglas debates, we make this proposal:
Senator Clinton and Senator Obama will participate in a 90-minute debate in an open public forum. Just the two of them -- no questioners, no panelists, no video clips. One candidate would speak for two minutes, then the other, alternating back and forth all the way through the debate. Their discussion – not any pre-set rules – would determine how long they spend on one subject before moving on to another. Such a debate would range across all of the challenges, large and small, we face as a nation or it could focus on the most significant issue we face today, -- the economy.
We can readily agree on a host, a place, a date, and a broadcaster or series of broadcasters.
Both of our candidates are making history. Let us continue to do so. Let’s debate.
Sincerely,
Maggie Williams
Campaign Manager
Robert Gibbs, communications director fort Barack Obama, responds:
CHICAGO, IL— Obama campaign Communications Director Robert Gibbs released the following statement on Presidential debates.
"We have participated in 21 nationally televised debates, the most in primary history, including four exclusively with Senator Clinton. Senator Clinton refused an earlier invitation that had been accepted to debate in North Carolina. Over the next 10 days, we believe it's important to talk directly to the voters of Indiana and North Carolina about fixing our economy, cutting the cost of health care and ending a war in Iraq that never should have been authorized in the first place."
Daily Polls: Gallup: Tied at 47. Newsweek: Obama + 7
The Obama campaign doesn't like it when we look at polls because they believe that the media is artifically attempting to prolong a race that should have been over a long time ago. I say that while Obama is still more likely to win the nomination, the polls show organic volatility in the Democratic electorate and doubts about Obama that are not media creations.
One of the more problematic results for Obama was that four in 10 of registered voters (including Republicans and independents) now have an unfavorable opinion of him--and the same number said there is "no chance" they will vote for Obama if he becomes the nominee. Four in 10 registered voters (41 percent) say they have a less favorable opinion of Obama based on his association with his former pastor, Rev. Wright, whose racially and politically inflammatory sermons have been circulated on the Internet and covered in the media. A similar number (42 percent) say they will not vote for Obama because of comments he made about "bitter" small-town residents clinging to guns and religion.
In head-to-heads against McCain, Clinton and Obama have roughly the same leads.
Gallup's daily track shows a 47-47 tie. This track includes results from Wednesday through Friday -- all after Pennsylvania.
A few notes from a garden brunch held at the home of legendary television producer / media consultant Tammy Haddad in Washington today. Haddad holds this event every year the afternoon before the White House Correspondent's Association dinner.
Mrs. Haddad is conducting a "garden poll" of her guests. A white paper ballot has pictures of Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, John McCain and a write-in. The question is: "Who do you think will be the next president?" I entered the party in front of a former Clinton cabinet secretary who I know to be a very prominent supporter of Mrs. Clinton's. I watched as that cabinet secretary checked "Obama" as the likely next president. (Feeling a bit guilty about watching the private process of marking a ballot, I've elected not to mention the former official's name. More than one former cabinet secretary attended the brunch.) Gov. Charlie Crist and his unusually aggressive Florida Department of Law Enforcement detail greeted guests. I saw Gov. Crist and Michigan DNC member Debbie Dingell share a few words -- about delegates, perhaps?
I was able to snap two rare photographs. One shows Nedra Pickler and Liz Sidoti in conversation. That is a rare occurance; Pickler is the AP's lead reporter covering Barack Obama. Sidoti covers John McCain. Not very often do they get to see each other in person.
And this final photograph is almost Guttenbergian. Terry McAullife, the chairman of Hillary Clinton's campaign, and Mark Penn, now one of several campaign strategists, in the same frame, together. (There has, to say the least, been some tension between the two men.)
April 25, 2008
Sage, Ink.
A cartoon from the Atlantic's Sage Stossel.
The First Of Many? Hillraiser Defects
NBC News's Chuck Todd has the scoop of the day: Amb. to Chile Gabriel Guerra-Mondragon has raised $500,000 for Hillary Clinton's campaign. As of next week, he'll be on board the Obama campaign's national finance team.
Comments Thread: The Crawford Ticket
Jerry Crawford, a Des Moines lawyer, a senior adviser to the Clinton campaign and a long-time Democratic fundraiser, told Radio Iowa's O Kay. Henderson yesterday that a unity ticket is the only way that Democrats can come together in the fall. Speaker Nancy Pelosi disagrees.
Who's right?
DNC To Assess Challenges On 5/31
The DNC will convene its rules and bylaws committee on the last day of May to consider two challenges, that, if successful, could change the delegate math just as the primary season is about to close. But the date of the meeting may be too late for Hillary Clinton, something her campaign is bound to notice.
TO: DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee Members
FROM: Alexis Herman & Jim Roosevelt, Jr., Co-Chairs
DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee (RBC)
SUBJECT: Meeting Announcement–May 31, 2008
DATE: April 25, 2008
Realizing that members have very busy schedules, we wanted to notify you as soon as possible that the RBC will meet on Saturday, May 31, 2008 in Washington, D.C. We are asking members to arrive on Friday, May 30, 2008 in time for a private informal dinner with us. While we expect the RBC meeting to last most of the day on Saturday, we are asking members not to make their departure plans until Sunday.
The main item of business on the Committee’s agenda will be the consideration of two pending challenges.
We hope you are able to attend this very important RBC meeting. Further information, including meeting agenda and meeting logistics, will be forwarded to you in the near future.
Please note that this is an official meeting of the RBC. Therefore, we would like to remind members of the attendance requirement established in the Bylaws (Article Two, Section 10.(g)). Members who miss three consecutive RBC meetings are deemed to have resigned from the Committee. Registering a proxy, while important for establishing a quorum and assuring your vote is represented, does not count for the purpose of attendance at a meeting.
No DNC/Clinton Fundraising Agreement For Now
Time's M. Halperin breaks the news that the Obama campaign and the DNC are about to sign a joint fundraising agreement whereby Obama's contributors' checks/debits over a certain dollar amount will be shunted to the national committee's bank accounts. An Obama campaign spokesperson confirmed that an agreement was being set up.
The DNC is discovering the perils of its neutral stance. In having news leak about an agreement with one of the campaigns, suppoters of the other campaign -- about half the party -- might be alienated. (The DNC denies it's the source of the leak.)
A month ago, the DNC approached both campaigns about the idea. The immediate reaction inside the Clinton campaign was skeptical: they did not feel that their donors would jump up and down to support the DNC without a sense that the DNC had a plan to deal with the votes and delegations from Florida and Michigan. Nonetheless, staff level discussions were held, but none involving the key decision maker: indeed, a call between DNC executive director Tom McMahon and Clinton campaign manager Maggie Willams is scheduled for Monday.
A DNC official said that the party has been "briefing both candidates on what we’re doing and are preparing for two scenarios. We continue to step up our efforts on John McCain with our ad (another one will be coming soon), polling, general research comm rapid response, etc. We have talked to both campaigns about fundraising – we have an agreement in principal with the Obama campaign and are talking with the Clinton campaign."
Obama's Voter Registration Drive
I missed the conference call about it, but the Obama campaign is formalizing its national voter registration efforts -- the same efforts responsible for signing up hundreds of thousands of new Democrats from Iowa to Pennsylvania and beyond. On May 10, the drive begins with 83 events across he country. May 10? Too late for the primaries? Exactly. This contraption has come into being for general election and will carry over, if Obama wins it, to the White House.
Democrats close to Gov. Brian Schweitzer , say that this populist hero has, for now, told both the Clinton and Obama campaigns that he'll remain neutral through the June 3rd Montana primary. Some Obama allies suspect that Schweitzer is a private supporter of Clinton's but does not want to alienate his Obama-supporting constituencies.
But Don't Be Too Cheerful, Dems
Reader Arjun Modi writes:
"I'm a bit skeptical. Abramowitz says the Republican would need to capture a "large majority" of independents and make "significant inroads" among Democratic identifiers to win in November. However, polling data belies that claim."
"The latest Cook poll has a partisan breakdown similar to the Gallup poll Abramowitz cited: 50% identify with or lean toward the Democrats, 39% for the Republicans. McCain wins independents by 5 points, hardly a "large majority", and gets 12% of Democrats, hardly "significant inroads" since that's just a hair above the Democrat defection rate (10% or 11%) for the last four presidential elections. Despite those slim numbers, McCain loses the overall general election by only one point to Obama, 44-45. Just a tiny improvement among independents and McCain wins the White House, without a "large majority" or "significant inroads."
If McCain plays dead, in other words, then Abramowitz's theory is more valid. It's also worth noting that McCain regularly runs more than 10 points ahead of his party in generic ballot tests. Democrats believe that Republican misfortunes will act like gravity on those numbers and will bring him back to earth. McCain's advisers believe that McCain can reduce the effect of gravity and not be as weighed down by his party as other Republicans will undoubtedly be in the fall.
Plouffe's Not Worried About Racial Polarization
In an interview with my colleague Linda Douglass, Obama campaign manager David Plouffe says that he's unconcerned with indications that some white voters have chosen Hillary Clinton because she is white -- or because Obama is black.
We really don't think so. I mean the vast, vast majority of voters who would not vote for Barack Obama in November based on race are probably firmly in John McCain's camp already. And I think if you look at the Democratic voters who are voting for Senator Clinton in some of these states, when you sort of look beneath it and you project how this is going to happen, Barack Obama is going to be the Democratic nominee. He is going to be articulating policies and ideas that they believe in. They won't agree with John McCain on issues like the economy and health care. And so I think that we are going to get the vast, vast majority of Democratic voters.
And, you know, I think if you look at -- we have won white voters, particularly white voters under 60, in a lot of states. We've won white men voters in most of the states we've competed in, and, you know, again, if you look at our favorable/unfavorable ratings and the characteristics and the traits with some of these voters that have voted for Senator Clinton in recent primaries, you know they are strong and they are going to be supportive of us in the fall.
Now, listen, this is a heated contest. So our supporters, the Clinton supporters -- this question of will you vote for the other person in the election in the fall -- you know, there's hard feelings. So a lot of people are saying no, but we seem to forget history. There's always hard feelings, and then the party comes together. And I think everyone ought to take a deep breath here and understand that the Democratic nominee is going to get the majority of Democratic voters. The question is, who can do best with independents and moderate Republicans, and who can create the best dynamic for turnout. If Barack Obama is the Democratic nominee, I think turnout amongst African-Americans, turnout amongst all voters under 40, and our ability to register new voters is going to be a very important piece of the puzzle.
Alan Abramowitz, a political scientist who follows voting trends most carefully, writes:
The fact that Democratic identifiers now decisively outnumber Republican identifiers means that in order to win, Democrats only have to unite and turn out their own base. If Obama wins the national popular vote by even a single percentage point, it's worth remembering, he'll almost certainly win the electoral vote as well. In order for John McCain to win, on the other hand, Republicans not only have to unite and turn out their own base, which they have been fairly successful at doing in recent elections, but they also have to win a large majority of the small bloc of true independents and make significant inroads among Democratic identifiers, which they have not been very successful at doing recently.
In other words -- it doesn't really matter if Barack Obama isn't doing as well among white working class Dems as Hillary Clinton is. He doesn't need their votes to win.
A big part of the reason for the growing Democratic edge in party identification is the fact that Democrats now enjoy a large advantage among voters under the age of 30, as well as among African American and Hispanic voters. All three of these groups have been turning out in record numbers in the Democratic primaries, and there is no reason to believe that they will not also turn out in large numbers in November. Based on the early indicators of voter interest, the 2008 presidential election could very well witness the highest turnout of eligible voters in the postwar era, and that can only be good news for Democrats. With a unified Democratic Party, a clear message of change, and a strong grass-roots effort at mobilizing the Democratic base, on January 20, 2009, Barack Obama will be taking office as the head of a unified Democratic government. And John McCain will still be a member of the minority party in the United States Senate.
Indiana Poll: Obama + 3
Ann Selzer's latest poll for the Indianapolis Star and WTHR shows Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton locked in a very tight race. With a margin of error of more than 4pts, Obama leads by 3 -- 41 to 38 -- but 21% remain undecided. Note, too, that the poll includes samples from Sunday, Monday and Tuesday (as well as Wednesday) -- so there won't be much evidence of a Clinton momentum boost. Selzer's polling, as you'll recall, accurately projected the results of the Iowa caucuses.
Veepstakes: Watch: Huckabee
Former Ar. Gov. Mike Huckabee will campaign today with Sen. John McCain in Arkansas.
The Superdelegate Conundrum
So if Rep. James Clyburn (D-SC), who comes close to calling former President Clinton a racist, who believes that African Americans think that the Clintons "are committed to doing everything they possibly can to damage Obama to a point that he could never win," who says these things in multiple venues (Reuters, the New York Times).... still won't endorse and still won't call for Clinton to drop out, should it surprise us that other superdelegates are even more shy?
April 24, 2008
Three Subjects I Ought To Write About, But Won't
1. The DCCC believes it's caught Freedom's Watch in another act of coordination with the NRCC. See here:
The video provides a nice visual hook, but it's also fairly easy to see how script templates would migrate their way through the Republican ecosystem. Indeed, the same template appears, I am told, on the script for a several-years-old gubernatorial ad.
Ed Patru, a Freedom's Watch VP, responds: "The DCCC appears to have used last week’s absurd complaint as a template for this latest complaint – it is recycled nonsense designed to distract from Don Cazayoux’s record of tax hikes and his support of Barack Obama’s expensive government run health care scheme. The DCCC is understandably frustrated having failed to make Don Cazayoux’s record of tax hikes more acceptable to the people of Louisiana, but it’s absolutely remarkable that that they are trying to silence anybody and everybody who opposes Don Cazayoux’s record of middle class tax hikes. Our ads will continue to run."
BTW: Cazayoux is pronounced cashew.
2. Sen. John McCain on Bobby Jindal, from a speech tonight in Louisiana:
Bobby Jindal has had some very able predecessors in office. But last year, after all this state had been through, the moment was right and the people were ready for breakthrough reforms. He stands for a new way of doing business in this state, and it’s a model I intend to apply elsewhere. Some people think that it’s just our youthful vitality that the governor and I have in common. But we share important convictions as well, and it starts with an intolerance of ineptitude, waste, and self-dealing of any kind in any agency of government.
3. An amusing MadTV satire:
Reader Mail On Clinton And Fundraising
Nancy Armstrong of Haysville, KS writes:
Dear Marc,
My husband was one of those new donors. He has finally become involved in politics. His immediate family was never involved in politics. His aunt and uncle, Julie and Lionel Drew were very involved in politics in Savannah, GA but they just did not influence him enough. I have always been politically before and after my time on active duty Navy (military people are not allowed to be politically active so to speak). [Ed note: the contribution receipt is attached to the e-mail.]
I think this will dispel any rumors or disbelief that new donors are donating $100 or more. The people at one site when all donations were added had gone to Hillary's website and donated more than $15,000. One of the donations was for $2100. The first time the person had donated.
K,A, writes:
Hmm... I don't think you are a dupe. I think the American people are maybe incredibly stupid. Andrew Sullivan's article is correct. MANY, many people who don't read newspapers and are not really paying attention to this race in any depth are buying into the Clinton "brand." Maybe this country has finally produced the ultimate brand-oriented consumers. How desperately sad.
A.L. writes:
Others are skeptical simply because they think the Clinton camp is lying. I don't.
But the numbers are not self-explanatory. As I say, they are an order of magnitude better than her effort from Feb. 5 to Feb. 10, say. It doesn't make sense. Consider this: you properly report that the campaign had to have funneled some big-dollar donors to their internet portal, rather than simply cutting a check, as usual. But how many? And what portion of 10 mil do they account for? It could be a very large portion. 2,000 people could have given $2,300. And 98,000 people could have given an average of $50. If this haul represents a new tactic, specifically, shunting most or ALL of their traditional, high-dollar fundraising income through the Web, then what we're seeing is a fundamentally differentphenomenon than what we've been reporting on all cycle. That's just one way we might not be seeing the full truth, without actually having been lied to.
A.R. writes:
There is one factor I've yet to see you mention regarding the recent $10 mil fundraising total for Sen. Clinton. It is highly likely (and we won't have verification until May 20, by which point it will be forgotten) that a substantial percentage of this money consists of general election funds not usable in the primary. It's well known that a significant portion of her donor base consists of $2300 maxxed donors; given her Tuesday night pleas for "just $5", it would seem a very likely possibility that she got many thousands of very small donations, combined with capped donors giving another $2300 for the general, to come up with the "average $100 donation" that led to the $10 mil figure.
Her March numbers bear out a very similar scenario; if I recall, $20 mil total raised but only $8 mil of that usable for the primary, leaving her in red. You should clarify that in all likelihood $3-6 mil of this $10 mil recently raised is irrelevant and must be refunded if she does not win the nomination, and is being trumpeted only in an attempt to manipulate her media image. While your stance is appreciated, I trust you value honesty in reporting.
RNC Sets Expectations For McCain's Polling Standing
Later today, the Republican National Committee plans to send Jan van Lohuizen's latest polling memo to its members.
The message: don't be alarmed by fluidity in the polling. Indeed, it's an article of faith within the GOP that when the Democratic nomination is settled, McCain's standing will drop and the Democrats' standing will rise -- at least until the conventions begin.
Van Lohuizen writes:
When a candidate gets good news their numbers increase, and when it’s bad news or no news their numbers drop. We saw this occur recently. When Barack Obama had to deal with the Reverend Wright story his numbers dropped. At the same time, when Senator Clinton was confronted with her ‘sniper’ tale, her numbers also dropped, and Senator McCain led
both Democrats in public polls. Since that time, with the media focused almost
exclusively on the other side, Senator McCain’s numbers have slipped a bit and the race
has tightened. We have seen this in public polling as well as the polling we conduct for
the RNC.
Both candidates, he writes, ought to get bumps out of their conventions:
As you may recall, the 2004 bounce was better and longer lasting for our convention than for the Democratic convention. Because it was so late, the GOP convention set up President Bush for a lead that lasted through the debates. This year the Democrats will have a later convention, but if their nomination is not settled, seating fights and other sources of
contention could very well make for no bounce at all (or, if such a thing exists, a negative
bounce).
The Most Damaging Thing Rev. Jeremiah Wright Has To Say
May well be that Obama "says what he has to say as a politician."
BILL MOYERS:
In the 20 years that you've been his pastor, have you ever heard him repeat any of your controversial statements as his opinion?
REVEREND WRIGHT:
No. No. No. Absolutely not.
I don't talk to him about politics. And so he had a political event, he goes out as a politician and says what he has to say as a politician. I continue to be a pastor who speaks to the people of God about the things of God.
Clinton's Superdelegate Meetings
Sen. Hillary Clinton, in Washington for Senate business, is in intense discussions, right now, with uncommitted superdelegates in a conference room at the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee.
About 200 Republican bold-faced names crowded into former RNC chairman Ken Mehlman's Georgetown townhouse last night for an event that one attendee said "felt like the kick-off for Pawlenty for Vice President." Officially, the bill was a fundraiser for Pawlenty's gubernatorial re-election. As the Politico's Mike Allen notes, the Republican government-in-exile all came together: former rep/lobbyist Vin Weber, former White House political director Sara Taylor and major McCain advisers/fundraisers Fred Malek and Wayne Berman. Senior Congressional and White House staffers with Minnesota connections were also invited.
To his guests, Mehlman wondered why so many people would show up on a beautiful night in DC to hang with the governor of Minnesota. But then, Mehlman said, with tongue planted in cheek, that he heard the governor's wife call him "45."
"45" -- as in, the next, next president of the United States, after 43's successor -- John McCain (or Mehlman's old Harvard Law School buddy, Barack Obama) will serve as 44.
Mehlman's not endorsing anyone for veep here -- he remains very close to Ex-Rep. Rob Portman and to Gov. Mitt Romney, among other potential picks.
Also, some of the A-listers who attended, like former White House chief of staff Ken Duberstein and former RGA executive director Phil Musser are committed supporters of Romney's.
Pawlenty was introduced by his wife Mary. His speech, according to attendees, focused on how "the GOP can better win working class democrats in the context of his Minnesota electoral experience and model for governance.
“He stressed health care, energy, and the environment," said one donor. Pawlenty also talked about his roots -- his working class beginnings -- as a way to lay the groundwork for that. (Mr. Pawlenty, you’ll recall, coined the phrase “Sam’s Club Republicans.” ((Update: ** -- Actually, this is untrue -- the words were coined by my colleague Reihan Salam.))
Those close to Pawlenty say that he gets a kick out of the vice presidential talk. "But I don't think he's lobbying for it," one close friend says. Indeed, Pawlenty has yet to subject himself to the media schedule that a potential vice presidential nominee generally finds himself following.
There've been few national television appearances, almost no extended interviews, and very few surrogates making the rounds. If he's angling for the job, he's doing it quietly.
Last night's event raised $46,000 for the governor's re-election committee.
Moments after I posted a brief about Sen. Clinton's $10M fundraising day, I received about a dozen e-mails from readers (and a few folks from Chicago) suggesting that, amiable as I am, I was duped. A healthy skepticism is in order, virtually all of these e-mails say, for any claim that comes from the Clinton campaign. I might be the last person on earth who possibly believes anything that the Clinton campaign says.
Well, I stand by my post. It's true that campaigns fib about their Internet money, and that there is no objective standard of proof until the filings are released -- May 20 -- but there are other ways for reporters who've covered campaigns to discern whether (a) a campaign staffer is lying to the reporter or (b) a campaign staffer is lying to another campaign staffer. As a reporter, I've been lied to by at least one person at every presidential campaign. But on every campaigns there are others who, yes, spin, but on factual matters have proven themselves to be trustworthy, even when the facts aren't flattering to them or their campaign. In general, when people from campaigns lie, they don't like their names attached to their claims. Well, Peter Daou, who has direct access to the online fundraising tallies, puts his name to the claim that Clinton raised $10 million.
Politically, there seem to be a lot of Democrats out there who think that Clinton is a really, really bad person. There are very few Democrats out there who think that Obama is a bad person.
As an amateur observer of human social behavior, I am quite impressed by the steel wall of aversion that some Obama supporters put up whenever they're confronted by something that does not fit with their established perception of Hillary Clinton -- namely that there is just NO way that Hillary can raise that much money in such a short period of time...because she is, well, Hillary. The fundamental attribution error is at work: it must be a lie because Hillary is a liar; the situation -- a 9 point victory in Pennsylvania, or the roughly half of the Democratic electorate who supporters her -- well, it matters much less. Many Clinton supporters exhibit the same behavior. I exhibit the behavior when it comes to defending members of my tribe -- journalists.
Anyway, here's a representative e-mail from a reader:
Dear Marc,
I have enjoyed your campaign coverage, in large part because you generally are a difficult person to dupe.
The Clinton campaign got you this time though. I would suggest that you run a few numbers: the Clinton campaign says that it has raised $10 million online, by attracting 100,000 donors, 80% of whom are new donors. That is a tall tale for an incredible number of reasons but here are the most obvious: if Clinton really raised an average of $100 per internet donor, that's about 5 times higher than the typical average internet donation. The claim is specious, but possible--especially given that the Clintons say they directed their large donors towards their website. That begs the obvious question, though: how many "big" donors have the Clintons left untapped? The thousands that it would take to raise that average? That seems unlikely.
What also seems unlikely is that they raised money from 80,000 new donors yesterday. That would be increasing their online donor base by 30 to 40 % in one day. The likelihood of that happening is absolutely miniscule, and you know it.
The Clintons have had an awfully poor track record of lying about donations over the past three months. And I don't blame them--they have every incentive to lie. The official reports will not come in until the 15th of next month (I believe, though you should know), and by that time how much money they have will be wholly irrelevant because a new storyline should have taken hold in the press; but, if their lies are passed on now, it will create the appearance of momentum, which in turn creates momentum, and may give their campaign a few more weeks of life.
So the Clintons have an incentive to lie; your incentive to pass on that lie, without putting a critical eye to it, is what I question. There isn't one. So, with all due respect Marc, dig a little deeper. There's a story there, and you're too smart to miss it.
Best,
Patrick Moore
Yes, Clinton Raised $10M Off The Net
Peter Daou, Hillary Clinton's internet director, confirms that, by midnight last night, the campaign had recieved more than $10 million in web-based contributions. efforts. Not pledges. Not promises. But $10 million transferred directly from the credit and debit cards of about 100,000 donors. (The average donation was about $100 -- which means that the campaign steered some bigger donors to the net.)
On television yesterday, Clinton campaign chairman Terry McAullife innoncently projected out the number of $10 million from the roughly $5m the campaign had already recieved. There was a little bit of panic in Clinton land -- would they actually be able to reach the Macker's exuberant projection?
The campaign says that by 11:00 pm ET last night, they had.
So the $10M figure, according to the Clinton campaign, is not a goal. It is, indeed, cash in the bank.
Protesting Hagee
Greeting John McCain in Louisiana today will be a contingent of MoveOn.org backed protestors carrying signs urging McCain to disassociate himself with pastor John Hagee, who, in an interview yestrday with Dennis Prager, stood by his insinuation/assertion that a planned rally of gay people hastened the desire of the diety to see New Orleans destroyed and reborn. Here are some of the signs the protestors will be carrying.
The Undecided Superdelegates
It turns out that Rick Klau has been tracking the superdelegates for months, now. Here's his google map mash-up. Are readers aware of any organized effort to pressure them?
Veepwatch: Jindal
We'll get the chance today to watch Sen. John McCain's body language when he tours New Orleans with Gov. Bobby Jindal. The short argument for Jindal's ticket inclusion begins by noting how he's been a breath of fresh air for Lousianans, governing as a pragmatic anti-corruption conservative. He's got sterling right-wingy credentials; an endorsement from Rush Limbaugh, the right positions on immigration, the attractive life story; the ethnic diversity; the geographical balance; he's a Roman Catholic convert, too. He's also 36 years old -- barely but legitimately constitutionally eligible. The downside: he's used his political capital in Louisiana; whether his reforms succeed depends on his presence. He's not about to abandon the state to serve the lesser interests of his ambitions.
NB: Jindal makes his national television debut on The Tonight Show with Jay Leno tomorrow.
Out The Supers?
Lots of talk, not a lot of action. There's been talk for weeks about an effort by liberal bloggers to figure out the names of the undecided superdelegates, out them, and pressure them into announcing their support for one candidate or the other. So far -- so far as I'm aware -- no organized effort has sprouted.
Scanning the political trades this morning, it seems as if a new zeitgeist has emerged to describe the progression of the Democratic race: Obama's still likely to win the nomination, but he has emerged from Pennsylvania weakened, his message stale and worn; his appeal to white blue collar voters still lags; his base of support seemingly unchanged (university towns, state capitals, college kids, affluent Dems, African Americans.); his candidacy has not succeeded in breaking through the inviolate and submerged racial prejudice of older voters. The usual caveats: I'm describing what others see, not what I think ought to be, or what is.
“I’m sure there is some of that,” said David Axelrod, Mr. Obama’s senior political adviser, as he considered how race was playing among voters in late primary states. Mr. Axelrod said Mrs. Clinton’s biggest advantage had been among older voters, “and I think there is a general inclination on the part of the older voters to vote for what is more familiar.” He added: “Here’s a guy named Barack Obama, an African-American guy, relatively new. That’s a lot of change.”
Indeed, as Soren Dayton points out, Clinton lost the majority black wards and university wards in Philly by significant margins.
Mr. Obama's call for postpartisanship looks unconvincing, when he is unable to point to a single important instance in his Senate career when he demonstrated bipartisanship. And his repeated calls to remember Dr. Martin Luther King's "fierce urgency of now" in tackling big issues falls flat as voters discover that he has not provided leadership on any major legislative battle.
Mr. Obama has not been a leader on big causes in Congress. He has been manifestly unwilling to expend his political capital on urgent issues. He has been only an observer, watching the action from a distance, thinking wry and sardonic and cynical thoughts to himself about his colleagues, mildly amused at their too-ing and fro-ing. He has held his energy and talent in reserve for the more important task of advancing his own political career, which means running for president.
Obama, who entered the primary as a fresh breeze and left it stale, battered and embittered — still the mathematical favorite for the nomination but no longer the darling of his party. In the course of six weeks, the American people learned that he was a member of a church whose pastor gave angry, anti-American sermons, that he was "friendly" with an American terrorist who had bombed buildings during the Vietnam era, and that he seemed to look on the ceremonies of working-class life — bowling, hunting, churchgoing and the fervent consumption of greasy food — as his anthropologist mother might have, with a mixture of cool detachment and utter bemusement. All of which deepened the skepticism that Caucasians, especially those without a college degree, had about a young, inexperienced African-American guy with an Islamic-sounding name and a highfalutin fluency with language. And worse, it raised questions among the elders of the party about Obama's ability to hold on to crucial Rust Belt bastions like Pennsylvania, Michigan and New Jersey in the general election — and to add long-suffering Ohio to the Democratic column.
April 23, 2008
Obama: $15M in 10 Days?
Reader A.M. writes:
Since there were several blogs about Clinton's fundraising on your site last night, here are some numbers that I've been tracking from Obama's site, which has a '# of new donors' ticker. He has added 100,000 new donors to his fundraising machine in the last 10 days! Current ticker: 1,406,448 now. April 14 ticker: 1,309,965 (@8pm PDT) This includes:
~ 35,000 new donors in the last 24 hours
~ 70,000 new donors since the ABC debate
I'd estimate that even more existing donors have donated again (by a factor of 2 or 3?) in the same period... Using conservative estimates, if 250,000 new & existing donors donated in the last 10 days and their average donation was $60ea ... that's $15 million in 10 days (and judging by the 'activity' on DailyKos after the ABC debate, this estimate is likely quite low.) $15m in 10 days. Without as much as lifting a finger? Who cares about Location, location, location?
Delegates, Delegates, Delegates? Fundraising, Fundraising, Fundraising. Ditto.
McCain Manager: "Cracks" In Obama's Coalition
Here's a new memo from Rick Davis, John McCain's campaign manager. You can see that the McCain view of Pennsylvania is similar to the Clinton view of Pennsylvania. Except for one fact: the McCain campaign believes that Obama will be the nominee.
To: Interested Parties
From: Rick Davis
Date: April 23, 2008
Re: Pennsylvania Democratic Primary Results
The race for the Democratic Nomination will continue.
Hillary Clinton's victory in Pennsylvania last night has extended the primary to the next round of contests (Indiana and North Carolina on May 6) and has maintained the competitive nature of the race.
With her 10-point victory, we should expect her poll numbers and resources to increase in the coming days. Primary wins, especially in the 2008 election cycle, have had a direct impact on the national polling numbers for the candidates and when national polling numbers increase, so do campaign donations.
Since last night, the Clinton campaign reportedly raised $10 million dollars online - enough to make a significant dent in upcoming media buys in North Carolina and Indiana. Barack Obama continues to surpass fundraising expectations and will most likely continue to do so. We need help during this period of democratic turmoil so we can build are resources and be ready to fight when the race begins.
Pennsylvania exit polls tell an interesting story that has implications for November.
* Even though Hillary Clinton won this primary, Barack Obama is seen as the front runner among Pennsylvania Democrats and is perceived to be the candidate most likely to win the Democratic Party's nomination.
Fifty-five percent of Pennsylvania voters say they believe Barack Obama will be the nominee in November. And, one-fifth of Clinton's Pennsylvania supporters believe he will be the nominee in November. So, the victory for Clinton is seen as a bump in the road for Obama, even by some of her true believers.
* Exit polls reveal why this poses significant problems for Obama if he becomes the nominee. The most important problem: Clinton voters don't automatically become Obama voters after he becomes the nominee. In fact, Obama leaves large portions of Clinton's coalition on the table in November.
Obama only wins 72% of the Democratic vote in a general election match up among those surveyed last night. Clinton shows her broad coalitional strength and wins 81% in a general election match up against John McCain. A full quarter of the Democrats in Pennsylvania are not willing to cast their ballot for Obama against McCain (15% say they vote McCain and 10% say they stay home), however, Clinton loses only 17% of Democrats (10% for McCain and 7% would not vote). This gap of 8-points would be significant in a general election match up. President Bush lost Pennsylvania by 2-points in 2004, when 41% of the electorate were Democrats. That 8-point gap among Democrats is enough to swing the state the other way (8% of 41% is 2.8-points, turning Pennsylvania red). This dynamic is clearly visible in publicly released surveys; an average of April polls show McCain trailing Obama by an average of 3-points (3 surveys in April) and trailing Clinton by 8-points.
The cracks in Obama's Democratic coalition in Pennsylvania mirror what we saw in Ohio, and those cracks could have implications in November.
* Hillary Clinton cleaned up with Union households - like she did in Ohio. In Pennsylvania, Clinton won 59% of Union members (Obama 41%). Obama won these voters by significant margins in Wisconsin (+9), but has lost his hold on their vote in both Ohio (Clinton 55% - 43%) and now Pennsylvania.
* Clinton did better than Obama with lower income voters.
Our targeting and analysis of the 2008 political landscape puts voters who are on the lower economic brackets at the heart of either party's winning coalition. Hillary won at every income level below $150,000, and Obama only won with the wealthiest Pennsylvania voters. Obama's media foibles contributed to his inability to connect to voters who are suffering the real impact of this challenging economic environment.
This is also apparent in the number of voters who feel Clinton is more in touch with their views. Fifty-six percent of Pennsylvania Democrats say Clinton cares about people like them - again a significant switch from earlier contests. Wisconsin exit polls shows Obama had a 12-point advantage on that measure. By the time Ohio held their primary, Clinton had switched the dynamic and led by 12-points.
* Clinton won Catholic voters.
In Wisconsin, Clinton split the Catholic vote 50%-50% with Obama. Again, she changed the dynamic in Ohio and won Catholics by 27-points (63% - 36%). In Pennsylvania, she increased her margins and won by 38-points (69% - 31%). The strength of this coalition bolsters her argument that Obama would have had problems competing in Michigan and will not be able to carry key Midwestern states in November.
* Clinton won Jewish voters.
In Pennsylvania, the first state where both candidates competed for a significant block of Jewish voters, Clinton won by 15-points (57% - 43%). Again, the data suggests Jewish voters, a key Democratic coalition, pose a potential problem for Obama.
* Clinton increased her margins in suburban and rural areas - without losing ground in urban areas. Clinton won Pennsylvania suburbs by a 12-point margin and won rural areas by 22-points. And Clinton lost in urban areas by 14-points. This is similar to her Ohio performance. But, it shows an increase in her performance in urban areas from earlier contests (in Wisconsin she lost urban areas by 21-points). Clinton has figured out how to increase her margins among suburban and rural voters and cut into Obama's base of urban voters.
What does that mean for John McCain?
Ultimately most pundits contend that Hillary Clinton still has more than an uphill battle to become the nominee. So, what does this victory mean for John McCain?
While the Democratic nomination continues to unfold, our campaign is actively engaged in listening to voters' concerns and sharing John McCain's message with them. Senator McCain has an active schedule in the coming weeks. Last week, he gave a major economic address where he addressed short term concerns like enacting a summer gas tax holiday, he proposed a new "HOME Plan" to help those who are hurt by the housing crisis and he is proposing a student loan continuity plan to make sure America's college students aren't hurt from the credit crunch. In addition, Senator McCain has spent this week travelling to places many in our nation have forgotten and where our citizens have felt left behind but where hope, innovation and local solutions are helping to lift these communities up. And, next week, Senator McCain will visit various health care facilities and unveil his plans and solutions to help Americans improve access and affordability to good health care. In addition, the campaign is building our organization and resources for the campaign in the fall.
Another Superdelegate For Obama
Audra Ostergard, the associate chair of the Nebraska Democratic Party.
“I have carefully weighed input from Democrats across Nebraska and closely watched results from primaries and caucuses across the country. There are compelling arguments for supporting both candidates, but my decision came down to what’s best for our country and for Nebraska. In that regard, I am confident in my decision to endorse Senator Obama. He has a proven ability to activate Democrats in Nebraska.”
Rice Is Being Rationed. In The United States.
As we're talking about delegates and Bill Ayers and the Clinton library and John Hagee,
This isn't like Katrina where a supply disruption caused some shortages.
There's just too much global demand for rice. Inflation is skyrocketing. Rice exporters are hoarding their own supplies because of indigenous needs. The price of rice since January (U.S # 2/better long grain rice from the Chicago Board of Trade) has jumped 68%.
The kicker from that Sam Club's story:
"Wal-Mart said at this point, it's not limiting purchases of flour or oil."
At this point.
Clinton's On Track To Raise $10M in 24 Hours
This "turned the tide" phrase is showing up everywhere. Here's Clinton campaign chair Terry McAullife in an e-mail to reporters: “Senator Clinton’s game-changing victory last night has turned the tide and resulted in an historic outpouring of grassroots support. Just like Hillary, our supporters have met every challenge and come through each time. Thanks to them, we will have the resources needed to compete and win as we move ahead to the next contests.” 50,000 of the 60,000 donors are new, according to the campaign.
Obama And The White Blue Collar Vote: Wisconsin's The Exception
Here's Barack Obama, speaking to CNN's Roland Martin: "We have won the white, blue collar vote in a whole bunch of states ... and if we had a demographic problem in Pennsylvania, it was that it's an older state than a lot of states, and it is true that Sen. Clinton has some strong support among voters over 60."
Not in a "whole bunch of states."
Atlantic Media's Ron Brownstein notes to me in an e-mail that, according to the exit polls, Obama has won the white non college voting bloc (e.g., white blue collar voters) in Wisconsin -- 52% -- and lost them everywhere else, even in Illinois, where they narrowly preferred Clinton (50% to 46%).
Writes Ron: "The only other state where he’s reached even 40% of the vote among white non college voters is Virginia, according to the exit polls. In Ohio, he won only 27% of non college white voters; in PA, as of this morning, the number was just 30% (although the exit could be revised slightly)."
Update: The Obama campaign sends along an e-mail:
States where we’ve won voters who make less than $50,000:, Alabama, Delaware, Georgia, Illinois, Iowa, Louisiana, Maryland, Mississippi, Missouri, South Carolina, Utah, Virginia, Vermont and Wisconsin. Came within 10 points in: Arizona, Connecticut, New Mexico, Texas.
We're talking here about white blue collar voters as defined by socioeconomic status; in some of these states, John Edwards cut into Clinton's voting bloc (Iowa and South Carolina); in most of the others, African Americans making under $50,000 provided Obama's margin of victory in the demographic (MS, MD, VA and GA). Missouri is a narrow exception, although Obama lost whites without college degrees there. And in Utah, Clinton did not compete.
Clinton Picks Up A Superdelegate
Rep. John Tanner of TN.
The delegate county as of 4pm, including the 15 net delegates Sen. Clinton won out of Pennsylvania, is Obama: 1715, Clinton: 1585, Edwards: 18 -- a lead of about 130 for Sen. O.
Will Obama Go Negative?
An unnamed campaign adviser telegraphs a strategy to the Washington Post:
With Obama clearly favored in North Carolina, even he has called Indiana the "tiebreaker," a state that adjoins Illinois but where Clinton voters hold sway in the working-class towns in the south. In the two weeks leading up to the Indiana primary, a Democratic strategist familiar with the Obama campaign said aides are likely to turn to the controversies of Bill Clinton's White House years -- Hillary Clinton's trading cattle futures, Whitewater and possibly impeachment.
On a conference call this a.m., Obama manager David Plouffe flatly rejected the assertion. "We're not going to do that," he said.
There's certainly a balance to be struck between counterpunching and going negative. It's a hard line to walk because the media can't quite agree on what constitutes a legitimate response and what constitutes a negative attack. There is also some (healthy, vigorous) debate among Obama advisers about how to strike that balance. My sense is that Obama will reserve his harshest language for John McCain.
Comment Thread -- What Happens Now?
The Democratic race: what happens now?
Your comments are welcome.
Update: McCain, GOP Unhappy With N.C. GOP AD
Sen. John McCain sent this letter to the chairman of the North Carolina GOP this a.m.:
Dear Chairman Daves,
From the beginning of this election, I have been committed to running a respectful campaign based upon an honest debate about the great issues confronting America today. I expect all state parties to do so as well. The television advertisement you are planning to air degrades our civics and distracts us from the very real differences we have with the Democrats. In the strongest terms, I implore you to not run this advertisement.
This ad does not live up to the very high standards we should hold ourselves to in this campaign. We need to run a campaign that is worthy of the people we seek to serve. There is no doubt that we will draw sharp contrasts with the Democrats on fundamental issues critical to the future course of our country. But we need not engage in political tactics that only seek to divide the American people.
Once again, it is imperative that you withdraw this offensive advertisement.
John McCain
Danny Diaz, the RNC's communications director, in a statement:
“Senator McCain has been very clear that he expects to run a respectful campaign based on the critical issues confronting the nation. The RNC has been in contact with the NC GOP and communicated that we do not believe the ad is appropriate or helpful and have asked that they refrain from running it"
There's a sense among some GOP activists that the McCain campaign depresses the base by refusing to engage in the base-tending tactics that these ads exemplify. Also: how many times does McCain have to remind his party that he doesn't like these types of ads and doesn't want them to run? How many GOP state parties will rebel against their nominee's discomfort with ads like these? (Two, so far: Tennessee and North Carolina.)
NC GOP Ad On Obama: Misleading
This new ad North Carolina Republican Party is not blunt, not subtle, not terribly creative, and...
....is misleading in that it suggests that Obama was present for the sermon it shows Rev. Wright delivering. ("God damn America!"). The notion is that Barack Obama is "too extreme" for North Carolina, and because Democratic gubernatorial candidates Richard Moore and Beverly Perdue endorsed Obama, they're extreme too. Take the logic for what you will.
The "Willie Horton" Ad On Obama
This is from Floyd Brown's Expose Obama.com. Here's some background on the group. A sidebar accompanying the ad on Brown's website says the campaign plans to raise $300,000 to run the ad against "Barack Hussein Obama." The group is also using the Newsmax list to raise money, warning:
Make no mistake, there are people in the United States who despise America... hate America... and hate our way of life. Barack Hussein Obama is THEIR CANDIDATE and they will do everything in their power to make sure that patriotic Americans do not understand exactly how dangerous Barack Hussein Obama really is. They'll hide his record and his past and they'll tar-and-feather his opposition.
The ad may be a video press release; there's no specific information about the buy. It also seems to be deliberatively provocative, designed to raise its own profile, designed to attract attention from those with fear in their hearts. It's also a reminder that a general election featuring Obama and McCain may unavoidably be a nasty affair, even if both principles disavow the nastiness.
Superdelegates For Obama -- Sooner?
Could Obama's defeat last night actually speed up the process of superdelegates declaring themselves in favor of Obama? Maybe. Here's the logic. Superdelegates are smart, and their decision-making is governed by their answers to at least four different questions: (1) who do they personally like? (2) for whom did their constituents vote? (3) Who is likely to be the nominee? (4) Who is most likely to beat John McCain?
(4) and (3) might contradict each other -- indeed, a majority of Pennsylvania Democrats believe that Obama will be the nominee but think that Clinton is most likely to beat McCain.
But (4) depends somewhat on the condition (3) is in -- and the more (3) is damaged, the more (4) gets hurt.
Assuming that the overriding interest of a typical undecided superdelegate is to win the election and not to curry favor with a particular candidate, it would make sense to think critically about how the process itself is likely to influence the perception and chances of the nominee. (Borrowing from Don Rumsfeld: you fight the general election with the nominee you have.) So if our typical superdelegate believes that, regardless of whether he or she wants Obama to win, Obama is likely to be the nominee, then it makes sense for them, to, as Rich Lowry puts it, "protect him and stop the nomination race before even more of his vulnerabilities become evident."
Example one: Gov. Brad Henry of Oklahoma.
The State Of The Race
The data from last night suggests that voters believe that Hillary Clinton's argument about Barack Obama's general election viability will remain valid until Obama renders it invalid. He did poor relative to Clinton among most discernible swing groups despite a massive, $12 million, six-week investment. The argument, incidentally, isn't that because Obama didn't win Pennsylvania in the primary, he can't win it in the general. It's that the coalition Obama is building in these states cannot, without a significant modification, give him victory in the fall. The corresponding argument is that it will be easier for Clinton to expand her coalition.
For their loss, the Obama campaign points to the deep structure of the state and then to Clinton campaign's negative attacks. But in the final days of the campaign, Obama mounted a counter-barrage that was just as harsh. There's no conclusive evidence that the Osama Bin Laden image in her final advertisement helped Clinton, but I suspect that you'll see the ad replicated in some form or fashion in North Carolina.
One theory of the case holds that, after Pennsylvania, a lot happened but only a little has changed. Barack Obama is still in the catbird's seat for the nomination, although Clinton earned herself two more weeks to make the case that she ought to be heard -- or, two more weeks to damage Obama's candidacy, depending on your point of view. Obama hasn't sealed the deal; a plurality of the superdelegates remain undecided. There's no way Clinton can make up the pledged delegate difference. Obama has a lot of money; Clinton has very little. The demographic stasis of the Democratic primary hasn't been altered. Obama still is less attractive to older voters, less affluent voters, less educated voters -- the Democratic white working class. (Remember: PA was a closed primary.) Obama had six weeks and an unlimited pool of money and a media that was on side, and he still did not win. Obama still has the burden of explaining why he cannot beat Clinton in one of these states. (One potential answer is that the general election will allow Obama to make a contrast with McCain that he can't make with Clinton.)
Clinton has the burden of explaining why a potentially quixotic quest is worth the damage that might be accruing to the Democratic Party. Two weeks from tonight, the overall delegate number will probably not have changed much, and Obama, if he wins Indiana and North Carolina, will have made up the net popular vote gain that Clinton takes away from tonight. Obama will focus heavily on John McCain over the next two weeks; Clinton will do largely what she's been doing.
On demographics: the electorate was considerably more upscale than in Ohio -- 46% had college degrees, versus 38% in Ohio. The percentage of voters earning more than $100,000 in Pennsylvania was 25% versus 19% in Ohio. Ostensibly, a more affluent electorate favors Obama. It's unclear at this point whether the preferences of these groups have really changed, or if the candidates improved or changed their share of those groups. Over Ohio, it's safe to say that Obama did improve his share of the black vote, and seems to have done better among white men and did better -- significantly better -- among older voters. Clinton did better that she usually does among Catholics and among college graduates. As NBC's Chuck Todd notes, the big surprise of the night was the degree to which Clinton held her own in the Philly suburbs.
Looking forward:
1. Clinton will have enough money to make the race competitive in Indiana. She will be competitive with him in terms of endorsements, and she has, in Sen. Evan Bayh, a high-profile surrogates. Still, Obama hasn't lost a state that borders Illinois.
2. Obama the fighter. He will throw back against Clinton. '
3. Will John Edwards endorse? Elizabeth Edwards? (More likely the latter?)
4. Will Clinton pick up any superdelegate endorsements between now and then?
5. Will we know what the DNC recommends vis-a-vis the Ausman challenges for Florida?
6. Will the Obama campaign agree to another debate?
More Anti-Obama Mail From Republicans
More FreedomWorks mail using Barack Obama's name in Louisiana's 6th congressional district.
Votes are still being counted in Pennsylvania, but one thing is already clear.
In a state where we trailed by more than 25 points just a couple weeks ago, you helped close the gap to a slimmer margin than most thought possible.
Thanks to your support, with just 9 contests remaining, we've won more delegates, more votes, and twice as many contests.
We hold a commanding position, but there are two crucial contests coming up -- voters will head to the polls in North Carolina and Indiana in exactly two weeks. And we're already building our organization in the other remaining states.
But it's clear the attacks are going to continue, and we're going to continue fighting a two-front battle against John McCain and Hillary Clinton.
I need your support right now. Please make a donation of $25:
https://donate.barackobama.com/whatthismeans
Thank you for all that you're doing to change our country.
Barack
Donate
April 22, 2008
Clinton's Margin: An Update
With 85% in, it's about 10 points.
HRC will probably have won the popular vote by about 200,000.
Clinton leads by 10,000 votes in Allegheny Co. Clinton won Berks Co. by 10,000. She's leading in Bucks Co. by 15,000. The candidates are tied in Delaware Co. Clinton won by 14,000 points in Erie Co.
Delegate-wise, I'd say HRC picks up between 12 and 16 delegates.
Sixers And Six Packs
Reports note Obama’s PA party is going….well, slowly. "It's like going to see a Sixers game without Allen Iverson,” according to the Philadelphia Inquirer blog.
We hear there are more than a few empty chairs at the Water Works restaurant, where the Obama camp has gathered, and that Bob Casey was caught yawning multiple times.
Meanwhile, we’re being told the mood at the Clinton rally, where Clinton just spoke, is “Electric. Energetic.” According to Mo Elleithee: “Its like going to a Sixers game and watching Iverson make an alley oop.”
Because we can’t go an election night without a sports reference – NORA MCALVANAH
The Obama campaign is sending reporters tomorrow's lead editorial from the New York Times:
It is past time for Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton to acknowledge that the negativity, for which she is mostly responsible, does nothing but harm to her, her opponent, her party and the 2008 election.
A lot they don't like. The Times hated the Osama Bin Laden image. They didn't like the "obliterate" Iran comments.
They also write:
He is increasingly rising to Mrs. Clinton’s bait, undercutting his own claims that he is offering a higher more inclusive form of politics. When she criticized his comments about “bitter” voters, Mr. Obama mocked her as an Annie Oakley wannabe. All that does is remind Americans who are on the fence about his relative youth and inexperience.
More County Level Trends
With 60% of the vote in, Clinton has a nine point margin.
Philly is about 70% in; Clinton still trails by 4 to 6 -- Obama's margin is about 70,000 votes.
The suburbs are starting to come in. No discernible trends. Clinton is winning in Berks County with 70% of the vote in. She's winning in Bucks Co. with 10 percent of the vote in. The race is tied in Delaware County with 25% in. Obama's leading in Lancaster with 12% of the vote in. With 12% of Montgomery Co in, Clinton has a narrow lead.
Allegheny County is going for Clinton, but narrowly -- by about 25,000 votes.
The campaign sends out "thank you" appeal to supporters...asks for five bucks...
Some County Level Trends
A quarter of the statewide vote is in. Clinton leads by a margin of about six points.
With 50% of the vote in Philly having been counted, Obama's margin over Clinton is about 6 to 4 -- less than expected.
The major exurban Philadelphia counties are not in yet -- nothing, for example, from Lancaster Co.
Results from the closer-in surburbs are starting to trickle in (Chester, Bucks, Montgomery.) With 30% of Berks County in, Clinton leads by about ten percentage points.
My guess, based on these returns, is that Clinton's margin will grow a bit. Maybe a point or two?
Clinton Narrowly Wins Among 50K+ Voters
According to the recalibrated exit polls after wave three, more than six in ten voters reporting earning more than $50,000 a year. Clinton narrowly won this demographic in Ohio. Clinton seems to have won them -- narrowly -- in Pennsylvania.
Atlantic Media political director Ron Brownstein e-mails to suggest that the exits may be overstating the number of educated, affluent voters .
"It could be no one knew what a Pennsylvania primary looked like cause we haven't had one in a while, but it may be that the 47% college-educated and 26% who make 100k plus in the exit polls gets dialed down and exits get readjusted later to tilt more toward HRC."
He also points out that turnout in suburban Philadelphia could be higher than normal, too.
A Note On Pledged Delegates
As NBC's Chuck Todd points out tonight, Clinton's chances of winning the nomination based on pledged delegates is effectively over tonight.
If Obama keeps his pledged delegate lead to around 150, Clinton needs to win 70% of them on May 6 -- and if not, 80% of them after May 6.
That's more than next to impossible.
What does this mean? A renewed focus on the vote? A focus on the
automatic/superdelegates?
A focus on the race holistically?
Obama's still won twice as many contests as Hillary, won more of the popular vote, has a nearly insurmountable lead in delegates and has outraised her by some $40 million or so.
Clinton Internet Fundraising: 100K in 20 minutes?
Take this with a grain of salt since it's coming from the Clinton campaign, but a senior campaign official says Clinton has raised $100,000 in 20 minutes from the Internet.
Clinton's Doing Better In Some Demographics Vis-A-Vis Ohio
In Pennsylvania, Clinton did better among Catholics, improving her margin by about 10 percentage points. She also did better among those who attended church weekly. She improved, slightly, among voters in union households.
Here's How The Nets Were Able To Call This Quickly
They're merging the exit poll data with quick tallies from specially selected model precincts across the state. Clinton in those precincts is outperforming her margin in the exit polls.
CBS Calls It For Clinton
Fox News Projects Clinton As Winner
Other networks still cautious.....
Clinton "Leading"
That's what some of the networks are now saying.
Obama And White Men
Clinton won white men 53% to 46% in Pennsylvania, according to the exit polls. That's down a bit from Ohio, where she won 58% of that vote to Obama's 42%. So the margin has narrowed...
Exits Suggest Obama Did Better In PA Than Ohio
From an Obama adviser:
Significant improvements over Ohio, especially among white men and seniors overall. In OH, for example, Clinton got 58% of white men, Obama got 39%. Exits now showing that Obama earned 45% in PA, and Clinton 55%. A 16 point gap narrowed to 10. With voters over 60 in OH, Clinton won 69%, Obama got 28%. In PA, Obama earned 41% of the vote among voters over 60, and Clinton won 59%. The gap among seniors was cut by more than half, from 41 to 19.
Really, One Metric Matters
And it's not a media metric!
As polls close, here is one way to think about the margin of victory -- if Hillary Clinton wins.
She has no money.
More important than anything she'll do over the next few days, Clinton will try to use tonight's results to raise money through the net. (Notice the banner behind the stage at her victory party. It says HillaryClinton.com for a reason.)
If the margin of victory is big enough to allow her campaign to raise two or three million dollars in 48 hours, then her supporters are convinced that she still has a shot. Her margin was big enough.
If she can't raise money off of her margin, then her supporters are resigned to her defeat.
She needs money to continue. If she runs out of money, she won't be able to continue.
Pennsylvania Democrats expect Barack Obama will be the nominee and they like him more. But Clinton seems to have won more of their their votes. 67% of primary voters found Obama was honest and trustworthy; 54% found Clinton to be trustworthy. And 54% expect Barack Obama to be the nominee
The traditional coalitions held.
-- Clinton won women; Obama won men; Clinton won white men.
-- Late deciders went for Clinton by a ratio of about three to two
--Obama won among those with a college degree; Clinton won among those without a college degree
-- Clinton won white, blue collar men by about 30 percentage points
--Clinton won the support of those making less than 50K; she and Obama both took about 50% of the vote of those who made more than 50K.
-- 39% of the electorate says they attend church weekly; they backed Clinton by a ratio of 3 to 2.
-- A third of Pennsylvania Dems own guns; Clinton won 58% of their votes.
-- Clinton won among union households;
-- White Catholics (31% of the vote) went for Clinton by nearly 45 percentage points.
High Turnout
Officials project a turnout of between 52% and 55% of the Democratic primary electorate; turnout is especially high in Philadelphia;
Rendell Projects "Fairly Significant" Victory For Clinton
On MSNBC, Gov. Ed Rendell projected a "fairly significant" victory for Sen. Clinton tonight on the order of seven or eight points. And "a ten point victory would be extraordinary."
Pro-Obama Ward Leaders Handing Out Free McDonald's Sandwich Vouchers
Some has leaked to Matt Drudge the first of three waves of exit poll numbers, and even though the first wave of numbers have a margin of error so as to render useful any real attempt to project a victory or a margin of victory, judging by the e-mails I'm getting, the entire political world seems to want to accept them as fact anyway. We humans don't have much in the way of a probability filter, so I don't really blame them. But before you begin to book your tickets to Indiana, just relax for a few more hours.
Not for nothing, I'd characterize the mood of the Clinton campaign as cautiously optimistic, and that of the Obama campaign as optimistically resigned.
NB: Mark Blumenthal of Pollster.com notes that leaked exit polls "favored" disproportionately Obama in 18 of 20 contests so far.
Who Wins? Both, And Neither
The bottom line for tonight: both fields of spin have within them a few grains of truth. It's still likely that Obama wins the nomination, and it's true that his pledged delegate lead will still be in excess of 150 when tonight ends; it's true that Clinton will have 158 fewer delegates to play with; that Obama has a strong chance to win in Indiana and North Carolina; that the superdelegates may well consider the cost of a prolonged contest as well as their own feelings about electability -- all this is true.
But it's also true that were Obama an organic frontrunner, he ought to a win a state like Pennsylvania unless he fully embraces the racial and geographic determinism that his campaign has run against since for fifteen months. He's outspent Clinton by at least six million dollars; Clinton has higher negatives across the board; he's visited the state nearly as many times as she has; his press coverage is better than hers; he has well more than her 5,000 volunteers on the ground.
But what's so crazy about the idea that the Democratic frontrunner -- flush with cash and outspending Clinton 3-to-1, running against a candidate with such high unfavorable ratings -- should be able to win a blue state primary?
The Obama campaign seems to recognize that their short term spin efforts aren't likely to be all that persuasive. Where campaign manager David Plouffe once held daily conference calls imploring the press to look at the reality of the delegate math and declare the race over, Obama himself seems to be resigned, maybe, or encouraged, about running the clock out and proving, once and for all, that he can win by winning votes. Notice that the Obama campaign is slyly and not dishonestly accepting the implied Clinton argument that by staying in the race, she's toughening him up and putting him through the ringer early on.
The exit polls show a smaller percentage of late deciders -- 23% -- than in previous states. The economy mattered most to 54% of voters. (TV news reports say that Clinton won these folks.)
The change versus experience question has been settled: 49% said change was their top vote-generating quality, versus 26 percent who said experience was.
About 15% of the electorate was made up of new voters. 37% are gun owners.
Still petulant: more than 60% of Clinton voters say they wouldn't be happy if Obama were the nominee; about half of Obama voters say the same. 25% of Clinton supporters say they'd vote for McCain in the general election; 17% of Obama supporters say they'd vote for McCain in the general election.
Still, 57% of Pennsylvanians believed that Sen. Clinton "attacked" unfairly compared to 49% who thought Obama did.
A Boost For Obama In North Carolina
29 state legislators, including the Senate Majority Leader and the former speaker of the house, endorsed him today.
Who Gets The Cameo In GOP Ads? Obama
Republicans seem to have an idea about the identity of the likely Democratic nominee.
Freedom's Watch, the Republican 501(c) 4 that is spending heavily in Congressional races, is airing an ad in Louisiana's 6th congressional district that links State Rep. Don Cazayoux's health care plan with Obama's.
"Health care," the narrator intones. "A big issue. Where does Don Cazayouz stand? With Barack Obama for a big government scheme.... Cazayoux and Obama would create a huge bureaucracy... they'd put bureaucrats in charge instead of doctors and patients."
Etc.
Former Rep. Melissa Hart is testing the effect of Sen. Obama's "bitter" comments against Rep. Jason Altmire in PA's 4th congressional district with this web ad.
HART: I'm Melissa Hart and I approve this message.
ANNC: Barack Obama described small town, hardworking, God fearing, Second Amendment-respecting families of western Pennsylvania as bitter. Barack Obama said our bitterness makes us cling to our religion, and our guns. This was simply an insult. But maybe the biggest insult of all is how Jason Altmire continues to defend Barack Obama. Jason Altmire. Just how much of the liberal Kool-Aid did he drink?
Expectations Memo: Clinton
To: Interested Parties
From: The Clinton Campaign
Date: April 22, 2008
MEMO: Watch What They Do, Not What They Say
The Obama campaign is attempting to pre-spin the results from tonight's Pennsylvania primary by suggesting that Sen. Clinton should - and will – win.
But after the Obama campaign’s “go-for-broke” Pennsylvania strategy, after their avalanche of negative ads, negative mailers and negative attacks against Sen. Clinton, after their record-breaking spending in the state, a fundamental question must be asked: Why shouldn't Sen. Obama win
Sen. Obama's supporters - and many pundits - have argued that the delegate "math" makes him the prohibitive frontrunner. They have argued that Sen. Clinton's chances are slim to none. So if he's already the frontrunner, if he's had six weeks of unlimited resources to get his message out, shouldn't he be the one expected to win tonight? If not, why not?
As the phrase goes, watch what they do not what they say.
There's a reason Sen. Obama and his campaign have ratcheted up their year-long assault on Sen. Clinton's character and ended the Pennsylvania campaign with a flurry of harsh negative attacks. It's because they know that a loss in Pennsylvania will raise troubling questions about his candidacy and his ability to take on John McCain in the general election. And it's because they know that the race is neck and neck and tonight's contest is a measure of where the campaign stands.
The reality is this: both candidates need a combination of pledged and super delegates to secure the nomination - and either candidate can reach the required number. The press and the pundits have repeatedly counted Sen. Clinton out and she has repeatedly proved them wrong. The vote in the bellwether state of Pennsylvania is another head to head measure of the two candidates and of the coalition they will put together to compete and win in November.
No amount of spin from the Obama campaign will change that - nor will it explain away anything less than a victory by Sen. Obama.
Expectations Memo: Obama
From the Obama campaign:
TO: Interested Parties
FR: Obama Campaign
RE: The Bar for Clinton in Pennsylvania and Beyond
With all eyes on today’s contest, one thing is clear: Pennsylvania is considered a state tailor-made for Hillary Clinton, and by rights she should win big. She has family roots in the state, she has the support of the Democratic establishment—including Governor Rendell’s extensive network—and former President Clinton is fondly remembered.
Clinton has been leading by large margins in Pennsylvania. In the weeks leading up to the primary, she led by as much as 25 points. They were so confident that their own Pennsylvania spokesman said Clinton would be “unbeatable” in Pennsylvania—regardless of spending by her opponent. [Washington Post, 3/7/08]
But as he has done in every state, Senator Obama campaigned hard and tapped into the hunger for change at grassroots, looking to pick up as many delegates as possible. Old-fashioned, shoe-leather campaigning, in the face of unrelenting negative attacks from Senator Clinton, substantially closed a once-formidable gap.
There has been much speculation about what each campaign needs coming out of tonight. The facts, however, are simple
Behind in delegates and sporting a 14-30 primary record (not good enough even to make the playoffs in the NBA Eastern Conference), the Clinton campaign needs a blowout victory in Pennsylvania to get any closer to winning the nomination. Even President Clinton said that only a “big, big victory” will give her the boost she needs.
The Philadelphia Inquirer observed that there is “consensus” that Clinton has to “take the state big, perhaps by double digits, to be able to claim that she’d won it a way that matters in the overall nomination struggle—given her deficits in both the delegate race and the overall popular vote.” [Philadelphia Inquirer, 4/3/08]
That’s exactly right. And Clinton’s own supporters have been predicting big wins. Governor Ed Rendell and Congressman Jack Murtha—no strangers to Pennsylvania politics—have both predicted runaway wins for her. [MTP, 4/6/08, MSNBC, 4/1/08]
The Clinton campaign has been trying to spin away their earlier confidence and move the goalposts for victory in Pennsylvania. But the bottom line is that if Senator Clinton is going to make meaningful inroads in this race for delegates, she will need a huge margin in Pennsylvania.
The Race Beyond Tonight
Tonight’s outcome is unlikely to change the dynamic of this lengthy primary. Fully three quarters of the remaining delegates will be selected in states other than Pennsylvania. While there are 158 delegates at stake in today’s primary, there are 157 up for grabs in the Indiana and North Carolina primaries two weeks from today. We expect that by tomorrow morning, the overall structure of the race will remain unchanged—except for the fact that there will be 158 delegates off the table.
It wouldn’t be surprising if the Clinton campaign once again tries to change the metrics by which the race is measured. They used to stress repeatedly that, in Howard Wolfson’s words “[t]his is a race for delegates.” [Washington Post, 1/16/08] Recently, they have attempted to shift the focus to the popular vote, and the specious argument that primary wins in big states equate to electoral vote pickups in the general election. They do not.
Our strategy has always been to gain as many delegates as possible—an important point to remember going forward. If this race had focused on the popular vote, we would have campaigned non-stop in California, for example, and run up our numbers even higher in Senator Obama’s home state of Illinois. But we focused on delegates because, simply, delegates decide the Democratic nominee.
But even if we were to judge the primary on the popular vote, we anticipate having a comfortable lead when voting in the last nine contests wraps up in June. Senator Obama will continue to gain strength with Democratic superdelegates. He will maintain his position as the best candidate to take on John McCain. And he will be ready to unite the American people and begin a new chapter in our history.
We are already organizing vigorously in the remaining contests, opening local offices, canvassing, and engaging voters in this unprecedented campaign. We will have the financial resources we need to be competitive. Our message will be the same one that Senator Obama enunciated fourteen months ago and has shared with voters every day since: that the size of the challenges we face has outgrown the smallness of our politics, and this election is our chance to change that.
Undecideds And Clinton
Pollster.com's Mark Blumenthal notices that the correlation between polls with smaller pools of undecided voters and larger Clinton margins has largely "disappeared" in the final round of surveys. Since the surveys disagree about the size and direction of Clinton's lead, it's unlikely that these undecideds have allocated themselves to Clinton or Obama. Does the composition of the undecideds favor Clinton?
".... the remaining undecided may still conceal a disproportionate share of Clinton voters, but hard evidence of that proposition is weak. Chuck Todd noticed that undecided voters in the MSNBC/Mason-Dixon survey were higher in subgroups where Clinton does better (among gun owners and outside of the Pittsburgh and Philadelphia media markets). Looking back at theTime/SRBI survey conducted in early April, Charles Franklin saw evidence that undecideds seem "somewhat more likely to support Clinton." However, as I look at the pattern of undecideds in the most recent SurveyUSA and Quinnipiac surveys, I see no clear pattern in the undecided either by region or demographic subgroups. On the Quinnipiac survey, for example, the percentage of undecided voters is roughly same among African Americans (6%) and white voters without a college education (5%)."
A Cool Way To Follow The Primary
Election Journal is using tools like Twitter, Flickr and other net-based networking platforms to provide instantaneously updated coverage of the Pennsylvania primary. Reporters of voting machine malfunctions and malfeasance are already starting to trickle in...
Clinton's UnFavs In Her Own State
Noticed this from Siena College's new poll. Less than 50% of New Yorkers surveyed had a favorable impression of Sen. Hillary Clinton; her unfavorable rating -- 46% -- nearly matches her favorable rating -- 48%. (54% of New Yorkers view Barack Obama favorably.)
Why Shouldn't Superdelegates Wait?
Tad Devine and other Dem poo-bahs tell Dan Balz that regardless of the results tonight, superdelegates are likely to swing to Obama fairly soon after voting ends on June 3.
Gallup's national survey today shows that Democrats prefer Barack Obama to Hillary Clinton by ten points, but that Hillary Clinton does (superficially) better in a general election matchup than Obama does.
The superdelegates want a "winner," a candidate who can beat John McCain winner and not a "who got the most delegates or votes" winner. If HRC wins Pennsylvania by a healthy margin and stays in, by the time June 3 rolls around, she's likely to have closed the popular vote gap a lot and the delegate gap a little.
But the superdelegates won't have any additional information about who is best positioned to take on John McCain.
Rationally, why would they decide in June? Wouldn't it make more sense for them to wait as long as possible to see how each candidate polls against McCain or fares in the press over the summer months?
In other words, if it's a winner they want, they'll arguably have MORE information to make that decision the LONGER they wait.
On Expectations And Pennsylvania
There seems to be a developing consensus in the media about the confusing expectations game that both candidates are likely to play tonight. If Clinton wins big -- and by big, they mean, by double digits -- then it will be permissible to write that many Democrats harbor grave doubts about Obama and are taking a second look at Clinton. Why double digits? Clinton needs to exceed the margin of victory that she'd get if the demographics of the state were dispositive. A small Clinton victory will be interpreted as a sign that Obama has held his own, that Democratic voters are less concerned about "bitter"/Rev. Wright than they are about consolidating around a nominee. An Obama victory means that Clinton withdraws, preferably within the next few days; a tie means roughly the same thing.
