I’ve been struggling to make sense of last night’s results. At the end of Super Tuesday, the Democratic primary race is at a dead heat, with enough room for both the Clinton and Obama campaigns to spin it as a victory. The pundits, politicos and pollsters seem to sway back-n-forth giving the edge to either candidate depending on a variety of factors, including their own biases (lest we forget). Similarly, my posts, here, at the Colby File resemble something akin to ‘Obama Central’, although I’m not alone (eg, Matthew Yglesias, Andrew Sullivan and Taylor Owen).
Clinton won at least 8 states, including big prizes – NY, MA and CA. Obama won the majority of states – no less than 13. However, with the number of delegates still outstanding, it remains unclear as to with whom the advantage resides. For the moment,
some networks believe that Obama “will wind up with” more – “840 to 849 versus 829 to 838 for Clinton” (Politico).
In moving forward, Noam Scheiber thinks that the future favours Obama and
here’s why (TNR):
The next round of contests, slated for Saturday, includes Lousiana, Washington state, Nebraska, and the Virgin Islands. Lousiana is going to be nearly 50 percent African American, Nebraska and Washington are caucuses, which Obama dominated tonight, and the Virgin Islands are the Virgin Islands. (Though, if I must, I think people give Obama the advantage there for demographic reasons, too.) The next day is Maine, also a caucus, and then one week from last night is Virginia, Maryland, DC--all expectated to favor Obama demographically. The Tuesday after that brings Hawaii--Obama's native state--and Wisconsin, which should also be friendly territory for Obama.
And then we wait two weeks and throw-down in Texas and Ohio, at which point a lot of people think this competition could end. (Rhode Island and Vermont also go that day.) Between the Latinos in Texas and Hillary's establishment support in Ohio, those will almost certainly be her firewall states. On the other hand, Obama is going to have two weeks to focus on those two states alone. Between his near-certain money advantage, the momentum he'll pick up from the intervening contests, and the fact that he tends to do pretty well in states where he has time to campaign, I think you have to give him the overall edge going forward.
NRO writer and conservative, David Frum,
makes two interesting points:
(1)
The economically anxious are voting for Clinton; the economically secure prefer Obama. When Obamaniacs urge Americans to vote their hopes, not their fears, they are overlooking the rather important fact that the Democratic base is made up of a lot of people with a lot of fears.
(2)
Meanwhile, here's a funny bit of gossip: On the Hillary Clinton plane, Sidney Blumenthal has been telling reporters that Obama will be vulnerable to the Republican attack machine because of his past association with left-wing causes, including his membership in an Afrocentric church. Skill-testing question: If you worked for the Republican attack machine, which would you put to better use: some sermons by a pastor nobody has ever heard of? Or a $31 million payoff by a shadowy mining promoter to the husband of the Democratic nominee?
Hillary Clinton has a lot going for her as a candidate - above all, the widespread memory of her husband's administration as a more prosperous time for middle-income and lower-income workers. But as a target of attack ads, she remains as ever the biggest, roundest bulls-eye in American politics.
With respect to the first point, I haven’t yet seen any polls or surveys as to the respective income of voting groups to support Frum’s contention. Even though, fromCNN’s coverage last night, this argument seems to be part of the ‘conventional wisdom’, I’ll take it with a dash of skepticism until I see such a poll/survey/etc.
On the second point, the fear that Obama will somehow be more vulnerable to ‘the Republican smear machine’ than Hillary seems to defy evidence to the contrary. The name Clinton has the remarkable ability to rally the Republican base and polarize the US. The same cannot be said for Obama. Besides, Hillary has a lot of baggage, especially her hubby, with which she must contend.
Essentially, I just don’t buy into the notion that
“[b]etter the devil you know than the diffident debutante you don’t” (NYT). It’s one thing to proceed with caution in the face of the unknown, and quite another for it to justify paralysis.
As for that pesky ‘experience argument’ that keeps rearing its ugly head, I stand perplexed when I actually
compare the records of Clinton and Obama. From another perspective, Andrew Sullivan
examines Obama’s executive acumen in running a campaign, finding much to admire. Sadly, however, memes are hard to kill, especially when sound-bites replace good judgment and attention to detail in today’s news media.
UPDATE:
Note the problems
with excessive "fandom" (TPM).
(Hat Tip Andrew Sullivan)
Labels: Obama, politics, USA