As a bit of a follow up to Mark’s post on the latest travails of the Democratic campaign, here’s a link to a very interesting article which includes interviews with both Obama and McCain’s campaign managers. My take? Obama (and Axelrod) are running a very successful strategy to defeat Hillary Clinton by a whisker in the primaries. Oopsy! Hang on! General election time? Oh dear.
Incidentally, the 50 state strategy isn’t looking so good.
And the counter to the whole “Obama’s is an exemplary empty celebrity story” thing? Well, there isn’t one. The attack on his campaign, as the article suggests, for being all about his own personal journey has force.
Lord forbid that the dude might actually talk about what he might do for all those Americans who are basically screwed. Universal health care? No, not for him. It’s a sad sad story when Hillary Clinton is to your left. Don’t say I didn’t warn you.
Don’t take my word for it, though. Go read the whole article in the New York Magazine.
By the way, if you’re looking for a historical analogy, think Nixon/McGovern in 72. It was really the last campaign (and the one that Hillary and Bill were blooded on) that relied almost solely on activating teh youth and teh idealism. Or, to put it another way, turning out an anti-war left base wins you the primaries… and then… It was a 49-1 state wipeout in the Electoral College. Killed by the Culture Wars and Sarah Palin is the new Spiro Agnew. “America Decides 2008″ won’t play itself out that way, and it will be a lot closer, because Bush is a much weaker incumbent President than Nixon (!!!) but beware the “rely on turnout” thing.
The thing about the latest polls is not only that there’s been a big (20 points if you can believe that) turnaround in the white women vote, but that McCain for the first time is ahead among Independents. If Obama can’t regain momentum soon, he’s toast. He needs to talk about the economy – in a way that connects with the voters who are tempted by the culture war stuff – and now. Right now. No one will give a toss about his journey towards personal fulfillment. Maybe there’s a narrative lurking there about the cosmopolitan creative types America needs. But that’s a message best saleable by – because it was first and only the once sold by – a good ol’ boy like Bill Clinton. Obama’s “yes we Can!” schtick excited the bluest of the blue voters in the red states in the Democratic primaries. Yay! Very few of those states – as is now becoming evident – are at all winnable for him in the general election. But he’s got a real problem with tacking to the center too.
I hate to say it at this point, folks, but either John Edwards or Hillary Clinton could have won this election. It’s looking increasingly like Barack Obama can’t. But I’ll reiterate what I’ve been saying all along. Despite his “soaring rhetoric” etc. etc. etc. he’s the most right wing donkey in this year’s race. If it’s all going to be about identity politics, he loses, and the Democrats lose. If he can’t reinvent himself – asap – as someone focused on the issues, get ready for President McCain.
Well, that’s what happens when someone who does not know anything about American politics writes about American politics.
It is a feature of American politics that ANY candidate wins tremendous bump in the polls after their convention that dissipates within weeks. McCain is already starting to get back down in daily tracking polls and the poll you talk about with the 20-point shift in women had been proven to be an outlier with the other polls.
Also, if you knew about American politics, you would know that national polls matter little and you would look at state polls. And guess what ? In state polling – the ones that matter because of the way the President is elected – McCain has gained one or two points mostly and if the election was today, Obama would win most battleground states.
I thought you would have learned from the “Howard can always come back nonsense” never to trust media narratives. Palin provides American journalists with excitement and a chance to cast the race as closer than before. While there is indeed a normal bump due to the convention, the race is still Obama’s to lose.
Talk to you again in November !
Whatevs, dude. I don’t know who you are, but since apparently you want to do the reverse argument from authority thing. I am, I suspect, the only Australian blogger who writes about American politics who is actually an American citizen. And who has worked on numerous Democratic campaigns while living in CA from 96-02 at the Congressional level.
And if you could actually read…
See the post I wrote a couple of days ago:
http://larvatusprodeo.net/2008/09/09/three-things-to-remember-about-polls-and-the-us-election/
Note also that there have been no reliable state level polls since the RNC.
Yeah, we will.
Let me make this point in September though. It benefits precisely no one – least of all the Democratic cause (FWIW) – for people to have their heads in the clouds and/or the sand and to constantly deny reality as it is and try to will Obama to victory or whatever sort of mass denialism is going on here. Back in the day when I was working with other folks who were into social justice and incidentally working to elect Democratic candidates on occasion we thought what we had to do was persuade fellow citizens, not provide a hermetic thought bubble world for “the netroots” to feel good about themselves. Go with the latter by all means, but don’t make the arrogant assumption that you know what’s going on in the U S of A better than someone who’s actually from there, and if you want to live in a dream world where Obama’s inspirational persona persuades voters in Michigan or Minnesota to say “Yes We Can!”, be my guest, but don’t be under any misapprehension that what you’re doing has the remotest relation to reality, or influences it in any way.
So by all means, dude, if it makes you feel good about yourself and your world, think whatever you like. Just don’t expect that reality will necessarily bend itself to your casual will. And forgive those of us who are actually American citizens for being a tad more concerned about how Obama has fucked up the race than your dumb-arsed view from afar.
But do forgive me for my lapse in civility. You can put it down to American arrogance, even as you represent yourself as an expert on America.
See if you can get your head around the fact that what I’m trying to do is bemoan what stupidity exists in the Obama campaign, because I would very much rather McCain not win. If it’s your view that just saying “in the best of all possible worlds, Obama would romp it in” will make it so, that’s your right, but that neither represents any political acumen nor any political commitment.
And you could lose the ‘tude. Just advisin…
I don’t have my heads in the clouds. I am perfectly able to see the challenges Obama is facing and he clearly has not won yet.
Your entry above, dripping with contempt for the Obama campaign and what it has accomplished in the primaries (and I suspect I know where your sympathies laid then), is full of inadequate analysis that has nothing to do with the real challenges Obama is facing.
And I notice that your reply to me does not deny anything I said about cherry-picking poll and convention bounces. Considering this is what you use to base your attack on the quality of the Obama campaign, I would say this is pretty telling.
OH and I am afraid you betrayed your cherry-picking by saying there has been no reliable state polls since the RNC.
I am afraid there have been quite a bit of them. Just go read American blogs for more (Obama is now tied in FL where Palin backfired for instance. Only state where McCain gained is Ohio).
And if you wanna consider polls taken right after the convention as unreliable (which I would agree), then why in hell are national polls better ?
My point was polls taken this weekend show nothing of where the race is really at and writing a whole entry based on those numbers is silly.
Finally, may I direct you to the analysis Gallup released this morning that shows Palin provided McCain with a huge bounce in the South, made him lose some in the MIdwest and nothing in the other regions. In other words, she helped him with states he was already going to win. And that’s where those national numbers come from. Irrelevant parts of the country in terms of electing a President.
I will repeat the main problem I have with your entry and your response is the obvious contempt you have for the campaign colors your analysis of the campaign just as much as my supposed support for Obama (which you only guess) would make me think of the campaign as better than it is.
I know its failings and I am particularly annoyed they are playing on the defensive for six weeks. But nevertheless I am equally annoyed at the perennial woe-is-me handwringing of Democrats every four years that are counterproductive and in this case, completely and decisively overblown.
I bow before your superior expertise. Your superb summary of Obama boosting bullshit from the “liberal” US blogosphere is a knock down argument.
How about some links?
I’m going to return to what is a serious point. Reality exists above and beyond the boosterism of US blogs. If anything, their “ZOMG! Obama is winning anyway!” thing is an absolute disincentive to any serious political engagement.
A bit more walking the streets and a bit less “Look! Palin! Liar! Shiny!” might do something to win the actual bloody election.
But if you want to be a Kos-bot, your choice, dude. But please lose the “you know nothing” crap when talking to someone who used up a lot of shoe leather trying to persuade her fellow Americans to get a bit more engaged in politics.
Hum … Some links to what ?
The state polls I am talking about ? Here goes: http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/polltracker/
You got all the polls – including one showing Obama down only 5 in WEST VIRGINIA of all places.
The Gallup analysis ? Here goes: http://www.gallup.com/poll/108037/Candidate-Support-Region.aspx
What else do you want me to substantiate ? I am perfectly ready to detail anything you want detailed. No need to call me names or betray the unfortunate contempt for the blogosphere a certain aisle of the party has taken to taking (ironic considering you are posting on, well, a blog).
The whole thing is not about boosterism. Obama HAS challenges. The point was hyperventilating and attacking Obama for a convention bounce everyone was prediciting two weeks ago is dumb and smacks of an agenda. Obama can lose in the next two months. But he would win if the election were held today so the woe-is-me handwringing is silly.
I will refer you to Howard Wolfson’s take on the matter: http://blogs.tnr.com/tnr/blogs/the_flack/archive/2008/09/09/dc-handwringing.aspx (see ? another link ! And from someone who clearly isn’t a fan of Obama’s or of the Daily Kos).
Now. You are welcome to have an agenda of deep contempt for Obama that I suspect has to do with your own primary preferences but could very well be personal. But don’t write it as if it was unbiased analysis. It wasn’t. It was your opinion – and a fairly ill-informed one at that.
That was my point.
Oh and another tiny point I didn’t even pick up on.
In your slightly irrational contempt for Obama you state, “Edwards or Hillary could have won this election but Obama can’t”.
John Edwards ? The guy that was discovered to have cheated on his cancer-ridden wife, made a baby and lied about it for months only a few weeks ago ?
I mean even you has to realize this is nonsense, right ?
Kim, Obama’s speech was full of discussion of what is wrong with the US today and a bit about what he wants to do about it, and surprisingly little personal story. McCain’s spent much more selling the POW and maverick crap and he looked decidedly unhappy when having to talk about the actual economy. It’s actually the Republicans who are running celebrity campaigns currently, for both McCain and Palin (and lying about both of them), not the Obama camp.
I’m currently in North Carolina, and I can tell you that the 50 state strategy has the Republicans sufficiently worried that they’re running Obama attack ads and McCain/Palin=maverick ads here at the moment. My relatives here say they’ve never seen that before. And money spent shoring up what should be a safe state for them is money that they can’t spend elsewhere. They gave up on a couple of states further west recently so as to put money into campaigns where they still have a hope.
The other point about the 50 state strategy is that the hoped-for increased turnout will help the Dems hugely in House and senate races.
In the same ballpark as what tomd just said, check this table out: http://www.time-blog.com/swampland/2008/09/inside_obamas_groundgame.html
Hillary maybe – but Edwards?
Assertion without evidence. He’s dead-in-the-water Kim. His stuffed Breck-girl head is hanging over the fireplace at the National Enquirer. He’s a dead-parrot deceased, etc, etc. Roadkill – Roadhump.
Oh I dunno Kim, I have to say that I disagree with your assessment of Obama as being to the right of Clinton but agree that Edwards appears more progressive and he would have been my personal pick, but then again to pick either him or Clinton would have been political suicide. Sorry, but that’s just the truth.
Obama has used a “don’t scare the horses rhetoric” but I think that is in order to win the middle, a fact of political tactics. I’m not worried about that strategy.
Obama has shown an amazing ability to organise on the ground and I think there is something in that that is not being accounted for in polling, particularly those who the pollsters are unable to reach because of mobile phone use.
Sure at the moment it looks like the Dems “ain’ doin’ nothin’” but Obama has shown a bit of rope-a-dope in this campaign (he came out swinging at the convention) and I reckon he’s up for another round in the debates.
McCain has a long parliamentary record to defend much of it inconsistent and contradictory and Palin who has no effective record has yet to be tested by someone like a Joe Biden in an open media event.
As they say, it’s still too early to tell but in the meantime fun will be had by all.
Shorter McCain: “I’m a maverick’s maverick. I’m the kinda maverick that changes nothin’. I’m a post-modern maverick!”
When Obama asks, as he will, “Do you feel happier/richer/more secure/prouder now than you did 8 years ago?” the overwhelming answer will be “NO!”
McCain’s answer will be “I’ll give you more of the same, post-modern maverick-style.”
and the University of Iowa punters still like Obama.
Kim, sorry you copped that bit of an attack above.
The problem is, he didn’t know who he has talking to.
I am linkless as always, but to me the major story of interest today is that there will be a serious, all out McCain campaign effort to take California.
As you know, California is where, on the national level, Republicans will give a desultory effort because they have to be seen to at least do that. It is usually a lock for the Dems, with only NY being more dependable.
Perceptions overall and the sea change in the women’s vote makes California look worth campaigning in, hard.
This “lipstick on a pig” charge is vintage Rove misrepresentation. It might have gone astray a bit earlier than usual because it was led by somebody named Swift. Thus it brought back too many memories of Swiftboats.
No need for panic just yet. I like the current strategy of not allowing false attacks and lies to pass. Obama will gradually bring the focus back to the current state of things in America, especially the state of the economy and the mess in the Middle East. I don’t think McCain can counter that with narrative stories.
The state-by-state polls are looking good except for Ohio, and I’d be surprised if this didn’t turn back sometime soon. Jobs and economic stability/security matter a lot in the industrialised areas.
“Kim, sorry you copped that bit of an attack above.”
WTF? So perfectly civil and reasonable disagreement constitutes an attack now?
Maybe we should all pack up and go home until the US election is over!
Link, Another Kim.
Anyone who thinks that Palin is the one being hounded by the terrible media should look here and here. See alto their latest post on Palin herself – she’s the darling of Time and Newsweek.
Still, to think that Obama could make such a klutzy gaffe as the “lipstick” quote…
*Headdesk*
*Headdesk*
*Headdesk*
THANK YOU OBAMA – now we’re all stuffed.
The latest Mcain republican advertisement, suggesting that Obama would introduce mass sex education into kindergartens, indicates they are running scared and peaking to early, in mho. It is just laughable and Obama handled it, and the lipstick on a pig beat up, brilliantly with good dismissive ,unflappable, humour.
Helen, did you even hear the lipstick quote ?
How in hell was that a gaffe ?
He was not even referring to Palin at all in his remarks !!!!!!!!!!!!
It is hyped-up Republican BS.
Really. Read what Obama said and tell me where in hell the gaffe is.
It is just baloney
Helen, to get what Benjamin is saying read here, from Guardian, for context..
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/sep/11/uselections2008.barackobama
No, I do get it, I just interpret it differently. To my mind, because Palin’s probably best known quote is to do with lipstick, a guy like Obama who’s intellectually quick on his feet should have realised not to say that, because how could he* not have realised what the other side would make of it! That’s what I meant by gaffe, sorry, not the words themselves.
*or his speechwriter, don’t know if it was written or off the cuff.
(ahem) (reverts to real name)
It is certainly depressing when Republican
bullshittalking points get accepted as fact by the opposing side half way across the world.adrian, but the point is – as I’m sure Helen knows – that this gaffe has laid him wide open. She’s not reciting “Republican talking points”, but decrying the idiocy of Obama leaving himself open to them (as a number of people were also on another thread).
I just don’t get that if people want to argue that things may not be rosy, and that at this moment it looks like they’re anything but (and contra Benjamin, that’s what I say in the post) that they’re some sort of traitor. Those of you with long memories might recall me saying something similar when lots of folks thought Mark Latham was going to lead Labor to victory. I don’t have “deep contempt” for Obama or whatevs (and I wasn’t a Clinton supporter either – but I strongly suspect now that she’d have been a better candidate) – I’m just deeply depressed that people don’t read the writing on the wall and realise that persuading each other that everything’s groovy is counter-productive when persuading others to actually vote for Obama might be more worthwhile.
As to “perfectly reasonable and civil disagreement”, Benjamin came out swinging:
Tell me how accusing me of ignorance doesn’t constitute an attack. Now I apologise if I responded in kind, in the heat of the moment, but I don’t see that as civil or reasonable.
AK, that’s interesting about California. Doesn’t really surprise me particularly given Steve Schmidt’s background with Arnie.
The “Lipstick on a Pig” was a gaffe with a capital “G”. To have even said it demonstrates one helluva tin ear, (regardless of whether it appeared on a teleprompter or if a speechwriter wrote it down for him).
There will also be a cumulative effect, with that & the “clinging to guns & god” having between them little upside for him (as far as votes go) & likely to piss off swinging voters, or disgruntled Hillary Clinton supporters.
Remind me, which end of the rope is Obama on?
No, but you could tell that his supporters in the audience wanted it to be about Palin enough to take it that way.
And there’s Obama’s biggest problem. It’s not him, or even his campaign. It’s his supporters. His biggest boosters on Daily Kos and DU and elsewhere have effectively inoculated Palin against any criticism with their batshit insane allegations, and even now they can’t let go. The Netroots reign supreme in the Democratic party now and they’re a boat anchor on any politician seeking a national mandate. Heck, it didn’t even work for Ned Lamont.
I won’t be claiming my money from SportsBet yet though. Two months is time enough for anything to happen, either way.
I’m pretty sure the Hillary Clinton supporters will remember that McCain used that good old fashioned American saying with respect to Clinton a few months ago, and also remember that many other politicians have used it with respect to their male opponents, and will readily acknowledge that Obama was referring to McCain rather than Palin.
It was still infelicitously timed, and others may well fall for the McCain spin.
I just reckon, because your favoured candidate didn’t get up, you are jumping to some pretty hasty conclusions about the presidential race this far out from the election, Kim.
All power to you if you are cleverly trying to build up underdog status for Obama but generally your evidence for the Dems running a poor campaign is just not that convincing.
This lipstick “gaffe” is longshot nonsense just like the sex in kindergartens advertisement i linked to above.
If you’re looking for comparisons, it’s about equivalent to the endless series of gaffs that Rudd was supposed to have committed prior the Australian election, from Burkgate to Strippergate et al. All so relevant now.
No doubt they were being promoted as the end of the world by the some of the above who are now calling this the gaffe of the century etc etc.
Obama’s just lost the accessorised porcine vote.
He may as well resign now.
Tigtog, the piggy lipstick has been, and could continue to have been, used until the cows come home, and used on or about anybody or anything without anybody caring.
Until Sarah Palin was preselected.
And became the target of a barrage of (largely unfounded) personal slurs, smears and innuendo.
Hillary Clinton supporters may remember John McCain saying such, I agree. Obama saying it was a classic faux pax, with no upside for him, and plenty of downside.
Sarah has transformed SATP into a SNAG.
With gods help.
Always was joe2, always was, I don’t play Rugby League, don’t drink beer, most of my friends are educated & white, I use moisturiser, clip my nails & have never knocked out my mother, my wife, or any of my nieces.
Which puts me ahead of just about everybody in my home town. SNAG. That’s me!
“Sarah has transformed SATP into a SNAG.
With gods help.”
Or a concern troll.
Check out this damage control(?) by Bill O’Reilly over the ‘pig comment’. Does it seem at all possible team Obama was being canny in turn?
Bill O’Reilly
Darn Word apostrophes!
And how about the lipstick on a pig riff? I kinda think that’s a little below the belt.
.
I’m curious, considering the tolerance of so many feminists for Bill Clinton’s, um, lapses, where the bar is? After all let’s face it if someone in the Liberal Party made that lipstick on a pig crack in such a way that it would inevitably read as having a go at Julia Gillard you’d be spewing – spewing!!!!!
Kim: “I hate to say it at this point, folks, but either John Edwards or Hillary Clinton could have won this election. It’s looking increasingly like Barack Obama can’t. But I’ll reiterate what I’ve been saying all along. Despite his “soaring rhetoric” etc. etc. etc. he’s the most right wing donkey in this year’s race. If it’s all going to be about identity politics, he loses, and the Democrats lose. If he can’t reinvent himself – asap – as someone focused on the issues, get ready for President McCain.”
First up, Hilary and John couldn’t beat Obama. So they could not have won this election. Secondly, you mention the Nixon/McGovern election. Excellent analogy. Obama is McGovern, and Clinton is Hubert Humphrey.
Hilary had fully 2 months to concede prior to when she actually did. Although she made up ground she was in an impossible position for quite some time. She refused to stop. That became a story in itself. She should have been condemned for that. The winning candidate, Obama, came out of the Democratic preselection battered and bruised and financially weakened. Just like McGovern was. And many blame Humphrey for that, and the fact that the Democrats never really got behind McGovern because the fight between Humphrey and McGovern was so intense that it divided the party.
Look at Palin. She is getting the disaffected HRC base.
Hilary would have lost because John McCain would have picked Powell as his VP.
Adrien, you have a double misunderstanding there.
(1) that Obama meant that to be SP. I think we’ve teased out that
-it was actually about the Republican policies per se
-But it was stupid of Obama to say it because he should have known that the GOP would have spun it as being about SP.
(2) That “feminists” are all fine and dandy about such remarks. If you’d actually read some US feminist blogs such as Feministe and Shakesville you’d see that is very far from the case.