Will there be a reconsideration of Obama? Will Clinton get an underdog bump?
After New Hampshire, before South Carolina, when it looked like Hillary Clinton was in a groove to win the nomination, I wrote a post asking if there was going to be some moment of reconsideration of her as a frontrunner.
Now, just three weeks later, I'm writing the same post the other way around. As Obama begins to be perceived as the frontrunner Is there going to be some moment when Dems look around and ask themselves, "Is Obama really the guy?"
Now, just three weeks later, I'm writing the same post the other way around. As Obama begins to be perceived as the frontrunner Is there going to be some moment when Dems look around and ask themselves, "Is Obama really the guy?"
posted by mikevotes at
9:00 AM
21 Comments:
Since Iowa there has been a consistent building of moment for Obama and a consistent dwindling of inevitability for Clinton. This could change, of course, but has there really been an ebb an flow between these candidates?
From the beginning of the year I've only seen a single narrative: Obama gaining, Clinton waning. The debate has only been about demographic subgroups, race, and gender nonsense.
By
-epm, at 10:40 AM
That narrative has been pretty consistent since Iowa, but I seem to remember a Clinton strength story out of NH?
And, more generally, I just expect a buyer's remorse moment, it happens with every candidate although it varies greatly to the degree.
The question is, does it come now or in a couple months.
Really, this was intended as a discussion post.
By
mikevotes, at 10:58 AM
The Clinton "strength" story coming out of NH was bogus and pundit driven. Forget the insane polling between IA and NH. Obama was supposed to lose NH by 10+pts. He lost by 2.5. That was a cold victory for Clinton.
By
-epm, at 11:20 AM
Oh yeah, I forgot to mention -- actually, repeat -- that you don't go from Leader to Underdog. You go from Leader to Loser. You can try to spin it, but I don't think it sticks.
By
-epm, at 11:22 AM
Well, as I recall there were those who thought Obama would win big on Super Tuesday... the polls had supposedly closed almost to a tie in California, but when push came to shove Hillary's constituency was still there for her and she clobbered him here. That could still happen in Ohio and Texas... the Obama momentum is partly real, partly a fluke of the primary schedule, partly a media/blogosphere artifact.
As far as a reappraisal of Obama, I'm not sure... no one in the media seems to be willing to challenge his storyline. But there may be a ceiling for him, and not all voters are inclined to jump on bandwagons.
I think, though, that the real moment of buyer's remorse is likely to come in September or October.
By
Anonymous, at 12:35 PM
The polling throughout the primaries has ranged from dead on to left field. While the hype over Obama is certainly a byproduct of the media and blogosphere -- not to mention his own campaign --, I think his electoral rise is simply a mathematical fact. I'm not sure what the "fluke" there is in the schedule that helped Obama and/or hurt Hillary. In fact I thought the schedule was intended to bring about a coronation by Super Tuesday.
In all the contests so far, Hillary has beat Obama by 20pts or more in only two contests (I believe). Obama has beaten Hillary by 20pts or more in 17 contests (I believe). Hillary beat Obama by 9pts in CA. Respectable, but by this seasons standards she hardly "clobbered" him.
Hillary could pull this off, no doubt. But I think it's self evident that from where we started this year to where we stand now, the current mojo is with the Obama camp.
By
-epm, at 2:11 PM
TG, The polls have been all over the place, both ways. The polls missed last night's result by ten points, but your underlying point is a good one.
Clinton could verily easily boom in Texas and Ohio and turn this thing upside down again.
I'm down here in Texas and I think it will likely be the tighter of the two, but my general sense right now is that there are a lot of Dem voters still up in the air. I don't get that feeling that the meat of the electorate are locked in either way at this point.
Right now, I could see Texas going anything from Clinton +12 to Obama +1 or 2. It's all to play for down here.
(I too disagree with the "fluke in the schedule" argument for two reasons. 1) because it was the Clinton strategy to try and lock up the big states and to some degree ignore the small states which are now part of the "fluke."
2) because in the calculations weeks before Super Tuesday, everyone thought that calendar "fluke" would break her way. I also think Fla and Michigan's decisions to move up and invalidate themselves severely hurt her calendar.
Also, I don't understand why Wisonsin would be considered bad calendar for her.)
As I've said several times, Obama is getting the messiah coverage right now. It's not fair. It's really not fair.
++++++++
Last, I know we argue about the race, but I'm really glad you come by and comment.
.......
EPM, I think it's shifted, at least temporarily, from a math contest to a momentum one. I don't think that change is likely permanent, but look for the Obama camp to try to gain as much math a they can while the wind is at their back.
By
mikevotes, at 2:33 PM
Maybe I'm not being clear. My math comment was merely to point out that Obama has made real accomplishments, not just media hype.
There's been a lot of talk about "momentum," but I'm not sure what different people mean by that. To me, momentum is that affect on the electorate that causes "decided" voters to change their preferences. Is that what we say in MD and VA? I don't think we'll know until WI.
Can someone tell me a single contest where Hillary beat expectations? How about Obama?
Ignore the vacillating CNN/Gallop/SUSA/etc. polling nonsense for a moment. I would suggested there has NOT been an ebb in flow in this campaign. There has been a steady pulse of Obama moving forward, with Hillary holding on to her loyal base. The only change I'm seeing is a possible erosion of Hillary's base vis a vis the demographics coming out of the Potomac Primaries.
Question: is it enough for Hillary to simply win TX and OH, or does she have to win by 15+pts in order to look like a "winner" in the punditocracy? If she wins by <10pts is she merely considered to be losing ground slower?
Questions, questions, questions...
By
-epm, at 4:36 PM
Maybe I'm not being clear. My math comment was merely to point out that Obama has made real accomplishments, not just media hype.
There's been a lot of talk about "momentum," but I'm not sure what different people mean by that. To me, momentum is that affect on the electorate that causes "decided" voters to change their preferences. Is that what we say in MD and VA? I don't think we'll know until WI.
Can someone tell me a single contest where Hillary beat expectations? How about Obama?
Ignore the vacillating CNN/Gallop/SUSA/etc. polling nonsense for a moment. I would suggested there has NOT been an ebb in flow in this campaign. There has been a steady pulse of Obama moving forward, with Hillary holding on to her loyal base. The only change I'm seeing is a possible erosion of Hillary's base vis a vis the demographics coming out of the Potomac Primaries.
Question: is it enough for Hillary to simply win TX and OH, or does she have to win by 15+pts in order to look like a "winner" in the punditocracy? If she wins by <10pts is she merely considered to be losing ground slower?
Questions, questions, questions...
By
-epm, at 4:36 PM
it's no fluke. america wants change. Clinton is not change...it's Bush in a Pant Suit. Numbers are not a fluke...serious hit into HRC demos on Tuesday...
Cali was a clobbering?? No way baby! Obama lost one demographic (I believe)...latinos. I think even white women broke his way.
Fluke? No way! They'll spin it as such but the facts are there to see. No wins since Super Tuesday. Lots of excuses...lots of shoulder shrugs; a few campaign worker firings; even some tears...at this point if she wins it is 100% rigged.
By
Anonymous, at 4:52 PM
I generally agree on your definition of momentum, although I would soften it a little to a lack of enthusiasm and turnout and a diminishing donor base on the non momentum side.
You could reasonably argue that she beat expectations in New Hampshire and sort of California.
And as I said on the front page of this post, I'm going to wait and see a little more trend before I cite a significant erosion of Clinton within her strong groups. I just can't do that on one data point.
Right now, the Texas/Ohio bar is high implying a 55% win. We'll have to wait and see. It's a long 3 weeks from now.
.....
Anon, in more diplomatic terms, that's the core pro-Obama argument right now.
My other question on the "fluke" language and the diminishing of certain races is why some states are deemed unwinnable. Washington State? What's the demographic block against Clinton there? Wisconsin? Nebraska?
Even if we accept the "black vote" argument, there have been alot of other losses without what I consider a suitable explanation.
By
mikevotes, at 6:14 PM
I don't think you can use the term reconsideration about Obama. I think we deserve to see an all out assessment of the man. I hear the talk of change but I don't really see the substance behind it. According to their records, I don't see how you can call Hillary a "Bush in a pant suit" without calling Barack the same thing. Their stands are not that different and yet I feel they are both quite different from Bush.
Do I think this "reconsideration" will happen? If his momentum gets broken then I think we will see more scrutiny. Otherwise, I hope he can live up to the hype.
By
Ptelea, at 9:21 PM
Fair point. Reconsideration means there has been a consideration in the first place.
(Bush in a pants suit was another commenter, not me. I see light years between Bush and the Dem nominees (but that much distance between the dem nominees.)
My guess is that we'll get a moment in the summer, maybe July, leading upt to the convention (assuming he's the nominee.
And that would require a media shift. Right now he's being treated as the messiah and if anyone ever looks, those are some pretty big sandals to keep full.
By
mikevotes, at 9:30 PM
ptelea - HRC voted for the war. She can't run away from this and in fact desn't see it as a mistake (at least won't own up to it). Now, tell me who else hasn't owned up to a mistake in the last 7 years???? Hmmm...
She works hand-in-hand with big pharma and big Ins. Both are big $ donors and the two biggest obstacles to fixing healthcare. And her claim of 35 years exp include BIG TIME action as a corporate lawyer involved in union-busting (wal-mart) and SL fiasco (Arkansas). And she wants us all to believe her time as first lady counts as experience to qualify...But her tenure as first lady is among the most guarded Clinton-regime records. And people complain about Cheney's secrecy! America must move forward! Clinton is 15 years ago. She needs to give up gracefully and stake a claim to senate majority leader under Obama. She can be practically as powerful as the president there - as GWB's last 8 years has taught us...
HRC and Obama have one HUGE difference...the Iraq war and accepting reality.
By
Anonymous, at 9:40 PM
The only group calling Obama the messiah is MSM. And you continuing the meme doesn't make it any more grounded in reality. It is a disguised reference to "fairy tale" and big billy's attempt at disqualifing Obama's record and proven judgment. It reeks of Russert and Matthews brainless chattering. On par with HRC shrill and Edwards mansion...Close even to Limbaugh's territory, I dare say. If Huck has a massive following would you refer to him as messiah-like, given his religiousity?
By
Anonymous, at 9:48 PM
Mike - sorry I left off the Anon when I made the comment about "pants suit" I am well-aware who made that comment.
Anon - my description of Obama's campaign as messianic is based on my observations of his flock (sorry, I couldn't resist) or followers - OK supporters. I realize he has many thoughtful supporters who have examined his record but he also seems loaded down with groupies for lack of a better word. Anon - you could help this situation by speaking with substance about your candidate rather than spending ALL of your time trashing Hillary. Mindless support or Hillary attack-dog - I think Obama deserves better than this. You realize I am playing somewhat of the devil's advocate here but I would just rather leave all of this bitter negativity to the Republican side.
Frankly - I don't chose to spend much time thinking about Huckabee. And since I don't watch t.v. I have no opinions on your last thoughts - it is out of my radar.
By
Ptelea, at 11:41 PM
Just to clear up the "fluke" thing... First, please recall that I said his momentum is PART real, PART hype, and PART fluke of the primary schedule. (And notice I didn't say "equal parts.") My point is that while obviously he has made enormous strides forward (that's the real part), his media/blog coverage has been very favorable (that's the hype part), and we are currently in a part of the primary schedule that favors his strengths (that's the fluke part); thus his position at this particular moment may not be quite as strong as his supporters would have us believe.
Which is not say it's not strong. Just that this thing ain't over yet.
And by the way, great comment from Ptelea about the differences between the candidates. If Hillary is just Bush in a pantsuit, why do the Republicans hate her so much?
By
Anonymous, at 5:13 AM
Examine your thoughts, young padaone...
if HRC was comfortably ahead, would you consider anything a fluke? If she had made favorable strides, had a supportive blog, and had a favorable primary schedule would you consider her success to be part REAL, part HYPE and part FLUKE...I doubt it. You would say it is going as expected and she is running as a perfect candidate.
Aaaahhhh, but once things go off the planned expectation path we must assign reasons...hype, fluke, black voters, et al...some things can be explained by the most obvious...he is a better candidate. Plain and simple.
Hillary is winning primarly on the backs of middle-to-older aged while women...so the argument of Obama winning based on black voters can now be countered...
By
Anonymous, at 7:01 AM
Anon, My use of the phrase messiah coverage is because right now, the relative media coverage is so lopsided.
Beyond occasionally saying the Republicans might unsuccessfully attack Obama as "empty hope" or something like that, he has gotten next to no real criticism.
Admittedly his campaign has been run pretty flawlessly, but still, the presentatation of the candidates feels a little uneven o me.
I'm not trying to call him a "fairytale," I'm just saying that he is, in fact, human. We get psychoanalytical coverage of Clinton's ego, faults, etc, but nothing of the sort for Obama.
....
PTelea, I don't have a problem with the "flock." I love the passionate support. My issue as I said above is the media coverage, as you mention.
TG, yeah, sorry, that "calendar fluke" thing got a little out of magnitude, myself included.
But there's still the question, why is this section of the calendar supposedly good for Obama. Washington, Maine, Wisconsin?
Wash and Maine were choices by the Clinton campaign. They didn't put in the resources and organization for those states where there is no demographic reason for them not to be at least competitive.
And why not Wisconsin? There's no reason to say that's part of an unfiendly calendar except that the Clinton campaign blew too much of their money early.
(See, there I go again.)
....
And, Anon, you are a bit more emotional in all this (I tend to be a little more analytical,) but you make good points and you're arguing by the rules of the house.
No personal insults to other commenters and no sexist/racist/etc.
By
mikevotes, at 7:35 AM
I'm now moving past this thread.
Feel free to continue, but play nice.
By
mikevotes, at 7:35 AM
tg - Excellent breakdown of real/hype/fluke. I'd add to the "fluke" column that Obama is benefiting from the unique place America finds herself after 7yrs of the most devolutionary, anti-democratic, course-shifting administration in (possibly) all of American history. Obama's message is falling on willing ears.
This might also explain the "messiah" observation some have observed, though I wouldn't go quite that far. Is this really any different than passionate followers of Reagan or JFK, or FDR before them?
I think one thing that sets some (many?) Obama supporters apart from those of other candidates (save Huckabee) is their personal, visceral, emotional attachment to the candidate. Indeed, it is this very real hope -- I would say faith -- supporters place in him that make some of these campaign photos that "Hem of His Garment" feeling, as Mike pointed out some time ago.
No, I wouldn't go as far as messiah. I think MLK is a more accurate and fitting analogy. And yes, those are sandals I think Obama quite possibly could fill... in his own way, for his own time.
By
-epm, at 7:46 AM
Post a Comment
<< Home