home
Obama as the Next McGovern? | 198 comments (198 topical)
So basically... (5.00 / 3) (#1)
by mindfulmission on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 06:31:20 PM EST
... according the map and the numbers...

Obama has won more delegates in "red" states.

AND he has won more delegates in "blue" states.

And he has a winning record in both red and blue states.  

The maps and numbers don't really support the McGovern analogy.  

Hillary can beat the GOP (5.00 / 1) (#154)
by john5750 on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 09:32:53 PM EST
Obama is good at selling the Kool-Aid, but the swiftboaters & co. will tear him apart. Edwards was right, "he's kind of a pussy".

The GOP will bring up Rezko, the slumlord and major donor to Obama; and Exelon, which was on ABC News last night, the Exelon to Obama money  and the bill that was subsequently watered down.

Hillary can fight the GOP and win.

[ Parent ]

Oh... (none / 0) (#3)
by mindfulmission on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 06:32:11 PM EST
... AND he has a winning record in primaries, even though there have been numerous comments on this site that have claimed that Obama doesn't primaries.  

[ Parent ]
Yes, but ... (5.00 / 1) (#23)
by badger on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 07:02:31 PM EST
A lot of Obama's wins are in caucuses, and caucuses more than primaries heavily weight the 30% or so of the electorate that self-identifies as 'Democrats' (or the smaller percent that self-identifies as 'liberal'). Obama has not won any large state primary except IL.

Which is exactly what happened in 1972. If you had been in my Poli Sci class that year, nearly everyone thought McGovern would win because of the strong opposition to the war. Except the prof, who pointed out that "Not all voters live on this campus".

Not all voters caucus or spend much time on liberal blogs.

I don't have any evidence to support that point about Obama one way or the other. Ironically, the superdelegates that everyone bashes should be in a position to make an assessment of how broad Obama's strength is and push the nomination appropriately. That's one of the reasons the system is set up that way.


[ Parent ]

Again... (5.00 / 1) (#28)
by mindfulmission on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 07:07:28 PM EST
... I know that Obama has a large advantage in the caucus states.

But he also also won more primary states, more closed primary states, more red states, more blue states, more red state delegates, and more blue state delegates.

Further... as someone else pointed out, McGovern won MA, CA, TX, and NY.  

So I really don't see the Obama comparisons.  

[ Parent ]

The question is about (5.00 / 1) (#46)
by badger on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 07:20:06 PM EST
how deep Obama's support is among potential Democratic voters, and caucuses measure that very poorly. The weaker is support is the easier it'll be for the GOP to define him however they want.

I assume you mean McG won those states in the primaries, because he only won MA and DC in the GE, and lost the popular vote 60-38. And if McG did win those primaries, it should underscore the fact that Obama's wins in red states (primaries or caucuses) aren't very meaningful either.

There isn't anyone who's going to tell you that Obama will or won't be exactly like McG in '72, but it's something worth considering, and something a lot of Obama supporters refuse to think about. There isn't an easy answer though, and there isn't much good evidence either way.

I think the WI primary result might be helpful in looking at the question.

[ Parent ]

So, um... (none / 0) (#57)
by sphealey on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 07:26:24 PM EST
So, um.... why didn't Senator Clinton's campaign organize to win in the caucus states?  Why didn't she organize to win big in Missouri - including St. Louis and Kansas City?

Could it possibly be because she underestimated her opposition?  If so, is that a good trait in a Presidential candidate?

sPh

[ Parent ]

Something tells me that organizing (5.00 / 2) (#69)
by RalphB on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 07:41:28 PM EST
in St Louis wouldn't have done much good considering the racial makeup of the participants.  Frankly, I'm kind of surprised she did so well in the rest of the state, outside the urban areas.

Even so, there's no doubt the Clinton campaign made some strategic errors and I think the biggest one was thinking this race would be over early.  That's really bitten them hard.

[ Parent ]

I don't know (5.00 / 1) (#72)
by badger on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 07:44:05 PM EST
But the answer to that isn't especially relevant to this discussion. Clinton winning the caucuses wouldn't prove her viability as a candidate anymore than Obama winning them did.

On the issue of electability, caucuses are pretty meaningless - they certainly aren't any kind of evidence that, for example, Obama will carry NE in the general election (or even IA).

Primaries won't prove that either, but at least the represent a broader base and in open primary states include independents too.

The problem that occurs is when Democratic activists or factions within the party are out of sync with the electorate generally - that's what happened in 1972 (or 1964 for Goldwater and the GOP). Whether that's happening this year is anybody's guess, but I think it's worth considering.

The evidence for it isn't especially strong. It's mostly Obama's inability to carry large state primaries. I think there are some other factors, but they could just as well be anti-Obama bias at this point.

What evidence do you have that that isn't the case?


[ Parent ]

Obama parlayed his (none / 0) (#66)
by ding7777 on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 07:38:12 PM EST
knowledge from being a grassroots Community acivist into caucus building.  

[ Parent ]
I don't think it was (5.00 / 2) (#78)
by Jeralyn on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 07:51:01 PM EST
Obama, I think it was Axelrod.

[ Parent ]
From the LA Times (none / 0) (#174)
by ding7777 on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 10:10:11 PM EST
The precinct-level operations were to employ theories of community organizing Obama practiced in Chicago before getting into electoral politics.

more..

[ Parent ]

MONEY (none / 0) (#140)
by delandjim on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 09:07:03 PM EST
She was running out of money and the campaign made foolish decisions on whether to contest caucus states.

[ Parent ]
one reason (none / 0) (#182)
by sas on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 10:27:44 PM EST
money

[ Parent ]
Just wait when the Evangelicals go after him (none / 0) (#13)
by felizarte on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 06:53:05 PM EST
for "leading a cult" a word that has been bandied about before by people like Krugman describing some of his supporters as "cult-like".  or websites supporting him such as obamaMessiah.com

With endorsers like Ted Kennedy and John Kerry, how does he shake off the "superLiberal" tag.  I can almost imagine McCain winning.  Well maybe the democrats need to learn more lessons.

[ Parent ]

the only problem is... (5.00 / 1) (#39)
by jor on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 07:16:26 PM EST
... evangelicals will not go after him. Obama is much more comfortable with religion than McCain.

[ Parent ]
Evangelicals WILL (5.00 / 1) (#45)
by PlayInPeoria on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 07:19:57 PM EST
go after him... Roe vs Wade. You bet they will. That's why those states are "red".

[ Parent ]
They will too (none / 0) (#62)
by felizarte on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 07:33:48 PM EST
with the rationale that Obama IS the religion.  Remember me when this happens.

[ Parent ]
Evangelicals are not Obama's problem (5.00 / 1) (#149)
by Prabhata on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 09:26:08 PM EST
His problem is people on the right of the Republican party, like Norquist, Rove, and Rush and Coulter.  We think of the last two as irrelevant, but they keep a slime going until it sticks.

[ Parent ]
Closed primaries? (none / 0) (#18)
by magisterludi on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 06:55:41 PM EST


[ Parent ]
According to... (none / 0) (#20)
by mindfulmission on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 06:59:10 PM EST
.. RCP, Obama has a 9-4 record in closed primaries.

[ Parent ]
Here's what Obama has won per CNN (5.00 / 1) (#55)
by ding7777 on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 07:25:38 PM EST
Open Primaries - VA, MO, IL, GA, AL, SC

Closed Primaries - D.C., MD, LA, DE

Semi-Open Primary - UT

Open Caucus - WA, MN, ID, ND

Closed Caucus - NB, AK, KS, CO, ME, IA

[ Parent ]

I'd call Kansas semi-closed or something (5.00 / 1) (#67)
by katiebird on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 07:39:34 PM EST
Voters did have to register as Democrats at the Kansas Caucus -- but they had to do it on-site if they weren't already on the books.  And we registered nearly half the people at our caucus that night.  It sure FELT open at the time...

[ Parent ]
Nebraska=NE (5.00 / 1) (#114)
by phat on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 08:26:16 PM EST
And I would call it a semi-open caucus.

People were able to register Democrat at the caucus.

phat

[ Parent ]

Observation (5.00 / 1) (#135)
by delandjim on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 09:01:35 PM EST
If you look at each candidates strengths there seems to be an explanation of this.
Figure that Ill. and N.Y., would probably go to the home state senator Ark kind of fits that category too.
Then look the States with large black populations. D.C., MD, LA, DE, GA, AL, S.C., VA  they seems to be most of Obama's primaries.
Then look at states with significant Hispanic population: CA, AZ, N.M., FL. Those are Clinton.
The rest pretty much fit the caucuses go to Obama and Primaries go to Clinton mold OR were very close elections.
Most of the small caucus states were uncontested for Obama because Clinton didn't have enough money to advertise there. Also her staff  didn't see the danger of letting that many go uncontested.
That pretty much takes care of the states that have voted so far.

[ Parent ]
Closed primaries (5.00 / 1) (#153)
by Prabhata on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 09:31:14 PM EST
Obama does not carry the Democratic base, except the black vote.

Closed Primaries - D.C., MD, LA, DE

Excepting DE, the black vote carried him to the wins above.  DC, MD, LA have big AA voters, and he carries those voters with 80 to 90 percent.  That's not something unexpected.  The independents and Republicans are giving him the margins to win the white vote.

[ Parent ]

RCP... (none / 0) (#60)
by mindfulmission on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 07:29:29 PM EST
Ah... you are right.  It called all of the "closed" states closed primaries.

So the closed primary record is 4 wins for Obama, 4 wins for Clinton, one of which is New York.

[ Parent ]

Obama's wins do not translate in the general well: (none / 0) (#137)
by kenosharick on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 09:04:24 PM EST
His only wins that will vote Dem in Nov.for sure are: Ill.,D.C.,MD, De., and Wash.= 48
possible:Mn.,Me.,Ia.,Co.= 30
Hillary sure states: Ca.,N.Y.,Conn.,Mass.,N.J.,Mich= 137
possible: N.M.,AZ., N.H.,Nev.,Fla.= 51
that is Clinton;188  Obama; 78

She looks stronger this fall to me.


[ Parent ]

Oh come on! (none / 0) (#195)
by Siguy on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 11:42:53 PM EST
You're saying Obama will lose California, New York, New Jersey, and Massachusetts!?

You can argue which candidate is more electable, but let's not be ridiculous here and claim he's gonna lose the biggest democratic states because he didn't win their primaries (just like it'd be silly to claim he'll win red Republican states because he won their caucuses)

[ Parent ]

Curious (none / 0) (#131)
by Bob In Pacifica on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 08:57:23 PM EST
how one day people here claim that Clinton is the true liberal, and then the next they say the Republicans will call Obama a McGovern liberal. What is it?

Please, Jeralyn, do you give credence to this crap?

Having been around for the Nixon-McGovern election (it was the first Presidential election I could vote in, and I was the only person on my base I knew who admitted to voting for him) everything about that was different from this. Nixon was much more popular, people still thought or hoped the Vietnam war could be won, and Nixon was cheating (Jonah's mom, Watergate, etc.).

Obama has run a fairly centrist campaign, for which he's been criticized by the Left. I cannot imagine blue states voting for McCain because Obama was called a McGovern leftist.

This is really silly.

[ Parent ]

Obama has the classic (none / 0) (#129)
by sancho on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 08:49:27 PM EST
design of the Triple AAA approved Limo Liberal Loser in the GE. His "I was a Harvard graduate and a community organizer" line plays right into that stereotype (not that being a Harvard grad and a commuity organizer is a bad thing, of course). His recent ranking (by I forget which organization) as the most liberal senator in the senate will be used against him. And who among democrats likes Obama the most? The young or the older, well-off, well heeled Prius driving liberals. That was Mcgovern's demographic. I actually think Obama is a kind of neo-con (and not adamant about Roe v. Wade either) in disguise but he'll be given the McGovern limo liberal treatment in the fall and it will stick, and McCain will be president.

As for Obama getting Republican votes, that idea is laughable. Many of those are actually canny anti-Hillary votes (beat her now b.c the repubs fear her more in the GE--current doubters will understand later) or meaningless votes in states that will go red in the fall.

After Edwards, Hillary is the dems' only chance. Typically, the party seems to be doing everything it can to get rid of her.

How many democratic winners have we had since LBJ not named Clinton?

Hint: except for Watergate-aided Jimmy Carter, zero.

Dems almost always pick the loser and congratulate themselves while they do it.

Obama is likely another instance of this depressing consistency.  

[ Parent ]

This is what is also depressing me... (5.00 / 1) (#199)
by CognitiveDissonance on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 12:18:44 AM EST
How many democratic winners have we had since LBJ not named Clinton?

Hint: except for Watergate-aided Jimmy Carter, zero.

Something else to chew on: how many democratic presidents have been elected since LBJ who weren't from the South? Another big zero! I hate to say it, but I doubt he will carry a single southern state. Hillary has a chance with Florida, Arkansas, and Tennessee.


[ Parent ]

Obama Supporters (none / 0) (#203)
by Onetimeonly on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 12:36:34 AM EST
Would make the same argument about Hillary. We both want the same thing we just think differently about who is best to make it happen.
Obama wins independents easily if the national polls are correct, he will also bring the largest AA vote in history. So long as we dont act like children and declare if my candidate doesnt win the primary we wont vote, we win the election, Hillary or Obama.

[ Parent ]

Obama as the Next McGovern? | 198 comments (198 topical)

  • Premium Ads

  • Blog Ads

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

    donate to TalkLeft