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

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

  • Premium Ads

  • Blog Ads

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

    donate to TalkLeft