home

Theories

By Big Tent Democrat

A lot of my theories of this election will be facing their moments of truth in the next month. I will lay them out here now so folks can razz me on how wrong I was.

The Dem Nomination

Hillary runs better than Obama in contested big state primaries. The tests? Texas and Ohio on March 4th.

As a result, Clinton is still the favorite for the nomination. The test? Well, winning the nomination.

To win the nomination, Obama needs to run better with women, registered Dems, Latinos and working class whites. The test? Again Texas and Ohio on March 4th.

More . . .

The General Election

Obama is a Media Darling. The test? The coverage he receives after he fully assumes the frontrunner mantle after winning the Wisconsin primary on February 19. If he gets the normal frontrunner treatment (see Dean, Howard, circa December 2003), Obama should get a bushel full of tough media coverage. I predict he will not.

Because Obama is a Media darling, he is our best bet for November. This seems self evident. The test for this theory will be in November if Obama is the nominee.

Obama will NOT have long coattails in a General Election. Why? Because he does not run as a partisan Democrat. He will not be making an argument that we need more Democrats in Congress. He will not be making an argument against Republicans in Congress. The test? The results in November.

If Clinton is the nominee, the Republicans and the Media will engage in the dirtiest campaign in recent history. Clinton will win a close election and slightly expand the slim Dem majority in the Congress.

An Obama Presidency

The Obama Presidency will begin with a mandate for ending the war in Iraq. And with a mandate for nothing else. Republicans will resist him at every turn. Little will be accomplished except, and this is a huge except, ending the Iraq Debacle.

Health care reform will be compromised to the point of nothingess.

The Bush tax cuts will be extended until 2012. Obama supporters like Claire McCaskill and Ben Nelson will lead the fight to extend the Bush tax cuts.

Obama will easily win reelection due to his ability to rise above politics. The test? The 2012 elections.

A Clinton Presidency

The Iraq Debacle will be ended.

Health care reform will be stymied by Republicans and conservative Democrats like Claire McCaskill and Ben Nelson.

The Bush tax cuts will be the biggest battle of the Congress. It could even lead to a government shutdown.

Nothing will be accomplished because Clinton will not compromise with the Republicans. Partisan warfare breaks out with the Media siding with the Republicans.

In 2010, Clinton and the Democrats run on universal health care paid for by rolling back the Bush tax cuts. The Dems win a governing majority.

In 2012, after rolling back the Bush tax cuts and enacting universal health care reform, Clinton loses her reelection bid to Bobby Jindal, the Governor of Louisiana. Democrats lose the Congress.

There it is. So shoot away.

NOTE: Comments are closed.

< Obama Wins Maine Caucus | Hillary and Obama on 60 Minutes >
  • Premium Ads

  • Blog Ads

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

    donate to TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    My theories (5.00 / 1) (#64)
    by s5 on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 08:17:54 PM EST
    Well as long as we're having fun with conjecture, here's mine:

    Obama wins Maryland, Virginia, DC, Hawaii, and probably Wisconsin. Even though these states have been "priced in" by the blogs and political junkies, low-information Clinton voters finally consider Obama as more than just the other name on the ballot. Major endorsements and most media moves to Obama. A small media backlash about Obama supporters as a "cult" fails to take root. Ohio goes to Obama, Texas to Clinton by 10% or less. Obama wins the nomination without any kerfuffle over superdelegates.

    Obama wins the general election in a realignment. "Not since Reagan" is repeated on election night by every talking head.

    Democrats widen their margin in the Senate. Harry Reid is ousted or steps down as majority leader. The House stays pretty much the same.

    Obama governs with a mandate for progressive policy, and runs on single payer health care for his re-election bid. "Republicans in disarray" is the permanent media narrative. Peace and prosperity fill the land, and everyone gets a free kitten.

    I like your theory better than mine (5.00 / 1) (#66)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 08:18:49 PM EST
    And yes these are all for fun. I invite everybody to offer their theory.

    [ Parent ]
    Reid is ousted (5.00 / 1) (#151)
    by Tano on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 09:21:42 PM EST
    Yes! Hillary for Majority Leader!

    [ Parent ]
    This is standard candidate. . . (none / 0) (#94)
    by LarryInNYC on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 08:40:09 PM EST
    fantasy material, except for this:

    Democrats widen their margin in the Senate. Harry Reid is ousted or steps down as majority leader.

    Reid may step down from age or health, but if the Democrats expand their Senate majority (especial if they do so with a new class of conservative Obama-state Senators) Reid's position is strengthened, not weakened.

    [ Parent ]

    Aside from the usual 2008 fare (none / 0) (#109)
    by s5 on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 08:52:25 PM EST
    This is actually an interesting debate. What would happen to Reid? I can see arguments both ways. Either he'll be strengthened by a larger margin in the Senate, or voters clamoring for a "change" election will signal that it's time for new leadership. Personally I would be happy to see him move on, but I don't know exactly how this would play out.

    [ Parent ]
    The best thing for everyone: (none / 0) (#224)
    by jr on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 05:07:16 AM EST
    Ambassador Harry Reid.

    Doesn't matter where.

    [ Parent ]

    You're an Obama supporter as much as (5.00 / 1) (#79)
    by Geekesque on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 08:29:41 PM EST
    Joe Lieberman is a rabid partisan Democrat.

    Claire McCaskill voting to extend the Bush tax cuts?

    Not a reality-based statement.  

    Link.And, you think a Democratic Congress would extend those tax-cuts with President Obama approving?

    That's beyond silly.  It's somewhere between insane and libelous.

    Obama not arguing that we need more Democrats in Congress?  He talks about the need to build a working majority every chance he gets.  He's campaigned for Democrats every chance he's gotten.  He's asked his supporters to phone bank for Democrats in the special House elections.

    Your disagreement with his rhetoric has rendered you incapable of discussing him rationally.

    You're now in the same league as Taylor Marsh.  

    It is dishonest for you to describe yourself as an Obama supporter, since you are indistinguishable from Taylor Marsh when it comes to him.

    You should endorse Clinton.

    Well (none / 0) (#88)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 08:35:03 PM EST
    Now that you have judged me unworthy to carry the moniker "Obama supporter" perhaps you can settle down and enjoy the actual tone of this post and thread, which was half snark.

    And have some fun in it while you are at it.

    Your guy had a big weekend. I would think you would be in a GOOD mood today.

    [ Parent ]

    Can you do anything other than attack someone? (none / 0) (#100)
    by RalphB on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 08:44:59 PM EST
    I believe this thread was a prediction and some of it was obvious snark.  Got a prediction to make?


    [ Parent ]
    Take it easy (none / 0) (#107)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 08:47:57 PM EST
    Geek is cool.

    [ Parent ]
    Hillary is the better GE Candidate IMHO (5.00 / 1) (#84)
    by LadyDiofCT on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 08:31:55 PM EST
    I do not see Obama as the best in the GE.  His 'present' votes and absent votes (Kyle/Lieberman) will show his inability to lead.  His total lack of experience, especially foreign experience, will remind everyone of GWB.  His lack of management skills, lack of leadership as chairman of his current Foreign Affairs committee, not scheduling even one meeting, will be mentioned over and over.  Is the elephant in the room going to be "President Barack Hussein Obama"?  This will hurt him in the general.  I believe that Hillary will actually bring in more women and black voters against John McCain than conventional wisdom implies, including indies, and some repubs.  She is also more hawkish and will bring some republicans along on Iraq and Iran, Obama just doesn't have the credentials for this.  Who's going to babysit him in the Oval Office, Uncle Teddy and Uncle (I still want to be president) John?  Hillary will end the debacle in Iraq and will let the bush tax cuts expire.  Obama will be beholden to his red state rhetoric and endorsements and will vote 'present' thereby getting nothing accomplished.

    Ok, here's why I am. (5.00 / 1) (#93)
    by andgarden on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 08:37:36 PM EST
    Presidential race:

    My big prediction is that we won't win, no matter who our nominee is. Our nominee isn't Bill Clinton and their nominee isn't Bumpkinish George W. Bush. McCain puts places like Pennsylvania and Connecticut back in play for Republicans. Hillary can win Florida, and Obama can't. Likewise for Ohio. The reverse is true for Iowa.

    Senate:

    Both Udalls win, Mary Landrieu Loses. Al Franken is elected by 100 votes--the closest margin in the country. John Sununu is toast. John Kerry runs a closer-than-expected race.

    House: We pick up 5-10 seats. Nick Lampson and Tim Mahoney lose anyway.

    McCain keeps us in Iraq for ages, but "accidentally" appoints another David  Souter when Stevens dies.

    McCan dies in office and is replaced by his Vice President Mike Huckabee, who goes on to be defeated by Russ Feingold in 2011.

    Ohio (5.00 / 1) (#123)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 09:04:48 PM EST
    Yeah, for Obama to convince me that he could win a general, he HAS to win either Ohio or Penn.  Texas will allow him to win the primary, yes, but without either Ohio or Penn, he's likely not going to take these states in the GE.

    Gawl, I really need to go do something else!

    [ Parent ]

    Good predictions, however. . . (5.00 / 1) (#138)
    by LarryInNYC on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 09:10:54 PM EST
    McCan dies in office and is replaced by his Vice President Mike Huckabee, who goes on to be defeated by Russ Feingold in 2011.

    I say Huckabee actually marries Feingold in Boston  in 2011, the ceremony presided over by Mitt Romney.

    [ Parent ]

    hehehehehe (none / 0) (#161)
    by andgarden on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 09:28:11 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    That should be *where* I am. (none / 0) (#95)
    by andgarden on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 08:40:17 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    That is truly depressing. (5.00 / 1) (#98)
    by Compound F on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 08:43:18 PM EST
    I watched Bush this morning once again claim that history cannot judge him for a long, long time.  He's the only person who finds comfort in that view.  I'd tell you exactly how much I despise the man, but the site is moderated for immoderate language.

    Nah WRONG (5.00 / 1) (#152)
    by Salt on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 09:21:45 PM EST
    Hillary will change the mission in Iraq, no combat but I dont believe we will leave..

    Health Care will pass there is not choice,

    Nelson, McCaskill, Kerry and Kennedy will lose their seats to younger less divisive candidates when they come up for re election.

    She will not roll back the tax cuts under 250,000.

    She will severely restricts discretionary spending,

    She will have coat tails. Pulling my local candidate into office in an open Republican seat.

    We will prosper

    There will be gun control, more police and crime will drop again

    Lou Dobbs, Chris Matthews, Rush will be fired for being stupid and no one will visit Huff Post anymore.

    And We the People will stand up and do our part and fight for honorable ethical competent governance and protect our leaders from the loons.. instead of boo hooing and playing victim corrupt people and special interest

    If Obama is the nominee, McCain is President and if he is smart Christie Todd Whitman is his VP or someone like her.


    My Theory or is it Wishful thinking? (5.00 / 1) (#196)
    by Florida Resident on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 10:23:41 PM EST
    The Democratic candidate will win in 2008 because all this talk about not voting if the other candidate wins is just a bunch of baloney.  And all democrats and progressive thinking americans will not vote for the likes of McCain or Huckabee.  
    Under a Democratic administration we will prosper and the mistakes of the past will not be repeated.
    People like Corrine Brown will gain prominence in your party.
    The State of Ct will learn from their mistakes and never elect a person like Lieberman again.

    And I might register as a Democrat.  

    i'll add two (4.66 / 3) (#45)
    by Turkana on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 08:07:37 PM EST
    a president hillary governs from the center and is excoriated in the liberal blogs. the keepers of the flame hold her feet to the fire.

    a president obama governs from the center and the liberal blogs excuse and rationalize and lose their status as keepers of the flame. the change is not the change that was presumed.  

    That I disagree with (4.42 / 7) (#53)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 08:10:57 PM EST
    Hillary would govern from the center left and get excoriated.

    Obama may govern from the center right and get praised.

    [ Parent ]

    Blogosphere (5.00 / 3) (#96)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 08:40:40 PM EST
    The blogosphere has a history of electing bluedogs then complaining voraciously about it.

    Shouldn't they have figured out before election that these were bluedogs?  I always could.

    [ Parent ]

    I didn't know, Tell me (none / 0) (#112)
    by koshembos on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 08:54:16 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Stew (none / 0) (#111)
    by koshembos on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 08:52:31 PM EST
    If Hillary wins the nomination, Obama leaves the Democratic party (to which he never actually belonged) and Hillary loses the election to McCain because all the TPMs and Nation magazine (Carey MacWilliams turns in his California grave) belong to the new centrist party called Bamacracy.

    Unity Über Alles!

    [ Parent ]

    Stew (none / 0) (#231)
    by auntmo on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 08:44:19 AM EST
    Or  Obama  loses  and pouts,  joins  the Joe  Lieberman  Independent  Party,  and  DKos, TPM,  and   Huffington   provide  support for  same. LOL

    [ Parent ]
    Obama wins the nomination but (3.00 / 2) (#110)
    by oculus on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 08:52:28 PM EST
    is obliterated once the swift boating starts.  I can only hope andgarden's predictions on McCain SCOTUS appointment is correct and that Feingold assumes his rightful place.  

    Well, you do have a theory (none / 0) (#1)
    by andrewwm on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 07:28:57 PM EST
    It's probably about as accurate as when my friends and I get together and try and predict the next season of the NBA during the pre-season though.

    Why are you skipping (none / 0) (#2)
    by kid oakland on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 07:32:57 PM EST
    Wisconsin, Virginia, Maryland and DC?

    Wisconsin and Virginia are critical states in the general. Very relevant. (Colorado, Minnesota and Iowa are relevant too.)

    Further, here's a list of states that Obama won on our side but McCain did not. That says something about the general:

    Kansas
    Alabama
    Georgia
    North Dakota
    Louisiana
    Minnesota
    Iowa
    Utah
    Colorado
    Alaska

    The Superstate of Minnewisowa (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by Cream City on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 07:57:42 PM EST
    as some pundits called it, saying it could be crucial.  So expect the next Rovian attacks on the elections there this fall, with these vulnerabilities:

    Remember that Wisconsin was the closest state in 2004, has one of the most rabid GOP counties in the country right between Milwaukee and Madison -- and it has a horrible Repub ADA in Milwaukee, Biskupic, who went over the top already with vote-fraud scares, imprisoning a grandmother and more to try to defeat the Democratic governor.  It didn't work, but it may make Biskupic more rabid.

    Remember that Minnesota has a Republican governor.   That never helps in a vote-fraud battle.  And the state hosts the Republican convention.  And it put through rabid conceal-and-carry gun laws.  The Twin Cities are dealing with the late Great Migration at last, as well as new immigrant groups who are about as far from Scandinavian as can be!  Hmong refugees (it and Wisconsin have two of the three largest Hmong communities in the country), Somalians, etc.  These factors plus the bridge collapse are making Minnesota edgy.

    Iowa, I don't know as much about. . . .

    [ Parent ]

    Iowa... (none / 0) (#140)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 09:13:23 PM EST
    ...has suffered a great deal over the last 8 years.  Much of the state's manufactoring has been closed down, the mega-corporate "farms" have all but killed off the family farm, the small towns and polluted the air and water.  

    There are still pockets of wing-nut in the rural areas (mostly the NW corner of the state), but they are loosing their appeal pretty quick and decreasing in number as the rural way of life disappears.  Additionally, Iowans are generally pretty adverse to war, especially pointless ones.  

    I think the Dem's have a pretty good shot at carrying the state this year.  

    [ Parent ]

    Thanks for the insights (none / 0) (#199)
    by Cream City on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 10:30:07 PM EST
    I knew the family farmers had seen setbacks, in my state, too -- but no state is as agricultural as Iowa!  I read that it's still 94% farmland?  But farmed by fewer and fewer now, with megafarms.  And
    I didn't know about the manufacturing base, but am not surprised, with so much of the Midwest also suffering so.  (Poor Michigan, it really needs to be allowed to weign in on this nomination. . . .)

    My best to your beautiful state -- my family farmed there, many generations ago.

    [ Parent ]

    Obama wins them all easily (none / 0) (#3)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 07:34:06 PM EST
    We have extrapolated beyond that.

    All the way to the 2012 election even.

    [ Parent ]

    Of the list (none / 0) (#5)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 07:37:24 PM EST
    we can win Iowa, Minnesota and Colorado.

    We will also win Maryland, DC and have a great shot at Virginia.

    I take your point that in THOSE states Obama has the better shot.

    The problem for me though with that type of thinking is that in California, Obama may give McCain a shot.

    But to address your point seriously, I DO believe Obama is more electable in a significant way in Colorado and Virginia. No small thing.

    And thank you for the reasonable comment. I hope to see this Kid Oakland at Talk Left.

    [ Parent ]

    Not Colorado (none / 0) (#12)
    by dissenter on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 07:44:35 PM EST
    I don't think Obama has a chance in hell of winning in my fine state. Outside of Denver and Boulder where are these votes coming from?

    Barack Obama isn't Salazar. He can't make the leap across continental divide. No way, no how.

    [ Parent ]

    Well (none / 0) (#14)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 07:46:31 PM EST
    So much for my theory on that.

    [ Parent ]
    especially if it is (none / 0) (#28)
    by english teacher on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 07:56:14 PM EST
    mccain/huck right.  that would be a potent republican cocktail in colorado from what i understand of the place.

    [ Parent ]
    Not really (none / 0) (#42)
    by dissenter on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 08:06:06 PM EST
    Colorado is not understood very well. It is a republican state but is a libertarian state as in don't screw with my guns, lower my taxes, I'm not wearing mandated helmets, etc. It isn't socially conservative outside of CO Springs. Huck might help him there but that is about it. He would do better with someone considered good on the economy.

    Dems that win here are fiscally conservative, they don't even discuss guns outside of Boulder and Denver and they are pro business. That is how they win. The state is pro choice even with republican majority because it has a libertarian streak.

    McCain isn't perceived as that "conservative" although he is and the military people love him. We have a big military presence in this state and the state has the second highest number of federal jobs.

    I don't personally think Clinton or Obama can win here but between the two Clinton would have a better shot.

    [ Parent ]

    No way... (none / 0) (#83)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 08:30:41 PM EST
    ...is Colorado a "republican" state.  Extending your "theory", I guess Mark Udall has no chance at all and should just drop out of the Senate race right now.  

    You can't simply state Colorado is a Reublican or a Democratic state.  We are individualists as a people and purple as a state.

    [ Parent ]

    Ah No (none / 0) (#102)
    by dissenter on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 08:46:36 PM EST
    Take a look at the voter registration numbers. It is a republican state with a lot of independents. Democrats are in third. Udall wins if he faces a right wing nut. If they ran a moderate pro-choice republican he would get trounced.

    I don't enjoy telling you that but it is the truth. Their crazy base and the Dobson nuts that come out to the caucuses, control the party, etc are ensuring their defeat lately.

    It is the choice of the republican candidate that does them in. Not the rise of progressive politics.

    [ Parent ]

    And aside from the wingnuts... (none / 0) (#116)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 08:56:30 PM EST
    ...they have nobody.  The Repulican party in this state is to laugh at.  Dobson, Bruce, Coors, Benson, et al.  

    If we're such a die-hard Republican state, why is there a Democrat sitting in the Governor's mansion and a Democratic majority in the legislature?  

    Colorado is NOT about identity politics, it is about issue politics.  

    And don't pee on my leg and tell me its raining. A moderate pro-choice republican.  I want some of what you're smoking!

    [ Parent ]

    Its Called Amendment 36 (none / 0) (#148)
    by dissenter on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 09:19:47 PM EST
    Remember electoral reform? It was an issue that was a trap that the Repbulicans fell for. They became so obsessed with stopping it (even though it never had a chance in hell of passing) that they threw all their money and resources into the initiative and didn't take care of their districts. That is how they lost.

    Issue politics is everywhere but if you think you are winning a presidential election (with McCain) or beating a moderate republican here you are high.

    How old are you cuz clearly you don't know much political history in this state.

    [ Parent ]

    History is fluid... (none / 0) (#178)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 09:46:24 PM EST
    ...just like political leanings.  Electorial reform?  Are you kidding me?  You poor deluded thing. Your average voter decided on basis of 36.  Tee hee, that's a good one.

    How old are you, 'cause this contrarian trolling is for octigarians.  Perhaps you should take your act over to the Republican Mountain News, you'd fit in much better over there.  


    [ Parent ]

    Octigarian? (none / 0) (#241)
    by magisterludi on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 09:31:36 AM EST
    Two words- spell check.

    [ Parent ]
    It is an open question (none / 0) (#118)
    by Steve M on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 08:58:31 PM EST
    whether the GOP manages to frame Obama as a raging liberal on issues like guns in the GE.

    No one except BTD's crystal ball really knows what the narrative on Obama will look like come November.

    [ Parent ]

    On Guns It Shouldn't Be Hard For Them At All (none / 0) (#193)
    by MO Blue on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 10:16:36 PM EST
    Fairly anti-gun record in IL Senate.

    In Iowa, he said he wouldn't take folks guns away but then there is this:

    1996, however, Obama said in a questionnaire that he "supported banning the manufacture, sale and possession of handguns" -- a fairly extreme position.
    ...
    HOWEVER, it should be pointed out that this appears to be yet another example of Obama not being able to get good help.
    You guessed it -- his campaign says this questionnaire was filled out incorrectly by a staffer. ABC

    Somehow I don't believe that after the NRA puts out copies of that questionnaire, the "don't touch my gun folks" are going to buy into the staffer mistake bit.


    [ Parent ]

    You don't think McCain/Huck would (none / 0) (#206)
    by burnedoutdem on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 11:01:30 PM EST
    lose independent votes to Obama?  I know McCain appeals to the indy vote, but I think Huck would negate that if he's on the ticket...the first time he trots out a confederate flag and talks about putting more God in the Constitution and all those independent votes will go running to Obama, won't they?

    [ Parent ]
    Huck won't be on the ticket. (none / 0) (#251)
    by liminal on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 11:44:19 AM EST
    Romney's withdrawal from the race virtually guarantees it, I think.  McCain will turn elsewhere: Huck is too much of a loon to be a Veep, and with Romney out, McCain will not 'owe' Huck anything.

    [ Parent ]
    btd, do you think (none / 0) (#115)
    by english teacher on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 08:56:20 PM EST
    musgrove will beat wicker for lott's seat in ms?  i had seen a report that he was well ahead in polls.

    i actually prefer ronnie shows for the seat but musgrove being a former governor who was good on education has a much higher profile than former congressman shows.  

    [ Parent ]

    Georgia is VERY winnable for Obama (none / 0) (#34)
    by halstoon on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 07:58:23 PM EST
    Georgia is Bible belters and minorities, with some college towns thrown in for good measure. We do have our share of bases, but they really don't influence voting like you would think. This is really social conservative territory, more suitable for Huckabee, not McCain.

    Obama got more votes here than Huck and Mac combined on Feb. 5. This is the new black capital, and a lot of upper middle class areas. I think Obama pulls it off.

    [ Parent ]

    Right (5.00 / 1) (#58)
    by dissenter on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 08:13:54 PM EST
    I am laughing so hard I am choking on my dinner. One more time, he can't get a majority of the white vote. Where are you getting these new votes?

    Is he going to become anti-choice, invoke God into the constitution, endorse the confederate flag?

    Please.......

    [ Parent ]

    He Will Have More Gospel Concerts (5.00 / 1) (#113)
    by MO Blue on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 08:55:53 PM EST
    featuring the line up he had in S.C. and claim that his staff didn't vet them beforehand.

    [ Parent ]
    Are you saying (none / 0) (#154)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 09:22:34 PM EST
    that whites who are so liberal in voting for Clinton are not going to vote for a black man?

    That's pretty sad that Clinton's support is so racist.

    [ Parent ]

    Not Clinton (none / 0) (#158)
    by dissenter on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 09:24:55 PM EST
    The South

    [ Parent ]
    So you think that if he beats Hillary (none / 0) (#166)
    by halstoon on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 09:33:04 PM EST
    that liberal whites will just stay home? He didn't get 700,00+ votes all from blacks here. I'm white, my Obama friends are white, young white liberal college kids are white. Liberal white women who don't stay home and still support Democrats are white.

    But you're right, he won Washington on the backs of all the blacks living there. Same with MN, CT, KS, NE, ID, etc.

    Despite what you may think, not all of us Southerners are just hillbilly racists. He won over 50% of whites 18-44 and about 35% white 45+, and that was with another liberal on the ticket.

    So despite what you may try to portray, white people do not in fact dislike Obama.

    But, since you wanna play that game, where is Hillary gonna get black votes? I guess they'll just sit this one out, huh? And without black women, she might be in trouble.

    And Obama's gonna take his wine crowd and go home. Say bye bye to the Northeastern liberal crowd. Shucks, we might as well inaugurate McCain now.

    And here I thought the GOP was divided.

    Been to ATL lately? You'd be surprised at how many of us wear long pants and ties nowadays. Not a lot of barefeet and overalls anymore...

    [ Parent ]

    Base % for a Dem in GA is about 39 (none / 0) (#225)
    by jr on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 05:17:25 AM EST
    If McCain manages to fail at getting the thumpers out to vote, we may only lose by 2-3% with Obama as the nominee.

    I hate to be so blunt about it (especially since I worked the '04 Senate race there), but I think Majette's performance four years ago is about what we can expect in Georgia if Hillary is the nominee.

    I don't think we win it either way, but I can pretty well guarantee we'd perform better with Obama at the top of the ticket than Hillary.  Since we're not seriously competitive there anyway, this should only matter in terms of whether or not we can make the GOP spend some cash on it.

    [ Parent ]

    Hope (none / 0) (#205)
    by lily15 on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 10:50:20 PM EST
    when facts are absent.

    dissenter...you are so right.  No one is looking at the problem with white votes and hispanic votes...
    nor has anyone mentioned the power of the female vote...and republican women voting hillary over mccain...rather amazing.

    [ Parent ]

    Not really (5.00 / 1) (#62)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 08:16:15 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    so the 400k vote advantage for dems (none / 0) (#169)
    by halstoon on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 09:34:46 PM EST
    was pointless? is that the point here?

    [ Parent ]
    that is the most (none / 0) (#4)
    by athyrio on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 07:37:01 PM EST
    depressing theory I have ever read...and completely predicts the end of my life literally...I am in remission with no insurance...I disagree about Obama and the media darling, however, I can say one thing...If there is no onslaught of media against him, it tells me that he has "made a deal" with the republicans and that scares the poop out of me...If he can turn his back on middle and lower income that easily then he isnt the guy for me to vote for...to keep the big tax cut for the wealthy in place is to turn his back literally...IMO...

    This is why I became a one-issue voter this year (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by katiebird on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 07:45:24 PM EST
    "I am in remission with no insurance"

    This is why I became a one issue voter this year.  

    I'm very, very sorry.

    [ Parent ]

    So are a lot of people (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by dissenter on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 07:48:36 PM EST
    One of my best friends has cancer but is currently in remission. She has insurance and her medical bills for 07 were $98K.

    You don't have to apologize to anyone for that.

    [ Parent ]

    thats why i have no insurance now (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by athyrio on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 07:51:00 PM EST
    I reached the lifetime cap in just three years...

    [ Parent ]
    Really? We've let this drift for way to long (5.00 / 2) (#25)
    by katiebird on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 07:53:37 PM EST
    Really? We've let this drift for way to long.  Health Care should be a constitutional issue.

    It might not be my personal fault (for one thing it was one of 2 issues for me last time) -- but it doesn't help that millions of people like me didn't make this an ISSUE until this year.

    We've come a long way.  I remember when I used to make comments about Universal Health Care in 2003 getting STOMPED.  Things have really changed.

    But it won't matter with the theory we're talking about here.  We might be doomed.

    [ Parent ]

    I'm a single-issue voter too (5.00 / 1) (#101)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 08:45:16 PM EST
    Because I know how many people like you are out there.

    [ Parent ]
    I think it is a reasonable prediction (none / 0) (#9)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 07:38:13 PM EST
    But it is possible that Obama will dig in his heels and fight on health care.

    [ Parent ]
    Logical too (5.00 / 1) (#190)
    by Virginian on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 10:10:11 PM EST
    that is pretty much what the two candidates records say...best predictor of past behavior is future behavior...

    The only points of contention I have are:

    1. Republicans will run the dirtiest campaign they ever have no matter our nominee...and the 2012 elections will top 2008, and so on...they never cease to find a new low (or high depending on your perspective)

    2. Obama will win reelection. If he is not a productive president, Obama won't win reelection...his "magic" is a one shot deal, I think that is fairly evident. Even with the power of incumbency, but his "movement" is pop culture driven...and like all pop culture, it has an expiration date (generally in the 12-18 month range). Basically, he'll lose his "I'm cool cause I support Obama" constituents regardless of his productivity as a president, but if he's not more productive than ending the war, if he doesn't give the progressive movement (a movement he really isn't a part of if you look at his record and rhetoric) enough red meat, he'll be a one termer

    3. I am not convinced he'll cruise to a November victory. Although Clinton can't gain any traction on the "Obama is not vetted" line of attack...it is true...Obama is not vetted. It is yet to be seen if he will hold up to scrutiny. One minor chink in his armor that comes out early enough will have the potential to bring his whole movement to a grinding halt by November...the Republicans can make you sick of someone because you're sick of hearing about them (regardless of the veracity)...and I think people will get REALLY tired of hearing Bill Kristol talk about Obama every Sunday on Meet the Press...and Peggy Noonan, and... and... and...

    (throwing a dart Zogby style...we'll have to see in November...then 4 years after)

    [ Parent ]
    Vice Versa (none / 0) (#191)
    by Virginian on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 10:12:26 PM EST
    Best predictor of future behavior is past behavior

    [ Parent ]
    If (none / 0) (#192)
    by Steve M on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 10:13:53 PM EST
    the Republicans get dirty on Obama - and there's about a 99% chance they will - the partisan Dems will all rally to him the same way they rallied to Clinton.  He may have to win reelection on a different schtick but he should still win it.

    [ Parent ]
    Yep...just like we rallied around (none / 0) (#219)
    by Virginian on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 12:50:46 AM EST
    Gore and Kerry too...but the whole inventing the internet thing is still out there...and the whole "wounding himself" to get a purple heart thing is still out there...

    defensive rallying doesn't do squat when it comes to political capital or momentum...and that is why the Republicans crank up the ol' lie machine every 2 years...you put enough bologna out there, despite its truth, and people will get sick of the target (because all they hear is negative things, even if untrue), not the liar...poison poisons, it doesn't matter you're a good person or not...

    Human beings are still animals after all...we have a tendency to believe people who are unfairly targeted did something to "bring it on themselves"...it is our way of justifying our inaction...at the same time as our self-preservation (if we don't get involved, we don't get attacked either)...that is why people HATE negative ads, but negative ads are very successful (dollar for dollar more so than positive ads)...

    [ Parent ]

    Partisan Dems are not his strength (none / 0) (#220)
    by Cream City on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 01:16:57 AM EST
    as they/we favor Clinton.  Obama draws the Indies, the newcomers to politics who may not be as ready or willing to rally 'round when the tough times come -- Indies by being so dislike politics, its nastiness, and newcomers who haven't been through it before won't know what hit 'em.

    [ Parent ]
    That is true today (none / 0) (#248)
    by Steve M on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 10:21:54 AM EST
    but what I'm saying is, the dynamic will change if Obama is the guy and gets unfairly attacked.

    A lot of us partisan Dems who are kinda "ehhh" about Obama will be a lot more fired up if the GOP decides to do their usual Willie Horton routine.  We'll tell ourselves that there's no way in hell we're losing another election THAT way.  (Whether we're right or not remains to be seen!)

    Consider how Democrats rallied around Clinton during the impeachment even though he had sold out the left any number of times by that point.

    [ Parent ]

    On pt #3, you are so correct (none / 0) (#197)
    by Cream City on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 10:26:13 PM EST
    As when followers think a hero is perfect, only one misstep can bring it all crashing down.  One misstep they'll believe, anyway.  So far, he has been so untouchable.  But it really can't continue. . . .

    [ Parent ]
    Cream (5.00 / 0) (#234)
    by auntmo on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 09:05:49 AM EST
    And  when he pushes  for    driver's licenses  for illegal  aliens  as  part of his  comprehensive  immigration  reform,   he   loses   all  those  Independents  and moderate  Republicans.   He'll  lose  the  Reagan Democrats, too.

    [ Parent ]
    Californians without insurance (none / 0) (#212)
    by blogtopus on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 11:26:08 PM EST
    Can join a legislative or congressional coalition - I don't remember it exactly, but it is basically a giant group that you join for $50/year, and it is group Kaiser insurance. You still pay relatively high premiums, but they HAVE to take you.

    If you contact e-insurance or e-health or one of those and try to get them to get you a plan, ask them about this option. I'll try to find the details for California.

    I had to do this when my Cobra ran out, and it worked fine until I could get another full time job. Otherwise I have no chance of ever getting individual insurance.

    [ Parent ]

    Too long term for me. (none / 0) (#6)
    by RalphB on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 07:37:42 PM EST
    I don't have a clue how either would turn out but I'll make a small bet we still have a contingent of troops in Iraq, or very nearby, in 2012 no matter who wins.

    I do agree that if Obama runs the general election like the primaries, there will be no mandate for anything except maybe "can't we all just get along".

    Even if there is a ton of republican and media against any democratic agenda, it would be a real shame not to push for all it's worth.  

    One of the reasons republicans win in Texas, and I assume elsewhere, is that they stand up and fight.  Even if people don't agree with them, they are grudgingly respected.  Democrats tend to roll over and even I can't respect that, so they get zip.


    the Iraq Debacle.

    [ Parent ]
    I think (none / 0) (#67)
    by IndependantThinker on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 08:19:34 PM EST
    Obama will compromise on Iraq.

    [ Parent ]
    This is hilarious. (none / 0) (#7)
    by kangeroo on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 07:38:02 PM EST
    You brought a big smile to my face.  :)

    ME was in Hillary's demo... (none / 0) (#8)
    by Meurs on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 07:38:10 PM EST
    Lower income, no African-Americans, older, and women.  Why the blowout there?

    My theory (none / 0) (#10)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 07:39:07 PM EST
    without seeing the exit polls is that turnout was not working class but rather wine track.

    I'll have to look it up.

    [ Parent ]

    You're killin me (none / 0) (#15)
    by lisadawn82 on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 07:48:19 PM EST
    In 2012, after rolling back the Bush tax cuts and enacting universal health care reform, Clinton loses her reelection bid to Bobby Jindal, the Governor of Louisiana. Democrats lose the Congress.


    Well (none / 0) (#18)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 07:50:15 PM EST
    That is what happens when you do something and you are not a magical pol.

    Obama needs to do what I predict Clinton doing. He can make it political magic. I fear he won't do a thing.

    [ Parent ]

    I mean that you're making me laugh (none / 0) (#30)
    by lisadawn82 on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 07:57:36 PM EST
    nt

    [ Parent ]
    I'm glad (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 08:01:47 PM EST
    I was not kidding. I think Clinton can not sell it.

    I think Obama can, but won't.

    My frustration with Obama is of epic proportions PRECISELY because he could be our FDR and he refuses to try.

    [ Parent ]

    Even FDR wasn't FDR before he became FDR (5.00 / 1) (#132)
    by koshembos on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 09:09:28 PM EST
    Why this habit of giant leaps of faith when only after a lot work someone becomes somebody? If Obama becomes FDR it will great for al of us, but medals are awarded only after the war not before it starts.

    [ Parent ]
    exactly (none / 0) (#164)
    by Tano on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 09:31:04 PM EST
    FDR's nickname, when he first ran, was Ol' Featherduster - ie. a lightweight empty suit. An eloquent speaker, but not a figher.

    [ Parent ]
    I can tell (none / 0) (#78)
    by PlayInPeoria on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 08:29:33 PM EST
    you really enjoy this! :+}

    What about the Supreme Court? Do you think he would fight for the one(s) we need (liberal).

    [ Parent ]

    I expect he will make a sound choice (none / 0) (#91)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 08:37:33 PM EST
    I can not imagine he will not.

    [ Parent ]
    But will he fight? (none / 0) (#137)
    by oculus on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 09:10:49 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    FDR (none / 0) (#236)
    by auntmo on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 09:08:34 AM EST
    How  ya  figure  Obama  is our  FDR  if  Clinton is  the  one  building  the  majority  with the  FDR  voters?

    [ Parent ]
    Obama presidency (none / 0) (#17)
    by magster on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 07:50:02 PM EST
    will be more progressive, because the record youth turnout from his candidacy will lead to bigger Democratic majorities in Congress.

    Not if Obama does not urge Dem voting (4.50 / 2) (#19)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 07:50:48 PM EST
    which he can not do and retain his post-partisan appeal.

    [ Parent ]
    In Bill Clinton's presidency (none / 0) (#163)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 09:30:05 PM EST
    we got NAFTA, WTO, media mergers. That was accomplished by Clinton forming a coalition with right-wing Dems and the Republicans.

    When Hillary starts publically bad-mouthing Bill about these things then I'll start considering whether she's to the left of Obama.

    Whoever is President will have to bend to the will of the Congress. If it's filled with more liberal Dems then we'll get a better healthcare plan. Nothing's written in stone now, and no one can guarantee anything.

    [ Parent ]

    Which. . . (4.50 / 2) (#184)
    by LarryInNYC on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 09:53:51 PM EST
    That was accomplished by Clinton forming a coalition with right-wing Dems and the Republicans.

    is exactly the electoral approach that Obama is pursuing, is it not?

    [ Parent ]

    Which.... (none / 0) (#237)
    by auntmo on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 09:13:05 AM EST
    Indeed  it is, Larry.   EXACTLY  Obama's  electoral  approach.  I  think BTD's  right: Obama, elected,  will  cave,  trying  to show himself  as  a  "bipartisan uniter."  

    Only  Clinton  is building  the  FDR  traditional   coalition   to produce   a  strong  mandate.  

    [ Parent ]

    Will youth vote down ticket? (none / 0) (#63)
    by Cream City on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 08:17:37 PM EST
    The 2000 election showed that a lot of new, young voters didn't know much beyond the general election -- and voted for president but not in other races.

    [ Parent ]
    I hadn't heard that (none / 0) (#73)
    by magster on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 08:25:54 PM EST
    about young voters not voting down ticket.  Do you have a source?  I thought the problem before was that the youth vote never fulfilled its promise as much as they have for Obama in these primaries.

    [ Parent ]
    this is pipe dream stuff (none / 0) (#136)
    by english teacher on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 09:10:41 PM EST
    if you go into a general election proclaiming an incoming progressive mandate based on the youth vote, working people over forty will go to the polls in droves.  

    it may be obama's agenda to enact truly meaningful progressive legislation, but if he gets packaged as the leader of a youth movement, he is toast in the general election.

    [ Parent ]

    Interesting (none / 0) (#20)
    by Kathy on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 07:50:56 PM EST
    as usual.

    Time has an unusual take with an accompanying photo that will give most of us nightmares.

    The suggestions in Time article are not bad, but (none / 0) (#156)
    by TomLincoln on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 09:24:00 PM EST
    the last one --an Edwards endorsement-- I think may go Obama's way. CNN has a story - Edwards meeting with Clinton, Obama on endorsement - which somehow makes me think he will be endorsing Obama. I hope not, but I think it may come out that way.

    [ Parent ]
    Not bad, however... (none / 0) (#22)
    by Lora on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 07:51:30 PM EST
    I think the Repubs will run the dirtiest campaign ever (and by far the dirtiest election ever) regardless of who is the Democratic nominee.

    I maintain that the only way a repub will end the war in Iraq is with another war (Iran) to take its place.  I do think both Clinton and Obama ought to be capable of preventing an Iran debacle on top of the Iraq debacle too, but I don't foresee any quick ending to the war in Iraq with either one of them in office.

    If (none / 0) (#70)
    by IndependantThinker on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 08:24:58 PM EST
    Corporate America thinks it will do better with Obama than with McCain then Obama will be spared the attacks.  Word will be passed, palms will be greased.  We will have to wait and see.

    [ Parent ]
    But Obama is a democrat (none / 0) (#103)
    by Lora on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 08:46:49 PM EST
    Corporate America wants a Democrat over a Republican?  I don't see it.  If Obama is that well-liked by Corporate America that they would hold their fire in a presidential campaign, then what are we doing supporting him?  

    [ Parent ]
    Don't you think the turnout he generates will (none / 0) (#23)
    by halstoon on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 07:51:50 PM EST
    make his coattails longer than they may naturally be? Also, Obama is still the most liberal Senator, so I tend to think he'll work a little harder for progressive change than you may think if elected.

    For the primary, I think Obama wins out February like they both admit, then works TX really hard to prove his chops with Latinos, makes it close, then carries OH on the strength of Cleveland (blacks), Columbus (elites), and a strong organization in the other college towns like Dayton. PA goes to Hillary, but Obama makes it a draw again, making it impossible for her to overtake his lead once he takes it this month.

    General: He beats McCain all around, 270 is not a problem, and the turnout he brings does add to the Democratic Congress, making it easier for him to govern (his ruling majority theory). I think Iraq proves harder to get out of than we admit right now, and he doesn't go as far on healthcare as we would like, but he does improve our image around the globe, doing good work on weapons and disease, and has a solid two terms.

    For Hillary, she could surprise him in WI, proving the theory that bigger states just don't work for him, she keeps her Latino vote in TX, and then the SD's make it clear to Obama that he has to get out of the way.

    The GE will be ugly, but she comes away not as battered as she could have been. She'll move hard to the center, following her husband's lead, maybe staying a little left of him, but she does lose the midterms, gets tangled in GOP scandal hunt, and does lose in 4 years. Romney will be there to make good on his earned favors, and the Clintons go back to writing books and making speeches, doing the kind of good work they're really made for.

    It's a seat of the pants thing, and a lot hopeful b/c I do like Obama a lot, but it could happen, right? Now tell me how the answer is no.

    My thoughts: (5.00 / 1) (#52)
    by dk on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 08:10:47 PM EST
    It is irrelevant whether Obama personally holds progressive beliefs (he probably does).

    His victories are based on 1) the youth vote and 2) the independent vote.  Neither of these groups are economically progressive.  They may be progressive on social issues for the most part, but not on economic issues such as health care.  Youth, on the whole, do NOT want universal health care because it means they would have to pay the bills for the old and sick.

    My prediction:  Obama would get stem cell reserach, but compromise with the religious wing by agreeing to religious school vouchers and funding for faith based organizations.  No meaningful health care reform.  Compromise on tax cuts by enacting middle class tax cuts and leaving some (though not all) of the Bush tax cuts in place.

    [ Parent ]

    Any Dem President Should Be Able (5.00 / 1) (#126)
    by MO Blue on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 09:06:33 PM EST
    to expand the S-Chip program without much trouble. After that, not sure what else would be considered low hanging fruit.

    [ Parent ]
    So you think he's talking smack about the (none / 0) (#183)
    by halstoon on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 09:53:20 PM EST
    CSPAN negotiations?

    See, I think Obama will really stand up for all the things he believes, and he believes those things now with the youth vote, so why would he change later after they've given that vote?

     I know he won't get 100% of his agenda, but I do think he will get more of his than she would.

    [ Parent ]

    No (none / 0) (#27)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 07:56:08 PM EST
    His turnout is not of committed Democrats.

    Indeed, that is the theory of Obama's appeal - Obamacans and Indies.

    You can;t have it both ways Obama supporters.

    [ Parent ]