21 May 2008
If you've been paying attention, you'd note that there's a non-negligible (though still small) possibility that we could have a filibuster-proof Democratic supermajority in the US Senate starting in January 2009.
That should make you very, very scared.
Posted by Evan @ 05/21/08 09:40 PM | Comments (2)
15 May 2008
Just a thought: if Democrats like Biden and Pelosi had simply ignored Bush's comments to the Knesset, instead of exploding in response, would anyone have noticed Bush's comments?
I don't know if Bush's comments in Israel were about Obama, but even assuming they were*, haven't they just made Obama's apparent wish-washiness on Israel front page news? The Obama campaign is already worried about its relationship with American Jewish voters because of previous Obama comments.
*It's easy to assume they were about Obama, but it's also pretty common for Bush to go to the "Others say..." line as a way of countering counter-arguments. Since he was apparently arguing against this position, it's perhaps not so clear that they were about Obama. Plus, there's a pretty strong tradition that foreign policy disagreements end at the water's edge. Still, ol' Biden and Pelosi have managed to ensure that it will filter down to voters as Obama's weakness to voters. Doesn't sound like good politics to me.
Posted by Evan @ 05/15/08 03:00 PM | Comments (0)
14 May 2008
If you would've told me two years ago that the supposedly de facto nominee of the Republican or Democratic party would get blown out in a primary of large turnout by over 40%, I would've laughed and said that was impossible. "Don't be silly."
If you'd then told me that the media was collectively yawning, I'd have thought you delusional.
Seriously though, it is crazy to me that 75% of the primary voters in a traditionally heavy Democratic state could reject the de facto nominee of the party.
Posted by Evan @ 05/14/08 08:51 AM | Comments (0)
06 May 2008
Drop out? I'd be shocked
As we wait to find out whether Hillary did in fact pull out Indiana, I'm seeing some speculation that Hillary might drop out.*
If so, that'd be utterly inexplicable. Why stay in this long only to drop out before you're going to win West Virginia by 30% in 7 days and crystallize your argument that Obama can't connect with white working class voters? Follow that up with a win in KY and a close loss in Oregon (I assume, haven't checked the demographics), and Hillary can reasonably continue to claim momentum.
Nothing has changed in the race for nomination. Everything has happened exactly how it was foreseen to happen back in early to mid February. Clinton and Obama are tied, in every sense of the word. But Hillary has momentum now. Or seems to have momentum because she now has demographically-friendly primaries, not caucuses. In truth, there was never really ever a time in which Hillary or Obama had any sort of significant bandwagon effect/momentum. Barack and Hillary have fought to a draw; except that Obama is a prohibitive favorite to win the nomination because Democrats know they can't compete in the long-term if they lose their near monopoloy on black votes. Obama and Axelrod made the correct strategic decision to invest resources in caucus states, whereas Hillary and Bill (her primary strategist all along; don't be fooled) hubristically thought the delegate count wouldn't matter. So now, we're at the end, and it's a draw. Hillary can only hope that she can suade superdelegates with the appearance of momentum. Though it's false momentum, people are easily fooled -- superdelegrates and media types included -- and they'll look at Hillary's string of mostly victories and probably be impressed. Will it be enough? Probably not, but the writing was on the wall the day after Super Tuesday (Feb 6, if i recall correctly).
Or at least, that's what Clinton's campaign has to be hoping. Because otherwise, why would she have stayed in this long?
Stranger things have happened. But if HRC drops out for BHO now, it would defy logic.
*This is probably worth a separate post -- but I don't put too much time into blogging these days (including this post, obviously) -- most of the speculation is overblown on the deleterious effects on the Democratic nominee's chances to win in November (and further it helps them in downballot races). Yes, it has increased McCain's chances, but, among other things, politicos tend to forget that McCain must re-introduce himself and he can't do that right now. That will make the convention very important for McCain, as he MUST cement himself as completely different from George W Bush to have a chance at victory. Further, ceterus paribus, McCain is a significantly better candidate than Obama or Hillary. If this weren't such a drastically Democrat-friendly political environment, McCain would win hands-down. As it is, it will be very close.
Posted by Evan @ 05/06/08 11:59 PM | Comments (0)
04 May 2008
Make this man president
Posted by Evan @ 05/04/08 02:48 AM | Comments (0)
02 May 2008
The missing element in the media coverage of Joe Andrews' defection to Obama from Hillary seems to be that clearly Andrews has realized that Obama is starting to look weak, and since it is too late to deny him the nomination, thus he must switch to Obama.
As the USNews Daily Bulletin put it:
There is an odd dichotomy emerging in the media coverage of the Democratic presidential race emerging this morning. On one hand, the media is seeing former Democratic National Committee Chairman Joe Andrew's defection to Barack Obama's camp as a sign that superdelegates are beginning to move towards his candidacy, and give the move extensive coverage. On the other, there are a number of items of good news for Hillary Clinton – polls showing her in a dead heat in Indiana and one showing her competitive in North Carolina, which was expected to be an Obama stronghold.
It is ironic that Obama's weakness may spur quite a few of the superdelegates to make their decision.
Posted by Evan @ 05/02/08 01:32 PM | Comments (0)