Thoughts on the Dem race
TPM Cafe contributor FlyOnTheWall, whose blogging is consistently excellent, has some very insightful, forward-looking thoughts on the Democratic race. Three of the best:
4) It may be this week; it may be next; it may not be until March. But sooner or later, the Clinton campaign is going to have to face the reality that the Michigan and Florida delegations aren't going to be seated, and that they can't win the convention without them. When it does, we'll see a dramatic shift in strategy. The Clintons will join the DNC in pressing for caucuses (the formal name for any party-run election, no matter its mechanics). And when they do, Obama's not going to be able to stop them. If Obama can't pull off an upset in OH, TX or PA, it's likely that the campaign will come down to these final two contests. And ironic - the political advantage state leaders failed to achieve by moving their contests forward may well be theirs if they agree to reschedule them all the way at the end of the calendar. ...
6) Will becoming the frontrunner help or hurt Obama? The Potomac Primaries offer an interesting test case. If he can prevail better than 60-40, it's probably a sign that Hillary's base is starting to get discouraged and stay home. But if his margin is smaller than the (incredibly flawed) polls presently predict, we may see Hillary trying to sell the comeback narrative again. Taking the overall lead among delegates is a similarly fraught achievement - its major benefits accrue only if Obama can retain that lead. Otherwise, the media may embrace a narrative of shifting momentum. ...
8) After Wisconsin, we hit a long, empty stretch. For the first time, Obama will feel the heat of national media scrutiny that he imagines he's already endured. How well will he hold up? Can he maintain his momentum?
I've been pondering points #6 and #8 (which are closely related), and had been planning to blog about them myself, but FlyOnTheWall expresses them better than I would have. And I hadn't even thought of point #4, but it's brilliant.
By the way, in addition to recommending FlyOnTheWall, I also recommend the blog 2008 Democratic Convention Watch for all your delegate-counting needs. Both sites will be added to my blogroll shortly.
Trying to inject some social science into the mix over at rcp.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/horseraceblog/2008/02/the_state_of_the_democratic_ra.html
Posted by: CD | Feb 12, 2008 6:23:08 PM
Trying to inject some social science into the mix over at rcp.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/horseraceblog/2008/02/the_state_of_the_democratic_ra.html
Posted by: CD | Feb 12, 2008 6:23:14 PM
Trying to inject some social science into the mix over at rcp.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/horseraceblog/2008/02/the_state_of_the_democratic_ra.html
Posted by: CD | Feb 12, 2008 6:23:41 PM
Don't know how I posted that three times. Sorry.
Posted by: CD | Feb 12, 2008 6:25:08 PM
I'd have to hear more argument to believe 4. In a campaign as close as this, I predict that the DNC will play their moves as conservatively as possible, because sudden moves like allowing a re-caucus will alienate voters. The appearance of a re-caucus (if Clinton wins) will be that the DNC alone enabled a Clinton vicory. I predict the DNC will stick with the default situation (in this case, the fact that Michigan and Florida have already been stripped of their delegates) as much as possible in the upcoming months. They will try to minimize their overall presence, even if this means temporarily standing up and saying no to Hillary. This will mean no re-caucus in Michigan or Florida.
Posted by: Condor | Feb 12, 2008 6:45:20 PM
Crap. I just realized I misunderstood 4. Read this instead of my last post:
In a campaign as close as this, I predict that the DNC will play their moves as conservatively as possible, because sudden moves like allowing a caucuses will alienate voters. I predict the DNC will stick with the status quo as much as possible in the upcoming months. They will try to minimize their overall presence, even if this means temporarily standing up and saying no to Hillary's call for caucuses.
Posted by: Condor | Feb 12, 2008 6:50:45 PM
Double crap. My first post stands. Ignore the second one, or, better yet, read both!
Posted by: Condor | Feb 12, 2008 6:53:17 PM
NBC calls VA for Obama by a "substantial margin"
Posted by: dcl | Feb 12, 2008 7:01:47 PM
The exit poll suggest this might be a serious spanking for Hillary...
Posted by: dcl | Feb 12, 2008 7:03:04 PM
and dude, where's my hat tip?
Posted by: dcl | Feb 12, 2008 7:25:35 PM
Appropos of dcl's comment and our earlier discussion --
I've already thought of #4 and #8, and have been discussing them privately with others, including (but not limited to) Derek.
I get a hat tip, right? :)
Posted by: Brian Foster | Feb 12, 2008 7:48:34 PM
Oh Brian, don't be so obnoxious. :P
Posted by: | Feb 12, 2008 7:57:01 PM
Oh, and sorry, dcl, but I actually discovered that site several hours before you mentioned it to me, so notwithstanding the timestamp on the post, you don't get a hat tip. :)
Posted by: | Feb 12, 2008 7:58:45 PM
Bastard.
Posted by: dcl | Feb 12, 2008 8:32:46 PM
Does anybody care to divide the remaining states and associated delegate counts (as well as proportional vs. winner-take-all) by the type of Democrats likely to dominate: blue-collar, working-class Dems vs. latte-sipping, Volvo-driving liberal yuppies; heavy black vs. heavy Latino; and activist-dominated caucuses vs. high-turnout primary?
Posted by: Andrew | Feb 12, 2008 10:18:35 PM
I'll do the first part, at least. There is no such thing as a winner-take-all Democratic state. All Dem primaries and caucuses are proportional.
Posted by: Brendan Loy | Feb 12, 2008 10:28:54 PM