Comments on: Indiana & North Carolina

By: kitstolz

kitstolz — Wed, 07 May 2008 14:29:48 +0000

Neither Obama nor Clinton is competitive? Daniel, it’s time to take off the blinders. You’re willfully ignoring two major developments, one that took place over the last week, and one that has been building over the past two years.

This past week Obama had the nerve to take a stand against a popular-but-stupid idea, the gas tax “holiday,” proving his point about telling the truth against two would-be Panderers-in-Chief. Voters who believe in character won’t forget that.

Second, this is a Democratic year likely to swamp the GOP. Newt lays out the argument succinctly in a recent column:

“The Republican brand has been so badly damaged that if Republicans try to run an anti-Obama, anti- Reverend Wright, or (if Senator Clinton wins), anti-Clinton campaign, they are simply going to fail.

This model has already been tested with disastrous results.

In 2006, there were six incumbent Republican Senators who had plenty of money, the advantage of incumbency, and traditionally successful consultants.

But the voters in all six states had adopted a simple position: â€œNot you.â€ No matter what the G.O.P. Senators attacked their opponents with, the voters shrugged off the attacks and returned to, â€œNot you.â€

The danger for House and Senate Republicans in 2008 is that the voters will say, â€œNot the Republicans.â€”

By: Daniel Larison

Daniel Larison — Wed, 07 May 2008 05:30:56 +0000

Maybe. The more I look at both of them, the less clear it is that either of them is really competitive. However, Clinton doesn’t get blown out in Kentucky and West Virginia, among other places, and he does. Maybe that doesn’t matter, but I think she may be relatively more competitive.

By: LMaggitti

LMaggitti — Wed, 07 May 2008 05:07:05 +0000

But do you really think that Hillary would have had a better chance in the general? Really? It just seems to me that she has electoral weaknesses as serious as Obama’s without his compensating electoral advantages.

By: Daniel Larison

Daniel Larison — Wed, 07 May 2008 04:32:08 +0000

It’s no more nor less of a disaster than it was three months ago after he had won Wisconsin. I assumed that they had gone over a cliff back then, and I still think that’s true. It probably is better that the nomination contest ends now rather than later, but that doesn’t mean it isn’t still a big problem.

By: LMaggitti

LMaggitti — Wed, 07 May 2008 04:24:11 +0000

Off a cliff? I know you have expressed some skepticism about Obama’s electability, but you’ve acknowledged, correctly, that Hillary has her electability problems as well. Factor in the advantage of ending this now rather than 3 months from now … well, even with your doubts, I think that this result is hardly bad news, let alone a disaster, for the Dems.

By: Grumpy Old Man

Grumpy Old Man — Wed, 07 May 2008 04:13:13 +0000

They might just find enough absentee ballots in the back of a closet for BHO to eke out a victory.

Imagine that.

By: M.Z. Forrest

M.Z. Forrest — Wed, 07 May 2008 02:29:13 +0000

Boy did I call that one:
http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/05/the-limbaugh-ef.html

By: Grumpy Old Man

Grumpy Old Man — Wed, 07 May 2008 01:19:49 +0000

HIllary will win ugly in Indiana (68% of votes in and she’s up by 6%), and Obama will blow out NC, thus racking up more delegates and popular votes.

By beating the spread, Obama wins the night. And he was more honest about the gas tax holiday than Hillary or McCain.

She may not quit yet, but she’s toast–supposedly lent her campagin more money.

By: M.Z. Forrest

M.Z. Forrest — Wed, 07 May 2008 01:14:54 +0000

I wouldn’t be surprised if tomorrow the argument starts implictly being made that Republican efforts to sabotage the Indiana primary are the only reason for Hillary’s win. There probably isn’t enough truth there to make the claim officially, but there is enough there that it provides cover for the super delegates who want this thing over.