9 Responses to “WV/KY”

1. conradg, on May 9th, 2008 at 2:45 am Said:

   “Probably should” throw Obama overboard? In favor of whom, exactly? You honestly think Clinton is a better candidate for the fall? Please, get real.

2. M.Z. Forrest, on May 9th, 2008 at 7:36 am Said:

   I fail to see electorally how losing Kentucky and West Virginia would be a big hole. They are both States that McCain needs to carry and that Bush did. As to the nomination, any benefit of the doubt will go to Obama at this point due to the Republican crossovers. for Hillary over the last half dozen states.

3. vanya, on May 9th, 2008 at 9:15 am Said:

   What conradg said. Obama has serious flaws, but he’s still stronger than Clinton. The Democrats can afford to alienate rural white working class voters a lot more easily than they can afford to alienate the national black vote. Or are you a believer in the “draft Al Gore” movement?

4. Daniel Larison, on May 9th, 2008 at 9:56 am Said:

   I don’t think Clinton is a better candidate in any substantive way, and I am not saying that Clinton would win, but it seems that a lot of people in the old border states are more open to her candidacy. It is not as dramatic as in these other states, but Obama runs worse in Missouri than she does. MO is one of the standard “bellwether states” that are supposed to track very closely with the national result. She simply does run better in MO, KY and WV, according to the information we have. Notably, McCain wins among Missouri independents by a slightly larger margin against Obama than he does against Clinton. He’s getting less than 70% of the Democratic vote there, and isn’t adding enough Republicans to make up for what he loses. Even if undecided voters break heavily for Obama in MO, right now he wouldn’t be able to catch McCain.

   As for KY and WV in particular, I had noted that no Democrat had won since FDR without at least one of them, and it turns out that every Democratic winner since 1916 (save Kennedy) has won both. Obama’s campaign had better hope the talk about the map being scrambled or expanded is right, because according to traditional patterns it is unlikely that a candidate who cannot carry these states will be successful nationwide. To put it another way, in theory the Democrats can win the Electoral College without winning these states, but it is not a coincidence that the Democratic candidates that could not win in the College also did not carry these states, because their lack of competitiveness here betrays some weakness that sinks their campaign elsewhere.

   While we’re at it, another swing state that Obama needs to win is Colorado. Some people are pinning a lot of hope on Colorado swinging to the Dems this year, but Colorado hasn’t gone to a Democratic presidential candidate since 1992 in a three-way split race and the last time before that was, I believe,1948. That doesn’t mean it can’t or won’t happen, but at this point it means that Democrats are counting on pretty remarkable shifts in voting patterns to secure their win. I’m telling you what the data and patterns seem to indicate–you can leave it and reject it if you want, but don’t be surprised if these states come back to bite Obama.

5. Daniel Larison, on May 9th, 2008 at 10:02 am Said:

   I forgot to mention that Obama’s unfavs in Missouri are 53%, exactly the same as Clinton’s. In terms of a ceiling of support in Missouri, they seem to be about even, but she is still slightly closer in current polling. 53% unfav (33% very unfav) is really bad. McCain’s unfav is 45%, which should give him an edge going forward.

6. conradg, on May 9th, 2008 at 4:07 pm Said:

   Daniel,

   You’re forgetting that Clinton has extraordinary weaknesses of her own, many of which have not been exposed in this primary campaign because it’s not Obama’s strategy to do so. Likewise, the Republican cheerleader/slimemachine of Rove, Limbaugh, etc, has been working against Obama, and in favor of Clinton for purely tactical reasons: the obviously prefer Clinton as the candidate, because they know that if they run against her in the fall, they can unleash a barrage of hate that will find a very, very receptive audience. She has NOT been tested thus far in the face of that. In fact, she personally never has in any race she’s run. Right now she’s running virtualy the same as Obama against McCain in Missouri, after Obama has endured three months of negative campaigning by Clinton. Imagine how poorly she’d do after six months of negative campaining by Republicans. Obama, on the other hand, isn’t likely to face anything much worse than he’s already faced from Clinton. He doesn’t have dark skeletons in his closet. Wright is about all there is, and over time it’s going to seem less meaningful, not more so. I could go on.

   The basic problem with your rhetorical argument against Obama as the Democratic nominee is that you continually pit Clinton’s positives against Obama’s negatives. I think if you stand them together, and evaluate them poitive to positive, negative to negative, Obama stands out as the better candidate, not just for the fall election, but for the Democrats as a party. many Democrats remember how bad her husband was for the party - they lost control of both housee of congress for the first time in 40 years because of them, especially because of Hillary’s failure in the health care debate. Obama clearly represents a generational shift in Democratic politics, and face it, old people aren’t getting any younger. I’m not saying Obama doesn’t have weakenesses to overcome, I’m merely saying that’s its a fairly nutty thing to suggest that Democrats “probably should” throw Obama overboard. Not unless you are cynically suggesting such a thing in the hope that it would benefit Republicans. Democrats can see their own self-interests fairly wel, and the person the Democrats would benefit by throwing overboard, by a country mile, is Hillary Clinton.

   That said, Obama has some work to do. Yet overcoming perceptual problems and coming from behind is something he does very well. That’s how he beat Clinton. Underestimating his strength is a huge mistake that I hope other conservative make as well. Because whether you want to face up to it or not, whatever his weakenesses are, his strengths are amazing. It’s been obvious for a very long time that some people in this country have strong resistance to voting for a black man. Overcoming that will be no easy matter. So yes, it does require a different map. But there’s also strong resistance to voting for a woman, especially this particular woman. That said, the Democrats are in the process of rebranding, and they need a new image that corresponds to the generations coming into power, not those leaving power. WIth Obama, even if the lose they win, and grow in strength over time, and in congress, etc. WIth Clinton, even if they win, they probably lose, and will probably lose heavily in midterms, and maybe lose their majorities in congress, because as Presdent I think Hillary will be a disaster, and alienate the country in a manner that might make some nostalgic for Bush. Hard to believe, but I think she can pull it off.

7. Daniel Larison, on May 9th, 2008 at 4:16 pm Said:

   Clinton’s weaknesses are great and very real, no doubt, and if McCain has a real chance against Obama he probably has the same chance against her. Still, it seems clear that she runs better in many places where they need to run well.

   I don’t want a scenario that benefits Republicans. Hilariously, despite being registered in a different party in a different state, I received something from the Illinois GOP praising my devotion to the party (because I had donated a fair amount to Ron Paul). If only they knew how opposed to them I am!

   In case I haven’t made it clear in my many writings against McCain, I do not want to see that man as President. Their nominating Obama concerns me because I think he facilitates McCain’s rise to power. I would like to be wrong, but things are not looking good on this front.

   In the event of some deadlock or the need for an alternative nominee who isn’t Clinton, why not Edwards? I have heard endless chatter about Gore, which never made sense to me, but Edwards might not be a bad, last-ditch option.

   As for Clinton, she might be a disaster who makes us yearn for the Bush years, much as Bush was such a disaster that he made long-time Clinton-haters, myself included, look back with fondness on the Clinton era. Then again, looking at it another way, she might be so divisive and obnoxious that government grinds to a halt and can’t get into any new mischief. That might not be so bad.

8. conradg, on May 9th, 2008 at 6:22 pm Said:

   Daniel,

   Yes, I understand that you want virtually anyone but McCain. Even more so, I understand that your basic disposition is a pessimistic one, and that isn’t going to change anytime soon. I just think that inclines you to take Obama’s negatives more seriously than his positives, and likewise, to overestimate McCain’s strengths and underestimate his weaknesses.

   What I think you have to understand is that Obama is not going to sit around passively accepting the current poll numbers and feel hopeless about it. Dude, remember the guy’s basic message is about hope? I know you’re not inclined that way, but he certainly is, and he’s going to work incredibly hard at making it happen. He happens to have some extraordinary political skills, and the gap between him and McCain at this point is not great at all. GIve him a chance to run on an open playing field against McCain without Hillary biting big chunks out of his ass, and I think he can do quite well. I know you like to emphasize the downside here, and that has its benefits to some degree, but not if it means giving up and turning in desperation to someone like Edwards, who couldn’t even get anywhere need the votes that either Clinton or Obama has.He’s got even bigger weakenesses too.

   In other words, this isn’t the time to panic. No realist ever presumed this would be easy for any Democrat. But neither should we presume that it’s really all that hard either. Obama still has huge advantages, and one of them is time. He’s probably been through the worst of it already, and that’s a good thing, because he was bound to get hit sooner or later. Better sooner than later. Don’t be at all surprised by how quickly these things can swing his way. Also, this guy is very smart, much smarter than Hillary, Gore, Kerry, or Dukakis. He’s got an awesome campaign staff. and the largest grass roots organization in history. He’s already stimulated the largest primary vote count in history, dwarfing the republicans.

   Know hope. (Although for you that’s probably a turnoff, it’s still a very rationale position to take).

9. donaldj, on May 10th, 2008 at 7:58 am Said:

   Anyone who’s looked at the Obama-Clinton map and read Jim Webb’s book, especially the parts about the Scot-Irish diaspora, might very easily conclude as an empirical matter, that a majority of those Scots-Irish (a/k/a rednecks) simply won’t vote for Obama (and, so as not to weasel, I do so conclude). Clinton has taken, or will take, Appalachia and the states at the other end of the “hillbilly highway” — TN, AR, OK, IN, OH, etc. I suspect this explains some of her southwestern strength as well, though of course it’s complicated there by the hispanic presence. (I suspect the so-called “age gap” is especially stark in the Scots/Irish bloc, too.) Whether putting Webb on the ticket would fetch ‘em is an open question — but it couldn’t hurt.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.