Agreed, but more than that, those states were a reflection of the Clinton campaign's ridiculous lack of organization. Yeah, Clinton had her ass handed to her in three extremely white states -- states which mostly held caucuses (Obama's advantage) and states in which Obama had a team on the ground and Clinton had nothing. In other words, completely silly to use those states as a measuring stick for what the larger reality is. In states where both campaigns actually competed and the candidates were well defined (Texas, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Indiana, North Carolina, etc.), you're exactly right -- the divide couldn't be more obvious. And in the general election, I've got a feeling that both candidates will actually campaign. Essentially, what you've got here are two vastly different bases. One feasts on rural, working class voters in small counties that make up the vast majority of states and this country, while the other thrives in big, urban cities and college towns. Gore and Kerry each lost using the latter strategy, so the Democrats have decided the candidate for change and to "expand the map" is... the one using the exact same playbook and the same base.
So now Clinton avoiding the 30+ states that did not play to her strengths is used as a plus for her? The 11 post-Super Tuesday February states were as diverse as can be - small states, big states, west coast, east coast, northern, heartland, caucus, primary, etc. And he won every won of them by 20+ points. I guess Obama shouldn't have campaigned in the states he wasn't favored, and that way he could just chalk it up to "lack of organization". The reason she lost places like Washington, Virginia, Wisconsin, Kansas, etc wasn't that she didn't compete. She didn't compete because she was going to lose. Except, of course, for the state that they both spent a ton of time in: Iowa. Beyond that, she only competed in states she was favored in, and not surprisingly won those while avoiding the 30+ states she couldn't win. For starters, Gore won the popular vote - which seems to be the favored metric of the Clinton camp these days. Second, the playbook is nothing similar. The Obama campaign is Dean's strategy on steroids - to expand the map to compete in 50 states instead of writing off states as Dems always have - and as Clinton did in the primary and admitted she couldn't win in the general. It's to force McCain to defend his own turf instead of always competing in about 3 or 4 states. Beyond that, neither the Kerry nor Gore campaigns brought in a fraction of the new, first-time voters that the Obama campaign already has. Suggesting he's targetting the same people as them is ludicrous. Last week, he launched a general election voter drive with the intent to draw in literally millions of new voters. His goal, whether he succeeds or not, is to organize nationally and create a whole new group of voters instead of just fighting over the same voters over and over. And in the primary, his strategy completely destroyed Clinton's "rely on the white working class" / "rely on the big states" vote. Obama's strategy is nothing anywhere close to the Kerry/Gore stategies. It neither relies on the same playbook nor the same base. Instead of making OH/PA/FL the playground as in 2004 and 2000 and as Clinton is arguing, he's simply trying to change the entire game.
Don't forget New Hampshire. I think one of the big flaws in the Clinton strategy was that it was a strategy better geared towards the winner take all system of the Republicans than the proportional system of the Democrats. If she had won all of the delegates of the major states the race would've been over by Texas for her.
I agree - her strategy really was designed around the "inevitability" thing. Build such a commanding lead early and then crush everyone on Super Tuesday. I'm curious if the party will reconsider the proportional allocation to avoid a scenario like this year's drawn out primary in the future. I hope they don't - winner-take-all really favors the "known" candidate when there's an early period like Super Tuesday where campaigns don't have the opportunity to really campaign everywhere. It also lets, for example, a McCain win the nomination despite having never having won more than 40% of the vote anywhere through much of the active part of the campaign. It seems silly that if you win Florida with 36% of the vote and someone else gets 31%, you get all the delegates. One of many reasons I don't like the electoral college at all. I'd love to see the following setup in the future: January: Iowa, Nevada, New Hampshire, and South Carolina all on one day - very diverse, all very small states letting people collect momentum and get known, but not a big deal in delegates. February: 10-12 states with geographical, population, and size diversity, again all on one day March: Repeat April: Repeat May: Repeat Every election, rotate the Feb-May states. I would mix in Iowa, Nevada, etc into those other four groups, but I think you'd face a lot of resistance. Plus, those four provide a great mix of states. The nice thing about this system is that no candidate gets overwhelmed early, and no one will get pushed out due to a bad draw of a series of states that don't favor them.
Oh, there will be LOTS of Hillary voters who agree with McCain in November, you can take that to the bank. Hillary voters value experience, pragmatism, and toughness. They ain't findin' that in a no-experience, latte liberal like Snobama.
I think a lot of Hillary supporters don't like flip floppers, and since McCain has flip-flopped so many times on taxes, Christian right, torture, and numerous other issues, I don't see them heading towards McCain.
http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2008/Obama/Maps/May11.html Map doesn't look good for intellectual snobs, latte sippers, anti-war love-in go'ers, or messianic kool-aid drinkers...
Here is a pretty detailed analysis of some of the turnout effects from these new Dem voters: http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2008/05/black-youth-and-latino-turnout-and.html It's not really about Obama vs. Clinton, but Obama vs. McCain. Biggest note is probably that the youth vote is up by nearly 50% this election cycle compared to 2004. On a separate note, that site (fivethirtyeight.com) is a great resource. His voting model based simply on demographics and previous results outdid all the polls in NC/IN. That suggests that all the campaigning had very little effect - ultimately, each candidate had a demographic base and that determined the winners and the margins.
The map has 198 EVs in the Strong and Weak Repub Column. It has 207 EVs in the Strong and Weak Dem column. What's astounding about the map is that Obama is within 5 points of McCain in TX, MT, and AK... and less than 5 in SC and NE. Repubs are going to have to spend money they don't have in those states that are usually safe. NM, FL, and OH are within 1 point... that McCain is not further ahead at this point spells trouble. What's also interesting is that McCain is doing worse than Bush did in the 2004 election in every state except TN, NM, NH, MA, KY, and AR. In AK, IL, PA, OK, HI, TX, WY, VT, MT, NJ, MN, and SC he trails the 2004 Bush mark by 10 points or more. In UT (19), ND (19), NE (22), and ID (17), he trails by 17 or more. Obama is ahead or within single digits of Kerry in all but AR (Hillary factor-11), MA (Kerry factor-11), KY (11), and TN (12). And Obama has yet to really address the general election. Not a bad starting point. Besides, I thought you'd provide a map with the EV breakdown between McCain and Hillary.
It's not a plus for her; she doesn't deserve to win them and it's why she lost this race. But in terms of predictive value for the general election, I don't think those are representative. If hypothetically a state like Kansas were to vote this week (using a primary and not a caucus) and both campaigns spent significant time there, I'd bet an enormous amount of money that Clinton would win, probably in double digits. If you don't see that the perceptions of both Obama and Clinton have changed significantly since December, I'm not sure what else to say. In some ways, the roles have even completely flipped, with Clinton dominating the Republican vote of late. Campaigns in 2007 are all but irrelevant in terms of actual strategy. Sure, they're important for fundraising purposes -- but the issues that defined this race (Bill's Jesse Jackson comments in SC, Rev. Wright, gas tax, NAFTA, etc.) came to the forefront well after Iowa and completely changed the dynamics of both Obama and Clinton's supporters, on a broader basis. Yeah, Obama's not writing off states at all -- except for West Virginia and Kentucky, which he already has in the past week. Obama is using the same strategy Clinton is -- only difference is that he fares worse in FL, OH and PA, so he's switching the battleground states to places like Colorado and Virginia. And I guess this is a point where we'll have to agree to disagree, but I haven't seen much evidence that Obama's "new" voters outweigh the crossover appeal Clinton has with rural voters. Whether they're new to voting or simply new to the Democratic party, the result is the same. Finally, "completely destroyed" is an absurd term to use. This was a close race by most metrics. The reason it's become a blowout is the absurd and ridiculous delegate distribution rules. Take a look at where this primary race would be if the same "winner take all" method was used that will be used in the general election. Obama had a more direct plan for this particular fight, and it showed. Clearly, Clinton believed it to be an inevitability, and focused more on general election strategies. It backfired, and props to Obama for being more prepared. He earned it, and I'm not trying to say otherwise. But in the general election, it's a winner take all system. In the general election, there are no caucuses. In the general election, both campaigns will be prepared and fight in all states that could be even somewhat competitive. In the general election, the African American proportion of the vote is significantly smaller and less important. No one's trying to take away the legitimacy of his win. He earned it. The questions center around how much long-term predictive value some of these trends have. I'm skeptical, though I think he will win regardless.
To Obama supporters, he is the best thing ever happened to mankind. I sure hope it is true because this country can't offer to have too many lousy presidents in a row.
and i doubt the liberal complete health care pushing hillary will have anymore crossover appeal vs. the republicans than obama. that's a lost cause in this election i believe, you aren't running jimmy carter/bill clinton, white southerner. you're running a woman or a black guy. the key is independents
Obama didn't write off OH or PA - he competed in both of those. He spent weeks in each. That's the difference between the two - he competed in states he knew he was going to lose. She avoided them entirely. As for WV/KY - he's not spending time there because he's already won the nomination. I believe he's in Michigan today and Florida later this week or next week. As for the rural vs. new voters thing, the problem is that Clinton appeals over Obama to rural voters. Her appealing over McCain to rural voters is a whole different thing - and far, far less likely. New voters that Obama brings to the process are pretty much committed to him. The election was over in terms of pledged delegates in late February after Wisconsin. Because of Clinton's choice to not compete in those 11 states, it became impossible for her to win at that point. So from that perspective, despite about 12-15 states remaining, including big states like NC, PA, TX, and OH remaining, there was no realistic way for her to win the delegate count - to me, that's a blowout. As for the "ridiculous delegate distribution rules", since when is it ridiculous for someone who gets 60% of the vote to get 60% of the representation? What is ridiculous is the electoral college, where winning 50.5-49.5 gives you all the delegates. Which better represents the people's will? And, in the general election, both candidates are well known on election day. That's the main reason he lost many Super Tuesday states - a lack of exposure. For example, a SurveyUSA poll last week showed that if the primary were today, he wins California today over Hillary by 10 points.
Just to clarify - I'm not suggesting Obama's election strategy will work better than Gore/Kerry's (though I think it will) - just that it's a very different concept. Their focus was to compete in a handful of states and cede the rest to the GOP, for the most part. His, partly due to his fundraising, grassroots strength, and GOTV operations, is to push the issue all over the country and force McCain to defend places like Texas. Instead of relying on Dems and then just trying to convert enough independents as Gore/Kerry did, he's also going the route of just finding a bunch of new voters that fit his demographic strengths and that just have to be registered rather than convinced.
Hardly. Regarding WV... Just because he's not living in WV doesn't mean he's given up on it. He may not win today, but he is prepping the ground to compete in every state come this fall.
