skip to main |
skip to sidebar
Combing through the annals of history.
With the pick of Sarah Palin as John McCain's running mate, much has been made of the historical nature of the event. Not only is she the first woman to be nominated to the Republican ticket, but only the second woman ever nominated to a major party ticket. She's also the first Alaskan to be nominated to a major party ticket. That got us here at the Worb thinking - what other states have yet to field a presidential or vice presidential nominee?
Since the 1788, fifteen of the fifty states have yet to be represented by a major party candidate. And for those of you with insatiable curiosity, here they are:- Colorado
- Florida
- Hawaii
- Idaho
- Mississppi
- Montana
- New Mexico
- Nevada
- North Dakota
- Oklahoma
- Rhode Island
- Utah
- Washington
- Wisconsin
- Wyoming
Some of those should come as no surprise; for instance, some the Mountain West states have been members of the union for only about a hundred years, limiting their chances. But some states (like Mississippi and Florida) caught me off guard. We've never had a Floridian on either party's ticket in 232 years? Really? Nor anyone from Vermont or Rhode Island?
One last note: while Barack Obama was born in Hawaii (contrary to some rumors), he is currently representing Illinois, so he is counted as being from Illinois.
Find any states or candidates I forgot? Leave a comment and set me straight!
Yet another race for Hillary Clinton to lose.
Now that the presidential nomination has been all but sewn up by Barack Obama (he only needs 48 more delegates to win, which he should have by next Tuesday), it's time to turn our attention toward the vice presidential race. Like the Republican spot, the names most commonly heard for the Democratic spot are those of former presidential candidates, and like the Republican spot, you can bet that most of them aren't realistic. Let's consider.
Hillary Clinton. We've heard a lot about the "dream ticket" for months now, but the possibility wasn't ever much more than remote. Clinton stands for everything Obama wants to change about Washington politics. Adding her to the ticket would help to placate the Clinton voters, certainly, but it would alienate those whom he worked to hard to win over. Add all that to the fact that she just suggested that she's staying in the race in case Obama is shot and you can count her out.
Al Gore. Wishful thinking. He's already had the job once, so there's little chance he'd take it again. Plus, he's already said that he's not interested in the White House anymore. With an Oscar and a Nobel Prize, he could have had the presidency if he'd wanted it. Let's look elsewhere.
Jim Webb. Webb is the junior Senator from Virginia who narrowly won in 2006, giving Democrats control of the Senate. The fact that he comes from a traditionally Republican state makes him an attractive option for the VP spot. At age 62, he's still relatively young (well, younger than McCain, at least), and he has experience as the Secretary of the Navy (under Reagan), which could bolster Obama's anti-terrorism image. Webb would be a strong choice, and Intrade favors him above all other candidates by at least four points. (For more information on Intrade, see my article on the Republican VP spot.)
Bill Richardson. Since Richardson's withdrawal from the the presidential race, he's appeared to be angling for the VP spot with Obama. He's talked him up in public, given his superdelegate endorsement to him over Sen. Clinton (whom he has been a personal friend of for years), and has been loudly calling for Clinton to exit the race. And as if that's not good enough, here's the kicker - he's Hispanic. Not that race should be the main motivating factor, but a charismatic Hispanic governor from the West could be exactly what this ticket needs. He brings years of experience as well as a reason for Latino voters to go Democratic. Howard Dean has been saying that the key to the presidency lies in the West this year. Richardson could be the way in. He's way behind on the Intrade market, but I wouldn't be surprised if this the guy the Democrats go with, so long as they don't mind running two minority candidates on the same ticket. (If anti-Obama racism has been bad, imagine adding anti-immigrant sentiment to that.)
Wesley Clark. Clark is a retired four-star general from the Army who ran a failed campaign for the presidency in 2004. A general on the ticket would do wonders to doing away with Obama's image as inexperienced and naive, especially with regards to the military. A few months ago, Clark led the Intrade pack, but now he hovers around $5. That could be because he endorsed Clinton last year, but it's more likely due to his low name-recognition factor. Obama's star power could easily make up for that.
The other names being tossed around are either due to wishful thinking (think John Edwards) or would only make sense with Clinton at the top of the ticket (think Evan Bayh). If you're asking me, and you clearly are, or else you wouldn't be reading the article in the first place, my top three choices (in order) are Richardson, Clark, and Webb. You can congratulate me at the convention in August when I was right.
Why Hillary is finished after last night's primaries.
For those unaware, Indiana and North Carolina each held primaries last night. Barack Obama had long been projected to win North 
Carolina, and Hillary Clinton was supposed to win Indiana. Then the recent Rev. Jeremiah Wright imbroglio started up again, and people thought Obama would do much worse than expected. Hooray for lowered expectations! Obama won North Carolina by 15 points (which is actually less than he was supposed to win it by a couple of weeks ago) and narrowly lost Indiana, effectively murdering any remaining spark of hope Clinton had of winning the race.
How can that be, you ask? Isn't Obama's lead only 150 or so delegates? Aren't there still several more contests to go? Actually, the primary season is very nearly over. (FINALLY.) There are only six more primaries to go, with a total of 217 delegates left. Obama's lead is roughly 150 delegates. Hillary would have to win something like 86 percent of the remaining delegates to get a lead in pledged delegates, and even then she has to convince about 70 percent of the superdelegates. (I'm not just pulling these numbers out of the air. You can see for yourself by using Slate's delegate calculator.) This isn't even close to realistic. Hillary has only won one blowout state, and that was her home state of Arkansas. She doesn't have a prayer anymore. In the next few days and weeks, you can expect to see superdelegates flocking to Obama in droves.
The moral of the story? Clinton can't win unless it comes out that Obama was caught having gay sex with Adolf Hitler's corpse while defecating on a lapel pin. Or something like that.
A refresher course on the Democratic primaries.
Are you confused on the situation of the Democratic primary race? How did we get to this point, anyway? Slate has put together a seven-minute video explaining how the whole race went down. It's interesting, entertaining, and a great way to catch up on the last few months. Even if you don't want to watch the entire thing, it's worth taking a look.
Why this primary season is driving me insane.
(In this article, the author will replace his traditional style of summarizing news stories without editorial bias with RAW UNBRIDLED SARCASM. Please be forewarned that the following statements will be purely opinion and not meant to be construed as fact. Thank you. --ed.)
The dominant story in the headlines today was that Barack Obama all but officially cut ties with Rev. Jeremiah Wright, his controversial pastor who has been causing problems for him on the campaign trail. (I've already documented my feelings on the Wright imbroglio previously; feel free to refresh yourself on them.) After laying the story to rest a few weeks ago, Wright has taken it upon himself to go on a speaking tour in an effort to clear his name. To his credit, he sounds much more polished and intelligent than the sound bites you hear on YouTube. And to his credit, Obama really didn't have any other political recourse than to once again publicly distance himself from Wright. That's all good and well. But why does this story have to be the top item on my Google News page? It's a story that's already been put to bed several weeks ago. It didn't affect the polls the first time around, and it won't affect the polls this time around. (Pro-Obama voters would love him even if he ate babies, anti-Obama voters would hate him even found a way to cure cancer and turn it into gold, and undecided voters will vote based on the economy.) Let it go already! It doesn't matter!
I know I sound like a broken record here, but the fact is that none of the election coverage over the past few months has really mattered. Almost without exception, each state has gone for the candidate projected to win there weeks and months earlier. The only exception has been Hillary Clinton's win in New Hampshire, which showed Obama leading on the day of the primary. Can we please skip to the end already? Clinton DOES NOT have a chance to win the nomination. She can take the race all the way to the convention, sure, but in the end, she's going to end up as close to winning the nomination as Dennis Kucinich. Taking second place isn't any different than taking twentieth. You still lose.
Don't believe me when I say she's not going to win? Take a look at Slate's Delegate Calculator, which shows how many delegates each candidate has and stands to win in each state. As I'm writing this article, Obama holds a 155 delegate lead. That may not sound like much when there are over 3100 delegates that have been awarded, but that's more delegates than there were at stake in Ohio. (Remember when Ohio was a big deal?) Obama's lead is huge, and Clinton isn't doing much to chip away at it. The major media outlets made a huge deal about her win in Pennsylvania last week, saying that she was back from the dead and that maybe Obama was the underdog now. This is lunacy. Absolutely ridiculous. She ended up with a net gain of 12 delegates from that primary. If she wanted to make a legitimate claim that she could win this race, she would have needed at least twice that to start making a dent in Obama's lead. As it stands, Clinton needs to win the remaining nine primaries by forty points each to even catch up to Obama. Forty points. That means she needs to get at least 70% of the vote in nine more contests if she wants to take the lead and start convincing superdelegates that the has the voice of the people.
Do we have any idea how utterly impossible it is to get 70% of the vote in any given state? Any??? It's only been done twice in this primary season. Obama did it in Hawaii (where he benefited from being a native son and the caucus format) and Clinton did it in Arkansas (again, with the native son). Obama couldn't do it in Illinois. Clinton couldn't do it in New York. John McCain is just barely pulling it off now, even though he's UNOPPOSED. Is this starting to make sense? HILLARY IS DEAD, PEOPLE. ACCEPT IT.
Seriously. Let's just agree to tune out all election coverage until June 4, when we wake up and see that Obama is STILL ahead after the Montana and South Dakota primaries. Clinton won't have a leg to stand on. She'll be completely finished and won't have anything else to fall back on. (Who am I kidding? Of course she'll come up with something else to justify staying in the race.) Anything else that happens between now and then can be safely ignored, unless we find out Obama is a convicted murderer, alligator rapist, or serial pope abuser. Almost every single primary (remember New Hampshire?) has gone according to the polls so far. There's really no reason to assume that it won't continue. Here, I'll even tell you who's going to win each of the remaining nine contests:
May 6: Indiana (Obama, close)
North Carolina (Obama, by a lot)
May 13: West Virginia (Clinton, by a lot)
May 20: Kentucky (Clinton, by a lot)
Oregon (Obama, close)
June 3: Montana (no polling data available, but probably Obama by a lot)
South Dakota (same thing)
There aren't any opinion polls taken for Guam and Puerto Rico, either. Even if we assume those to be virtual ties, there's no chance that Clinton will get 70% of the remaining vote. Even if she does, she still has to convince something like 80% of the remaining superdelegates to side with her. It's impossible.
Seriously. Come back and read this article on June 4 and see if I wasn't right.
The vice presidential sweepstakes begins.
Now that John McCain has the Republican presidential nomination wrapped up, speculation has begun over who his running mate will be. Not only is this a logical thing to discuss now, but it doubles as a good strategic move, since the longer the battle between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton continues, the more McCain fades into the background. Let's review some of the names that have been thrown out and their likeliness of being accepted.
Mitt Romney. Hands down, the most commonly mentioned name. Romney has some considerable pluses, not least of which is his considerable personal fortune that could be used for campaign finance. That's also a liability, however, as McCain has made a crusade out of campaign finance reform over the last few years. Romney's only other real asset is his name-recognition factor, which helps to explain why he has attracted so much attention lately. Voters, even when serious matters of policy are on the line, tend to vote for the candidate who they have heard of the most, which explains why the front-runners last summer were Rudy Giuliani and Hillary Clinton. Still, Romney's star power doesn't extend far past Idaho and Utah, two states that are already safe bets for the Republicans. Don't bank on Romney picking up the nod.
Mike Huckabee. Huckabee's appeal is similar to Romney's; people have heard of him because of his recent success in the primaries. He also has the advantage of appealing to evangelical voters, whose support McCain badly needs. He could also bring in Southern voters. Questions still arise concerning his conservative credentials, since he raised taxes while governor (legit) and didn't see through enough executions while in office (I still can't believe people actually think this). Moral of the story? Huckabee is more likely than Romney to make it on the ticket, but still far from a sure thing.
Condoleeza Rice. The Secretary of State only has one thing going for her, and that's her name recognition factor. Possibilities of breaking barriers aside (you're thinking about running a black or a woman? what about a BLACK WOMAN???), her service in the Bush administration is just too big a liability for her to be seriously considered as a vice president. Not a chance.
Colin Powell. Wishful thinking. He's publicly ended his political career, which is good, since his role in starting the war in Iraq (even if he was deceived by Bush and Rumsfeld) would effectively prevent him from ever being elected.
Dick Cheney. I've actually heard his name floated, although mostly in jest. Moving on.
Tim Pawlenty. Haven't heard of him? Pawlenty is the governor of Minnesota and looks like he'd be an excellent vice 
president. and might help to tilt his traditionally Democratic home state for the Republicans. Pawlenty has long been a McCain supporter and is a popular governor among his constituents. He's also young (just 48), which adds a nice counter-balance to McCain's age. There's a fair chance that he could get the nod.
Charlie Crist. This name might sound more familiar - he's the governor of Florida whose last-minute endorsement gave McCain the push he needed to take the state and the momentum heading into Super Tuesday. There's every reason to think that McCain might repay the favor by adding Crist to his ticket, especially since Florida is a major swing state. 27 electoral votes can make a big difference. Crist, too, is relatively young (52), though his gray hair could actually be the difference. (Pawlenty just looks younger than Crist. Like I keep saying, this election is all about image.)
Jon Huntsman, Jr. As the governor of Utah, you would Huntsman to be an ardent Romney supporter, but he's actually backed McCain from the early stages of the primary season. Like Pawlenty and Crist, he is young, charismatic, and energetic, all things McCain would love to have associated with his campaign. Unlike Pawlenty and Crist, however, he is not the governor of a swing state. A McCain-Huntsman ticket wouldn't be a big surprise, but I think it would be more likely to see him with a Cabinet position.
But even more likely to be accurate than my speculations, however, is the market on political futures - Intrade.com. Intrade allows you to buy and sell futures on politics. It's essentially like betting on who you think will end up as the nominee for either party. Mitt Romney leads the field in the vice presidential market, but Tim Pawlenty is close behind. When you factor out Romney's name recognition, Pawlenty looks like the likely candidate. Keep your eyes peeled.
Further proof that John McCain is the second coming of George W. Bush.
Criticism of John McCain has been varied, to say the least. Ultraconservative talk show hosts like Rush Limbaugh have publicly announced that McCain is not conservative enough, stating that they would even vote for Hillary Clinton over him. Critics from the left - especially his likely November opponent, Barack Obama - have denounced him for being too conservative, saying that a McCain presidency only amounts to a third Bush term. Both sides have a legitimate beef, but accusations of McCain as Bush, Jr. are starting to look more accurate. Even more than his policy, McCain's speech is starting to sound downright Bushian of late.
Consider this. McCain, whose major strength is his understanding of the military, said the following at a press conference: "[I]t's common knowledge and has been reported in the media that Al Qaeda is going back into Iran and is receiving training and are coming back into Iraq from Iran." Senator Joe Lieberman, who was standing at his side, quickly whispered into his ear, after which McCain said that he misspoke, and that Iran was not training al-Qaeda in Iraq forces. A simple mistake, right? Perhaps, except that he made the same misspeech a day earlier. The error is a small one - Iranians are 
training Iraqi extremists, not al-Qaeda forces - but one that hearkens back to the road to war in 2002. Bush was adamant that there were connections between Iraq and al-Qaeda, which ultimately proved to be false. It's far from clear that McCain is as gung-ho about war as Bush has been, but this sort of mistake from a professed military expert does raise some eyebrows.
Couple that with another recent statement, and things seem even more sketchy. When asked about the situation in Iraq now that the death toll for U.S. soldiers had risen above 4,000, McCain answered, "We're succeeding. I don't care what anybody says. I've seen the facts on the ground." That's a statement that sounds eerily like Bush. The war in Iraq, along with many other hallmarks of the Bush administration, were perpetuated due to the government's insistence on ignoring reality. That has been the most glaring criticism of George W. Bush. It's unnerving to think that the likely Republican nominee could already have the same thing going against him.
Shockingly, an actual development on the campaign trail.
While I was adamant that nothing significant would happen with respect to the election until the Pennsylvania primary on April 22, I may be forced to eat my words a mere two weeks later. Something major is afoot, and it's not what you think it is. Barack Obama's speech on race today was stirring. It was impressive, and critics hailed it as a turning 
point in his candidacy. Some people said this was the moment that put him past the presidential threshold. It was impressive. It sounded fantastic, and certainly did a lot to improve his image, which is what this campaign is centered around. But it wasn't the most significant piece of election news today. The most significant news, actually, was something that came without a lot of fanfare, which is surprising, considering its implications. Florida Democratic Party chair Karen Thurman announced today that Florida will not hold a re-vote for the Democratic primary. The results are to stand as is.
This leaves three possibilities for the Florida Democratic delegates, none of which are particularly appealing to Hillary Clinton, who won there with 50% of the vote.
Situation 1: The delegates from Florida aren't seated at the Democratic National Convention in August, and Clinton's 17-point victory counts for nothing. The Florida delegates don't matter. Ouch.
Situation 2: Barack Obama, who will control who can and cannot be seated at the delegation since he has the most delegates, allows the Florida delegates to be seated, but only if he has enough of a lead that seating extra Clinton delegates isn't a threat to him. They don't matter in this situation, either. Ouch.
Situation 3: The Florida delegates are split 50-50 in a reallocation. Neither candidate earns a net gain from Florida. The delegates still don't matter. Ouch.
No matter how you slice it, Clinton stands to lose a lot from this decision. Florida could have offered up to 186 delegates. Even if she only won by ten points (which is a somewhat modest projection), she would have gained twenty delegates on Obama. That's a lot when you consider the gap between them is just over 140. Her chances of winning the popular vote shrink up without Florida, too. A re-vote in Florida would likely have been even more in her favor, pushing her closer to the popular vote and the claim to have the voice of the people. That doesn't look likely now. Superdelegates are trickling away from her, too. She's losing, and even a major victory in Pennsylvania probably won't be enough to stop the bleeding.
So that's the real news from the campaign trail. The news outlets will rave and swoon over Obama's big speech, but you'd better believe the announcement out of Florida has the Clinton campaign sweating a lot more.
Sneaky tricks as the primary season continues to unfold.
Remember how I told you the next few weeks would be a lot of coverage about nothing? It's already underway. The insanity surrounding Eliot Spitzer aside, a "major" event has arisen on the campaign trail. Since her wins in Texas and Ohio rejuvenated her campaign, Hillary Clinton has been subtly floating the idea that Barack Obama could be her running mate in November. Crowds flew into a frenzy as she remarked, "A lot of people wish they didn't have to [choose between Clinton and Obama]. A lot of people say 'I wish I could vote for both of you.' Well, that might be possible someday."
The Obama response was predictable. He was quick to point out that he is "not running for vice president," and that the Clinton camp can't say both that he is too inexperienced to be president but suitably experienced to be vice president. And he's right, of course, but the real problem this poses for Obama is the one that lies under the surface. By suggesting that Obama could be her vice president, Clinton places herself as the front-runner. It's almost a condescending remark, as though it were something a mother might say to her well-intentioned but ultimately misguided child. She's implying that even though Obama is running in front right now, she will be the party nominee in the end, and that this is a good way to get his feet wet.
The genius of the whole thing is that the whole argument is implied. If she were to say all of this out loud, Obama could argue against it without too much difficulty. However, you can't argue against something that isn't said. Obama is trying to make the nonverbal argument into a verbal one by saying that Hillary isn't in a position to start choosing a vice president just yet since she's still behind. He's going to have to crack down a little harder. Clinton is getting into the voters' heads. There's no reason to think that she won't continue tactics like this one.
And why you can expect a whole lot more of it until the Pennsylvania primary.
Now that the much-ballyhooed Texas and Ohio primaries have officially settled nothing other than the fact that the Democratic primary race will continue, the American public gets to wait seven more weeks until another major primary. True, there is a caucus in Wyoming tomorrow and a primary in Mississippi on Tuesday (both of which should be easy Obama victories), but the Pennsylvania primary on April 22 has 158 delegates at stake, nearly three times the amount of Wyoming and Mississippi combined. So we should look forward to a month and a half of silence, right?
Wrong. The candidates want to keep themselves fresh in your mind (predictably), so they're going to do all they can to keep themselves in media coverage, and especially to make sure that their opponent looks as bad as possible. So we should look forward to engaging and intellectual debates about the various issues facing our country, right?
Wrong again. With a few exceptions, party primaries aren't really about issues. (The 2006 Senatorial primary in Connecticut between Joe Lieberman and Ned Lamont, which was widely seen as a referendum on the Iraq War for the Democratic party, is a good example of this.) Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton have differences when it comes to the issues, but for all intents and purposes, they're very minor issues. Both of them agree that we need a universal health care program. Both of them believe we should get our troops out of Iraq. Both of them believe we need to turn around the economy. Their only major policy difference is Obama's claim that he'll meet with leaders of countries such as Cuba, Iran, and North Korea without setting preconditions, but the fact that this hasn't received much attention in the media goes to show you that these elections aren't about issues.
I've argued before that this election is about image. If you want proof of that, you need look no further than the slogans for each candidate. Obama's is "change we can believe in," and Clinton's is "solutions for America." Could we have two less substantive themes? Obama has been famously vague about what sort of change he will enact as president, earning criticism from the Clinton camp, but she has been equally vague on what "solutions" she would provide. I'm not saying this is a bad thing, though. We already know what issues and policies the Democratic candidate will pursue in office, whichever of them is ultimately nominated. What we're voting for is an image. Do we want the candidate who has an image of hope and staying above the fray, or do we want the candidate promising experience and an ability to fight?
Once you accept the idea that the election has nothing to do with issues, the fact that stories such as Obama's traditional Somalian outfit or Clinton's dallying to release tax information are dominating news cycles comes as no surprise. They aren't trying to show that the other is weaker on the issues. They're working to destroy image, because ultimately, that's what voters are deciding this primary season. An interesting side note: for all the noise generated about McCain being a phony conservative, can you think of anyone who looks more like a Republican than him? He looked and acted the most like a conservative of any of the candidates, with the possible exception of Ron Paul. He's old, and he's cranky. Mitt Romney was his strongest competitor, but the image he gives off seems like he would have been more at home in the Democratic party. (Is it any surprise that he was elected as the governor of Massachusetts?)
So prepare for a lot of stories about nothing over the next seven weeks. They may sound important and critical to the election, but you'll find that even if it sounds like there are issues on the surface, it boils down to image, and that's what counts in the end.
Making sense of last night's primaries.
Hillary Clinton put a stop to the Obama freight train with victories in Texas, Ohio, and Rhode Island last night. Her campaign had made a big point of Texas and Ohio especially - Bill Clinton even suggested that if his wife did not win those two states, she would not be able to secure the nomination - and with last night's results, she publicly declared that her campaign has "turned a corner," even going so far as to hint at a Clinton-Obama ticket.
Should we go ahead and coronate Clinton, then? Or is Barack Obama's claim that Clinton's wins last night, though impressive, still aren't enough to make a dent in his delegate lead? And if you're a Democratic superdelegate, who should you vote for now? Which candidate is more likely to be successful in a general election?
Each side is quick to point out their electoral strengths and their opponent's weaknesses. Clinton reminds voters that she is consistently winning large states that serve as Democratic strongholds, and that nearly half of Obama's wins are in caucus states, where a much smaller percentage of the population is represented. Obama argues that he is winning smaller - but more - states, and many that traditionally fall into the Republican column, which gives him an advantage over John McCain in the general election. Both of them make a strong case for the nomination. Let's look at each in turn.
Clinton. She's right when she says that she's consistently winning the most populous - and traditionally Democratic - states. Of the ten most populous states in the Union, Clinton has won six (California, Texas, New York, Florida, Ohio, and Georgia) to Obama's two (Pennsylvania and North Carolina have yet to hold primaries). Those make a bigger difference in the electoral college than they do in the primary season. She's won eight fewer states than Obama has, but she's far ahead when it comes to electors. If the two candidates were fighting in a general election, Clinton would be ahead 263-189. 54 electors is a big deal when there are only 538 total. (That's a ten percent margin of victory. Nothing to sneer at.) Clinton's victories have also consistently come in primary states, which have the same election format as will be seen in November. All but one of her wins (Nevada) have come in primary states. Her margin of victory isn't great - she averages 54% of the vote in her wins - but in a general election, each state is winner-take-all. Proportional allocation of delegates has hurt her in this race, and that's something she wouldn't have to worry about if she were the party nominee.
Obama. While Obama hasn't won many large, delegate-rich states (his two biggest states have been his home state of Illinois and Georgia), he's done very well in smaller, traditionally red states. Over half of his primary wins have come in states that went for George W. Bush in both 2000 and 2004. There's reason to think that he could siphon some of those away from McCain this year. Clinton's claims that his caucus wins are tainted don't quite hold up, either. It's true that his wins in those states (11 of 24) have represented a much smaller percentage of the population, he's done just fine in primaries, too. He's won nearly as many primaries as Clinton has (13 to her 15), and has done so with a higher average of four percent more of the vote.
So who should superdelegates side with? If you're looking to stick with the time-honored "two coasts" strategy of focusing on the Pacific west and the Northeast, Clinton might be your best bet. She's shown that she can easily win those states and probably be competitive in battleground states like Florida, Ohio, and Pennsylvania. If you're looking to adopt the new "50 states" approach that Democratic National Committee chairman Howard Dean is pushing, though, Obama might be a more attractive option. Obama has made significant inroads into the mountain west and the South. He would probably be unable to win all of those states for the Democrats (do you really think Idaho and Utah are going to be blue states this year?), but if he could pick up Colorado, Kansas, Missouri, and Georgia, that would result in a 41-elector difference, and none of those states are out of the realm of possibility. Obama's command of the black vote could prove to be decisive in this election. Yet Clinton holds an equal sway over blue-collar workers in financial straits, and there are more and more of those every day with the current recession. Each candidate has powerful strengths. Superdelegates will have their hands full making their decision in the coming months.
What elections end up boiling down to.
I mentioned in an article last week that issues have taken a back seat to image in recent elections. Now, I'm aware of the folly of citing a webcomic as a definitive source in matters political, but today's Toothpaste for Dinner seemed to reinforce that point. Here it is:
If this is true (and remember, the artist lives in Columbus, Ohio) we have every reason to expect a resounding victory for Barack Obama. I don't think any reputable source on earth would tell you that Hillary Clinton was the cute candidate. (Case in point: a Google search for the phrase "hillary clinton cute" returns the message, "Did you mean "hillary clinton cut?") Searching for "barack obama cute" yields about the same amount of hits (465,000 to Clinton's 461,000), but most of Clinton's are about Obama's cuteness and her own lack thereof.
Today's primaries essentially amount to be a referendum on issues vs. image. Texas and Ohio look to be Clinton's Alamo. If she goes down, the issues candidacy goes down with her.
The results of the Texas debate.
Hillary Clinton has publicly staked her political fortunes on the results of the Texas and Ohio primaries. Having lost eleven straight contests, she was under pressure to perform well in this debate to re-energize her campaign. And instead of coming up big with her back to the wall, she seemed to shrink from the task.
Clinton's strategy to stop the Obamamentum has changed over the last few weeks. During the days leading up to Super Tuesday, she tried being friendly and polite, worrying that voters would be turned off by negativity. When that didn't work, she turned up the venom in the Wisconsin contest, accusing Obama of hiding from voters and being unwilling to engage in a debate. That didn't work, either. With two make-or-break states coming up, advisers have recommended a "scorched earth" policy for Clinton, ratcheting up criticism to as-yet-unseen levels. It doesn't seem like she went for it. She was presented time and time again with opportunities to attack Obama, and time and time again she opted to make the debate about issues. She presented the facts about her platform - ably, mind you - and tried to let them speak for themselves.
The problem is that the Democratic race is no longer about issues. For all intents and purposes, Obama and Clinton don't have many significant differences in policy. Either of them would accomplish similar things if elected. The fact is, however, that America is no longer voting based on issues. They're voting on electability. Obama has the momentum, he has the money, and he has the delegates. Now that the Republican race is (effectively) wrapped up, the Democrats want someone to unite around. It looks more and more like they're gravitating toward Obama. Clinton seemed to get a sense of that as the debate went on. Obama responded impressively to her cry of "let's get real" by saying that "the implication is that...the people who have been voting for me or involved in my campaign are somehow delusional," earning applause from the audience. She responded with a jab at the recent charges of his plagiarism, saying "lifting whole passages from someone else's speeches isn't change you can believe in; it's change you can Xerox." The comment actually drew boos from the audience, and seemed to catch her off guard.
The real stunner that made it seem as though Clinton was effectively conceding the race came at the end of the debate. While answering a question about a time in her life when she had been tested, she said that she was "honored to be here with Barack Obama." She went on to say that "whatever happens, we're going to be fine." Those words sounded ominously familiar - John Edwards used them in his concession speech on January 30. Clinton may or may not have been intending that same effect when using them, but the comparison is apt. It's unlikely she'll still be in the race after Texas and Ohio. It's possible that she wanted her campaign to go out gracefully rather than shrill and grating.
What Castro's departure means for your weekend.After nearly fifty years heading the Communist Party of Cuba, Fidel Castro announced in a letter today that he would no longer "aspire to nor accept the positions of President of the State Council and Commander in Chief." The news came as no surprise; Castro, 81, hadn't been seen in public since he went in for abdominal surgery in July 2006, and his brother Raúl has been acting in his place since that time. What was unexpected was Castro's voluntary decision to step down. Many world leaders in similar situations have only relinquished power on their death or at gunpoint. Castro's move, while not unprecedented, was certainly unexpected, and leaves open to debate the question of what will happen next in Cuba.
That doesn't mean, however, that you should start investing in Havana cigars. Castro's departure isn't likely to usher in a new age of democracy and tolerance in Cuba. Raúl was instrumental in suppressing revolution in Cuba, ordering executions and purges as recently as 1996. A Cuba led by Raúl Castro will likely have the same human rights record as the current one, if not slightly more oppressive. While the political climate isn't likely to thaw, however, the economic climate could change. Raúl has expressed concerns about the economic state of the country and wants to bring Cuba into the modern world. Cuba doesn't have the necessary resources to pull that off on its own, though. Where will he turn for aid?
Conventional wisdom would dictate that Raúl would look to the United States for that aid, though he wouldn't do so until after the November elections. He has spoken out against Bush several times since taking power in 2006, calling him "crazy" and "a common braggart." Yet he has been open to the idea of opening diplomatic relations with Washington in an effort to air out their grievances and come to an understanding. This would suggest that Raúl would be more receptive to an Obama government than any of the other major candidates. Obama has said that as president, he would be willing to open relations with nations considered as enemies to America, and Cuba certainly fits the bill. But the subject of Cuba is still a touchy one. Floridians aren't keen on the idea of easing restrictions on Cuba, since it opens the floodgates of refugees to their shores. Neither he nor Hillary Clinton are likely to openly support the idea of easing restrictions on Cuba at the cost of losing a swing state like Florida. Yet Obama is open to the idea of incremental reforms, possibly going further after discussions with Raúl Castro. If nothing else, the situation makes the already-interesting Democratic race even more tantalizing.
What of Fidel, though? His health is failing, but his mind remains alert and sharp. In his letter, he said that his only wish was to "fight as a soldier in the battle of ideas." He plans to continue to write under the title of "Reflections of Comrade Fidel" in Granma, the Cuban equivalent of Pravda. His influence will still be considerable. Castro has been the embodiment of the Cuban revolution for the last fifty years. He will officially only write pieces as opinion, but in Cuba, Castro's opinion is as good as policy. (Picture George Washington retiring but still writing regular dispatches about how he thought the government was doing.)
Essentially, the situation will change in Cuba, but it won't be a dramatic change. We may have to wait until both Castros are out of power before we see any changes with any lasting impact. Those Cuban cigars may be a while yet in coming.
