PDA

View Full Version : Pennsylvania Vindication Edition


Bloggingheads
04-23-2008, 07:00 AM

Baltimoron
04-23-2008, 07:13 AM
The Huffington Post link from the "New left-wing Jewish lobby formed" link on the "Pennsylvania Vindication Edition" diavlog page is busted. We need a new link!

TwinSwords
04-23-2008, 07:33 AM
The Huffington Post link from the "New left-wing Jewish lobby formed" link on the "Pennsylvania Vindication Edition" diavlog page is busted. We need a new link!

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/warren-goldstein/let-my-people-go---today_b_97548.html

osmium
04-23-2008, 08:50 AM
wow, the first bloggingheads with an ad? shortlists, was that it?

edit: i see it over there to the side now, veryshortlist. cool. the fact that the video ad only runs on you once, that's a nice touch--noticeable but unobtrusive.

Baltimoron
04-23-2008, 08:54 AM
It's a sign of the apocalypse!

It's time to stop watching bhTV!

AemJeff
04-23-2008, 09:19 AM
The only presidential candidate I've ever voted for who actually won that election was Bill Clinton. And since his second term wasn't really much in doubt that means I've only cast one effective presidential vote in my life. My primary record is even more dismal, with a perfect zero percent success rate. I've been dithering between Obama and Hillary for months, maybe leaning slightly towards Obama, but as I've said before: I don't care who wins as long as the the winner in November isn't a Republican. So, yesterday was the primary in PA, a beautiful perfect morning to walk to my local polling place - a gentle breeze at sixty-eight degrees, chirping birds and flowering trees under blue skies - and pull the lever for Obama. At that moment Obama must have heard a thunderclap, as the skies darkened and a bony finger revealed itself among the clouds pointing his way while a low voice chuckled unpleasantly.

Ok, maybe it's not all about me. I still really only care that whoever emerges from the primary process on the Dem side is an effective candidate, and it increasingly looks like both of them are dismayingly incompetent. I would like, at some point, to feel as if my political judgment was shared by a majority of my neighbors - but right at the moment it looks to me like McCain is trending toward consensus support.

Which, getting back to my first point, is somehow appropriate - I would have strongly considered voting for him in 2000 - I wasn't a fan of Gore's at the time - so naturally he was womped by the most ridiculous opponent imaginable; this time I've decided that I couldn't vote for him under any circumstances, and right now, at this moment, it appears as if the skids are greased, his glide path to the Presidency seemingly assured.

Or maybe I'm just depressed - it's still a long way to November.

piscivorous
04-23-2008, 10:34 AM
Given that Senator Obama outspent Senator Clinton 4:1 and the late deciders still went for Senator Clinton says to me that Senator Obama's stitch is starting to wear pretty thin.

Gravy
04-23-2008, 10:42 AM
Maybe the endless polling activity has alienated the voters to the extent that a sizable fraction just lie in exit polls simply to mess with the pollers' heads. You don't really need an excuse to lie to a poller; it's just a fun thing to do. Plus you get a fun bonus later when supposedly serious guys like Bob and Mickey try to assign a rationale to it and super bonus when Bob goes even further to draw some kind of expectations dynamic from the polling data. But be careful' you can't lie with an easily observable pattern. Flip a coin 20 times and assign a lie to heads and truth to tails and you are probably set for a good 10 years of polls you may be subjected to. A more complex methodology would be required where you have multiple potential lies available, but I'm sure if we all put our heads together we can find it.

piscivorous
04-23-2008, 10:49 AM
The only presidential candidate I've ever voted for who actually won that election was Bill Clinton. And since his second term wasn't really much in doubt that means I've only cast one effective presidential vote in my life. My primary record is even more dismal, with a perfect zero percent success rate. I've been dithering between Obama and Hillary for months, maybe leaning slightly towards Obama, but as I've said before: I don't care who wins as long as the the winner in November isn't a Republican. So, yesterday was the primary in PA, a beautiful perfect morning to walk to my local polling place - a gentle breeze at sixty-eight degrees, chirping birds and flowering trees under blue skies - and pull the lever for Obama. At that moment Obama must have heard a thunderclap, as the skies darkened and a bony finger revealed itself among the clouds pointing his way while a low voice chuckled unpleasantly.

Ok, maybe it's not all about me. I still really only care that whoever emerges from the primary process on the Dem side is an effective candidate, and it increasingly looks like both of them are dismayingly incompetent. I would like, at some point, to feel as if my political judgment was shared by a majority of my neighbors - but right at the moment it looks to me like McCain is trending toward consensus support.

Which, getting back to my first point, is somehow appropriate - I would have strongly considered voting for him in 2000 - I wasn't a fan of Gore's at the time - so naturally he was womped by the most ridiculous opponent imaginable; this time I've decided that I couldn't vote for him under any circumstances, and right now, at this moment, it appears as if the skids are greased, his glide path to the Presidency seemingly assured.

Or maybe I'm just depressed - it's still a long way to November.I would never want to be accused of mental abuse, by contributing to someones depression, but this was just to nice a vehicle to to pass up by decorating it with this semi humorous opinion piece by P.J. O'Rourke 24 Hours on the 'Big Stick' (http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/015/006dgrlw.asp)

As I know that many here would not be found dead reading anything from the Weekly Standard I offer this Some say John McCain's character was formed in a North Vietnamese prison. I say those people should take a gander at what John chose to do--voluntarily. Being a carrier pilot requires aptitude, intelligence, skill, knowledge, discernment, and courage of a kind rarely found anywhere but in a poem of Homer's or a half gallon of Dewar's. I look from John McCain to what the opposition has to offer. There's Ms. Smarty-Pantsuit, the Bosnia-Under-Sniper-Fire poster gal, former prominent Washington hostess, and now the JV senator from the state that brought you Eliot Spitzer and Bear Stearns. And there's the happy-talk boy wonder, the plaster Balthazar in the Cook County political crèche, whose policy pronouncements sound like a walk through Greenwich Village in 1968: "Change, man? Got any spare change? Change?"

Scoop Jackson
04-23-2008, 10:54 AM
Bob and Mickey are missing a big part of the story in PA. Bob tries to take comfort in Obama closing the gap from 20% in early polls to 10% in final results. But he misses the regional differences, and surprisingly Mickey fails to chide him. The gap closed only because Obama gained ground in Philly and Pitt urban and surburban counties. In the rest of the state (in what we might call "the gun clinging regions") Obama didn't close the gap, and may have actually lost ground. In many SW PA counties, Obama lost by 40% or more. In NE counties, he lost by 30%. This despite record ad buys and much personal campaigning in these regions. His chief surrrogate, Bob Casey, is based in NE PA but that was no help to Obama there. The voters in those counties heard Obama's message loud and clear but they aren't buying it even a little bit.

This has significance far beyond Pennsylvania. These counties share many characteristics with key swing counties in OH, TN, VA, WV. Losided losses in exurban and rural Applachian counties put Democrats well on the road to losing tight general election campaigns. Just ask Al Gore and John Kerrey. Or Karl Rove.

AemJeff
04-23-2008, 11:06 AM
Actually, Pisc - that was a pretty good piece.

piscivorous
04-23-2008, 11:09 AM
Yea I thought so myself.

deebee
04-23-2008, 11:11 AM
It's beginning to look more and more like Hillary may actually BE "Election" movie heroine Tracy Flick, the newly appointed Student Council president, who in the end opines that no one would have been hurt if they'd just accepted destiny and left well enough alone. We shall see; could happen.....

My reaction of Obama's shoulder brushoff was the same as Bob's.

The flag pin issue is stupid but effective because so many people reflexively cling to the Flag in all its forms (especially since 9/11).

Ayers -- not really an unsavory enemy to engage but someone who gave Obama one of his first State Senate fundraising parties. I believe that all or most of the recent Obama revelations were outlined in a Rolling Stone article about his radical roots but the press chose to conveniently ignore them because they so wanted to rid themselves of the annoyingly persistent "Tracy" Clinton.

Abu Noor Al-Irlandee
04-23-2008, 11:16 AM
It should be noted for the record that the final margin was not 10, but (with 99. something percent counted) actually 8.6.

Bloggin' Noggin
04-23-2008, 11:32 AM
Hi Abu Noor,
Where did you get that figure? TPM (http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/190799.php) says it was 9.4 percent.

osmium
04-23-2008, 12:07 PM
there was a post on TPM a while back, talking about the effect where obama wins any place with all white people, or more equal white/black populations, but loses anyplace with a moderate african american population. (i'm googling for it, but can't find it.)

is there any economic argument to explain the difference seen between rural areas in, say, PA and iowa? or can it only be explained temperamentally?

i assume they are wary of city-slickers in equal measure both places. is the democratic primary about race? or has clinton successfully become blue collar somehow? if so, that is a remarkable turnaround.

harkin
04-23-2008, 12:20 PM
Nice white-walls Bob!

claymisher
04-23-2008, 12:45 PM
I've given up on Mickey. I'm not listening to this. Somebody let me know when he gives his unbearable quibbling and starts being interesting.

It's too bad, because Bob Wright is an interesting guy, but nobody is worth listening to Kaus's grousing.

Scoop Jackson
04-23-2008, 12:56 PM
Michael Barone has the best theroy on this, why Obama can do better as people get to know him in the Philly suburbs but find much resistance in the rest of the state. It is more complicated than race.

http://www.usnews.com/blogs/barone/2008/04/02/reviewing-the-primary-results-academics-versus-jacksonians.html

My takeaways:
--Appalachia is prime "Jacksonian" voter territory, as defined by Barone
--Jacksonians tend to be hawkish on foreign policy. They liked it when Clinton said Iran could be obliterated if necessary.
--They are not too impressed with lofty rhetoric on ecomomic issues. They have heard it all before. They want results and see the Clintons as having produced some economic results in the past. But also see Reagan that way.
--They are pro-gun rights
--They are culturally conservative
--They don't agree with Michelle Obama's attitude towards pride in America
--They don't agree with Rev. Wright on anything, wouldn't have stayed in that church for 20 seconds much less 20 years. They want to seem him completely rejected, not interested in "understanding" him better.
--They don't care if people in NY or LA think they are cool or not.

Obama has done more than offend theses voters, he has shown himself to be completely foreign to their worldview.

John McCain is in many ways an ideal candidate for these voters.

Tough to win PA, OH, TN, VA, WV if these voters are overwhelmingly against you. Tough for a Dem to win the election if he loses all these states.

uncle ebeneezer
04-23-2008, 12:59 PM
I've said it once, I'll say it again, does anyone really think the Hillary supporters are going to vote for McCain or sit out the election. I just don't see it. When the pundits talk about Obama not being able to win big states, they rarely add the important "among Democrats against Hillary." Hillary is a great candidate and has a ton of very loyal followers (who are mostly loyal Dems too). The difficulty of knocking out Clinton in the DEMOCRATIC PRIMARY, really doesn't predict how Obama will do in the general election against McCain. I lived in PA for 5 years and I could of told you that no matter how much Obama spent he wasn't going to beat Clinton in PA. For several reasons. Closing from 20 points to 9 would be seen as a huge success by any candidate in a year that didn't involve a Clinton and a media that is just desperate to keep the fight going.

I'm with Bob on this one. After the tidal waves of Rev. Wright and Bittergate, the fact that Obama lost by only 8-9 points shows that he's a pretty strong candidate. When the Hillary fans finally get on board and support Obama, I think we've got a better than average chance at the White House.

David Thomson
04-23-2008, 12:59 PM
The so-called Bradley factor is often nothing more than rational white self preservation. The radical black establishment and its left-wing white yuppie buddies are out to damage them. "Barry" Obama is a race hustler who made the cold blooded decision to move to Chicago and become "authentically black." Nobody put a gun to his head and forced him to do this. Obama essentially declared war on whites. A vote for Obama is a vote to set back relations in this country a minimum of twenty years.

Whatfur
04-23-2008, 01:02 PM
Bob kinda says it all...

http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/10449?in=00:35:35&out=00:35:58

And why I like Mickey...

http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/10449?in=00:24:10&out=00:24:17

popcorn_karate
04-23-2008, 01:49 PM
Its pretty easy at this point to call the election for McCain. Hillary's strategy is the "4 and out" for McCain - at which point she can run again.

I think she will stay in and continue to attack in Barak in ways the Republicans would have had a hard time pulling off, until he is so damaged he can't win. at that time, she can go back to the senate and continue being a republican-lite for four years.

personally, I could not ever vote for Hillary clinton. I'd Rather have McCain - so the democrats can Oppose his policies. With Clintons in power, you get them enacting the republican agenda with democratic support. Then i don't even have anybody to root for in politics. and that sucks.

Scoop Jackson
04-23-2008, 01:56 PM
Obama is hurting himself much more than Hillary's attacks are hurting him.

Bloggin' Noggin
04-23-2008, 02:06 PM
There's one commenter on TPM who cites your 8.6% number, but when I go to the PA Election Returns site he links to (http://www.electionreturns.state.pa.us/), the actual number I calculate is 9.2%, which, if you're going to round it really should be rounded to 9%.

Abu Noor Al-Irlandee
04-23-2008, 02:31 PM
Yeah, it's 9.2 now, the same site had the margin at 8.6 earlier, I guess it's been updated. (although like I said, even before I thought it had 99 percent of the precincts reporting).

uncle ebeneezer
04-23-2008, 02:47 PM
Matt seems to share my logic here:

http://matthewyglesias.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/04/expansionism.php#comments

Popcorn, check out Ross' link on there about McCain. An interesting point from a Conservative.

Namazu
04-23-2008, 03:03 PM
I think it's been shown that elections are subject to a "bandwagon effect:" in this case, a widespread perception that Obama is the inevitable Democratic nominee is worth a measurable number of votes beyond what he would get in a race that is considered up for grabs. Some people want to be able to say they voted for the winner. Since even the Clinton campaign would have trouble using this for spin without blushing, I doubt we'll hear much about it, but I wonder if anyone knows of a relevant study.

popcorn_karate
04-23-2008, 03:06 PM
I agree that Obama is the stronger candidate. I didn't see the link you mentioned, but i read Yglesias.

One thought i haven't heard addressed anywhere: 160,000 republicans switched their registration in Pennsylvania to vote in the Democratic Primary(sorry no link). All of Hillaries victories (except new hampshire) have come after the Right wing blowhards started advocating that republicans vote for hillary.

so how many of those hillary votes are just an effort to sabotage the democrats? particularly when hillary is winning the "white, working class male" vote (i.e. republicans for the most part..)

popcorn_karate
04-23-2008, 03:15 PM
Ahhh - i found the Ross Douthat link. good points.

What i see is that the Media Meems decide the election. When the media decided Gore was a liar and Bush just "Folksy", It was obvious to me Bush would end up in office (NOBODY i knew agreed with me when i called that one in May - and of course it took the supreme court to make it work)

The meems this time all point to a republican victory. Hillary is dead in the water, Obama is being branded as unpatriotic and inexperienced, McCain is the Noble warrior, with maybe a small flaw in his character - that he is a "real straight shooter" - too honest for his own good. a laughable characterization of McCain, but that is what the media is pushing, and will continue to push.

RJB
04-23-2008, 03:24 PM
My analysis of Obama's "Bitter" comment is slightly different from what I have seen or heard. I think that what Obama meant was correct but for him to honestly explain his comment would hurt his position even more than it already has.
My explanation: Add the words "Positions on" before religion or immigration or his other examples. Obama's point was that both parties had let these people down on economic issues and they had no confidence that things would get any better on that count regardless of which party gained the presidency. Therefore, they "cling" to issues on which one party, Republican, does represent their values. Obama cannot explain his comments to that demographic by saying that they are correct, that Democrats will not protect their gun rights or oppose gay marriage or prayer in school or so on.

Anyuser
04-23-2008, 03:45 PM
I'd like somebody to explain this for me. Mickey is a single, fifty-something, presumably heterosexual, man. Why the hell would he own a bottle of Lysol Cling toilet bowl cleanser?

Whatfur
04-23-2008, 03:50 PM
Actually RJB... No, Obama was not correct...unless you wish to explain why these same people went hunting and went to church the same way (if not more frequently) when the steel industry etc. was still going strong. There may be some bitterness caused by the things Obama and you mention...but it didn't cause them to "cling" to anything and its that part of his statement that made it elitist.

Tyrrell McAllister
04-23-2008, 03:56 PM
As I know that many here would not be found dead reading anything from the Weekly Standard I offer this
Some say John McCain's character was formed in a North Vietnamese prison. I say those people should take a gander at what John chose to do--voluntarily. Being a carrier pilot requires aptitude, intelligence, skill, knowledge, discernment, and courage of a kind rarely found anywhere but in a poem of Homer's or a half gallon of Dewar's. I look from John McCain to what the opposition has to offer. There's Ms. Smarty-Pantsuit, the Bosnia-Under-Sniper-Fire poster gal, former prominent Washington hostess, and now the JV senator from the state that brought you Eliot Spitzer and Bear Stearns. And there's the happy-talk boy wonder, the plaster Balthazar in the Cook County political crèche, whose policy pronouncements sound like a walk through Greenwich Village in 1968: "Change, man? Got any spare change? Change?"

Too bad The Onion (http://www.theonion.com/content/news/black_guy_asks_nation_for_change) beat him to the "Change" gag :P.

Happy Hominid
04-23-2008, 03:58 PM
Bob provides us with a profile (http://www.bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/10449?in=00:00:16&out=00:00:27).

osmium
04-23-2008, 04:14 PM
next big moment in a debate: obama is challenged about the gay, young femininity of lysol cling. "senator obama, by saying 'cling,' what are you implying about your gay marriage plans? i understand you have the B-52s on your i-pod."

:) i assume he bought it coz he liked the name for a visual aid. now, the bloggingheads concept would be unbridled genius if we could only have a web video of mickey in the grocery store when he found it.

Happy Hominid
04-23-2008, 04:15 PM
How does the narrative change if Obama wins both Indiana and N.C. in two weeks? This is not particularly hypothetical. He leads in the polls in both states.

While Hillary continues to be "annoyingly persistent", Obama looks to be unfazed and just continues his "above the fray" campaigning. He held a town hall meeting in Indiana this morning and steadfastly refused to get into the mud. Certainly not the mark of a candidate running scared.

This might be annoying to Hillary supporters, who feel victimized by the MSM spin that she is the culprit in making this a dirty election. But if Obama does what most polls indicate likely and gets a double win in two weeks then people might actually give him a huge boost in that they will be sold on him as someone who won without using the "politics as usual" method.

Beating the Clinton machine under any circumstances is worthy of respect. Doing it while she does her best imitation of Karl Rove is even more impressive. She is the one who has made a point of "if you can't handle this pressure, you can't handle GOP pressure and you can't handle White House pressures". If he wins those two states - with all the "pressure" she has put on him, and does it with grace and dignity, there is good reason to suspect that Americans will hold him in pretty high esteem. We need to thank Hillary for setting the bar that Obama will hurdle.

osmium
04-23-2008, 04:23 PM
it's seemed to me in this primary that the opposite is the case: anytime someone looks poised to be the nominee, the other person gets more votes.

in terms of clinton, mickey calls this mutnemom, or however you spell momentum backwards. i seem to think it happened for obama too, though, after clinton had won new hampshire so big.

i think so many dead heat, too close to call, 50-50 elections for the past decade or whatever is indicative of some kind of mass neurosis. there is a collective will not to decide anything.

otto
04-23-2008, 04:25 PM
Underneath the 'links mentioned in diavlog'.

I thought I would never see the day.

piscivorous
04-23-2008, 04:26 PM
You think that 50s something single guys don't have to clean their toilets? Talk about stereotypes.

David Thomson
04-23-2008, 04:28 PM
"How does the narrative change if Obama wins both Indiana and N.C. in two weeks?"

The big question is just how many non-Ivy league whites in Indiana and North Carolina will vote for Obama. This contest between Hillary and "Barry" revolves around race---and don't let anyone con you into believing something different. A rational white person should not vote for Obama. He is out to damage them. One must never forget that Obama freely chose to join a black power church. He is a race card opportunist.

jimM47
04-23-2008, 04:34 PM
Why isn't the right focusing on the more valid question? (http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/10449?in=00:26:47&out=27:14): Um... because it isn't the more valid question.

To ascribe people's sincerely held beliefs to bitterness over the economy, ignoring the reasons they give for holding those beliefs, is not just disrespectful and condescending, but naive in a way the questions Obama's ability to understand and empathize with people. Other politicians are elitist and condescending too, but the entire point of Obama is that he is a "change" from other politicians — he supposedly understands and respects you even when he disagrees with you.

We wouldn't be talking so much about this if Hillary or Edwards had said that, since the fact that they are elitist and condescending is part of their appeal — they condescend to the people democrats don't like and their policies are framed as shifting decision-making to government elites. The fact that Obama is different is the largest part of his appeal. If he isn't really different, then he has a problem.

Nate
04-23-2008, 04:49 PM
http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/10449?in=00:05:50&out=00:06:46

Bob, I thought we had determined that "Bittergate" was the wrong name to use. (http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/10256?in=00:01:39&out=00:06:10)

RJB
04-23-2008, 05:38 PM
Whatfur,
I didn't make my point well, apparently. I was entering the game of trying to interpret what Obama really meant by his comments. I meant that these things they cling to are, in fact, real to them. Their religious faith is real, their enjoyment of hunting and belief that gun ownership is their right is real, etc. I think, and I believe that Obama meant, that since neither party has benefited them economically that they have grown cynical about both parties, they don't believe promises that either party makes regarding their economic welfare, and they are mad about the general state of affairs, but will vote for the one party which does defend those other values which are important to them, values they cling to now just as they have for their entire lives.

They have reason to believe that the Democrats will restrict gun ownership, will allow gay marriage, will keep prayer out of schools, etc. The party which fights their fight on these issues, as they see it, is the Republican Party. and Obama said what he said while talking about how to approach these people based on how they feel but he can hardly campaign in their backyard by agreeing with what I just said so he had to explain his comment in other ways.

Wonderment
04-23-2008, 06:22 PM
Alas, promises. (http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/10449?in=00:54:34&out=00:54:47)

You also promised to keep Mickey down to 30 minutes per appearance.

Also, Bob, when you assault progressive sensibilitites with the trifecta of Frum, Lake and Mickey on three successive days (aaaaaaaaaargh!), please don't tell me about your depression.

Thank you, however, for the perfect description of McCain as trigger-happy militarist with a nasty temper, and for noting that the crazy-old-man-with-a-shitload-of-nukes bluff (a la Nixon) is more than a little out-of-touch with current geopolitics.

Whatfur
04-23-2008, 06:45 PM
RJB,

Yes, you have added the correct amount of clarity and even logic. I would even go so far as to agree with you except for a number of things that make your explanation counter-intuitive. Starting out with his own explanation later where he gave a half-baked apology and twisted it into making it about other people's misinterpretation. Now, if right then he inserted your explanation it might have worked...but instead he pointed a finger at others for calling his comments demeaning to religion and he pointed a finger at others for calling his comments demeaning to hunters. While then saying those who did were politicizing it. Some may have been, but... sorry... most simply took it as him saying they were bitter and ignorant and were offended ...not politicizing it.

Add to that the other comment where he said something about them having trouble listening to a 40-something black man. What was that suppose to imply?

Add to that the high-brow audience he chose to utter the comments to, chuckling and him chuckling with them...well...I am pretty sure the audience took him to be saying they were bitter and ignorant too. Don't you?

bkjazfan
04-23-2008, 08:52 PM
It appears Obama couldn't take the hits whether they were legit or not!

John

deecue
04-23-2008, 09:38 PM
Here is one cheering possibilty for Obama supporters (or Democrats in general). It seems in most primaries as of late that last minute deciders always pull the lever in large part for Hillary, or at least I have heard this stated several times in a couple different elections (sorry, I'm lazy and just want to throw it out there). This may be a function of the continually fouled up exit polling, or this may actually reflect a real undecided voter, who pulls toward Hillary out of being more comfortable with the more familiar candidate, or break along age demographics in a way that, say, Glenn Loury admitted breaking for Hillary in his last diavlog. In the general, if Obama wins, these late breaking voters would not necessarily be likely to switch to McCain, but would in fact seem to be Obama's to lose; that being said, I'm not really sure what percentage of the voting pool this reflects.

bkjazfan
04-23-2008, 10:34 PM
Dick Morris today has an article using some convoluted logic which puts Obama in the catbird seat for the democratic nomination for president. It sounded reasonable to me. However, didn't he earlier write a book on how Hilary had a lock on the presidency?

John

Tao Jones
04-24-2008, 12:30 AM
Is back-paddling and apologizing a wise thing to do politically? I prefer Obama's strategy of clarifying the intent of his statements and standing tall. Kinda like the John Wayne trait: even when he's wrong, he's right.

Speaking of eating shit, kudos to Mickey for his 10-point win prediction. Kaus was unusually on point for most of the diavlog.

piscivorous
04-24-2008, 12:47 AM
This is the work of Rick Moran at Rightwing Nuthouse (http://rightwingnuthouse.com/) And yes friends, it was a blow out (http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results/epolls/#PADEM). When you lose 62% of the white vote, that’s a blowout. When you lose 70% of the Catholic vote, that is a blowout. When you lose 57% of the Jewish vote, that’s a blowout. When you lose 58% of churchgoers, that is a blowout. When you lose 54% of workers making less than $50,000 a year (and win only those making less than $15,000 and more than $150,000), that’s a blowout. When you lose 63% of seniors, that’s a blowout. When you outspend your opponent by 3-1 and still lose by 10 points, that’s a blowout.The blow out link is to the exit polling data from which Mr Moran got the above figures.

Magic Flea
04-24-2008, 12:59 AM
http://www.bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/10449?in=00:54:56&out=00:55:10

According to the results I'm looking at, it's actually a difference of about 9.31. But Bob, if you're looking at results that round off, how do two candidates split 100 percent and get a spread of nine? 54-46=8. 55-45=10.

As a follow up, since the final difference *is* 9 and not 10, how does the perceptions game play out differently as opposed to a result in which she genuinely broke double digits?

deebee
04-24-2008, 08:47 AM
I think that the double digit that truly counts right now is the $10,000,000 that Hillary raised in less than 24 hours that allows her to soldier on.

deebee
04-24-2008, 08:59 AM
Al Gore has always been my preferred nomination choice and I would enthusiastically support him if by some miracle he would agree to run. This idea keeps popping up as outlined in the following article:

http://w
ww.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/04/messy_democratic_race_means_it.html

jabbasi
04-24-2008, 09:08 AM
I think the short hand of Obama's "bitter" comments = the Thomas Frank "What's the matter with Kansas" argument is misleading. And Mickey seems to be one of the worst offenders in this regard. Just to clarify, I would characterize (akin to Mickey) the popular definition of the WTMWK argument as poor white people (as dupes) are tricked by Republicans into voting against their economic interests by appeals to values. Obama talked about poor people, their economic interests, and voting based upon appeals to values - but Obama seemed to remove the duped part by saying they weren't tricked into voting against there economic interests because there was no vote for their economic interests (Democrat or Republican). He was saying they were being rational in being bitter, and rational in siding with people who at least pay respect to their values. I agree with Mickey that grouping things he supposedly believes are positive (like religion) with things that he clearly views as negative (like racism or anti-immigrant sentiment) seems to (but not necessarilly as a matter of logic) cast aspersion on the supposedly innocuos/positive things. However, Mickey is driving his rhetorical bus on the fuel of this "false consciousness = condecension = gross violation of social equality" argument, and the unique twist of Obama's "bitter" remarks to the WTMWK argument is that people are acting rationality in voting their values, not being duped by false consciousness (though Obama's position does seem to be Vulgar Marxist, in the ordinal sense, to the extent that Obama seems to imply that these values voters could be won over with a genuine economic appeal)

piscivorous
04-24-2008, 10:56 AM
Amanda Cox, of The New York Times takes a graphical look at the county by county breakdowns in the Democratic primaries Decision Tree: The Obama Clinton Divide. (http://flowingdata.com/2008/04/23/showing-the-obama-clinton-divide-in-decision-tree-infographic/) This link goes not to the NY Times but to a site that has managed to sharpen the graphic. The article above does contain a link to the original NY times graphic.

osmium
04-24-2008, 11:46 AM
that is really cool. thanks for posting it. i think there has to be an occam's razor to apply, that follows an elegant logical path rather than a slightly tortuous one. what is the fundamental clinton/obama divide? it seems pretty rock solid, so maybe it's an important one.

by looking at a map of the country (http://www.openleft.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=5324), you can really already tell (http://img186.imageshack.us/my.php?image=countiesqc0.gif) who's going to win what.

bobnmickeyfan
04-24-2008, 06:28 PM
Bob.

The discussions you get into with Mickey invariably show great initial promise. This initial promise goes down the toilet when it's Mickey's turn to talk... NOT because he's a dolt - which he is not - but because of your continual interruptions. Mickey waits patiently for you to complete your generally long, wide-ranging thought, but then the minute he opens his mouth, you interrupt him by focusing in on one particular specific phrase that he says in the first 10 seconds of his response (a phrase that invariably is tangential to his larger point), and begin arguing specifics, rather than letting him lay out his own thoughts... so that you two can THEN argue.

Which is why it cracked me up all the more when you yelled at Mickey for interrupting you in this diavlog.

I know you're a liberal & have come to grips with that. Please try to learn to not argue like one.

January
04-24-2008, 06:42 PM
Excellent points regarding whites in key swing states. Now, can some one tell me how Clinton wins the general if the young people and most African-Americans stay home? As all Bloggingheads fans must have discovered by now, no Democrat since Johnson has taken more than 46% of the white vote. For nearly 50 years, Dem presidential hopefuls have had to count on non-white groups to make up the difference in key states. If the Dem party is going to have to choose which group to scorn, maybe they should pick the one that is going to go for John McCain anyway.

And for an interesting historical take on Ohio and Pennsylvania, read David Hackett Fischer's Albion's Seed. Whites in Ohio and Penn descend mainly from what Americans call 'Scots-Irish', in other words, militaristic clans that value loyalty over learning, isolation over engagement. I'm not personally offended that this group exists, by I abhor an electoral system that gives it so much power.

look
04-24-2008, 08:49 PM
Now, can some one tell me how Clinton wins the general if the young people and most African-Americans stay home?

Beg Barack to run with her. He could cut a pretty sweet deal, beginning with a guarantee that his profile would be kept higher than Bill's. He'd only be about 54 if she made it to a second term, which is doubtful.

Loren Michael
04-25-2008, 05:07 AM
I think the simple answer is, Pennsylvania is the second oldest state. Old people surrounded by old people is almost certainly going to provide an echo-chamber effect. This reverberating "get off my lawn" echo, combined with the other demographic disadvantages of the region (from Obama's perspective) make it spectacularly difficult for Obama to win.

I would say that the ray of light is that this probably is not going to (necessarily) hold true in the general, as the "Clinton is mathematically dead in the water" notion hasn't penetrated very well into the mind(s?) of the general voting public, and she's still viewed as a safe and viable Democratic alternative to the old media/low-info Boomers and their elders. Once (if?) she's defeated in a visible and final way, a lack of seemingly strong and viable Democratic alternatives will probably push Clinton voters towards Obama.

Dudley Smith
04-25-2008, 02:10 PM
Guys, just want to say great work. I am a conservative-leaning independent that rarely listens to any liberal political discussion or analysis, but I have found you two to be informative, worthwhile and entertaining. Now I never miss a podcast of one of your diavlogs. Keep up the great work.

And I think the line Bob was looking for to describe Mickey was:

"Mickey Kaus is the kindest, bravest, warmest, most wonderful human being I've ever known in my life."