Clinton, Hillary

As I've been saying since February, I think that the great question of the 2008 campaign will be whether Barack Obama can unite Democrats to a great enough degree to win.  (Corollary to that is the question of whether John McCain can unite Republicans enough to take advantage of any Clinton-Obama fallout, and to overcome the massive partisan advantages of Democrats this year.)

Real Clear Politics takes a stab at answering the question of how many Clinton supporters will support McCain, using current (very early!) polling:

Luckily, we have some data from Quinnipiac's recent swing state survey that gives us some indication of how Clinton primary voters in Florida, Ohio, and Pennsylvania are feeling. As you can see, Florida closely mirrors the national numbers but the trend is more pronounced in Pennsylvania and especially Ohio, where the net change (drop in support for Obama/increase in support for McCain) reaches 22 and 29 points respectively:

Again, it should be noted that Obama increased his lead over McCain in every Quinnipiac state poll, indicating that despite whatever lingering fallout exists with Clinton supporters, Obama is more than making up the difference with gains among other groups.

Still, it should give the Obama campaign a bit of a pause to see that, at least for the moment, one in four Democrats who voted for Hillary Clinton in the primaries in both Ohio and Pennsylvania indicate they will crossover to vote for McCain in the fall.

I really need to sit down and do my own analysis on this.  I keep waffling on whether Obama is doing a great job winning Clinton supporters and I just haven't had a chance to compile and drill down into any real data yet.  But I wanted to share this anyway.

Katie Couric, on the media coverage of the 2008 Democratic Primary.

However you feel about her politics, I feel that Sen. Clinton received some of the most unfair, hostile coverage I've ever seen.

Two thoughts:

For me, the most refreshing thing about this otherwise disappointing election season is the shocked realization by some Democrats (Clinton supporters, mostly) that the legacy media is absolutley politically biased and terribly monolithic, and that when they want to push their narrative, they will do so without shame and without relenting.  Republicans have been dealing with this for at least as long as I can remember, while getting a Democrat to admit to a left-wing media bias was difficult.  Now, maybe not so much, at least among Clinton's supporters.

Couric ain't seen nothing yet: I'm no McCain shill, but the media's treatment of McCain will be much, much more unfair than that of Clinton.

Is there any other reason for him to not give in to Hillary's demands on the Florida and Michigan delegates?  As it stands now, with the 50% deal that was struck yesterday, Obama is 66 delegates short of locking up the nomination.  In the last two months, I think he's far outpacing Clinton in super delegates, even though Clinton has had the best of Obama in the primary contests.  By appearances, Obama needs just to wait this thing out and he'll continue to rack up the super delegates necessary to get the nomination.

By my calculation, if you gave Florida and Michigan their full allotments, and gave Hillary the share that she demands in Michigan, then the new number for nomination would be 2198, and Obama would have 2112, putting him just 86 short of the nomination.  Wouldn't a magnanimous move by Obama to seat all those delegates take a legitimate argument away from Clinton?  There seems to be little doubt that the current Obama position will foster some hard feelings among some Clinton supporters, and perhaps some voters.  Why take that chance when it seems apparent that you're going to put the nomination away anyway?

It would be kinda fun to see Hillary take this thing after all, wouldn't it?

Two more primaries, and two more relatively static results in the Democratic race for President.  The media meme about yesterday's results is that Obama beat expectations, so Hillary should drop out, but the racial breakdowns in IN and NC remained almost unchanged from earlier Primaries.

Obama won black voters overwhelmingly, getting 91 percent in NC and 90 percent in Indiana.  Clinton won white voters convincingly, getting 60 percent in NC and 61 percent in IN.

As race seems to have the most consistent correlation with vote preference in this primary, the actual results from state to state aren't varying that much from what can be predicted by the demographics and turnout projections.  FiveThirtyEight.com had some long predictions yesterday, using polling and some complicated statistical analysis, but they came very close to being right simply by using racial breakdowns and turnout predictions.

I'll also note the strange meme wondering whether Obama can collect enough votes from whites motivated by race, even while nobody is mentioning that black voters are consistently and overwhelmingly supporting the candidate who shares their skin color.

As I've said since Super Tuesday, the Dem race seems pretty static to me, despite the roller coaster of coverage.  The 2008 general election will likely hinge on whether the eventual Democratic nominee (still almost certainly Obama) can win over enough of Clinton's supporters, given the unprecedented length and vigor of the Democratic race.  Yesterday's exit polls indicated yet again that Democratic voters are becoming more attached to their candiate and more averse to the other candidate:

Nearly six in ten Obama supporters in Indiana say they would be dissatisfied if Clinton were the nominee -- that's (I believe) the high percentage of Obama supporters who have ever said that.

In both IN and NC, two thirds of Clinton supporters say they'd be dissatisfied if Obama were the nominee -- I believe that's the highest number recorded for that question, too.

The percentage of Clinton voters who say they'd choose McCain over Obama in a general election is approaching 40% in Indiana. Put it another way: in North Carolina, less than HALF of folks who voted today for Hillary Clinton are ready to say today that they'd definitely vote for Obama in a general election.

The general election will be decided based on this.  Obama supporters are convinced that Democrats will come home, because they're motivated by issues and Obama is right on their issues.  I understand the importance of issues, as you've seen from criticisms of the GOP over the years, yet I still think many voters are motivated by personalities and biographies, and while I don't doubt that many Clinton supporters will eventually support Obama, I think a significant percentage (10 percent?  20 percent) will not, due to the animosities and attachments created during this Primary.

And those are the key questions for November:  How many Clinton supporters will not support Obama, and how well can Obama do with white voters, given his inability to win them in the recent Democratic Primaries?

cnn.com; politico.com

Tim Russert reports Hillary Clinton has cancelled all morning show appearances.  MSNBC reports Clinton has cancelled all events scheduled for tomorrow.  The folks on Ben Smith's blog at Politico are cheering for a Clinton concession and pull out of the race.  Allegedly, 7% of her votes in Indiana were from folks planning on voting for McCain in November.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0508/Russert_Clinton_cancels_morning_show_appearances.html#comments

according to CNN, Obama picked up 4 more delegates than Clinton tonight. 

Terry McAuliffe refuses to answer any questions about another loan by HRC to her campaign.  Bill Clinton's face is said to be redder than a tomato. 

A shame I don't have cable; sounds like I'm missing a lot of fun.

(And is Monroe Co., Indiana where IU is?  It went 66% Obama-33% Clinton.  Lake County was a disappointing 55% Obama-45% Clinton.)

Obama may have only won 9 counties in Indiana, but I'm almost tempted to say they were the right ones.  Same he couldn't have gotten one or two more big ones, or several of the smaller ones. 

http://online.wsj.com/article/declarations.html

"Mr. Wright seems to me to be part of the great "barbaric yawp," as Walt Whitman called the American people fighting, discussing, making things and living. I like the barbaric yawp. I don't enjoy it when it makes me wince, but at least when I am wincing, I know the yawp is working."

For several weeks, though the Rev. Wright and "bitter" stories, that I doubted they would have much impact among Democratic Primary voters (who I think mostly have made their decisions weeks or months ago), and that I wanted to see exit polling from Pennsylvania to see if those stories had any impact among Democratic Primary voters:

They didn't, as most of these figures are close echoes of the exit polling for other recent Democratic Primaries in midwestern states, and are eerily similar to Ohio's exit polling:

Clinton has now won white men in 12 states and Obama has done the same in 10 states.

Obama did win more than nine in 10 black voters, continuing his unbroken support of African-Americans. And Clinton continued her trend of winning white women in all but a couple of contests.

There are other breakdowns, among education level and income, which were also roughly as expected and as we've seen before.

To me, the great determining (and unanswered) question of the 2008 general election is who wins white voters, especially white male voters.  If Barack Obama is the Democratic nominee (which I still think is a near certainty), can he convince white voters who haven't supported him in Democratic primaries in key states like Ohio and Pennsylvania to support him in a general election?  Or, to put it another way, which factor will have a stronger correlation to candidate support in November - demographic factors like race, gender, income, etc. or partisan/issue factors?

UPDATE:  Here's another more explicit and detailed comparision between OH and PA exit polls.

And both Clinton and Obama can now make the case to superdelegates that they lead in the much-ballyhooed popular vote.

Found this at opinionjournal.com (adjunct of the Wall St. Journal)

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120873309012529689.html?mod=hpp_us_inside_today

Bill and Hillary Clinton have finally released their income tax returns for the years 2000-06.  In these years, they list an income of almost $109,000,000.  (Do all the blue collar voters supporting HRC feel like chumps yet, or will they quit voting for her when they learn she's been slow to pay the health ins. premiums for her campaign staff?  Remember, helath care issues are very important to her!)

It made the front page of the Wall Street Journal, the New York Times, and the Chicago Tribune.  I quickly scanned the News-Gazette and the Chicago Sun-Times,  but didn't see mention of this in either paper. 

I'm left wondering how late Friday this was released, and do they honestly hope people will have forgetten about this by Monday? 

Did either John Edwards or Mitt Romney make this much in the same time frame?  The Clintons are among the 14,500 richest people in the U.S.

Peggy Noonan has the week off at the WSJ; I can't wait to see what she writes about this next Saturday.

http://online.wsj.com/article/declarations.html

..."she lies even more than is humanly possible, or even politically usual."

From Gallup:

A sizable proportion of Democrats would vote for John McCain next November if he is matched against the candidate they do not support for the Democratic nomination. This is particularly true for Hillary Clinton supporters, more than a quarter of whom currently say they would vote for McCain if Barack Obama is the Democratic nominee.

Of course, if there ever was a candidate who could botch the opportunity being created by Democratic infighting, it's John McCain.

UPDATE:  And then this:

There are going to be some women that think Clinton was treated unfairly in this process because of her gender, but very few of them will be able to harbor the kind of lingering resentment toward the Obama campaign that would preclude them from supporting him in the fall.

Is there a "conventional wisdom" assumption that Hillary's supporters are more likely to support Obama than the reverse?  If so, why?

From Politico.com:

One big fact has largely been lost in the recent coverage of the Democratic presidential race: Hillary Rodham Clinton has virtually no chance of winning.

Her own campaign acknowledges there is no way that she will finish ahead in pledged delegates. That means the only way she wins is if Democratic superdelegates are ready to risk a backlash of historic proportions from the party’s most reliable constituency.

Unless Clinton is able to at least win the primary popular vote — which also would take nothing less than an electoral miracle — and use that achievement to pressure superdelegates, she has only one scenario for victory. An African-American opponent and his backers would be told that, even though he won the contest with voters, the prize is going to someone else.

I completely agree with that.  I have a hard time envisioning Clinton winning the nomination.  Perhaps if she wins every remaining Primary, but even then it's unlikely.

So at this point, given that my not-quite-favorite John McCain has won the GOP nomination, I'm mostly just an interested observer of the Presidential race.  And it's actually been quite fun.  The Dem primaries have been fantastic political theater, and I've said that the national conversation we've been having about superdelegates and proportional representation and the like have been very good for America.

Which is really a long-winded disclaimer:  I don't think that I am basing my analysis of the general election based on any strong preference for the GOP nominee. 

So here goes:  At this point, I agree that Obama is the most likely Democratic nominee.  But, contrary to what seems to be the conventional wisdom, I don't see him as any kind of favorite against John McCain.  I just don't anticipate that Obama adds anything to the coalition that John Kerry assembled in 2004, other than perhaps a greater margin among voters under the age of 30 (Kerry got 54 percent). 

I actually think it's likely that Obama loses chunks of Kerry's voters.  For example, looking forward, I think Obama will do worse than Kerry among white voters (Kerry got 41 percent),  voters aged 60+ (46 percent), Catholics (47 percent), Jewish voters (74 percent), veterans (41 percent), and gun owners (36 percent).

First, do you think Obama will almost certainly win the Dem nomination?

Second, in a McCain-Obama matchup, who has the advantage and why?

I saw this yesterday, and while it's only one poll, (and it's Gallup), I thought it was worth discussing.

Interesting tidbits:

McCain came roaring back, winning the New Hampshire primary and then clinching the Republican nomination. His current favorable rating represents a gain of 26 points since last summer, including an 11-point increase since he won enough delegates to ensure his nomination on March 4.

And:

Both Obama and Clinton have slightly higher favorable ratings among Democrats now than they had in February, suggesting that the negative infighting that has characterized the Democratic campaign in recent weeks is not damaging either candidate's image in the eyes of the party faithful.

And:

McCain gets an extraordinarily high 52% favorable from Democrats and independents who lean Democratic, while Obama gets a 39% favorable rating from Republicans and Republican leaners. Clinton, on the other hand, receives only a 20% favorable rating from Republicans and Republican leaners.

McCain is also helped by the fact that he receives an 87% favorable rating from Republicans, higher than the 80% and 79% that Clinton and Obama, respectively, currently receive from Democrats.

So I'm one of 13 percent of Republicans who do not have a favorable impression of McCain.  Figures.

John McCain, Hillary Clinton, and Barack Obama are all at least superficially supportive of an earmark moratorium.

That's a great sign that maybe earmarks (and the corruption that often accompanies them) have finally become a significant political issue.

    I had heard rumblings of this earlier this weekend, that Clinton would start making overtures about Obama being the VP nominee with her the top name on the ticket.  I say "Dear God, No..." for a few reasons:  first, the one thing that might make me vote Democrat this year is Obama at the top of the ticket.  The one thing that will make me run, not walk, and pull that lever for McCain will be having Clinton at the top of the ticket.  I brought this same point up in another thread; I can't conceive of any possible universe in which I would vote for Hillary Clinton, and having Obama as the VP will not sway my decision.

    The second reason:  I see this as a play made from a position of weakness on the part of Clinton.  She's been consistently losing the delegate count post-New Hampshire; she knows it, Obama knows it, and I know it.  She's now got to win something like 60% of the remaining delegates to win the nomination.  Does anyone think that's possible?  I don't.  She's in a weak position, and will likely get weaker. 

    I haven't drunk the Kool-Aid on Obama; I don't think he's the greates thing since sliced bread, but for him to even entertain this overture is a monumental waste of time and energy, and I believe he should get the word out, that this is a non-starter.  It could be like that scene in "A Bridge Too Far", when the British airborne commander, at Arnhem, is asked by a white-flag carrying German soldier if he would like to discuss surrender terms, replies "We'd like to, but we can't accept your surrender! Was there anything else?" -- "I'd like to talk with you about your offer of being the Vice President, but I can't right now."

    The final reason I think this is a bad idea for Obama to even consider is that, if he were to be the VP nominee, I think he'd risk being tainted by the nearly inevitable anti-Clinton attacks during the general election.  I just think he'd be "guilty by association" if he tried to run for the Presidency again, in the future (meaning, running as an incumbent VP succeeding Clinton, or as the John Edwards of 2012).

    That being said, there's still a long time to the election.  Who knows what will happen...maybe Clinton will be decisively beaten; maybe there will be a brokered convention for the Democrats; maybe Obama does accept this move; and maybe the horse will learn to sing.

    We'll see...

HG

I don't have the energy to do (laughably bad) predictions of tonight's Democratic Primaries, so I'll just point to polling aggregators for each state.

• Ohio
• Rhode Island
• Texas
• Vermont

I must say that I hope the Democratic race doesn't end tonight.  Not because I favor Sen. Obama or Sen. Clinton as an easier matchup for Republicans, but because this whole process (superdelegates, proportional representation, etc.) has been incredibly entertaining for a "process junkie" like myself, and I think these all-too-rare discussions of electoral rules and such are good for our national discourse every now and then as well.

I'll be getting most of my news fix tonight from Politico.com, for what little that's worth.

UPDATE:  Heh.  Matt says that my predictions are a "failsafe."  Indeed.

This is how petty comedy has become?

This Chicago Tribune columnist is upset that Saturday Night Live chose Fred Armisen to impersonate Barack Obama in SNL's opening sketch this weekend. I agree that Armisen could have been a little funnier playing Obama...but I think the sketch made its point. And I did laugh. But for those watching, did you really not realize it was the white Armisen? It took me about 3/4 of the sketch to figure out who was playing him. Cate Blanchett just got nominated for an Oscar playing Bob Dylan, a... gasp!...man! Its comedy! Its acting! I don't see the point of making the petty complaint.

Here's a link to the sketch if you didn't see it.

There are primaries today in the District of Columbia, Maryland and Virginia.  Latest polling data is here:

• GOP:  MD, VA
• Dems:  MD, VA

If Hillary loses all three by 15+ points, as the conventional wisdom is projecting, will she be able to survive, momentumless, until Ohio and Texas vote in early March?

If McCain wins winner-take-all Virginia, will Huckabee drop out?

Perhaps someone can post a link here for us...

In Ms. Noonan's Saturday political column, she discusses whether Hillary Clinton is a big enough person to admit when her campaign for the Democratic Presidential nomination has run its course, and she discusses how much harder it's going to be for the Republicans against Obama.

Her last paragraph:  "The Democrats continue not to recognize what they have in this guy (Obama).  Believe me, Republican professionals know.  They can tell."

She's really hitting some high notes lately, and seems to be getting better and better each week.