spreading unease

There has been a flare up of campaign insiders concerned about Obama's chances which has spread to some of the big pro-Obama blogs. The proximate cause is what Obama supporter Nate Silver describes as weakening electoral college strength:

Although Barack Obama remains a slight favorite in this election, his position is more vulnerable than at any point since the primaries concluded, and he no longer appears to have a built-in strength in the electoral college that we had attributed to him before.

Various insiders expressed unease to the NY Times:

As Senator Barack Obama prepares to accept the Democratic presidential nomination next week, party leaders in battleground states say the fight ahead against Senator John McCain looks tougher than they imagined, with Mr. Obama vulnerable on multiple fronts despite weeks of cross-country and overseas campaigning.

Which rapidly spread to long-time Obama boosters like Josh Marshall of TPM (quoting a reader):

I find it disconcerting that Obama, after all this time, is still playing with kid gloves with McCain on issues of security and national defense. If Obama thinks he can win with McCain cornering the market on security issues, he and Kerry will have lots to talk about next year in the Senate Cloakroom.

and John Avarosis of Americablog:

Joe and I know a lot of people in politics. A lot of them are very smart. They're not the people you hate, the Cokie Roberts' and the Mrs. Greenspan's of the world. They're the kind of people you like and you trust. And those people are now telling us that they fear we're going to lose the election.

My guess is that all of these people are in for a long campaign. Given the candidates, Obama and McCain, this election was bound to be close. Obama is not the kind of candidate who can take advantage of all of the structural advantages Democrats have right now, and McCain is the right candidate to compensate for the Republican's structural weaknesses. An electoral college blowout, or a big map change were never in the cards for Obama, as became painfully clear during the primaries. Obama's moderate to conservative policies do not excite the Democratic base, cheering crowds notwithstanding, and McCain has a much deeper appeal to independents.

I saw signs toward the end of the primaries that the progressive groups were not high on Obama's chances and were turning their attention to down-ballot and post-election advocacy. The Obama campaign's signals that he didn't want their help exacerbated the trend. And I was surprised when a stats friend, and Obama supporter, was freaking out in early July over internal polls. Since then Obama has not made any moves to shore up his position with the base, and the Republicans are just gearing up their attacks.

Given a close race Obama may be able to win on the strength of his field operation, but a lot of the press on it is overblown, and the Republican's have kept their own field plans under wraps. What Obama is actually doing on the ground is significant, but it is only incrementally different from what the party and the 527s did in 2004.

I was convinced at the end of the primaries that the race was Obama's to lose. But since then the Republicans have closed the gap on money, and McCain has avoided many of Obama's traps. McCain has been more nimble than I expected at laying out popular policy goals and defining Obama negatively, though I always knew that McCain can mimic populism while Obama cannot. Now I've begun to wonder if we are seeing the triumph of the Daschle approach, i.e. a loss.



Display:


um... (2.00 / 1)

not that i am saying people should get comfortable...  but have we not learned what a FAIL the media is from the primary?


"Democracy! Bah! When I hear that I reach for my feather Boa!" Allen Ginsberg
by canadian gal on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 01:41:24 AM EST

Re: um... (2.00 / 1)

The media seems to have performed in its usual miserable job this cycle. What has surprised me is how many "progressive" blogs followed suit. These guys appear to be actually surprised at the course of the campaign, it's as if they believed the blather they posted during the primaries.


by souvarine on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 01:51:43 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: um... (none / 0)

As we all know that souvarine has been anti-Obama for some time, this diary comes as no suprise. But let's put things in perspective:

Obama is ahead in every single state that John Kerry won in 2004. He's up in New Hampshire (O48-M42), Michigan (O48-M42), Wisconsin (O49-M39) and Minnesota (O49-M40).
If Obama carries every state that Kerry won, he'll have 252 electoral votes in the bag.
We need 269 to win. Obama alsoleads in Iowa (O47-M41) and New Mexico (O49-M41). That would bring him to 264 with only 5 electoral votes needed.

I'm not saying we should run a victory lap, I'm just saying that just because PUMA's and Chicken Littles have over run this place, it's no reason to buy into their fear. Remember they are only here to cause divisions within our party. Well that and to vent their bitter feelings.


by venician on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 12:04:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: um... (none / 0)

I'm there with you on the media, but would add that I've never seen the media so blatant in its efforts to shape an outcome.  WTF is with airing smear ads in their entirity for free under the guise of the ad's "newsworthyness"?  Over and over and over.
And what's with propagating the most damaging BS about Obama -- no one knows where he stands -- when clearly these jokers know he has a clear written policy on just about everything.
Meanwhile, no talking about McCain age or health, how and why he left his first wife,  no challenging his shifting recollections of Vietnam, his blatant genuine "flip-flops", his empty simpleton rhetoric or his blatnat exploitation of the "POW card."

If I had to pin the closeness of this race on one thing it's manipulation of the race by the MSM and Obama's inability, so far, to get out in front of that train.


Jesus Christ was a community organizer and Pontius Pilate was a governor.
by GRO on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 10:14:29 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: spreading unease (none / 0)

McCain would have always been tough, let's not fool ourselves. If Obama had lost, McCain already planned out a strategy to win against Hillary by pretending to take the high road that Obama has blocked off.


"Hey, check it out. You just had yourself a glue OD. So you're learning another lesson. Don't do too much glue, or your night sucks."
by vcalzone on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 01:42:31 AM EST

Re: spreading unease (2.00 / 1)

This whole thing is very simple. These comments stem from the fact taht recently Obama has been slipping in several states in thepolls (case in point Colorado. And he's slipping in the polls because he's not getting enough Clinton voters to back him.


by handsomegent on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 01:53:16 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: spreading unease (none / 0)

Site proof please.


by Cincinnatus on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 02:10:33 AM EST
[ Parent ]

im not saying its true... (2.00 / 2)

but this pew poll suggests some clinton supporters (28%) wont back obama.


"Democracy! Bah! When I hear that I reach for my feather Boa!" Allen Ginsberg
by canadian gal on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 02:17:54 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: im not saying its true... (2.00 / 1)

Thank you for citing proof.


by Cincinnatus on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 02:22:43 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: im not saying its true... (2.00 / 1)

As someone who has lived through seeing my primary candidates mostly lose over the last 40 years, what is going on now pre-convention (I hope it ends there) is deeply disturbing.  So many Democrats seem to want to wreak havoc on the party, cost another loss, rather than just acknowledge their candidate did not win this thing, and move on.  It's why I don't much post here and why I get very upset reading it much of the time.

This is going to be a close election, and if Clinton supporters move over to McCain or do not vote in the GE, it's pretty much lost.  I guess I don't understand the level of anger that would do that considering the two candidates were never far apart in what they stood for.

Also, the effort to portray McCain as a senile old fart is just not going to work.  He is a much more viable candidate in many ways than either Bush, and they were elected.  He feels comfortable to many Americans.

At any rate, if a chunk of the Democratic party opts out of this, and it does not have to be a huge piece of it, we probably lose, and we probably deserve to.


by mady on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 09:54:16 AM EST
[ Parent ]

up to Obama (2.00 / 1)

Obama has a lot of influence over what his primary opponents do. Normally after a closely fought primary the winner will go the extra mile to demonstrate that he wants the support of the loser's coalition. Obama has instead moved on to try to win over conservatives and evangelicals and not so subtly suggested that his primary opponents have nowhere else to go.

One rule of winning elections, don't blame the voters.


by souvarine on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 10:05:53 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: up to Obama (none / 0)

I'm not actually blaming anyone, just stating a potential fact.  

As a loser in those primaries I spoke of, I never expected anything from the winning primary candidate.  I assumed they expected me to plunge in to  get them elected, which I did to the best of my ability.  I don't know why this particular campaign should be any different.  Politics requres a pretty thick skin.  


by mady on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 10:15:00 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: up to Obama (none / 0)

It's different this time because republican operatives are going online to act like they support Hillary, but really only smearing Obama in the primary, and now have taken the opportunity to join in with the usual company of dissatisfied primary victims (the small percentage of true believers in every primary) to make threats and demands, cast gloom, and spread general fuckrakery because they are either paid to do it, they enjoy doing it it for the Red team, or are just borderline scumbags with miserable lives that can only derive satisfaction of trying to drown people in uneasiness because they themselves are pathetic, ugly souls.


by KLRinLA on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 03:59:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: up to Obama (none / 0)

I think you may have a point there.


by mady on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 04:22:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: im not saying its true... (none / 0)

MOJO'd for "DEEPLY DISTURBING"


"But not me personally were those cheers for"
by QTG on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 12:35:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: spreading unease (none / 0)

A CNN/opinion dynamics poll had only 53% of Clinton voters saying they will vote for Obama, that means 47& will back McCain or a third party or (like me) stay home. If you read the internals of the Rasmussen polls state by state Obama is only getting between 76-80% of Dems.  Then there's a recent Pew poll and a Fox News/Dynamics poll which show similar results--and just wait until he disses her in a few days from now.


by handsomegent on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 08:29:54 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: spreading unease (none / 0)

First of all, saying he "disses" her is just pure ignorance.

Second, maybe that is the case at this moment in time.  Maybe its a subconcious attempt to try and get him to pick Hillary.   I will say this... Obama will get a hell of a lot more than 53% of Clinton supporters before this is all done.   The Obama campaign knows how to organize and did a great job of getting new voters out there...  after which, many polls over reached on the expected new numbers.  But they have a LONG time that they have been working, so I would bet Obama is actually stronger than some polls list him. There will be some huffing and puffing Hillary supporters out there but ultimately we will see most of them solidfy behind Obama before this is over  


http://www.imvotingrepublican.com/ McCain Sucks!
by yitbos96bb on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 09:04:29 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: spreading unease (2.00 / 1)

Pure ignorance? Anything less than the vice presidency is the ultimate insult to someone who got more votes than you and with whom you hold similar views. You will see "most" of the Clinton voters going for Obama but a significant number NOT, and count me and my wife in the latter column.


by handsomegent on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 09:59:57 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: spreading unease (none / 0)

So then hg your purpose here is what?? To convince others to vote for McCain?


by venician on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 12:07:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: spreading unease (none / 0)

Again, the same would be true if Hillary had pulled out a last minute win. Do you think Democrats could have won if African-American turnout suddenly sunk to about 50%?


"Hey, check it out. You just had yourself a glue OD. So you're learning another lesson. Don't do too much glue, or your night sucks."
by vcalzone on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 02:32:20 AM EST
[ Parent ]

she didn't win. (none / 0)


"Democracy! Bah! When I hear that I reach for my feather Boa!" Allen Ginsberg
by canadian gal on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 02:34:21 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: she didn't win. (none / 0)

You are kind of missing his point.


http://www.imvotingrepublican.com/ McCain Sucks!
by yitbos96bb on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 09:05:02 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: she didn't win. (none / 0)

I think I get hers, though. These hypotheticals are useless.


"Hey, check it out. You just had yourself a glue OD. So you're learning another lesson. Don't do too much glue, or your night sucks."
by vcalzone on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 09:41:50 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: spreading unease (2.00 / 1)

Nice post, and I agree with most of it, but I don't know where you get this from:

"Obama's moderate to conservative policies do not excite the Democratic base."

Compared to who, Kucinich? While you can find individual policies that fit this description, it's hard to characterize Obama that way overall. Obama won the primaries by running to the left of Clinton on the war, which was a key issue for the netroots etc.

I think a better critique is that his campaign simply isn't being bold enough, or driving the messages they should be driving as consistently as McCain.


by animated on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 01:53:52 AM EST

Re: spreading unease (none / 0)

Obama was to the right of Clinton on Iraq in the primaries, he was last to propose a timeline for withdrawal. Obama's domestic and trade policy proposals were furthest right of the top three candidates, as amply documented by Paul Krugman.

The "netroots" are diverse, but are probably best characterized as libertarian leaning, or lib-dems in Markos's phrase. They are pretty out of touch with the issues and concerns of the Democratic base.

Obama's real problem is policy substance, just as it was in the primary. But I don't think he can fix that. I'm not sure how much bolder he could be, his speech in Berlin was rhetorically bold and he does a good job projecting a bold vision. I think going negative nationally would hurt Obama more than it would help. Since I don't expect him to abandon his post-partisan core I think his best bet is to try to squeak by on field. Though reaching out to Clinton supporters would probably help.


by souvarine on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 02:08:51 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: spreading unease (none / 0)

Hmmm...I don't think you will find many people who agree with your idea that "Obama was to the right of Clinton on Iraq." Whatever their positions on withdrawal - which ended up being largely the same in my mind and probably in most of the public's - it was Obama's initial opposition to the war that allowed him to frame himself as the "pure" candidate of the left against Clinton, despite what you accurately describe as his centrist economic positions (although Clinton is hardly far left, except maybe on health care).

In any case, I really think the problem with the Obama campaign (and maybe this is the good news) is an easily fixable one: he needs to push tougher arguments against McCain, and have better message discipline. There are SO many issues on which he has a built in advantage, but I don't see him driving his points home nearly as decisively as McCain has on the drilling issue, to take one example. I think it shows that there is some advantage in being behind - you have to adapt quickly, take risks and really work for it, as Obama did during the (early) primary and as McCain is doing now.


by animated on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 02:20:09 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: spreading unease (none / 0)

TO THE RIGHT OF CLINTON ON IRAQ?????  Wow, that was the biggest load of crap spewed on this site in a long while.   Great way to discredit your entire thesis.  Thanks!


http://www.imvotingrepublican.com/ McCain Sucks!
by yitbos96bb on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 09:06:02 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: spreading unease (none / 0)

Thanks for the thoughtful analysis.


by niksder on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 10:43:06 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: spreading unease (none / 0)

How in the HELL can one keep propagating this BS with a straight face that Obama has no "policy substance"?  What he doesn't have are three second podium pounding platitudes like "drill everywhere, drill now."

Policy he's got, and then some.  His site is loaded with multi-page PDFs that detail his positions on everything imaginable.  This whole notion of "no policy substance" is an ignorant smear and nothing more.  Typical Republican BS -- if you say something enough times, no matter how many times you're proven wrong, it becomes some bizarre form of "fact".  


Jesus Christ was a community organizer and Pontius Pilate was a governor.
by GRO on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 10:19:42 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: spreading unease (2.00 / 1)

I may have been unclear. Obama has policy substance, but he has the wrong policies. He has taken a centrist, market-based tack when widespread insecurity is leading the electorate to look for a more populist, stronger government candidate.


by souvarine on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 10:25:52 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: spreading unease (none / 0)

I'm confused.  Are you saying that there were liberal principles behind the opposition to the war in Iraq?

I think this is a dangerous argument.  It opens the floodgates the the conservative claim that they are better at defending the nation.  

Decisions on war and peace are not--or shouldn't be--partisan.  That hasn't been the case with the Iraq war, of course.  But I don't think there are conservative or progressive principles behind the arguments for or against the war.  I think it was Bush's war and the repugs followed their team leader.


The universe is a casual place, not a suit-and-tie affair.
by mtnspirit on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 02:15:50 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: spreading unease (none / 0)

Huh? Well, in case you didn't notice, the most strident critics of the war were...on the left. Obviously any candidate who opposed the war would have appeal to that part of the party, as Obama did and still does.


by animated on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 02:24:19 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: spreading unease (2.00 / 1)

Pat Buchanan? Ron Paul? They sounded strident to me, and they are way on the right.


by souvarine on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 02:28:32 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: spreading unease (none / 0)

That doesn't disprove my point at all. In terms of the Dem coalition, it's the left wing of the party that showed the most resistance, especially early on, while the DLCers such as Hillary and Evan Bayh pushed more hawkish line. Is this really such a hard thing to believe?

A list of Congressmen and women who voted against, just in case you still think there is no ideological component to it. There is only 6 Rs to be found in a list of 156 names!

http://usliberals.about.com/od/liberalle adership/a/IraqNayVote_2.htm


by animated on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 02:50:53 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: spreading unease (2.00 / 2)

They are just seeing what was there all along. A lot of denial was going on with the Obama myth among his blogger supporters. He will win within 2 states max.


by Jerome Armstrong on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 01:55:05 AM EST

Jerome, the way I look at it (2.00 / 1)

is that both Obama and HRC are mainstream liberals or moderates.  The difference between the two is that the former was chracterized as a liberal while the latter was characterized as a moderate to conservative dem.  It is pretty difficult to dispel a narrative that had been crafted on you for over a year, even though Obama may (as some of his longtime supporters claim) have held positions that are satisfactory to the thirty percent of conservative dems that will be voting for McCain according to Rasmussen.

I think Obama will need at a minimum 85% of support from dems (which is 4% less than the number received by Kerry to win); I still don't buy that he's struggling with the liberal wing.  The biggest hurdle for Obama seems to be the conservative, DLC wing, while McCain has pretty much eliminated all the talk about Obamacans as the pub base comes home like zombies just as in every election year.


by Blazers Edge on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 02:02:44 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: spreading unease (2.00 / 1)

As the primaries narrowed the Dem. race down to just 3 potential candidates (Obama, Clinton, Edwards) I only cared about which one could WIN.  I don't expect much from candidates anymore, but I just wanted a Democrat in the White House.  It seemed utterly clear to me that Obama would not win.  And I still believe he will not win.  Maybe because I live in a part of the country that is generally red, but also independent-minded.  The combination of his lack of experience and his cool-ish personality, plus the love affair that some segments of the Left were inexplicably having with him... it seemed like a no-brainer this guy cannot win.

I did not like Obama all that much from the beginning, but did not dislike him either.  I have grown to dislike him quite a bit, but that is neither here nor there really.  This guy was going to lose from the get-go.  I still am amazed that this much wasn't obvious to so many.


by Susan in Oregon on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 03:56:53 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: spreading unease (2.00 / 1)

Boy are you gonna be red if he wins.


by Cincinnatus on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 04:16:26 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: spreading unease (none / 0)

But you are still going to donate and vote for him right, I mean, because you want (and the country needs) a Dem in the office to reverse this fascism for the Rich, it's pretty fucking important.  


by KLRinLA on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 04:15:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: spreading unease (2.00 / 5)

Who is spreading unease?

From a UK perspective, this ability to pre-empt failure from American democrats has the smack of a self fulfilling prophesy. Dissent and critiques are all very well, but when you're up against a common enemy... well, frankly it baffles me.  

Progressives note: you have no traction on a candidate who has lost.

Progressives also note: once a candidate has been democratically selected, you rally round and turn on the opposition. Might-have-beens are completely fruitless.

The Republicans know this - hence their better track record in winning elections.


by duende on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 07:58:24 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Historically Democrats have shown an (2.00 / 1)

uncanny ability of losing the Presidential General Election even when everything including the Congress went their way. Divisivity being one of them. The stakes are really high this time around, and past mistakes cannot be repeated. We really need to win this one by pulling everyone with a Democratic background, be it progressive, moderate, liberatarian or conservative.


by louisprandtl on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 09:41:27 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Part of the problem is (none / 0)

that despite those "moderate to conservative" positions that you believe Obama holds, he was characterized as a liberal during the primaries and didn't do very much to dispel that notion.  I disagree that Obama has a problem with the liberal wing of the party as the PUMA movement appears pretty fringe at this point in my opinion.  Obama's biggest challenge is among moderate to conservative dems; Rasmussen has him losing thirty percent of these voters to McCain despite the fact that as you indicated, his views may actually be more in line with conservative wing of the party than the liberal wing of the party.

What is keeping Obama slightly ahead at this time is his ability to tie McCain among indies as he was probably the only dem that could do so given McCain's reputation; but I agree with you that Obama was probably not the best matchup for McCain given the structural incongruities that you outlined (e.g. McCain's ability to appeal to the same indies that Obama would dominate against a Huckabee and Obama's struggles among conservative dems).


by Blazers Edge on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 01:58:15 AM EST

Re: Part of the problem is (none / 0)

Obama has been very skilful at playing off of that liberal perception to win over independents. His "speak truth to the powerless" schtick and post-partisan, "Republicans had the ideas" messages challenge independent's expectations and help them see him as an independent.

I think his weakness with Democrats, even conservative Democrats, stems from his market oriented economic philosophy which I discussed three months ago. McCain's economic approach is worse, but he is capable of playing a populist.


by souvarine on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 02:24:06 AM EST
[ Parent ]

maybe he can pick Pat Buchanan as VP (none / 0)


by JJE on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 02:27:29 AM EST
[ Parent ]

"Republicans had the ideas"? (2.00 / 1)

Does someone need to explain to  you, yet again, just how disingenuous and out-of-context this smear is?


I am not a crook!
by username on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 05:51:19 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: spreading unease (2.00 / 1)

I really can't disagree with anything you've said here. I suspect the election will be far too close for comfort.


by LakersFan on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 02:41:17 AM EST

Re: spreading unease (none / 0)

I think the problem here is that most people are doing analysis with their hearts.  I never thought the Democratic nominee was a lead pipe cinch to win.  The Kerry/Gore map has been pretty static for a couple cycles so it was always going to be a tough road to hoe for whoever won the primary.

The problem is that now that the "irrational exuberance" is being wrung out of the system, people are thinking that it is someone's fault.  The fact is that things are returning somewhat to their default state.  However, I would still rather be in Sen. Obama's shoes than in Sen. McCain's especially because so many McCain states are in play.

The true test will be after the Republican National Convention.  If McCain is still behind then, it is over.


Visiting the hopium dens proudly since 2007.
by AZphilosopher on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 03:35:27 AM EST

Re: spreading unease (2.00 / 1)

I will be concerned  if the the polls remain slowly trending to MacLame through the 3rd week of september. His veep pick is key.  I still hope its Richardson, Clinton or Clark in that order with B Graham as my darkhorse. The first two help regionaly and in certain swing states as well the expience they bring. The campaigns organizing in GE focus states is in its childhood. Though years ahead and more extensive than the former flyboys, I dont think its impact is being represented in current polling. We will see what the landscape looks like in a month, then I might start worrying.


Because I wont trade humanity for patriotism!
by Drewid on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 03:47:53 AM EST

spreading verbs or adjectives? (2.00 / 2)

As in "this diarist has noticed a 'spreading unease'", or, "this diarist is interested in 'spreading unease'"?


Saxby Chambliss: Asshat
by mikeinsf on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 04:34:38 AM EST

Re: spreading verbs or adjectives? (2.00 / 1)

I don't harbor any illusions that this race is even close to a done deal, but the diarist is indeed "spreading unease".  

A quick look over the diarists history proves this point.

I still think that of the candidates we had running Obama offered us the BEST chance and that McCain would be the toughest candidate.  

Concern trolling over polls in August though (polls mind you, which still suggest and Obama win) seems a little weak to me.  I might feel different if there were some sort of call to action, but this diarist doesn't even have a donate button.

Pathetic that this tops the rec list.


by Pragmatic Left on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 08:30:34 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: spreading verbs or adjectives? (none / 0)

If I were intent upon voting for McCain if Hillary were not the VP pick, then I could see the draw of spending a lot of my time playing spoiler and spreading unease regarding Obama and his chances.  


by niksder on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 11:11:56 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: spreading verbs or adjectives? (none / 0)

Indeed.


by Dreorg on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 09:06:13 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Can we Drop being PC for once- Its BLACK ! (2.00 / 1)

Boy, this thread really reflects how base democrats handle PC Issues like Race & Religion.

90% of the people here are giving All Sorts of B.S. on why Obama could find himself truly losing in November ( despite unprecented Historical Advantages on Campaign money of as much as 3 to 1 , absolute worse economy,absolutely very unpopular war, & record gas prices)

Only a couple of people were honest enough to ADMIT that its because he is African-American !

Either some here are amazingly in Denial Big Time or you guys are so out of touch with reality.

Thousands of fellow democrats Repeatedly Brought up this issue in the primary. But Only to be Called & Labeled Racist & Scared by the very same liberal base democrats who are now shaking in disbelief.

What Hillary Clinton supporters?

With this kind of Anti-GOP Mood in the country. When Democrats are expected to have Historical GAINS in the Senate & the House. When Democrats may even win seats in the deep South.

You gotta be kidding me & yourself if you don't understand why its not translating into Barack Obama.

Its much much more than HRC supporters. Its simply White democrats. White Indies & White Republicans !!!

With this shit hole Economy, the stupid war & the most unpopular GOP president in modern history- There is Very Little Movement even among Moderate White Republicans when it comes to Obama.

There is also less than enough movement among White Independent voters.

And yes, As many here kept repeating back in April, May, & June- anywhere from 25% to as high as 30% of White democrats would likely not support Obama on election day.

Lets all face it. If this was any other " Mainstream White Democrat running" in this Horrible Economy, Horrible War, and Horrible Prez,

You'd see easily 15%-25% of White Republicans crossing party lines for the democrat. We'd see 2 to 1 White independent voters flocking to the democrats. You'd see 90% or higher of white democrats supporting the nominee.

Pleazzze ! I can still remember many Mydd Obama fans who kept on repeating the mantra about YOUNG Voters, Black Voters, & Liberal base Voters carrying Obama to victory.

I can still clearly remember All the Money Advantage that Obama would have & how Obama would turn Red states into Blue.

You picked "Making History" over electability, so we do not want to hear it.

Everyone here will be voting for Obama in November.

But if he does not win, Pleazzze! We do not want to hear the blame game. This will be the Most Painful Lesson & the Absolute Worse Lost Opportunity for the Democratic Party in the last 100 years !

Many here had their blinders & ear plugs on during the primary, So do you dare start whining & bitchin now. You are not getting any sympathy from 17 Million Registered Democrats who saw this coming!

How many times did we say. Money cannot buy elections. How many times did we say, No More delegate splits. No more extra delegates allocated for Urban areas with large black voters. That's the slanted Primary.

This is the real deal! Its now Winner Take all. No more splitting of delegates in Texas & Indian. All Americans of all stripes get to vote.

This is when Obama himself becomes the Number 1 whether you like it or not. This is Reality !

P.S. When one of the hardest hit states economically like Ohio,  Missouri & even Michigan show Republican McCain actually in position to very possibly carry those states, You Know that its All about Barack Obama!


by latinomaker on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 04:50:20 AM EST

Re: Can we Drop being PC for once- Its BLACK ! (none / 0)

THANK YOU!!!!!!!!!!!!!


I'm voting for Saxby Chambliss!
by Jess81 on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 05:12:55 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Can we Drop being PC for once- Its BLACK ! (none / 0)

Whoops, I take that back.


I'm voting for Saxby Chambliss!
by Jess81 on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 06:22:24 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Can we Drop being PC for once- Its BLACK ! (2.00 / 1)

You may right.  We'll see.

I hope you are wrong.  But right now it looks like you may be right.

The groups have always been there ... seniors, working class white, Jewish voters, Latinos, and Catholics.  Can Obama win enough of them.

I do think Obama will do well enough with Latinos.   The rest ..... I dunno.


by RichardFlatts on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 10:40:58 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: spreading unease (2.00 / 3)

Most of the conversations I've been having about the election basically go like this: "So, do you think Obama is going to win"?  "I don't know, if he were white I would."

That's a taboo subject, especially on this site - if you'll recall, suggesting that his race gave him no shot in West Virginia and Kentucky was a banable offense here.  But there's no question it's in play.

Your suggestion that it's because he's too conservative is ridiculous.  It's the conservative Democrats who aren't behind him.


I'm voting for Saxby Chambliss!
by Jess81 on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 05:17:57 AM EST

Another taboo (none / 0)

I agree that race is certainly a factor.  Its just the sad truth about our country right now.

But its also about experience.  Were Obama to win, he would become the first president since at least the 19th century (maybe ever?) to become president without having been a governor or spent significant time in Washington (usually as a senator).  He has VERY, VERY unusual credentials for the job and that worries an electorate that tends to be risk averse in choosing presidents.

This is also taboo to talk about, because people feel that if this obvious truth is vocalized, the "inexperienced" meme will become more entrenched.

In the same year, we nominated a black guy and a guy with the most unusual set of credentials ever.  I still think we win, but it was a hell of a risk to take.  And a lot of people are still in denial about that.


John McCain: Extending SCHIP would be an "unfunded liability."
by Fuzzy Dunlop on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 09:34:56 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Another taboo (none / 0)

Fuzzy, it was always going to be a risk, the same with Sen. Clinton.  Fear of losing hasn't worked out so well for us in the past.  The country may or may not be ready.  Let's play this out a bit.  Let's make every decision about elected office and other high-stakes positions where winning is paramount subject to the rule that we never take a risk.  Yep, all we do is pick the sure thing.  Can you see American institutions getting whiter?  I sure can.  Anything different brings risk.  Is America ready?  I have no earthly idea.  But Senator Obama won a contest that makes him the nominee.  Will we have been wrong as voters if he doesn't win in the general?  Not necessarily.

I'm not sure what you thought this moment would look like, but there were no guarantees with Clinton or Edwards (the white male default candidate who would have blown up in our faces.)

People are in denial about a lot of things, including that Democrats may have been well aware of the risk and still chose the candidate with the unusual background.


by niksder on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 12:17:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Another taboo (none / 0)

I agree with you across the board Niksder.  The important thing at this point is just to go all out and try to win.  


John McCain: Extending SCHIP would be an "unfunded liability."
by Fuzzy Dunlop on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 02:17:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Wonderful post (none / 0)

especially the reminder about the "safe" candidate.


by Neef on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 03:25:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Another taboo (none / 0)

Good post, it reminds me of the desegregation of schools cases and interaccial marriage(Brown v Bd, Loving and others) where inevitably some dicta in the dissents would say something like  "Of course people should be treated equal/ have the same opportunity, but the students/interracial couple will be mistreated by others thus we must not allow the integration in order to protect them."

People can always hide behind the "safe bet" and not take risks,  but that would slow down/stop the evolution of common sense.

I'd also counter the idea that Clinton would be a shoe in...I don't know what the numbers are but it is true that she would energize the Repubs to vote against her, Repubs think Clinton = criminal, just like we think Bush = Criminal...this comparison may not be rational, but it exists nonetheless.   But so what, if she were the Nominee I doubt I'd waste time sulking about "what ifs" and "ohs noes", I'd rather focus on ensuring that a dem makes it in the white house to reverse the last 8 years of fascism to benefit the rich.


by KLRinLA on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 04:35:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: spreading unease (2.00 / 2)

he no longer appears to have a built-in strength in the electoral college that we had attributed to him before.
What happened to the "new map?"


by soyousay on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 07:18:06 AM EST

Re: spreading unease (none / 0)

What happened to "biggest landslide since McGovern"?


I'm voting for Saxby Chambliss!
by Jess81 on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 08:27:00 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: spreading unease (none / 0)

For which I Bestow Mucho 'Oh No!' Mojo.


"But not me personally were those cheers for"
by QTG on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 07:22:45 AM EST

Part of his staff (msnbc) are on vacation (none / 0)

Unfortunately for Obama, many pundits from msnbc  are on vacation due to the Olympics. I see that KO is still doing his usual cheerleading though.


by soyousay on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 08:01:25 AM EST

and thank god for that n/t (none / 0)


by Neef on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 08:42:34 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Part of his staff (msnbc) are on vacation (none / 0)

I know isn't he GREAT. You just got to love how he speaks truth to power. So glad to see you have finally come around to seeing how great he really is.


by venician on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 12:24:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Part of his staff (msnbc) are on vacation (none / 0)

You have a great sense a humor.


by soyousay on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 02:28:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]

It's not Obama losing (2.00 / 2)

it's McCain winning.

I strongly disagree that this election is about anything except Schmidt's skill at negative campaigning. Issues are irrelevant, and will continue to be irrelevant - note how smoothly McCain coopted Obama's clear advantage re:Maliki.

That was an issues win, it should have been a game-changer, but the GOP has spun it away. If Obama were to find another strong, really strong issue platform (say energy) - McCain would be saying the same thing in a week.

This election isn't, and was never going to be about issues, which is why I didn't think HRC had any inherent advantage. Recent events have only reinforced my primary impressions.

The "Celebrity" attacks were brilliant, and frankly totally unexpected. We were all waiting for attacks from the past associations quarter, but we forgot the Rove Mantra - attack your opponent's strength. We acted like Rove was going to attack Obama's weakness, and leave his strengths untouched, when that was never going to happen.

It doesn't help that the GOP maintains it's classic message discipline while we wring our hands over "freedom of speech within our party". Republicans don't love McCain, but they are unrelenting in their attacks on Obama. Dems - not so much. Al Gore has nice things to say about McCain. Feingold has nice things to say about him. Go Dems!

Where is the Democratic Corsi? Why is there no The Case Against John McCain on the shelves. Democratic cohesion is an oxymoron, that's why. We sit back and expect our candidates to do all the heavy lifting, while the GOP barely wants McCain to speak at all.

Finally, as to the actual undertone of the diary, I think many people expect that HRC would have done better. They think McCain would have hit HRC with the attacks we all expect, while leaving her strengths unchallenged. They imagine that every hour of every news cycle wouldn't be continual GOP attack campaigning, or that such campaigning would just bounce off. They think McCain couldn't goad 2008 Bill into inartful statements.

They are entitled to their opinions. I disagreed during the Primaries, and I disagree now.


by Neef on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 08:21:16 AM EST

Oh please (2.00 / 1)

You blame the democratic machinery for not producing a Corsi, but why isn't the Obama campaign itself fighting back.  What have they done to define McCain and hammer his weaknesses?  Where is the "heavy lifting" on the negative side that you refer to?  And wouldn't that be easier if they hadn't sidelined all the 527s?

This is the most favorable political environment any candidate has seen since at least the end of WWII.  It is so favorable that many political scientists (I am one myself) thought it virtually impossible for the democratic candidate to lose absent some major scandal.  To insinuate that the result is somehow out of Obama's hands or that any candidate would be losing to the unbeatable McCain is just ridiculous.


John McCain: Extending SCHIP would be an "unfunded liability."
by Fuzzy Dunlop on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 09:43:37 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Oh please (none / 0)

First of all, they are fighting back, in local ads. The problem is Dems aren't nearly as good at negative campaigning as Repugs are. We never have been, precisely because we hammer weakness.

If we are to win negative campaigns, we need to hammer strength. We need to lie, and twist, and distort, and mislead - and we as a party have little stomach for that. Hammer weaknesses? Please. When was the last decade THAT worked?

And again, where IS the Corsi? Where is the Hannity? Where is the Limbaugh? Where is the message infrastructure? KO is the closest we've got.

As far as how political scientists saw the political environment, well, welcome to "always room to learn". I submit that you may have a different common wisdom coming out of 2008, than you did going in, whether we win or lose.

I still think Obama has some game, I'm not giving up the ship. I think there's a better than even chance he will win. I don't think HRC would have done any better.

But - and this was the thrust of my post - the Democrats suck at supporting their candidates, and all this hand-wringing and second guessing doesn't change that one iota.


by Neef on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 11:15:21 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Oh please (none / 0)

Clinton basically killed Dole's chances before the race even began by hammering his weaknesses.  There are many relatively recent examples of Republicans hammering weaknesses (ex: 1988, 1980).  The Rovian idea that you have to attack a candidate's strength is not gospel.  Its a smart play, sometimes.  And there's no reason that you couldn't "lie, twist, or distort" in an attack on weaknesses.

I agree that the Democratic infrastructure is not nearly as good at supporting its candidates as the GOP infrastructure.  We have a different kind of infrastructure - its more diffuse and it represents a bigger tent.  But those are the cards we're dealt and its not going to change in the next two months.

What is controllable is the tactics of the Obama campaign.  They have simply not gone after McCain hard.  Local ads that say that McCain's policies are bad for workers or will lead to a loss of jobs are not serious negative attacks.  Those are run-of-the-mill campaign stuff.  

McCain is an out-of-touch, aging elitist with an anger management problem and a huge track record of questionable ties to corporate interests.  His "maverick" image is basically a fraud.  He is also an unabashed militarist who jokes about bombing other countries into oblivion and who is very likely to put US boots on the ground in another country.  Where are the ads slamming him over and over on these grounds?

I agree that it sucks that Democrats are dealt the cards they are (in terms of infrastructure).  I just wish Obama would play a hand aggressively, because that's how you win in poker and politics.


John McCain: Extending SCHIP would be an "unfunded liability."
by Fuzzy Dunlop on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 11:27:35 AM EST
[ Parent ]

I would love to see (none / 0)

The ads you describe. I think many of us would. What I question is the effect of those ads once the GOP machine is done. We would be trying to go head-to-head with them on their turf. Again, I'm not really disagreeing with you there, but Schmidt has frankly shaken my confidence in our message ability. Look how they went after Clark for criticizing McCain's fake bona fides, and Clark is a fraking former Supreme Commander of Nato.


by Neef on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 12:03:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: It's not Obama losing (2.00 / 1)

Interesting points, I think in the past I misunderstood where you were coming from. McCain is campaigning better than I expected, his staff shakeup appears to have made a real difference. And this is a very close race, Obama could improve a bit in the polls and these very same people would be singing his praises again. Part of my point is how fickle these supporters are, largely because they did not understand the dynamics of this election.

I agree more with the people quoted in the NY Times article than the bloggers, Obama is doing plenty of hard, negative campaigning in the right places. Just as in the primaries Obama is very good at under the radar negative campaigning. But, just as in the primaries, he has a hard time convincing people that he will make the substantive change they are looking for.

The long-standing rule probably holds, Democrats lose elections that turn on character and win elections that turn on issues. Obama wants to beat the Republicans at the character game, but the Democratic coalition cannot withstand that kind of divisiveness.


by souvarine on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 09:52:13 AM EST
[ Parent ]

"real difference" (2.00 / 1)

is an epic understatement. He was a punchline before, a joke - despite his media support.

I completely agree about the "fair weather" supporters. I don't think people expected a hard campaign, and more pointedly, I think we severely underestimated the Rove machine. I certainly did.

You point about the issues, that's the crux of the biscuit. Obama is TRYING to make it an issues election, and McCain is trying to avoid that. McCain doesn't present opposing policies, he simply hammers Obama 100% of the time. Obama tries to present issues, but then the GOP attacks go unanswered. At it's core what this is is a message election, and we are simply losing the message war.

I expected a message war, which was why Obama's lightness on the issues didn't concern me. I wanted a "rock star" to put some punch behind his messages. Before Schmidt, (up to the midpoint of the World Tour) Obama was exactly what I'd hoped he'd be, dark glasses and all. To a great extent those are still his strengths.

But the celebrity thing hurt (as it was designed to). It will blunt the MASSIVE message advantage he'd have gotten from the optics of the Convention, and I don't know where we can make it up elsewhere. At this point, I am hoping Bill Burton can just stay within spitting image of McCain on the message, and the ground game will cover the difference.


by Neef on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 11:50:15 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: spreading unease (none / 0)

Thanks for the wakeup call, Souvarine.  I will devote more time and money to getting him elected.


I'm voting for Saxby Chambliss!
by Jess81 on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 08:31:58 AM EST

Re: spreading unease (none / 0)

Well.  If Field is all we've got, every damn one of you'd better get out in the field.  
It's good to be worried.  You might do something about it, at least while it's still warm outside.
Yes, I'm aware there's a possible misogynist reading of the myth. Sorry.
by Endymion on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 08:38:49 AM EST

This election shouldn't have been close (2.00 / 2)

But you may be right that , "given the candidates, Obama and McCain, this election was bound to be close."

We have to play the cards as dealt and Obama's softness in some key swing states is something that we have to overcome.   That being said, you are not going to beat McCain running a safe, nice campaign.

Democrats have brought a knife to a gunfight the last 2 elections.  It is time to get tough.  It should be EASY.

The Republicans have won elections for year by making their opponent unacceptable to a wide range of voters.  Like it or not, it was wrong, but they made Kerry out to be a wishy washy flip flopper with a questionable war record, not to be trusted in a time of war.   It worked.

There is so much material to go after McCain with.  His sudden change in positions, the idea that he is "crazy" (hey Republicans invented this attack on McCain, remember, let Democrat surrogates have a field day with it), his age, his open warmongering.

McCain should have been totally painted as an old, crazy warmonger - with health problems - that can't wait to be elected so he can send our sons and daughters to die in Iran.  I would pound this these from here until election day with no apologies.


by RichardFlatts on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 09:14:14 AM EST

Have you been paying attention to elections? (none / 0)

Dems only win in close ones, no matter what (Ford v Carter as an example).


by IowaMike on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 09:52:22 AM EST
[ Parent ]

1996? (none / 0)

Wasn't close.


by souvarine on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 09:58:56 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: 1996? (none / 0)

Well, it was a three person race, and Clinton got less than 50% of the popular vote. And he only won because we had an incumbent with an improving economy. To compare, look at Reagan's re-election.


by IowaMike on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 10:20:30 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: 1996? (none / 0)

Perot voters broke 50/50 with respect to their second choice.  If it was a two person race, Clinton would have been way over 50% and won by the same margin.  He also probably would have broken 50% in 1992, as again, contrary to GOP mythology, surveys suggest that Perot voters were 50/50.

LBJ also blew out Goldwater in 1964.

Its not impossible for a democrat to win easily, especially in what has been universally seen as the most favorable political environment for a candidate since at least WWII.  Clinton might have been an incumbent and had an improving economy in 1996, but party ID was roughly equal.  The current environment is more favorable to Obama than 1996 was to Clinton.


John McCain: Extending SCHIP would be an "unfunded liability."
by Fuzzy Dunlop on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 10:26:45 AM EST
[ Parent ]

1964 (none / 0)

LBJ Incumbent, after liked Pres shot.

Let me clarify. Other than with the power of incumbency and a good economy for the dem, it is incredibly close.

Carter was going against the Watergate pardoner, and barely won. Clinton against a recession, and barely won. If a repug is an incumbent and has a good economy, they win by more.

Gore had a popular pres to run after and lost. Bush one had tge same thing and won. The country has tilted repug in Pres elections.


by IowaMike on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 11:52:12 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Thank you PUMA (none / 0)

for doing all you can to fulfill your own predictions.

Look at the diarists history, all of their work. As long as you all decide you will never help, we will lose.

BTW, if Hillary won, we would be in worse shape. She ran a lousy campaign and the internal memos show what a bad campaigner she was. Heck, she lost to a funny-named 1st termer from Illinois.


by IowaMike on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 09:51:09 AM EST

Re: spreading unease (none / 0)

I remember during the "kitchen sink" era of the Primary some folks were lamenting Obama's lack of "throwing back"..He won.

The Democratic Convention will be all about tying McCain and Bush...

Does anyone believe a candidate with a darker melanin can play a blood in the water campaign?

Obama has already started running State specific ads attacking McCain policies

Nevada=Yucca MT.
Ohio=DHL
Colorado=Alternative Energy..

I am certainly not worried about Obama firing up
80,000+ on the 28th...


"harlequin speech of suicide, demanding instantaneous lobotomy"
by nogo postal on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 10:30:41 AM EST


You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.