I simply found this image pretty neat (it is even better in the paper version of Politico)
Category: Political
-
Thoughts on Election 2008
Steve got bored of studying, so he decided to write something reflecting on the election. Only recently, I was able to get my thoughts into two basic points.
First, Obama beat Edwards in the first quarter of 2007 Fundraising, and second, Hillary’s lack of attention to caucuses did her in. Both of these have been mentioned by the media many times while they were happening, but few seem to be pointing to these items as being the reason Hillary (will likely) lose.
The Edwards and Obama point came after hearing a complaint from an Edwards person that the media seemed to favor and love Obama. Edwards and Obama have a lot of similarities and offered somewhat similar messages, so why the lovefest? Because he was new? Maybe. But Obama was the answer to the question that lingered in people’s heads leading up to 2008.
The question everyone asked themselves about the 2008 election was who would be the Anti-Hillary. In 2006, everyone knew that Hillary was the front-runner, but who was her rival. The field was full of heavy hitters, it was hard to figure out. Richardson and Biden in 2004 would have been some of the strongest candidates, but in this field they never left the second tier. Edwards was the reigning VP Nominee, and Obama had given a great speech in 2004 that rocketed him to stardom.
Fundraising provided the answer. In the first quarter of 2007, Hillary raised $26 million. Obama $25 Million. Edwards $14 Million. Edwards’ number was nothing to sneeze at (it was twice what he raised in ’03 for the same period). But the stunner was that Obama was able to almost match Hillary. Obama then became the more viable candidate. Edwards looked a little ‘bit like a loser. This may have allowed for the media to treat Obama with a little more gusto than Edwards.
Obama then won Iowa, and his position as the anti-Hillary was sealed.
So how did he beat Hillary?
The topic that seems to get surprisingly little attention now is the caucuses versus primary states. The talking heads say that Obama does better in caucus states and because he continually won them, it was an uninteresting story. While I don’t have any insider knowledge on how much organization there was for Hillary in these states, but it seems to be that the lack of effort in these states is what did her in.
Yes, she lost Iowa, but remember she did well in Nevada. In these two states where she established an organization, she faired alright.
After some quick Google searches, I was a little stunned to see the lack of emphasis on this very basic point. To figure out how many delegates Obama won in caucus versus primary states, I actually had to whip out Excel myself and add it up.
Here are some rough numbers (Sources are RealClearPolitics and CNN, in actuality Obama has not even won delegates from some caucus states. For example, Iowa doesn’t officially choose until June 14th so many of these numbers are estimates).
Caucus Delegates
Obama: 324
Clinton: 178Now lets look at
Primary Delegates
Obama: 1277
Clinton: 1266That’s only an 11 delegate lead for Obama in primary states. Hillary (as the dead candidate) overall right now is only down 157 in pledged delegates. 146 of this comes from Obama’s caucus edge. To an extent an argument could be made that Obama’s greater viability generated by his caucus victories increased his later primary gains. For example in Super Tuesday Primaries, Hillary wins by 60 delegates. In Super Tuesday Caucuses, Obama wins by 72.
Some may respond that Obama did not invest as much into primary states because he went with more of a caucus strategy. Also, we have no idea how much some of the later primaries or caucuses may have changed based on the influence of early victories or delegate leads. Nonetheless it is simply interesting to note that all but of 11 of Obama’s pledged delegate lead is attributable to caucuses. Many of which Hillary did not contest strongly.
Was it a simple oversight that delivered the Clinton’s their first electoral defeat in over 25 years? Perhaps.
Two other little observations about the Clinton campaign. I always wondered why she went with the “Hillary” brand instead of the “Clinton” brand (on her signs for example). Can anyone name a presidential candidate that ever went with this approach? I am sure it was poll tested to the extreme, but it was always interesting to me.
The second observation is something that Tim Russert struck on the night of Indiana and North Carolina. It was bolstered by a comment by Hillary when she won West Virginia. I think Hillary is staying in for women. There are many women who are inclined to vote for Hillary because she is a woman. My mother even phrased it as that she could not pass up the opportunity to vote for a woman for President. There have been women candidates before, but none with the chance that Hillary had. When Hillary invoked the 19th Amendment and mentioned that woman in South Dakota on Tuesday, it at least said to me that she was staying in it for women. I am an Obama supporter, and I have absolutely no problem with her staying in the race if that is the case. Since honestly and sadly, I really do not know when we will have another woman who can challenge for the presidency.
Okay, back to studying (it is sad that this is what I use as a break)
-
State Legislative Tid Bit
I first read about this Nebraska state legislator last summer. He did something very creative. Made sure that there were no other types of legal executions besides the electric chair. He assumed that the electric chair would be eventually considering cruel and unusual punishment, which it was be Nebraska Supreme Court. Therefore, there is no way for the state of Nebraska to execute anyone.
Here is an article that appears in the NYT today about him. His ousting is a strike against term limits in my opinion. I am not exactly certain where I stand on capital punishment at the moment, but there is something to be said about having experienced legislators like Ernie Chambers.
Lincoln Journal
An Irascible Firebrand, Finally Quieted by Term Limits
By SUSAN SAULNYLINCOLN, Neb. — The senior senator of Nebraska’s unicameral Legislature is going out just the way he came in nearly four decades ago: obstinately, and with a whole lot to say in his T-shirt and jeans.
It is time to retire from lawmaking, or so the new rules about term limits dictate.
“I have to remind people as they show great sadness that I’m not dying, I’m just getting out of the Legislature,” said the senator, Ernie Chambers, 70. “But a lot of people are going to be very happy when my absolute last day arrives. In fact, there will probably be so much joy in this corner of the world that it will be picked up on the Richter scale. I’m not liked at all.”
Liked or not, Mr. Chambers, a black, divorced, agnostic former barber from Omaha with posters of Malcolm X and Frederick Douglass decorating his office, managed to rise to an ultimate level of power in a mostly rural, white conservative state on little more than sheer determination to do so.
In many ways, he could be the model of the antipolitician: he does not like coalition-building, negotiating or even socializing. He belittles and berates his colleagues. His office does not use call waiting. His name is not on his locked door in the majestic Capitol building here, and visitors have been known to pound their fists numb trying to get an audience.
And he refuses to wear anything more formal than his Levi’s.
Yet, from the office of Gov. Dave Heineman, a Republican, on down, there is praise for Mr. Chambers as being one of the most effective elected officials in the state — one who is already a part of history books in the Nebraska schools. First elected in 1971 to represent the north side of Omaha, a minority district, he is the state’s only black senator and widely regarded as the dean of the body. That is, until now.
He is packing up, largely against his will. He firmly believes that term limits came about in an effort to end his admittedly pesky tenure.
“They mentioned my name and said we’ve got to get rid of him,” Mr. Chambers said in an interview, referring to the proponents of a petition drive for term limits. But on second thought, he added: “I wouldn’t have wanted to die on the floor. That would have given my enemies too much pleasure.”
Nonetheless, friends and beleaguered colleagues agree that the Nebraska Legislature is not going to be the same without him. An occasional opponent on the issues, Senator Don Priester, addressed Mr. Chambers in front of the entire body. “You taught me a lot of life lessons on this floor over my last 16 years,” Mr. Priester said, adding, “You have continually challenged, cajoled, and used stories to bring us out and to think, and to question whether or not we have practiced what we preach.”
Mr. Chambers is regarded as a master of process, procedure and the filibuster, and his power derived from being as much a bill-killer as law-maker. Some thought him a bully. He would filibuster anything he did not like unless concessions were made to appease him, or he might nitpick at the details of a bill until it fell apart under the weight of his scrutiny.
His tenure made him the senior member by a wide margin; the next-longest-serving senator has been in office about half as many years.
He took special interest in American Indians, poor urban blacks, small farmers and women’s rights. He was unbending in his opposition to the death penalty, nibbling away at it over the years and managing to secure bans for minors and those with mental difficulties.
In perhaps his biggest strategic victory, he opposed the Legislature’s switching from the electric chair to lethal injection as a means of execution, leaving Nebraska as the sole state with the chair as its only method of execution. In February, the Nebraska Supreme Court ruled electrocution unconstitutional, effectively suspending executions in the state.
Whether Mr. Chambers is correct or not in his assessment of how term limits came to be, supporters of the law frequently mentioned him as a reason to vote for the state constitutional amendment. But he is not the only casualty. A large group of senators were forced out two years ago. By early next year, 15 other veterans will be gone, including Mr. Chambers.
“There’s nobody else they feared enough to get term limits for,” he said. “They’d get rid of everybody else to get rid of me.”
Regardless, it is a huge turnover in a body known for its slow deliberation and consistency. It is probably also one of the most intimate institutions, being the only one-house, nonpartisan legislature in the nation, and also the smallest with only 49 members. The Nebraska limits, which were approved by voters in 2000, bar senators from serving more than two consecutive four-year terms, but they can return after sitting out one term.
In the last days, any disapproval of Mr. Chambers or his tactics is well hidden. There was nothing but effusive praise everywhere.
There were flowers, even tears.
A lot of the memorializing and back-slapping was directed toward the one man who wanted none of it, Mr. Chambers.
“I feel no sentimentality, no nostalgia,” he said.
He fled the floor before the customary goodbyes began. He was not there when the body voted unanimously to name the judicial conference room in his honor or as more than a dozen of his colleagues offered personal testimonials about why he deserved the rare tribute.
On one of Mr. Chambers’s last days actually legislating, Mr. Heineman’s office called to invite him to be part of the governor’s escort procession onto the floor of the Legislature. Mr. Chambers’s answer was a resounding no.
“I don’t do things like that,” Mr. Chambers grumbled after the call. “No ceremonies. That’s not what I’m here about. I tell you, I’m a loner.”
-
Tom Daschle
I am a frequent message board reader, and someone posed the question of who Obama’s VP would be. I believe it would be Tom Daschle. I got the following responses.
Failure. Weakling. No.
Was defeated for reelection in 2004, from a small state in the Northwest, carries the odor of failure. Don’t see it happening.
So I responded with the following, which some people may find interesting.
Why was he defeated in 2004? Because South Dakota thought he went Washington. What does Obama need? Someone with Washingtonian experience. Reagan had Bush. Clinton had Gore. Bush had Cheney. Obama needs a Cheney.
Who is Obama’s Senate Chief of Staff? Pete Rouse . Daschle’s former (critical) aide.
Daschle also made a few trips to Iowa in ’05 and ’06, but likely had no intention of running. Could he have been just scoping things for Obama while Edwards and Hillary were clearly running presidential campaigns? Perhaps.
When did Tom Daschle endorse Obama? Almost immediately. Can anyone name a bigger endorsement earlier?
Who happened to make some of the tag line quotes against Clinton from the Obama camp this week. Daschle once more.
There has been a long time anti-Clinton sentiment amongst many Democrats in Washington. Bill always looked out for number one, and with that, there were a number of groups that coalesced opposed the DLC/Clinton ways. Mr. Daschle was one of them, and he definitely has his finger in the presidential race pot.
He gives Obama the “insider” Washington experience that a McCain could criticize him on. And honestly, people don’t care if Change and Hope meet the VP spot. Would anyone ever call Cheney a compassionate conservative?
Also, I would like to toot my own horn a little bit and bring this back up.
From my January 8th post.I do not think Obama is JFK. However the point I want to make is that I think Bill’s greatest political battle will be taking down his hero to an extent. In 1960, Nixon was more experienced to become president, but JFK riled up a new generation of politicos, including Bill Clinton. Bill Clinton is the best tactician in politics, but will his abilities be enough to take down the inspiring candidate? I just found the JFK – Clinton – Obama connection interesting.
NY Times: A President Like My Father
-
So I guess Gore isn’t running.
Instead of finishing my last application to grad school, I sat for hours watching New Hampshire primary results come in. I admit I support Obama. I came to this decision before Iowa, but in honesty it is due to a lesser of evils sort of thing.
The thought that struck me tonight was how interesting this race is. Bill Clinton is probably the best politician that the Democrats have. It is to the point of indescribable about how good he is. Within his own presidency, he was able to overcome a failed health care plan, a government shutdown, and impeachment while leaving office with a 60+ approval rating. Simply remarkable.
Everyone knows that the topic since Iowa has been “change.” And to many it seems that Hillary has altered her message to emphasize her ability as a change agent. She did. He didn’t. About a month ago, Bill was using the change agent talking point. Hillary at this point had just slipped a little to Obama in the polls, but was still up in most in New Hampshire. Hillary tried to make herself appear softer and more “likable.” And Bill was saying she is a change agent….The topic of change has become so dominant that even John McCain on Sunday was trying to argue he was an agent of change. Bill saw this theme a month in advance.
Then there is Obama. The man who can inspire, and I am not saying this lightly either. The ability to move people with words is quite a feat. He actually is bring people into the political arena that have been absent their whole lives. Even when conceding, he gave the strongest speech of the night. He is a great orator, but his Harvard Law Review credentials assure there is more in him than great vocal cords. He may be the most inspiring candidate the Democrats have had since Kennedy. Bill’s words always fit just right, but they rarely moved an individual. I don’t think I need to argue much about Kerry, Gore, Dukakis, Mondale, Carter, or McGovern.
I do not think Obama is JFK. However the point I want to make is that I think Bill’s greatest political battle will be taking down his hero to an extent. In 1960, Nixon was more experienced to become president, but JFK riled up a new generation of politicos, including Bill Clinton. Bill Clinton is the best tactician in politics, but will his abilities be enough to take down the inspiring candidate? I just found the JFK – Clinton – Obama connection interesting.
* * *
In my personal analysis, I think Hillary is on a better track now, and at the same time Obama is finding an even better message.Hillary on Saturday made points pretty much saying she is battle tested, which is the greatest attribute she has over Obama. We know little to anything about this State Senator from Illinois. Hillary, we know she will get 47-50% of the vote, and we know every attack that will come at her. The Clintons will follow the rule of field operatives: Get 50% + 1 to win. Political experience is not Hillary’s strength. Her assets are that she has face the Republican Machine time and time again and is now a viable candidate for President.
The message that sounds beautiful from Obama is his “New Majority.” In a time of red state and blue states, and two elections that were decided by about a percent in 2000 and 2004, a New Majority has a great ring. Obama knows his appeal is beyond the Democratic base, and Hillary could never argue that she can have 60% of the nation vote for her. The people know who she is, and they like or they don’t. There is little unknown. But in this election of “change,” Obama owns the issue (sorry Edwards). He is the change and hope candidate, and his New Majority could put a temporary stay on the era of the focus group, talking point, and spin. All of this is very idealistic, but when was the last time a candidate of this magnitude offered generic platitudes of hope, change, sugar plums, and cotton candy dreams and everyone soaked it up?
It is a battle between the unknown and inspiring verse the known but political guru.
Makes for great television.
