Hard News: Another Big Day
157 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 … 3 4 5 6 7 Newer→ Last
-
The interesting thing about Hillary's money worries, James, is in the numbers of donors. Hillary raised between $10 and $14 million in January, Obama between $30 and $40 million - so there's a massive difference there anyway.
But it's the numbers of donors that's even more striking. Hillary has tended to get large donations for a relatively small number of donors. Obama on the other hand is raising mostly small donations, but from thousands and thousands of donors. This has two consequences:
The first is that many of Hillary's large donors are reaching or have already reached the legal threshold in terms of how much they are allowed to donate. Obama's on the other hand, still have plenty of "allowance" left to donate, if they so choose.
It's going to be much easier for him to persuade a couple of hundred thousand people to cough up another $20 each than it is for Hillary to find a completely new bunch of big donors.
The other consequence is at the voting booths. If we assume that you have to really really inspire people in order for them to give you money, for Obama to have inspired such a large number of people to donate to his campaign - even in small amounts - indicates that he's inspiring more ordinary people than Hillary is. And a vote is a vote at the voting booth - whether you've donated $100,000 to Hillary, or $20 to Obama.
-
Craig R and I were coming back from the radio recording today talking about what would happen if the Dems got to convention with Obama winning the popular vote but Hillary taking it with the super-delegates.
"Florida," said Craig.
Well, the shit's hitting the fan:
It's happening. Obama has the most delegates by virtue of your votes, our citizens. But Hillary has the lead in total delegates, 783-709. How is that possible? Because of a bunch of Democratic party officials got together and decided that they prefer Hillary, so they gave her the lead in spite of the fact that you, the voters, gave Obama the lead.
Who says Republicans are the only ones who know how to steal elections?
That's from AmericaBlog, which has a huge liberal audience.
If the Democratic establishment carries on down this road, it will lose the election and possibly destroy the party.
How would you feel as a bright-eyed youngster brought into the fold by Obama? Scrub that: how would you feel if you were black?
-
What does happen with Florida and Michigan? At the moment they've had their delegates taken off them because of a dispute with the national party. Does that mean the total number of delegates is reduced, so the target is reduced?
There's been talk if it's close of legal disputes trying to bring them back in. Anyone know anything?
-
Interesting update on the money issue.
Following media reports of Hillary donating $5million to her campaign, the Obama website has had a mini-fundraising campaign to match it.
Since polls closed on SuperDuper Tuesday they've raised $5,542,072 (as of this second) and it's still rising.
(Note: $ graphic seems to be a bit glitchy - sometimes the numbers go down instead of up when you refresh....)
-
There's been talk if it's close of legal disputes trying to bring them back in. Anyone know anything?
That would be a disaster.
"Help! HIllary's not winning! Change the rules!"
-
Nice turn of phrase, Craig, but hardly what is happening between the two leading Dems right now.
Fair ping where Clinton personally is concerned. But I do stand by my assertion that it beggars credibility that some of the nasty and dishonest stuff coming from proxies like Shaheen and former-President Clinton was going down without her knowledge.
No matter what happens in the Presidential in Nov, the Dems will still hold both the House and the Senate, so a President Obama would expect the Congress would pass his agenda.
Up to a point, but it's way too easy for Kiwi observers to assume Republicans are just over-caffeinated Tories who go to church a lot, and the Dems are Labour with silly accents. I agree with you that it's unlikely the Dems are going to lose their House majority; there might even be a net gain of a couple of seats. But I don't see any change in a significant caucus of so-called 'Blue Dog Democrats' who are holding fairly conservative districts with very thin majorities. Take Mark Foley, for example. I don't think he lost his seat because the Florida 16th suddenly lurched left-wards, but because he was such a thorough scumbag Fidel Castro would look good by comparison. Tim Mahoney might be a Democrat, but by any measure he's on the conservative end of moderate.
I certainly hope after the next election (however it goes), the GOP is going to start realising sticking with the theo-cons is a slow form of electoral suicide.
Finally, Emma wrote:
I do wonder, if Obama ends up pulling a disaffected Republican vote, whether he could then get a second term, once he fails to deliver them... whatever undefined miracle they're looking for.
Well, Emma, the 'miracle' I'd be looking for is quite easily defined. If the GOP put up a Huckabee or Romney in 2012, I would pull the lever for Obama again with a very clear conscience. And I'd keep handing out the ballot box tough love to the GOP, and keep voting for every Democrat who wasn't a flaming sack o' nuts until the Republican Party get the message that there are a lot of conservatives out there who aren't going to swallow Nanny Statist theo-cons any more. I want the Party of Reagan and Goldwater back, or it's no frigging use to me.
-
Craig R and I were coming back from the radio recording today talking about what would happen if the Dems got to convention with Obama winning the popular vote but Hillary taking it with the super-delegates.
"Florida," said Craig.
And to be fair, if the reverse happened, I could easily imagine NOW and Gloria Steinem really going to town about another woman getting the glass ceiling dropped on her head by the 'bros over hos' establsihment.
While I know Obama and Clinton can only do so much to hose down the nut-roots, I really hope they decide raising the temperature doesn't serve their interests, the party or the public good. If nothing else, it's damn undignified when you're making Coulter and Limbaugh look rational. Do you really want to go there? :)
-
"Help! HIllary's not winning! Change the rules!"
Yeah well, it's not unheard of in American politics. 2000 even.
-
Just de-lurking here, because, this blog that I always like to read for measured analysis and opinions, seems to be resembling the mainstream US media tendency to be Obama cheerleaders, and Clinton detractors - it's starting to feel like a bandwagon effect. IMO, there's not that much between them in policies, tho Obama seems slightly more to the right than Clinton. And I wonder how either could be making such a strong showing in the primaries without some strong institutional backing, financial and otherwise.
In fact, it puzzles me how Obama has had such a relatively quick rise within the Democrat party, without having achieved anything much of note as a senator. Maybe someone can enlighten me on this?
Webweaver said:
for Obama to have inspired such a large number of people to donate to his campaign - even in small amounts - indicates that he's inspiring more ordinary people than Hillary is. And a vote is a vote at the voting booth - whether you've donated $100,000 to Hillary, or $20 to Obama.
While it's true that Obama has had a lot of smaller donations, the conclusion above don't seem to fit with the voting trends. Clinton actually has had more "ordinary" lower income people voting for her in the primaries, than Obama, who seems to appeal to higher income Americans and those with a lot more formal education. So this means many HRC supporters probably don't have as much small change to spare that large numbers of Obama supporters have.
Maybe someone knows something concrete about Obama's more substantial backers? I've read online that he has had some quite significant corporate sponsorship. Apparently he gets more support from bankers, and Clinton more from the military. But I also heard from a US contact, who is no fan of Clinton or Obama, that Obama has had some pretty shady and dubious backers for a while now. Does anyone here have evidence for or against this?
But whatever the financial facts are, I can't see either Clinton or Obama making a significant change to the corporate stranglehold on US politics - though either of them would be a bit better than the Republicans, especially better than GWB.
Or is someone here able to convince me otherwise?
-
Up to a point, but it's way too easy for Kiwi observers to assume Republicans are just over-caffeinated Tories who go to church a lot, and the Dems are Labour with silly accents. I agree with you that it's unlikely the Dems are going to lose their House majority; there might even be a net gain of a couple of seats. But I don't see any change in a significant caucus of so-called 'Blue Dog Democrats' who are holding fairly conservative districts with very thin majorities.
Indeed. And that's exactly why I'm dubious about regarding the Houses as passive rubber-stamps for a president-driven agenda. When you only have two political options for four hundred million people, there are going to be some pretty deep divisions inside those parties.
-
In fact, it puzzles me how Obama has had such a relatively quick rise within the Democrat party, without having achieved anything much of note as a senator. Maybe someone can enlighten me on this?
Well, the first I saw of him was the keynote speaking slot he had at the 2004 Democrat Convention, which I was pretty impressed by.
-
The Democrat's general/convention constitutional rules that underpin the Florida/Michigan no delegates decision are pretty explicit, although it might be possible to amend that ruling. I am fairly sure that a strict reading of the rules say that a change would have to be validated by the next Convention (although that bit did seem a little unclear when I read up on it a couple of weeks back).
Either way it seems to be a burn the bridges type decision - just based on the reaction of a couple of American but non political (but with the inevitable political threads) forums when Hillary started making noises about this when it looked like she was going to easily dominate Michigan. If the Democratic faithful do not have a serious split over a successful rule change then you can bet the Republicans will latch onto it like a hungry dog come the campaign- what better way to alienate the (already possibly suspicious) independents?
-
Ben:
If you want to get right down to it, if Florida and Michigan Democrats are feeling "disenfranchised" they have nobody to blame except their own state party leadership for playing chicken with a T-Rex over the timing of their primaries.
And the same thing happened to the Michigan GOP -- they were warned that sanctions would be imposed if they brought forward their primary and now half their delegation won't be seated. If my memory serves, four or five other states were planning to do the same. They were smart.
-
WH,
Despite the artificial conflict being generated by the competition for the Democratic nomination, Hillary and Obama are generally on the on same side of the issues that matter, and basically want the same sorts of things. It is easy to lose sight of the eventual goal, which is the comprehensive defeat of the Republican candidates for Congress, the Senate, and the Presidency. I don`t really mind which of the frontrunners takes the nomination, I just want to see the Republicans thrown out of the White House. I figure its best not to get too embittered about what happens in the primaries.
Ultimately the race for the Presidency seems likely to reduce to the 10 - 20 swing states. John McCain´s cross over appeal and the enduring nature of the pre-existing red/blue demographics is going to make this a close contest. The Bill Clinton/George Bush comparison is an useful way of demonstrating the abject failure of American conservatism, so its sad to see his legacy demonised before the main event has even begun.
-
If you want to get right down to it, if Florida and Michigan Democrats are feeling "disenfranchised" they have nobody to blame except their own state party leadership for playing chicken with a T-Rex over the timing of their primaries.
Well, Florida Democrats at least could partly blame the Republican-controlled Florida House and Senate and the Republican Governor for changing the law...
-
I don`t really mind which of the frontrunners takes the nomination, I just want to see the Republicans thrown out of the White House.
And then?
-
It is easy to lose sight of the eventual goal, which is the comprehensive defeat of the Republican candidates for Congress, the Senate, and the Presidency.
That really better not be 'the eventual goal'. A step on the way, sure, but breaking stuff cannot be all the Dems have to offer.
-
So, no more Romney! This leaves McCain in the prime seat, even if all the right-wing pundits hate his guts. (I think Ann Coulter said she would vote for Satan before McCain.) I'm a little uneasy about McCain. I think that given the right circumstances, he could beat Clinton or Obama (but as we know, I have a terrible predictions track record). My husband said yesterday 'Obama supporters are kidding themselves if they think that race isn't going to become an issue the Republicans use if he wins the nomination.' I hope he's wrong too...
-
So now Romney is out and the first takes I am reading on McCain's crucial speech (arguably the most important of his political career) at CPAC are that he hit the right notes and it went over okay, so perhaps the great conservative meltdown of 2008 is not as imminent as some project.
McCain could be quite good in some regards as a candidate and as a president, but he has a long history of being hotheaded and a grumpy and cantankerous old bastard, which is not so good for building the various coalitions required to get things done. But he sure would give those nasty little fuckers in Teheran many (well justified) sleepless nights, and for that alone he deserves my first vote in a US Presidential election.
Webweaver, yes the $ situation is even worse for Hillary when compared to Obama's $ and the number of donors he has that aren't even close to being maxed out. He can go back to those wells again and again and again.
After always being pretty much convinced that Hillary was a walk to the Dem nomination, I really think she is in big trouble. Momentum and the perception of momentum are everything in politics, and now the cat is out of the bag about Hillary having money problems; it will only exacerbate the problem for her. If she can’t stop Obama's momentum in the next few weeks I really can't see how she can win. In US politics, money is like petrol to a car. If you ain't got none, you ain't going far.
Now exactly how it all plays out will be amazing to watch, most probably Hillary will limp into the first brokered convention in 50 years. Will Queen Hillary be able to accept the VP slot (if it is offered)? Will Obama be forced to offer it to her? (it would totally undercut everything his run is supposed to be about).
You can say many things about US politics, many of them negative, but you can’t say it is dull.
-
Now exactly how it all plays out will be amazing to watch, most probably Hillary will limp into the first brokered convention in 50 years. Will Queen Hillary be able to accept the VP slot (if it is offered)? Will Obama be forced to offer it to her? (it would totally undercut everything his run is supposed to be about).
I agree, and can't see a VP Clinton. My thought had always been Joe Biden (particularly if it was Obama v McCain), or perhaps Bill Richardson (though he's publicly said he doesn't want it), but someone suggested Janet Napolitano to me yesterday, which could be interesting. Certainly more likely to be the first female VeeP than Geraldine Ferraro ever was.
-
(I think Ann Coulter said she would vote for Satan before McCain.)
Satan, meanwhile was unavailable for comment, as, despite the heavy snow, he's been busy door-knocking for John 'Anti-Christ McCain in the Ninth Circle.
-
In fact, it puzzles me how Obama has had such a relatively quick rise within the Democrat party, without having achieved anything much of note as a senator.
I hate this explanation, because it comes close to saying 'magic' or something similarly elusive, but here goes: there is such a thing as 'X FActor'. Charisma might be another word.
I was talking to someone yesterday who heard Obama speaking on the teev in the next room and was drawn in. Said the guy was magical, but admitted that, when asked what he'd actually said, he couldn't give a coherent answer.
JFK had the same thing - he did diddlisquat as a Senator too, by the way. And he - unlike Obama - dodged all the main controversial votes during his time in the Senate (McCarthy Censure, Civil Rights).
I'm saying this as observation, btw - I think JFK was a lousy president, and at this stage there's no particular reason to think Obama would be all that good, although I suspect he'd be better than Kennedy...(shit, George Bush the Elder was better than Kennedy)
Locally, the best speaker I've seen in our current Parliament, in terms of that X Factor, is Winston Peters. The day I vote for the guy will be the day Satan is ice-skating to work, but I've seen him do a few spellbinders.
-
Rob. I know what you mean about the charisma, and the thing about speeches in general.
I think it's unfair to say that Obama has done diddlisquat though.
The media hasn't talked about what he's been doing in Washington and so the Narrative is that "he's new, therefore inexperienced, therefore hasn't done anything".
Maybe the media havn't been talking about the things in the link because it's wonkie and boring, and his speeches make better copy, but looking at the type of stuff that he has been up to only makes me like him more. He seems to actually give a shit about things like governance, which would make a change. He actually can and does build bridges accross the partisan poo flingers. It's true, even though it's in his pretty speeches.
So I prefer him to Hillary for reasons beyond the speeches, which are a nice bonus.
But I am biased. I think he can bring in more voters in Nov and beat McCain (who was the Weekly Standards pick over GWB in 2000, for anyone who thinks he's moderate)
I want the repub's out for a decade or more. I love America but I'm sick of this shit.
Though I'm not sure how to fix it. There seems to be systemic failure, and the checks and balances ain't working, and the press is ignoring it.
(anybody heard if McCain mentioned his anti torture credentials at the Conservative movements little festival. I'm guessing not.)
-
Brad Kelley at One Good Move wrote a good post titled Why Obama?, looking for reasons to justify his decision to vote O, and noting a couple of instances where Obama appears to have been beholden to vested interests. It serves as notice that no one in that system is clean.
And Jim Lloyd wrote a nice reply, which includes a link to Lawrence Lessig's presentation on why he's backing Obama. The Lessig endorsement, I confess, did make me sit up and take notice.
-
Thanks for the link, Craig. Obama does speak well and with a sharpness and intelligence that, should he become president, would be a welcome change after 8 years of GWB. However, like a couple of posters here, he does leave me a bit cold – the charisma thing slightly misses me. He doesn’t seem to me to speak with the passion and personal commitment of a young Clinton (what a disappointment as president) or Jesse Jackson (maybe he stood at the wrong time!). In some ways Obama reminds me of Tony Blair when he started out in politics, good speaker, the media likes him, talks about uniting right and left. Or maybe I’ve just got cynical as I’ve got older.
In the video clip Obama’s life story was interesting, but a pity he felt the need to frame it within the US dream, much like all the candidates in Democrat primary TV debates – a bit of a turn-off. And then in the 2004 vid, Obama contradicted his espousal of the US dream, by focussing on the struggles of poor black people, who somehow hadn’t accessed that dream. Though I liked the social justice points Obama was making on those issues.
I know he’s perceived to have charisma, Bob, but that alone doesn’t explain to me his rise in the party (probably doesn’t explain JFK’s rise totally either). IMO, these primaries are focusing too much on personalities, charisma-factors, perceptions of momentum etc, rather than policies and agendas. For instance, how was it decided that Obama was to speak for Kerrry’s campaign?
I really was asking to know more about who is backing Obama. We know a lot about some of Hillary Clinton’s very dubious backers. All I know about Obama is that he’s backed by Goldman Sachs, and some other corporates. After 8 years of a US president fronting for a pretty nasty bunch of neo-cons, I want to know more about Obama’s team. (Thanks Russell and Alex for the extra info). Has Obama had enough experience at the hard edge of national politics not to be pressured by powerful supporting interest groups? As you say, Bob, charisma or x-factor doesn’t necessarily make a good president. But, from what I see so far, I’d rather back Obama than Winstone Peters.
While a Clinton/Obama ticket seems attractive, it seems to me it’s not a question of whether they’d be willing to work together, but if their powerful backers and supporters would be willing to work together.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.