Something else is that the Republican machine doesn’t seem very happy with Huckabee doing so well
Well, conservatives would tell you that it’s because most of the media are Democrats (true) and thus are trying to push the Democrats rather than provide balanced coverage (probably not true, because…)
My opinion is that the much more interesting story is the extremely well known Hillary, who was considered a shoo-in not long ago, who (despite her lies) was leading the polls for Iowa on average from about August to the end of November, who even Rush said back in September had about an 80% chance of being the next president, who was getting all of the media coverage and fawning, suddenly being beaten, and by a margin no one predicted the day before, by an African American man who displays a charisma and generates an excitement that most in this country haven’t seen in a long, long time. It’s just a much better story than a bunch of people on the Republican side that everyone is kind of “eh” about, including the Republicans. Huckabee is a nice story because he seems like a sincerely nice guy and he beat a super rich guy (Romney) who was a favorite and who out-spent him about 15-1 in Iowa, but the fact is that there is a large fundamental Protestant segment in Iowa who gave Huck a majority of their vote, and I don’t think people expect him to do as well in the future (although Huckabee does have a “look good” when you put him next to people like Romney and Guiliani - his line that people want to vote for someone who seems like the guy you work with, and not the CEO who fired you, resonated pretty well with folks.) But no one, including and especially Republicans, is excited or enthused about anyone on the Republican side. And I think, as well as you can tell this far ahead, that it is “common wisdom” that whoever wins the Dem nomination will be the next president (although Hillary is the one candidate who is most likely to make that more questionable.)
Just an opinion
Interesting discussion.
Personally here is how I feel about Obama/Clinton thing: I would prefer to see Obama as our next president. Baring that I could live with Hillary as our next president, although I dislike her personality. Still she would be big improvement over the current administration for example.
But if Hillary knocks out Obama as Democratic candidate, and than go out and manages to lose general election to republican candidate (due to the fact that she clearly has less appeal to indeps than Obama), I swear that I will hate the bitch forever!
I am curious - does anybody else here feel the same way?
Did you slap her when she said Fallout was just a game?
I’m trying to come up with a reason why calling Hillary a bitch is anything but mysogonist, but I’m not having much success.
Some more data on Obama’s amazing youth numbers.
Young voters made up 22 percent of the Democratic caucus goers, up from 17 percent in 2004.
80 percent of the young people who caucused yesterday caucused for the Democrats.
The youth turnout rate more than tripled in Iowa, from 4 percent in 2004 to 13 percent in 2008.
57 percent of Obama’s support came from young voters.
60 percent of caucus participants were first timers, and 39 percent of them caucused for Obama.
Although I don’t believe that Iowa should be taken as a referendum on the state of her campaign, it’s hard to deny that Obama did take huge chunks of her presumed constituency, and he’s a man of color who won in an overwhelmingly white state. (He’s not technically “African American,” since his mother is white and was born and raised in Kansas. I personally wish that his ethnic background wasn’t brought up much at all in the punditry, but what can you do.)
Hilary is certainly reacting to it as though it was a referendum, and even the objective analysis was describing her recent change in tone as “stealing a page” from Obama. The thing is, Obama never really singled out the youth vote, from what I can tell. Their gravitation towards him seemed to be pretty organic.
If we get similar results in NH, then I’m inclined to think that people just don’t want to see another Clinton in the White House, and perhaps the masses really are seeing the arrogant lust for power behind her mask of gentility. Maybe they do believe that she’s trying to coast in on her husband’s reputation. Maybe they are pissed off that she didn’t oppose the war from the beginning. But I can really only speculate until then.
Yesterday in Concord, Obama stated that he would shut down Guantanamo and restore habeus corpus. Hilary said that she’d been the agent of change for 35 years, but didn’t say anything to support that. She should have been able to reel off a dozen examples. Meanwhile, Obama has that Illinois law that requires police interrogations to be videotaped (for the safety of the suspect). The governor and the police were originally against it, but it ended up being passed unanimously and was the first law of its kind in the nation.
Some data on Milford, NH.
Apparently Obama fired up more support and more crowd on what’s considered very Clinton-esqe territory. What are the odds of a repeat in voting results in NH? It’s looking like it might happen again.
Right now that Rasmussen poll is an outlier; other polls either have Hillary up by a couple of points or have them tied.
That being said we’ll have to see how the polling looks tomorrow and Monday; it could be that the Rasmussen poll is the first indicator of a trend.
Yeah, I’m not sure I understand that 35 year reference. WRT to the Clinton fatigue (which I think is more “same old same old fatigue”) here’s an observation from the NYT:
"
Yet many of the challenges and questions she faced in Iowa — like Clinton fatigue and the generational showdown with Mr. Obama — remained part of her baggage as she flew east. While she is ahead in public polls here, she faces a popularity contest against Mr. Obama. There were empty seats, for instance, at a rally Mr. Clinton held with students at the University of New Hampshire on Friday afternoon.
And her campaign, while trying to fine-tune its strategy, is also engaging in some finger-pointing. Some advisers say that the campaign miscalculated in having Mr. Clinton play such a public role, that Mrs. Clinton could not effectively position herself as a change agent, the profile du jour for Democrats, so long as he stood as a reminder that her presidency would be much like his. Other advisers say that Mr. Obama now owns the “change” mantra and that Mrs. Clinton needs a Plan B.
“Hillary says she’ll change things, but then voters see Bill and hear them talk about the 1990s, and it’s clear that the Clintons are not offering change but rather Clinton Part 2,” said one veteran adviser to both Clintons. “That won’t win.” Beating a sunny, charismatic opponent like Mr. Obama — especially given his embrace by such a cross-section of Iowa voters — is not part of the Clinton experience. When facing political crises, the couple’s modus operandi has been to attack their attackers and question their motives. But Mr. Obama is not Kenneth W. Starr, Newt Gingrich or Paula Jones; a presidential campaign is not a Washington scandal; and the Clinton strategy of attacking Mr. Obama’s readiness for the presidency did not work in Iowa."
And therein lies the rub: the Clinton method has always been, when threatened, hard and coordinated personal attacks. And that is going to be difficult - I think - if the subject is someone as likeable and charismatic as Obama.
On a tangent - I saw that Hillary currently has about 150 “superdelagates” already in her pocket, about 3 times what Obama has - these are Democrat insiders and party officials who get to place delegate votes independent of any voters’ preferences. I wasn’t aware of that wrinkle.
I spoke too soon; apparently there are only two post-Iowa polls released so far and both have Obama up big (Rasmussen has him up by 10; American Research Group by 12).
It’s kind of funny. The frontloaded Dem primary schedule was intended to ensure that Hillary had an early nomination so she could concentrate on the general election. However it seems like it might have the opposite effect - she just doesn’t have time to adjust to this strong challenge.
What other polls?
Matthew: Zogby tracking poll for instance. However most of those only go through Friday so they’ve only got a single day of pre-Iowa data. They do also show a bump for Obama following Iowa.
I don’t have too much to add about Obama here, but one thing he has in his favor just from my own personal point of view is this: I am greatly bothered by the fact that, should Hillary Clinton win the presidency, then that’s nearly 25 years (not even counting possible reelection) and at least 6 terms that have been held by two families – might be more appropriately called dynasties at this point. And, even though they were fairly elected (yes, I am avoiding that Supreme Court business for W’s first term) this seems somehow undemocratic to me. That’s a gut feeling, not really much more, but it’s almost enough in itself to get me to go Obama – and this is from a guy who voted for Bill Clinton twice.
I’ve been pretty unsure on Obama, but it’s actually this post on the Political Animal blog that makes me think I will:
CAJOLERY…Washington Monthly founder Charlie Peters, responding to people (like me) who are afraid that Barack Obama’s “let’s all work together” MO won’t be sufficient to actually bring about the change he so often talks about, says we should look at Obama’s record in the Illinois legislature:
[INDENT] Consider a bill into which Obama clearly put his heart and soul. The problem he wanted to address was that too many confessions, rather than being voluntary, were coerced — by beating the daylights out of the accused…The bill itself aroused immediate opposition. There were Republicans who were automatically tough on crime and Democrats who feared being thought soft on crime. There were death penalty abolitionists, some of whom worried that Obama’s bill, by preventing the execution of innocents, would deprive them of their best argument. Vigorous opposition came from the police, too many of whom had become accustomed to using muscle to “solve” crimes. And the incoming governor, Rod Blagojevich, announced that he was against it.
....He responded with an all-out campaign of cajolery....The police proved to be Obama's toughest opponent, [but] by showing officers that he shared many of their concerns, even going so far as to help pass other legislation they wanted, he was able to quiet the fears of many.[/INDENT] Obama proved persuasive enough that the bill passed both houses of the legislature, the Senate by an incredible 35 to 0. Then he talked Blagojevich into signing the bill, making Illinois the first state to require such videotaping.
This is a fair point. And yet…can I say that I’m still a little skeptical? First, any bill that eventually passes 35-0 can’t possibly have had that much in the way of stone-cold opposition. Obviously Obama did a good job of working with both Republicans and law enforcement interests in Illinois, but at the national level congressional Republicans have shown themselves remarkably immune to Obama-ish cajolery when it comes their key issues. I continue to have my doubts that a charm campaign will get the job done against the likes of Mitch McConnell and John Boehner. They know all too well who signs their paychecks.
Yeah, yeah. So that’s what we all think.
Here’s the kicker that has me feeling just a little bit like the Grinch might have felt on that particular Christmas morning:
But lest I protest too much, Charlie does make a good point. Springfield isn’t Washington DC, but it’s not the Peoria city council either, and although Obama may not have been a game changer in Illinois, he was an effective legislator who got some important things done. Win big in November and maybe he’ll be able to cajole half a dozen of those famous moderate Republicans in the Senate to actually do something moderate.
UPDATE: Via email, Archpundit expands on something he said in the comment thread:
[INDENT] It was fought tooth and nail Kevin. The cops and prosecutors were adamantly against it for some time including the Democratic Cook County Prosecutor.
I swore reform was dead after the commutations, Obama pulled it off. It was an incredible sight. The end result was truly amazing. The police groups hated the idea and they hated racial profiling legislation — he passed both without angering them, but by working with them, listening, and showing good faith. I never thought it would pass with Democratic State's Attorneys opposing it, strongly even — but he pulled everyone along and did it pretty quickly. I know sometimes the claims sound too good to be true, but he is truly an amazingly talented politician with the right values. I like the other candidates, but every time I've seen him underestimated, he pulls out a victory whether it be electoral or policy.[/INDENT]
We’re all sick of the BS, and no one I know is more cynical about the value of “centrism” and “bi-partisanship” than I am. I think it’s a self-serving and ultimately meaningless philosophy that gives people like Joe Lieberman a way to criticize everybody.
But if Obama can really mean it, and really do it. That would be something.
If nothing else, I think someone from outside the Clinton/Bush “dynasties” would most likely introduce a fresh set of faces and ideas into the cabinet and advisor panels.
“Bitch” is the only word I have at my disposal. If she were a guy, I’d call her an asshole, but the female version of that is “bitch”. It’s a shame that “bitch” contains the mysogonistic streak, and even I flinch a little when I use it to describe Hillary, but the fact remains: Hillary is a bitch. A mean-spirited, vindictive, small-minded bitch.
I was living in Illinois, in the Chicago area, and let me tell you, Obama’s plan was STRONGLY opposed. People came on TV and radio talk shows to talk about what a wimp Obama was for that bill, people on both sides and special interest groups opposed it, and Obama was made fun of for trying to do this.
Here’s what impressed me at the time: Obama was on a Chicago news talk radio station, and the host asked him: why are you still pushing for this when no one is going to let it go through? You made your point, and you must be happy that you at least got people thinking about it, what will you go after next? The assumption: Obama was never going to persuade the Republicans nor Democrats worried about polls, and the police (who have been known in the Chicago area in particular to be pretty corrupt) are making it clear they will never let it go through. Most people thought he would just let it drop, because it was coming across as a MAJOR political negative, and Governor Rod even hinted that it would hurt him in any future national political runs.
And Obama’s answer to the host: Sometimes something is just the right thing to do, and the problem is something you can’t just drop because it is the easy or even most beneficial political thing to do. He said I’m just going to keep working on it, group by group, person by person, listening to their concerns, truly listening because they may have some legitimate concerns, and figure out how to convince them to do the right thing, even if it takes years. Obama told the host: I will not stop, because I am convinced that great wrongs are being done and people are being victimized.
At that moment I realized - maybe, just maybe this guy is a little different. BTW - the talk show host and his partner laughed a bit when Obama left the studio and commented on how naive he was, as good a man as he seemed to be.
I’m pretty sure both sexes can be assholes. Calling someone a prick or a dickhead has gender connotations, asshole, which everyone has? Not so much.
The Zogby and CNN and Suffolk polls are all 3-day tracking polls. Their Saturday poll numbers have data from Wednesday, Thursday, and Friday, thus one day of post-Iowa surge. Tomorrow’s tracking poll will be Thursday, Friday, and Saturday, and should show O-mentum.