Republican Follies

Obama is extraordinarily lucky in his selection of opponents this time around. Though hard to believe, the Republican Party is more internally divided than the Democrats, though the individual divisions have more ideological and participatory coherence than their counterparts in the Democratic Party.

Dance With Them Who Brung Ya

The saying goes that you should "dance with them who brung ya," a colloquial way of pointing out that you have substantive obligations towards those who brought you to whatever festive occasion you are attending.

The Democrats faced the penalty of failing to follow this advice in two ways in the midterms. The people who the Dems didn't want to be seen with in the last electoral round and who have been treated as expendable for the last two years, most crucially white, relatively affluent women, declined the invitation, either by outright defection to the opposition (notably those who are married) or by not voting at all (unmarried women). The party was also rejected by those who they courted assiduously two years ago - independent men and the "youth" vote - who decided to find another dance partner this time around.

From the LA Times, "Blacks, Latinos stick with shrinking Democratic base" (my emphasis throughout):

Democrats searching for good news amid the rubble of Tuesday's midterm election results can look to Latinos and African Americans, two groups of voters that stayed with the party in large numbers.

But that, in a sense, is like taking comfort in that fact that as your house is falling down around you, it isn't also on fire.

House of Representative Updates

I like using a combination of the NYT Big Board and CNN's full state results. The first tells me where expectations were and provides an excellent overview of the condition of races, while CNN repotrs on party seat changes and allows me to see actual vote count.

---

Updated 11:12 PST:

CA 04: Open seat, Brown (D) is less than 500 votes behind McClintock with all precincts reporting. This will go to a recount.

CA 50: Called for Bilbray - no change of seat. (Bilbray (R) has 50% over Leibham with 100% reporting, so I'm not sure why this has not been called for Bilbray. This is a San Diego contest.)

ID 01: Called for Minnick. (Minnick is at 51% over incumbert Sali with 99% of precincts reporting. This would be a pickup.)

MI 07: Called for Schauer. This is a pickup.

NV 02: Called for Heller (R). Derby made a good run, but it was expected to stay R.

NV 03: Called for Titus. This is a pickup.

OH 01: Called for Driehaus. This is a pickup.

OH 15: Called for Stivers. No change of seat. (Stivers (R) ahead with 48%, Kilroy at 43%. 100% reporting, but still not called.)

OH 16: Called for Boccieri. This is a pickup.

VA 02: Called for Nye. This is a pickup.

VA 05: 50/50 with Perriello (D) a scant 119 votes ahead of Goode (R). This would be a major pickup as this was considered a safe Republican seat.

WA 08: 50/50 with Burner (D) 881 votes behind Reichart (R). Only 41% of precincts reporting. The district covers King County (Seattle) and Pierce County (Tacoma). The vote from Pierce County will favor Reichart and there are more precincts there to report, but King County favors Burner and has a larger population. This would be a pickup.

Anglachel

Update - There were 2 Louisiana districts that did not hold general elections yesterday due to the primaries being delayed by Hurricane Gustav. They ran their primaries yesterday instead. LA 02 is a strongly Democratic district and is not expected to go Republican. The Democratic candidate will be William J. Jefferson. LA 04 has been Republican, but is considered a toss-up, so may be a chance for one more seat. The contenders in December will be Paul Carmouche (D) and John Fleming (R).

Youth Vote

As I'm looking at CNN, I'm noticing that the youth vote is the most likely to vote for a presidential candidate other than Obama or McCain, 2% vs. the 1% of all other age groups.

This would be interesting to see age correlated with other demographic factors, such as gender and income.

Anglachel

Voting Reform

I'm reading various reports about voting from around the country, paying close attention to those which document long lines at polling places. Delays in voting are a discouragement to vote and are anti-democratic.

There's really no excuse for these lines as every precinct has a count weeks before election day of how many people are registered in that precinct, even if there has been a surge in new registrations. Every precinct knows that there are predicatable high and low times for voting volumes. Every precinct knows what the average voting time is given voting method X, Y or Z.

Until variance in voting methods is corrected, valid votes will go unrecorded and fraudulent votes will find ways to persist. Here's a few suggestions:

1. Enough with the crap about having to reregister every time you move. Your registration should be your SSN, and you should be allowed to vote wherever the hell you like. No more arguments about ACORN paying drunks to fill in fake registration cards for money. If you are legally prevented from voting (currently sitting in jail, dead, etc.), that will be traceable via your SSN
2. Mail-in or drop-off ballots in a standard format, readable by scanners. This provides an easy-to-read paper trail for everything, yet takes advantage of automation for counting.
3. Lost your ballot? Pick one up at a precinct drop-off location.
4. Use SSN to determine if a person voted. Remove double votes by retirees and students. Also a way to track the "cemetary" votes. Too bad for the Chicago Combine.
5. Move election day to the weekend and make it a full weekend for dropping off your vote, getting problems straightened out, etc.
6. What about state and local elections, where district is important? Your last recorded ZIP code will determine what ballot you get. Have you moved? Bring in your mailed ballot plus proof of residence (bills are best) and exchange your original ballot for one that is appropriate to your new ZIP.
7. A Federal standard for ballot layout. No more butterfly ballots.
8. Automatic manual recounts on randomly selected precincts, enough to provide a manual review of 0.5% of primaries and special elections, 1% of regualr elections.
9. Any precinct where a reasonable allegation of fraud/bad procedure has been filed gets a manual recount to three election cycles or until there are three clean elections. This is on top of the regular manaul counts of #8.

These are just a few ideas off the top of my head and all are in need of work, but I have three basic goals: reduce barriers to voting, provide checks on common modes of vote fraud, perform regular audits of vote reporting accuracy.

Anglachel

Voting Around Casa Anglachel

I didn't early vote or absentee vote this year because I want to check out the new precinct. My last voting place was an SRO hotel, very grubby, with a great decaying lobby that was always filled on election day with people lounging on the couches and chairs or taking over the hotel counter as impromptu voting booths. The cardboard booths on their rickety metal legs were always full, too. No big machines, no curtains in front of the boxes. San Diego County uses scanned paper ballots but provides touch screens for people who are unable to use a paper ballot. There is a physical trail for our votes.

I once voted there with a Diebold touch screen - what a pain in the ass! Long before we get to the possibility of voting fraud, let's talk about moronic user interfaces. It was the single most confusing moment I've ever had in a polling booth, and I'm in software development and I've voted using punch ballots in a dizzying array of layouts. Touch screens are slow, hard to read, violate standard computer interface conventions and have some of the worst color combinations I've ever seen on a screen.

Anyway, I'm probably going to shift over to permanent mail ballot voting to ensure I never miss a special election, but I like the ceremony of walking into a public polling place and casting my vote. Plus I like getting the little "I Voted!" sticker.

As I said at the end of my Lady Killers post, I have a few new rules for voting. I've never knowingly voted Republican in my life and am not about to start now, but I'm also not voting for Democratic men until they establish their pro-feminist, anti-misogynist credentials by sponsoring and voting for things that directly benefit women, and by publically and strongly fighting against things that do not. Watered down measures don't count.

So who and what am I voting for?

• Hillary for President as a write-in
• Susan Davis for the US House of Representatives
• Christine Kehoe for CA State Senate
• Lori Saldana for CA State Assembly
• Mary Graham for SD Community College Board of Trustees
• Sheila Jackson for SD Unified School District Board of Education

All the other contests are left blank.

State measures:

• YES - 1A - High speed rail.
• YES - 2 - Stopping animal cruelty. This was actually tough. I hate PETA and factory farming about equally, but it came down to the well being of the animals.
• YES - 3 - Children's hospital bond act
• NO - 4 -Parental notification and waiting period for minors seeking an abortion
• YES - 5 - Reducing nonviolent drug offenders sentencing, shifting to more treatment and less prison
• NO - 6 - Police money and power hodgepodge proposition. Too many things stuffed into one bill.
• NO - 7 - Faux "renewable energy" proposition. Does wierd things to power relationships of major state agencies.
• NO - 8 - Anti-gay marriage constitutional amendment
• NO - 9 - Victim rights revenge and hate proposition.
• NO - 10 - The T. Boone Pickens "make everyone buy my natural gas truck fuel"/Enron Energy Price Gouging memorial proposition.
• NO - 11 - Change the terms of how redistricting is done in California to guarantee Republicans have veto power over it even after they've lost electoral majorities. Also known as the preserving white conservative voting enclave proposition. Tell you what, kids, when Texas enacts this, we'll give it another look.
• YES - 12 - Guaranteeing house loans to veterans.

Local measures:

• YES - Prop A - Regional fire protection.
• NO - Prop B - Boondoggle for land developers to seize waterfront property
• YES - Prop C - Uses park revenue for park maintenance and upkeep, not put into the general fund.
• NO - Prop D - Keep alcohol off the public beaches
• YES - Prop S - Funding long term infrastructure support for local schools. WiFi in all schools, asbestos abatement, kitchen uprades, plumbing and wiring, etc.

Vote results will be reported late in San Diego. In San Diego County, votes will not be tallied at the precincts this year, but will be taken to a central location (a warehouse near the Registrar of Voters’ office) where they will have a 150 or so counting machines.

This will result in a very high beginning number for Dems given patterns of early and absentee voting (over 1/3 of voters have voted this way) followed by a downward slide as day-of and last minute voters (who, for various reasons, in this county will skew Republican) get physical ballots delivered and counted. San Diego is a huge county. If ballots from Fallbrook, Jacumba, Julian, Mount Palomar, Borrego Springs, etc., have to be driven in to Kearny Mesa, final tallies will be delayed for hours and late votes (again, because of housing patterns in the county) will favor Republicans.

Looking outside San Diego and California, I suspect this will be a pattern in many counties with an urban center and a large suburban ring with rural hinterlands, with urban (easily accessed) votes tallying for Dems and later (slower access) votes pushing up Republican gains. It will look like vote manipulation (and will provide cover for some manipulation) but in fact simply reflects voting habits. I do anticipate states with Republican administrations to challenge early and absentee ballots on "fraud" charges more than usual.

Anglachel

And If It's the Truth?

I'm trying to deal with cognitive dissonance here. I'm afraid it won't be clever or snarky or particularly thought provoking because I'm really tired and I'm simply at an end of trying to make sense of what passes for politics in the blogosphere.

On the one hand, I'm reading up on Shakesville (via TGW via Falstaff) about an ad running on various "progressive" blogs showing a silhouette of a naked female, the kind you see on the mudflaps of trucks, "pole dancing" against an oil derrick with the caption "Drill, baby, drill!" in mockery of Gov. Palin.

On the other hand, I'm reading up in Corrente that it's the fault of white female voters - and no other demographic - if Obama loses due to their out of control racisim, based on the results of a single AP-Yahoo poll.

Sexism that the guys can't see when it is using classic imagery found on the vehicles of "rednecks" everywhere and racisim that they can pick up even when dog whistled or denied.

When Democratic women say "The Obama camp has run a sexist, mysogynistic campaign," we are told we're wrong, no such thing, there was not any sexism there, except maybe some from Tweety. When Democratic women say, "No, it's not his race, it's his lack of commitment to the programs that matter to us," we are told that, no, we're all just racist bitches, and that it's our fault if he doesn't win.

What does it mean to electoral outcomes if what we Democratic women are saying is simply true? That there is too much encouragement of and reliance upon misogyny as a campaign tactic? That our objections to this candidate really are based on rational economic self-interest, and are not due to his race?

Using shame (shame of being female, shame of being racist) rather than offering benefit is a tactic that may intimidate some, and perhaps win some over who would rather be part of the pack that attacks than one who is attacked, but mostly it engenders resentment. It is nothing on which political solidarity can be founded. Hasn't the Democratic Party learned that it is not enough to run on "I'm not [insert opponent here]"? That was a losing argument against Nixon, Reagan, Bush I and Bush II. Shouting "The other party is worse!" does nothing to address the weaknesses and failings of our own. Put on top of that a very public contempt for the concerns of a large and (until now) unswervingly loyal constituency and this is a recipe for long term, nearly permanent loss of electoral power.

I'll never vote Republican, but for the first time in my life, I feel no desire to vote Democrat, either.

I've written reams of analysis of why the current election is shaping up the way it has and I may be wrong about my judgments on those things, but I know my own thoughts. When I say I won't vote for Obama after the revolting campaign he has run and because he doesn't have anything substantive to back him up, I mean exactly those two things, nothing more, nothing less.

It's just the truth.

Anglachel

Electoral College Ranges and Distributions

Last week, the simulation map on 270 to Win was overwhelmingly favoring Obama based on the available polls. They warned that it would be a week before meaningful data would appear there, and they were right. I've been playing with the maps this evening (not wanting to run into any more stories about barnyard beasts or cosmetics) and have saved out six different maps showing narrow victories for each side, medium victories and large victories. The simulator itself currently reflects a 55% probability of an Obama win, with a median of 272 electoral votes. What I think the below maps illustrate is how little has to change for significant results.

(Click on images for larger versions)

Large Democratic win: 320 D/ 218 R. The key here is sweeping the upper Midwest plus picking up Florida. Colorado and New Mexico are not necessary to the scenario, but would likely be present if the win was this big. This was always the optimistic map for Dems. I think Iowa would go blue in a scenario like this and probably Nevada, too.

Medium Democratic win: 295 D/243 R. Colorado and Ohio go by the wayside, but Florida is salvaged. I actually think those combinations would be flipped in this scenario, but I also have doubts that Virginia would go Dem while Wisconsin went Republican. Flip those as well and you'll have roughly the same EC outcome.

Narrow Democratic win: 272 D/266 R. And I think the closest to a likely win this round, and is the result most likely in the simulator. Colorado and Florida go red, as does Ohio, while the party barely holds on to Michigan, Pennsylvania and Washington. Note that New Hampshire, Nevada and South Dakota could each be a deal breaker in this scenario. I think the party needs to be prepared for a solid red South.

Narrow Republican victory: 268 D/270 R. What is interesting in the simulator is that this scenario was far less likely than the bigger Republican wins. They lose by small margins but win by large ones. In this, the Dems retain all of the Midwest except Indiana, but the Republicans lose Ohio and Colorado, keep Florida, and pick up New Hampshire, Nevada, South Dakota, Minnesota and Washington. These are plausible pick ups. I think it more likely that they would keep Ohio and lose Minnesota, but they would need then either keep Washington or snag back Colorado. Note - compare this map and the narrow Dem victory one to the current map on electoral-vote.com. It has the same EC breakdown as this one, but has Washington and Minnesota in the Demo column, and Ohio, New Mexico and New Hampshire in the Republican one.

Medium Republican win: 250 D/288 R. I think this the most plausible winning scenario for Republicans. The West stays solidly blue, Colorado and New Mexico are blue but the south stays red and McCain squeezes out narrow victories in Wisconsin and Pennsylvania. This is why the "Appalachian" vote matters. I doubt South Dakota would stay blue.

Large Republican win: 219 D/319 R. The key to this is winning the upper Midwest. Minnesota and Washington could easily be flipped in this scenario for much the same result. Can McCain take all of the intermountain West? I think it possible, though they would not be easy pickups. The simulator shows Washington going red more easily than Colorado, for example.

I find all of these combinations well within plausible expectations. For me, simply looking at maps and shifts, a bare handful of states will determine the EC, but the particular combination that will do so varies greatly. The focus tends to be on the larger battleground states, but undecided small states may suddenly shift and provide the 1-3 EC margin.

Visit 270 to Win and use the simulator to see the changing possibilities based on probabilities.

Anglachel

SUSA Poll on VP Choices

I prefer using the SUSA polls to those done by the big media organizations because of the consistent methodology and the consistently illuminating cross tabs. (Under no circumstances trust any poll from Zogby.) The latest poll was brief and direct. It asked 1061 registered voters, out of 1200 individuals called, only eight questions, which I'm reproducing here to show how a well constructed poll is done:

1. Did you hear Sarah Palin's speech at the Republican National Convention last night?
2. What grade do you give her on the speech? An A, B, C, D, or an F?
3. On the whole, is Sarah Palin an asset to John McCain? A liability to McCain? Or, do you not know enough to say?
4. Does McCain's selection of Sarah Palin as a running mate reflect well on MCCain? Reflect poorly on McCain? Or do you not know enough to say?
5. On the whole, is Joe Biden an asset to Barack Obama? A liability to Obama? Or, do you not know enough to say?
6. Does Obama's selection of Joe Biden as a running mate reflect well on Obama? Reflect poorly on Obama? Or do you not know enough to say?
7. If you were placing a bet today, would you bet that Barack Obama will be elected president? Or, John McCain will be elected president?
8. Is the media rooting for Barack Obama? Rooting for John McCain? Or trying its best to be fair to both?

I won't go diving into the crosstabs of the poll very deeply, so click on the link to see for yourself (they have a very convenient downloadable PDF of the poll, btw), but will try to touch on the overall picture it presents.

The first question is vital because it defines who it is that they are polling. Everyone who was asked these questions is a registered voter but not a likely voter. 75% of them actually listened to Palin's speech, and there is no indication what counts as "listened" (All on the TV? Highlights from teh talking heads shows? YouTube clips?).

The sample was 52% female and 47% male, was weighted towards voters under 50 (56% of those sampled), was predominantly White (75%), and higher income than the average population (70% over $40K annual income). There were more Republicans in the poll (36%) than Democrats (33%) or Independents (26%) which doesn't reflect party registration but probably does echo voter turnout. Idoelogically, 34% identified as Conservative, 38% as Moderate and 14% as Liberal. The sample was divided into 4 geographic regions: South (36%), Midwest (23%), West (22%) and Northeast (19%).

This gave the pollsters a sample that is relatively young, relatively affluent, slightly more female than male, and significantly under represented Hispanics as their portion of the population (8% polled). This strikes me as a sample that calls upon demographic groups that are aligned with both candidates, though the significantly higher levels of white, Republican, conservative and Southern demographics I think provides a slight bias for McCain. What we don't know is the location the people live - urban, suburban, or rural.

The response to Palin herself was strongly positive, noting that saying she gave an "A" speech doesn't mean the listener agreed with or approved of the message delivered; it is an opinion of the effectiveness of the speech. The take away from me on this is people who liked the speech really liked it and there was a greater number who strongly liked it than who strongly disliked it. Independents in particular were not turned off by it, which is the political demographic both parts need to capture for a victory. Political moderates were not turned off by the speech. Higher income earners had a better response to it than lower income, which may seem odd given the "Aw shucks, we're just folks," packaging, but aligns precisely with Krugman's writings that the Republicans' electoral gains since the 70s occurred among higher income whites more than any other group. Thus, both McCain and Obama owe much electoral success to white affluent issue voters. The data points that must trouble the Republicans most are the low scores in the West, a full 10% less than those in the South. It matters, however, where those Western samples came from. If from California, not electorally important given it is a blue state. If from Colorado, a different kettle of fish. The data points that must rattle the Democrats is the lack of strong negatives in the Midwest, where the election will be decided.

When comparing the VPs and their effect on the races, Palin was considered a solid though not overwhelmingly strong asset to the ticket, while Biden barely broke 50%. There were a lot of people who had not made up their minds about Biden being an asset, which is not good considering that he is a known quantity. When comparing what the VP pick says about the presidential nominee, Obama is hurting compared to McCain. He does not even get 50% and is 7% behind McCain. This selection does not reflect well on him, particularly among female voters, the 35-49 age bracket (his own age cohort), wealthier voters (which is a big change from his primary voter patterns), and with Midwestern and Southern voters. In every region, McCain's choice was seen as reflecting well on him, all above 50%. This affects key swing states like Ohio, Michigan, Missouri and Virginia.

The part of the poll people point to most, question 7 about placing bets on the outcome, is interesting mostly because there was little indecision. Only a few categories showed indecision 10% or above, which means people feel confident about their take on the election. They favor McCain by 3%, though the undecided pool is large enough to move either candidate to over 50%.

Overall, Palin is viewed as a bigger asset to McCain than Biden is to Obama, people think more highly of McCain's selection of Palin than of Obama's selection of Biden, and a slim majority now place their bets on McCain to win. Conservatives and Republicans are more strongly behind their candidates than Liberals and Democrats are behind theirs. Hispanics are significantly undecided and so are people in the Midwest. Palin did not provide as large a gain in the West as the Republican strategists probably had hoped for, but a lot of that will depend on where in the West the respondents live.

At this point, national polls are almost useless except to measure broad trends. What matters is how opinion breaks down in swing states.

Anglachel

Compound Interest

In the Obamacan obsession that McCain's VP choice is all about them (and I include the MSM in this group), few of them are paying attention to the true impact of Palin's presence on the ballot. As always, events can change the calculations (just as the event of Palin's selection did on Friday), and I don't think we will have a clear view until after the Republican Convention, but some effects can be anticipated.

The political issue is bigger than Palin herself. There are a wide range of reactions to her selection and her ability to garner votes (as opposed to generate buzz) is probably narrow, though wider than it should have been. With regard to Democratic voters, putting Palin on the ticket should have had the same effect with Dem and Dem-leaning Independent women voters as putting Alan Keyes on the ticket would have had with Dem and Dem-leaning Independent AA voters, to wit, negligible. However, with the misogyny and Hillary-bashing of the primaries and the out-of-the-gate misogyinistic reactions to Palin herself, the Obamacans will suffer measureable attrition from this constituency. Among Hillary voters I have read and/or emailed with, most are laughing their asses off at the hysteria of the Obamacans, but most also are saying they won't vote for a conservative. A significant number who were considering voting McKinney or simply leaving the ballot blank say they will vote Palin. None who said they would vote Obama are changing their minds.

The new voters Palin is bringing in are on the Republican side, evangelical voters who were uninspired by or distrustful of McCain but who will eagerly turn out for Palin. The argument about McCain's poor health (which I think is both bogus and a bad, bad argument for Dems to make) is actually a plus for them, because it offers the prospect of one of their own as President. She will probably bring out moderate Republican women who would have gone for Hillary, don't really like McCain, and would probably have sat out this election round.

The real impact that Palin can have on the race is the way in which she compounds the effect of the Republican ticket. The huffing and puffing about her qualifications and experience has no effect on the Republican base. If anything, her ability to piss off the SCLM is a feature, not a bug. She is a Media Darling to them because the media hates her. She adds an extra exclamation point to the Republican argument with constituencies whose voting preferences decide elections. The focus on women voters, left and right, ignores that she may be a statistically significant draw for blue collar voters, especially those who are already somewhat culturally conservative. This is not so much that she will bring in voters that McCain cannot, as is the case with evangelicals, but that she reinforces his appeal to that constituency, and "seals the deal".

Where I anticipate her being a "game changer" will be in state and local races, where a slight increase in turnout can change results. When some races and ballot measures are decided by a few hundred votes, getting out twenty more voters here, eight more voters there will pay off. I don't think that this was one of McCain's considerations when he chose her, but it is most certainly a consideration of the state party officials who are dancing a gleeful jig. It may endanger governerships, state legislatures and some House races Dems were hoping to pick up. For example, Washington State will have a rematch of Dem. Gregoire and Rep. Rossi for governor. The last time, Gregoire won by a razor thin margin after multiple recounts that are not considered valid by the losing side. In news reports I have read, Rossi is very happy with the choice of Palin to help him turn out his own cultural conservative base (he is a truly bat-shit insane culture warrior who cleans up nice) and expects another close battle with Gregoire - which he will win this time. Washington state is far more conservative than people realize, and adding Palin may actually turn Washington red because of the makeup of the Republican Party. This may be repeated in red and purple states in specific races where the race is close.

The next consideration is for ballot measures and initiatives, such as the anti-Affirmative Action measures in Colorado and Missouri (among other places) and the anti-gay marriage state constitutional amendment in California. Palin now adds an appealing and energetic face to put on the GOTV efforts on the Republican side. Interest in her, her marketability, raises the viability of these policy measures. My second thought after seeing her name in the news as McCain's VP pick was that California will soon have anti-gay bigotry enshrined in the state constitution because she will bring out the fundies to vote for this measure. My third thought was that California is no longer a shoo-in for the Dems because of the way in which a telegenic, appealing cultural conservative candidate who hits all the right libertarian notes will herself be reinforced by the anti-gay marriage initiative.

Choices like Palin are risky. This may yet all backfire on McCain. What I see, however, is an accidentally savvy ticket selection that is generating buzz and will redound to the Republican's advantage in the fall. It may not win the White House for them, but it revivifies an otherwise tired and disaffected Republican base.

The deliberate actions of the DNC and their selected candidate to antagonize and alienate the Democratic base only compounds the problem.

Anglachel

Precious Little

The spousal unit regularly reads Col. W. Patrick Lang's blog, Sic Semper Tyrannis. He's an interesting fish, one of the few readable (and true) conservatives out there. He recently posted this on his blog. He starts with a substantial quote of a recent David Brooks column, then says (my emphasis throughout):

Brooks has put his finger on one of the issues that Americans have with the man.

Obama is clearly Europe's man in the contest to become president of the United States next year, but the sale is not made to those who will elect the president. I think it is likely that Obama will be elected but the outcome is still in doubt.
...

The soaring rhetoric of such speeches and the appeals to the better angels of our natures move people who are already within the percentage of the population who favor the idea of Barack Obama. John Kennedy's speeches moved many in 1960, but nothing like all. His false claims of a "missile gap" with the Soviets had as much to do with his election as his exhortation to become one of "freedom's frontiersmen." His wife and children were appealing, but by '63 he was thought by many Americans to be a remarkably ineffective president. At the same time, his picture was to be seen on the walls of shacks and mud huts around the world. Would he have been re-elected in 1964? This is an open question. Khrushchev thought him a posturing, empty suit. From that came much mischief. He forced the Soviet Army out of Cuba? Yes, but would they have been there if the Soviet leadership had not thought him weak and a dreamer?

There is something hollow about Obama's candidacy, something that gives citizens a chance to think him less rather than more. He should be far, far ahead of McCain in the polls. The Republican Party is a wounded beast. McCain increasingly looks like a declining, mean old man. Obama should be at least ten points ahead in national polls. Yes. Yes. I know we don't elect presidents on a national basis.

William Jennings Bryan was an orator at the soaring level of Barack Obama. His "cross of gold" speech still lives in legend, but he was never elected president.

The soaring rhetoric - that has not changed in any substantive way since it was first served up shiny and new over a year ago. The relentlesss avoidance of anything that could actually rally Democrats, such as being rid of the corrupt and failed policies of the Republican Party since Reagan. Or a whole-hearted embrace of universal health insurance. Or a line in the sand on privacy rights.

As we saw in the primary, the flight from substance was also a flight from support. The longer the campaign went on, the less there was to present, the more he had to be hidden away - from debates, from primaries, from reality. Even now his blogger defenders are reduced to bleating "Racist! Racist!" when the vacuity of the candidate is identified and criticized. His votes went down. His donations went down. His polls went down. Even now, he does not dare allow an actual convention vote be taken lest he lose.

The deep problem of the Obama campaign, the one that has been there from the start and continues to slowly, steadily bleed away support, is there has never been a presence, only an absence, a "not-Hillary", the candidate defined by what he isn't, most crucially in his partisan commitments.

Some people think I call Obama "The Precious" simply as mockery, as in "Oh, isn't he so precious!" It works, but the term came from the One Ring in Lord of the Rings. The Precious is the name a raving, depraved, insane Hobbit gives to this thing that has no center and exists only to drive its possessors mad with a lust for power. The Precious allows itself to be carried about, pretending to serve, until it sees something better, at which point it abandons its current master for one that will take it further. It glitters and enchants, whispering promises of dominion:

Boromir got up and walked about impatiently. 'So you go on,' he cried. 'Gandalf, Elrond - all these folks have taught you to say so. For themselves they may be right. These elves and half-elves and wizards, they would come to grief perhaps. Yet often I doubt if they are wise and not merely timid. But each to his own kind. True-Hearted Men, they will not be corrupted. We of Minas Tirith have been staunch through long years of trial. We do not desire the power of wizard-lords, only strength to defend ourselves, strength in a just cause. And behold! in our need chance brings to light the Ring of Power. It is a gift, I say; a gift to the foes of Mordor. It is mad not to use it, to use the power of the Enemy against him. The fearless, the ruthless, these alone will achieve victory. What could not a warrior do in this hour, a great leader? What could not Aragorn do? Or if he refuses, why not Boromir? The Ring would give me power of Command. How I would drive the hosts of Mordor, and all men would flock to my banner!'

Boromir strode up and down, speaking ever more loudly. Almost he seemed to have forgotten Frodo, while his talk dwelt on walls and weapons, and the mustering of men; and he drew plans for great alliances and glorious victories to be; and he cast down Mordor, and became himself a mighty king, benvolent and wise.

This scene was what came to mind when I listened to otherwise rational people rave on about Obama's incredible "transformative" powers without explaining exactly how such powers were to be mustered, in whose hands this power would be placed and for what purpose. Only a Stevensonian wet dream of making everyone be good, eat sensibly, and fulfill their awesome potential. We would all be the fantasies of our own idealized selves if only we would take up The Precious Gift, The One, and believe.

But those who resisted the inwards turn towards a fantasized, perfected self (and the comcomitant forcible perfection of the world in which the perfected self exists) have done so through very practical thinking, focusing on unsexy bread and butter issues like insurance and mortgages. These are the kinds of things that gave Hillary's campaign more substance and appeal the longer it went on. No one in the Obama campaign seems to take this fact seriously, writing Hillary's support growth off as "racists" voting against Obama. Instead, we are handed more exhortations to be our fantasy. In the face of The Precious, it is not easy to resist:

Already the Ring tempted him, gnawing at his will and reason. Wild fantasies arose in his mind; and he saw Samwise the Strong Hero of the Age, striding with a flaming sword across the darkened land, and armies flocking to his call as he marched to the overthrow of Barad-dur. And then all the clouds rolled away, and the white sun shone, and at his command the vale of Gorgoroth became a garden of flowers and trees and brought forth fruit. He had only to put on the Ring and claim it for his own, and all this could be.

What Tolkien showed in LotR, and why I've dubbed Obama The Precious, is the seductive danger of believing our own fantasies of socio-political perfection figured as personal virtue writ large. We like being called to the "better angels of our nature" because very few of us want to be less than that. Accusations of racism wound deeply and can shame a person against their better judgement because it strikes directly at this internal self-image. If you very much do not want to be this reviled thing - a racist, a bigot, a stupid hick - then you cannot help but respond by reaching for the better angel within. But how can you ever make present what cannot be proved? When we project our not-so-peachy angels onto others and revile them for the crime latent in our own hearts, then you've got trouble. To identify voting for a specific person as the the only valid test of someone's deepest convictions is to become Boromir demanding to be given the Ring.

As I have asked repeatedly, what is Obama for such that a good life-long liberal like me should give him my vote? I do not need to be convinced that McCain is hideous. He is. Don't vote for him. But Obama is the incredible shrinking candidate. Without the foil of Hillary (and the primary was all about Hillary), what substance there was has vanished. I was fired up fighting for my girl. I'm hardly able to rise above my ennui to criticize The Precious and his Gollumish followers, the once reasonable people obssessively stroking the object of their desire and muttering imprecations about those who have wronged them, bedding down to dreams of revenge.

There is a hollow, fragile shell contending with a blustering old fart. Obama offered up a shiny vision of Stevensonian dominion that is steadily devolving into an internal war on the core of the party. A Media Darling beloved of the Village! Shall we not use the power of the Enemy aganist them? We are true of heart and cannot be tempted into evil, if only you miserable bitches would shut up already about health care and privacy, OK? And it only looks evil, it's not really evil, it's just what we have to do to win...

The campaign is hollow, a pretty bauble without substance, and there is precious little they can do about it.

Anglachel

Classification

I'm reading the news reports as they come in about Obama's determined march right into the heart of conservative darkness and embracing what he finds there. It actually makes sense.

First, some background. I have two posts from April 17, discussing the Bittergate stupidity and citing Paul Krugman as he rustled up some actual facts and figures on white voting patterns:

• Myth of the Bitter White Working Class
• Stereotypes, Facts and Ideals

I encourage you to re-read the posts in their entirety, especially the second one which quotes Krugman extensively, but the main thrust of them is that working class voters are not the socio-economic slice of the "white" vote that votes Republican. They are the least likely portion of white voters to do so, which is part of what made the constant slamming of this group so infuriating during the primaries. This was the slice of the white demographic most likely to vote for Hillary, and that was the reason they were being singled out for shaming and insults.

In partial answer to a comment on the last post, Clinton Democrats are not simply Reagan Democrats, though Reagan Democrats were brought back to the party by Bill and even more by Hillary, joining the majority of Democrats who support the Clintons. Clinton Democrats can be defined as people who understand and approve of using the powers of government to make ordinary lives better and to defend the citizenry from forces and powers outside their control - from catastrophic illness to economic crisis to attacks upon the nation. It is a mode of public service that is very bread-and-butter oriented, efficient rather than elegant.

Paul Krugman jumps right to the point (quote from the second link) when he says:

It’s true that Americans who attend church regularly are more likely to vote Republican. But contrary to the stereotype, this relationship is weak at low incomes but strong among high-income voters. That is, to the extent that religion helps the G.O.P., it’s not by convincing the working class to vote against its own interests, but by producing supermajorities among the evangelical affluent.

So why have Republicans won so many elections? In his book, “Unequal Democracy,” Mr. Bartels shows that “the shift of the Solid South from Democratic to Republican control in the wake of the civil rights movement” explains all — literally all — of the Republican success story. ...

Anyway, the important point is that working-class Americans do vote on economic issues — and can be swayed by a politician who offers real answers to their problems.

(My emphasis) So, the people responsible for shifting the political control of the nation from Democratic to Republican in the wake of the Civil Rights Act are the affluent whites, not the poor and working class whites. The affluent evangelicals who are the conservative counterparts of the Obamacan "creative class" voters who are disproportionately affluent whites.

So, returning to my recent post No Where Else to Go, I'm seeing a certain pattern here. Voters located down the socio-economic ladder are simply being dismissed, attached to a figure reviled by the Stevensonian elite and rejected as worthless, retrograde, dead-enders, racists, and political garbage. Obama is now turning a full charm offensive onto precisely those voters who have been most likely to reject Democrats since LBJ, the affluent evangelicals. The constituency that really is the rotten repository of revanchist racism, but they have money.

And if there is one thing we know about The Precious it's that he's all about the Benjamins.

If you don't have much of a political ideology other than vague "bipartisan" impulses, and you are panting after dollars, and you feel confident that it won't be your rights and freedoms that will be curtailed, your reproductive and marital freedoms that are endangered, your sons and daughters who are packed off to defend imperialist interests half a globe away, then it may not seem such a bad thing to suck up to these kinds of people and their theocratic desires.

Why throw your lot in with the working class when they're really not that into you anyway? If you make promises to them, you might have to stand for something.

Anglachel

She Just Keeps Winning!

Huzzah, she did it again!

Win, that is, by an incredible margin. A 36 point margin and more than 2-1 votes. All that despite being written off by the media, outspent by the other campaign, and continually told that she's losing, no one wants to see her go on, and all that malarkey.

I look at these numbers and I begin to understand why the RBC was willing to embarass themselves to reduce her delegate count through 50% reductions and to sell their very honor down the river to scrounge up more delegates for The Precious - they knew Hurricane Hillary was winding up out in the Carribean.

The exit polls have her winning almost everything. People who supported a particular local candidate who had endorsed Obama were more likely to vote for Obama, but that's about it.

Doing my usual tables on candidate appeal, we see a continuation of the trends that have appeared in the last few primaries. I have normalized the percentages on a base of 100,000 votes to get a sense of how votes would go per 100,000 Democratic voters:

	All	HRC	BHO
Hillary	78,000	63,960	14,040
McCain	7,000	n/a	n/a
Abstain	11,000	550	10,450

Hillary commands 78% of the vote, even higher than her victory margin, and retains a huge chunk of Obama voters. Face it folks - she's popular. She is the most popular candidate with the voters. Though Puerto Ricans cannot vote in the general election, they provide a glimpse into the probable voting patterns of stateside Puerto Rican voters and into Hispanic/Latino voters. In all areas of the country, Hillary has shown herself to be extremely popular with Hispanic/Latino voters regardless of their particular origins. She won over this constituency in California, Arizona, New Mexico, Nevada, Texas, Ohio, Florida and now Puerto Rico. Jeralyn has an interesting post up about voting patterns of Hispanic/Latino voters over the last presidential elections that points out they are not monolithic in their support for Democrats and have been trending away from the Democratic Party. Here we have a candidate who can bring them back.

As for Obama's successes in PR, despite all the money he poured into the place, he has problems even with his own supporters:

	All	HRC	BHO
Obama	53,000	23,850	29,150
McCain	16,000	15,200	800
Abstain	22,000	21,120	880

Immediately, he loses 25,000 voters compared to Hillary's results. He would not inherit the general good will felt towards her. Even so, her supporters would provide him with almost as many votes as his own supporters could muster. He is highly dependent upon the good will of Hillary supporters in this demographic, as was also the case in Pennsylvania, West Virginia and Kentucky. More than twice as many Democrats would defect to McCain if Obama was the candidate as with Hillary, indicating he is not as appealing to moderate Democrats. In fact, almost as many of his supporters per 100,000 would vote McCain against him (his own supporters!) as would sit out, not willing to cast a vote for him. Tens of thousands of Hillary supporters would abstain rather than give hima vote, and 3/4 of that amount would simply go McCain.

If you had asked me two months ago on whether the defection (vote for McCain) or abstention (Do not cast vote) numbers would be as high as are reported in the exit polls, I would have said not even close. Now, however, I'm not so sure. While I do think they will drop and you would see more numbers for each candidate, I think the Hilalry supporters really are furious enough that stattistically significant numbers of them will defect or abstain in November. The crude favoritism of the DNC for Obama, the ham-fisted attempts to rearrange the votes to bring about the desired outcome, the aggression and contempt shown towards Hillary as a person and candidate and towards her supports are all hardening attitudes towards Obama in a way I would not have predicted back in December, or even as late as mid-February.

Hillary, of course, is being a class act towards Obama himself and even more so towards his constituents. She stopped some people who tried to boo Obama during her victory speech today. The first words she spoke, after thanking the voters, were about party solidarity and winning in November. She has always placed the burden of earning Obama supporters' votes squarely on her own shoulders, and has pledged that she will personally go to these groups throughout the nation, listen to their concerns and do her best to earn their support. She'll let the party operatives and campaign opponents have it if they do her wrong, but she never, ever criticizes the voters.

It also tickles me pink to see pictures of Hillary having a blast down in Puerto Rico:

After all she has had to put up with, the smears, the heckling, the hate and death threats from bloviating TV hacks, the unrelenting drumbeat of negativity and fear from detractors who don't have a concrete constructive thing to say about their own candidate, she deserved to have some party time.

I remember the chart Kevin Drum once had the honesty to post showing how she had more negtive press than the rest of the candidates put together. I wonder if there is an updated version of that chart? It would probably be even more exaggerated now. I don't think Obama could stand up to that kind of unrelenting assault, but it seems it just makes her more bouyant.

I don't know about you, but I think having a candidate who is popular with the majority of voters, who attracts more of her opponents voters than they do of hers, who never runs out of energy, who cannot be backed down or turned aside no matter how hostile and unfair the attacks, and who dedicates every day to doing right by the people who have put their trust in her is a pretty good person to have as your nominee.

She's got my vote. Permanently.

Anglachel

The Anti-Democratic Caucuses

Run, do not walk, to Jeralyn's incredible post about the anti-democratic effects that caucuses have had on the delegate selection process.

Caucuses vs. Primaries : A Report

Whatever the outcome of the nomination process, what is shockingly clear is that Hillary Clinton is the preference of the majority of voters in the states that will win the Democrats the White House in the fall. Further, it is clear that Obama is not nearly as popular as his sycophants would have you believe. He simply does not have the votes. Further, if exit polls and polls by major polling agencies are to be believed, far more of his supporters will vote for her than the other way around. In short, the top draw for the average voter is Hillary, not Obama.

This report demonstrates the basic proposition I have been saying for the last two months:

Nominee = Hillary = White House
Nominee = Obama = Loss

Anglachel

Not So Precious

Among Obama supporter's many claims is that he will energize and bring out new voters, and that the more they see him, the more they will flock to him. This argument is usually twinned with some argument that Hillary either cannot turn out the vote or else she may get usual voters, but she can't bring in new voters. No one wants to see her.

Here are a few facts to dash cold water on these unproven claims.

First, ARG has analyzed the election turnouts and has come to a rather starteling conclusion - Obama wins where turn out is low. I got the link to ARG via Suburban Guerilla, Unconventional Wisdom:

Conventional wisdom has it that Barack Obama’s primary victories are based on his ability to increase turnout.

A look at what happens when voter turnout increases in the primaries proves that this notion is wrong. In fact, Obama has had his greatest primary (and caucus) victories when turnouts have been low.

This comes as exactly zero surprise to those of us who actually follow the election, of course. It has been clear from the start that Obama's lead in delegates has come through low-turn out, unrepresentative caucuses where Obama's core constituency is overrepresented. When some of those same states also held primaries (Texas, Nebraska, Washington), he ended up losing the popular vote (TX), being only a bare 2% ahead (NB), or having his lead cut in half (WA). In short, the higher the participation level, the worse he does. His own constituents may have a higher percentage of new participants, but he is not energizing the base and bringing out long time supporters the way Hillary is.

Next I reference Paul Lukasiak's exhaustive analysis of voting preferences in the primaries since mid-February, Buyer's Remorse. The detailed analysis, with amazing charts and graphs, deserves a thorugh read. Even so, I think that Paul's findings can be summed up in a single sentence:

Obama peaked in February, and he is on a long downward slide.

By almost every measure in every category, Obama is failing to make the same level of gains as Hillary in in a number of key categories, and is actually falling behind in others. Which others? You'll just have to skeddadle over to the original post and find out. Even without Paul's amazing and detailed statistics, it is clear that Obama has failed to capture the support of voters in the swing states the Democrats must take and hold to win in November.

Which leads to some reflection on swing states themselves. As I have pointed out in recent posts, the reason why swing states decide elections is because they are evenly divided between parties and can be won when a candidate has enough pull to swing the undecided voters to her side, as well as to bring out her own supproters and keep defections to a minimum. Hillary is very competitive in the most crucial swing states, as the always insightful Jeralyn of TalkLeft documents in this post, Number Crunching With Past Five Elections as a Guide. Long story short, Hillary won four of the five swing states (Arkansas, Nevada, Ohio, Tennessee) that have always gone with the eventual Presidential winner, and was in a statistical tie in the fifth (Missouri). She remains strong in four of the five (AR, OH, MO, TN), all of which have larger EC vote totals than the fifth one, NV. Jeralyn also points out that 41% of Obama's wins are in states that have not gone Democratic in the last five contests.

Finally, I toss in my matter-of-fact observation that if he's doing all this new registration, GOTV, and bringing in new people, why is he not cleaning up in the elections? Ohio should have been a walk if he was so darn appealing. If he is a darling out "West", as BTD keeps bleating, then why didn't he take California, Arizona, New Mexico and Texas by landslides? He won in Oregon and it seems by a good margin. Let's take a look at that.

His vote count was 366,421, 42% of all registered Democrats. Sounds good until you realize that Kerry won 39.7% of all Democrats in 2004, a primary that had no challengers and no national attention. Gore won 41.6% in 2000, while Bill Clinton won 46% in 1996, where he was the incumbent and there was no serious challenge. In short, Obama did not increase support in any statistically significant way, even when there was a competitive race, with national media attention and against an allegedly reviled opponent. Moreover, the total number of registered Democrats had increased by almost 140,000 new voters from the previous election cycle, yet he drew only 16,550 more voters than Bill Clinton had done 12 years before. So, where is the phenomenal turn out? Where were all these energized young and hip urban voters? The overall turn out was almost 74%, yet his share of Democratic voters was about the same as Gore's. If he got a lot of new voters, then they were balanced by the number of existing voters who preferred someone else to him. The increased turnout went to Hillary.

My argument here is not that he lacks delegates, but that he has nowhere near the popular support that is claimed. He has lost big states and swing states decisively, with margins getting worse as the campaign goes on. There is no need to reference his increasingly embarrassing poor showing against John McCain as he falls short of majority support within his own party.

Face it, Precious, they're just not that into you anymore, if indeed they ever were.

Anglachel

Missed the Bus

I've been taking time out from the blogosphere the last few days to attend to ordinary things, like replacing my printer and doing some spring cleaning, and I come back to find out I'm really not one of the Important Bloggers of Left Blogistan. It seems that bloggers who are Important have been contacted by People Who Know and have been seriously informed that It Is Over and just accept that Obama will be the nominee. The Important people are now telling us peons to get on the Unity Bus before it leaves the station (I guess the Unity Pony is a bit spavined by now) and we are Left Behind. BTD has even announced that he will despise us if we don't all get on board.

I don't know whether to giggle or roll my eyes. I can do both, I suppose, but mostly I'll keep posting my crabby opinions just like I always have. I've said before I think that the point at which most bloggers have gone off the rails is in their desire to belong and "build community". Comments (and praise) are addictive and I'd be a bullshitter beyond belief to claim that seeing my visitation stats go from a handful of clicks a day to thousands hasn't affected what I write, or that my ego doesn't go pitter-pat when someone in the comments says how wonderful I am. There's safety in numbers, after all. I've watched too many otherwise reasonable people become raving morons on their blogs, and the common thread to all of it appears to be CDS. It's something that gets you instant praise from hundreds of commenters, it makes you seem very hip and anti-establishment to sneer at the failings of the Clintons, and it puts you in a very chummy circle. It's a lazy way to look radical without actually doing anything, kind of like hanging out with opportunistic bullshit artists in an exclusive little enclave in Chicago and think you're doing something daring. The great irony, of course, is that the leading lights of Left Blogistan whose great moral claim is that they stand in opposition to the media whores of the MSM have done little for the last six months except regurgitate the central anti-Democratic meme promulgated by the MSM, that we must band together to destroy the evil Clintons. It would be amusing were it not so self-defeating.

Krugman encapsulates the entire phenomemon in the dry opening sentence of his most recent column:

It is, in a way, almost appropriate that the final days of the struggle for the Democratic nomination have been marked by yet another fake Clinton scandal — the latest in a long line that goes all the way back to Whitewater.

All the way back to Whitewater. I'm not sure the Republicans understood at the time what paydirt they had hit with the demonization of the Clintons and the way in which the fake scandals churned out by the Rightwing Noise Machine would explode right along the fault lines in the Democratic Party, but they certainly do now. History, race and class have combined to split the party into two almost equally balanced constituencies, one of them dominating the party offices, the other possessing the votes to swing an election one way or the other.

Some pro-Hillary bloggers are dismayed that Krugman seems certain that Obama will be the nominee, but I think that's actually the problem he is addressing - the foolish grounds of that certainty. What he is diagnosing is not so much the horserace but the intra-party split and the way in which the present campaign does nothing to address the ways in which the Democrats' political agenda has been first derailed and then rigidly defined by the Republicans, namely, to spend their power and resources excizing a part of the party instead of reimagining it. Krugman gets to the heart of the matter:

Why does all this matter? Not for the nomination: Mr. Obama will be the Democratic nominee. But he has a problem: many grass-roots Clinton supporters feel that she has received unfair, even grotesque treatment. And the lingering bitterness from the primary campaign could cost Mr. Obama the White House. ...

The point is that Mr. Obama may need those disgruntled Clinton supporters, lest he manage to lose in what ought to be a banner Democratic year.

So what should Mr. Obama and his supporters do?

Most immediately, they should realize that the continuing demonization of Mrs. Clinton serves nobody except Mr. McCain. One more trumped-up scandal won’t persuade the millions of voters who stuck with Mrs. Clinton despite incessant attacks on her character that she really was evil all along. But it might incline a few more of them to stay home in November.

Nor should Obama supporters dismiss Mrs. Clinton’s strength as a purely Appalachian phenomenon, with the implication that Clinton voters are just a bunch of hicks.

The problem is not that Obama is the nominee. On this point, I'm actually in agreement with Krugman. That single fact, in and of itself, even allowing for the weakness of Obama's stated policy positions, is not the problem. Hillary herself will tell you that when you enter an electoral contest, you risk loss. The problem lies in the manner of the "win". One that leads to defeat in November cannot be considered successful, which is Hillary's own argument.

I'm pretty sure that a number of people in Left Blogistan are heaving a sigh of relief that Paul Krugman is finally "on board" and "accepting the inevitable" (discounting those going into apoplectic seizures at his advocation of Hillary as the VP choice), but they are not reading carefully. There is nothing in the tone or the topic of this column that "accepts" the outcome of the campaign. Instead, Krugman very succinctly lays out the electoral problem: the incessant assaults upon the Clinton legacy are a losing bet for the Democratic Party, one that will doom yet another White House run. He states clearly that the fault does not lie on the Clinton side of the divide:

Mrs. Clinton needs to do her part: she needs to be careful not to act as a spoiler during what’s left of the primary, she needs to bow out gracefully if, as seems almost certain, Mr. Obama receives the nod, and she needs to campaign strongly for the nominee once the convention is over. She has said she’ll do that, and there’s no reason to believe that she doesn’t mean it.

(My emphasis) In short, the Obama faction cannot blame their failures on Hillary because she is doing and saying exactly what she should. If the nomination goes to Obama, she is perfectly positioned to go into campaign mode for the party. The resentment and division does not reside with her. Part of my deep respect and awe for this woman is the way in which she will not allow the Republicans or the anti-Clinton Democrats goad her into doing anything that is not in the interests of the party, and thus of the people who need what the party could offer, such as UHC. Kruman then says:

But mainly it’s up to Mr. Obama to deliver the unity he has always promised — starting with his own party.

One thing to do would be to make a gesture of respect for Democrats who voted in good faith by recognizing Florida’s primary votes — which at this point wouldn’t change the outcome of the nomination fight.

The only reason I can see for Obama supporters to oppose seating Florida is that it might let Mrs. Clinton claim that she received a majority of the popular vote. But which is more important — denying Mrs. Clinton bragging rights, or possibly forfeiting the general election?

What about offering Mrs. Clinton the vice presidency? If I were Mr. Obama, I’d do it. Adding Mrs. Clinton to the ticket — or at least making the offer — might help heal the wounds of an ugly primary fight.

Again, I recognize that this statement may be too much for the pro-Hillary wing to accept, but there is a lot loaded into these seemingly simple words. He's put forward two actions that are anathema to the anti-Clinton Left.

Seating Florida as is means acknowledging the legitimacy of Hillary's support. That is an article of faith among the Obamacans, that she is nothing but a monster, that no one really supports her, that she is so wildly unpopular that she can't win. Except, of course, to any rational person, she's a great public servant, millions of people adore her, she commands the unswerving loyalty of a significant part of the American public, and she's kicking the boys' collective butt in actual elections. Krugman makes clear that whether or not the delegate count will go in her favor, it is political suicide to refuse to acknowledge her popular support. More deeply, the opposition of the anti-Clinton faction in the party is what is preventing the party from capitalizing on the Republican failures from Bush I forward.

To acknowledge the legitimacy of the Democratic constituency that supports Hillary would mean relinquishing the prejudices of the Stevensonian wing against the Jacksonian, something I have been discussing for the last two months. First and foremost, it means rejecting the argument that this part of our party is nothing more than bigots and racists slavering for the chance to betray us to the Republicans. It means dropping the code of "hicks" and "Applachian problems", and taking seriously the need to defend the economic interests of this constituency. (Something Hillary does with her discussion of growing a green technology sector, for example) It would mean accepting that "The South" is part of Democratic politics and is a challenge to be embraced, not an impediment to be cast aside.

Finally, I reiterate a point I've made before: Winning by denying your opponent fairly won votes rather than taking the risk of defeat to reinforce the legitimacy of your own support is a surefire way to forfeit the general election. It makes you look weak and afraid because, well, you are weak and afraid.

The second point, offering Hillary the VP slot, is a bigger step because it would mean extending power to a rival who represents what you most detest, complicated by the fact that your detestation is not even rational. Looking at the collective psychotic fantasy of Hillary as would-be assassin that is welling up from the Obamacan faction, it is equally fascinating and repellant as an image of the structure of their collective demonology. The crime that is latent within their own hearts is ascribed to another. It speaks about the way in which they see themselves and their political opponents, innocent and vulnerable victims on the one side and rapacious, murderous monsters on the other. The problem with "unity" in this campaign has always been the structure of the psychosis of the anti-Clinton faction. Their unity is grounded in a fantasy of defeating something thast simply does not exist. This is why, at base, the obsessions of this faction makes those of us more firmly based in reality (whether or not we support Hillary) look askance at the Obamacans; if their current political opponent is an "enemy", a deeply distorted projection of their own inner fears, then what boundaries can there be on their relations with other who may disagree with their opinions, goals and objectives?

To sincerely (no matter how reluctantly) offer the position of VP to the person who is equally supported by just as large a portion of the party as you are is the only way to begin bringing people back to the party rather than driving them away because they scare you. If offered, I think Hillary would take it. Why? Because she has done the long-term math and knows that she can power the ticket to victory, sweeping in an overwhelming Democratic majority in both houses, and that she would have done this for the sake of the party and her constituents. Obama can try to bottle her up in the VP office but I don't see him being very effective on that count. And that, of course, is why the offer is unlikely to be made. It would make his victory dependent on her presence and it would further legitimize her part of the party, which is the diametric opposite of what the anti-Clinton wing wants to do. They would be forever in her debt.

But, we're looking at a lady or tiger situation here, or rather a co-dependent win with the lady and a crushing defeat you will never recover from tiger. Fail to seat Hillary's supporters while their votes still count and you lose in November. Seat them and you risk losing the delegate lead and get relegated to VP. (And, yes, Hillary will make Obama her VP without batting an eye.) If you still somehow managed to squeak out the delegate count, you instantly make her VP, thereby legitimizing your biggest political opponent, or you lose in November. There's no recovery from that. Failing to give respect and power where it is due only strengthens your opponent for the next round.

The actual political battle being fought this electoral year is whether or not the Democratic Party is willing to abandon its elitist politics of resentment against its own working class core and take that part of the population back from the Republicans. That means abandoning fantasies of Whole Foods Nation and living in archipelagos of urbanity where you can be ironically detached from the events of the dirty world beyond your redoubt. It means rejecting "unity" predicated upon a purge of what frustrates you in the party coalition. It means relinquishing your dearly held fantasies of the evil demons out to get you, and accepting that you will have to compromise with others to get things done.

Obamacans need to grow the fuck up and jettison their juvenile paranoid conspiracy theories about Hillary Clinton, who has done nothing except run a tough campaign. As Krugman conlcudes:

the nightmare Mr. Obama and his supporters should fear is that in an election year in which everything favors the Democrats, he will nonetheless manage to lose.

If the anti-Clinton wing persists in the politics of demonization to the detriment of the party, they will be the ones left at the station as the Republicans drive off with the majority of the voters.

Anglachel

Legitimacy, Not Unity

The continued calls for "unity" in this campaign have bothered me for some time. As I alluded to in an earlier post, unity means something very different in politics than being in agreement. It would mean that contestation for the resources and social goods of the nation had been set aside. Rousseau and Machiavelli were both vital to helping Madison develop his theory of countervailing power in a system of institutions. Machiavelli, quite in contrast to his popular image, was a man who very firmly believed in laws, independent institutions to counter the power of princes, and humane rule. The result of any political excess would be chaos and death unless power was used to check power. Rousseau was the first theorist of "the general will" and thought that perfect unity is the absence of legitimacy because there is no possibility of dissent. He was always uncomfortable with the formation of the general will due to its tendency to consolidate power to depotic levels, yet feared social dissolution almost as much.

In a democratic political system, the consent of the minority to the majority's power is the measure of legitimacy. The majority, after all, has what it wants. How dissenters are treated and the degree to which they assent to the majority's possession of power while retaining the ability to dissent from the majority's policies and objectives shows how much the majority is trusted, respected, and considered within the bounds of acceptable political behavior. One of the markers of the Bush regime is the degree to which it has no legitimacy with most of the citizens. They are still trammeled by the institutions of government, but have continuously sought to dissolve these boundaries and rule through sheer force.

The increasing rejection of Obama by voters is a measure of his declining legitimacy. People who once thought they would gladly vote for him, like me, are now implacably opposed to him. He is no longer legitimate in our eyes. He has not sought legitimacy, which would mean facing up to oposition and allowing himself to be challenged, questioned, and probably be found wanting by some people, but has opted to pursue power at any price. Participating in and profiting from the media hatred of the Clintons, throwing out accusations of racism to try to forestall criticism and inflate AA vote counts, encouraging people to be "Obamacans" not Democrats, the "Democrat for a Day" strategy, engaging in intimidation and threats to extract caucus votes, aggressively trying to monopolize money specifically to silence alternative voices, and treating voters who do not choose him first with contempt.

Lack of legitimacy means relying on force to win. If you have to bully people to make them be quiet, you have lost legitimacy. If you have to remove votes from the contest in order to win, you have lost legitimacy. The objection Hillary supporters have to "teh Rulz" to exclude Michigan and Florida is how nakedly they are used to force the numbers themselves into submission. The rules, as Hillary made clear in her incredible speech today, have a legitimacy problem just like Obama himself because of their instrumental use for the benefit of a particular candidate, not just to the detriment of a competitor, but to the detriment of democracy itself. Insisting on unity as a substitute for legitimacy corrodes the institutions meant to defend democracy. Insisting on unity in order to avoid dealing with dissent is self defeating.

Take a moment to read comments by CMike, documenting the highly contested election of 1972, and Esmense, relating a personal memory of that election, and the ways in which the Democrats have fought over these questions of contestation and legitimacy before.

BTD on TalkLeft has spent many inches of blog posts trying to talk the Obamacans down from their rarified atmosphere and get serious about this Unity stuff, but the part of the puzzle he misses (or has missed in the past, as his recent posts have been of much sharper caliber) is the failure of the Obam camp to establish the conditions for legitimacy, starting first and foremost with seating Michigan and Florida as is. Failure to create the conditions under which vast majority of the party will have no doubts that he will serve the interests of the party and be protective of those who dissent from him will leave not just Obama but the party itself in dire straits in the months to come. Riverdaughter has a brilliant post up on The Confluence. You need to go read it all beause it is good in every regard, but these two paragraphs get to the heart of the matter:

Who is giving them permission to set aside their ethics and shuffle off the standards of acceptable behavior? Who is running the party that allows for the brutal suppression of one half by the unleashed id of the other half? I put the blame at the top of the party and Obama himself.

There is a price to be paid for such aggressive and insensitive behavior. People do have free will. The party belongs to the people who believe in its principles. Those principles of social justice, equality and shared responsibility can not be discarded for Change! without the party suffering some severe blows to its foundation. Going forward, the party becomes a fragile shell, easily blown to bits by outside forces because its foundations of support have been carelessly undermined.

Tuesday: Bird Brains

You gain legitimacy by being willing to risk power. This is the root cause of Obama's failure to be a unifying figure even as he preaches Unity. Obama would have lost some power in relation to Clinton early on by being willing to seat Florida and revote Michigan (I have said before that had he agreed to an immediate MI revote he would have won that state), but he would have gained an immeasurable amount of legitimacy with the voters, which would be paying off now. Clinging to a formal numbers count and defending that as the measure of victory rather than leaping for the chance to be affirmed by the voters is may garner a party nomination, but it makes Obama look like a beleagured dictator bleating about how he won an election that everyone knows was dirty and compromised.

Unity is power to quell dissent, legitimacy is power under conditions of dissent.

Anglachel

Equivocal Oregon Win

I am watching Obama's margin steadily erode. I grew up in Washington and have family and many friends in Oregon. The voting patterns do not surprise me.

Portland is in Multnomah county and is a solid urban area. It is going for Obama, as expected by more than 60%. Hood River county which is a beautiful county right on the Columbia Gorge and rather ritzy has margins at or above 60%. Eugene and Benton counties, home to UO and OSU respectively, are over 60. Washington county which really part of Portland is hovering at 59%.

Th rest of the state is much closer, with Obama in low 50s and Hillary in high 40s in most counties, and many rural counties still to report in. Somewhat surprising to me are Yamhill, Marion (home to state capital Salem), and Clackamas counties, all with much lower margins for Obama than Iwould have expected given that they are part of the larger Portland metropolitan area. They all have significant argricultural portions. The eastern Oregon counties that have not yet reported in should go to Hillary, but their populations are very small. The suburban counties are giving Obama a bare 6% lead.

The other interesting thing is the voter breakdown on my 100,00 base scale. If Hillary were the nominee, she would get 84% of the Democratic vote, which is actually higher than her percentage in Kentucky. So, it appears she is not that weak in the Northwest. When factored out, the numbers look like this:

	Total	Clinton	Obama
Clinton	84,000	38,640	45,360
McCain	11,000	2,640	6,600
Abstain	3,000	N/A	N/A

Out of 100,000 Democratic voters, Clinton would enjoy strong support from most voters regardless of initial affiliation. When the nominee is changed, the results are slightly, but significantly, different:

	Total	Clinton	Obama
Obama	82,000	28,700	53,300
McCain	12,000	9,600	1,080
Abstain	3,000	N/A	N/A

Yes, that's right, Obama would get fewer number of voters per 100,000 based on the exit poll data than Hillary. There is an attrition of 2,000 votes, 1,000 of which would go to McCain. The numbers can't quite account fo the extra 1,000, but that would probably go to abstain. What I get from this is that fewer Obama supporters would sit out or vote McCain if Hillary was the nominee than would Hillary supporters should Obama be the nominee.

What this says to me is that Hillary's supporters are less likely to transfer their affiliations than are Obama supporters. This is a relative amount, of course, but a double digit defection in a majority Democratic state (which is what affects both candidates according to the exit poll) is not a good sign.

I suspect the margin between them will decrease a bit more over the evening. This is a blow to Obama as he is the presumptive nominee with massive support form the media, the party leadership and the donors, yet he cannot replicate his early caucus margins in a western state with a primary. In the west, Hillary has won:

California
Nevada - caucus
Arizona
New Mexico - modified caucus

One of these is a blue state, two are swing states and the fourth might be a swing state were it not for McCain being from there. Obama has won:

Alaska - caucus
Hawaii - caucus, native son
Washington - caucus
Idaho - caucus
Wyoming - caucus
Colorado - caucus
Utah
Oregon (I don't see the results changing)

Colorado is the only possible swing state in this group - unless Washington goes red, which it has been known to do. Montana is the only western state left outstanding, and it votes June 3rd in a primary. BTD keeps insisting that Obama has some secret strength in the West, yet he owes his wins to low turn outs in undemocratic caucuses. Washington state's follow up primary was much closer to Oregon's primary than to its own caucus. I suspect Colorado would have shown much the same pattern. Should the ratios hold true, Obama may have difficulties in Oregon due to internal defections. Washington state would be similar.

The longer the campaign goes on, the weaker Obama looks for the General Election.

Anglachel

Crushing Victory for Clinton

Clinton scores another crushing victory over Obama tonight, giving her four of the last five contests. Her popular vote margin in Kentucky is 249, 374, which is 39,603 votes more than Obama's total vote count. Think about that - the margin between them was bigger than his vote total. Her win over him was larger than the difference between them in North Carolina.

I'm returning to my extrapolation of the percentages of who woul/wouldn't vote for which nominee in November by comparing them to a 100,000 baseline.

	Total	Clinton	Obama	Undecided
Clinton	77,000	54,670	21,560	0
McCain	16,000	8,800	4,480	1,760
Abstain	5,000	N/A	N/A	N/A

Out of 100,000 Democratic voters, 77,000 would vote for Hillary were she the nominee. 21,560 of those voters are currently supporting Obama. 16,000 would vote McCain, a smaller number than all the Obama voters who would support her, and numerically sshe would lose more votes from her own supporter's defections than from Obama's supporters, oddly enough. This means just l;ess than 9% of Clinton voters would go McCain, not quite 4.5% of Obama supporters and just shy of 2% of undecideds.

	Total	Clinton	Obama	Undecided
Obama	50,000	21,500	27,500	500
McCain	32,000	27,200	2,240	1,600
Abstain	15,000	14,550	1,050	300

If Obama were the nominee, he would get approximately half of the Democratic votes, and would get almost as many votes from Clinton supporters as she would get from his supporters. His own supporters would not give him that much more in terms of raw vote. Almost as many Clinton supporters would vote against him and for McCain as his own supporters would vote for him. The big number is the high level of abstentions, which could go either way for returning to Obama or defecting to McCain.

The other interstiong question of the evening was should the nominee pick the other person as their VP? When asked if Obama should pick Clinton, there was a definite majority who said Yes:

	Total	Clinton	Obama
Yes	56,000	43,120	12,880
No	42,000	21,420	20,580

Many more Clinton supporters liked the idea than Obama supporters. However, more Clinton voters than Obama supporters as a proportion of Democrats said he should not pick her. When the tables were turned, the pattern intensified:

	Total	Clinton	Obama
Yes	45,000	24,300	20,700
No	52,000	40,040	11,960

Most people did not want Obama on the ticket with Hillary, with Obama supporters more eager for him to be picked by Hilalry than for Hillary to be picked by him. Hillary supporters really don't want anything to do with Obama. I look at these numbers and see a much stronger resistence to Obama from Hilalry supporters than to Hilalry from Obama supporters, which also indicates that there is a greater chance for Hillary to win back disaffected Obama supporters than for him to get her supporters. Not that this is any great surprise to anyone following the polls.

I also think this indicates that Clinton would make McCain have to contest Kentucky, wasting resources and time there, while Obama would be an instant loss.

I'm off to have dinner while the Oregon results come in. So far, Obama's big counties are the ones reporting in and he's not as far ahead as he should be, given the hype and the money.

Anglachel

The Electoral Map Trumps the Party Math

I have been talking about the Electoral College and the way in which the primary wins for Obama simply do not add up to victory for a few months:

• There is No National Election
• Life of the Party
• Fun With the Electoral College
• Legitimacy = 2214
• Cause for General Concern

Hillary's campaign and most of the major blogs are reinforcing the argument that she is a stronger candidate in the general because she has stronger support than Obama in states that A) the Democrats have a real chance of winning in November and B) have a high enough Electoral College vote count that it will add up to 270.

I have already made the formal arguments for this position in the above articles. Below, I simply list the reasons why the general election and its electoral map trump the party delegate math:

• The general election (Electoral College) is winner take all based on a simple majority of votes in that elector’s state. They are all secret ballot elections. All voters are eligible.
• No candidate can win in November by gaming caucuses or manipulating delegate counts. The majority vote that day is all that counts. If you don’t win the state outright, McCain gets it.
• All 50 states are counted, including the places that didn’t vote for a candidate in the primaries and including the states the Democratic Party is currently refusing to allow to vote on the eventual nominee.
• A candidate can manipulate their way into a high delegate count, but if they have failed to be the winner of primaries in the must-win states, they are at an electoral disadvantage in November.
• Obama has his pledged delegate majority by leveraging unrepresentative caucus votes in Republican dominated states and by blocking attempts to revote Florida and Michigan. He does not have the support of the majority of Democrats who voted. He is at a disadvantage in Ohio, Pennsylvania, Florida and Michigan, and the party needs three of those four in our column to win November.

Long story short: The ability to manipulate the primary race to eke out a whisker thin majority of pledged delegates is irrelevant in the general election because it does not reflect the way in which the Electoral College votes are awarded. Our current contenders are both able to get the necessary 2209 party convention delegates, but only one of them is also able to win the necessary number of Electors – 270.

Hillary can deliver the White House. Obama can’t.