George Will likes Obama, dislikes Huck, Edwards, Clinton

[Wezil]

Alright I'll hold off on the "I told you so's" for a while longer.

[Igloodude]

Iowa and New Hampshire are coming in as advertised - giving second- and third-tier candidates a shot at the nominations they otherwise wouldn't have had. Obama goes to South Carolina having pretty much erased the 'they won't vote for a black guy' stigma in 95+% white states. What will be very interesting is what percentage of independents he and McCain (and Hillary and Romney) get here.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Ramo
On domestic policy, the big three are virtually the same. The significant difference are foreign policy and theories of governance. The former has been discussed about plenty (where Obama and Edwards appear to be on the left, Clinton on the right).

Clinton is saying that she's the most familiar with the system, so she could game it the best to make the changes all three candidates want. Edwards is saying that we need a partisan contrast to create the downballot support to make change. Obama is saying that we need to focus on good government and emphasize ideology over party to bring in an electoral majority that can support change.

Then why does our friend George Will prefer Obama? Is it only his high Tory dislike for democracy, which he actually believes Hillary would still be tempted to spread? Or does he really see Obama as less ideological than folks like you do? See thats what i meant by not holding it together - someone like you goes and checks Obamas policy statements on his website, notes their similarities to Clinton and Edwards, and concludes hes the liberal version of Ronald Reagan, able to sell the ideology with his silver tongue. But my impression is that all those independents, and a fortiori those moderate Repub, who caucused for him in Iowa, are NOT won over to liberalism, and did NOT read his position statements. They listened to his speeches, and wanted to feel good about America and about politics.

Now Im not denying that could carry him through November. Looking back over recent history, ISTM that we've voted for the more likeable guy pretty much every general election since 1976. Last real SOBs to get elected were Nixon and LBJ, in a profoundly different media environment.

But once hes in office hes gonna have to disappoint somebody, either by pursuing a liberal/soc dem agenda or failing to. Unless you beleive, as many folks seem to, that the opposition to such an agenda (beyond a few eevil corporate types) was NOT based on thought out interests, but was simply the broad masses being fooled by the GOP propaganda machine, which Obamas honey tongue and rhetorical brilliance will disarm.

I have my doubts.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Wezil
Imran said I should wait until New Hampshire (where's Imran btw?) before saying Hillary is done. Has that changed?

No, she's set to win several big states. She's wounded but not out and is actually in a competitive position should Obama stumble. It looks like Obama takes Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina while Clinton takes Michigan, Florida, and possibly Nevada. Much really does depend on Edwards the spoiler.

The key thing here is can Obama continue to motivate support from young people and independents? The man seems to be getting a whole lot of people voting in primaries who normally don't even bother to vote in general elections and that's what is giving him the numbers to out do the old men who normally decide things.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Oerdin

.

The key thing here is can Obama continue to motivate support from young people and independents? The man seems to be getting a whole lot of people voting in caucuses who normally don't even bother to vote in general elections and that's what is giving him the numbers to out do the old men who normally decide things.

Aint been no primaries on the Dem side yet.

Old men

Generational hate

[DanS]

A rambling opinion piece. However, I agree with him that the GOP coalition is not served well by Huckabee. He needs the vote of people who are primarily concerned with security and economics as well as those who are social conservatives. Populism does not rub these folks the right way.

[Ramo]

Then why does our friend George Will prefer Obama?

It looked like Will likes Obama's demeanor, not necessarily his policies. I don't see how getting right wingers to naturally like him, and therefore become more receptive to his message, is a bad thing. I don't see Will voting for Obama, but there are plenty of less ideological Republicans in the electorate.

See thats what i meant by not holding it together - someone like you goes and checks Obamas policy statements on his website, notes their similarities to Clinton and Edwards, and concludes hes the liberal version of Ronald Reagan, able to sell the ideology with his silver tongue.

Look at his speeches; they are very ideological. "I am my brother's keeper, I am my sister's keeper..." - it doesn't get much more blatant than that. What he nicely does is couch this ideological rhetoric in a language of unity. There's no contradiction because that is where the electorate is.

We're currently watching the breakup of the Reagan coalition (see the Will column, for example), and the Democratic nominee's job is to catch those ready to bolt and turn them into Democrats. Obama's not going to get Tories like Will, but he does have a shot at the Huckabee voters (i.e. the Reagan Democrats) among whom the social democratic agenda - universal health care, serious climate change legislation, etc. is a popular political program.

[lord of the mark]

[QUOTE] Originally posted by Ramo

It looked like Will likes Obama's demeanor, not necessarily his policies.

I refuse to beleive that anything Will puts out isnt based, at bottom, on his preferrred policy outcomes. It may be that Will thinks Obama will pass some liberal legislation, but he at least wont encourage class consciousness and envy among the working classes, which I believe Will finds more threatening than any health care plan. I think hes willing to concede some legislation he doesnt like (which can be gutted later anyway - Obama is in for 8 years at most) to avoid a change in American politics away from Reaganesque vagueness.

I don't see how getting right wingers to naturally like him, and therefore become more receptive to his message, is a bad thing.

I dont think liking him will make them more receptive to his policies, when push comes to shove. I dont think the ideological balance of the last couple of decades was driven by likeability.

I don't see Will voting for Obama,

Against McCain, its unlikely but not impossible. Andy Sullivan IS supporting Obama, despite being a Thatcherite. But then Will isnt as concerned with the homophobia issue as Sullivan.

but there are plenty of less ideological Republicans in the electorate.

I dunno. More moderate certainly. But are there really that many folks who go and register GOP just cause they dont like the personalities of Dem candidates? And even if there are a few, is that really addressing the core of the divisions in US politics?

Look at his speeches; they are very ideological. "I am my brother's keeper, I am my sister's keeper..." - it doesn't get much more blatant than that.

Really? You could interpret that in a lot of ways, from more radical to more moderate than his stated positions. "I agree Im my brothers keeper, but I dont want to see more govt involvement in health care ...." The way to get blatant is to get specific - denigrate that as laundry list politics all you want.

What he nicely does is couch this ideological rhetoric in a language of unity. There's no contradiction because that is where the electorate is.

The electorate is thinking that the bushes and clintons made mean rhetoric, and wed all just get along if we went back to sunshine. Given the youthfulness of Obamas voters, I suspect many of them dont actually remember the 1980s, when we had hard divisions, despite sunny rhetoric. Or the Carter admin, when "America deserved a govt as good as its people".

We're currently watching the breakup of the Reagan coalition (see the Will column, for example), and the Democratic nominee's job is to catch those ready to bolt and turn them into Democrats.

Getting them to vote for him wont be enough. Hes going to have to craft policies when in office that win them over, without losing his own base.

Obama's not going to get Tories like Will, but he does have a shot at the Huckabee voters (i.e. the Reagan Democrats)

I tend to think of Reagan Dems not as the fundies (who had already been drifting away through the 60s, but were briefly brought back to the Dems in '76 by regional pride and denominational affiliation) but the ethnics, blue collar or middle class, who no longer saw the Dem domestic agenda as paying off for them, and who were repelled at a "weak" foreign policy. Im not sure we're even talking about the same electorate today - some of those folks have died, some have moved further up the class scale, some drifted back to the Dems with Clinton. But if we are, Obama has some serious hurdles getting them, esp if the for policy scene turns out not to be quiet.

among whom the social democratic agenda - universal health care, serious climate change legislation, etc. is a popular political program.

Climate change leg, while a good idea, is not particularly social dem, and probably wont be supported by folks who are gonna be most directly hurt by it (including, for ex, coal miners) Health care will be an interesting battle - but to succeed, I think Obama is gonna need Hillary style game playing, more than hope filled rhetoric. I doubt hope filled rhetoric really adds much to that.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Oerdin
No, she's set to win several big states. She's wounded but not out and is actually in a competitive position should Obama stumble. It looks like Obama takes Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina while Clinton takes Michigan, Florida, and possibly Nevada. Much really does depend on Edwards the spoiler.

But a bruising primary battle may kill her for the general (though I do think she's much better candidate for the general election than Obama... he seems like he'll be a weenie candidate like Kerry was to Republican attack dogs).

Edwards is the key, though, and that's the interesting thing here.

[Dinner]

A bruising primary battle always hurts in the general election. That's the reason party elites try to set up their prefered candidate as winner and stack the deck against other challengers. That is bad for democracy but good for the party.

[Impaler[WrG]]

Hillary has been so deionized over the years that I can't see a bruising primary adding much to that, if anything she's learn lessons from all this and possibly (but not likely) some humility, people have always been able to attack the Clinton's on their "sense of entitlement". A coronation of a primary would not be a good start to a Hillary general election campaign.

[Ramo]

I refuse to beleive that anything Will puts out isnt based, at bottom, on his preferrred policy outcomes.

You mean that he likes Obama because he opposes Clinton's pro-puppy and kitten policy (and therefore Obama is implicitly anti-puppy and kitten)?

I refuse to make serious decisions about Democratic candidates based on a half-assed psychoanalysis of a George Will column.

I dont think liking him will make them more receptive to his policies, when push comes to shove. I dont think the ideological balance of the last couple of decades was driven by likeability.

Being driven by is not the same thing as being affected by. It's difficult to be persuaded by a politician that you already have a negative opinion of.

Against McCain, its unlikely but not impossible. Andy Sullivan IS supporting Obama, despite being a Thatcherite. But then Will isnt as concerned with the homophobia issue as Sullivan.

Sullivan is explicitly supporting Obama based on foreign policy. He represents a very different voter from Will.

I dunno. More moderate certainly. But are there really that many folks who go and register GOP just cause they dont like the personalities of Dem candidates? And even if there are a few, is that really addressing the core of the divisions in US politics?

No. New voters are Democrats. But people who have been Republican for the past 20 years might be persuaded to become Democrats right now. And the rhetoric of the party leader does matter. Since there's not much else to differentiate the candidates on domestic policy, I would say that it's an important consideration.

Really? You could interpret that in a lot of ways, from more radical to more moderate than his stated positions. "I agree Im my brothers keeper, but I dont want to see more govt involvement in health care ...." The way to get blatant is to get specific - denigrate that as laundry list politics all you want.

What the hell? You realize that I was referring to a thought that was longer than a sentence, right?

And I'm sure in virtually every speech he gives (certainly in the ones I've seen), he hits all the major themes. He just weaves it into a cohesive message. The primary way in which his stump speeches are less specific than his opposition is that he tries to avoid Senatese references to specific legislation. So he talks about the ethics reform he passed instead of saying "Obama-Coburn," or talks about the lobbying reform instead of saying "Obama-Feingold," or talks about anti-proliferation instead of saying "Lugar-Obama." None of this is a bad thing in a Presidential candidate.

Given the youthfulness of Obamas voters

Geez, these snide dismissals of Obama are getting pretty sad. Look at the IA entrance poll. The only age group where Clinton did any better than Obama is over 65. Does that make you a naive toddler?

Just because Obama did well among young voters doesn't mean that he did badly in other age categories.

The electorate is thinking that the bushes and clintons made mean rhetoric, and wed all just get along if we went back to sunshine.

The electorate wants all the nice things the Dems want to pass. Iowa seems to have demonstrated that it's easier to reach out to these members of the fracturing Republican coalition if you speak in a language of unity.

Getting them to vote for him wont be enough. Hes going to have to craft policies when in office that win them over, without losing his own base.

Getting close to 60 Dems in the Senate is pretty much all that matters. Hillary's game playing (and her campaign during and after IA has really shaken my confidence in her abilities) is pretty inconsequential relative to the number game, which Obama appears able to deliver on.

Iowa has really validated Obama and invalidated Clinton. I don't see a reason to vote for her unless one's a foreign policy hawk or doesn't like either party's agenda.

I tend to think of Reagan Dems not as the fundies (who had already been drifting away through the 60s, but were briefly brought back to the Dems in '76 by regional pride and denominational affiliation) but the ethnics, blue collar or middle class, who no longer saw the Dem domestic agenda as paying off for them, and who were repelled at a "weak" foreign policy. Im not sure we're even talking about the same electorate today - some of those folks have died, some have moved further up the class scale, some drifted back to the Dems with Clinton. But if we are, Obama has some serious hurdles getting them, esp if the for policy scene turns out not to be quiet.

Pew has an interesting taxonomy of the electorate. Their category for the Huckabee voter, pro-government conservative, which has been growing in recent years, is a winnable one for the Dems.

[Ramo]

I recommend that everone check out the entrance poll data:

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results/epolls/index.html#IADEM

[Ramo]

Just saw an amusing poll from SUSA. It's about general elections in IA, the state that knows Clinton and Obama the best. Here are the results:

Today, 01/07/08 …

* Obama defeats McCain by 17 points.
* Obama defeats Huckabee by 23 points.
* Obama defeats Romney by 26 points.
* Obama defeats Giuliani by 40 points.

Today, 01/07/08 …

* McCain defeats Clinton by 4 points (within the margin of sampling error).
* Huckabee and Clinton tie.
* Clinton defeats Romney by 8 points.
* Clinton defeats Giuliani by 16 points.

http://www.surveyusa.com/index.php/2008/01/07/1st-look-at-iowa-after-caucus-rush-to-jump-on-obama-bandwagon/

Granted, Giuliani didn't campaign in the state, but a 40% deficit in a state that Bush won? That's pretty pathetic...

In the interests of balance, I should point out that SUSA just released a poll on OH, where Clinton performed comparably with Obama (slightly better against McCain, slightly worse against Romney). But I would attribute that to Obama's lack of exposure in the state.

[lord of the mark]

[QUOTE] Originally posted by Ramo

I refuse to beleive that anything Will puts out isnt based, at bottom, on his preferrred policy outcomes.

You mean that he likes Obama because he opposes Clinton's pro-puppy and kitten policy (and therefore Obama is implicitly anti-puppy and kitten)?

I refuse to make serious decisions about Democratic candidates based on a half-assed psychoanalysis of a George Will column.

I posted a link to a George Will column, clearly in order to discuss the implications of that column.

And its not psychocanalysis, Im not discussing Wills subconscious. Its a political analysis.

Being driven by is not the same thing as being affected by. It's difficult to be persuaded by a politician that you already have a negative opinion of.

Again, I think the persuasive effect of the Presidential bully pulpit is limited. And I also think that popularity IN OFFICE will not necessarily correlate with popularity while running for office.

Sullivan is explicitly supporting Obama based on foreign policy. He represents a very different voter from Will.

Wills not thrilled with the Iraq war either, and Sullivan has a much broader range of concerns than international relations. If he saw Obama as a deep threat to his libertarian-thatcherite views of a good society, I dont think he would support him.

No. New voters are Democrats. But people who have been Republican for the past 20 years might be persuaded to become Democrats right now. And the rhetoric of the party leader does matter. Since there's not much else to differentiate the candidates on domestic policy, I would say that it's an important consideration.

What the hell? You realize that I was referring to a thought that was longer than a sentence, right?

And I'm sure in virtually every speech he gives (certainly in the ones I've seen), he hits all the major themes. He just weaves it into a cohesive message. The primary way in which his stump speeches are less specific than his opposition is that he tries to avoid Senatese references to specific legislation. So he talks about the ethics reform he passed instead of saying "Obama-Coburn," or talks about the lobbying reform instead of saying "Obama-Feingold," or talks about anti-proliferation instead of saying "Lugar-Obama." None of this is a bad thing in a Presidential candidate.

Do the others really use Senatese? Forgive me, I dont normally listen to the stump speeches. When folks go on about Obama, its about how he talks about hope and what makes America great.

Geez, these snide dismissals of Obama are getting pretty sad.

Im NOT dismissing him. I think hes probably more likely to take the oath of office in January 2009 than any other individual. I am THINKING about what his Presidency is likely to be like. Thinking about the extent to which the folks voting for him, including everyone in Iowa, young and old, has really thought through his positions, is part of that.

The electorate wants all the nice things the Dems want to pass.

I dont think the electorate that supports Obama is fully in agreement about what they will get.

Iowa seems to have demonstrated that it's easier to reach out to these members of the fracturing Republican coalition if you speak in a language of unity.

And again, I think the language is more important on the campaign trail, then it will be in office.


[q]Getting close to 60 Dems in the Senate is pretty much all that matters. [q/]

Absolutely not. Dems wont all stay united for a policy that doesnt work for the constituent and interest groups (and yes, interest groups have legitimate input, IMO) that support them. And if the policy IS passed with Dems alone, it will be vulnerable when the pendulum swings.

Iowa has really validated Obama and invalidated Clinton. I don't see a reason to vote for her unless one's a foreign policy hawk or doesn't like either party's agenda.

A doubt all the people in Iowa who voted for her were foreign policy hawks. There are a range of reasons, which her campaign is trying to articulate. It may be that those reasons are not compelling to enough primary/caucus voters to nominate her, and indeed it certainly looks that way.

however at this point Im not really trying to persuade folks here to be pro-Hillary. None of you live in NH, AFAIK, and she probably lives or dies there. I am trying to explore implications, assuming that Obama IS going to win the nomination, and the election.

Pew has an interesting taxonomy of the electorate. Their category for the Huckabee voter, pro-government conservative, which has been growing in recent years, is a winnable one for the Dems.

The question is can they be held beyond November? Possibly, but I doubt if they can be while still holding on to all the people on the left who support Obama now (and yeah, I know a lot dont and are for Edwards). IOW, at some point Obama will have to make a CHOICE between the different ends of his "coalition". I for one, dont know which choice he will make. And I am dubious that rhetoric will make it possible to avoid that choice.

I certainly dont think many of the Independents, let alone Repubs, who caucused for him in Iowa, expect him to pass legislation with Dem Senators alone.