Primary Thread 3: Race to Denver

[SlowwHand]

Ohio and Texas will be important.

[Cyclotron]

Why all the hate for Imran?

I think his position on Hillary vs. Obama is perfectly reasonable. Obama is untested, untried, and running as a bit of an empty vessel into which everyone can pour their hope for change. That bothers some people more than others (it bothers my wife more than it bothers me, for example), but it's not an unreasonable criticism.

I do think it's foolish to suggest that Obama has more of a "cult of personality" than Hillary does, or that Obama supporters are bigger "haters." I think there's no evidence of that, and plenty of evidence to the contrary (the contrary being that a small subset of their supporters are equally bad in this regard).

I also think it's foolish to see Edwards' defeat as a sign of an Obama cult, rather than what it was -- a sign that even people who largely agreed with his platform (e.g., me and my whole extended family) considered him an untrustworthy douchebag who's Senate record (what little there is of it, given that he rarely bothered to show up) was totally at odds with the snake oil he was trying to sell this year.

But I don't see the need to pile on Imran, who's a much needed voice of reason around here.

I agree with this in every respect.

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
So instead of substance it is about his inspirational personality? What exactly is style (as opposed to substance) when you speak of a politician?

I don't think my definition of style would be any different than yours. The point is that making the case for one's self as an inspirational, trailblazing leader is important for any campaign. Obama's campaign happens to emphasize that more, which is partially because it's a purposefully deployed strategy and partially because Obama just seems to be a more inspirational speaker than Hillary. This does not constitute a cult of personality, it simply means that Obama's campaign is playing to his strengths (inspiration, leadership, political "purity," appeal to moderates) just like Hillary's campaign plays to her own (experience, more political knowledge, and a "down to earth" approach).

You mean saying "mass messianism" doesn't indicate a heroic cult? Messiah doesn't go as far as it once did, eh?

Mass being the key word there. If it's heroic, it's about the supposed heroism of Americans. Joel Klein points out that, in truth, the campaign is about Obama, not general Americans. But then again, all campaigns are about their candidates. Klein was using "mass messianism" to describe that speech generally, and that phrase specifically; it's not a blanket assertion of a cult of personality.

If you don't think Edwards tried to appeal to black working men as he did to white working men, you weren't paying attention.

When did I say that? I said that, in general, with overlaps, Obama and Edwards tended to target different demographics with their rhetoric, and this is true. Edwards delivered the speech about unions and working class values and his own "humble origins." Of course he was trying to appeal to black working men. Obama's campaign has largely targeted and done best among the more educated and younger, and if you don't think that's been the object then you haven't been paying attention. Like I said, every candidate wants every demographic, but Edwards and Obama were running very different campaigns and it's silly to say that they were both the exact same "change campaign."

It appears (I wasn't there) that during his 1980 campaign and prior to that, in 1976, it was quite obvious that a cult of personality was growing around Reagan. You didn't need hindsight to see that. His 1984 campaign commericals about and speeches about a "City on the Hill" seem to attest to the type of hero worship his supporters saw in him.

I wasn't there either, so I'll decline to comment on that. I don't know if there was a cult of personality around him in the 80s or not. Now, however, it seems plainly evident that there is.

I just though that the whole " At times you don't even seem to know what a cult of personality is." seemed to indicate "shill", so I was giving some same medicine.

What I meant was that you seem to use "cult of personality" as a broad brush used to denote "popularity" or a campaign emphasizing inspiration and change. It's like using "fascism" to mean "something I don't like." Furthermore, it's unfair, as many of your arguments could apply equally to Hillary or other candidates.

[Darius871]

Originally posted by SlowwHand
Ohio and Texas will be important.

I don't get it, if the Dems use proportional representation, then how could OH or TX necessarily make any more difference than say MD or DC? If all four end up being split 50/50 for instance, then the net effect would be zero, would it not? Am I correct that there are no all-or-nothing states except on the GOP side?

[Ramo]

That's correct. That's also why Obama is the favorite. Those states are emphasized because they're the only reasonably favorable states for Clinton until mid April (besides RI) and are fairly large. But the total pledged delegates are less than 350, and Clinton would have to win there by two or three to one to stay apace with Obama (which is unlikely, to say the least).

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Originally posted by SlowwHand
Ohio and Texas will be important.

Not especially. Do the math. Thanks to the Dems using proportional representation to award delegates, even Hillary winning decisively in both states won't be enough to close the gap in pledged delegates. OH + TX +PA might help her draw close to even, but then there'll eb an Obama romp in NC to open up the gap again.

Basically, I don't see any scenario that allows Hillary to enter the convention with more pledged delegates than Obama. Does anyone else?

[Darius871]

Originally posted by Ramo
That's correct. That's also why Obama is the favorite. Those states are emphasized because they're the only reasonably favorable states for Clinton until mid April (besides RI) and are fairly large. But the total pledged delegates are less than 350, and Clinton would have to win there by two or three to one to stay apace with Obama (which is unlikely, to say the least).

I can't see any compelling reason that the demographics of TX or OH lean heavily in Clinton's favor. I suppose one could say OH's rust-belt situation leaves it with more blue-collar union laborers that supposedly are more pro-Clinton, but I don't see a basis for that generalization and in any event it might be counteracted by OH's large black population. As for TX, there's nothing clearly unfavorable to Obama except the large Latino vote, but he's been making inroads in that demographic as well. Bottom line both states sound like just two more 50/50 splits unless I'm missing some dispositive factor.

[Ramo]

OH and TX are important in that they can end the race on 3/4. If Obama can eke out a virtual tie in delegates (say, within a few percent), it's over.

[Ramo]

I can't see any compelling reason that the demographics of TX or OH lean heavily in Clinton's favor.

Lots of white, working class ethnics in OH, some of them with shall we say Southern attitudes on race, not enough black people (12%) or members of the "creative class." It's a tough state for him, but Clinton is not going to win it by 20-30% (which is basically Obama's margin for February). But I think TX is better for Obama than conventional wisdom would dictate.

[Ramo]

And it's great to see an actual fifty state campaign run by Obama. This is really important for the Democratic Party around the country.

I also want to add that Obama has won Latinos in both VA and MD. Great news for his campaign in TX.

[Impaler[WrG]]

OH + TX are simply LARGE states with lots of delegates which is more then good enough reason for them to be important. Add to that the role of Ohio as the penultimate swing state in the general election and its very significant.

Obama's winning margins have been so large in the last week it is indeed very hard to envision Clinton ahead in pledged delegates, at best she could tie and that would take a major reversal in current trends.

The media basically ignores margins and only thinks in binary wins (as if the Dem primary was winner take all like a General election), thus I don't think that Hillary will be declared dead unless she actually losses both states, and they will as in Nevada ignore delegates and instead total up all district primary results to create an aggregate vote total which will be trumpeted as the "result" regardless of the fact that such a statistic has absolutely nothing to do with delegate allocations.

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Actually, the media cycle this weekend seems already to have inagurated a change in the question, from "who's winning?" to "who will get the nomination?" As a result, there's more attention being paid to delegate count as an outcome of the primaries. If that hold, it will mitigate the psychological effect of Hillary winning in OH and TX, since the news stories may well be not "Hillary wins" but "Hillary wins in OH, but still can's catch Obama."

[SlowwHand]

I don't think Hillary will win Texas.

[Rufus T. Firefly]

For what it's worth, CNN is now showing Obama ahead in the delegate count, even when superdelegates are included in the total (they have him up 101 without superdelegates, 23 with).

Edit: Real Clear Politics has him up 117 without superdelegates, 31 with.

[Admiral]

Tonight was a huge night for Obama. Everyone expected him to win, but the margins and the turnout are very bad for Clinton's future in the nomination. Obama has both a strong lead in pledged delegates, but will also have a strong lead in the popular vote, offsetting the Clinton argument that disadvantaged him due to his win in caucus states. And among super delegates, Clinton's inevitability is starting to fade, and a lot of her early delegates are starting to waver, while its highly unlikely that many new delegates will declare for her any time soon.

At this point, this race is Obama's to lose.

[Rufus T. Firefly]

It's ironic that the Clinton campaign is now asking us all to watch what happens in Texas, given that they dismissed Obama's Super Tuesday wins in places like Kansas and North Dakota as meaningless, since they were victories in states that Dems are going to lose anyway. Isn't that what Texas is, too?

But that's politics, I guess.