Primary Thread 3: Race to Denver

[SlowwHand]

Texas isn't Democrat, overall. Obama will carry the Hispanic and Black vote in that vote. If Hillary ran against whomever wins GOP, they just wouldn't vote.

[Admiral]

Also, I don't think she wants us to watch what happens in Texas. I don't think that Obama will win, but I think it will be quite close, same with Ohio, and that Clinton just won't get the kind of boost to let her stay in any way equal to Obama in the days ahead.

[Ramo]

Clinton looks like she's going to skip WI (due to lack of cash?). I'm excited to hear why that state doesn't count either.

But arguably more important than Obama's crushing victory tonight, progressive Donna Edwards beat right winger Al Wynn (D-MD). Hopefully, that puts a little bit of spine in the House when they deal with the legislation giving telecoms amnesty for illegally violating our privacy that the "Democratic" Senate rolled over on (Obama voted against telecom amnesty, Clinton was a no show, and McCain voted for, FWIW). Edwards will face nominal opposition in the Fall.

Also in MD, moderate Republican Wayne Gilchrest fell in a primary challenge from the right. This is a potential Dem pickup.

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Originally posted by Ramo
Clinton looks like she's going to skip WI (due to lack of cash?). I'm excited to hear why that state doesn't count either.

Especially since it was one of the most closely-contested states in 2004, iirc, and just barely went Dem.

[Admiral]

Tonight is a good night. Really, Clinton is trying the Guliani strategy, and Guliani's strategy ended up with him in a distant 3rd (or was it 4th in Florida). Also, tonight she fired her deputy campaign manager, Mike Henry. I worked for Henry in 2005, during Tim Kaine's gubernatorial election in Virginia, and he ran a good campaign (and also proved that he understood Virginia). I think that Clinton may have been stupid to fire him, and even if his departure was a good move, the impression left on voters is that Clinton was shaken up by her defeats in Virginia.

[Impaler[WrG]]

With clear must wins of Ohio and Texas (assuming a loss in WI) and staff shake ups we will probably see some new radical and 'desperate' strategy from the Clinton's. I'm thinking either they go negative again and/or hyper-pander to Hispanic voters and blue-collar voters.

[MarkG]

cnn says obama 1215, clinton 1190

http://edition.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/

why do different sources give different numbers?

[Tassadar500]

Originally posted by SlowwHand
Texas isn't Democrat, overall. Obama will carry the Hispanic and Black vote in that vote. If Hillary ran against whomever wins GOP, they just wouldn't vote.

The Republic party.

[Ramo]

cnn says obama 1215, clinton 1190

http://edition.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/

why do different sources give different numbers?

Some sources haven't allocated delegates from certain states, mostly ones that would go to Obama. Basically, these states' caucuses only have elected state delegates that haven't formally committed to a national delegate even though they're already bound to a candidate. Then, certain sources include "super delegates" who do not directly represent primary voters and are not pledged to a candidate, and whose only real job is to coronate the leader (they disproportionately support Clinton). Finally, some of the delegates from last night haven't been allocated because the votes haven't been completely counted, and these would tend to go to Obama. The gist of all this is that Obama is up by somewhere in the neighborhood of 130 pledged delegates (or ~75 delegates if you include MI and FL)...

[MarkG]

yeah ok but isnt there some official count from the democratic party?

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Originally posted by MarkG
yeah ok but isnt there some official count from the democratic party?

Nope.

"I belong to no organized political party. I am a Democrat." -- Will Rogers

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Cyclotron
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).

Perhaps we are looking at this from different points of view. IMO, every candidate that emphasizes style is hoping (but not meeting) a cult of personality develops around him. In that way, he won't have to be drawn into a policy discussion and can simply focus on being inspiring or whatnot.

Now, like I said, that's not always a bad thing. But it isn't something I necessarily like.

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.

I think being "mass" fits in nicely with a COP outlook . I don't necessarily think Klein was bracketing his argument to only apply to one speech... I think he was trying to describe a general trend and using that event as an example. I think that his point in that was that the mass messianism, while apparent in the speech, flows beyond that.

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."

Obama's main voting strength so far has, let's face it, been the African American vote. And Edwards wasn't just trying to appeal to the unions/working man, but to a general progressive movement... which especially after the DLC's victories in the early 90s, has been a waning movement.

Sure Obama scored high with the educated progressive and the young, but I'm not sure that he really expected to get the youth vote. It's just something that happened in the course of the campaign.

I do think that Edwards expected that the unions/working class and the progressive movement at large would join behind him and catapult him to the nomination. If he's just going after the union vote, then there really was no sense to even run.

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.

It seems that a lot of people believe that there was.

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.

I use it to mean more 'hero worship', and like I said, some could apply to Clinton or McCain's rabid supporters. It is just that it appears Obama has far more of these folks who seemingly have joined on solely based on the personality of the candidate and the belief that he's somewhat of a savior for the democracy.

My point was that it isn't just me looking at things this way. I think McCain, in his speech last night, indirectly went after this when he was talking about the fact that his country saved him and he didn't think he was there to 'save the country'.

[Wezil]

That's too bad (Mccain). Your country definitely needs saving.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Wezil
That's too bad (Mccain). Your country definitely needs saving.

Don't worry about us. We are going to pull ourselves up by our bootsraps. Then you Canadians can go back to complaining about your own country.

[MarkG]

Originally posted by Rufus T. Firefly
"I belong to no organized political party. I am a Democrat." -- Will Rogers

what a great political system....