Primary Thread 3: Race to Denver

[Alexander I]

Originally posted by Zkribbler
From the L.A. Times:
Romney ends campaign for presidency

Yeah, there's a thread on it.

http://apolyton.net/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=174403

[Ben Kenobi]

Clinton won MT in '92, it elected an extremely popular Dem Guv in '04 (Schweitzer) and a new Dem Senator in '06 (Tester) to join its other Dem Senator (Baucus). IIRC, the state House is Dem and the state Senate is GOP by one vote. While I wouldn't call it a battleground state yet, it is not RI.

Yep, Clinton won the state with 37 percent in 1992. That's definitely a battleground. As for the other two, what about the democrats in South Dakota? Does that make South Dakota a battleground? Seriously, presidential elections are a different beast from congressional ones.

[Zkribbler]

Moral of the story: Never begin a thread based solely on a link, especially if you are going to put a garble of words in the title of the thread.

Be clear, concise and if possible colorful.

[Ramo]

MT has gotten significantly more Democratic over the past few years; SD, not so much (Thune beat Daschle in '04, Herseth picked up the open previously GOP House seat in '03 - more or less a wash). I already stated that I don't consider MT a battleground, but comparing to RI is ludicrous.

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by snoopy369
Given the divorce rate, I highly doubt marriage is related. I suspect it is many things, perhaps having a child being the major factor (how many couples stay together for the children?)...

Even with a divorce rate of 50%, that is still significantly better then the average.

JM

[Admiral]

I don't think that, against McCain, Obama puts a lot of the Western states in play. However, Obama could have a big impact in a state Virginia, or Louisiana. One of the problems with running as a Democrat in VA is that African-American turnout is lower than we want it to be. Were Obama the nominee, turnout there would swell, and combine that with the overall trend of much of northern VA towards the Democrats, and the hope that Mark Warner will have some coattails as he wins the Senate seat handily, could put VA in Obama's camp. The Louisiana argument is somewhat similar, though as I have never campaigned in LA, I don't know it as well as VA.

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


Yep, Clinton won the state with 37 percent in 1992. That's definitely a battleground. As for the other two, what about the democrats in South Dakota? Does that make South Dakota a battleground? Seriously, presidential elections are a different beast from congressional ones.

It's about trend, ben. Since 2004, MT and KS have shown a clear willingness to elect Dems on a state-wide level; both have extremely popular Dem governors (both of whom, in fact, will be on VP short lists). They're still red states, to be sure, but given the genenral levels of disgust with the GOP, they could be in play this year -- much the same way many Dem states went for Reagan in 1980.

Also, things change. It's worth remembering that, up until 1988, the one state in the union that had voted Republican more consistantly than any other was . . . Vermont. Vermont -- a state that's now deep blue and has elected a socialist to the Senate. Thing are in flux in the West, and that could help the Dems.

[Rufus T. Firefly]

I really dislike David Brooks, and the snarky tone of this piece doesn't change that...but it's not a bad analysis of whose voting for Clinton vs. Obama, and why:

Questions for Dr. Retail
By DAVID BROOKS
QUESTION: Dr. Retail, now that the Democratic presidential race has entered its long, bloody slog phase, I figured it was time to get a fresh perspective. Can you explain to me what it’s all about?

DR. RETAIL: Why do you bother me with simple problems? Listen, the essential competition in many consumer sectors is between commodity providers and experience providers, the companies that just deliver product and the companies that deliver a sensation, too. There’s Safeway, and then there is Whole Foods. There’s the PC, and then there’s the Mac. There are Holiday Inns, and there are W Hotels. There’s Walgreens, and there’s The Body Shop.

Hillary Clinton is a classic commodity provider. She caters to the less-educated, less-pretentious consumer. As Ron Brownstein of The National Journal pointed out on Wednesday, she won the non-college-educated voters by 22 points in California, 32 points in Massachusetts and 54 points in Arkansas. She offers voters no frills, just commodities: tax credits, federal subsidies and scholarships. She’s got good programs at good prices.

Barack Obama is an experience provider. He attracts the educated consumer. In the last Pew Research national survey, he led among people with college degrees by 22 points. Educated people get all emotional when they shop and vote. They want an uplifting experience so they can persuade themselves that they’re not engaging in a grubby self-interested transaction. They fall for all that zero-carbon footprint, locally grown, community-enhancing Third Place hype. They want cultural signifiers that enrich their lives with meaning.

Obama offers to defeat cynicism with hope. Apparently he’s going to turn politics into a form of sharing. Have you noticed that he’s actually carried into his rallies by a flock of cherubs while the heavens open up with the Hallelujah Chorus? I wonder how he does that.

QUESTION: But why would Democratic votes break down so starkly along educational lines?

DR. RETAIL: The consumer marketplace has been bifurcating for years! It’s happening because the educated and uneducated lead different sorts of lives. Educated people are not only growing richer than less-educated people, but their lifestyles are diverging as well. A generation ago, educated families and less-educated families looked the same, but now high school graduates divorce at twice the rate of college graduates. High school grads are much more likely to have kids out of wedlock. High school grads are much more likely to be obese. They’re much more likely to smoke and to die younger.

Their attitudes are different. High school grads are much less optimistic than college grads. They express less social trust. They feel less safe in public. They report having fewer friends and lower aspirations. The less educated speak the dialect of struggle; the more educated, the dialect of self-fulfillment

Did you hear the message of Clinton’s speech Tuesday night? It’s a rotten world out there. Regular folks are getting the shaft. They need someone who’ll fight tougher, work harder and put loyalty over independence.

Then did you see the Hopemeister’s speech? His schtick makes sense if you’ve got a basic level of security in your life, if you’re looking up, not down. Meanwhile, Obama’s people are so taken with their messiah that soon they’ll be selling flowers at airports and arranging mass weddings. There’s a “Yes We Can” video floating around YouTube in which a bunch of celebrities like Scarlett Johansson and the guy from the Black Eyed Peas are singing the words to an Obama speech in escalating states of righteousness and ecstacy. If that video doesn’t creep out normal working-class voters, then nothing will.

QUESTION: Your cynicism is really interfering with my vibe. I don’t think you’re feeling the fierce urgency of now.

DR. RETAIL: Believe me, those of us who bill by the hour completely feel the fierce urgency of now. As John Edwards would say, this is personal with me.

QUESTION: So does this mean the Democrats are fundamentally divided?

DR. RETAIL: Why do you political people always think in either/or terms? No. Safeway and Whole Foods people shop in each other’s stores. They just feel less at home.

QUESTION: So who’s going to win?

DR. RETAIL: Observe the marketplace. The next states on the primary calendar have tons of college-educated Obamaphile voters. Maryland is 5th among the 50 states, Virginia is 6th. But later on, we get the Hillary-friendly states. Ohio is 40th in college education. Pennsylvania is 32nd.

But it’ll still be tied after all that. The superdelegates will pick the nominee — the party honchos, the deal-makers, the donors, the machine. Swinging those people takes a level of cynicism even Dr. Retail can’t pretend to understand. That’s Tammany Hall. That’s the court at Versailles under Louis XIV.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/08/opinion/08brooks.html?ref=opinion

Though the piece is anti-Obama, it actually makes a good argument for the Dems nominating Obama; in national elections, voting skews wealthy and educated.

Well, I've still got two months to make up my mind...

[Jon Miller]

You are wealthy and educated.

JM

[Arrian]

It's a little too neat, but I see the point. I voted for Obama. I'm wealthy and educated.

Thing is... I didn't vote for Obama because of his "hope" meme. In fact, I held that against him b/c it's bull****. I voted for him b/c his policy positions are solid (and very similar to Clinton's), he was right on Iraq whereas Hillary was wrong, and b/c of Clinton's other baggage.

-Arrian

[Cyclotron]

Originally posted by Arrian
Thing is... I didn't vote for Obama because of his "hope" meme. In fact, I held that against him b/c it's bull****. I voted for him b/c his policy positions are solid (and very similar to Clinton's), he was right on Iraq whereas Hillary was wrong, and b/c of Clinton's other baggage.

Ditto - though I don't think the "hope meme" is bull****, just very overstated. I think an inspirational leader can be good for the country and re-engage people in politics; just look at all the independents he gets to vote for him and the immense sums he's been able to raise from the grassroots. Insofar as the meme increases political participation and civic engagement, I'm all for it.

[Ben Kenobi]

It's about trend, ben. Since 2004, MT and KS have shown a clear willingness to elect Dems on a state-wide level; both have extremely popular Dem governors (both of whom, in fact, will be on VP short lists). They're still red states, to be sure, but given the genenral levels of disgust with the GOP, they could be in play this year -- much the same way many Dem states went for Reagan in 1980.

I'd be willing to put my avatar up against that prediction.

Honestly, what are you smoking Rufus? These two states are about as red as they get.

As for Reagan, uh sure. Go right ahead and predict an FDR style sweep for the Democrat party. I'm looking at best, a Carter style "victory" with under 50 percent of the vote.

[Kidlicious]

I have to agree with Ben. There is no way KS or any state like that is going for either a black man or a women. The Dems will have to take the swing states to get a win.

[Zkribbler]

I'd be willing to put my avatar up against that prediction.

No way! You have one of the coolest avatars in all of Apolytonland, and you are not allowed to risk losing it!

Beside, the prediction is that those two states might be in play. That's a pretty fuzzy prediction.

[Kidlicious]

Also, I'm low class and voting for Obama, because I don't like Clintons character.