Bell Curve The Law Talking Guy Raised by Republicans U.S. West
Well, he's kind of had it in for me ever since I accidentally ran over his dog. Actually, replace "accidentally" with "repeatedly," and replace "dog" with "son."

Thursday, January 24, 2008

The Field Narrows

I'd like to draw your attention to an excellent graph on RealClearPolitics showing the national polling averages for the Democratic nomination. There have been some ups and downs over the past few weeks, but in the end there is only one story: Obama's support has gone up about 8% while Clinton and Edwards are right back where they were in November.

If you look at the Florida graph, you see the same result. (Unfortunately, the South Carolina running averages are skewed by a couple of strange surveys last week that disagree with others by 20+ points.) This suggests strongly that uncommitted, Biden, Richardson, and Dodd supporters have all lined up behind Obama. With Kucinich's departure today, expect Obama to climb another 3% or so. But it also suggests that Obama has not yet won anyone over from the Clinton or Edwards camps.

It is truly a divided Democratic Party. Let us all hope Super Tuesday gives us a clear front-runner, or there will be a long, horrible blood-letting within the Democratic party and nothing good will come of it. As an HRC supporter, I have my fingers crossed that Edwards will remain in the race until Super Tuesday. Right now it looks like HRC will dominate Super Tuesday, but it would be a free-for-all if Edwards dropped out to support Obama.


Raised By Republicans said...

I think this Demcoratic race is looking a lot like the Republican race in 2000. Only with HRC filling the pre-campaign annointed role of GW Bush and with Obama in the McCain role.

As for the "horrible blood letting" two things. First, it's nothing compared to what the GOP will unleash in their desparate attempts to distract people from the issues they lose on. Second, it's interesting that a Clinton supporter would find it so distasteful. It was, after all, the Clinton campaign that largely manufactured this current round of blood letting (after claiming to have been attacked first of course).

Hillary Clinton - Because This Time It's Personal.

Dr. Strangelove said...

Oh, come on, RbR--give me a break. Obama has done his fair share of attacking too. But fortnuately it has still been a remarkably genial campaign on the Democratic side, as these things go.

Raised By Republicans said...

Not to be childish but it's fairly clear that this started with Bill Clinton in New Hampshire. CNN certainly got excited about the prospect of covering something more interesting than all the "I agree with ..." stuff going on in Iowa but there it is.

Also, when HRC was behind she made a HUGE deal about any slight real or imagined (mostly imagined).

I have to say that being an Obama supporter gives me a new insight into why Republicans resent the Clintons so much. It's not very fun to be on the recieving end of their brutally effective campaigning style.

The Law Talking Guy said...

I also must add that as an Obama supporter, I've been offended by Bill Clinton. Worse, his nasty rhetoric has meant that he basically won't campaign for Obama if he wins the nomination. That's very damaging to the party and party unity. Our best and most popular former president should be attacking the Republicans, not Obama.

The interesting news is that polls in South Carolina are showing a dramatic increase in support for Edwards. He may even challenge HRC for 2nd place if the electorate is as volatile as in New Hampshire. Very interesing things afoot.

Dr. Strangelove said...

The NY Times editorial board strongly endorsed Hillary Clinton and John McCain today for their respective parties' nominations. They endorsed Hillary chiefly because of her, "abiding, powerful intellect," adding that from her experience she was, "more qualified, right now, to be President." They spoke very well of Obama and Edwards, but still "strongly" recommended Hillary. While the endorsement is unlikely to aid Hillary much, a weaker endorsement--or an endorsement of another candidate--would surely have wounded her.

Although they, "have shuddered at Mr. McCain’s occasional, tactical pander to the right," they nevertheless endorsed McCain for the Republican nomination because he was, "the only Republican who promises to end the George Bush style of governing from and on behalf of a small, angry fringe." They praised him also for his stand on torture, global warming, immigration reform, and campaign finance reform.

I was speechless at how they slammed Rudy Giuliani! Explaining to their readers why, as New York paper, they could not endorse their former mayor, they called Giuliani, "a narrow, obsessively secretive, vindictive man," whose, "arrogance and bad judgment are breathtaking," and who, "shamelessly turned the horror of 9/11 into a lucrative business." (Hear, hear!)

Dr. Strangelove said...

Give me one "nasty" quote about Obama from Bill Clinton. What, the claim that Obama's opposition to the Iraq war was a "fairy tale"? That a vote for Obama was "rolling the dice" in the general election? That Obama said the Republicans were the, "party of ideas for 10 or 15 years"?

This whole, "Bill Clinton is just an angry old white man," nonsense is spin straight out of the Obama camp, that the media gleefully because they love controversy, love Clinton-bashing, and continue to give Obama a free pass.

I share some of Bill Clinton's frustration with all this. To a CNN reporter today, Clinton admonished them, "I never heard a word of public complaint when Mr. Obama said Hillary was not truthful, no character, was poll-driven."

And when reporter asked Bill Clinton to respond to remarks from the South Carolina Republican chair, comparing him unfavorably to Lee Atwater, Bill Clinton said, "You're asking me about this, you sat through this whole meeting. Not one single, solitary soul asked about any of this. And they never do. They are feeding you this because they know this is what you want to cover... Shame on you."

The Law Talking Guy said...

What about the spin that Obama was praising Ronald Reagan, when all he was doing was acknowledging his importance in modern American political history? She did it at the debate over and over again. It's absurd. Someone at the office here overheard some UCLA students saying that Obama was a "closet Republican" because of this charge. This nasty crap works, sadly. Of course, the Washington post is reporting that Bill Clinton had much more genuine praise for Reagan in 1991.

What about accusing Obama of being unable to take political stands because he voted "present" in the Illinois legislature 138 times. It turns out that the custome in the Illinois legislature is to vote "present" if you wish to signal that you support legislation in principle, but would require certain changes/amendments before voting "yes." So far from refusing to take a stand, it's an action to take a very specific stand. HRC and Bill just pound away on this as if it's real evidence of some failing by Obama.

Oh, and there's the Rezko bit. Turns out there's nothing to that either, but they keep going on about it.

And you should listen again to Bill Clinton's "fairy tale" remark. It was incredibly nasty in tone and spirit.

It all sadly reminiscent of John McCain's recent performance at a town hall meeting in South Carolina. A woman stood up and asked, to the cheers of the audience, what we could do "to stop that bitch." She meant, of course, Clinton. McCain affably answered, rather than, say, gently suggesting that it was uncivil in appropriate to refer to her that way.

Sorry to hear the NY Times endorsed them both. Then again, if I were Obama preaching national unity, I'm not sure I'd want the NY Times' endorsement. And if I were McCain, I wouldn't want it either.

Raised By Republicans said...

LTG is right. The fact that Bill Clinton is taking the attack dog role in the HRC campaign means that he cannot possibly be an asset for any Democrat other than his wife.

I'm guessing that in the end, the party establishment will get what they seem to want...a Hillary Clinton nomination. And then the 2008 election will about whether she can successfully build a minimal winning coalition with as few constituencies as possible.

She may not be able to beat the Republicans in the turn out game and if she does, I fear that 2010 will prove to be a repeat of 1994.

The Law Talking Guy said...

I fear that 2008 will be a repeat of 2000. Hillary Clinton is like Al Gore Lite - he actually had experience in the 1990s governing. Her experience in the 1990s, in the memorable words of columnist Chistopher Hitchens, was that she shared the president's bed most nights. Al Gore suffered from an enervated party that nominated him out of obligation and campaigned for him out of guilt. Clinton nee Rodham will inspire little better.