2.29.2008

Obama airs response to Clinton's red phone ad

Talk about rapid response. It's only been a few hours since Clinton's red phone ad was first revealed, and the Obama campaign is already up on air with his answer. The ad (which you can view here) looks very similar to Clinton's: It starts with children sleeping and a phone ringing, with a hurried off voice informing us that "It's 3am and a phone is ringing in the White House." But it then dramatically changes gears.

While Clinton's ad went on to say, "Your vote will decide who answers that call. Whether it's someone who already knows the world's leaders, knows the military, someone tested and ready to lead in a dangerous world," Obama's invokes the war: "When that call gets answered, shouldn't the president be the one -- the only one -- who had judgment and courage to oppose the Iraq War from the start? Who understood that the real threat to America was Al-Quaida in Afghanistan."

On the one hand, the response Obama chose is predictable. At the Ohio debate, Clinton accused Obama of always and systematically referring back to 2002 and Iraq when challenged on national security inexperience, and emphasized her point by explaining how Obama then refused to live on to his anti-war days. Obama's automatic referral to the early call on Iraq in this ad is an illustration of Clinton's point.

On the other hand, Obama's ad admirably distorts Clinton's. Considering that the New York Senator did not just accuse Obama of being inexperienced but did so by invoking imagery that is now increasingly associated with Republican tactics (despite its association with Johnson and Mondale), Obama's reminder of their respective position in 2002 looks like more of a diss than usual.

Then there is the truly remarkable speed of delivery (though the ad's production does look a bit hurried). After all, one of the chief criticisms Clinton's campaign voices against Obama is that he is not prepared to fight and respond to attacks, making him too easy a target for Republicans in the general. By coming around within a few hours, Obama's team is hoping to show it is ready to fight back and that its war room is as good as any.

It would be way overstating the case by a lot to use this ad to dismiss Clinton's contention that Obama is not prepared to fight the GOP machine. The inexperienced charge has been leveled at Obama for months now -- especially on foreign policy -- and Obama has always invoked his opposition to the Iraq War. The question has always been whether he would immediately fight back against a new GOP smear or whether he would fold and wait (like Kerry did in August of 2004). If anything, the campaign's slowness to respond to the controversy over Michelle Obama's comments a few weeks ago is more revealing of how prepared they are. But a few days from March 4th, this rapid turn-around will certainly allow them to boast.

Meanwhile, two new poll were released from Ohio and Texas by Fox News:

  • In Ohio, Hillary Clinton gets her biggest lead of the day, 46% to 38% on the strength of white women and blue-collar voters. Worth noting that the poll gives Clinton a slight lead among independents, which does not accord with most measures we have seen.
  • In Texas, Obama is slightly ahead, 48% to 45%. He has tied his rival among white voters, but Clinton maintains a very clear edge among Latinos -- enough to keep her very competitive.

Labels: ,

Friday polls: Obama where he wants to be in Ohio and Texas, McCain looking strong in Florida

Whether or not the ad war is any reason for this, Obama is continually improving his position in March 4th polls. Keep in mind, Clinton will have to prove these polls wrong by winning both states and do so by big margins. First, two polls from Ohio:

  • A new Zogby poll shows a toss-up, in one of the closest polls from the state we have seen yet: Clinton is only ahead 44% to 42%.
  • ARG confirms that the gap is rapidly closing, showing a 50% to 45% margin in a poll taken over the past two days. Five days ago, ARG showed a 49% to 39% gap.
  • Update: Rasmussen confirms that Clinton has lost her Ohio lead, showing her ahead 47% to 45%. That's down from a 5% lead on Sunday night and a 9% lead last week.
If Clinton has to even worry about Ohio at this point, that leaves her even less time to focus on Texas, where her position looks even more dire:

  • Zogby shows Obama relatively comfortably ahead, 48% to 42%.
  • ARG has Obama up 51% to 44%, which is actually a one point improvement for Hillary (which is saying a lot). Clinton's lead among women (+9) and Hispanic (55-41) is much smaller than it should be, going a long way towards explaining her Texan troubles.

  • Meanwhile, the BELO Texas tracking poll shows Obama taking the lead for the first time, albeit only 46% to 45%.
In all of these polls, John McCain hardly looks to be in any danger against Mike Huckabee, which is a semi-surprise given that Huckabee was expected to maintain some semblance of competitiveness in Texas. But with the media having given up on the GOP race, it is not surprising that Huckabee is finding no space to continue making his case.

McCain got even better news with the release of a Mason-Dixon general election poll from Florida:

  • McCain leads Obama 47% to 37% and he leads Clinton 49% to 40%.
  • McCain posts strong numbers among Republicans, while both Democrats (particularly Obama) are much weaker among independents.
If these numbers are confirmed (and Florida hasn't been very kind to Dems over the past few months), it could spell trouble for the Democratic nominee who can't afford to give up on the Sunshine State's 27 electoral votes. (I am not suggesting that Democrats need to WIN Florida to get the White House, but that they need to force McCain to defend those 27 electoral votes, otherwise he would have too much time to spend not only on places he really can't afford to lose, like Ohio, but also testing the Democratic nominee in blue-leaning states). One possible reason for McCain's strength could be that he is likely to be stronger than other GOPers would have been among the Cuban community.

Labels: , ,

Obama blankets OH and TX, Clinton responds with controversial ad

Continuing his spending dominance, Barack Obama is taking additional steps to blanket Ohio and Texas with advertisements. His campaign has bought time for a two-minute ad in ever media market of Ohio and Texas (and there are many, especially in Texas) the day before the election. This is a tactic that both major campaigns used in previous elections, particularly in Iowa, but it had not been tried yet in such big states. What is even more noteworthy is that the Clinton is for now showing no intention following suit, yet another indication of how massively she is being outspent in these two must-win states. Driving around in Texas, Politico's Jonathan Martin is also amazed by the extent of Obama's advertisement.

And, as I pointed out yesterday, this spending gap is not necessarily explained by the fundraising gap. Clinton's February $35 million -- by far her record since the start of the campaign -- should be more than enough to answer Obama. If anything, Clinton's campaign is probably thinking far less about saving money all the way to the convention right now than Obama's is.

Facing with this ad onslaught, it is looking like an increasingly impossible task for Clinton to get what she needs on Tuesday -- big enough victories to cut into Obama's delegate lead in any meaningful way. And the New York Senator is trying something new today: A controversial new ad that makes the preparedness for national security more explicitly than ever before in this race. With pictures of children sleeping and the sound of a phone ringing (watch the ad here), an announcer reads the following script:

It's 3am and your children are safe and asleep. But there's a phone in the White House and it's ringing.

Something's happening in the world. Your vote will decide who answers that call.

Whether it's someone who already knows the world's leaders, knows the military, someone tested and ready to lead in a dangerous world.

It's 3am and your children are safe and asleep. Who do you want answering the phone?

The ad naturally ends with the customary "I'm Hillary Clinton and I approve this message" (which should dispel any possibility that people think that this is, say, an Obama ad). The ad is reminiscent so many GOP ads over the past few cycles, emphasizing the danger of this world and the need for a strong lead. What came to my mind first was Bush's wolves ad from 2004 -- the suggestion of danger being almost stronger than showing danger itself. But, via Ben Smith, this ad truly comes from, an 1984 spot called "Red Phone" ran by Walter Mondale against Gary Hart, questioning the latter's preparation to deal with the "issues of our time" (watch this ad here).

What is most striking about Clinton's ad is how weak a contrast it draws -- it is truly the Democratic version of such ads, in that it remains very soft, so soft that I can't help but wonder whether it can really have any effect. The wolves ad, for example, was a direct attack on Kerry; Clinton's ad only draws implicit contrasts, and it is unclear whether the first-time viewer even notices them before being told who the ad is being ran by.

If Obama is the Democratic nominee, expect much much more brutal versions of this argument, since McCain has already made Obama's national security inexperience a central feature of his campaign. If this issue continues to dominate over the next few months, will it force Obama's hand when it comes to a VP pick, and will have have to choose someone based first and foremost on foreign affairs/national security credentials (Webb and Richardson?).

Labels: ,

2.28.2008

Bloomberg confirms he is not running, and people finally believe him

After months of speculation during which NYC Mayor Mike Bloomberg repeatedly denied any plans of running for President while taking steps that seemed to contradict his declarations, he finally put an end to rumors by writing in a New York Times op-ed that he would not jump in the race. "I am not — and will not be — a candidate for president," Bloomberg wrote.

With Barack Obama and John McCain now looking favored to win their parties nomination, the general election will feature two candidates who emphasize the need to bring the country together, to transcend partisanship and not look necessarily in line with the party and its priorities. Whether or not those things are true, the fact remains that Bloomberg was hoping to capitalize on divisive and ultra-partisan figures winning the nominations (especially Hillary Clinton, Rudy Giuliani and Mitt Romney) to jump in, spend millions of his own money and seduce the independents.

Joe Lieberman and Chuck Hagel -- two Senators who had been flirting with Bloomberg for the past few years -- had implied recently that there was no need for a Bloomberg candidacy now that McCain had emerged as the GOP nominee. And the same logic was applied to Obama's rise. Unity08, the group devoted to electing a non-partisan/bipartisan ticket and that was seen as the ideological backbone of a Bloomberg candidacy, announced at the end of 2007 that it was taking a break and cited the rise of the Illinois Senator as proof that its message was functioning: "Barack Obama, for example, has made the theme of unity and the necessity of bridging the partisan divide an absolutely central theme of his campaign."

In his op-ed, Bloomberg confirmed that McCain and Obama's ideological positioning had weighted in on his decision, and he appears so satisfied as to even consider jumping in on behalf of one of the candidates:

I have watched this campaign unfold, and I am hopeful that the current campaigns can rise to the challenge by offering truly independent leadership... If a candidate takes an independent, nonpartisan approach — and embraces practical solutions that challenge party orthodoxy — I’ll join others in helping that candidate win the White House.

It is difficult to say who Bloomberg would have drained most votes from, so that there is no clear sense of who is the most relieved by this announcement. A former Democrat who ran as a Republican before dropping any party affiliation last year, Bloomberg would have emphasized economic issues, drawing on a pro-business orientation that usually favors Republicans. Many voters who typically vote GOP but who are going increasingly Democrat because they are uncomfortable with the Republicans' social stances could have been attracted to Bloomberg's candidacy. Most polls that were taken with Bloomberg showed him hovering around the 10% mark, drawing perhaps a tiny bit more votes from the Republican than from the Democrat.
But yet again, Bloomberg demonstrated in NYC that he can appeal to Democratic voters as well, which could have caused trouble for that part's nominee.

Labels:

Obama outraises Clinton in February, continues posting strong poll numbers

News came yesterday that Obama was massively outspending Clinton in the March 4th state, which accounts for why it is now basically impossible for Clinton to get what she needs next Tuesday. Massive outspending does not necessarily win an election, but it certainly is enough to prevent a blow-out defeat, i.e. it prevents Clinton from achieving what she needs.

Now, the campaigns are releasing their February fundraising information: Clinton is announcing that she has raised around $35 million. Obama has not released definite numbers yet, but his campaign is indicating they have raised "considerably more" than $35 million. Estimations over the past few days have put Obama's fundraising somewhere around $60 million, which means about $2 million raised every day. Both candidates are raising much more money than they did in January (when Clinton had come out with $13 million).

But this does not explain why Clinton is being outspent so massively. She might have raised much less than her rival, but $35 million is not a low number by any means (it means more than $1 million a day, pretty much where Obama was in January). It is more than enough to get Clinton out of financial trouble, prove that she is financially viable -- and to allow her to blanket Ohio and Texas with advertisements and match whatever Obama spends. After all, there is so much that the Illinois Senator can spend without saturating the airwaves. So where are those $35 million going?

The situation is dire for Clinton in most polls that are now being released:

  • The Texas Rasmussen poll out today shows Obama leading 48% to 44% -- the first time he has taken the lead in this state in Rasmussen.

  • A People Calling People poll has Obama leading 40% to 33% -- a very high number of undecideds -- though Clinton is narrowly up among early voters (a statistic that is confirmed by the SUSA poll, and that could prove an interesting development given that it helped Clinton in California).

  • Finally, the Belo poll has Clinton maintaining the tiniest of leads, 46% to 45% -- but the trendlines are in Obama's favor, as Clinton was leading by 3% yesterday.

  • The Pennsylvania Rasmussen poll points an equally dramatic number, as Clinton is leading by only 4% -- 46% to 42%. PA doesn't vote until April 22nd (and if the OH and TX numbers hold for the next 6 days, Pennsylvanians won't really get to weigh in), but her drop there exemplifies the drop she has experienced nationally -- and speaks of her difficulties in neighboring Ohio.
As I explained yesterday, the big March 4th question was not whether Clinton would win and hold serve. Obama took a huge delegate lead in the February elections, forcing her to score big in Ohio and Texas. Now, we are looking at Texas polls showing her a little bit down or a little bit up, as if the interesting question is whether she will win the Lone Star State. All these polls show Clinton way under the true threshold she has to cross. When the question becomes whether she is going to win Ohio and Texas at all, it becomes hard to imagine how she will storm back to significant victories.

Update: Hope for Clinton? A new Insider Advantage poll shows a 5 point swing in her favor, as she now leads 47% to 43% in a poll conducted yesterday night, versus a 1% deficit in the Monday night poll. The pollster does insist that hte internals are pointing out towards a shift in momentum, and to the Latino vote solidifying Clinton's way. This is not confirmed by other polls, but yet again this is the most recently conducted survey.

But as I said above, this gives Clinton supporters hope that their candidate might win the state, not that she might win it big. And that is the key metric out of March 4th.

Labels: ,

Problems with Campaign Diaries

I was having some major technical problems with my blog and moved it over (hopefully temporarily) to this new blogspot address. There is no need to update your bookmarks; you will be forwarded here from the old website, and I hope this will be resolved soon enough. I apologize for the very slow posting over the past 24 hours. I had a few entries written but never managed to publish them. This also means that internal links won't be working until I update them, which I will hold off on for now since I have hope that this can all still be resolved. So bear with me.

(If anyone has expert knowledge on Blogger or on hosting problems please contact me, it is impossible to get anyone to help you over the phone.)

2.27.2008

Wednesday polls: General election toss-ups

Four general election surveys were released today, with very little consistency in the issue of the electability gap between the Democrats, but all showing John McCain in a strong position -- much stronger than his former GOP rivals appeared to be a few weeks ago:
Wednesday
  • First, Quinnipiac released a general election survey which shows both Democrats barely edging out the Arizona Senator -- 44-42 for Clinton and 42-40 for Obama -- in a state either will have to win come November.
  • This poll is very interesting because it underscored just how different the two candidates' core constituencies are. Among Democrats, Clinton gets 80% and Obama only 69%! Among independents, Clinton trails by 2% and Obama leads by 5%. Both Obama and Clinton are weak in one of those groups and they will have to be strong if they want to build a solid majority.

  • In Ohio, a University of Cincinnati survey shows Obama edging out McCain 48% to 47% and McCain leading Clinton 51% to 47%. SUSA's recent poll from Ohio has shown Democrats in a slightly stronger position.

  • Next, a poll from Tennessee gives a clear edge to John McCain who crushes Obama 53% to 37%. Clinton runs much better than Obama here and makes the race competitive: 45% to 41%. Until recently, Clinton used to systematically run ahead of her Democratic rival in Southern states.
  • In North Carolina, finally, a new poll shows McCain in a strong position, crushing both Democrats by double-digits, 48% to 36% against Hillary and 46% to 36% against Obama. PPP released a poll from NC a week ago that showed the Republican ahead by 5% against both Democrats.
No earth-shattering numbers here. The question this early in the campaign is in what states will the general election campaign really engage in, what states look competitive with a McCain candidacy? These numbers from NC and TN -- the kind of states in which some of the Republican candidates looked particularly weak -- should offer the GOP some comfort that they won't have to put just as much defense here, though there is little doubt that the map will be significantly more expanded than it was in 2004 and that we should get used to the fact that many states that were on no one's radar screen then will host some very competitive races this year.

Labels: , , ,

Massively outspent, Hillary Clinton increasingly unlikely to score the big victories she needs next week

I apologize for the very slow posting today. Either my blogging or my hosting service appears to have major technical issues and refused to upload this post.

I wrote last week that the Democratic race could still drag on for weeks to come: If Hillary Clinton wins both Ohio and Texas, she would still be the heavy underdog but she would have survived to fight another day. Since then, Barack Obama has taken the lead in a few Texas polls and cut her Ohio edge to mid single-digits. Now, for Clinton to comeback on March 4th will allow her not to post blow out victories but to simply win both states -- by any margin at all.

Unfortunately for the Clinton campaign, this is no longer early January and the expectation game is no longer relevant to analyzing the campaign. Hillary's 2 point victory in New Hampshire was a giant triumph that entirely changed the state of the race. 2 point victories in Ohio and Texas would be very different: Clinton does not need to win, she needs to catch up Obama's massive pledged delegate lead. She can no longer battle herself back to a draw as she did on January 8th, she needs to change the fundamentals of the race.

And it is looking increasingly unlikely she will be able to achieve that next week. The Clinton campaign is now holding on to polls that show them still in the lead in Ohio and some even in Texas -- but the issue was never whether Clinton would be able to win Ohio and Texas but whether she would be able to win them big. And when the question becomes whether she is going to win them at all, it becomes hard to imagine how she will storm back to significant victories.

Complicating matters is the fact that Clinton is being heavily outspent in those decisive states, a dynamic that started playing out in the run-up to February 5th. Clinton has spent $14 million to Obama's $23 million over the past 30 days. And First Read now suggests that she is being outspent nearly 4:1 in Ohio once we take into account the independent expenditures that are playing on Obama's behalf (for instance SEIU). Who would have thought that Clinton could lose the election because of fundraising problems?

It is in this context not surprising that Clinton is unable to sustain a double-digit lead. Such massive outspending does not necessarily win an election, but it certainly is enough to prevent a blow-out defeat, i.e. it prevents Clinton from achieving what she needs. And the latest poll from Pennsylvania out today by Quinnipiac suggests that the contagion is reaching later states: Clinton is ahead only 49% to 43% down from a 16% lead two weeks ago (52% to 36%). That's an important drop that is reflected in the Texas and Ohio numbers.

Clinton has done plenty to try and change the dynamics of the race over the past two weeks, most notably her switch in tone over the past week-end. The debates were her best chance to reverse momentum, but now that the two debates have passed we can see how daunting that task was: Those were the 19th and 20th debates of the cycle, which means that (1) most attacks Clinton could launch had already been aired and that (2) Obama knew exactly what was coming and was prepared, simply because he had already heard it all. Given how difficult it is to knock an opponent out at a debate in a first confrontation, it is nearly an impossible task after a year of discussion.

In fact, the only debate development that truly changed the race were due to multi-candidate dynamics: In Philadelphia, Clinton stumbled because the entire field was against her and harassed her for the driver licenses answer (starting with Chris Dodd). In New Hampshire, it was the tag-teaming of Edwards and Obama that led to women rallying around Hillary. And in South Carolina, Obama benefited because he was the one in the middle, with Edwards and Clinton firing shots at him. In these two candidate debates, there were no such gang-ups (nor backlashes against them).

Now with 7 days to go until March 4th, it is unclear how many more occasions Clinton will have to regain her footing. And do so decisively.

Labels: , ,

Begich jumps in Alaska Senate race, in major Democratic recruitement coup

The Alaska Senate race just became one of the top races to watch. Anchorage Mayor Mark Begich is set to announce his candidacy against incumbent GOP Senator Ted Stevens, a major recruitment coup for the DSCC.

On paper, the race hardly looks like it would be competitive. Stevens is one of the most entrenched Senators, first elected to the Senate in a special election in 1970. In fact, since his 1972 re-election he has never received less than 67% of the vote and he is known for bringing back plenty of pork to his home state. To make matters worse for Democrats, the last time they won a federal race in Alaska was in 1974 with... Mike Gravel! Since then, they have held the governor's mansion but come out with some disappointing finishes in congressional elections (especially Tony Knowles's 2004 defeat).

But the Alaska Republican Party is struggling in a giant corruption probe that has engulfed Rep. Young and Sen. Stevens, whose house was raided in 2007. In September, when it was revealed that the FBI had recorded phone conversations between Stevens and a businessman who has confessed to bribing Stevens's son and sending company employees renovate Stevens's house, even the state's Republican Governor distanced herself from Stevens. These developments have fueled speculation that Stevens might not run for re-election -- Stevens has denied that possibility and is preparing to run -- and have gotten Stevens a primary challenge that does not look that threatening but that will require the incumbent to spend even more time fighting to retain his seat. And he has to do while fearing the tricke of negative stories and the progress of the investigation.

The most recent poll of a Stevens-Begich match-up was taken in December by Research 2000, an independent firm that had been commissioned by Daily Kos (this does not really count as an internal poll, since Kos is releasing numbers that look bad for Democrats as well, for example a survey showing Allen down by a huge margin against Collins in Maine). It shows Begich leading Stevens 47% to 41%, confirming that this race will be one of the most interesting ones to watch in the next few months.

Labels:

2.26.2008

In Ohio debate, Clinton fights hard and scores points but not enough to reverse dynamic

In a fiery confrontation that had plenty of tense moments, Hillary Clinton appeared much more determined than she had in last Thursday's debate and attacked Barack Obama on many fronts at once, forcing the Illinois Senator to stay on the defensive for much of the night. But Obama was happy to oblige, avoiding any stumble that could alter the race's fundamentals -- and that is really all that a front-runner has to do.

Unfortunately, the dominant story tonight was the moderation of Tim Russert and Brian Williams, who managed to exemplify the Clinton campaign's contention that the media is favoring Obama while simultaneously throwing misguided questions Obama's way.

The moderators versus the candidates

Early in the debate, Hillary Clinton protested that she was being treated unfairly and that she was being asked a question first a bit too often, implying that Obama was then able to simply reiterate her response and avoid taking any risk. In an explicit reference to the Saturday Night Live skit that accuses the media of being in the tank for the Illinois Senator, Clinton asked "Maybe we should ask Barack if he's comfortable and needs another pillow."

The line was over-the-top at that point of the debate, and that made it look rehearsed. But the determination with which observers are now pillorying Clinton for that one-liner is perplexing considering that the rest of the debate often looked like the SNL caricature.

Early in the night, Brian Williams read a quote in which Clinton was calling in question Obama's foreign policy preparedness. He then turned to the Illinois Senator and asked, "How were her comments about you unfair?" Even granting that this was not meant as an endorsement of Obama's defense versus Hillary's attack, the question was phrased as an unbelievable softball. And that was not the softest the Senator would receive.

Soon after, Williams did not let Clinton respond because, he solemnly declared, “Television does not stop;” he did not explain, of course, why advertisements at that particular moment were so absolutely necessary. And the end of the commercial break made the scene even more caricatural. Brian Williams announced that it was time to show Barack Obama make an hyperbolic statement (the show had started with a clip of Senator Clinton's "Shame on you" press conference). But instead, we were treated to a second clip of Clinton, one in which she derides Obama for believing that "the sky will open, the light will come down, celestial choirs will be singing." Williams immediately explains that the video was shown as a mistake and that he was indeed intending to show a clip of an over-the-top Obama moment... and goes on to ask the Illinois Senator to comment on the clip that had just been (inadvertently) shown anyway. Just like the "How were her comments about you unfair?", the invitation's vague phrasing was a stunning softball -- and it can hardly even be described as a question.

The night's last unbelievable moment occurred when Tim Russert asked the candidates what they knew about the man likely to soon be elected as the new Russian President. Clinton answered without mentioning the man's name (for the record, it's Dmitri Medvedev), and Russert fired a direct shot: "Do you know his name?" Clinton stumbled and stuttered out a very deformed version of Medvedev's name, falling victim to the most outrageous moment of gotcha politics Russert has tried at one of these debates (and there are plenty to choose from, for example his attempt to get Hillary to comment on a statement without telling her it had been her husband that had uttered it).

To be fair to Tim Russert, he did try to balance things by aiming some tough questions Obama's way. Unfortunately, they were cheap shots that only lowered the tone of the debate. First came Russert's pushing the non-issue of Barack Obama's ties to Louis Farrakhan and the Nation of Islam: "Do you accept the support of Louis Farrahkan?" Even more shocking was Russert's back-and-forth with the Illinois Senator over public finance. Russert repeatedly asked Obama how he could possibly not commit to taking public financing when he had pledged to doing so last year.

Trouble is, Obama has never pledged such a thing. What he has said is that he will strongly consider doing so if the GOP nominee abides by public financing as well: "I will aggressively pursue an agreement with the Republican nominee to preserve a publicly financed general election." Obama's response to Russert did not make this point clearly, and this led to a truly surreal post-debate scene. Talking to Russert, Keith Olbermann put Obama's commitment in full context to make exactly this point, but then added that he was not doing so to criticize Russert's question but to wonder why Obama had not brought this nuance up. In response, Russert replied that he had been surprised as well, and that he would have expected Obama to make that argument. Does this mean that a debate should consist of moderators throwing out claims that they have consciously distorted? And it is really up to the candidates to rectify deformed quotes?

Obama versus Clinton

Clinton failed to make the debate about Obama as she was hoping it would be. She was surely counting on the moderators grilling the new front-runner, given that she was at the center of attention for most of 2007's debates; but she was denied as soon as Russert started grilling her on NAFTA. Sensing that this might be her last opportunity at a direct confrontation, Hillary did her best to attack Obama from all possible angles. Many of the arguments she used have been aired many times before; the debate over health care mandates, for example, echoed the discussion the candidates had just had on Thursday, though today's exchange was probably the most specific to date.

Other attacks were less expected. Clinton's argument that Obama always turns to his 2002 Iraq speech when the question of his qualifications and judgment arises was more forceful than usual, and so was her willingness to say that Obama had the leisure to oppose the war because he did not face the responsibility of action. Also, Clinton's charge that Obama has not held a single hearing on how to get NATO more involved in Afghanistan in his Senate subcommittee is not one we are used to hearing. Finally, Clinton much too eagerly jumped all over what she saw as too weak a response on Obama's part to the Farrakhan question.

Focused on giving his opponent as few openings as possible, Obama had no desire to fight back too strongly and prolong such exchanges. He spent most of the night on the defensive, and he did seem thrown off balance but some of the more unexpected lines of criticism. His response to the Subcommittee hearing argument -- that he had become the chair at the beginning of 2007, at the start of his campaign -- was particularly weak since the point Clinton was seeking to make was exactly that Obama jumped in the presidential race before accomplishing anything in the Senate.

But overall, he had come prepared to the deluge of attacks Clinton submitted him to and he answered all of her claims, avoiding any sort of stumble that she could pounce on. He almost stayed on the defensive out of choice and seemed eager to concede some points to his opponent: That might have allowed Clinton to score a point here and there, but it was not a victory on points that the New York Senator was seeking tonight. And Obama launched just enough sharp attacks of his own -- “Senator Clinton often says that she is ready on Day 1, but in fact she was ready to give in to George Bush on Day 1 on this critical issue.” -- to make even the victory on points murky.

Clinton appeared ready to concede the race last Thursday, but she came to this debate ready to fight on. Had Clinton attempted this a year ago, she might have knocked Obama off balance. Unfortunately for her, this was the 20th debate of the campaign. Obama knew what was coming, knew how to answer and battled her to a draw. A week from Ohio and Texas, one of Clinton's last opportunities to change the race's dynamics passed and probably changed very little.

Labels:

General election surveys diverge, show Texas potentially competitive

A few general election polls were released today, some of which contradict the idea that Obama is opening up a clear and consistent electability gap. And overall, the surveys suggest the Democrats might be entering the general election phase with a slight advantage.

  • First, the New York Times survey shows Obama crushing McCain nationally -- 50% to 38% -- while Clinton and McCain are tied at 46%.

  • AP-Ipsos also gives an advantage to Democrats: Obama is ahead 48% to 39%, while Clinton is up 46% to 41%.

  • Finally, Rasmussen's daily tracking poll shows a reversal: After weeks of Obama running much strongly than Clinton, they now run roughly even, Obama losing to McCain 47% to 43% and Clinton 47% to 44%.
  • Update: The LA Times/Bloomberg poll came out as well tonight, showing McCain ahead of both Clinton (by 6 points) and Obama (by 2). The national polls are not agreeing at all on the state of the race, pointing to how fluid the campaign is (understandably given that the primaries are not even over).
The most surprising survey comes from SUSA's poll from Texas, known as one of the most reliably Republican states in the country:

  • McCain leads both Democrats by single-digits: 49% to 43% against Clinton, 49% to 41% against Obama.
  • Obama does better among African-American voters (88% versus 74%) but Hillary does much better among Hispanics (a 17% gap rather than a 6% gap).
Texas is never put on the list of swing states, and it is still very unlikely that McCain will really tremble. Not to mention that the Democratic nominee will not need Texas to get to the White House. But it is easy to overstate Republicans' Texan dominance. After all, Bush did win the state by huge margins (61-38 in 2004), but some of that edge came from the fact that Texas was Bush's home state. After all, Texas already had a minority white population by the 2000 census, so strong numbers among blacks and Latinos could keep the Democrat at a strong level. And while a Democratic win is very unlikely, a challenge could force McCain to spend time and valuable resources defending the Lone Star State (just as Bush unsuccessfully tried to force Gore to defend California in the closing weeks of 2000).

Labels: ,

Obama's train starts leaving the station, as Clinton's support erodes

Chris Dodd became the first former Democratic presidential candidate to endorse today, as he rallied behind his party's frontrunner. The reasons he gave were not necessarily that he wants Obama to be president more than Hillary, but rather that the train is leaving the station and slowing it down will only hurt Democrats in the fall: "It is now the hour to come together. I believe the hour has come now for us to make that choice – to stand up and say we’re going to get behind this candidacy... I don't want a campaign that is only divisive here, and there’s a danger of it becoming that."

Chris Dodd's endorsing Obama will have no significance in Ohio and Texas and the only state it could have mattered at all (CT) voted weeks ago. But the language he uses and the timing of his announcement exemplify why Clinton is so weak right now. Not only is she trailing in the delegate count, but she has to fight Obama's growing inevitability argument to prevent too many people from rallying behind him thinking that the primary is over. This is the position that she was in back in the fall, when she was picking up endorsement after endorsement. And now the roles have reversed, making it very difficult for Hillary to hope for a comeback.

To make matters worse, polls are continuing to show an erosion of her support in March 4th states, both in Ohio and in Texas. Yesterday, Obama took his first leads in Texas while Clinton kept a high single-digit advantage in Ohio. Today, three new polls underscore how close Clinton is to being forced out of the race:

  • In Ohio, Rasmussen has Clinton up 48% to 43%. A few days ago, Clinton's lead was 8%, and that was already a drop in support. It seems that Obama's campaigning on NAFTA is working, as an overwhelming majority think that he is opposed to NAFTA while the verdict is split about Clinton's position.

  • In Texas, meanwhile, it seems safe to say that Clinton is no longer the favorite. In the latest PPP survey, the two candidates are tied at 48%, though Hillary leads 52% to 44% among registered Democrats and is not weakening at all among Hispanics (68%). But Obama is getting strong results among Republicans and independents who, PPP notes, "plan to vote in the Democratic primary because of John McCain's status as the presumptive nominee."

  • Finally, SUSA gives the Texas lead to Obama, 49% to 45%, a 9 point swing in his favor in a week. Obama is picking up grounds among most groups, and holds Hillary to 52% among Hispanics.
  • Update: Add one more poll showing Clinton's support eroding. SUSA came out with its latest Ohio poll, and shows Clinton up 50% to 44%, holding firm thanks to a 22% lead among women (and a 37% gender gap). Two weeks ago, Clinton led by 17%. Last week, she led by 9%.
As I often note, don't forget that Obama will likely get more delegates out of Texas than his percentage would suggest, so even a 1% lead would give him a significant delegate lead -- and that's not even accounting for the caucuses. Clinton has to change the dynamics of this campaign in the final week in a dramatic way, and things like Chris Dodd's endorsement of the Illinois Senator underscore the challenge she faces that she first needs to explain how she can still win the nomination and try to slow down the Obama coronation.

Tonight's debate (the last one?) is one of her last chances to change the direction of the campaign.

Labels: ,

House diary: Renzi shows no intention of resigning, Dems make move in Alabama

After Arizona Representative Renzi was (unsurprisingly) indicted a few days ago with 36 charges of corruption, speculation mounted that Renzi would be forced out of his seat early, forcing a very difficult special election for the GOP. And pressure rose even more when Minority Leader Boehner hinted that he would like to see a Renzi resignation, signaling that House Republicans were even more worried about having to face ethics as an issue again next year than the difficulty of defending such a seat in a special election.

Now, Renzi is finally speaking up and pledging to stay in office. “I will not resign and take on the cloak of guilt because I am innocent," he said, a declaration that for now rules out the possibility of a special election here. Renzi is not running in November so the seat was open already, and there is no reason to expect Renzi to resign in the coming months if he wants to hold firm now. After all. Rep. Ney (from OH-18) did jump out of his race late in the fall of 2006, months after his party had started pressuring him but the circumstances were there different: Ney was actually running for re-election. Rep. Jefferson (D-LA), on the other hand, is indicted and still in the House.

Meanwhile, Democrats got some good news in Alabama, where they might have just managed to make an overwhelmingly Republican district competitive. AL-02, which opened up months ago, gave 67% of its vote to Bush in 2004, so it is not the type of open seat the GOP was expecting to spend any time thinking about. But Democrats just scored a major recruiting coup by convincing Bobby Bright, the mayor of Montgomery, to run for the House. Now, what is unusual here is that Bright is a non-partisan mayor and that Republicans were courting him as well, as I had reported back in September. So Bright deliberately chose to jump in as a Democrat when he could have had a much easier time as a Republican. Given the number of Republicans in their party's primary, this might also be to avoid a crowded primary -- and there is little doubt that Bright would seat at the Right of his caucus if he got to the House.

But from an electoral perspective, this is yet another open seat headache for the GOP. The very red nature of the district makes Bright an underdog for now, but his high-profile in his populous city should enable him to keep things close. And this is exactly the DCCC's intention: Expand the map and force the RNCC to defend seats like AL-02. Remember -- and I cannot state this enough -- the GOP has a massive fundraising disadvantage right now. Yes, they have been doing better over the past few months but they remain far behind their counterparts and still don't have that much to spend.

Labels: ,

2.25.2008

Clinton loses her Texas lead, but what exactly would constitute "defeat"?

Polls released this morning suggested Clinton was able to stay afloat in March 4th states, but I did warn that that batch did not contain any numbers from Texas, which is shaping to be the most difficult state for Clinton. Now, new polls released this afternoon suggest a very troubled road away for the New York Senator in the Lone Star State, and don't forget that a loss here could spell the end of her career.

To make matters worse for Hillary Clinton, the unions that have newly endorsed Obama seem to be determined to boost the Illinois Senator. UFCW has a new ad running on his behalf in Ohio, and Marc Ambinder reports that SEIU looks ready to spend more than $700,000 on helping him win Ohio and Texas. Given that one of Obama's main weaknesses has been blue-collar voters, union efforts could help him make inroads in Clinton's constituencies. Though the Clinton campaign is mocking Obama for welcoming this help less than two months after he blasted Edwards for receiving independent help by unions, which Obama dismissed as special interest "Washington money." (Clinton has done a very good job of making it difficult for Edwards to jump in the race and endorse Obama.)

Two Ohio polls, first, paint a contrasting picture:

  • PPP shows a very tight race, 50% to 46% in Clinton's favor. PPP notes that GOP and independent voters are flooding the Democratic primary now that the GOP contest is over and supporting Obama 80% to 13% and 64% to 33% respectively. Clinton is ahead among registered Dems 56% to 40%.

  • ARG, meanwhile, shows Clinton ahead 49% to 39%, in line with what we saw this morning.
In Texas, however, Clinton is losing ground:

  • Rasmussen shows a toss-up, 46% for Hillary and 45% for Obama.

  • ARG shows Obama way ahead, 50% to 42% -- it is worth noting that ARG was the only pollster to have Obama up already a week ago (48-42), which suggests that their model turnout significantly differs other pollsters'. ARG results in most states have looked like outliers.

  • And finally, in what is perhaps the most important poll of the day, CNN shows Obama up 50% to 46% in Texas, an improvement from Clinton's 50-48 lead last week. While Obama's lead is within the margin of error, the trendline in his favor is confirmed by the other polls and he has one more week to build on his momentum. CNN does point out that Clinton's support among Latinos is holding firm.
Keep in mind that the primary vote only decides 2/3rds of the delegates, and that most estimations hold that Clinton would have to win by a significant margin to get a delegate lead in those 2/3rds given the Texas allocation rules. A large primary win for Hillary in Texas is looking increasingly unlikely... And then Clinton will also have to face the caucus results, which could be disastrous for her in Washington state is any example (she lost the primary by 3% and the caucus by 36%), getting Obama a significant portion of the third of delegates awarded through the caucuses. Bill Clinton is already pushing back on the caucuses (in a strategy the CLinton campaign started in the days following Iowa): "The doors open at 7 and they close at 7:15. It would be tragic if Hillary were to win this election in the daytime and somebody were to come in at night and take it away."
What constitutes a loss for Clinton in Texas, or what constitutes a victor? Does she need a primary win, a primary delegate lead or an overall delegate lead? Will she lose if she get the first but not the rest? Will she be deemed the winner but not by enough to continue, and would she use a win on points to get out of the race gracefully?

Labels: ,

Using shifting tones, Clinton hopes old arguments finally register with voters and... Edwards?

Seeking to keep the upper-hand in the run-up to March 4th (perhaps surprised that she is still afloat considering the tone of the campaign over the past few weeks?), Clinton shifted the tone of her campaign this week-end. On Saturday, Clinton held a presser holding up fliers sent out by the Obama campaign (especially the one invoking Harry and Louise imagery that surfaced in the days leading to Feb 5th), declaring in an angry tone, "Shame on you, Barack Obama," accusing him of using Karl Rove-ian tactics and calling for an honest discussion rather than ploys that undermine Democratic values.

I was not going to write about this, thinking that this controversy is now a few weeks old and that there was no reason to get excited by this latest development until I watched the video of the press conference last night (you can watch it here) and I was surprised that Clinton actually sounded angry. After all, the media has not accustomed us to believe that a candidate is "angry" when that epithet is used (Dean's scream, for instance). But Clinton definitely and purposefully sounds incensed, which suggests this is indeed a new strategy her campaign is trying to employ rather than just the same controversy rolling out for one more week.

A few dynamics are at play here: First, Clinton is looking to make herself look like the victim, and further the narrative that Obama is playing dirty (a claim that has not taken hold). Second, she is seeking to hit him on the specific issue of health care, as she is being less and less capable of doing so at debates; but this is a flier that provoked a lot of controversy and that invokes imagery used by universal health care opponents in 1993. And Obama did indeed cross many lines with this flier, as even the way his flier's couple is dressed closely parallels Harry and Louise's 1993 appearance to make a point about Clinton's health care plan that misses the mark: What is truly at issue with mandates is whether the rich and young will have to enroll or free ride, since the system would not be financially viable if those people -- certainly not in the financial situation of Harry and Louise -- did not opt in.

Yesterday, Clinton switched gears once more, going after what she perceives as another Obama weakness, what she sees is his unwillingness to fight:

I could just stand up here and say ’Let’s just get everybody together, let’s get unified. The sky will open, the light will come down, celestial choirs will be singing and everyone will know we should do the right thing and the world will be perfect. Maybe I’ve just lived a little long, but I have no illusions at how hard this is going to be. You are not going to wave a magic wand and have the special interests disappear.

You can watch the video here. In both these instances, Clinton is making old points that she has argued many times before, even in debates -- and we saw in Thursday's debate that the repetition factor (this is, after all, a 14 months campaign now) is making it very difficult for Hillary to get her message across or really get it covered. By switching gears and using new campaign tones (anger and derision), Clinton is hoping that the new angle gets more attention and that these points have more effect on the political discussion. After all, Clinton's criticism that Obama is getting from too positive coverage entered public consciousness on Saturday night in SNL's opening skit. The last pre-March 4th debate (perhaps the last debate of the primary campaign) is tomorrow night, so it will be interesting to see whether Clinton will attempt to continue this effort at novelty there.

Clinton must be hoping that John Edwards is also listening -- health care and Obama's fighting capacity are two issues Edwards has with Obama. The main reason the former candidate is not endorsing probably has to do with how important the health care debate is on the trail and Obama's attacking a part of Clinton's program that was also one of Edwards's; and the main criticism Edwards aimed at Obama during the campaign was that the Illinois Senator was too naive and optimistic about special interests -- just the point Clinton is making now. This does not mean Edwards will jump in for Clinton (now less than ever, what does he have to win in endorsing a candidate that looks so weak at the moment?) but it makes an Obama endorsement that much more difficult.

Labels:

Clinton stays afloat in March 4th polls

Four new polls this morning from three states voting on March 4th show Clinton can still entertain hope of surviving March 4th:

  • Quinnipiac polled Ohio and found Clinton ahead 51% to 40%, on the strength of a 17% lead among women. Quinnipiac's previous poll had Clinton up 21%, so her lead has been cut in half in a week -- but it is still looking solid.

  • The University of Cincinnati poll has Clinton up as well in Ohio, 47% to 39%.

  • In Rhode Island, Rasmussen shows Clinton ahead 53% to 38%. In what looks like an outlier internal, she leads by more among men than women.

  • Meanwhile, Obama crushes her among in Vermont, 57% to 33%.
The ARG polls of Rhode Island and Vermont posted almost exactly the same numbers: A healthy Clinton lead in the former and an Obama rout in the latter. In fact, it is remarkable how consistent March 4th polls have been, especially compared to the Super Tuesday surveys which were all over the place.

The big prize among these three states, of course, is Ohio, where Clinton absolutely has to win. In fact, the early conventional wisdom that Ohio would be the true swing March 4th swing state has been reversed with Clinton looking to be in much more trouble down in Texas. (If Clinton keeps her lead in those two states, you can credit SNL's Tina Fey and her Saturday call for Ohio and Texas to "come on board.") But in Ohio at least, she still looks strong. Obama's catching up by 10% in the Quinnipiac poll mostly comes from college-educated voters (a 30% swing) with Clinton staying strong in other constituencies -- and unless Obama makes major inroads there as well (as he did in Wisconsin and Virginia), Clinton will stay on top in the Buckeye state. Another internal numbers that is holding consistently in Ohio polls: Clinton is typically viewed more favorably than Obama is among primary voters (76% to 64% in the Quinnipiac survey), and that is not something we have seen in many other states.

There is no new poll from Texas, which is emerging as the key state to watch for and that could determine Clinton's post March 4th state. Rasmussen advertises a new Texas poll they will release later today, however, so we should get some new numbers from the Lone Star State soon.

Labels: , ,

2.24.2008

Controversy over McCain's public financing commitment picking up

John McCain opened fire on Barack Obama last week, accusing the Democrat of wavering on whether he would accept public financing for the general election. But he soon found himself in the center of a controversy, as the Washington Post came out with a story that put in doubt whether McCain was allowed to opt out of public financing after qualifying for it. If McCain applied for a December loan using the promise of these public funds as collateral, he is not supposed to be allowed to withdraw. In fact, the FEC Chairman wrote a letter to McCain questioning also whether he had a right to withdraw. For a full explanation of what exactly is the issue here, my explanation is available here.

Now the DNC is directly going after McCain on this issue, filing an official complaint with the FEC about McCain's spending. In fact, the DNC notes that McCain had spent $49 million as of the end of January, which means that he probably has already passed the public finance limit of $54 million! Let me repeat this: If the FEC rules that McCain is not allow to withdraw from public financing, the Arizona Senator would not be allowed to spend one more dime all the way until September... while Obama would spend tens of millions. That could just about do it for GOP hopes. And to make matters worse, the DNC is adding an argument to that of the loan's collateral, and noting that McCain might have used the qualification for public financing to get on the Ohio ballot and adding that such a move also locks McCain in the system.

Thankfully for McCain, not only are these matters still legally debatable (though the FEC Chairman clearly appears to share some of these concerns) but the FEC might not get to rule on anything at all. It is unclear whether the FEC will have a quorum to issue any ruling and hope to enforce them, since it only has 2 members right now out of 6. The Senate is deadlocked on the four others... allowing McCain to keep on spending. And the fact that getting FEC nominees approved might now cause huge trouble for McCain will make Senate Republicans less eager to resolve the dispute.

Even if he managed (as is still likely) to dunk the issue, McCain would clearly be hurt if he were to face weeks of questions on this issue for weeks, especially if it undermines his image as an ethics reformer. But campaign finance issues have rarely have a significant impact on election results, which is why the DNC is pushing the issue and making sure it gets as much coverage as possible.

Also today, three general election polls were released from purple states, all three showing Barack Obama running much better than Hillary Clinton, with McCain posting some strong numbers as well:

  • In Wisconsin, Rasmussen shows Obama edges out McCain 44% to 43%, though McCain crushes Clinton 50% to 38%.
  • In New Mexico, Rasmussen shows very similar numbers, with Obama and McCain tied at 44% and McCain crushing Clinton 50% to 38% yet again.
  • In Iowa, finally, the Des Moines Register poll has Obama running 27% better than Clinton! He leads 53% to 36%, while Clinton trails 49% to 40%.
The electability gap keeps getting bigger between Clinton and Obama. As of late January, there was no consistent pattern; now, Obama almost always runs much better than Hillary (albeit with some caveats and key weaknesses that I explained here). Also, it is worth noting that SUSA's numbers were more favorable to Democrats than Rasmussen's (both Democrats lead McCain in New Mexico, for instance).

Labels: , , ,

Ralph Nader jumps in the presidential race, pressing issue of ballot access

On NBC's Meet the Press this morning, Ralph Nader announced he was jumping in the presidential race for the third straight election, the first important third-party candidate to definitely announce a run this year.

Nader explained that there certainly were differences between McCain and Obama, but that there were too many issues that both parties were leaving off the table:

You take that framework of people feeling locked out, shut, shut out, marginalized, disrespected and you go from Iraq to Palestine/Israel, from Enron to Wall Street, from Katrina to the bungling of the Bush administration, to the complicity of the Democrats in not stopping him on the war, stopping him on the tax cuts, getting a decent energy bill through, and you have to ask yourself, as a citizen, should we elaborate the issues that the two are not talking about?

Nader went on to outline some of the issues he is referring to: a single-payer health care system (which neither Obama nor Clinton favors), wasteful Pentagon spending, and labor law, including "repealing the notorious Taft-Hartley Act." And he went after Obama on the issue of Israel and Palestine. After claiming "He was pro-Palestinian when he was in Illinois before he ran for the state Senate, during he ran--during the state Senate," Nader continued, "Now he's, he's supporting the Israeli destruction of the tiny section called Gaza with a million and a half people. He doesn't have any sympathy for a civilian death ratio of about 300-to-1." Nader explained that "[Obama's] better instincts have been censored, I think, by himself."

The issue Nader appears to want to press the most strongly is ballot access. Explaining that "dissent is the mother of ascent," Nader noted that, "One feels an obligation, Tim, to try to open the doorways, to try to get better ballot access, to respect dissent in America in the terms of third parties and, and independent candidates."

The next few months will probably go a long way towards demonstrating Nader's point on ballot access, if 2008 is anything like 2004. That year, Nader's efforts to get on the ballot
led to massive Democratic efforts to thwart his petition drive and significant Republican efforts to provide him enough signatures to get him on the ballot. The controversy was particularly heated in swing states like Ohio and Pennsylvania. Democrats will surely go after Nader in a similar way this time around, just as they probably would have in 2000 had they realized how close the election would be.

Nader's 2000 and 2004 campaigns ended up being very different. In 2000, the Green Party candidate got 2.7%, after flirting with the 5% mark in some polls. Since his number of votes was greater than Bush-Gore margin in Florida, many Democrats blamed him for Bush's election -- though it does seem paradoxical to me to blame a candidate who got 1.6% of the vote. Nader responds that Al Gore ran a weak campaign that failed to draw clear contrasts and that did not motivate the Democratic base (it's hard to argue with the latter criticism at least). In 2004, Nader jumped in again but failed on the ballot in many states, drawing in 0.3% of the vote.

The dynamics this time are likely to be similar to 2004, and Nader is likely to fail to get in many state ballots with Democrats throwing procedural obstacles on his way. However, it is worth noting that all actors -- including Nader and the GOP -- will be more prepared this time around. The Dems will likely use even more powerful obstacles, Nader will be better prepared to overcome them, and Republicans will know what means would be the most useful to help Nader get on the ballot.

Thus, Nader's candidacy will drain everyone's energy, but will probably not change the results come November. With the awareness many Democrats have of how close an election can be at this point, most of Nader's supporters now are voters who would not support a Democrat even without Nader on the ballot. Not to mention that the odds of the election being as close as Florida in the foreseeable future are so low that Nader's low single-digits total are very unlikely to sway the results.

Nader offered another reason for why he will not be a spoiler for Democrats: "If the Democrats can’t landslide the Republicans this year, they ought to just pack up, close down, and re-emerge in a different form." This argument actually could prove more worrisome to Dems than anything else: If this indeed shapes to be a Democratic year and the Dem nominee emerges with a lead over McCain, it could be the reassurance many left-leaning voters need to go back to Nader.

Labels:

2.23.2008

House ratings: As many more races get competitive, Democrats keep a clear edge

Now that the primaries are slowly quieting down and that delegate calculation are no longer a full time job, we can get back to the joy of ranking congressional races. My last House rankings came in mid-November, and the 4 months that have passed since then have been a political eternity. There have been a number of high-profile retirements, including the first Democrat to retire from a competitive seat in OR-05; but open seats are clearly a Republican headache in this cycle, with many GOP congressmen calling it quits since November, some of them in districts that Democrats are already salivating over (such as NY-25 and VA-11). And while many retirements are in districts that look safe for the GOP (LA-06 and KY-02, for example), their cumulated impact forces the NRCC to play defense and stretches Republican resources even further .

Both parties have also scored recruitment coups in the past few months, and gotten some disappointing news. Here again, the GOP has much more to worry about; it even finds itself without a candidate in IL-11, an open seat that has sky-rocketed at the top of the Democratic priority list. But Republicans also have some bright spots: They for instance convinced former Rep. Anne Northup to run for her old seat in KY-03 and are keeping NM-01 much more competitive than many observers expected. And Republicans got encouraging news in December when they successfully defended two districts in special elections, particularly in OH-05 where the DCCC believed it could snatch a seat away.

Overall, all this movement is pushing many more races towards the top of these ratings and we should expect a few more surprises before the retirement and recruitment season comes to a close. We should already get a better sense of the mood of the country and what to expect in November with two special elections in the coming weeks in IN-07 and IL-14.

I have only written full descriptions of seats that have made news over the past month. For detailed descriptions of the other races, check last month's rankings. Only a few seats saw their rating change in the past month. I indicated upgraded or downgraded next to them to indicate whether they became more vulnerable or less vulnerable for the incumbent party. Here is the quick run-down:

  • Less vulnerable: CA-04, NY-19, PA-06, OH-18
  • More vulnerable: FL-21, IL-11, IL-14, KY-02, KY-03, LA-06, MD-01, MO-09, NJ-03, NY-25, OR-05, PA-11, VA-11
  • Off the list: OH-05
Outlook: Democrats pick-up 9-14 seats.

Full ratings are available here.

Deleate breakdown, February 23rd edition: We now have half-delegates

A little more than a week away from Ohio and Texas, it is worth looking once more to the delegate count and how much it has changed since Super Tuesday. Now that Wisconsin, Hawaii and Democrats Abroad have voted and reported their totals, Obama has increased his total even more compared to our last delegate breakdown, done on Feb. 16th.

Wisconsin: 58% Obama-41% Clinton

  • Clinton: 32 delegates
  • Obama: 42
Hawaii: 74% Obama-24% Clinton

  • Clinton: 6 delegates
  • Obama: 14
Democrats abroad: 66% Obama-33% Clinton

  • Clinton: 2 delegates
  • Obama: 2.5
  • The primary vote awarded a total of 9 delegates, that was split 5-4 Obama, but each only gets half-a-vote, which gets us into half-delegates.
That brings us to the following totals of pledged delegates, including those from all the states that have already voted:

  • Obama: 1195.5
  • Clinton: 1048 delegates
  • Outstanding: 0
That gives us the following chart of the pledge delegate differential since I started detailing the breakdown after Super Tuesday:

  • After Super Tuesday (after accounting for all delegates): +22 for Obama
  • After February 9th/10th: + 79 Obama
  • After February 12th (Potomac primaries): +128 for Obama
  • After February 19th (and Democrats Abroad): +147.5 for Obama
That Obama would get more delegates out of February was expected, but the incredible growth he showed was unpredictable. His strength in Washington (+28) and Virginia (+25) ended up being particularly significant. (It is worth noting that if the Washington primaries had been used to determine delegates instead of the caucuses, the numbers would have been closer. Obama won the caucuses by more than 30%, but the primary with low single-digits. Unfortunately for the Clinton campaign, this sort of anti-caucus argument could only be useful if they were overall closer in the count, since they could then hope to provide cover to superdelegates. But that is made very difficult by the size of Obama's current lead).

The political fallout of the NYT's McCain story

48 hours after the New York Times published its McCain article, the controversy has been centered just as much on the newspaper's handling of the article as with the allegations. And that is hardly surprising, given that the Arizona Senator had two months to prepare its counter-offensive, ever since word first leaked on Drudge that the Times was working on such a story.

The New Republic's much-awaited story on the behind-the-scenes struggle at the Times came out a few days ago, and it is a must-read to understand just how much the paper looks to have agonized over this, with editors repeatedly overruling reporters and how many times the story was reshaped and rewritten. In fact, TNR explains that the process even claimed its victims, as one reporter left the campaign trail and another left the Times to go to the Washington Post. In response, the NYT came out with this long list of answers to questions supplied by readers on its website yesterday, defending the wait ("We publish stories when they are ready. That means we have nailed down all the facts to our satisfaction."), and the use of innuendo.

It's hard to not sympathize with the frustration over the article's timing. If the article had come in December when it was first leaked, McCain might not have gotten very far in the nomination fight. Remember, this was the time in which McCain was beginning his stunning surge (I wrote a post entitled "McCain has the buzz, but can he go all the way?" on December 21st). McCain was not the front-runner in late December, he was still low in polls and benefiting from an under-the-radar campaign to try and rise. The NYT story, whatever its merits, could have killed his comeback in its infant stage, so McCain's Republican opponents have good reason to be angry today (Politico's Jonathan Martin gets Huckabee aides and former Romney aides to vent their frustration).

It is one thing for a paper to not publish a story until it has all the facts straightened out, but TNR's account of the controversy implies that the story was mostly ready by December or early January (with reporters working round the clock until Christmas) and that the writers felt they "had nailed it." Perhaps the NYT should then not have tried to do too much -- the story is so big in scope, going back all the way to the Keating Five in an attempt to fit this in an overall narrative -- and just printed what they were ready with in early January, when it was still relevant for the GOP primary. Does a paper not have a duty to inform the public of information it detains in due time? The NYT does not even have the (in any case unconvincing) excuse of the demands of national security on this one, like it did in the wiretapping article it held for months in 2004-2005. (Update: The NYT's public editor is rebuffing the paper, in particular for its focus on the sex issue that should have been left out).

So what are the consequences of the article going forward? McCain's counter-attack has been remarkably effective, and it has allowed the conservative movement to rally around the GOP nominee. Rush Limbaugh and Laura Ingraham are now bashing the NYT instead of McCain, and that is the biggest gift McCain could have hoped for right now. Sure, these talk-show hosts are framing this as a critique of McCain's tendency to befriend the media(Said Ingraham, "I'm not surprised in the least that the NYT would try to take out John McCain. Predicted this, in fact, way back in the early 2000s. Sen. McCain courted the media, cultivated them, even bragged that the media was his ‘base.'")

And is it surprising that McCain is benefiting from such an impulsive conservative reaction given that the Times almost buried the revelations of McCain's unethical dealings with Iseman behind sexual innuendos? The Right distrusts the media to remarkable extends, but the NYT made their bashing job much easier by allowing them to discredit the article over the suggestion over an affair, and very little is now being said about whether McCain's ethical ties to Iseman were too close for comfort.

But McCain could still have much more to worry about, because of The Washington Post, which is continuing to explore this story with articles of limited scope that are putting the Senator in an increasingly difficult position and that are much more difficult for conservatives to dismiss. In particular, the controversy is now centering on McCain's assertion at his Thursday press conference that he never had a meeting with Iseman or with broadcaster Lowell Paxson. The WaPo is now reporting that Paxson is contradicting McCain's comments, saying that he did meet with McCain to urge him to talk to the FCC to defend his interests. In fact, Newsweek discovered that McCain himself had testified in a 2002 hearing that he had been contacted by Paxson! This is the matter that has long been controversial. As the Washington Post reminds us,

The two letters he wrote to the FCC in 1999 while he was chairman of the Senateate Commerce Committee produced a rash of criticism and a written rebuke from the then-FCC chairman, who called McCain's intervention "highly unusual." McCain had repeatedly used Paxson's corporate jet for his campaign and accepted campaign contributions from the broadcaster and his law firm.

To make matters worse, Paxson told the Washington Post that Iseman was "probably" at this meeting and that she helped arrange the meeting. This would get McCain cut in a direct lie, in the very press conference that was meant to counter the NYT's allegations. David Brooks, who can hardly be suspected of wanting to help Democrats, wrote in his latest column, He didn’t just say he didn’t remember a meeting about Iseman. He said there was no meeting. If it turns out that there is evidence of an affair and a meeting, then his presidential hopes will be over." The situation is certainly not as dramatic as Brooks is putting it here, but there is no question McCain has digged himself a hole on this issue.

2.22.2008

SUSA releases wave of competitive general election polls

SUSA released 8 general election polls today, getting it to a total of twelve within 3 days. First, they had shown Iowa and Virginia to be competitive, with Obama looking strong in the former and competitive in the latter, and Clinton struggling in both. In Kansas and New York, SUSA also found Obama running stronger than Clinton (surprisingly in New York), with McCain trailing both candidates in NY and leading them in KS.

Today's wave of polls offers a more complex picture of competitiveness and electability, with McCain competitive in unlikely places (Massachusetts, particularly against Obama for the second poll in a row) and struggling in others, and with Clinton pulling in stronger numbers than her rival more than we have been used to in recent weeks.

As you will see while going through these numbers, both Clinton and Obama have very clear groups among which they are stronger: Clinton outperforms Obama among women and Democrats; Obama among men, blacks and independents. And while one might think that it is more important for the nominee to appeal to independents than to Democrats, to whites than to black in order to win the swing states, that cannot get the Democratic Party very far: The base needs to be secured (and motivated). In Ohio, for example, Obama is stronger than Clinton among independents; but he is so much weaker among registered Dems than Clinton outperforms overall. The same is true in reverse for Clinton's relative weakness among black voters.

Democratic and African-American votes are usually taken for granted by the party's nominee, but it should not just be assumed that Obama and Clinton will post strong numbers come November. After all, John McCain's main asset is that he appeals to Democrats, after all; and while black voters are unlikely to go to McCain they could choose to not turn out, which could prove a very big problem. In other words, either Obama and Clinton would have a lot of work to do to secure the Democratic base, and McCain is well positioned to take advantage of their weaknesses.

And with that, let's look at the numbers:

  • In Ohio, Clinton leads McCain 52% to 42%, while Obama is up 47% to 44%. The difference comes entirely from registered Democrats, which go 85-10 for Clinton but only 71-21 for Obama. Among independents, in fact, Obama is stronger even here, leading 50% to 36% versus 48% to 40% for Clinton.

  • In Missouri, both Democrats are ahead: 51% to 44% for Clinton, 49% to 43% for Obama.

  • In New Mexico, Clinton leads 50% to 45% and Obama does much better, 55% to 40%. This is due both to the male vote (Clinton is tied, Obama leads by 15) and to independents (Obama leads by 5, Clinton trails by 12).

  • The numbers are almost the same in Minnesota, where Clinton leads 49% to 45% but Obama crushes McCain 55% to 40%. Obama runs 20% better among men, and he also does much better among independents.

  • Oregon is another state in which Obama runs stronger, edging out McCain 48% to 47% while Clinton trails 49% to 41%. This is entirely due to the independent vote, which Obama wins 52% to 41% and Clinton trails 54% to 33%.

  • The most surprising numbers come perhaps from Massachusetts, one of the country's bluest state in which McCain is very competitive, trailing 52% to 43% against Clinton and only 48% to 46% against Obama. In the last SUSA poll, McCain actually had a small lead against Obama, whose weakness is due to the female vote (+11 instead of +32 for Clinton).
  • In California, neither Democrat has any trouble dismissing McCain: 58% to 35% for Hillary, 61% to 34% for Obama. The gender difference is astonishing: Clinton gets +39 among women and +6 among men; Obama gets +25 among men and +9 among women.
  • Finally, in Alabama, McCain easily beats both Clinton (57% to 37%) and Obama (58% to 34%). Obama performs much better among blacks (87% against 69% for Clinton) but much weaker among whites (17% versus 26% for Clinton), in one of the only instances of such a racial divide.
Other than Massachusetts, there are no huge surprises in this group of polls, and we can expect the states we are used to thinking as tight to remain so in the coming months, including Ohio. If anything, the Democrats should be really happy about Missouri, a fairly large state in which they have been consistently competitive and which looks ripe for pick-up. The Democratic nominee can certainly hope to reach a majority by winning not a big Bush state like Florida and Ohio but putting together smaller ones, with Missouri and Virginia the obvious suspects at this point (as well as IA and NM, of course, but it is hard to think of those as red).

Labels: , , , , , , ,

The Dem race could drag on, and why that is not necessarily bad for the party

With most factors now indicating that Obama should be his party's nominee, the conventional wisdom (including my debate analysis from last night) seems to be hinting that the race will be quickly resolved. After all, even March 4th victories by Hillary Clinton are unlikely to get her enough delegates to make the primary that competitive again (especially given the Texas allocation rules).

But this does not mean that the race is about to be over, so let this be a warning to those who are expecting a quick resolution. If Hillary loses Texas and/or Ohio, it would make little sense for her to stay in the race and the primary contest could very well come to an end. But if she wins both -- as the polls still suggest she will -- she would be very unlikely to drop out and will instead press forward.

Now, the following race is Mississippi (on the 11th), certainly Obama's to lose. We then have a 6 weeks long break to April 22nd and Pennsylvania. In other words, if Clinton wins both Ohio and Texas in 10 days (in no way a certainty, but definitely possible), the Obama-Clinton showdown is unlikely to find any resolution before... April 22nd and a long grueling Pennsylvania campaign, with many more debates to prepare for.

Would this a good or bad thing for the eventual Democratic nominee? On the one hand, it would delay by a few weeks the Democratic nominee's setting his sight on McCain. And with the GOP having time to prepare for the general election, this could quickly become a problem for Dems. This could become explosive if the two Democrats open fire on each other, providing sound bites McCain would be happy to exploit in the fall.

But none of this is very convincing at this point. The Feb. 6th nightmare scenario -- that Clinton and Obama stay neck-and-neck through February and all the way to June, setting up a confrontational convention -- now looks very unlikely. Obama swept the February contests, as expected, but he did much more than hold serve. He trounced Hillary repeatedly opening a big pledged delegate lead that Clinton will have a very hard time closing (NBC's estimates that she would have to win more than 60% of delegates in the states that look good for her once we account for Obama wins in places like MS and NC, and Clinton barely even got that kind of margin in New York).

Even if the campaign drags on, there will be a clear front-runner. Clinton can hope to somewhat stabilize things down the line, but that cannot happen until PA at the earliest (unless she suddenly makes a stunning comeback and trounces Obama in TX and OH... but how likely does that look at this point?). And more importantly, this makes a brokered chaotic convention highly unlikely. The superdelegates are now quickly rallying behind Obama, and a scenario under which he keeps a pledged delegate lead of the sort he has now and then has to worry about losing the nomination should be entirely excluded. As I explained last week, the superdelegate paranoia is an entirely irrational reaction to a situation that does not look at all out of control.

Another factor to keep in mind is that the campaign does not appear to be going negative at all, which is perhaps the most stunning development of the 2008 primaries. Sure, Clinton accused Obama of plagiarism; and sure, Obama used Harry and Louise imagery in his mailers. But those hardly count as hardball by the standards of modern campaigns, and Clinton's choice to disarm at yesterday's debate, coupled with her obvious discomfort when delivering attack lines, is the clear indication that she does not intend to follow the advice of those in her campaign (like Mark Penn) who want her to go after Obama with everything she has. Now, this might chance if things look closer after March 4th, if Clinton, for instance, gets victories that are more comfortable than expected. But the most likely scenario at this point is that she keeps herself alive and presses on, with a dynamic that resembles where we are now.

In this case, how is it bad for the campaign to go on? (1) The Democrats will continue monopolizing attention and since they are staying mostly positive that can only benefit them and make it increasingly harder for McCain to stay in the news (after all, the media will soon want to cover something else than the campaign).

(2) This is Ohio and Pennsylvania we are talking about, two of the three most important swing states of the general election. This is where Dems will be monopolizing the most attention. How is it bad for Hillary and Obama to monopolize local news and organize in the state for weeks on end (particularly in PA)? This organization would be very useful for the fall, as would be the coverage the two candidates would get. Barack Obama certainly needs to raise his profile and be introduced to voters.

In fact, Obama should perhaps prefer Clinton winning tight races in OH and TX (keeping her alive without giving her that much momentum) to winning himself! A 6 week long campaign in Pennsylvania could go a long way towards locking that state in the Democratic column come November. Of course, that will not be the case if Clinton goes negative but she is showing no inclinations to do that, as I already noted. In fact, both candidates are getting very high approval ratings among Democrats, indicating that voters are satisfied with both of them, even after a campaign (remember the Feb. 5th exit polls that most Dems would be happy with either of the candidates emerging as the nominee?).

Of course, we are not there yet, and it is far from certain that Clinton survives March 4th. We got three primary polls today from March 4th states:

  • In Ohio, Rasmussen shows a 48% to 40% Clinton lead, down from 54% to 38% the week before. The high single-digits is where Clinton's lead seems to be here, confirmed by yesterday's WaPo/ABC poll. In fact, Texas looks much tighter than Ohio in almost all surveys.
  • ARG provides us with surveys from two little polled contests. In Rhode Island, Clinton is ahead 52% to 40% (their last poll, in Feb. 06, did not even include Obama though it did include Mark Warner, who for a time was heralded as the main alternative to Hillary).
  • In Vermont, Obama crushes Clinton 60% to 34%, including a 72-25 lead among independents.

Labels: , , ,

Movement in House races: An indictment, a withdrawal and an un-retirement

There has been a lot of movement today in House races, with 3 Republicans making news. The most important came from AZ-01, as Rep. Renzi was indicted on 36 charges of corruption, including conspiracy, wire fraud, money laundering, extortion and insurance fraud (more detail on the charges here). Renzi had been under investigation for many months now, and had already announced that he would not run for re-election next year, so this does not change that consideration.

But Renzi's indictments now opens up the possibility that the congressman might retire, creating a special election and an opportunity for Democrats to go after the seat months before the general. House Minority leader Boehner is already pressuring Renzi to resign, as the last thing the GOP wants right now is to be facing an ethics problem again. Considering the turnout difference in the past few months, Democrats have to be given an edge in such a special election. AZ-01 is a competitive seat that Democrats were already very excited to compete in, and it was at the top of their priorities list. The only Republican that the NRCC has been able to recruit for now is Syney Hay, who lost a primary to Renzi in 2002. No word for now as to whether Renzi is likely to follow suit, but we will obviously keep an eye on this seat.

Meanwhile, also in Arizona, Rep. Shadegg decided to... un-retire in AZ-03. He had announced last week that he would step down next year, in a very unexpected move. But many of his colleagues rallied to convince him to stay -- Shadegg was considered the conservative movement's candidate for Minority Leader last year -- and Shadegg has obliged: "When the conservative movement asks you to stick around, that's a pretty tough request to turn down."

I had written last week that, "This retirement is thus not important because it creates another competitive open seat... but because it says a lot about the state of disarray of House Republicans." So in that sense Shadegg changing his mind does not represent a huge loss for Democrats. This is a district that Bush won with 57%, after all, not necessarily the most friendly territory for a take-over. That said, Democrats have a candidate that they were excited about and that is very well-funded, so they were looking to capitalize on this to expand the map a bit more and push the GOP into playing defense even more, which they most likely will not be able to do now.

The third House race making news is IL-11, the swing district left open by Rep. Weller a few months ago. This is a race in which recruiting has been very uneven, with Democrats getting state Senate President Debbie Halvorson while the GOP's top choice refused to get in. The GOP primary was won on February 5th by New Lenox Mayor Tim Baldermann, who was not having a good race so far and anemic fundraising, prompting IL-11 to be moved up to the top of the vulnerable House races (I had already moved it to Lean Takeover in my November House rankings).

Now, Baldermann has announced he is dropping out of the race, leaving the GOP with no candidate. The primary has passed, which means that the district's Republicans can now just decide on a new nominee among themselves. This could actually prove a blessing, as the GOP now has much more time to find a candidate stronger than Baldermann -- and have the argument that that candidate won't even have to contest a primary. Given that Halvorson was already favored over Baldermann, the NRCC doesn't have that much to lose here at this point; but they definitely want to get in someone with at least some strength to not let Democrats pick up a seat with no competition.

One last note on a congressional race, this one from the Senate, as the latest Rasmussen poll from Virginia shows Mark Warner crushing Jim Gilmore, 57% to 37%. In the battle of the former Governors, the Democrat holds a clear edge and this is the most likely seat to be taken-over next year. And proof of how much of a favorite Warner is comes from the following internal: Warner leads by more among moderates (70% to 24%) than Gilmore does among conservatives (60% to 34%).

Labels: , , ,

2.21.2008

In Texas debate, candidates remain civil, sometimes even dispirited

Tonight's debate might have been the first in the entire month of February. But it was far more obvious while watching the debate that this was the 19th confrontation between the Democratic candidates. The discussion seemed often dispirited and many of the arguments have been aired many times before. Hillary Clinton needed a knockout performance tonight to recapture momentum and, while both had some strong moments, neither candidate scored a major point. And that alone gives the win to Barack Obama.

Hillary Clinton's moving last answer was as powerful a moment as she has gotten in these debates -- and it perfectly summarized tonight's dynamics. Asked what her most defining crisis has been, Clinton explained that she had long realize she was blessed and cited people she had met on the trail that were facing true crisis. "No matter what happens in this contest, and I am honored to be here with Barack Obama..." she said, at which point the two candidates shook hands in what seemed to be a very genuine moment, "I am absolutely honored. Whatever happens, we're going to be fine. We have strong support from our families and our friends. I just hope that we'll be able to say the same thing about the American people. And that's what this election should be about."

This answer drew a standing ovation, and it was indeed delivered very powerfully and could very well help her win votes. But it seemed to have been delivered as a farewell, an attempt to exit the campaign on an emotional high and stay in the hearts of Democratic voters. And she seemed to be driven by this very motivation throughout the debate, to demonstrate that she cared about the problems of the American people beyond this presidential race.

In response to the previous question -- whether she thought superdelegates should intervene -- Clinton had answered that she believed it would just sort itself out and that the entire party would unify behind its nominee. Clinton must realize that for her to win the nomination would take more than "sorting itself out," and her vague talk of "the nominee" also sounded like a defeatist approach. Or, at least, that was Clinton's statement that she will not try to win this with superdelegates, and that she will not press her case if she is clearly behind in pledged delegates. What weeks of contests did not get us (the assurance that this thing will be decided before the convention), Clinton's responses might have provided.

Taken together, those two responses and calls for unity made for a powerful finale for Clinton, but they were not necessarily what she needed to reverse her declining fortunes. And they apparently represent a defeat for those in Clinton's campaign (like Penn) who were pressing for a much more brutal confrontation.

Earlier in the debate, Clinton was directly asked to address her criticism of Obama's campaign that he had plagiarized speeches given by MA's Governor Patrick. Clinton did go through the motions of a response, attacking Obama again with one of tonight's lines that will find itself the most quoted -- "it's not change you can believe in its change you can Xerox" -- but it simply did not look to me that she was into her own response, nor that she was comfortable continuing to attack Obama long those lines, putting together a series of sentences rather than a coherent stream.

She did venture a "I have to admit I was somewhat amused the other night when one of Senator Obama's supporters was asked to name an accomplishment, and he couldn't," but barely tried to put that moment or the Patrick controversy in a broader perspective, nor she did not take the moderators' cue to argue why Obama lacked the experience to be commander-in-chief. This was the debate where Clinton needed to go strongly after Obama and tried to get him to trip up, either finally making a successful case for why she is more of a fighter than he is or by showing some sort of inconsistency in one of his positions.

The debate did get heat up when the discussion went to health care. The moderators unexplicably tried to move on repeatedly (even putting in a commercial break) but Hillary Clinton kept insisting that this be talked about. "This is personal to me," she exclaimed pleading with Campbell Brown to let them continue talking about health care. Quoting John Edwards to which she referred twice in this segment (realizing that health care is probably the main reason he has not endorsed Obama as of now), she defended the idea of a mandate and blamed Obama for not insuring anyone.

In response, Obama used his usual arguments that people who don't have health care cannot afford it and fining them won't help, missing the basic point that the criticism of his plan is not just that not everyone will be insured but that many people who can afford it will choose to free ride. But this entire health care discussion has been aired before, including in previous debates, and the two candidates used the same arguments -- and often the same lines. It might have been personal for Clinton, but none of this was new, testifying to why it is so difficult for her now to change the fundamental dynamics of the race.

In fact -- and as is often the case -- Clinton had some of her best lines and strongest attacks against President Bush and the Republican Party, making the audience cheer over and over again as she attacked them for overspending or for mismanaging the economy. And Obama followed suit more than he usually does, but he had John McCain in mind more than Bush, as he referenced McCain's call to stay in Iraq for a 100 years, in a preview of the general election.

Throughout the debate, Barack Obama stayed very strong. He has grown much better in this exercise in the past year and that improvement was obvious in how much better he is now in giving nuanced answers -- even some that go back on past statements -- and doing so very smoothly. That was obvious in the discussion the candidates had over whether they would meet with Raul Castro when they take office. The discussion over health care also showed off Obama's increased strength, as the difference in mastery of policy was less obvious this time than in previous debates (largely due to how many times this same discussion has taken place now, in almost identical words).

Another very strong answer on Obama's part came when pressed to defend himself against criticism that he was all talk and had little substance to back it up, as he derided the suggestion: "The implication has been that the people who have been voting for me or involved in my campaign are somehow delusional... The thinking is that somehow they're being duped...and that eventually they're going to see the reality of things." This is also an answer he has had time to prepare, as this issue has been on the table for a long time now, but his answer was particularly well crafted and seemed to take some of the urge to press on that Clinton had left out of her. And keep in mind that Obama did not even need to be strong tonight, he just needed to not stumble to preserve his delegate lead.

The edge in the debate has to be given to Obama. But the story tonight was Hillary Clinton, and her quasi-acknowledgment of the high odds she faces.

Labels: