08 Presidential Candidates, Political Analysis

First, before delving into this week’s election news on the 2008 race, it is worth highlighting McCain and Obama’s divergent votes on a major piece of legislation - the farm bill.  Obama voted for it, McCain against it.  The vote passed overwhelmingly.  McCain criticized it as being loaded with earmarks and bad for the country.  An insightful article into why they may have voted as they did is here - http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/20/opinion/20brooks.html?_r=1&ref=opinion&oref=slogin where David Brooks of the New York Times discusses this vote as a litmus test for what type of leaders the two candidates would be.

While most of the coverage this week in the news has focused on Obama winning Oregon and closing toward the magic number needed to clinch the nomination while Clinton also won a big victory in Kentucky, I find these newscasts and articles utterly uninsightful.  Oregon and Kentucky were not interesting because of a split decision, which sounds bland in and of itself, nor because they were very important to the outcome of the nomination, as they played out roughly as expected.  The poll internals were interesting.  Most notably in Kentucky, Clinton won 118 counties to Obama’s 2, and even in those two he only got 51 and 53% of the vote.  Take those two out, and Clinton’s 65-30 victory becomes more like 80-18.  In over 80 counties Obama did not even get 20% of the vote, and in 15-20 he got less than 10%.  Simultaneously, he edges Clinton in nearly every demographic in Oregon, some 2,500 miles away.  What would be interesting would be to see more articles to explain these disparities.  The usual tripe blaming white racists for stifling Obama in these states he is failing in is intellectually short of the mark to my mind.  While the race gap was 134 points, about 85 of those points came from the black vote breaking for Obama 92-8.  Some people did identify race as a factor in voting against Obama, but what they meant by that was not entirely clear, nor were they a remotely large percentage of the population.  Take them out and Obama gains only another 3-4 points off a 35 point loss.  The big question as to why did Obama do 50 points better in Oregon than in Kentucky, therefore, needs more than the perfunctory answer of “race.”

Turning towards the general election, I’d have to mark this down as a very bad week for Obama.  Despite having raised 3-4 times as much money as McCain during the campaign season, Obama and his party’s national committee now has less money (when the RNC and DNC numbers are added in) than McCain and his for the very first time.  Obama raised another 31.3 million in April, down from 40 million in March, which was down from the high water mark of 55 million in February.  McCain raised only 17.8 million, but that represents his third consecutive month of improvements in that category.  The RNC raised 15.7 million in the same time to the DNC’s 4.7 million, leaving Obama with 37.5 million in his war chest to McCain’s 21.7 million.  The RNC has saved 40.1 million, however, to the DNC’s 4.4 million.  More importnatly, however, is the downward trend for Obama’s fundraising.  It is now imperative for him to get Clinton on his side after defeating her, assuming he can close the deal, to raise at least an average of 42 million a month to outstrip the public funds amount of 84 million for the two month general election period that he rejected back when he was pulling in 55 million a month, (all during a very public flap about McCain’s charge that Obama was reneging on his earlier promise to take public funds when Obama did so, thereby apparently paving the path for more money for his campaign).  See http://www.nypost.com/seven/05212008/postopinion/opedcolumnists/barack__the_furies_111822.htm?page=1 for an interesting article into Obama’s challenge on the dynamic of Obama needing to convert the Clintonistas. 

Obama had two major gaffes this week.  One, while deflecting a question from Peggy Agar, a journalist following his campaign in Michigan and inquiring into Obama’s plan to help autoworkers, Obama called her “sweetie” while telling her to wait for the press avail.  He never answered her question, then or later, prompting her to remark “this ’sweetie’ never got an answer to her question.”  The second half of the first gaffe was Obama’s “apology” where he noted that he calls women “sweetie” all the time and that he was duly chastened, stating its just a “bad habit.”  Translation to feminists was that he’s not really sorry because its a habit and therefore not derogatory and since he’s “duly chastened” he wants everyone to drop the issue already.  They went in uproar mode.  He still never answered Agar’s question about how he would help the autoworkers.  To my mind, Obama has a real problem with slipping in condescending ways, making it worse with apologies, and handling criticism or pointed substance questions.  This will be a real problem once he gets to the general election and the GOP takes him on.

Which is a nice segue into his second major gaffe this week.  Following up on last week’s back and forth with McCain, they continued the jabs this week, each chomping at the bit for a debate with the other one on the foreign policy matter of whether it is appropriate to meet with foreign leaders who despise America without preconditions.  Obama stated setting preconditions for meeting with an enemy is “cowboy diplomacy” like George Bush, that setting preconditions is “not a strategy, its naive, wishful thinking.”  Obama added, “I’m not afraid we’ll lose some propaganda fight with a dictator.”

McCain responded by stating that there is a “huge difference” between him and Obama along the lines of “experience, knowledge and judgment — none of which Senator Obama has.” 

Obama’s surrogates responding by quoting McCain on his willingness to meet with Hamas, which McCain’s surrogates noted was only on the preconditions that they cease terrorism and stop calling for the destruction of Israel.  Obama’s surrogates then pointed to James Baker, a supporter - not team member, of McCain’s, who stated that “talking with an enemy” is not “appeasement.”  Of course, Baker also never said meeting an enemy without precondtions was good foreign policy.  Obama’s team then pointed to Kennedy’s quote “never negotiate out of fear, but never fear to negotiate”, suggesting McCain was unwilling to ever negotiate.  Obama pointed out also that Reagan met with Gorbachev and Nixon with China, although again, McCain’s supporters note that there were precondtions to those meetings, Kennedy never met with Castro as Obama has said he would do, nor would any of those Presidents likely have done so with jihadist terrorists. 

The aftermath of this give and take is enough to score this round for McCain.  Senator Biden, a senior Democratic Senator on the Foreign Relations committee stated simply that Obama gave the “wrong answer” on this topic.  He explained that Obama is intelligent though and would come around to the right answer and he must not have really meant that.  Similarly, former Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle, also a Democrat, and Obama foreign policy advisor Susan Rice all stated at different times that Obama must not have really meant no preconditions such that he would just sit down and meet with foreign dictators.  Later in the week, Obama introduced entirely new terms into the discussion, explaining that while not demanding preconditions, he would demand “preparations” as lower level diplomats would discuss the items to be negotiated, if any, and the terms for doing so, which, of course, is the same thing as preconditions.  Obama also said this week that when he agreed to meet with the leaders of countries like Iran, he did not mean necessarily Ahmadinejad, implying he might meet with Khomeini or an opposition political figure, but this too is inconsistent with his earlier explicit statements while campaigning that he would meet with Ahmadinejad.  Several articles, all from neutral or liberal media outlets, have noted the duplicity and the folly in these statements for Obama in a rather damning fashion:

See http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/05/parsing_obama_without_precondi.php ”parsing Obama”

See http://www.abcnews.go.com/Politics/Vote2008/Story?id=4896002&page=1 ”Obama’s answer on rogue nations evolves”

See http://www.nypost.com/seven/05212008/postopinion/opedcolumnists/obama_to_ajad__atomic_assist_111819.htm?page=0 ”Obama gives Ahmadinejad a nuclear assist” contending that Obama severely undermined this week Ahmadinejad’s strongest domestic political rival as he contended Ahmadinejad’s nuclear violations were undermining Iran’s stature in the global community.

See http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/political_commentary/commentary_by_dick_morris/obama_wrong_on_iran Perhaps the most insightful argument, put forth by Dick Morris, former advisor to President Clinton and sworn enemy to Hilary Clinton, as to why Obama’s stance on Iran is a very bad foreign policy.

And, perhaps most importantly should there be an electoral tie, Senator Lieberman’s article, http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121132806884008847.html?mod=opinion_main_commentaries, also blasting Obama.

These attacks all came from the left, stating Obama was too far left, on an issue he politically threw the hatchet down against McCain on, then had to retreat on.  While the KY and OR drama dominated news coverage, these issues are not going away, and Obama has set himself up for a foreign policy debate nightmare down the road.  They have an apparent “truce” as they have stopped attacking each other lately, perhaps some sort of deal has been worked out.  Speculation has ranged from Hilary getting a VP slot to a cabinet position to being promised as Obama’s nominee to the Supreme Court if he gets elected, but this is all at this stage idle speculation, unsubstantiated by any comments from the candidates.  Something must have changed based on the change in candidates’ tones however.

Looking ahead to next week, Obama and Clinton will campaign in Florida while the Credentials Committee of the DNC is now set to meet on 5/31 to decide the fate of Florida voters, around the same time as trailers for “Recount” the movie in which Kevin Spacey stars and reminds the nation of the recount episode in the 2000 election (from a very pro-count them all perspective) are playing.

McCain meanwhile has pledged to appear at the NAACP convention, and noted that even if he does not win the black vote or any segment in particular, he will represent all Americans, including those who opposed him and the “forgotten America” groups he coined during his tour a month or so ago.

The most notable piece of news this week was John McCain laying out his first term platforms.  See http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/05/15/mccain.2013/index.html for the story.  Most notably, McCain stated he believes we will have achieved victory in Iraq by 2013.  He also defines “victory” clearly, articulating his vision for what Iraq will be — a peaceful democracy who will be an important ally to the United States.  An insightful article into McCain’s thought processes on Iraq and other foreign policy matters, see http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/18/magazine/18mccain-t.html?_r=1&ref=politics&oref=slogin.  Most interesting to me where a few paradigms that McCain’s foreign policy approach is very pragmatic, yet the use of force is justified upon moral grounds.  A particularly striking excerpt was:

“Most American politicians, of course, would immediately dismiss the idea of sending the military into Zimbabwe or Myanmar as tangential to American interests and therefore impossible to justify. McCain didn’t make this argument. He seemed to start from a default position that moral reasons alone could justify the use of American force, and from there he considered the reasons it might not be feasible to do so. In other words, to paraphrase Robert Kennedy, while most politicians looked at injustice in a foreign land and asked, “Why intervene?” McCain seemed to look at that same injustice and ask himself, “Why not?””

Also highly notable among McCain’s plans for a first term are his plans to:
 
1.  Create a “League of Democracies” which will supplant the United Nations.  This is one of the effective mechanisms he says could be used to force an end to the genocide in Darfur, which along with NATO logistical and air support, and “stiff diplomatic and economic pressure” by the United States, he believes could end the genocide.

2.  Pledge to work with members of both parties, as he notes he has done frequently in the past, and not care who gets the credit, so long as the bipartisan efforts will improve the safety and prosperity of the United States.

3.  Ensure several years of robust economic growth.

4.  Facilitate the end of the United States dependence on foregin oil, in part by the development of 20 new nuclear generators.

5.  Confirm “scores of judges” to the Federal courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court.  McCain’s “Gang of 14″ leadership position may make him ideally suited on that front.

6.  Establishing a Social Security system that is solvent, does not reduce benefits for those nearing retirement and includes individual retirement accounts.

7.  Providing more accessible health care for Americans and an easing of pressure on Medicare because of lower health care costs.  McCain’s $5000 tax credit incentive to buy health care programs with GAP coverage (see earlier post on Health Care issue for details) would be paid in part out of the reduced strain on Medicare, relying on the market based approach to lower costs and increase consumer choice.

8.  Transition more taxpayers to a simpler tax system via a flat tax that peope could opt into if beneficial.  Paired with largely increased (doubled) personal exemptions and widely applicable large new credits, this could be potentially a very progressive tax system.  Although I will conduct a later post comparing the Democrat nominee’s tax plans with McCain’s, most likely this plan would eliminate income taxes in effect for lower income taxpayers and greatly reduce the tax burden on businesses, especially small and new ones, and the middle class.

9.  Witness Russia and China cooperating in “pressuring Iran to abandon its nuclear ambitions, and North Korea to discontinue its own.”

10.  Significantly increase the size of the Army and Marine Corps, which will be “better equipped and trained to defend us.”

11.  End the world food crisis and achieve low inflation and a “much-improved” quality of life “not only in our country but in some of the most impoverished countries around the world.”

12.  Secure the southern border for the United States after “tremendous improvements to border security infrastructure and increases in the border patrol, and vigorous prosecution of companies that employ illegal aliens.”  McCain’s stance on illegal immigration is starkly different from most in the GOP and from Bush.  He has gotten in extremely heated debates, (and rumor has it resorted to swearing at a Senator in his own party over their “nativist” approach to immigration).  McCain wants border enforcement and security but utterly rejects many of the tenets of the anti-illegal immigrant lobby.  He has traditionally done very well among Hispanics in Arizona, and it would not surprise me if he chooses an Hispanic running mate to make further outreaches into that community.

13.  Promised to “exercise my veto if I believe legislation passed by Congress is not in the nation’s best interests, but I will not subvert the purpose of legislation I have signed by making statements that indicate I will enforce only the parts of it I like.” 

14.  Try to generate efforts in Pakistan to work with the United States in deploying counter-insurgency tactics in the al Qaeda-laden tribal regions

15.  Strive to kill or capture bin Laden and his lieutenants, leave no safe haven on the globe for al Qaeda, and make sure that there are no major terrorist strikes against the United States.

16.  Promised that if elected that the era of the “permanent campaign” will end, and the era of problem solving would begin. 

While this is by no means an exhaustive list, (his web site would be a better bet to get more details and specifics on the array of issues), these comments help to portray a sense of his priority initiatives.

Second, obviously big news this week also was Hilary Clinton slaughtering Barack Obama in West Virginia, 67% to 26%.  This was even more noteworthy since Obama poured far more resources into the state (although not personally appearing himself), ran more ads than Clinton, and had more than twice as many offices open across the state.  Clearly, if Obama could only garner 26% of the Democrats in West Virignia, this will not be a state he will contest in during the fall.   Nevertheless, Obama’s week was not a complete loss, as he secured a slew of superdelegate endorsements, including Senator John Edwards, who has 22 delegates of his own going to the convention.  Most of those delegates will now likely go to Obama, and Obama’s chances of winning the nomination continue to increase.  Looking ahead to Tuesday, Obama looks like he will get slaughtered by Clinton again in Kentucky by another 25-40 points, but may be able to win Oregon by double digits.  Most importantly perhaps are the internals of the exit polls in West Virginia, replicating the same pattern of support and lack thereof Obama had in Pennsylvania, North Carolina, Indiana, Ohio, and Texas.  He continues to better among college students, blacks, and the very rich, but very poorly among the poor, poorly educated, religious, white, old, moderates and conservatives demographics.

Last, Obama, along with many surrogates, lashed out in a full scale attack against President Bush, (right after McCain unveiled his first term plan), for comments Bush made in Israel.  Bush condemned the politics of “appeasement” as a naive and historically failed policy.  Obama and his team felt this was a criticism against them, although Obama was not specifically mentioned.  To be fair, Obama certainly would fall in this category in Bush’s teams’ mind, but so would former President Jimmy Carter who recently traveled to the mideast and met with terrorist Hamas leaders without precondition.  At the link below, Obama’s speech on the matter can be seen, as can McCain’s counter-response, and Obama’s counter-counter-response. http://time-blog.com/real_clear_politics/2008/05/mccain_hits_back_at_obama.html

The Democratic primary drags on yet further as Clinton and Obama split Indiana and North Carolina.  Clinton won a narrow victory in Indiana while Obama won a double digit victory in North Carolina.  As both candidates slug it out for superdelegates, (Obama more successfully than Clinton this week), and campaign in West Virginia for this coming Tuesday’s primary, (where Clinton is ahead by about 25-30 points), the exit poll “internals” from IN and NC tell the interesting side of the story, by which I will make two ultimate observations.  The internals of these exit polls suggest:

1.  Obama will win the Democratic nomination.
2.  Obama is in a much much worse situation than Clinton among some key demographics that will matter in the general election.

Similar to Ohio and Pennsylvania, Obama and Clinton continued to do well in the same types of groups.  The older the voter, the less likely to support Obama, the younger the voter, the more likely to support him.  Blacks supported Obama by a 92-8 margin, same as in Pennsylvania and whites went against him by a 61-39 margin, creating a 106 point race gap.  Obama does well in urban areas, but abysmally in rural areas, and not so well in suburban areas.  Obama does well among non-Christians, and does abysmally among Christians (and Jews), particularly among Catholics.  Also very importantly, he does well among those who consider themselves “very liberal” and rather poorly among self described “moderates” and “somewhat conservative” voters.

I also note that these demographics are consistent with what we have seen in Pennsylvania, and they appear to be repeated in West Virginia and in Kentucky.  Obama has done much better though among newly registered voters, (beat Clinton 60-40), which is saying something because nationally there are 3.5 million new registered voters.  Most of them are Democrats I believe due to the Democrats’ long primary.  This could add probably 1% nationally to whatever total the Democrats would otherwise have, on average, across the whole country.

If these trends continue unaltered, this fall it will be President McCain defeating Senator Obama. 

Then, of course, there is still Clinton’s so-called “nuclear option”, which she may exercise on May 21st or so, (after WV, KY, and OR have voted, but 11 days before Puerto Rico votes).  She has a majority of those on the credentialing committee giving her perhaps the leverage to push them to seat Florida and Michigan.  There are many signs she will do this, though they are rarely discussed in the media:

1.  She has consistently said that she will “continue to fight for” “not rest until”, etc. the delegates from Michigan and Florida are seated.

2.  She has actively recruited, with a fair amount of success as well, the superdelegates from Florida and Michigan.

3.  Today, she sent an open letter through the press addressed to Senator Obama talking about the need to seat Florida and Michigan.  The obvious reason for doing this is not to persuade Senator Obama, whom will not change his position on this issue, it is to build public support and appear to be taking the high ground.  This is a measure designed to “prime” the public that she is doing the right thing and not “stealing the election” for when she does this.

4.  The math suggests she will do this.  Hundreds of commenters continue to talk about 2,025 as the magic number of delegates that Obama or Clinton need to clinch the nomination.  She has publicly, as have her inner circle, called this a false number because it does not include Florida and Michigan. 

5.  And, if Florida and Michigan are seated, she gains probably about 70-80 delegates immediately, cutting Obama’s lead in half from the 155 it is now.  Then, she gets most of their superdelegates, cutting it by probably another 25-30 delegates.  After she wins big in WV and KY, as polls suggest she will, even after losing in Oregon, she may gain another net of 20-25 delegates.  She is also likely to win Puerto Rico handily given the poll internals, and perhaps then have momentum going into the small delegate and final states of South Dakota and Montana.  Altogether, she could pull within single digits, with hundreds of unpledged superdelegates remaining.

6.  If she is not planning on doing this, there is really no reason for her to still be in this.

7.  If it doesn’t happen on May 21 or 22, it will be because she failed to convince the credentialing committee.  Unless its clear she will not be able to change their minds, she will continue to fight that fight all the way to the convention, which she has also consistently said she will do.

8.  Because she said the real magic number of delegates to clinch, including Florida and Michigan, is about 2286, there is no way Obama gets that number before the primaries conclude on June 3.

McCain meanwhile, gave a speech yesterday on defending the world’s vulnerable, found here - http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/05/mccains_vision_for_defending_t.html.  He also appeared recently on the Daily Show with Jon Stewart where he traded jokes and noted when asked which candidate he’d prefer to run against in the fall that Ron Paul hasn’t dropped out yet of the GOP primary.

The major news of the past few days is the manner in which Rev. Jeremiah Wright, Senator Obama’s former pastor and spiritual adviser of 20 years, has been torpedoing his campaign.  At this point, given the rants by Wright over the weekend, and his statements that Obama does not really disown Wright’s statements, that Obama says what he needs to get elected without believing what he says, and Wright’s disinterest in avoiding the spotlight at all, there can be no question Wright is hurting Obama’s campaign. 

Rasmussen Reports, a reputable pollster, now has Clinton 2 points ahead of Obama nationally and 5 points ahead in Indiana, a 10 point and 8 point swing from 1 week ago.  Other pollsters have found similar trends.  It now appears that Clinton will win Indiana, and although Obama will win NC, he may not even win by double digits anymore.  That means there will be no knockout of Clinton come Tuesday, which means that Obama’s likely last chance to knock Clinton out during the primary season is now over. 

The only question is why Wright is hurting Obama.  There are three possible explanations that various folks/columnists have floated:

1.  Wright is just stupid and doesn’t realize he’s hurting Obama.  I reject this explanation because even if Wright doesn’t understand the shift in momentum and poll numbers every time he opens his mouth against his former parishioner, I’m sure the campaign has made some outreach to him long ago to be quiet. 

2.  The Obama campaign is orchestrating this whole conflict.  If this were true, it would be beyond political blunder.  This would not put the Wright issue behind them.  Wright will certainly be mentioned against Obama both now and through November.

3.  Wright means to hurt Obama because he feels betrayed.  There might be some truth to this, although I doubt it is the likely answer.  The argument goes something to the effect that Obama’s race speech that disowned Wright’s beliefs caused Wright offense.  People have noted that Wright has been quick to point out he prayed with Obama and his family just before Obama announced his candidacy and was at the same hotel, showing that perhaps he feels slighted by Obama.  After all, he gave Obama legitimacy in politics in Chicago, pastored his family for 20 years, married him to his wife, baptized his children, gave him his campaign theme and his popular book’s title from sermon themes he came up with, only to be treated as a second rate player in the campaign that they want to hush up, whose ideas are being ridiculed in the national media.  If this one is true, we will likely see Wright speak more directly against Obama after this.

4.  Wright feels more strongly about advancing his ministry than not hurting Obama.  I think this is the most likely explanation.  Wright’s politics and brand of religion have been given a national stage and since Obama refuses to go with it and propagate, its up to him.  He’d lose face with his congregation and with others perhaps if he did not stick up for the beliefs that are being nationally ridiculed.

Next, McCain is busy flanking the Democrats’ left in reaching out to middle class and working poor voter blocks through promoting his own health care plan, which features a refundable $5000 tax credit for a family, $2500 for an individual; promoting his own initiatives to have job stimulus and doubling the tax exemption for dependents (a very family friendly, working poor friendly initiative); talking about redirecting the hundreds of billions he would plan to save by cutting out earmarks and tax deductions for large businesses given to them so that they would pay their employee’s health care (which now people will be able to buy directly at a lower cost and greater choice) and directing those funds to middle class tax cuts, etc.  He has not closed the sale yet, but he is making the pitch, and unlike his GOP predecessors, he is moving towards the Democrats’ “left flank.”

Besides ranting at a funeral eulogy against Fox News, Reverend Wright has fairly steadily kept himself in the news by commenting on Obama’s campaign and their relationship.  If Obama’s aides are smart, they will teach the retired Wright to say “no comment.”

This time Wright states that Barack is like any other politician who says what he needs to, not what he really believes, because that is what it takes in a political world.  In the utilitarian calculus of black liberation theology, perhaps this is not problematic because the end of advancing other principles justify the means.  Wright not only adds himself to another unenviable Obama list — those within his inner circle of advisers and those who know him best who have publicly stated that what Obama is telling the public is not what Obama really thinks, but he is lying for purposes of campaign posturing.  They do not use the word ”lie” but that is what they are saying.  First it was two key advisors about actually withdrawing immediately from Iraq.  Indeed, since then, Obama has added a nuance to his stance on withdrawal, stating that it is not about a precipitous immediate withdrawal.  Then it was an adviser assuring Canada that Obama is not really anti-NAFTA as he said on the campaign trail.  Now, it is Rev. Wright stating that Obama does not really, (privately and in truth), disagree with Wright’s sermons, but he had to say that for politics’ sake.  See video clip below for the PBS interview with Wright.

Breaking down the numbers in Pennsylvania:

1.  Obama did better in college towns, winning them 60-40.  This is consistent with his past performance.  Young people still like him best.
2.  Obama lost Catholics to Clinton 71-29.  This is in stark contrast to how he used to perform in this demographic.  An alarming trouncing really in a key constituency.
3.  Obama won black votes 92-8.  Expected, but astronomic.  This Dem primary had a 104 point race gap.
4.  Clinton beat Obama in every white working class county in state and won 61 counties to Obama’s 6.  Bad news for Obama, and perhaps good news for Clinton in a key demographic.
5.  Obama now gets the most support from Democrats describing themselves as “very liberal” and does worst among those describing themselves as “moderate” or “somewhat conservative.”  This is actually to my mind a serious problem for Obama.  His appeal to moderates and potential crossover conservatives is fading and he hasn’t even yet been criticized for being too liberal.  Potentially a major electability problem.
6.  Obama won those who do not attend church 56-44.  This is good for him, but this category of voters are not an important constituency.
7.  Among the religiously observant (as self-described) Obama lost 42-58, despite having won the same group in Maryland eleven weeks earlier by 61-31.  This is a huge move in the wrong direction.  This problem will be even more pronounced against McCain in a general election, should Obama become the nominee.

From these 7 key demographic stats, I draw two conclusions:

1.  The San Francisco flap where Obama sounded rather anti-small town and anti-religious to many hurt him in several important demographics.  This impact is not fully reflected in the PA poll numbers because within the Democratic party, many people agree with his perspective, particularly those who are more liberal and share the mindset of his San Francisco audience.  This is reflected in his gains in that less valuable demographic.  Of course, gains in that Demographic will help him in the primary, may even win him more volunteers and donors, but alienate him to the middle of the electorate.  I suspect the same trend would generally be reflected nationally

2.  The 104 point race gap and failure to win a single white working class county despite the incredible amount of time and resources he poured in the state shows no matter how long or how frequently he gets out his message, its a no sale to a huge demographic.  He is, as of Pennsylvania, starting to fail as the candidate of diversity.  He reaches blacks but not working class whites, young voters but not old voters.

A brief glimpse at the remaining contests and where the delegates are:

May 3 - Guam (4 delegates)
May 6 - Indiana (72 delegates) and North Carolina (115 delegates)
May 13 - West Virginia (28 delegates)
May 20 - Oregon (52 delegates) and Kentucky (51 delegates)
June 1 - Puerto Rico (55 delegates)
June 3 - Montana (16 delegates) and South Dakota (15 delegates)

Uncommitted authorized superdelegates (300 delegates)

I use the phrase “authorize superdelegates” because, while most every analyst notes that 2025 delegates are needed to clinch the nomination, that number changes if Florida and Michigan’s delegates, stripped by the DNC, are seated at the convention after all.  Why is that important?  Because Hilary Clinton has pledged to fight for them to be seated at the convention even if she has to take it to the credentials committee.  While Clinton trails Obama right now by about 125 delegates, (and Obama remains the man to beat) here’s how the delegate math could add up in her favor and get her the nomination:

Guam - even split, no delegate gain
Indiana - even split, perhaps 3-4 delegate swing one way or the other
North Carolina - likely Obama win and plus 12-15 delegates to Obama
West Virginia - likely large Clinton victory and plus 8 delegates to Clinton
Oregon - likely even split, perahps 2-3 delegates for Obama
Kentucky - likely large Clinton victory, plus 7-10 delegates for Clinton
Puerto Rico - likely large Clinton victory, plus 8-11 delegates for Clinton
Montana - unknown but estimate another 1-2 delegates for Clinton
South Dakota - unknown but estimate another 1-2 delegates for Clinton

Given these plausible results of the remaining primaries, Clinton will likely gain another 15-20 delegates on Obama, closing the gap to 105-110 delegates down.

If Florida is seated, as I believe it will be, it may be a plus 40-45 delegate swing for Clinton, bringing her to within 65 delegates.

If Michigan is seated, as it likely will be in some fashion, it may garner Clinton perhaps anywhere from 15-50 delegates, although more likely 15 as either Obama will be given credit for all the undecideds, or they will reduce the value of the delegates through some compromise in the credentialing committee.  That brings Clinton to within 50 delegates.

Clinton is reported to have lined up the Michigan superdelegates behind her in large numbers meaning perhaps another 20 delegates swing in her favor if Michigan is seated in any fashion, which it likely will be.  That brings her to within 30 delegates.

Clinton is also leading among Florida superdelegates, which could add easily another 25-30 delegates, bringing her practically even.

Then there are still the 300 undecided superdelegates, but if she has the popular vote lead and momentum going into the convention, she could get a majority of those as well.

Then there is also John Edwards, who has 20-25 delegates whom he can help direct towards one or the other candidate. 

Then there is also the possibility that any number of delegates may defect from one to the other.

And, even if she does not win outright, if she pulls within 20-25, because of delegates committed to other candidates, neither of them may have the requisite total and all the delegates may be freed for a second vote.  In the end, she does not need to catch Obama, only to close the gap another 100 or so, (which she may have already done in very large part behind the scenes).

Unlikely?  Perhaps.  But there is still a very plausible path to the nomination for her, and I don’t see her dropping out before the convention unless the superdelegates go en masse for Obama.

With 90% of the precincts reporting, Hilary Clinton appears to have won Pennsylvania by approximately 10%.  This gives her double digit wins in Florida, Ohio, and now Pennsylvania as well.  She won 59 counties, Obama won only 5 - mostly in Philadelphia and surrounding suburbs (2 counties have not yet reported any results).  She also managed to cut Obama’s popular vote lead by over 200,000 votes.  Coming into the night, Obama’s popular vote lead, if Florida is included, was 219,270.  Throw in Michigan, even giving Obama every vote for “undecided” (which really was likely a split between Obama and Edwards supporters as well as a few others) and Clinton will have a 100,000 or so popular vote lead.  Obama’s popular vote lead now being gone, look for Clinton to start plugging away the popular vote argument to the undecided superdelegates.  Those superdelegates that did not go for Obama during his February momentum and in spite of his huge lead now have more political cover to break for Clinton, (though most will continue to wait in all likelihood).  The arguments Clinton will make now are the big state argument, the key swing state argument, the popular vote argument, and questioning of course Obama’s general election electability.  Questioning Obama’s electability will be made along the lines of this conservative columnist’s arguments at http://www.nationalpost.com/most_popular/story.html?id=459951. 

The next big question is just how much momentum will Clinton have coming out of Pennsylvania?

The next primary is Guam on May 3rd, (11 days from today) with a mere 4 electoral votes, which they will almost certainly split 2 each.  After that, the next primary date, and like Pennsylvania the biggest one left on the calendar, will be North Carolina and Indiana on May 6th, (2 weeks from today).  North Carolina is currently projected as a 15 point Obama victory and Indiana is roughly even.  Clinton will need to win Indiana and cut down Obama’s lead in North Carolina.  The big question though is the superdelegates and how many will break for her now after Pennsylvania versus how many might break for Obama after North Carolina. 

Nevertheless, Obama still has a large delegate lead nationally, and a large financial lead.  Obama has raised $240 million and still had at the end of March approximately $41 million, (though he spent extremely heavily in Pennsylvania in April, anywhere from 2-5 times as much as Clinton by most estimates).  Clinton had at the end of March only about $9 million, (with substantial, yet well secured debts).  McCain meanwhile raised another $15 million, spent nearly nothing on advertising, but continued his “forgotten America” tour, visiting Selma, New Orleans, and other cities to connect with voters not in the places he needs to campaign to win in, but in everywhere people have been left behind and forgotten, clearly defining himself as a very different type of Republican.  He is trying to show he is doing everything possible to be in touch with every American and that he cares about every American, regardless of their importance in a cold political calculus.  This dovetails with his decision to take public financing and his campaign and supporters will try to strike up support behind the drumbeat that “McCain is beholden to nobody and cares about everybody.”  I anticipate he will provide at key campaign moments legislative plans/initiatives reinforcing these messages, particularly on issues where he can win the center - such as campaign finance reform, ethics reform, cutting spending, balancing the budget, energy policy, global warming policy, job creation, etc.

McCain has also utilized the time preceding his “forgotten America” tour to meet with international leaders of various countries in Europe and the Middle East while the Democrats have been slugging it out over the past 6 weeks to try to win Pennsylvania.  This helped present a “Presidential” image while the Democrats are stuck in their own quagmire primary.  His one big ad campaign was to help define himself, his life experience and what values he stands for without almost any reference, and certainly no explicit reference, to either Democrat.

He has not criticized his Democratic counterparts very much, except to call out Obama on his relationship with convicted terrorist William Ayers, calling Obama out of touch after Obama’s gaffe at the San Fran fundraiser (where Obama insulted small town folks, religious folks, gun owners, those against trade isolationsim, and those who feel strongly about slowing down/reversing the tide of immigration, etc.), and calling out Obama’s statements on his plan to deal with al Qaeda if he withdraws totally from Iraq.  This is far less than what he could clearly be arguing and pointing out, showing McCain is holding his powder for the time being, generally avoiding shots at Clinton while she and Obama duke it out, and only commenting on huge Obama gaffes.

First, here is Clinton’s new ad, airing in Pennsylvania on the eve of their primary:

Obama also hit back at Clinton stating, “Her basic argument is that the slash-and burn, say-anything, do-anything, special-interest-driven politics is how it works, and so she has taken more money than any other candidate, Democrat or Republican combined. She also believes that the nature of politics is that you say what the people want to hear. So maybe you say something about trade when you are campaigning with your husband eight, ten, 12 years ago and you say something different now that you are out campaigning in Ohio, Pennsylvania. Maybe you say one thing about the war when it looks like the war is popular and maybe you say something else about the war when it gets to be unpopular.”

Its too late in the process to say how this will affect the race, if at all.  If Obama wins Pennsylvania though, he will very likely cement the Democratic nomination in his favor.  If Clinton wins by a point or two or three, she can keep going, but has an upward hill to climb.  If she wins by 4 or more, she can claim a bit of momentum, and anything into double digits could really revitalize her campaign.  At this point, even a 10 point win will only swing 15-20 delegates net advantage to her, but it would help tremendously if she could make the point to the superdelegates that she slaughtered Obama by double digits in Florida, Ohio, and Pennsylvania, and that she polls better in these three swing state, high electoral vote state contests against McCain than Obama does.

Also noteworthy is that on the eve of the Pennsylvania primary, Obama has withdrawn from a scheduled debate between him and Clinton that would have taken place in North Carolina, the scene of the next big primary, where Obama has a large lead.  This may be a signal that Obama will only debate when and where he is running behind, but more likely, it is a reflection on the fact that Obama’s performance in the last debate was so bad, he is still reeling from it and even complaining about the challenging questions posed to him by ABC.

The next story coming out today revolves around Obama’s tech advisor, Larry Lessig, who Obama has prominently cited as key support for his tech policies, including several times on his own web site http://www.barackobama.com/2007/11/14/experts_praise_barack_obamas_t.php and also at http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/post/www.raphaelholomanfranklinsupportObama08.com/C59c and on his list of tech supporters at http://www.barackobama.com/2007/11/15/tech_leaders_announce_support.php.  Obama’s campaign has also deployed Lessig to plug Obama’s tech policies to journalists covering his campaign.  Lessig recently engaged in rather tactless behavior, showing a video clip with an adult Jesus dressed in a diaper getting run over by a bus with singing music “Jesus will survive” prompting several people to leave the auditorium in which he gave his talk in disgust.  Obama has not removed Lessig from his campaign team. 

The Lessig incident adds another Obama advisor/surrogate to a quickly growing list of those who either have explicitly stated Obama does not mean what he is telling people on the campaign trail but is merely posturing to win the election, have attacked America (with 25-30 bombing incidents like Ayers, or with words like Jeremiah Wright and his wife), or otherwise have engaged in disgraceful behavior (Lessig, anti-Christian flap or Rezko, alleged business partner of Obama under federal indictment for shady business dealings). 

This morning, Senator McCain appeared on Sunday morning television and criticized Senator Obama for his relationship with William Ayers. 

William Ayers, a former domesitc terrorist who freely admits belonging to the Weathermen, a group with whom he bombed United States properties to protest the Vietnam War, and who admits he “wishes he had done more” bombings, such as the U.S. Capitol buidling and other high profile locales, is the latest in a series of individuals in Obama’s circle that, to many, hate America.  Ayers acknowledges he is unrepentant over the bombings. 

McCain’s criticism is Obama’s refusal to condemn Ayers and the Weathermen for what they did and their approach to protesting war a generation ago.  Obama stated in the last debate that Ayers is not “someone with whom I exchange ideas on a regular basis” and that Ayers “is a professor of English in Chicago.”  Obama further contended that “The fact is, is that I’m also friendly with Tom Coburn, one of the most conservative Republicans in the United States Senate, who during his campaign once said that it might be appropriate to apply the death penalty to those who carry out abortions.  Do I need to apologize for Mr. Coburn’s statements?  Because I certainly don’t agree with those either.”

This issue does not appear to be going away for Obama, however.  McCain fired back, “To compare [Ayers] with Dr. Coburn, who spends so much of his life bringing babies into this world, that in my view is really - borders on outrageous.”  I tend to agree more with McCain on this point.  Clearly Obama has polar opposite views with Senator, or Doctor, Coburn on abortion as they have voted oppositely on every abortion related bill.  Obama lumping Coburn in with a convicted terrorist, however, seems rather bush league, as does his choice of words, refusing to calling him by his titles of Senator or Doctor.  Coburn’s statements were also taken out of context, as fact checkers report, as Coburn was referring to the scenario where if Roe v. Wade were overturned and abortion made illegal so that unborn babies were protected with legal rights.  In any event, Doctor Coburn has a very close personal experience with hundreds, perhaps thousands, of babies he has personally witnessed being born at a stage where abortion doctors have conducted, and Senator Obama supports in law the right to, abort partially born babies whose heads are out of the womb and have already breathed their first breaths of life.  Nor has Coburn ever bombed or otherwise taken up arms against the United States like Ayers, or stated he wished he had set more bombs, like Ayers.  Nor has Coburn ever engaged in any illegal activity or supported any illegal activity in the realm of opposing abortion.

Ayers received a highly controversial Presidential pardon from former President Jimmy Carter, but his bombings were not political discourse, they were acts of violence.  Both opponents and proponents of Vietnam or Iraq wars can agree Ayers was, (and apparently still clings to the same views that make him), an extremist who must be denounced.  Coburn, by contrast, has engaged in very legitimate political discourse, and even those who disagree on abortion can agree that those on the other side may have goodwill and are not the equivalent of terrorists. 

This raises several questions which Obama should expect to be coming his way:

1.  When he says he does not frequently talk with Ayers to exchange ideas, does that mean they do exchange ideas on a less regular basis?  How important are those exchanges to Obama’s way of thinking?

2.  Why on earth would Obama not condemn Ayers’ actions and stated views that he wishes he had bombed America more to protest America’s involvement in a war?

3.  Does Obama really put Coburn in the same category as Ayers?  How can he possibly be a “uniter” who “elevates the level of discussion” on abortion by demonizing Pro-Life advocates?

4.  Does Obama cite the fact that Ayers is a “profesor of English in Chicago” really end the analysis for him?  Does that make Ayers past acts and current stated views irrelevant?

5.  Obama stated he has not apologized for Coburn either - does that mean that Coburn’s views are something that in his view must be apologized for?

These are not good responses.  Obama’s approach to the Reverend Wright scandal and this appear to be the same in that he seems to hope these questions will just go away and does not feel the need to engage on these issues.  He has even gone as far as to say we must focus on “real issues,” dismissing concern over these other questions, often with insulting and divisive comments along the way.  Neither Clinton nor McCain are going to drop it, however, and he cannot “brush off” the questions as he did in the video in the below post regarding Clinton’s arguments against him.  Nor can he “brush off” the fact his favorable to unfavorable ratings have been roughly 47% favorable, 50% unfavorable for over a week now according to www.RasmussenReports.com. 

Clinton has called out Obama on being “so negative” on the campaign trail.  She claims Obama has sent “out mailers, he has run ads, misrepresenting what I have proposed,” and Clinton added, “the last thing we need is to have somebody spending as much money as he has downgrading universal health care.  We need to achieve universal health care — not create political opposition to universal health care.  That’s what the Republicans do, not what Democrats do.”  Clinton also went after Obama hard in the last debate, full transcript here at http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/04/the_pennsylvania_democratic_de.html, in what most pundits agree was a terrible performance for Obama.

The fact-checkers have also goaded both Obama and Clinton for their misrepresentation of McCain’s statement regarding 100 years of war.  McCain has repeatedly stated the two Democrats are purposefully taking him out of context.  Obama has finally dropped the line from his stump speech, Clinton did so previously.  The maligned comment was that McCain could see America establishing a military presence in Iraq for 100 years, comparing that presence to America’s military presence in Germany, where we have had a base since World War II ended, in South Korea, where we have been present since the end of the Korean War, and in (Panama?) where we had a near century of military presence after the end of the Spanish American war.  Clinton and Obama have used the line to suggest McCain wants there to be war in Iraq for 100 years and that McCain will never ever pull U.S. troops out of Iraq, even if we are bogged down for 100 years.

Fact check sites such as www.politifact.com, www.factcheck.org, and a slew of media outlets have reported this misrepresentation.  Obama was confronted with it this morning on today show, where he acknowledged, “We can pull up the quotes on Youtube. What John McCain was saying was, that he was happy to have a potential long-term occupation in Iraq. Happy may be overstating it — he is willing to have a long-term occupation of Iraq, as long as 100 years.”

Obama continued to struggle during the debate also on his comments on his San Francisco flap.  Some have called it “bittergate” or the “bitter comment” but the real problem with it was not that he thinks small town people are bitter (though that is highly problematic), but that the comment was anti-religious, anti-2nd Amendment, and essentially called huge portions of the population bigoted, all because of their economic status.  Obama’s latest defense, not apology, for those comments suggests further the same mindset that people perceived behind the comments in the firstplace which is so problematic.  He stated:

“The point I was making (last week at a private San Francisco fundraiser) was that when people feel like Washington’s not listening to them, when they’re promised year after year, decade after decade, that their economic situation is going to change, and it doesn’t, then politically they end up focusing on those things that are constant, like religion. They end up feeling ‘This is a place where I can find some refuge. This is something that I can count on.”

The problem is people don’t “end up” turning to “religion or guns or antipathy to people who are different than them or antipathy to immigration or antipathy to trade” because of economic status, in small towns, or elsewhere.  These things should not be grouped together as simply those things that people foolishly focus on when economics are bad.  “End up focusing on” is not better than “cling to.”  He simply does not get it.  Therefore, this issue will not go away.

On Wednesday night, the Dems debated, for perhaps the last time, as they gear up for the big vote on Tuesday in Pennsylvania.  Clinton still leads Obama, but the lead is a moderate one.  Likely, she will win Pennsylvania, and the contest will continue another few weeks as they gear up for Indiana and North Carolina a few weeks later.  The Dems debate featured several uncomfortable questions for Obama and Clinton as they were asked about their recent gaffes.  Clinton acknowledged Obama is potentially electable while Obama was questioned about his comments that poor people hurt by the economy cling to guns, religion, or antipathy to people different than them, antipathy to immigration or anti-trade.  Obama attacked the media the following day, calling the debate questions “bamboozling” and “hoodwinking” questions designed to derail his support, failing to focus on “important” issues.  While both candidates continue to attack the other, Obama is trying to reassert his image as a “clean” “issues-oriented” candidate.  In my estimation, Obama’s camp is attacking Clinton at least as much as she is attacking him, however, and he is certainly attacking McCain. 

The DNC is currently preparing to help whichever Democrat comes out atop by combing through various agency records for dirt on McCain, reports indicate, and Howard Dean, Chairman of the DNC, was quoted as saying that he would never bring up age as a basis on which to attack a candidate, that no Democrat would “ever, ever, ever, ever, ever do that, even though John McCain is older than dirt.”  The DNC and other surrogate groups, including several leading 527 groups, have outlined their attack plan and anti-McCain themes for the fall, but there is so much info there, I’ll have to detail it in a separate post.

Obama snapped back at Clinton today, and apparently, from the video below, gave her the finger.  I include the video because one has to see this to decide for themselves, and Obama may have plausible deniability, but the crowd certainly seemed to pick up on it, and he seemed to chuckle about it himself.

McCain meanwhile has started a tour to reach out to “forgotten America”, areas and peoples that have been neglected by both parties, signaling his intent to run a very, very different type of Presidential campaign than we have seen from anyone in quite a while, both in terms of strategy, and reaching out to a base’s usual electorate.  See
http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2008-04-17-mccain_N.htm for the story.