-
sponsorship
Exactly a year and a day has passed since Barack Obama stood on the steps of the Old State Capitol in Springfield, Il. and declared his candidacy for president, the wind in his sails. About a month later, a Democratic consultant anonymously created and posted a homemade ad for Obama called “Vote Different,” a parody of the famous dystopian 1984 Apple ad. According to ViralVideoChart.com, the ad has been viewed more than 5 million times. (The creator was identified about two weeks after its posting.)
Zip ahead to Feb. 2 of this year, when a cabal of pro-Obama celebrities release its instant hit, “Yes We Can.” It receives more than 3 million views on YouTube in eight days. A virus that potentially would wipe out humanity.
The video is powerful, inspiring, and asinine. Better yet, it is blissfully ironic. Less than a year after “Vote Different,” which perfectly captured the sentiment that the Obama campaign was an answer to the Nutrasweet hegemony of Hillary Clinton, “Yes We Can” captures the sentiment that the Obama campaign has become a cult of its own. This is probably not what the beautiful faces in the video intended, but consider the conceit: a parade of cultural icons repeating their dear leader’s words as he utters them, stringing together happy phrases around that strophic refrain. Totalitarianism doesn’t have to be gloomy to be vicious.
In the early months of his campaign, Obama made an effort not to act like the savior his most fervent supporters wanted him to be. I saw him deliver the keynote address at the Jefferson-Jackson Dinner in Richmond last February, a week after he formally announced his bid, and at the press conference before his speech, he said something very interesting: “People have been noticing we’ve been attracting big crowds. I’d like to say it’s just me. But I think I have come to represent, in the minds of some, turning a new page, and getting beyond the slash and burn, very tactical politics that we've become accustomed to in Washington.”
It was a talking point, no doubt, couched in Obama’s special brand of humility, but it’s still a sentiment we’ve heard less of from his campaign as the months have worn on. While it’s impossible to say exactly whom Obama was thinking of when he qualified that statement with “in the minds of some,” I would wager that it’s a highly overlapping set with the people who still have that “Yes We Can” video linked in their away messages.
-
sponsorship
Over the weekend, Barack Obama won caucuses in Washington, Nebraska, and Maine, bringing his total number of caucus victories to 11. He and Hillary Clinton have won nine primaries each. But in terms of caucuses, he’s way in the lead—she has won only two. Why does Obama do so much better in caucuses than in primaries?
There are as many theories as there are theorists. Here are some of the most prevalent ones, teased apart as best we could:
The Organization Theory: Caucuses favor strong organization, and Obama supporters are better organized.
True? In most caucus states, yes. For a while there, Obama’s campaign was opening offices like cans of Pepsi. In late January, he had 12 offices and 75 paid staffers in Colorado, compared with Clinton’s single office. He was also the first candidate to open offices in Idaho and Kansas. In other states, however, Hillary’s organization rivals Obama’s.
The Passion of the Caucus-Goers: Obama’s supporters are more enthusiastic, and enthusiasm counts in caucuses.
True? His supporters are generally younger and therefore probably have the edge in terms of energy. But these days, caucuses are more like straw polls than raucous rallies. Ever since John Edwards dropped out, viability thresholds are no longer an issue, so there’s usually only one round of voting, which offers little opportunity to persuade your fellow caucus-goers.
So Little Time: Obama’s supporters are younger and wealthier than Clinton’s, which means they’re more likely to have an hour or two to attend a caucus. Lower- and middle-class voters, by contrast, are more likely to be working late.
True? Sounds plausible, although both candidates made sure in Iowa and elsewhere to provide travel arrangements and baby-sitting for people who have trouble caucusing. Also, a caucus takes about an hour—not much longer than waiting in line to vote. Plus, when a caucus happens on a weekend, the “working class” excuse doesn't carry as much weight.
Clinton Wasn’t Trying: After Obama took Nebraska and Washington, the Clinton campaign reminded everyone that Obama “has dramatically outspent our campaign” in those states. She also declined to advertise in many caucus states, including Kansas and North Dakota. Instead, she focused her resources on large-impact, delegate-rich contests like Texas and Ohio.
True? Somewhat. While it’s true that Clinton abandoned Nebraska and Idaho to Obama, she made more campaign stops in Washington than he did. She also put up a fight in Maine, and it’s nonsense to claim she wasn’t trying in Iowa.
The Bradley Effect: The theory refers to black candidates who perform better in polls than they do on election night, suggesting that voters conceal their prejudices when talking to pollsters. It’s possible the same thing happens with caucuses: Voters support the black candidate in a public setting, but not in the privacy of the voting booth.
True? There’s no way to measure prejudice, but it’s hard to imagine that fear of appearing politically incorrect factors into the thinking of caucus-goers. If that were the case, wouldn’t they be equally ashamed of not voting for Hillary, the first viable female candidate? Caucuses might offer tyranny-of-the-majority scenarios, but they can swing both ways.
-
sponsorship
Trailhead readers, unite! Considering "brokered convention" is the buzz word of the week, it's surprising how little anybody knows about what it actually means. And since we're all about informing the citizenry, we want to help refresh your (and our) memories on what exactly brokered conventions are, why they exist, and how they work. So, send all the questions you can muster to TrailheadContest@gmail.com. We're going to try and churn this out ASAP, so the sooner you send the questions the better. Conference with the fam at the dinner table and get back to us.
-
sponsorship
It feels as if every five minutes there’s a new delegate debate. Should Florida's and Michigan’s delegates be seated? Should we count superdelegates in our total tallies? What about nonbinding caucus delegates? Add a new kerfuffle to the mix: How should superdelegates vote?
I know it’s hard to believe, but Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama disagree on this issue. (You get the sense that if Obama said he liked oranges, Hillary would release a statement lauding apples for their superior color, crispness and vitamin content.) We thus see two superdelegate philosophies emerging:
The first school of thought says that superdelegates should support whoever wins more pledged delegates. Democratic strategist and delegate guru Tad Devine argued this point in his Sunday New York Times op-ed, in which he called on superdelegates to stop endorsing and wait to see whom the American people choose. Obama said he also believes that “if we end up with the most states and the most pledged delegates from the most voters in the country, that it would be problematic for the political insiders to overturn the judgment of the voters.”
The other school of thought says that superdelegates should decide for themselves which candidate they like better. Hillary Clinton articulated this philosophy over the weekend: “Superdelegates are, by design, supposed to exercise independent judgment.” Of course, “independent judgment” can be influenced with phone calls, visits, and dinners with friends who also happen to be supporters. But it’s true that the superdelegate system is meant to give party officials a disproportionate say in choosing their nominee.
What’s amazing here—but hardly shocking—is how conveniently the candidates’ philosophies align with their political needs. Obama is expected to emerge ahead in the delegate count after the “Potomac primary” on Tuesday, so naturally he wants superdelegates to follow the voters' lead. Hillary, meanwhile, prefers to maximize her longtime connections to the Democratic establishment. In this situation, Obama is taking the side of democracy, while Clinton is arguing to uphold the party rules.
Notice that this is an inversion of the fight over Florida and Michigan. In that flap, Hillary is the one making paeans to democracy, arguing that the DNC must seat delegates from those two states, both of which she won. Meanwhile, Obama claims that we need to play by the rules of the DNC, which stripped the states of their delegates. Clinton stands up for democracy when it helps her and backs down when it doesn’t. Obama likewise defers to the rule book when it serves him and throws it out the window when democracy seems more useful.
This isn’t to cast a pox on both houses. Obama’s deference to the DNC rules in Florida and Michigan isn’t purely self-serving—it’s also fair, given that Hillary was the only viable candidate on the Michigan ballot. Nor is it novel for politicians to bend their ideals to suit their needs. But in the case of superdelegates, it seems obvious that one path—having superdelegates take the electorate’s cue—is the democratic one.
Of course, you could fill a book cataloging the undemocratic aspects of the nomination contests. (Caucuses, caucuses, and caucuses, to name three.) But there’s only so much griping you can do; political parties reserve the right to choose their own nominees. If you don’t like it, you can go start your own party. Plus, the nominating process is too complicated to say that superdelegates will vote either for the pledged delegate winner or for their personal preference. Back in 1984, superdelegates swung toward Walter Mondale. According to Tad Devine, it was because Mondale won 40 more pledged delegates than his opponent, Gary Hart. If you ask Hart, it’s because Mondale was the establishment figure with more clout among party leaders. Even after the convention this August, observers may disagree on what happened.
The real nightmare scenario, though, is if one candidate wins the popular vote and the other wins more delegates. In that case, it won’t be democracy vs. party power. It will be one definition of democracy versus another, with superdelegates more powerful than ever. As Ted Olson speculates, it would be Bush v. Gore all over again, only this time it would rupture the party instead of the country. In that case, no matter what your philosophy, the Democrats are screwed.
-
sponsorship
COLLEGE PARK, Md.—When I saw Barack Obama two weeks ago in California, the Kennedy comparisons were flying. Ted Kennedy compared Obama to both of his brothers, Obame name-dropped the Democratic royalty every chance he got, and warm-up speakers compared him to an RFK who wouldn't get assassinated. (They used more gentle terms.)
But after he lost California and Massachusetts—the two places Ted Kennedy's support was supposed to help most—the Kennedy mentions have dropped precipitously. The only time a Kennedy came up at today's rally was when Obama trotted out his well-worn Kennedy allusion, "[JFK] said we can never negotiate out of fear but we can never fear to negotiate." Then he kept going for a few seconds, only to cut himself off in a rare sign of ADD, "Strong countries and strong presidents—"
Obama had spotted Maryland's varsity women's basketball team, and he was determined to give them a shout-out, even if it meant breaking off from the almighty JFK. "Is that the basketball team on the way out?" he said. "What's up girls? How you all doing, ladies? We love you!" After finding out they're 25-2 on the year, he said, "You all are going to the finals. … If I had brought my sneakers I'd suit up … I still got game." Then he picked up on his JFK thread, almost out of obligation.
It seems Obama has moved beyond trying to be the next Kennedy. Now he's all about electability. First, Obama tackled Hillary Clinton's claim that she's the electable one. "Lately Sen. Clinton says, well, you better elect me because I've been around a long time so I can go after the Republicans. I'm tough." he said. Then he pivoted, "Let me tell you something, I may be skinny, but I'm tough, too." As canned as it was, the crowd liked that one.
With Clinton out of the way, he turned his attention across the aisle. "I'm looking forward to mixing it up with John McCain," he said before paying tribute to McCain's service and detailing McCain's conservative positions on taxes and Iraq. "I am happy to have an argument with the Republicans. Not only that, I think I can get some Republican votes." Cue the various token Republicans in the crowd, who started wildly pointing at themselves. Obama spotted one, called him out, and the entire crowd went nuts. "They call 'em Obamacans," he said.
But Obama never mentioned that the polls show he leads in hypothetical match-ups. He had a natural opportunity to do a little bragging about his poll numbers in a state that already likes him, but he shied away. That timidness is not going to work in states like Ohio and Texas, where he's going to have to dig a little deeper to fend off Hillary Clinton.
Somebody needs to tell him he has to start making his electability more explicit. Maybe Ted Kennedy's the best guy to do it.
-
sponsorship
Now that will.i.am is a household name, it was
only a matter of time before we saw this.
Note the tagline: “Like Hope, Only Different.” McCain should
steal that.
-
sponsorship
COLLEGE PARK, Md. -- Obama's Maryland co-chair and the state's attorney general, Doug Gansler, just went way overboard in his warm-up speech. Feeling the crowd's energy, he fired off this salvo:
This is the state that tomorrow will put the nail in the coffin when we win this election.
Simmer down, Dougie. Simmer down. Maryland's 99 delegates aren't going to be hammering any Clinton coffins.
-
sponsorship
COLLEGE PARK, Md. -- As I walked past thousands of people queued outside of a Barack Obama event at the University of Maryland, one guy shook his head in disbelief. "I wouldn't show up for that if God himself was coming," the guy said, "The lines are too long."
I laughed but didn't tell him that every now and then Obama thinks he's the next best thing. All Messiah talk aside, the Comcast Center on campus is absolutely jammed. Officially, the stadium's capacity is a little less than 18,000 people, and it looks like there are only a few hundred to 1,000 seats empty. Considering how many people were lined up outside, the empty seats aren't an issue of demand--it's timing. Obama is due to speak in 10 minutes.
They're killing time by playing will.i.am's "Yes, We Can" video. Everybody is standing and facing the JumboTron like it's the American flag. Instead of holding their hands over their hearts, they're holding their cameras out in front of them. Everybody's mouthing the words and clapping. One woman is already crying.
-
sponsorship
Indiana Rep. Mike Pence, as quoted in the Politico:
Republicans believe in markets. We also should believe in political markets. And the market has spoken here. Not the party fathers, not pundits, the American people. Republican voters have given us a soldier, and it just may be what the Republican Party needs to take that hill in 2008. [emphasis added]
Take that Hill? I really, really hope this doesn’t catch on.
-
sponsorship
Barack Obama swept all five contests this weekend—Washington, Nebraska, Maine, Louisiana, and the U.S. Virgin Islands—and the whispering has already begun. These aren’t just any victories, people are saying. Nor do they merely give Obama delegates. They also give him … you know … shmoshmentum.
The word is everywhere: The New York Times wrote that “these victories should give him momentum going the primaries on Tuesday in Virginia, Maryland, and Washington, D.C.” Talking Points Memo called Maine “another sizable victory in a state that was supposed to act as a check on his momentum after yesterday's trio of landslide wins.” The Associated Press said Clinton was now looking to “put a brake on Barack Obama's momentum.”
How quickly they forget. After the CW-busting reversals of New Hampshire, Nevada, South Carolina, and Feb. 5 itself, everyone is now talking about shmoshmentum (I can’t in good conscience say the actual word) as if the last month never happened. I expected the press to declare a moratorium on that sort of language after New Hampshire. No such luck.
Obama’s weekend victories were significant, no doubt. He was slated to win in almost all of the contests, but he won them by wide margins: 68 to 31 percent in Washington, 68 to 32 in Nebraska, and 59 to 41 percent in Maine. That he won so decisively in states with huge white populations is also important, given the narrative that he has trouble attracting lower- and middle-income white voters.
But his wins don’t justify mental relapse among analysts who have seen their assumptions (Obama is dead, Hillary is dead, Obama is dead again) explode repeatedly during this cycle. Momentum has lost its meaning, if it had any to begin with. Normally, it means that one candidate takes enough of a lead that voters think supporting another candidate would be throwing away their vote. But both Clinton and Obama have proven themselves viable. A Hillary supporter won’t think Hillary is suddenly doomed just because Obama wins a few contests in a row, and vice versa. Sure, some voters may consciously or unconsciously support whomever they’ve seen win most recently. But previous primaries have shown that most voters don’t think this way and that to assume they do makes an ass out of you, me, and the entire media establishment.
Expect the shmoshmentum frenzy to build if Obama takes Maryland, Virginia, and D.C., especially if they are landslide victories. Wins in Hawaii and Wisconsin the following week will work momentucrats into a lather. If that happens, he will have won 10 contests in a row—no small feat. But even then, to talk about shmoshmentum is to discount the upcoming behemoths—Texas, Ohio, and Pennsylvania—which vote in March and April. Those three states alone command 577 delegates—nearly as many as all 10 post-Super Tuesday states Obama will likely have won (595). After February, Hillary could close in on Obama’s lead and more.
So, when you hear people speak of shmoshmentum, close your ears. It’s no more meaningful than it was last month.