February 11, 2008

2/11: Watching The Scoreboard

With Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama at rough parity in the delegate race, the big topic in the liberal blogosphere is superdelegates. Several liberal bloggers -- such as Chris Bowers -- are horrified by the possibility that superdelegates could decide the Dem nominee. Others -- most notably Kevin Drum -- don't find this scenario nearly as disturbing. If this primary race lasts all the way to the convention, will superdelegates prove kingmakers? And if so, how will the more passionate supporters of the losing candidate -- especially those in the blogosphere -- react?

DEM FIELD: Superdelegates Gone Wild

AMERICAblog's John Aravosis doesn't like superdelegates: "Again, why do these people even get a vote? Oh that's right, they were created to steal the election in case the party thought your choice was stupid."

Open Left's Chris Bowers threatens to leave the Dem party if superdelegates decide the nominee: "In the absence of any legal dictation of how [superdelegates] should vote, I will hold them to the principles that make me a Democrat: as the democratic institution through which internal disputes of the American center-left are resolved. If the Democratic Party fails to respect those principles, and their 'super' delegates nominate someone for POTUS other than the person who received the most support during Democratic primaries and caucuses, then I fail to see any reason to continue participating in the Democratic Party. If the Democratic Party is not a democratic institution, then to hell with the Democratic Party."

The Washington Monthly's Kevin Drum doesn't understand why Bowers is so upset: "I don't quite get this. The very existence of superdelegates assumes that they'll vote their own consciences, not merely parrot the results of the primaries. After all, why even have them if that's all they do?"

The Atlantic's Matthew Yglesias takes a middle ground view: "I think Chris is right to think it'd be a pretty bitter pill to swallow if that's how things shake out, but the controlling principle here is that 'the rules are the rules.' The superdelegates business, which seems to favor Clinton, is just the flipside of things like the Michigan/Florida exclusion or the weird rules that let Obama win Nevada even while Clinton had many more votes -- there's a lot of oddness in the nominating system and there's no point of plucking out any particular feature and slamming it as unfair as the process unfolds."

Digby doesn't think superdelegates will end up deciding the nominee anyway: "While I am certainly sympathetic to the notion that the elite fat cats shouldn't decide for us, I think somebody needs to set forth some detailed criteria about how they should go about determining a more democratic way to decide this thing if there is a tie...Personally, I don't think we'll have a tie much longer. It's hard to see how either candidate can unify the country if they can't demonstrate that they can unify the Democratic Party. Something has to break and I suspect voters will be the ones to do it."

DEM FIELD II: Let There Be Blood!

Several liberal bloggers dispute the notion that a long primary season is bad for Dems:

Daily Kos' Markos Moulitsas: "I don't understand people fretting about this primary season extending much longer into the year. With each state that votes, new Democrats are energized and engaged. The people of each primary state get a good look at our candidates. And no matter what you might see on some website message boards, the fact is that Obama and Clinton haven't really gone that negative on each other...Let the country forget that [John] McCain is the Republican nominee. I want the national spotlight on our candidates."

Open Left's Matt Stoller: "Given that there is record turnout and organization on the Democratic side, I'm not as worried that Democratic party division is a bad thing. In fact, I think it's a very good thing, as the number of donors and activists is exploding, and nothing gets you ready for a contested election like...a contested election. There will be bad blood for a long time over this nomination, but that's going to be relatively confined to insiders since the candidates don't actually disagree on any major policy ideas."

OBAMA: Didn't I Blow Your Mind This Time?

Several liberal bloggers are surprised by Obama's strength in caucuses:

Kevin Drum: "I'm a little puzzled about Obama's consistent success in caucuses, which usually seems to get chalked up to his background in community organizing. Somehow, though, that doesn't really seem like a persuasive explanation. After all, I'm sure Hillary Clinton's team knows perfectly well how to organize in a caucus state. And yet Obama has won every caucus state but one, most of them by wide margins. Does anybody have a good explanation for this?"

Firedoglake's Jane Hamsher: "[There are] two big questions regarding this race that I haven't heard satisfactory answers for -- a) why does Obama do so well in all these white midwestern states, and b) why does he do so well in caucuses? I mean, it isn't even close."

Other liberal bloggers think the media is discounting Obama's victories:

Matthew Yglesias: "Back in October 2007, Clinton was beating Obama in Maine by a hilarious 47 to 10 margin, but it seems he's carried the state today, once again by a large margin. My understanding, though, is that this doesn't really count because it's a small state, much as Utah doesn't count because there aren't many Democrats there, DC doesn't count because there are too many black people, Washington doesn't count because it's a caucus, Illinois doesn't count because Obama represents it in the Senate even though Hillary was born there, Hawaii won't count because Obama was born there."

Markos Moulitsas: "As the Clinton campaign tries to spin away Obama's crushing victories [on Saturday], people shouldn't forget that not too long ago, these were all solid Clinton states."

CLINTON: Still The Favorite

Although Obama has momentum, many liberal bloggers expect HRC to triumph in the end:

Matthew Yglesias: "I think Hillary Clinton's going to win this thing. I think the college educated men who dominate punditland have spent a lot of time missing the fact that there actually are enthusiastic Clinton fans out there -- they're just mostly working class women and thus mostly not in the room when this CW gets hashed out. On top of that, I think Clinton's succeeded in managing the expectations savvily. If she wins anywhere at all between now and March 4, that counts as a win for her, then Ohio is mildly favorable ground for her and Texas is extremely favorable ground. That, I think, will seal it for her as the anti-Obama backlash brewing in the press hits full stride."

Kevin Drum: "Matt predicts that Hillary will win the Democratic nomination. That's still my guess too -- though barely, of course. My reasoning is super simplistic: with Super Tuesday over and both candidates essentially tied, the rest of the primary season will be one long stretch of trench warfare. And there's no one better at trench warfare than the Clintons."

TalkLeft's Big Tent Democrat: "A lot of my theories of this election will be facing their moments of truth in the next month. I will lay them out here now...Hillary runs better than Obama in contested big state primaries [such as] Texas and Ohio on March 4th. As a result, Clinton is still the favorite for the nomination."

EDWARDS: Who's Gonna Win His Primary?

Following Mark Halperin's report that John Edwards met privately with HRC last week and will meet with Obama this week, liberal bloggers are speculating about which candidate Edwards will endorse:

MyDD's Todd Beeton: "Certainly Clinton has been running on 'fighting for the voiceless' -- as the Edwards aide describes Edwards's number one criterion for whom to endorse -- since well before Iowa, and one would think Edwards's working class supporters would welcome a Clinton endorsement, although Edwards's educated 'wine track' supporters I suspect would tend to disagree...The value of [Edwards's] official stamp of approval would likely be more about delivering the candidate of choice a huge news day as well as, presumably, a passionate surrogate to campaign on his or her behalf, both of which at this point would clearly benefit Clinton the most."

TalkLeft's Jeralyn Merritt: "Who will Edwards endorse if anyone? He seemed more aligned with Obama when he was in the campaign, but that was mostly on lobbyists. On poverty and health care, which were his main issues, I think Hillary is closer to him. What could each offer John Edwards if elected to sweeten the pot? I doubt he wants to be Attorney General -- maybe Hillary can offer to let him be in charge of tweaking and getting universal health care through Congress. A health care czar?"

MCCAIN: All Aboard The Straight Talk Express

RedState's Neil Stevens urges conservatives to support McCain: "The only choice for conservatives in November is Senator John McCain. Having been beaten twice in the Senate, he is on board with enforcement-first illegal immigration policy. He strongly opposes letting taxes go up when President [George] Bush's tax relief expires. He's in favor of winning the War on Terror, even though he disagrees with some of us on specific issues like interrogation techniques...He'll get my vote without regrets, and I hope other conservatives will join me."

Michelle Malkin resists the pressure to close ranks behind McCain: "As expected, Fred Thompson has endorsed his friend John McCain. He's telling conservatives to fall in line. President Bush is also singing the 'close ranks' tune. Sorry, I'm not ready yet to submit just yet. Endorsements are all well and good, but personnel is policy. And McCain has done nothing to disassociate himself from anti-conservative, pro-border obliterationists. Less talk. More action."

Right Wing News' John Hawkins looks on the bright side of McCain's ascendancy: "As bad the GOP has it on the presidential front, the Democrats have it even worse. They have a completely unqualified, unaccomplished empty suit duking it out with an underqualified, weeping willow who hasn't accomplished a single thing on her own, without her husband's help, in her entire adult life."

MCCAIN II: Who Wants A Piece Of The Mac?

With McCain all but certain to win the GOP nod, conservative bloggers are talking about which Dem candidate would be easier for McCain to beat:

Townhall's Matt Lewis thinks HRC would be the weaker foe: "I believe McCain can beat Hillary Clinton for two reasons: (1). Conservatives, no matter what they say today, will come out to defeat Hillary, and (2). McCain will pick up enough moderate/conservative Dems and Independents to win. Barack Obama, on the other hand, would be tougher to defeat. A McCain/Obama race would essentially come down to who can define what the election is about. If it's about experience, McCain would win; if it's about change, Obama wins."

Captain's Quarters' Ed Morrissey agrees: "[Obama] beats [HRC] among independents by 18 points. That's the danger for Democrats in choosing Hillary. The independents will decide the election, as they almost always do, and the Republicans have already all but nominated the candidate who appeals to them most. If the Democrats select Hillary -- especially with a superdelegate Deus ex machina process that reverses an Obama lead among pledged delegates -- they can kiss that demographic goodbye. Not only would that give McCain and the Republicans a tremendous boost towards holding the White House, it could have implications for the Congressional race as well."

AmSpec Blog's Philip Klein: "It's pretty clear that a Hillary Clinton nomination would make things a lot easier for McCain, both because she would instantly unite the Republican Party, and also because he'd be much more formidable among independents...With Barack Obama as the nominee, things get trickier for McCain. Though conservatives won't want to see Obama as president, he won't generate the kind of visceral disgust that Clinton would, and thus anti-McCain conservatives would be much more likely to sit things out. Also, Obama is much more appealing to independents...Either Americans will see Obama as too green, or McCain as too old. At the end of the day, one man will win the argument and a huge block of independents will swing in one direction or another, translating into an electoral rout."

Commentary's Jennifer Rubin thinks HRC may be stronger than Obama: "First, we vote, of course, by the electoral college...Yes, [Obama] has run well in red states, but no one seriously believes that he will beat John McCain in Nebraska. At least for now, Clinton polls better among Hispanics and would therefore have a better shot at states which actually are in play, such as Florida and New Mexico...Second, there is something to be said for Clinton's argument that she will not be blown off the stage by McCain. Watching Obama's campaign speech in Alexandria yesterday on CSPAN, I was struck how little there is still there...Third, his ranking by the National Journal as the most liberal Senator reveals a basic truth: for all of the 'bringing together' and 'reaching out' rhetoric he remains an unblemished and uncompromising liberal."

HUCKABEE: Let The Huck Have His Day

Most conservative bloggers don't have a problem with Mike Huckabee's decision to stay in the GOP race:

NRO's Byron York: "The bottom line for the moment is that there is little reason for Huckabee to get out of the race. As long as he is winning here and there, and as long as he is not conducting a negative campaign and being viewed as a detriment to the race -- don't look for any hard-hitting attacks on John McCain -- there's no reason he has to pull out."

Ed Morrissey: "The contest between McCain and Huckabee has remained highly collegial, and there is no reason to believe that it will deteriorate at this point. While it might distract from the effort at unity by the McCain camp for a couple of more weeks, it represents no threat to McCain's eventual ascension."

Power Line's Paul Mirengoff: "[Huckabee's] ability to compete with McCain, and indeed to defeat him in a number of states, represents an embarrassing reminder of the Senator's limited popularity with conservatives. But that's no reason why Huckabee should withdraw. Unlike, say, John Edwards, Huckabee is the darling of sizeable faction of his party and this status has propelled him to victory on a number of occasions...With every victory, Huckabee enhances his claim as a major force within the party and, perhaps, his claim as a credible candidate for vice president."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Is Hillary Momentum-Proof?

The New Republic's Noam Scheiber wonders:

"The conventional wisdom is that if, as now appears possible, Obama runs the table in February, his momentum could make him pretty formidable in Texas and (especially) Ohio, which the Clinton campaign considers its firewalls. That's certainly the way these things normally work. But I'm not sure it'll be true of this primary season. The strange thing about Hillary is that while voters don't necessarily want her to win, they don't seem to want her to lose, either. Every time it looks like she might do that -- New Hampshire, Super Tuesday, during her post-Super Tuesday financial crunch -- voters have rallied to her side. I wonder if we'll see a similar story on March 4 or before if it starts to look like Obama's running away with this thing.

Needless to say, voters' complex psychological relationships to Hillary makes her extremely difficult to run against..."

LEST WE FORGET: Battle Of The C-Listers

Radar's Megan Carpentier compares Obama and HRC based on their endorsements from celebrities "you haven't heard of":

"Who cares that Scarlett Johansson supports Obama and Jack Nicholson thinks the Hills are alive? It's all about the random people you have to IMDB to figure out who they are! Obama's supported by Kelly Hu, Kerry Washington, Tate Donovan, Kal Penn, Enrique Marciano, and Amber Valletta. Hillary's got, um, Amber Tamblyn, Christine Lahti, Mary Steenburgen and, Goddammit, Bradley Whitford.

Advantage: Hillary's got Josh. Enough said."

Posted by Ian Faerstein at February 11, 2008 01:00 PM