After the Future

January 19, 2008

Nevada: Vindication of the Clinton Race Strategy?

Sullivan thinks so: Fascinating data from Nevada: just as Hispanics went overwhelmingly – 64 – 24 – for Clinton, blacks went more overwhelmingly – 80 – 16 – for Obama.…

Sullivan thinks so:

Fascinating data from Nevada: just as Hispanics went overwhelmingly – 64 – 24 – for Clinton, blacks went more overwhelmingly – 80 – 16 – for Obama. I’d say this is a vindication of the Clintons’ racial polarization strategy: force Obama to be the "black" candidate and rely on some white and Latino discomfort to build up their own vote margins. Not a good strategy for the South, but great for the West and California. The Clintons have done the math.

I hope this isn’t a ship that has completely left the dock. But unlike Iowa, Clinton got the women (52%-35%)and the white vote (52%-34%). It could be that Iowa scared some sectors of white America, and with a little innuendo help from the Clintons we have this race in a polarizing pattern. I hope I have not been too optimistic about Obama’s ability to transcend the racial factor.

Nevertheless, it’s still close. Nevada like the others so far is a small, non-representative state. The 45 and older demographic composes 68% of those who voted, and someone correct me if I’m wrong, but that can’t be an even remotley accurate representation of the national electorate. The delegate count is still close (37 each pledged delegates from IA, NH, and NV; superdelegates are in Clinton’s favor for now, but they have nothing to do with the election proces). Anything is still possible.

Comments

6 responses

Matt Zemek

January 19, 2008

Anything is still possible, but it would be naive to think that a lot of white upper-middle class Democrats with teacher’s union or other establishment-style connections to the party aren’t being affected by what we’ve seend and heard over the past week.
Wedge politics 1, purity 0.
The Clintons use ugly hardball tactics to win again. South Carolina, though, could be a different story.
Stay tuned…

Reply
anon

January 20, 2008

From Christopher Hitchens in the Wall Street Journal:
“Not to dampen any parade, but if one asks if there is a single thing about Mr. Obama’s Senate record, or state legislature record, or current program, that could possibly justify his claim to the presidency one gets . . . what? Not much. Similarly lightweight unqualified “white” candidates have overcome this objection, to be sure, but what kind of standard is that?”

Reply
anon

January 20, 2008

It’s actually worse for Obama than what Hitchens points out. He voted for the Dick Cheney energy bill, and he voted against the Illinois Born Alive Protection Act, in which he wanted to give a right to doctors to allow innocent babies living outside of the womb, who have survived an abortion procedure, to simply die.

Reply
Jack Whelan

January 20, 2008

Kristoff in today’s NYT:
“It might seem obvious that long service in Washington is the best preparation for the White House, but on the contrary, one lesson of American history is that length of experience in national politics is an extremely poor predictor of presidential success.
Looking at the 19 presidents since 1900, three of the greatest were among those with the fewest years in electoral politics. Teddy Roosevelt had been a governor for two years and vice president for six months; Woodrow Wilson, a governor for just two years; and Franklin Roosevelt, a governor for four years. None ever served in Congress.”
I would add that it’s precisely Clinton’s experience and connections that cause me to want her defeat. It comes down to this: Do you want a bureaucratic creature of the Beltway system or do you want a leader who wants to break new ground?

Reply
anon

January 20, 2008

Notice that each of the president’s you listed actually had to run things and thus have experience in that regard. You seem to be caught up in the fantasy that Obama is going to break new ground, but I ask you with what? His magic wand? Once the MSM gets tired of seeing him as a fresh face (MSNBC, and unfortunately now NBC) they’ll examine his policies and start to scrutinize him? In addition, the Republicans aren’t going to go for repealing the tax cuts, ending the war in Iraq, or support his views on abortion.
Teddy Roosevelt was famous for saying that in order to change the system you must work within the system. Obama seems to like to run for things but has very little accomplishment to show for it. Has the standards for becoming president, the most important job in the world, sunk so low that anyone with charm and no record automatically becomes qualified for president. I suppose that if I were just charming enough, I should be qualified to take over GM or Microsoft. Give me a break.
Hillary is tough, and she knows the system so she is best prepared to know how to change the system. Unless there’s another terrorist attack, it’s very unlikely that the Republicans are going to win the presidency. Therefore, although Hillary’s not the ideal candidate, she is much better than Obama.

Reply
Jack Whelan

January 20, 2008

Anon–
I get it. You’re the conservative practical type that votes for the experienced bureaucrat or business person before the poet or stateman. You would have voted for Herbert Hoover before FDR, for Richard Nixon before JFK and probably couldn’t understand why anybody would do otherwise. I get it. A lot of people think like you. Fortunately not every one does, and sometimes we need something more than the practical.
Reagan wasn’t practical, hands on manager, but Jimmy Carter was. Who was the more effective in accomplishing his agenda. That’s the point that Obama was trying to make in his Reagan comparison. He sees himself as providing the same kind of leadership style even if the agenda is different. I think it’s a valid comparison.
I’m sure Hillary will be very competent, but I think you’re underselling Obama. There’s substance there; it’s just that given your temperament it’s hard to see it. That’s fine; vote your preference. There’s a good chance you’re going to win. But as I have said, it will be a missed opportunity. No risk, no reward.

Reply

Nevada: Vindication of the Clinton Race Strategy?

Comments

6 responses

Leave a Reply Cancel reply