Showing posts with label New York Times. Show all posts
Showing posts with label New York Times. Show all posts

Monday, February 11, 2008

Kristol Klear: Obama’s Path to Victory

Once again, a short commentary on Bill Kristol's op-ed in the Monday NY Times (thanks to my friend Micah for giving me the text to work off of, my browser for reasons passing understanding can't access the site)

Kristol's absolutely right in his analysis of what's about to come on Tuesday (not that he's the only one saying it):
Obama leads Clinton by roughly 70 delegates among about 2,000 chosen so far in primaries and caucuses. (There are still about 1,200 delegates outstanding.) Among the superdelegates, Clinton is ahead by about 100 superdelegates among the 300 who have declared a preference (though any of them can change their mind, so a count of them now is in large measure premature). All in all, Clinton seems to be slightly ahead.

She won’t be for long. On Tuesday Obama is expected to prevail in Maryland, Virginia and the District of Columbia. So around 9 p.m. Tuesday night, television networks probably will be announcing, for the first time, that Barack Obama holds an unambiguous delegate lead.

The bigger question is where does that leave Clinton, who in spite of the money she bragged about raising after her five million dollar loan became public is still likely strapped for cash?
Clinton’s campaign believes Ohio and Texas will constitute her firewall. Will it hold?

I suspect not.
My friend Micah, who's a Clinton supporter is telling me that Kristol is wrong, that he thinks Clinton's comeback will be in Wisconsin, though he admits:
if she can win wisconsin and use that momentum to take ohio and texas, she's the frontrunner going into spring break
if obama sweeps through march 10, this race is probably over.
Kristol agrees.
Obama will have momentum. He will likely have more money than Clinton for advertising. His ballot performance among Hispanics and working-class whites has generally been improving as the primary season has gone on. He intends to push a more robust economic message that could help him further narrow the gap among lower-income voters.

And an interesting regression analysis at the Daily Kos Web site (poblano.dailykos.com) of the determinants of the Democratic vote so far, applied to the demographics of the Ohio electorate, suggests that Obama has a better chance than is generally realized in Ohio.
Either way, this next week should be a lot of fun.

On a personal side note, the USC Undergraduate Student Government election is going on, and i'm working for the Presidential ticket of Jens Midthun and Tony Jercinovich. Voting is the 19th - 21st of this month, and if one Presidential race isn't exciting enough, for the next ten days or so, i've got two going on...

Monday, January 28, 2008

Kristol Klear

In what has now become my favorite weekly op-ed, Bill Kristol annoys New York Times readers with his conservative insights on the 2008 race. This week's column addressed Bill's effect on Hillary in SC:
Hillary was ahead in South Carolina polls as recently as early December. And in fact, women made up 61 percent of the Democratic electorate in South Carolina, blacks 55 percent. If Obama was getting votes because of race and Hillary because of gender, Hillary had a perfectly good chance to win. Bill Clinton’s excuse is unconvincing and unseemly.
He's repeating the CW of the week, but his prediction for this week's action is interesting:
Right now, Hillary Clinton is ahead in the polls in almost all the big states voting. She is a tough and capable campaigner, and she may be able to hold on to those leads. But it is now clear that putting her in the White House brings a hyperactive Bill back in with her. Who needs it? Liberals and Democrats can get basically the same policies without the Clinton baggage, and in choosing Obama, they can nominate a more electable candidate.
So Hillary’s advantage in the polls will, I suspect, erode. The erosion could be hastened by the expected endorsement of Obama by Ted Kennedy on Monday. It could be helped further along if Al Gore hops aboard the Obama bandwagon later in the week. Meanwhile, Tom Daschle, the Senate Democratic leader during most of the Clinton presidency, is actively supporting Obama. Talk to Democrats in D.C., and it’s amazing how many who know the Clintons well — many of whom worked in the Clinton administration — are eager that they not return to the White House.
This week, the Clinton team will dump every bit of opposition research it has on Obama. We’ll see how Obama responds.
But the moment of truth could come at the Democratic debate Thursday, in Los Angeles. Edwards may have dropped out by then. If so, it will be a one-on-one showdown. Even if he’s there, he’ll be effectively a bystander. Will Obama hold his own?
I’d say that even if you’ve (understandably) skipped the previous debates, this is one to tune into. I had a dinner scheduled Thursday night. I’m canceling it. The Giants probably won’t beat the Patriots in the Super Bowl. But this could be the week Obama upsets the Clintons.
There's no way Edwards drops out before Super Tuesday, but Kristol is right, Thursday is Custer's last stand. I'll definitely watch the debate, but I won't be canceling dinner...more likely, I'll order the pizza in advance...